instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a parent abducts a child and flees to another country, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction generally requires that country to return the child immediately if the other parent requests return within one year. The question in this case is whether that 1-year period is subject to equitable tolling when the abducting parent conceals the child's location from the other parent. We hold that equitable tolling is not available.
I
To address "the problem of international child abductions during domestic disputes," Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 8, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 176 L.Ed.2d 789 (2010), in 1980 the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention or Convention), T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 (Treaty Doc.). The Convention states two primary objectives: "to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State," and "to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States." Art. 1, id., at 7.
To those ends, the Convention's "central operating feature" is the return of the child. Abbott, 560 U.S., at 9, 130 S.Ct. 1983. That remedy, in effect, lays venue for the ultimate custody determination in the child's country of habitual residence rather than the country to which the child is abducted. See id., at 20, 130 S.Ct. 1983 ("The Convention is based on the principle that the best interests of the child are well served when decisions regarding custody rights are made in the country of habitual residence").
The return remedy is not absolute. Article 13 excuses return where, for example, the left-behind parent was not "actually exercising" custody rights when the abducting parent removed the child, or where there is a "grave risk" that return would "place the child in an intolerable situation." Hague Convention, Arts. 13(a)-(b), Treaty Doc., at 10. A state may also refuse to return the child if doing so would contravene "fundamental principles... relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms." Art. 20, id., at 11.
This case concerns another exception to the return remedy. Article 12 of the Convention states the general rule that when a court receives a petition for return within one year after the child's wrongful removal, the court "shall order the return of the child forthwith." Id., at 9. Article 12 further provides that the court,
"where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year [from the date of the wrongful removal], shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment." Ibid.
Thus, at least in some cases, failure to file a petition for return within one year renders the return remedy unavailable.
The United States ratified the Hague Convention in 1988, and Congress implemented the Convention that same year through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). 102 Stat. 437, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11610. That statute instructs courts to "decide the case in accordance with the Convention." § 11603(d). Echoing the Convention, ICARA further provides that "[c]hildren who are wrongfully removed... are to be promptly returned unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in the Convention applies." § 11601(a)(4). Finally, ICARA requires the abducting parent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Article 12's exception to return applies. § 11603(e)(2)(B).
II
Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez and Manuel Jose Lozano are the parents of the girl at the center of this dispute.1 Montoya Alvarez and Lozano met and began dating in London in early 2004. Montoya Alvarez gave birth to a daughter in October 2005.
Montoya Alvarez and Lozano describe their relationship in starkly different terms. Lozano stated that they were "'very happy together,' " albeit with "normal couple problems." In re Lozano, 809 F.Supp.2d 197, 204 (S.D.N.Y.2011). Montoya Alvarez described a pattern of physical and emotional abuse that included multiple incidents of rape and battery. The District Court found insufficient evidence to make specific findings about domestic violence but determined that Lozano's claim that he never mistreated Montoya Alvarez was "not credible." Id., at 206.
The parties also differ as to the child's well-being during the first three years of her life. Lozano stated that he and the child had a very good relationship, and that the child was generally happy. Montoya Alvarez believed otherwise. In October 2008, Montoya Alvarez reported to the child's doctor that she refused to speak at the nursery she attended, cried often, and wet the bed. Montoya Alvarez also stated that the child refused to speak when Lozano was present. The child's nursery manager wrote that the girl was "'very withdrawn,' " and noted that the home " 'environment obviously had a negative effect' " on her. Id., at 207. The District Court found insufficient evidence that Lozano had physically abused the child, but did conclude that the child had seen and heard her parents arguing at home.
In November 2008, when the child was just over three years old, Montoya Alvarez went to New York to visit her sister Maria. During that time, the child remained in London with Lozano and his visiting mother. When Montoya Alvarez returned on November 18, she became acutely concerned about the child's fearful behavior around Lozano. The next day, Montoya Alvarez left with the child and never returned.
Montoya Alvarez and the child lived at a women's shelter for the next seven months. After Montoya Alvarez was unable to find suitable long-term accommodations in the United Kingdom, she and the child left for France on July 3, 2009, and then for the United States, arriving five days later. Since their arrival, Montoya Alvarez and the child have lived with Montoya Alvarez' sister Maria and her family in New York.
When they arrived in New York, Montoya Alvarez and the child began seeing a therapist at a family medical clinic. The therapist testified that, at first, the child was withdrawn and would wet herself. The therapist diagnosed her with posttraumatic stress disorder. Within six months, however, the therapist described her as " 'a completely different child,' " who had stopped wetting herself, was excited to play with friends, and was able to speak freely about her emotions. Id., at 212. When Montoya Alvarez and the child returned to the therapist after Lozano filed a petition for the child's return, the therapist noted that the child was doing well but did not wish to see her father.
In the meantime, Lozano attempted to find Montoya Alvarez and the child. Shortly after Montoya Alvarez left in November 2008, he called her sister Gloria in London, but eventually received legal advice not to speak with Montoya Alvarez' family. A mediation service also sent several letters to Montoya Alvarez on Lozano's behalf without receiving a response. In July 2009, Lozano filed an application for a court order in the United Kingdom " 'to ensure that he obtains regular contact with his [child] and plays an active role in [her] life.' " Id., at 210. He also sought court orders to compel Montoya Alvarez' sisters and legal counsel, the child's doctor and nursery, and various government offices in London to disclose the child's whereabouts.
On March 15, 2010, after determining that the child was not in the United Kingdom (and suspecting that the child was in New York), Lozano filed a form with the Hague Convention Central Authority for England and Wales seeking to have the child returned.2 The United States Central Authority-the Office of Children's Issues in the Department of State, see 22 CFR § 94.2 (2013)-received the application on March 23, 2010. After the Office of Children's Issues confirmed that Montoya Alvarez had entered the United States, Lozano located Montoya Alvarez' address in New York. On November 10, 2010, more than 16 months after Montoya Alvarez and the child left the United Kingdom, Lozano filed a Petition for Return of Child pursuant to the Hague Convention and ICARA, 42 U.S.C. § 11603, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
After a 2-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Lozano's petition. 809 F.Supp.2d 197. The District Court concluded that Lozano had stated a prima facie case of wrongful removal under the Hague Convention. Id., at 219-220. Prior to her removal, the child was a habitual resident of the United Kingdom, see Hague Convention, Art. 4, and Lozano had custody rights that he was actually exercising at the time of removal, see Arts. 3(a)-(b).
Because the petition was filed more than one year after the child's wrongful removal, however, the District Court denied the petition on the basis that the child was now settled in New York. Id., at 230, 234. "Viewing the totality of the circumstances," the court found sufficient indicia of "stability in her family, educational, social, and most importantly, home life," id., at 233, to conclude that the child was settled in her current environment and that repatriation would be "extremely disruptive," id., at 234. Lozano argued that the child should be returned forthwith because the 1-year period in Article 12 should be equitably tolled during the period that Montoya Alvarez concealed the child. The court rejected that argument, holding that the 1-year period could not be extended by equitable tolling.3Id., at 228-229.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. 697 F.3d 41 (2012). The Court of Appeals agreed that the 1-year period in Article 12 is not subject to equitable tolling. According to the court, unlike a statute of limitations that would prohibit the filing of a return petition after one year, the 1-year period in Article 12 merely permits courts, after that period has run, to consider the interests of the child in settlement. Id., at 52. The Second Circuit concluded that allowing equitable tolling to delay consideration of the child's interests would undermine the purpose of the Hague Convention. Id., at 54.
We granted certiorari to decide whether Article 12's 1-year period is subject to equitable tolling. 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2851, 186 L.Ed.2d 907 (2013). Compare 697 F.3d, at 50-55 (equitable tolling not available); and Yaman v. Yaman, 730 F.3d 1, 12-16 (C.A.1 2013) (same), with Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 568-570 (C.A.9 2008) (equitable tolling available); and Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 723-724 (C.A.11 2004) (same). We hold that equitable tolling is not available, and therefore affirm.
III
Although this case concerns the application of equitable tolling to a treaty, we begin with a more familiar context: equitable tolling of federal statutes of limitations. As a general matter, equitable tolling pauses the running of, or "tolls," a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action. See, e.g.,Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). Because the doctrine effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress, whether equitable tolling is available is fundamentally a question of statutory intent. See, e.g., Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990); Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479-480, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986); Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501, 87 S.Ct. 1188, 18 L.Ed.2d 244 (1967).
As applied to federal statutes of limitations, the inquiry begins with the understanding that Congress "legislate[s] against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles." Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991). Equitable tolling, a long-established feature of American jurisprudence derived from "the old chancery rule," Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946), is just such a principle. See Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49-50, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002) ("Congress must be presumed to draft limitations periods in light of this background principle"); Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, 349-350, 22 L.Ed. 636 (1875). We therefore presume that equitable tolling applies if the period in question is a statute of limitations and if tolling is consistent with the statute. Young, supra, at 49-50, 122 S.Ct. 1036 ("It is hornbook law that limitations periods are 'customarily subject to "equitable tolling,"'unless tolling would be 'inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute' " (citation omitted)).
IV
The Hague Convention, of course, is a treaty, not a federal statute. For treaties, which are primarily " 'compact[s] between independent nations,' " Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008), our "duty [i]s to ascertain the intent of the parties" by looking to the document's text and context, United States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494, 535, 21 S.Ct. 149, 45 L.Ed. 291 (1900); see also BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, --- U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1198, 188L.Ed.2d 220, 2014 WL 838424 (2014).
We conclude that the parties to the Hague Convention did not intend equitable tolling to apply to the 1-year period in Article 12. Unlike federal statutes of limitations, the Convention was not adopted against a shared background of equitable tolling. Even if the Convention were subject to a presumption that statutes of limitations may be tolled, the 1-year period in Article 12 is not a statute of limitations. And absent a presumption in favor of equitable tolling, nothing in the Convention warrants tolling the 1-year period.
A
First, there is no general presumption that equitable tolling applies to treaties. Congress is presumed to incorporate equitable tolling into federal statutes of limitations because equitable tolling is part of the established backdrop of American law. Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 560, 120 S.Ct. 1075, 145 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2000) ("[F]ederal statutes of limitations are generally subject to equitable principles of tolling"). It does not follow, however, that we can export such background principles of United States law to contexts outside their jurisprudential home.
It is particularly inappropriate to deploy this background principle of American law automatically when interpreting a treaty. "A treaty is in its nature a contract between... nations, not a legislative act." Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314, 7 L.Ed. 415 (1829) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court); see also 2 Debates on the Federal Constitution 506 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1863) (James Wilson) ("[I]n their nature treaties originate differently from laws. They are made by equal parties, and each side has half of the bargain to make..."). That distinction has been reflected in the way we interpret treaties. It is our "responsibility to read the treaty in a manner 'consistent with the shared expectations of the contracting parties.' " Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644, 650, 124 S.Ct. 1221, 157 L.Ed.2d 1146 (2004) (quoting Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 399, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985); emphasis added). Even if a background principle is relevant to the interpretation of federal statutes, it has no proper role in the interpretation of treaties unless that principle is shared by the parties to "an agreement among sovereign powers," Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 226, 116 S.Ct. 629, 133 L.Ed.2d 596 (1996).
Lozano has not identified a background principle of equitable tolling that is shared by the signatories to the Hague Convention. To the contrary, Lozano concedes that in the context of the Convention, "foreign courts have failed to adopt equitable tolling... because they lac[k] the presumption that we [have]." Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20. While no signatory state's court of last resort has resolved the question, intermediate courts of appeals in several states have rejected equitable tolling. See Cannon v. Cannon, [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1330, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 32, ¶ 51 (Eng.), (rejecting the "tolling rule" as "too crude an approach" for the Convention); Kubera v. Kubera, 3 B.C.L.R. (5th) 121, ¶ 64, 317 D.L.R. (4th) 307, ¶ 64 (2010) (Can.) (equitable tolling "has not been adopted in other jurisdictions, including Canada"); see also HJ v. Secretary for Justice, [2006] NZFLR 1005, ¶ 53 (CA), appeal dism'd on other grounds, [2007] 2 NZLR 289; A.C. v. P.C., [2005] HKEC 839, 2005 WL 836263, ¶ 55, (Hong Kong Ct.1st Instance).4 The American presumption that federal statutes of limitations can be equitably tolled therefore does not apply to this multilateral treaty. Cf. Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 544-545, and n. 10, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991) (declining to adopt liability for psychic injury under the Warsaw Convention because "the unavailability of compensation for purely psychic injury in many common and civil law countries at the time of the Warsaw Conference persuades us that the signatories had no specific intent to include such a remedy in the Convention" (footnote omitted)).
It does not matter to this conclusion that Congress enacted a statute to implement the Hague Convention. See ICARA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11610. ICARA does not address the availability of equitable tolling. Nor does it purport to alter the Convention. See § 11601(b)(2) ("The provisions of [ICARA] are in addition to and not in lieu of the provisions of the Convention"). In fact, Congress explicitly recognized "the need for uniform international interpretation of the Convention." § 11601(b)(3)(B). Congress' mere enactment of implementing legislation did not somehow import background principles of American law into the treaty interpretation process, thereby altering our understanding of the treaty itself.
B
Even if the presumption in favor of equitable tolling had force outside of domestic law, we have only applied that presumption to statutes of limitations. See Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 27, 110 S.Ct. 304, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989) (no equitable tolling of a 60-day presuit notice requirement that does not operate as a statute of limitations). The 1-year period in Article 12 is not a statute of limitations.
As a general matter, "[s]tatutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action." Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 604, 610, 187 L.Ed.2d 529 (2013). They characteristically embody a "policy of repose, designed to protect defendants." Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965). And they foster the "elimination of stale claims, and certainty about a plaintiff's opportunity for recovery and a defendant's potential liabilities." Rotella, supra, at 555, 120 S.Ct. 1075.
In Young, 535 U.S. 43, 122 S.Ct. 1036, we evaluated whether those characteristics of statutes of limitations were present in the "three-year lookback period" for tax liabilities in bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Code favors tax claims less than three years old in two respects: Such claims cannot be discharged, and they have priority over certain others in bankruptcy proceedings. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(8)(A)(i), 523(a)(1)(A). If the Internal Revenue Service "sleeps on its rights" by failing to prosecute those claims within three years, however, then those mechanisms for enforcing claims against bankrupt taxpayers are eliminated. Young, 535 U.S., at 47, 122 S.Ct. 1036. We concluded that the lookback period "serves the same 'basic policies [furthered by] all limitations provisions,' " ibid. (quoting Rotella, 528 U.S., at 555, 120 S.Ct. 1075),i.e., certainty and repose. We accordingly held that it was a limitations period presumptively subject to equitable tolling. 535 U.S., at 47, 122 S.Ct. 1036.
Unlike the 3-year lookback period in Young, expiration of the 1-year period in Article 12 does not eliminate the remedy the Convention affords the left-behind parent-namely, the return of the child. Before one year has elapsed, Article 12 provides that the court "shall order the return of the child forthwith." Treaty Doc., at 9. But even after that period has expired, the court "shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled." Ibid. The continued availability of the return remedy after one year preserves the possibility of relief for the left-behind parent and prevents repose for the abducting parent.5 Rather than establishing any certainty about the respective rights of the parties, the expiration of the 1-year period opens the door to consideration of a third party's interests, i.e., the child's interest in settlement. Because that is not the sort of interest addressed by a statute of limitations, we decline to treat the 1-year period as a statute of limitations.6
C
Without a presumption of equitable tolling, the Convention does not support extending the 1-year period during concealment. Article 12 explicitly provides that the 1-year period commences on "the date of the wrongful removal or retention," and makes no provision for an extension of that period. Id., at 9. Further, the practical effect of the tolling that Lozano requests would be to delay the commencement of the 1-year period until the left-behind parent discovers the child's location. Commencing the 1-year period upon discovery is the obvious alternative to the commencement date the drafters actually adopted because the subject of the Hague Convention, child abduction, is naturally associated with the sort of concealment that might justify equitable tolling under other circumstances. See 697 F.3d, at 51, n. 8 ("It would have been a simple matter, if the state parties to the Convention wished to take account of the possibility that an abducting parent might make it difficult for the petitioning parent to discover the child's whereabouts, to run the period 'from the date that the petitioning parent learned [or, could reasonably have learned] of the child's whereabouts' " (alterations in original)). Given that the drafters did not adopt that alternative, the natural implication is that they did not intend the 1-year period to commence on that later date. Cf. Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013). We cannot revisit that choice.
Lozano contends that equitable tolling is nevertheless consistent with the purpose of the Hague Convention because it is necessary to deter child abductions. In his view, "absent equitable tolling, concealment 'probably will' result in non-return," which will in turn encourage abduction. Reply Brief 14-15; see also Duarte, 526 F.3d, at 570.
We agree, of course, that the Convention reflects a design to discourage child abduction. But the Convention does not pursue that goal at any cost. The child's interest in choosing to remain, Art. 13, or in avoiding physical or psychological harm, Art. 13(b), may overcome the return remedy. The same is true of the child's interest in settlement. See supra, at 2; see also In re M, [2008] 1 A.C. 1288, 1310 (Eng. 2007) (opinion of Baroness Hale of Richmond) ("These children should not be made to suffer for the sake of general deterrence of the evil of child abduction world wide"). We are unwilling to apply equitable tolling principles that would, in practice, rewrite the treaty. See Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 134-135, 109 S.Ct. 1676, 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989) (" '[T]o alter, amend, or add to any treaty by inserting any clause, whether small or great, important or trivial, would be... to make, and not to construe a treaty' " (quoting The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1, 71, 5 L.Ed. 191 (1821) (Story, J., for the Court))).
Nor is it true that an abducting parent who conceals a child's whereabouts will necessarily profit by running out the clock on the 1-year period. American courts have found as a factual matter that steps taken to promote concealment can also prevent the stable attachments that make a child "settled." See, e.g., Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1363-1364 (M.D.Fla.2002) (children not settled when they "lived in seven different locations" in 18 months); Wigley v. Hares, 82 So.3d 932, 942 (Fla.App.2011) ("The mother purposely kept him out of all community activities, sports, and even church to avoid detection by the father"); In re Coffield, 96 Ohio App.3d 52, 58, 644 N.E.2d 662, 666 (1994) (child not settled when the abducting parent "was attempting to hide [child's] identity" by withholding child from school and other organized activities). Other signatories to the Hague Convention have likewise recognized that concealment may be taken into account in the factual determination whether the child is settled. See, e.g., Cannon, [2005] 1 W.L.R., ¶¶ 52-61. See also Kubera, 3 B.C.L.R. (5th), ¶ 47, 317 D.L.R. (4th), ¶ 47; A.C. v. P.C., [2005] HKEC 839, ¶ 39, 2005 WL 836263, ¶ 39. Equitable tolling is therefore neither required by the Convention nor the only available means to advance its objectives.
D
Finally, Lozano contends that the Hague Convention leaves room for United States courts to apply their own "common law doctrine of equitable tolling" to the 1-year period in Article 12 without regard to whether the drafters of the Convention intended equitable tolling to apply. Brief for Petitioner 25. Specifically, Lozano contends that the Convention recognizes additional sources of law that permit signatory states to return abducted children even when return is not available or required pursuant to the Convention. Article 34 of the Convention provides that "for the purpos[e] of obtaining the return of a child," the Convention "shall not restrict the application of an international instrument in force between the State of origin and the State addressed" or the application of "other law of the State addressed." Treaty Doc., at 13; see also Art. 18, id., at 11 ("The provisions of this Chapter do not limit the power of a judicial or administrative authority to order the return of the child at any time"). In Lozano's view, equitable tolling principles constitute "other law" that should apply here.
That contention mistakes the nature of equitable tolling as this Court has applied it. We do not apply equitable tolling as a matter of some independent authority to reconsider the fairness of legislative judgments balancing the needs for relief and repose. See supra, at 7-8. To the contrary, we may apply equitable tolling to the Hague Convention only if we determine that the treaty drafters so intended. See Choctaw Nation, 179 U.S., at 535, 21 S.Ct. 149. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that they did not.
V
The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the 1-year period in Article 12 of the Hague Convention is not subject to equitable tolling. We therefore affirm that court's judgment.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice BREYER and Justice SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.
I concur fully in the opinion of the Court. I write separately to explain why courts have equitable discretion under the Hague Convention to order a child's return even after the child has become settled, and how that discretion prevents abuses that petitioner claims will follow from holding that Article 12's 1-year period may not be equitably tolled.
The Convention is designed to protect the interests of children and their parents. Much of the Convention can be understood as an attempt to balance the various interests of children and non-abducting parents when a parent abducts a child from the child's country of habitual residence.
When a child has been absent from the country of habitual residence for less than a year, the Convention conclusively presumes that the child's nascent attachment to the new country is outweighed by the non-abducting parent's interest in prompt return and the child's own interest in returning to the country from which he or she was removed just a few months previously. This is why Article 12 requires return "forthwith" if the petition for return is brought within a year of abduction, unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in Article 13 or 20 applies. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention or Convention), Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 (Treaty Doc.), p. 9. But, as the Convention recognizes, at some point the child will become accustomed to the new environment, making Article 12's conclusive presumption inappropriate. Thus, if the petition for return is brought after a year has elapsed, the court must determine whether the child has become "settled" in the new country; and if this has occurred, the court need not order return. Ibid. As the majority recognizes, this provision of the Convention "opens the door to consideration of... the child's interest in settlement." Ante, at 1234 - 1235.
But opening the door to consideration of the child's attachment to the new country does not mean closing the door to evaluating all other interests of the child and the non-abducting parent. The fact that, after one year, a child's need for stability requires a court to take into account the child's attachment to the new country does not mean that such attachment becomes the only factor worth considering when evaluating a petition for return.
Nothing in Article 12 prohibits courts from taking other factors into account. To the contrary, the Convention explicitly permits them to do so. Article 18 provides that "[t]he provisions of this Chapter [including Article 12] do not limit the power of a judicial or administrative authority to order the return of the child at any time." Hague Convention, Treaty Doc., at 11. A court thus has power to order the child's return in the exercise of its sound discretion even where Article 12's obligation to order such return no longer applies.
This provision makes eminent sense. Even after a year has elapsed and the child has become settled in the new environment, a variety of factors may outweigh the child's interest in remaining in the new country, such as the child's interest in returning to his or her original country of residence (with which he or she may still have close ties, despite having become settled in the new country); the child's need for contact with the non-abducting parent, who was exercising custody when the abduction occurred; the non-abducting parent's interest in exercising the custody to which he or she is legally entitled; the need to discourage inequitable conduct (such as concealment) by abducting parents; and the need to deter international abductions generally.
Article 12 places no limit on Article 18's grant of discretionary power to order return. Article 18 expressly states as much.
See ibid. (Article 12 "do[es] not limit the power of a judicial or administrative authority to order the return of the child"). Even without Article 18's express language, it would be clear that Article 12 merely tells a court when it must order return, without telling it when it may do so. Article 12 states that, after the 1-year period has elapsed, a court "shall... order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment." Id., at 9. The final clause indicates when the obligation imposed earlier in the sentence terminates; it does not substitute for that obligation 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 16, 1962, I. J. Knight Realty Corporation filed a petition for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §§ 701-799. The same day, the District Court appointed a receiver, Francis Shunk Brown, a respondent here. The receiver was authorized to conduct the debtor’s business, which consisted principally of leasing the debtor’s only significant asset, an eight-story industrial structure located in Philadelphia.
On January 1, 1963, the building was totally destroyed by a fire which spread to adjoining premises and destroyed real and personal property of petitioner Reading Company and others. On April 3, 1963, petitioner filed a claim for $559,730.83 in the arrangement, based on the asserted negligence of the receiver. It was styled a claim for “administrative expenses” of the arrangement. Other fire loss claimants filed 146 additional claims of a similar nature. The total of all such claims was in excess of $3,500,000, substantially more than the total assets of the debtor.
On May 14, 1963, Knight Realty was voluntarily adjudicated a bankrupt and respondent receiver was subsequently elected trustee in bankruptcy. The claims of petitioner and others thus became claims for administration expenses in bankruptcy which are given first priority under § 64a (1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 104 (a)(1). The trustee moved to expunge the claims on the ground that they were not for expenses of administration. It was agreed that the decision whether petitioner’s claim is provable as an expense of administration would establish the status of the other 146 claims. It was further agreed that, for purposes of deciding whether the claim is provable, it would be assumed that the damage to petitioner’s property resulted from the negligence of the receiver and a workman he employed. The United States, holding a claim for unpaid prearrangement taxes admittedly superior to the claims of general creditors and inferior to claims for administration expenses, entered the case on the side of the trustee.
The referee disallowed the claim for administration expenses. He also ruled that petitioner’s claim was not provable as a general claim against the estate, a ruling challenged by neither side. On petition for review, the referee was upheld by the District Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the decision of the District Court by a 4-3 vote. We granted certiorari, 389 U. S. 895, because the issue is important in the administration of the bankruptcy laws and is one of first impression in this Court. For reasons to follow, we reverse.
Section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act provides in part as follows:
“The debts to have priority, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors, and to be paid in full out of bankrupt estates, and the order of payment, shall be (1) the costs and expenses of administration, including the actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate subsequent to filing the petition . . . .”
It is agreed that this section, applicable by its terms to straight bankruptcies, governs payment of administration expenses of Chapter XI arrangements. Furthermore, it is agreed that for the purpose of applying this section to arrangements, the words “subsequent to filing the petition” refer to the period subsequent to the arrangement petition, and the words “preserving the estate” include the larger objective, common to arrangements, of operating the debtor’s business with a view to rehabilitating it.
The question in this case is whether the negligence of a receiver administering an estate under a Chapter XI arrangement gives rise to an “actual and necessary” cost of operating the debtor’s business. The Act does not define “actual and necessary,” nor has any case directly in point been brought to our attention. We must, therefore, look to the general purposes of § 64a, Chapter XI, and the Bankruptcy Act as a whole.
The trustee contends that the relevant statutory objectives are (1) to facilitate rehabilitation of insolvent businesses and (2) to preserve a maximum of assets for distribution among the general creditors should the arrangement fail. He therefore argues that first priority as “necessary” expenses should be given only to those expenditures without which the insolvent business could not be carried on. For example, the trustee would allow first priority to contracts entered into by the receiver because suppliers, employees, landlords, and the like would not enter into dealings with a debtor in possession or a receiver of an insolvent business unless priority is allowed. The trustee would exclude all negligence claims, on the theory that first priority for them is not necessary to encourage third parties to deal with an insolvent business, that first priority would reduce the amount available for the general creditors, and that first priority would discourage general creditors from accepting arrangements.
In our view the trustee has overlooked one important, and here decisive, statutory objective: fairness to all persons having claims against an insolvent. Petitioner suffered grave financial injury from what is here agreed to have been the negligence of the receiver and a workman. It is conceded that, in principle, petitioner has a right to recover for that injury from their “employer,” the business under arrangement, upon the rule of re-spondeat superior. Respondents contend, however, that petitioner is in no different position from anyone else injured by a person with scant assets: its right to recover exists in theory but is not enforceable in practice.
That, however, is not an adequate description of petitioner’s position. At the moment when an arrangement is sought, the debtor is insolvent. Its existing creditors hope that by partial or complete postponement of their claims they will, through successful rehabilitation, eventually recover from the debtor either in full or in larger proportion than they would in immediate bankruptcy. Hence the present petitioner did not merely suffer injury at the hands of an insolvent business: it had an insolvent business thrust upon it by operation of law. That business will, in any event, be unable to pay its fire debts in full. But the question is whether the fire claimants should be subordinated to, should share equally with, or should collect ahead of those creditors for whose benefit the continued operation of the business (which unfortunately led to a fire instead of the hoped-for rehabilitation) was allowed.
Recognizing that petitioner ought to have some means of asserting its claim against the business whose operation resulted in the fire, respondents have suggested various theories as alternatives to “administration expense” treatment. None of these has case support, and all seem to us unsatisfactory.
Several need not be pursued in detail. The trustee contends that if the present claims are not provable in bankruptcy they would survive as claims against the shell. He also suggests that petitioner may be able to recover from the receiver personally, or out of such bond as he posted. Without deciding whether these possible avenues are indeed open, we merely note that they do not serve the present purpose. The “master,” liable for the negligence of the “servant” in this case was the business operating under a Chapter XI arrangement for the benefit of creditors and with the hope of rehabilitation. That benefit and that rehabilitation are worthy objectives. But it would be inconsistent both with the principle of respondeat superior and with the rule of fairness in bankruptcy to seek these objectives at the cost of excluding tort creditors of the arrangement from its assets, or totally subordinating the claims of those on whom the arrangement is imposed to the claims of those for whose benefit it is instituted.
The United States, as a respondent, suggests instead that tort claims arising during an arrangement are, if properly preserved, provable general claims in any subsequent bankruptcy under § 63a of the Act, 11 U. S. C. § 103 (a). That section reads as follows:
“Debts of the bankrupt may be proved and allowed against his estate which are founded upon . . . (7) the right to recover damages in any action for negligence instituted prior to and pending at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy . . .
It is agreed by all parties that this section will not avail the present petitioner who, it appears, did not file suit on its claim prior to the bankruptcy proper. This, the United States argues, is its own fault: it could have filed suit after the tort, during the arrangement, and before the petition in bankruptcy, and thus preserved its claim.
This was not the view of the District Court. Section 302 of the Act, the section which provides that Chapters I to VII of the Act (including §§63 and 64) shall be applicable to arrangements under Chapter XI as well as straight bankruptcies, contains the following provision:
“For the purposes of such application the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy shall be taken to be the date of the filing of an original petition under section 722 of this title [§ 322 of the Act, 11 U. S. C. § 722, which provides for filing original petitions for arrangements] . . . .”
Section 378 (2) of the Act, 11 U. S. C. § 778 (2), dealing with procedure when bankruptcy ensues upon an arrangement, provides that
“in the case of a petition filed under section 722 of this title, the proceeding shall be conducted, so far as possible, in the same manner and with like effect as if a voluntary petition for adjudication in bankruptcy had been filed and a decree of adjudication had been entered on the day when the petition under this chapter [i. e., the petition for an arrangement] was filed . . .
The effect of these two sections is that, whether or not an arrangement is superseded by bankruptcy, for purposes of applying § 63 to arrangements the date of the arrangement petition is deemed to be the date of a petition in bankruptcy.
From this fact, the District Court concluded, and petitioner now argues, that a person negligently injured during the course of an arrangement could never have a provable general claim under § 63a. For that section requires that suit be filed before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, and, when the section is applied to an arrangement, the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy is deemed to be the date of the filing of the arrangement petition.
In response, the United States notes that § 378 (2) is qualified by the words “so far as possible.” The Government therefore suggests a holding that it is not “possible” to treat the date of the arrangement petition as the critical date in a case such as the present, because that point in time antedates the tort. On that theory, it is suggested that, for present purposes, § 63a’s reference to the date of filing the bankruptcy petition be taken to refer to the date of the petition in bankruptcy proper.
We do not find this an acceptable alternative. The only thing that renders it not “possible” to follow the statutory scheme and meld the arrangement into the bankruptcy is the Government’s insistence that petitioner’s claim must be held to have been provable under § 63a if only petitioner had taken the proper steps. There is nothing “impossible” about construing the sections here involved to mean what they say: a tort claim arising during an arrangement, like a tort claim arising during a bankruptcy proceeding proper, is not provable as a general claim in the bankruptcy.
There are additional reasons for reading the sections literally in this case. In the first place, the United States’ suggestion will not work where bankruptcy does not ensue upon the arrangement, for then there is no later date that can be used as the cutoff for 63a (7) claims. In that case, it would be necessary either to hold that a tort claim arising during an arrangement is a provable general claim if bankruptcy ensues but is not a provable general claim in the arrangement itself, or to hold that there is no time limit on filing suit so long as the arrangement remains an arrangement. Nothing in the qualifying language of § 378 (2) grants permission to read the time limitation out of § 63a (7) of the Act.
An even greater difficulty is presented by the fact that § 63a refers to provable debts of the bankrupt, and distinguishes the bankrupt from his estate. Section 302 provides that in applying § 63a to arrangements, the word “bankrupts” shall be deemed to relate also to “debtors.” Thus the natural reading of § 63a, when applied to arrangements as if they were bankruptcies, is that in order to be provable under § 63a (7) a tort claim must be a claim against the debtor and not against the estate in a Chapter XI arrangement. Respondents might argue this question as they do the time limitation: that it would be preferable to deem the words “debts of the bankrupt” to mean “debts of the debtor or of his estate arising up to the time of bankruptcy proper.” This argument is open, however, to the same objections as the argument on time limitations: it is a strained reading of the statute which makes no allowance for the occasions when straight bankruptcy does not ensue.
In any event, we see no reason to indulge in a strained construction of the relevant provisions, for we are persuaded that it is theoretically sounder, as well as linguistically more comfortable, to treat tort claims arising during an arrangement as actual and necessary expenses of the arrangement rather than debts of the bankrupt. In the first place, in considering whether those injured by the operation of the business during an arrangement should share equally with, or recover ahead of, those for whose benefit the business is carried on, the latter seems more natural and just. Existing creditors are, to be sure, in a dilemma not of their own making, but there is no obvious reason why they should be allowed to attempt to escape that dilemma at the risk of imposing it on others equally innocent.
More directly in point is the possibility of insurance. An arrangement may provide for suitable coverage, and the court below recognized that the cost of insurance against tort claims arising during an arrangement is an administrative expense payable in full under § 64a (1) before dividends to general creditors. It is of course obvious that proper insurance premiums must be given priority, else insurance could not be obtained; and if a receiver or debtor in possession is to be encouraged to obtain insurance in adequate amounts, the claims against which insurance is obtained should be potentially payable in full. In the present case, it is argued, the fire was of such incredible magnitude that adequate insurance probably could not have been obtained and in any event would have been foolish; this may be true, as it is also true that allowance of a first priority to the fire claimants here will still only mean recovery by them of a fraction of their damages. In the usual case where damages are within insurable limits, however, the rule of full recovery for torts is demonstrably sounder.
Although there appear to be no cases dealing with tort claims arising during Chapter XI proceedings, decisions in analogous cases suggest that “actual and necessary costs” should include costs ordinarily incident to operation of a business, and not be limited to costs without which rehabilitation would be impossible. It has long been the rule of equity receiverships that torts of the receivership create claims against the receivership itself; in those cases the statutory limitation to “actual and necessary costs” is not involved, but the explicit recognition extended to tort claims in those cases weighs heavily in favor of considering them within the general category of costs and expenses.
In some cases arising under Chapter XI it has been recognized that “actual and necessary costs” are not limited to those claims which the business must be able to pay in full if it is to be able to deal at all. For example, state and federal taxes accruing during a receivership have been held to be actual and necessary costs of an arrangement. The United States, recognizing and supporting these holdings, agrees with petitioner that costs that form “an integral and essential element of the continuation of the business” are necessary expenses even though priority is not necessary to the continuation of the business. Thus the Government suggests that “an injury to a member of the public — a business invitee — who was injured while on the business premises during an arrangement would present a completely different problem [i. e., could qualify for first priority]” although it is not suggested that priority is needed to encourage invitees to enter the premises.
The United States argues, however, that each tort claim “must be analyzed in its own context.” Apart from the fact that it has been assumed throughout this case that all 147 claimants were on an equal footing and it is not very helpful to suggest here for the first time a rule by which lessees, invitees, and neighbors have different rights, we perceive no distinction: No principle of tort law of which we are aware offers guidance for distinguishing, within the class of torts committed by receivers while acting in furtherance of the business, between those “integral” to the business and those that are not.
We hold that damages resulting from the negligence of a receiver acting within the scope of his authority as receiver give rise to “actual and necessary costs” of a Chapter XI arrangement..
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. T, . , ,
T, , , It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 302 of the Act, as set forth in 11 U. S. C. § 702, provides in part as follows:
“The provisions of chapters 1-7 of this title shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this chapter [XI], apply in proceedings under this chapter.”
Section 64a (1), a part of Chapter VII and hence applicable to Chapter XI arrangements by virtue of § 302, itself provides that where, as here, ordinary bankruptcy ensues upon a proceeding under another chapter,
“the costs and expenses of administration incurred in the ensuing bankruptcy proceeding shall have priority in advance of payment of the unpaid costs and expenses of administration . . . incurred in the superseded proceeding . . .
We deal here, therefore, with a claim that will in any event be subordinate to administration expenses of the bankruptcy proper.
Thus the merits of negligence claims have not been adjudicated, and, of course, we intimate no views upon them.
See infra, at 480.
This is explicitly provided in § 302.
Compare 3 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 62.15:
“Section 2a (5) empowers the court to authorize the business of bankrupts to be conducted for a limited period by a marshal, receiver or trustee. Such continued operation of a business is in substance a means of preservation, namely as a going concern, sometimes with a view to rehabilitation .... Expenditure incurred by continued operation of a bankrupt’s business will, therefore, on principle, follow the rules ... as to expenditure in connection with preservation. The difference, if any, lies in the greater variety of types of expenses . . . (Footnotes omitted.)
The case that petitioner finds most closely in point is Vass v. Conron Bros., 59 F. 2d 969. Vass was the receiver of certain bankrupts who had been dealers in cold meats and had leased space in their cold storage plant to Conron. Vass confirmed the lease, one of whose covenants provided that the lessor would maintain sufficient refrigeration; thereafter, Vass allegedly failed to refrigerate properly, damaging stored property of the lessee. The lessee then attempted to sue Vass in a state court, alleging breach of the covenant and negligence. Vass, however, obtained an injunction from the bankruptcy court against the state action; the Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion by L. Hand.
The issue in Vass was whether the state action would conflict with the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the estate. In ruling that the action could not be maintained, Judge Hand concluded, inter alia, that the action did not fall within the federal statutory permission for actions based on any liability arising out of “any act or transaction” of the trustee “in carrying on the business connected with” the property entrusted to him. Judge Hand concluded, on special facts, that the trustee in confirming the lease was merely holding matters in statu quo, not continuing the business. Consequently, he said that “the liquidation of the lessee’s resulting damages was as much a part of the usual administration in bankruptcy, as that of the pay of accountants, custodians or other assistants.” 59 F. 2d, at 971. In context, the language just quoted is of little assistance in the present ease.
28 U. S. C. § 959 (b) provides as follows:
“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.”
This provision of course establishes only the principle of liability under state tort and agency law, and does not decide from whom or with what priority tort claims may be collected. In McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327, 332, this Court had occasion to note that “[ajctions against the receiver are in law actions against the receivership, or the funds in the hands of the receiver, and his contracts, misfeasances, negligences and liabilities are official and not personal, and judgments against him as receiver are payable only from the funds in his hands.”
This statement of course means only that torts of a receiver are in principle compensable out of the assets of the estate in receivership and, again, does not indicate whether such claims shall be paid prior to, equally with, or after other claims against the receivership.
We do not here reach, and do not mean to reaffirm the implication of McNulta that an action against the receiver personally, or against the debtor after termination of the receivership, would never lie under any circumstances. As to such questions, the statement of McNulta is dictum.
See n. 7, supra.
370 F. 2d 624, 628.
E. g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Bloom, 164 U. S. 636; Bereth v. Sparks, 51 F. 2d 441; §77 (n), 11 U. S. C. §205 (n), according particular recognition to the tort claims of railroad employees, does not, as the dissent suggests, mean that other tort claims are not chargeable against a receivership itself. Rather, as the United States concedes, “tort claims arising during a receivership or reorganization period . . . have generally been given the priority status of general administrative expenses.”
E. g., Nicholas v. United States, 384 U. S. 678. At pages 687-688 we stated:
“Taxes incurred in the pre-arrangement period must be content with a fourth priority under § 64a (4) of the Bankruptcy Act. On the other hand, taxes incurred during the arrangement period are expenses of Chapter XI proceedings and are therefore technically a part of the first priority under § 64a (1).”
The Court also ruled that interest accruing on such claims during the arrangement period would also fall within § 64a (1). Ibid. See also Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57.
Compare 3 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 62.15 :
“Among other expenses incident to conducting a business and therefore allowable as administrative expenditure may be . . . payments on claims for personal injuries inflicted in the operation of a business, rent, insurance, commissions, cost of raw material or merchandise purchased for manufacturing or resale and any other expense ordinarily attendant upon active participation in commercial or industrial life.” (Footnotes omitted.)
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), provides that a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of § 922(g), is subject to a mandatory sentence of 15 years of imprisonment if the defendant has three prior convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.” The question before us is whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is a “violent felony” under ACCA. We hold that it is, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner Alphonso James pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of § 922(g)(1). In his guilty plea, James admitted to the three prior felony convictions listed in his federal indictment. These included a conviction in Florida state court for attempted burglary of a dwelling, in violation of Fla. Stat. §§810.02 and 777.04 (1993).
At sentencing, the Government argued that James was subject to ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum term because of his three prior convictions. James objected, arguing that his attempted burglary conviction did not qualify as a “violent felony” under 18 U. S. C. § 924(e). The District Court held that attempted burglary is a violent felony, and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that holding, 430 F. 3d 1150, 1157 (2005). We granted certiorari, 547 U. S. 1191 (2006).
II
A
ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum applies “[i]n the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title [the felon in possession of a firearm provision] and has three previous convictions... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). ACCA defines a “violent felony” as
“any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year... that—
“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
“(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B).
Florida defined the crime of burglary at the time of James’ conviction as follows: “ ‘Burglary’ means entering or remaining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.” Fla. Stat. §810.02(1). Florida’s criminal attempt statute provided: “A person who attempts to commit an offense prohibited by law and in such attempt does any act toward the commission of such offense, but fails in the perpetration or is intercepted or prevented in the execution thereof, commits the offense of criminal attempt.” § 777.04(1). The attempted burglary conviction at issue here was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
The parties agree that attempted burglary does not qualify as a “violent felony” under clause (i) of ACCA’s definition because it does not have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). Nor does it qualify as one of the specific crimes enumerated in clause (ii). Attempted burglary is not arson or extortion. It does not involve the use of explosives. And it is not “burglary” because it does not meet the definition of burglary under ACCA that this Court set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 598 (1990): “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” See Fla. Stat. § 777.04(1) (crime of attempt under Florida law requires as an element that the defendant “fai[l] in the perpetration or [be] intercepted or prevented in the execution” of the underlying offense).
The question before the Court, then, is whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, falls within ACCA’s residual provision for crimes that “otherwise involv[e] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B
Before determining whether the elements of attempted burglary under Florida law qualify under ACCA’s residual provision, we first consider James’ argument that the statute’s text and structure categorically exclude attempt offenses from the scope of the residual provision. We conclude that nothing in the plain language of clause (ii), when read together with the rest of the statute, prohibits attempt offenses from qualifying as ACCA predicates when they involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.
James first argues that the residual provision of clause (ii) must be read in conjunction with clause (i), which expressly includes in its definition of “violent felony” offenses that have “as an element the... attempted use... of physical force against the person of another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). James thus concludes that Congress’ express inclusion of attempt offenses in clause (i), combined with its failure to mention attempts in clause (ii), demonstrates an intent to categorically exclude attempt offenses from the latter provision.
We are not persuaded. James’ reading would unduly narrow clause (ii)’s residual provision, the language of which does not suggest any intent to exclude attempt offenses that otherwise meet the statutory criteria. Clause (i), in contrast, lacks a broad residual provision, thus making it necessary to specify exactly what types of offenses — including attempt offenses — are covered by its language. In short, “the expansive phrasing of” clause (ii) “points directly away from the sort of exclusive specification” that James would read into it. Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U. S. 73, 80 (2002); see also United States v. Davis, 16 F. 3d 212, 217 (CA7) (rejecting argument that “had Congress wished to include attempted burglary as a § 924(e) predicate offense, it would have done so expressly” as “untenable in light of the very existence of the ‘otherwise’ clause, which Congress plainly included to serve as a catch-all provision”), cert, denied, 513 U. S. 945 (1994).
James next invokes the canon of ejusdem generis — that when a general phrase follows a list of specifies, it should be read to include only things of the same type as those specifically enumerated. He argues that the “common attribute” of the offenses specifically enumerated in clause (ii) — burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives — is that they are all completed offenses. The residual provision, he contends, should similarly be read to extend only to completed offenses.
This argument is unavailing. As an initial matter, the premise on which it depends — that clause (ii)’s specifically enumerated crimes are limited to completed offenses — is false. An unsuccessful attempt to blow up a government building, for example, would qualify as a specifically enumerated predicate offense because it would “involv[e] [the] use of explosives.” See, e.g., § 844(f)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV) (making it a crime to “maliciously damag[e] or destro[y], or attempft] to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive,” certain property used in or affecting interstate commerce (emphasis added)).
In any event, the most relevant common attribute of the enumerated offenses of burglary, arson, extortion, and explosives use is not “completion.” Rather, it is that all of these offenses, while not technically crimes against the person, nevertheless create significant risks of bodily injury or confrontation that might result in bodily injury. As we noted in Taylor:
“Congress thought that certain general categories of property crimes — namely burglary, arson, extortion, and the use of explosives — so often presented a risk of injury to persons, or were so often committed by career criminals, that they should be included in the enhancement statute even though, considered solely in terms of their statutory elements, they do not necessarily involve the use or threat of force against a person.” 495 U. S., at 597.
See also id., at 588 (noting that Congress singled out burglary because it “often creates the possibility of a violent confrontation”); United States v. Adams, 51 Fed. Appx. 507, 508 (CA6 2002) (arson presents “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” because “[n]ot only might the targeted building be occupied,” but also “the fire could harm firefighters and onlookers and could spread to occupied structures”); H. R. Rep. No. 99-849, p. 3 (1986) (purpose of clause (ii) was to “add State and Federal crimes against property such as burglary, arson, extortion, use of explosives and similar crimes as predicate offenses where the conduct involved presents a serious risk of injury to a person”).
Congress’ inclusion of a broad residual provision in clause (ii) indicates that it did not intend the preceding enumerated offenses to be an exhaustive list of the types of crimes that might present a serious risk of injury to others and therefore merit status as a § 924(e) predicate offense. Nothing in the statutory language supports the view that Congress intended to limit this category solely to completed offenses.
C
James also relies on ACCA’s legislative history to buttress his argument that clause (ii) categorically excludes attempt offenses. In the deliberations leading up to ACCA’s adoption in 1984, the House rejected a version of the statute that would have provided enhanced penalties for use of a firearm by persons with two prior convictions for “any robbery or burglary offense, or a conspiracy or attempt to commit such an offense.” S. 52, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., § 2 (1984) (emphasis added). The bill that ultimately became law omitted any reference to attempts, and simply defined “violent felony” to include “robbery or burglary, or both.” Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, § 1802, 98 Stat. 2185, repealed in 1986 by Pub. L. 99-308, § 104(b), 100 Stat. 459. James argues that Congress’ rejection of this explicit “attempt” language in 1984 evidenced an intent to exclude attempted burglary as a predicate offense.
Whatever weight this legislative history might ordinarily have, we do not find it probative here, because the 1984 enactment on which James relies was not Congress’ last word on the subject. In 1986, Congress amended ACCA for the purpose of “‘expanding’ the range of predicate offenses.” Taylor, supra, at 584. The 1986 amendments added the more expansive language that is at issue in this case — including clause (ii)’s language defining as violent felonies offenses that are “burglary, arson, or extortion, involv[e] use of explosives, or otherwise involv[e] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986, § 1402(b), 100 Stat. 3207-40, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). This language is substantially broader than the 1984 provision that it amended. Because both the Government and the Court of Appeals relied on the broader language of the 1986 amendments — specifically, the residual provision — as the textual basis for including attempted burglary within the law’s scope, Congress’ rejection of express language including attempt offenses in the 1984 provision is not dispositive. Congress did not consider, much less reject, any such language when it enacted the 1986 amendments. What it did consider, and ultimately adopted, was a broadly worded residual clause that does not by its terms exclude attempt offenses, and whose reach is broad enough to encompass at least some such offenses.
Ill
Having concluded that neither the statutory text nor the legislative history discloses any congressional intent to categorically exclude attempt offenses from the scope of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s residual provision, we next ask whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is an offense that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” In answering this question, we employ the “ ‘categorical approach’ ” that this Court has taken with respect to other offenses under ACCA. Under this approach, we “Took only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense,’” and do not generally consider the “particular facts disclosed by the record of conviction.” Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13, 17 (2005) (quoting Taylor, 495 U. S., at 602). That is, we consider whether the elements of the offense are of the type that would justify its inclusion within the residual provision, without inquiring into the specific conduct of this particular offender.
A
We begin by examining what constitutes attempted burglary under Florida law. On its face, Florida’s attempt statute requires only that a defendant take “any act toward the commission” of burglary. Fla. Stat. § 777.04(1). James contends that this broad statutory language sweeps in merely preparatory activity that poses no real danger of harm to others — for example, acquiring burglars’ tools or casing a structure while planning a burglary.
But while the statutory language is broad, the Florida Supreme Court has considerably narrowed its application in the context of attempted burglary, requiring an “overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a structure or conveyance.” Jones v. State, 608 So. 2d 797, 799 (1992). Mere preparation is not enough. See ibid. Florida’s lower courts appear to have consistently applied this heightened standard. See, e. g., Richardson v. State, 922 So. 2d 331, 334 (App. 2006); Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (App. 1999).
The pivotal question, then, is whether overt conduct directed toward unlawfully entering or remaining in a dwelling, with the intent to commit a felony therein, is “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B
In answering this question, we look to the statutory language for guidance. The specific offenses enumerated in clause (ii) provide one baseline from which to measure whether other similar conduct “otherwise... presents a serious potential risk of physical injury.” In this case, we can ask whether the risk posed by attempted burglary is comparable to that posed by its closest analog among the enumerated offenses — here, completed burglary. See Taylor, supra, at 600, n. 9 (“The Government remains free to argue that any offense — including offenses similar to generic burglary — should count towards enhancement as one that ‘otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another’ under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)”).
The main risk of burglary arises not from the simple physical act of wrongfully entering onto another’s property, but rather from the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party — whether an occupant, a police officer, or a bystander — who comes to investigate. That is, the risk arises not from the completion of the burglary, but from the possibility that an innocent person might appear while the crime is in progress.
Attempted burglary poses the same kind of risk. Interrupting an intruder at the doorstep while the would-be burglar is attempting a break-in creates a risk of violent confrontation comparable to that posed by finding him inside the structure itself. As one court has explained:
“In all of these cases the risk of injury arises, not from the completion of the break-in, but rather from the possibility that some innocent party may appear on the scene while the break-in is occurring. This is just as likely to happen before the defendant succeeds in breaking in as after. Indeed, the possibility may be at its peak while the defendant is still outside trying to break in, as that is when he is likely to be making noise and exposed to the public view.... [T]here is a serious risk of confrontation while a perpetrator is attempting to enter the building.” United States v. Payne, 966 F. 2d 4, 8 (CA1 1992).
Indeed, the risk posed by an attempted burglary that can serve as the basis for an ACCA enhancement may be even greater than that posed by a typical completed burglary. All burglaries begin as attempted burglaries. But ACCA only concerns that subset of attempted burglaries where the offender has been apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted. This will typically occur when the attempt is thwarted by some outside intervenor — be it a property owner or law enforcement officer. Many completed burglaries do not involve such confrontations. But attempted burglaries often do; indeed, it is often just such outside intervention that prevents the attempt from ripening into completion.
Concluding that attempted burglary presents a risk that is comparable to the risk posed by the completed offense, every Court of Appeals that has construed an attempted burglary law similar in scope to Florida’s has held that the offense qualifies as a “violent felony” under clause (ii)’s residual provision. The only cases holding to the contrary involved attempt laws that could be satisfied by preparatory conduct that does not pose the same risk of violent confrontation and physical harm posed by an attempt to enter a structure illegally. Given that Florida law, as interpreted by that State’s highest court, requires an overt act directed toward the entry of a structure, we need not consider whether the more attenuated conduct encompassed by such laws presents a potential risk of serious injury under ACCA.
The United States Sentencing Commission has come to a similar conclusion with regard to the Sentencing Guidelines’ career offender enhancement, whose definition of a predicate “crime of violence” closely tracks ACCA’s definition of “violent felony.” See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4B1.2(a)(2) (Nov. 2006) (USSG). The Commission has determined that “crime[s] of violence” for the purpose of the Guidelines enhancement “include the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.” §4B1.2, comment., n. 1. This judgment was based on the Commission’s review of empirical sentencing data and presumably reflects an assessment that attempt crimes often pose a similar risk of injury as completed offenses. As then-Chief Judge Breyer explained, “[t]he Commission, which collects detailed sentencing data on virtually every federal criminal case, is better able than any individual court to make an informed judgment about the relation between” a particular offense and “the likelihood of accompanying violence.” United States v. Doe, 960 F. 2d 221, 225 (CA1 1992); see also USSG §1A3 (Nov. 1987), reprinted in § 1 A1.1 comment. (Nov. 2006) (describing empirical basis of Commission’s formulation of Guidelines); United States v. Chambers, 478 F. 3d 724 (CA7 2007) (noting the usefulness of empirical analysis from the Commission in determining whether an unenumerated crime poses a risk of violence). While we are not bound by the Sentencing Commission’s conclusion, we view it as further evidence that a crime like attempted burglary poses a risk of violence similar to that presented by the completed offense.
C
James responds that it is not enough that attempted burglary “ ‘generally’ ” or in “ ‘most cases’ ” will create a risk of physical injury to others. Brief for Petitioner 32. Citing the categorical approach we employed in Taylor, he argues that we cannot treat attempted burglary as an ACCA predicate offense unless all cases present such a risk. James’ approach is supported by neither the statute’s text nor this Court’s holding in Taylor.
One could, of course, imagine a situation in which attempted burglary might not pose a realistic risk of confrontation or injury to anyone — for example, a break-in of an unoccupied structure located far off the beaten path and away from any potential intervenors. But ACCA does not require metaphysical certainty. Rather, § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s residual provision speaks in terms of a “potential risk.” These are inherently probabilistic concepts. Indeed, the combination of the two terms suggests that Congress intended to encompass possibilities even more contingent or remote than a simpie “risk,” much less a certainty. While there may be some attempted burglaries that do not present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, the same is true of completed burglaries — which are explicitly covered by the statutory language and provide a baseline against which to measure the degree of risk that a nonenumerated offense must “otherwise” present in order to qualify.
James’ argument also misapprehends Taylor's categorical approach. We do not view that approach as requiring that every conceivable factual offense covered by a statute must necessarily present a serious potential risk of injury before the offense can be deemed a violent felony. Cf. Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U. S. 183, 193 (2007) (“[T]o find that a state statute creates a crime outside the generic definition of a listed crime in a federal statute requires more than the application of legal imagination to a state statute’s language. It requires a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime”).
Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the conduct encompassed by the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another. One can always hypothesize unusual cases in which even a prototypically violent crime might not present a genuine risk of injury — for example, an attempted murder where the gun, unbeknownst to the shooter, had no bullets, see United States v. Thomas, 361 F. 3d 653, 659 (CADC 2004). Or, to take an example from the offenses specifically enumerated in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), one could imagine an extortion scheme where an anonymous blackmailer threatens to release embarrassing personal information about the victim unless he is mailed regular payments. In both cases, the risk of physical injury to another approaches zero. But that does not mean that the offenses of attempted murder or extortion are categorically nonviolent.
As long as an offense is of a type that, by its nature, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another, it satisfies the requirements of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s residual provision. Attempted burglary under Florida law — as construed in Jones to require an overt act directed toward entry of a structure — satisfies this test.
D
Justice Scalia’s dissent criticizes our approach on the ground that it does not provide sufficient guidance for lower courts required to decide whether unenumerated offenses other than attempted burglary qualify as violent felonies under ACCA. But the dissent’s alternative approach has more serious disadvantages. Among other things, that approach unnecessarily decides an important question that the parties have not briefed (the meaning of the term “extortion” in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)), decides that question in a way that is hardly free from doubt, and fails to provide an interpretation of the residual provision that furnishes clear guidance for future cases.
The dissent interprets the residual provision to require at least as much risk as the least dangerous enumerated offense. But the ordinary meaning of the language of the residual clause does not impose such a requirement. What the clause demands is “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” While it may be reasonable to infer that the risks presented by the enumerated offenses involve a risk of this magnitude, it does not follow that an offense that presents a lesser risk necessarily fails to qualify.. Nothing in the language of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) rules out the possibility that an offense may present “a serious risk of physical injury to another” without presenting as great a risk as any of the enumerated offenses.
Moreover, even if an unenumerated offense could not qualify without presenting at least as much risk as the least risky of the enumerated offenses, it would not be necessary to identify the least risky of those offenses in order to decide this case. Rather, it would be sufficient to establish simply that the unenumerated offense presented at least as much risk as one of the enumerated offenses. Thus, Justice Scalia’s interpretation of the meaning of the term “extortion” is unnecessary — and inadvisable. The parties have not briefed this issue, and the proposed interpretation is hardly beyond question. Instead of interpreting the meaning of the term “extortion” in accordance with its meaning at common law or in modern federal and state statutes, see Taylor, 495 U. S., at 598, it is suggested that we adopt an interpretation that seems to be entirely novel and that greatly reduces the reach of ACCA.
The stated reason for tackling this question is to provide guidance for the lower courts in future cases — surely a worthy objective. But in practical terms, the proposed interpretation of the residual clause would not make it much easier for the lower courts to decide whether other unenumerated offenses qualify. Without hard statistics— and no such statistics have been called to our attention— how is a lower court to determine whether the risk posed by generic burglary is greater or less than the risk posed by an entirely unrelated unenumerated offense — say, escape from prison?
In the end, Justice Scalia’s analysis of this case turns on the same question as ours — i. e., the comparative risks presented by burglary and attempted burglary. The risk of physical injury in both cases occurs when there is a confrontation between the criminal and another person, whether an occupant of the structure, a law enforcement officer or security guard, or someone else. It is argued that when such an encounter occurs during a consummated burglary (i. e., after entry), the risk is greater than it is when the encounter occurs during an attempted burglary (i. e., before entry is effected), and that may be true. But this argument fails to come to grips with the fact that such encounters may occur much more frequently during attempted burglaries because it is precisely due to such encounters that many planned burglaries do not progress beyond the attempt stage. Justice Scalia dismisses the danger involved when encounters occur during attempted burglaries, stating that such encounters are “likely to consist of nothing more than the occupant’s yelling Who’s there?’ from his window, and the burglar’s running away.” Post, at 226. But there are many other possible scenarios. An armed would-be burglar may be spotted by a police officer, a private security guard, or a participant in a neighborhood watch program. Or a homeowner angered by the sort of conduct recited in James’ presentence report — throwing a hammer through a window — may give chase, and a violent encounter may ensue. For these reasons and the reasons discussed above, we are convinced that the offense of attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, qualifies under ACCA’s residual clause.
IV
Although the question on which this Court granted certiorari focused on the attempt prong of Florida’s attempted burglary law, James also argues that the scope of the State’s underlying burglary statute itself precludes treating attempted burglary as a violent felony for ACCA purposes. Specifically, he argues that Florida’s burglary statute differs from “generic” burglary as defined in Taylor, supra, at 598, because it defines a “‘[djwelling’” to include not only the structure itself, but also the “curtilage thereof,” Fla. Stat. §810.011(2).
We agree that the inclusion of curtilage takes Florida’s underlying offense of burglary outside the definition of “generic burglary” set forth in Taylor, which requires an unlawful entry into, or remaining in, “a building or other structure” 495 U. S., at 598 (emphasis added). But that conclusion is not dispositive, because the Government does not argue that James’ conviction for attempted burglary constitutes “burglary” under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Rather, it relies on the residual provision of that clause, which — as the Court has recognized — can cover conduct that is outside the strict definition of, but nevertheless similar to, generic burglary. Id., at 600, n. 9.
Is the risk posed by an attempted entry of the curtilage comparable to that posed by the attempted entry of a structure (which, as we concluded above, is sufficient to qualify under the residual provision)? We must again turn to state law in order to answer this question.
The Florida Supreme Court has construed curtilage narrowly, requiring “some form of an enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary statute.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1044 (1995) (holding that a yard surrounded by trees was not “curtilage”); see also United States v. Matthews, 466 F. 3d 1271, 1274 (CA11 2006) (“Florida case law construes curtilage narrowly, to include only an enclosed area surrounding a structure”). Given this narrow definition, we do not believe that the inclusion of curtilage so mitigates the risk presented by attempted burglary as to take the offense outside the scope of clause (ii)’s residual provision.
A typical reason for enclosing the curtilage adjacent to a structure is to keep out unwanted visitors — especially those with criminal motives. And a burglar who illegally attempts to enter the enclosed area surrounding a dwelling creates much the same risk of physical confrontation with a property owner, law enforcement official, or other third party as does one who attempts to enter the structure itself. In light of Florida’s narrow definition of curtilage, attempted burglary of the curtilage requires both physical proximity to the structure and an overt act directed toward breaching the enclosure. Such an attempt “presents a serious potential risk that violence will ensue and someone will be injured.” Id., at 1275 (holding that burglary of the curtilage is a violent felony under ACCA’s residual provision).
V
Finally, James argues that construing attempted burglary as a violent felony raises Sixth Amendment issues under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and its progeny because it is based on “judicial fact finding” about the risk presented by “the acts that underlie ‘most’ convictions for attempted burglary.” Brief for Petitioner 34, 35. This argument is without merit.
In determining whether attempted burglary under Florida law qualifies as a violent felony under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court is engaging in statutory interpretation, not judicial factfinding. Indeed, by applying Taylor’s categorical approach, we have avoided any inquiry into the underlying facts of James’ particular offense, and have looked solely to the elements of attempted burglary as defined by Florida law. Such analysis raises no Sixth Amendment issue.
* * *
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
James’ two other prior convictions — for possession of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine — were determined to be "serious drug offense[s]” under ACCA, see 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), and are not at issue here.
The Jones court distinguished its earlier holding in Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708 (1988). There, the State Supreme Court upheld a conviction under a state statute criminalizing the possession of burglary tools, Fla. Stat. §810.06, where the defendant had been arrested after jumping a fence and trying to run away from police while carrying a screwdriver. Jones held that “the overt act necessary to convict of the burglary tool crime is not the same as the overt act required to prove attempted burglary,” and noted that the conduct charged in Thomas would not be sufficient to prove attempted burglary because the defendant in that case committed no overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a building. 608 So. 2d, at 799.
See United States v. Lane, 909 F. 2d 895, 903 (CA6 1990) (construing Ohio attempted burglary law: “ ‘The fact that an offender enters a building to commit a crime often creates the possibility, of a violent confrontation between the offender and an occupant, caretaker, or some other person who comes to investigate.’... The fact that [the defendant] did not complete the burglary offense does not diminish the serious potential risk of injury to another arising from an attempted burglary”); United States v. Fish, 928 F. 2d 185, 188 (CA6 1991) (Michigan attempted burglary law); United States v. Payne, 966 F. 2d 4, 8 (CA1 1992) (Massachusetts attempted-breaking-and-entering law); United States v. O’Brien, 972 F. 2d 47, 52 (CA3 1992) (Massachusetts attempted-breaking-and-entering law: “[T]he possibility of a violent confrontation with an innocent party is always present when a perpetrator attempts to enter a building illegally, even when the crime is not actually completed”); United States v. Solomon, 998 F. 2d 587, 590 (CA8 1993) (Minnesota attempted burglary law); United States v. Custis, 988 F. 2d 1355, 1364 (CA4 1993) (Maryland attempted-breaking-and-entering law: “In most cases, attempted breaking and entering will be charged when a defendant has been interrupted in the course of illegally entering a home. Interrupting an intruder while breaking into a home involves a risk of confrontation nearly as great as finding him inside the house”); United States v. Thomas, 2 F. 3d 79, 80 (CA4 1993) (New Jersey attempted burglary law); United States v. Andrello, 9 F. 3d 247, 249-250 (CA2 1993) (per curiam) (New York attempted burglary law); United States v. Davis, 16 F. 3d 212, 218 (CA7 1994) (Illinois attempted burglary law); United States v. Bureau, 52 F. 3d 584, 593 (CA6 1995) (Tennessee attempted burglary law: “[T]he propensity for a violent confrontation and the serious potential risk of injury inherent in burglary is not diminished where the burglar is not successful in completing the crime. The potential risk of injury is especially great where the burglar succeeds in entry or near-entry despite not fully completing the crime”); United States v. Demint, 74 F. 3d 876, 878 (CA8 1996) (per curiam) (Florida attempted burglary law); United States v. Collins, 150 F. 3d 668, 671 (CA7 1998) (Wisconsin attempted burglary law: “We have already recognized the inherently dangerous situation and possibility of confrontation that is created when a burglar attempts to illegally enter a building or residence.... Wisconsin’s requirement that a defendant must attempt to enter a building before he can be found guilty of attempted burglary is sufficient to mandate that attempted burglary in Wisconsin constitutes a violent felony”).
In United States v. Strahl, 958
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted in a Virginia state court of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to eight years in prison. The Supreme Court of Virginia denied review and affirmed the conviction by order, and petitioner then sought federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
In that court he contended that the judgment of conviction under which he was held was subject to two constitutional infirmities. His first claim was that the state statute under which he had been convicted violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights insofar as it permitted the jury to base the conviction “solely upon evidence as to the quantity of any controlled drug or drugs unlawfully possessed.” His second claim was that evidence admitted at his trial had been obtained’ as a result of an unlawful search and seizure in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Respondent conceded that petitioner had “exhausted his State court remedies,” App. 11, but nevertheless urged the District Court to dismiss the petition in order to permit the petitioner to present his due process argument to the state courts for reconsideration in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia in Sharp v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 269, 192 S. E. 2d 217 (1972). In Sharp, which was decided after the Virginia Supreme Court had declined to review petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal, but before he had filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, the Virginia Supreme Court held § 54-524.101 (a) to be violative of both the State and Federal Constitutions.
The District Court ruled against petitioner on the merits of his search-and-seizure claim, and agreed with respondent that the challenge to the statute should be resubmitted to the Virginia state courts. It therefore granted summary judgment in favor of respondent without passing on petitioner’s claim that the statute was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the' Fourth Circuit. That court, in an unreported decision, agreed that the state court should have an opportunity to re-examine petitioner’s claim in the light of Sharp, supra, and went on to hold that the District Court had acted prematurely in reaching the independent federal claim of unlawful search and seizure. It said:
“If relief is granted under Sharp, the state will have the option of releasing Francisco or retrying him. In either event the possibility exists that this claim for relief will be mooted.” App. 51.
The court vacated that portion of the District Court’s opinion ruling on the merits of petitioner’s second claim, and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice. We granted certiorari. 415 U. S. 957 (1974).
Petitioner presents two contentions here. He first contends that the District Court and the Court of Appeals were wrong in requiring him to resubmit his constitutional attack on the Virginia statute to the state courts. We agree with petitioner on this point, since we believe that the proper disposition of his claim of statutory invalidity is controlled by Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40 (1967). In Roberts the petitioner was denied a transcript of his preliminary hearing because he was unable to pay the fee required under New York law. When his equal protection challenge to the New York statute was rejected on direct appeal, he sought habeas relief in federal court. After the United States District Court denied the writ, in another case the New York Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional under both the Federal and State Constitutions. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the petition in order to permit Roberts to apply to the state courts for relief under the intervening state court decision. This Court reversed, saying:
“Petitioner has already thoroughly exhausted his state remedies, as the Court of Appeals recognized. Still more state litigation would be both unnecessarily time-consuming and otherwise burdensome. This is not a case in which there is any substantial state interest in ruling once again on petitioner’s case.” Id., at 43.
The only distinction between the present case and Roberts is that here the intervening state court decision came down before petitioner filed his petition for habeas relief in federal court, whereas in Roberts the state decision issued after the habeas petition had been acted upon by the District Court. This distinction does not alter the result as to the exhaustion requirement. In both cases the state courts had a full opportunity to determine the federal constitutional issues before resort was made to a federal forum, and the policies served by the exhaustion requirement would not be furthered by requiring resubmission of the claims to the state courts. Roberts, supra; Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 447-450 (1953); Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971).
The second question presented by petitioner in this Court is “[wjhether a person . . . who claims that [his] custody is, in two independent respects, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, must await federal habeas corpus relief on one ground merely because the other ground should have been presented to the State courts.” Brief for Petitioner 2. Petitioner apparently attributes the refusal of the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits of his second claim to its conclusion that petitioner was required again to submit his first claim to the state courts. Since we have held that petitioner’s claim of statutory invalidity need not be presented again to the state courts before being adjudicated by the federal habeas court, the case in its present posture no longer presents the question framed by petitioner, and we have no occasion to address it.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Petitioner was convicted of violating Va. Code Ann. § 54-524.-101 (a) (1950). At the time he was charged, that statute provided in relevant part:
“Except as authorized by this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally: (1) To distribute, or to possess with intent to distribute, a controlled drug .... A conviction for a violation of this § 54-524.101 (a) may be based solely upon evidence as to the quantity of any controlled drug or drugs unlawfully possessed.”
The statute has since been repealed. Va. Acts 1972, c. 798.
The trial court instructed the jury:
“The Court instructs the jury that a conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute may be based solely upon the evidence as to the quantity of the controlled drug unlawfully possessed.” App. 19.
The habeas petition, accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, was actually received by the United States District Court on October 5, 1972, four days before Sharp was decided. On October 26 petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. Upon receipt of the filing fee on. October 31, the clerk of the United States District Court filed the habeas petition.
The Supreme Court of Virginia found the statute unconstitutionally vague because “a person of ordinary intelligence in possession of a quantity of marijuana could not with reasonable certainty know whether he was guilty of the misdemeanor of mere possession or the felony of possession with intent to distribute.” 213 Va., at 271, 192 S. E. 2d, at 218. The court also concluded that the “statutory inference or presumption of possession with intent to distribute did not have sufficient rational connection with the fact of possession of a quantity of a controlled drug.” Ibid. The Virginia court cited federal and state decisions to support its holding, and at oral argument the parties agreed that Sharp rests on both state and federal constitutional grounds. We, of course, express no view on the correctness of this holding insofar as it rests on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since petitioner had presented the issue once to the state courts, the District Court granted him leave to reinstitute the petition in federal court unless the State granted him a hearing within 45 days. The State sought to initiate state habeas proceedings the following day, but petitioner refused to file a habeas petition in state court and indicated that he would not cooperate with state authorities.
We are not presented with a case “in which an intervening change in federal law cast the legal issue in a fundamentally different light.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 276 (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:
|
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.
An alien arriving in the United States must be inspected by an immigration official, 66 Stat. 198, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1225(a)(3), and, unless he is found “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” must generally undergo removal proceedings to determine admissibility, § 1225(b) (2)(A). Meanwhile the alien may be detained, subject to the Secretary’s discretionary authority to parole him into the country. See § 1182(d)(5); 8 CFR § 212.5 (2004). If, at the conclusion of removal proceedings, the alien is determined to be inadmissible and ordered removed, the law provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security “shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days,” 8 U. S. C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). These cases concern the Secretary’s authority to continue to detain an inadmissible alien subject to a removal order after the 90-day removal period has elapsed.
I
Sergio Suarez Martinez, (respondent in No. 03-878) and Daniel Benitez (petitioner in No. 03-7434) arrived in the United States from Cuba in June 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift, see Palma v. Verdeyen, 676 F. 2d 100, 101 (CA4 1982) (describing circumstances of Mariel boatlift), and were paroled into the country pursuant to the Attorney General’s authority under 8 U. S. C. § 1182(d)(5). See Pet. for Cert, in No. 03-878, p. 7; Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F. 3d 1289, 1290 (CA11 2003). Until 1996, federal law permitted Cubans who were paroled into the United States to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident after one year. See Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, 80 Stat. 1161, as amended, notes following 8 U. S. C. § 1255. Neither Martinez nor Benitez qualified for this adjustment, however, because, by the time they applied, both men had become inadmissible because of prior criminal convictions in the United States. When Martinez sought adjustment in 1991, he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Rhode Island and burglary in California, Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7; when Benitez sought adjustment in 1985, he had been convicted of grand theft in Florida, 337 F. 3d, at 1290. Both men were convicted of additional felonies after their adjustment applications were denied: Martinez of petty theft with a prior conviction (1996), assault with a deadly weapon (1998), and attempted oral copulation by force (1999), see Pet. for Cert, in No. 03-878, at 7-8; Benitez of two counts of armed robbery, armed burglary of a conveyance, armed burglary of a structure, aggravated battery, carrying a concealed firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and unlawful possession, sale, or delivery of a firearm with an altered serial number (1993), see 337 F. 3d, at 1290-1291.
The Attorney General revoked Martinez’s parole in December 2000. Martinez was taken into custody by the INS, and removal proceedings were commenced against him. Pet. for Cert, in No. 03-878, at 8. An Immigration Judge found him inadmissible by reason of his prior convictions, § 1182(a)(2)(B), and lack of sufficient documentation, § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and ordered him removed to Cuba. Martinez did not appeal. Pet. for Cert, in No. 03-878, at 8. The INS continued to detain him after expiration of the 90-day removal period, and he remained in custody until he was released pursuant to the District Court order that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals’ decision on review here. Id., at 9.
Benitez’s parole was revoked in 1993 (shortly after he was imprisoned for his convictions of that year), and the INS immediately initiated removal proceedings against him. In December 1994, an Immigration Judge determined Beni-tez to be excludable and ordered him deported under §§ 1182(a)(2)(B) and 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (1994 ed. and Supp. V). 337 F. 3d, at 1291. Benitez did not seek further review. At the completion of his state prison term, the INS took him into custody for removal, and he continued in custody after expiration of the 90-day removal period. Ibid. In September 2003, Benitez received notification that he was eligible for parole, contingent on his completion of a drug-abuse treatment program. Letter from Paul D. Clement, Acting Solicitor General, to William K. Suter, Clerk of Court, 1 (Nov. 3, 2004). Benitez completed the program while his case was pending before this Court, and shortly after completion was paroled for a period ,of one year. Ibid. On October 15, 2004, two days after argument in this Court, Benitez was released from custody to sponsoring family members. Id., at 2.
Both aliens filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2241 to challenge their detention beyond the 90-day removal period. In Martinez’s case, the District Court for the District of Oregon accepted that removal was not reasonably foreseeable, and ordered the INS to release Martinez under conditions that the INS believed appropriate. Martinez v. Smith, No. CV 02-972-PA (Oct. 30, 2002), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, p. 2a. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed, citing its decision in Xi v. INS, 298 F. 3d 832 (2002). Martinez v. Ashcroft, No. 03-35053 (Aug. 18, 2003), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at la. In Benitez’s case, the District Court for the Northern District of Florida also concluded that removal would not occur in the “foreseeable future,” but nonetheless denied the petition. Benitez v. Wallis, Case No. 5:02cv19 MMP (July 11, 2002), pp. 2, 4, App. in No. 03-7434, pp. 45, 48. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the dissent in Xi. 337 F. 3d 1289 (2003). We granted certiorari in both cases. Benitez v. Mata, 540 U. S. 1147 (2004); Crawford v. Martinez, 540 U. S. 1217 (2004).
II
Title 8 U. S. C. § 1231(a)(6) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, removable under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(4) of this title or who has beén determined by the [Secretary] to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal, may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in paragraph (3).”
By its terms, this provision applies to three categories of aliens: (1) those ordered removed who are inadmissible under § 1182, (2) those ordered removed who are removable under § 1227(a)(1)(C), § 1227(a)(2), or § 1227(a)(4), and (3) those'ordered removed whom the Secretary determines to be either a risk to the community or a flight risk. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678 (2001), the Court interpreted this provision to authorize the Attorney General (now the Secretary) to detain aliens in the second category only as long as “reasonably necessary” to remove them from the country. Id., at 689, 699. . The statute’s use of “may,” the Court said, “suggests discretion,” but “not necessarily . . . unlimited discretion. In that respect the word 'may’ is ambiguous.” Id., at 697. In light of that perceived ambiguity and the “serious constitutional threat” the Court believed to be posed by indefinite detention of aliens who had been admitted to the country, id., at 699, the Court interpreted the statute to permit only detention that is related to the statute’s “basic purpose [of] effectuating an alien’s removal,” id., at 696-699. “[O]nce removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized.” Id., at 699. The Court further held that the presumptive period during which the detention of an alien is reasonably necessary to effectuate his removal is six months; after that, the alien is eligible for conditional release if he can demonstrate that there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id., at 701.
The question presented by these cases, and the question that evoked contradictory answers from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, is whether this construction of § 1231(a)(6) that we applied to the second category of aliens covered by the statute applies as well to the first — that is, to the category of aliens “ordered removed who [are] inadmissible under [§]1182.” We think the answer must be yes. The operative language of § 1231(a)(6), “may be detained beyond the removal period,” applies without differentiation to all three categories of aliens that are its subject. To give these same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one. As the Court in Zadvydas recognized, the statute can be construed “literally” to authorize indefinite detention, id., at 689, or (as the Court ultimately held) it can be read to “suggest [less than] unlimited discretion” to detain, id., at 697. It cannot, however, be interpreted to do both at the same time.
The dissent’s belief that Zadvydas compels this result rests primarily on that case’s statement that “[a]liens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question,” id., at 682. See post, at 390, 393 (opinion of Thomas, J.). This mistakes the reservation of a question with its answer. Neither the opinion of the Court nor the dissent in Zadvydas so much as hints that the Court adopted the novel interpretation of § 1231(a)(6) proposed by today’s dissent. The opinion in that case considered whether § 1231(a)(6) permitted the Government to detain removable aliens indefinitely; relying on ambiguities in the statutory text and the canon that statutes should be interpreted to avoid constitutional doubts, the opinion held that it did not. Despite the dissent’s repeated claims that § 1231(a)(6) could not be given a different reading for inadmissible aliens, see Zadvydas, supra, at 710, 716-717 (opinion of Kennedy, J.), the Court refused to decide that question— the question we answer today. It is indeed different from the question decided in Zadvydas, but because the statutory text provides for no distinction between admitted and nonad-mitted aliens, we find that it results in the same answer.
The dissent’s contention that our reading of Zadvydas is “implausible,” post, at 389, is hard to reconcile with the fact that it is the identical reading espoused by the Zadvydas dissenters, who included the author of today’s dissent. Worse still, what the Zadvydas dissent did find “not . . . plausible” was precisely the reading adopted by today’s dissent:
“[T]he majority’s logic might be that inadmissible and removable aliens can be treated differently. Yet it is not a plausible construction of § 1231(a)(6) to imply a time limit as to one class but not to another. The text does not admit of this possibility. As a result, it is difficult to see why ‘[a]liens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question.’” 533 U. S., at 710-711 (opinion of Kennedy, J.).
The Zadvydas dissent later concluded that the release of “Mariel Cubans and other illegal, inadmissible aliens . . . would seem a necessary consequence of the majority’s construction of the statute.” Id., at 717 (emphasis added). Tellingly, the Zadvydas majority did not negate either charge.
The Government, joined by the dissent, argues that the statutory purpose and the constitutional concerns that influenced our statutory construction in Zadvydas are not present for aliens, such as Martinez and Benitez, who have not been ¿dmitted to the United States. Be that as it may, it cannot justify giving the same detention provision a different meaning when such aliens are involved. It is not at all unusual to give a statute’s ambiguous language a limiting construction called for by one of the statute’s applications, even though other of the statute’s applications, standing alone, would not support the same limitation. The lowest common denominator, as it were, must govern. See, e. g., Leocal v. Ashcroft, ante, at 11-12, n. 8 (explaining that, if a statute has criminal applications, “the rule of lenity applies" to the Court’s interpretation of the statute even in immigration cases “[bjecause we must interpret the statute consistently, whether we encounter its application in a criminal or noncriminal context”); United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U. S. 505, 517-518, and n. 10 (1992) (plurality opinion) (employing the rule of lenity to interpret “a tax statute ... in a civil setting” because the statute “has criminal applications”); id., at 519 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (also invoking the rule of lenity). In other words, when deciding which of two plausible statutory constructions to adopt, a court must consider the necessary consequences of its choice. If one of them would raise a multitude of constitutional problems, the other should prevail — whether or not those constitutional problems pertain to the particular litigant before the Court.
The dissent takes issue with this maxim of statutory construction on the ground that it allows litigants to “attack, statutes as constitutionally invalid based on constitutional doubts concerning other litigants or factual circumstances” and thereby to effect an “end run around black-letter constitutional doctrine governing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges.” Post, at 396. This accusation misconceives — and fundamentally so — the role played by the canon of constitutional avoidance in statutory interpretation. The canon is not a method of adjudicating constitutional questions by other means. See, e. g., NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490, 502 (1979) (refusing to engage in extended analysis in the process of applying the avoidance canon “as we would were we considering the constitutional issue”); see also Vermeule, Saving Constructions, 85 Geo. L. J. 1945, 1960-1961 (1997) (providing examples of cases where the Court construed a statute narrowly to avoid a constitutional question ultimately resolved in favor of the broader reading). Indeed, one of the canon’s chief justifications is that it allows courts to avoid the decision of constitutional questions. It is a tool for choosing between competing plausible interpretations of a statutory text, resting on the reasonable presumption that Congress did not intend the alternative which raises serious constitutional doubts. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 191 (1991); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988). The canon is thus a means of giving effect to congressional intent, not of subverting it. And when a litigant invokes the canon of avoidance, he is not attempting to vindicate the constitutional rights of others, as the dissent believes; he seeks to vindicate his own statutory rights. We find little to recommend the novel interpretive approach advocated by the dissent, which would render every statute a chameleon, its meaning subject to change depending on the presence or absence of constitutional concerns in each individual case. Cf. Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545, 556 (2002) (rejecting “a dynamic view of statutory interpretation, under which the text might mean one thing when enacted yet another if the prevailing view of the Constitution later changed”).
In support of its contention that we can give § 1231(a)(6) a different meaning when it is applied to nonadmitted aliens, the Government relies most prominently upon our decision in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22 (1932). Brief for Petitioners in No. 03-878, p. 29; Brief for Respondent in No. 03-7434, p. 29. That case involved a statutory provision that gave the Deputy Commissioner of the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission “Tull power and authority to hear and determine all questions in respect of’ ” claims under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 285 U. S., at 62. The question presented was whether this provision precluded review of the Deputy Commissioner’s determination that the claimant was an employee, and hence covered by the Act. The Court held that, although the statute could be read to bar judicial review altogether, it was also susceptible of a narrower reading that permitted judicial review of the fact of employment, which was an “essential condition precedent to the right to make the claim.” Ibid. The Court adopted the latter construction in order to avoid serious constitutional questions that it believed would be raised by total preclusion of judicial review. Ibid. This holding does not produce a statute that bears two different meanings, depending on the presence or absence of a constitutional question. Always, and as applied to all claimants, it permits judicial review of the employment finding. What corresponds to Crowell v. Benson’s holding that the fact of employment is judicially reviewable is Zadvydas’s holding that detention cannot be continued once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable — and like the one, the other applies in all cases.
The dissent, on the other hand, relies on our recent cases interpreting 28 U. S. C. § 1367(d). Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U. S. 533 (2002), held that this provision does not include, in its tolling of limitations periods, claims against States that have not waived their immunity from suit in federal court because the statutory language fails to make “ ‘ “unmistakably clear,” ’ ” as it must in provisions subjecting States to suit, that such States were covered. Id., at 543-546. A subsequent decision, Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456 (2003), held that the tolling provision does apply to claims against political subdivisions of States, since the requirement of the unmistakably clear statement did not apply to those entities. Id., at 466. This progression of decisions does not remotely establish that § 1367(d) has two different meanings, equivalent to the unlimited-detention/ limited-detention meanings of § 1231(a)(6) urged upon us here. They hold that the single and unchanging disposition of § 1367(d) (the tolling of limitations periods) does not apply to claims against States that have not consented to be sued in federal court.
We also reject the Government’s argument that, under Zadvydas, § 1231(a)(6) “authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 03-878, at 27-28; Brief for Respondent in No. 03-7434, at 27-28. The Government provides no citation to support that description of the case — and none exists. Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits; it held that, since interpreting the statute to authorize indefinite detention (one plausible reading) would approach constitutional limits, the statute should be read (in line with the other plausible reading) to authorize detention only for a period consistent with the purpose of effectuating removal. 533 U. S., at 697-699. If we were, as the Government seems to believe, free to “interpret” statutes as becoming inoperative when they “approach constitutional limits,” we would be able to spare ourselves the necessity of ever finding a statute unconstitutional as applied. And the doctrine that statutes should be construed to contain substantive dispositions that do not raise constitutional difficulty would be a thing of the past; no need for such caution, since — whatever the substantive dispositions are— they become inoperative when constitutional limits are “approached.” That is not the legal world we live in. The canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction; and the canon functions as a means of choosing between them. See, e. g., Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 237-238 (1998); United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909). In Zadvydas, it was the statute’s text read in light of its purpose, not some implicit statutory command to avoid approaching constitutional limits, which produced the rule that the Secretary may detain aliens only for the period reasonably necessary to bring about their removal. See 533 U. S., at 697-699.
In passing in its briefs, but more intensively at oral argument, the Government sought to justify its continued detention of these aliens on the authority of § 1182(d)(5)(A). Even assuming that an alien who is subject to a final order of removal is an “alien applying for admission” and therefore eligible for parole under this provision, we find nothing in this text that affirmatively authorizes detention, much less indefinite detention. To the contrary, it provides that, when parole is revoked, “the alien shall ... be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission.” Ibid, (emphasis added). The manner in which the case of any other applicant would be “dealt with” beyond the 90-day removal period is prescribed by § 1231(a)(6), which we interpreted in Zadvydas and have interpreted above.
* * *
The Government fears that the security of our borders will be compromised if it must release into the country inadmissible aliens who cannot be removed. If that is so, Congress can attend to it. But for this Court to sanction indefinite detention in the face of Zadvydas would establish within our jurisprudence, beyond the power of Congress to remedy, the dangerous principle that judges can give the same statutory text different meanings in different cases.
Since the Government has suggested no reason why the period of time reasonably necessary to effect removal is longer for an inadmissible alien, the 6-month presumptive detention period we prescribed in Zadvydas applies. See 533 U. S., at 699-701. Both Martinez and Benitez were detained well beyond six months after their removal orders became final. The Government having brought forward nothing to indicate that a substantial likelihood of removal subsists despite the passage of six months (indeed, it concedes that it is no longer even involved in repatriation negotiations with Cuba); and the District Court in each case having determined that removal to Cuba is not reasonably foreseeable; the petitions for habeas corpus should have been granted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, and remand both cases for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The authorities described herein as having been exercised by the Attorney General and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) now reside in the Secretary of Homeland Security (hereinafter Secretary) and divisions of his Department (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services). See Homeland Security Act of 2002, §§ 441(2), 442(a)(3), 451(b), 116 Stat. 2192, 2193, 2196, 6 U. S. C. §§ 251(2), 252(a)(3), 271(b) (2000 ed., Supp. II).
Before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009-546, aliens ineligible to enter the country were denominated “excludable” and ordered “deported.” 8 U. S. C. §§ 1182(a), 1251(a)(1)(A) (1994 ed.); see Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21, 25-26 (1982).. Post-IIRIRA, such aliens are said to be “inadmissible” and held to be “removable.” 8 U. S. C. §§ 1182(a), 1229a(e)(2) (2000 ed.).
Despite Benitez’s release on a 1-year parole, this case continues to present a live case or controversy. If Benitez is correct, as his suit contends, that the Government lacks the authority to continue to detain him, he would have to be released, and could not be taken back into custody unless he violated the conditions of release (in which case detention would be authorized by § 1253), or his detention became necessary to effectuate his removal (in which case detention would once again be authorized by § 1231(a)(6)). His current release, however, is not only limited to one year, but subject to the Secretary’s discretionary authority to terminate. See 8 CFR § 212.12(h) (2004) (preserving discretion to revoke parole). Thus, Benitez “continuéis] to have a personal stake in the.outcome” of his petition. Lewis v. Continental Bank. Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477-478 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The dissent is quite wrong in saying, post, at 390, that the Zadvydas Court’s belief that § 1231(a)(6) did not apply to all aliens is evidenced by its statement that it did not “consider terrorism or other special circumstances where special arguments might be made for forms of preventive detention,” 533 U. S., at 696. The Court’s interpretation of § 1231(a)(6) did not affect the detention of alien terrorists for the simple reason that sustained detention of alien terrorists is a “special arrangement” authorized by a different statutory provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1537(b)(2)(C). See Zadvydas, supra, at 697.
Contrary to the dissent’s contentions, post, at 394, our decision in Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52 (1997), is perfectly consistent with this principle of construction. In Salinas, the Court rejected the petitioner’s invocation of the avoidance canon because the text of the statute was “unambiguous on the point under consideration.” Id., at 60. For this reason, the Court squarely addressed and rejected any argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner. Id., at 61 (holding that, under the construction adopted by the Court, “the statute is constitutional as applied in this case”).
The dissent concedes this is so but argues, post, at 393-394, that, because the Court reached this conclusion “only after analyzing whether the constitutional doubts at issue in Raygor applied to the county defendant” in Jinks, post, at 394, we must engage in the same quasi-constitutional analysis here before applying the construction adopted in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678 (2001), to the aliens in these cases. This overlooks a critical distinction between the question before the Court in Jinks and the one before us today. In Jinks, the county could not claim the aid of Raygor itself because Raygor held only that § 1367(d) did not include suits against nonconsenting States; instead, the county argued by analogy to Raygor that, absent a clear statement of congressional intent, § 1367(d) should be construed not to include suits against political subdivisions of States. And thus the Court in Jinks considered not whether Raygor’s interpretation of § 1367(d) was directly controlling but whether the constitutional concerns that justified the requirement of a clear statement in Raygor applied as well in the case of counties. In the present cases, by contrast, the aliens ask simply that the interpretation of § 1231(a)(6) announced in Zadvydas be applied to them. This question does not compel us to compare analogous constitutional doubts; it simply requires that we determine whether the statute construed by Zadvydas permits any distinction to be drawn between aliens who have been admitted and aliens who have not.
Section 1182(d)(5)(A) reads as follows:
“The [Secretary] may ... in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the [Secretary], have been ■ served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.”
That Congress has the capacity to do so is demonstrated by its reaction to our decision in Zadvydas. Less than four months after the release of our opinion, Congress enacted a statute which expressly authorized continued detention, for a period of six months beyond the removal period (and renewable indefinitely), of any alien (1) whose removal is not reasonably foreseeable and (2) who presents a national security threat or has been involved in terrorist activities. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), § 412(a), 115 Stat. 350 (enacted Oct. 26, 2001) (codified at 8 U. S. C. § 1226a(a)(6) (2000 ed., Supp. II)).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 449 F. 2d 871 (1971), affirming the District Court’s dismissal of petitioners’ complaint challenging the constitutionality of New York Education Law § 701 et seq. (1971). 405 U. S. 916 (1972). However, respondents’ brief states that “[o]n May 3, 1972, the qualified voters of the respondent school district elected by majority vote to assess a tax for the purchase of all textbooks for grades one through six in the schools of the district.” In light of this fact, and given the suggestion at oral argument that the books themselves have a life expectancy of five years, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to determine whether this case has become moot.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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:
We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. Mr. Justice Frankfurter would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. See his dissent in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker dissent for the reasons given in Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 559.
Robert Lee Guthrie argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was David C. McCord. Luther Hudson argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Preston Shirley.
Mr. Justice Burton dissents.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether postal employees are within the “zone of interests” of the group of statutes known as the Private Express Statutes (PES), so that they may challenge the action of the United States Postal Service in suspending the operation of the PES with respect to a practice of private courier services called “international remailing.” We hold that they are not.
Since its establishment, the United States Postal Service has exercised a monopoly over the carriage of letters in and from the United States. The postal monopoly is codified in the PES, 18 U. S. C. §§1693-1699 and 39 U. S. C. §§601-606. The monopoly was created by Congress as a revenue protection measure for the Postal Service to enable it to fulfill its mission. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 485 U. S. 589, 598 (1988). It prevents private competitors from offering service on low-cost routes at prices below those of the Postal Service, while leaving the Service with high-cost routes and insufficient means to fulfill its mandate of providing uniform rates and service to patrons in all areas, including those that are remote or less populated. See J. Haldi, Postal Monopoly: An Assessment of the Private Express Statutes 9 (1974); Craig & Alvis, The Postal Monopoly: Two Hundred Years of Covering Commercial as Well as Personal Messages, 12 U. S. F. L. Rev. 57, 60, and n. 8 (1977).
A provision of the PES allows the Postal Service to “suspend [the PES restrictions] upon any mail route where the public interest requires the suspension.” 39 U. S. C. § 601(b). In 1979, the Postal Service suspended the PES restrictions for “extremely urgent letters,” thereby allowing overnight delivery of letters by private courier services. 39 CFR § 320.6 (1990); 44 Fed. Reg. 61178 (1979). Private courier services, including members of petitioner-intervenor Air Courier Conference of America, relied on that suspension to engage in a practice called “international remailing.” This entails bypassing the Postal Service and using private courier systems to deposit with foreign postal systems letters destined for foreign addresses. Believing this international remailing was a misuse of the urgent-letter suspension, the Postal Service issued a proposed modification and clarification of its regulation in order to make clear that the suspension for extremely urgent letters did not cover this practice. 50 Fed. Reg. 41462 (1985). The comments received in response to the proposed rule were overwhelmingly negative and focused on the perceived benefits of international remailing: Lower cost, faster delivery, greater reliability, and enhanced ability of United States companies to remain competitive in the international market. Because of the vigorous opposition to the proposed rule, the Postal Service agreed to reconsider its position and instituted a rulemaking “to remove the cloud” over the validity of the international remailing services. 51 Fed. Reg. 9852, 9853 (1986). After receiving additional comments and holding a public meeting on the subject, on June 17, 1986, the Postal Service issued a proposal to suspend operation of the PES for international remailing. Id., at 21929-21932. Additional comments were received, and after consideration of the record it had compiled, the Postal Service issued a final rule suspending the operation of the PES with respect to international remailing. Id., at 29637.
Respondents, the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (Unions), sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the international remailing regulation pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702. They claimed that the rulemaking record was inadequate to support a finding that the suspension of the PES for international remailing was in the public interest. Petitioner Air Courier Conference of America (ACCA) intervened. On December 20, 1988, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service and ACCA. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service, 701 F. Supp. 880 (1988). The Unions appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and that court vacated the grant of summary judgment. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service, 282 U. S. App. D. C. 5, 891 F. 2d 304 (1989). It held that the Unions satisfied the zone-of-interests requirement for APA review under Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388 (1987), and that the Postal Service’s regulation was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on too narrow an interpretation of “the public interest.” In determining that the Unions’ interest in employment opportunities was protected by the PES, the Court of Appeals noted that the PES were reenacted as part of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA), Pub. L. 91-375, 84 Stat. 719, codified at 39 U. S. C. § 101 et seq. The Court of Appeals found that a “key impetus” and “principal purpose” of the PRA was “to implement various labor reforms that would improve pay, working conditions and labor-management relations for postal employees.” 282 U. S. App. D. C., at 10-11, 891 F. 2d, at 309-310. Reasoning that “[t]he Unions’ asserted interest is embraced directly by the labor reform provisions of the PRA,” id., at 11, 891 F. 2d, at 310, and that “[t]he PES constitute the linchpin in a statutory scheme concerned with maintaining an effective, financially viable Postal Service,” ibid., the court concluded that “[t]he interplay between the PES and the entire PRA persuades us that there is an ‘arguable’ or ‘plausible’ relationship between the purposes of the PES and the interests of the Union[s].” Ibid. The Court of Appeals also held that “the revenue protective purposes of the PES, standing alone, plausibly relate to the Unions’ interest in preventing the reduction of employment opportunities,” since “postal workers benefit from the PES’s function in ensuring a sufficient revenue base” for the Postal Service’s activities. Ibid.
Addressing the merits of the Unions’ challenge to the suspension order, the Court of Appeals held that it was arbitrary and capricious because the Postal Service had applied §601(b)’s public interest test too narrowly by considering only the benefits of the international remail rule to the small segment of the Postal Service’s consumer base that engages in international commerce. We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 904 (1990), and we now reverse.
The United States Postal Service, nominally a respondent, argues along with ACCA that the Unions do not have standing to challenge the Postal Service’s suspension of the PES for international remailing. The Postal Service argues now that Congress precluded judicial review of Postal Service action under the APA by enacting 39 U. S. C. § 410(a), which the Postal Service contends provides that Chapters 5 and 7 of Title 5 do not apply to the Postal Service. Chapters 5 and 7 of Title 5 are the provisions of the APA dealing with “Administrative Procedure” (Chapter 5) and “Judicial Review” (Chapter 7).
The Postal Service raised this argument for the first time in its brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. It was not argued to either of the lower courts, and was not considered by either court below in deciding this case. This issue was not raised by ACCA in its petition for writ of certiorari, nor is it encompassed by the questions presented upon which we based our grant of certiorari. Consequently, we decline to decide whether § 410(a) exempts the Postal Service from judicial review under the APA.
To establish standing to sue under the APA, respondents must establish that they have suffered a legal wrong because of the challenged agency action, or are adversely affected or “aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5U. S. C. §702. Once they have shown that they are adversely affected, i. e., have suffered an “injury in fact,” see Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984), the Unions must show that they are within the zone of interests sought to be protected through the PES. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871 (1990); Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388 (1987); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). Specifically, “the plaintiff must establish that the injury he complains of (his aggrievement, or the adverse effect upon him) falls within the ‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint.” Lujan, supra, at 883 (citing Clarke, supra, at 396-397).
The District Court found that the Unions had satisfied the injury-in-fact test because increased competition through international remailing services might have an adverse effect on employment opportunities of postal workers. This finding of injury in fact was not appealed. The question before us, then, is whether the adverse effect on the employment opportunities of postal workers resulting from the suspension is within the zone of interests encompassed by the PES — the statutes which the Unions assert the Postal Service has violated in promulgating the international remailing rule.
The Court of Appeals found that the Unions had standing because “the revenue protective purposes of the PES, standing alone, plausibly relate to the Unions’ interest in preventing the reduction of employment opportunities.” 282 U. S. App. D. C., at 11, 891 F. 2d, at 310. This view is mistaken, for it conflates the zone-of-interests test with injury in fact. In Lujan, this Court gave the following example illustrating how injury in fact does not necessarily mean one is within the zone of interests to be protected by a given statute:
“[T]he failure of an agency to comply with a statutory provision requiring ‘on the record’ hearings would assuredly have an adverse effect upon the company that has the contract to record and transcribe the agency’s proceedings; but since the provision was obviously enacted to protect the interests of the parties to the proceedings and not those of the reporters, that company would not be ‘adversely affected within the meaning’ of the statute.” 497 U. S., at 883.
We must inquire, then, as to Congress’ intent in enacting the PES in order to determine whether postal workers were meant to be within the zone of interests protected by those statutes. The particular language of the statutes provides no support for respondents’ assertion that Congress intended to protect jobs with the Postal Service. In fact, the provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 1696(c), allowing private conveyance of letters if done on a one-time basis or without compensation, and 39 U. S. C. § 601(a), allowing letters to be carried out of the mails if certain procedures are followed, indicate that the congressional concern was not with opportunities for postal workers but with the receipt of necessary revenues for the Postal Service.
Nor does the history of this legislation — such as it is — indicate that the PES were intended for the benefit of postal workers. When the first statutes limiting private carriage of letters on post roads were enacted in 1792, the Post Office offered no pickup or delivery services. See C. Scheele, A Short History of the Mail Service 66, 91 (1970). Statutory authority to employ letter carriers was not enacted until two years later and was largely ignored until the late 1820’s. Id., at 66. The 1792 restrictions on private carriage protected the Government’s capital investment in the post roads, not the jobs of as yet virtually nonexistent postal employees. In 1825 and 1827, Acts were passed prohibiting the private carriage of letters through the use of stages or other vehicles, packet boats, or other vessels, § 19, ch. 64 of Act of March 3, 1825, 4 Stat. 107, and foot and horse posts, § 3, ch. 61 of Act of March 2, 1827, 4 Stat. 238. Postal employees cannot have been within the zone of interests of either the 1824 or 1827 Acts; those Acts targeted transportation of mail which even then was contracted out to private carriers. See W. Fuller, The American Mail: Enlarger of the Common Life 150 (1972).
Congress’ consideration of the 1845 Act was the only occasion on which the postal monopoly was the subject of substantial debate. The 1845 statute, entitled “An Act to reduce the rates of postage, to limit the use and correct the abuse of the franking privilege, and for the prevention of frauds on the revenues of the Post Office Department,” 5 Stat. 732, was the result of three circumstances, none of which involved the interests of postal employees. First, the Post Office Department continued to run substantial deficits in spite of high postage rates. H. R. Rep. No. 477, 28th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3, 5 (1844). Second, high postal rates enabled private expresses to make substantial inroads into the domestic market for delivery of letters and the 1825 and 1827 Acts proved unsuccessful in prosecuting them. Priest, The History of the Postal Monopoly in the United States, 18 J. Law & Econ. 33, 60 (1975) (citing United States v. Gray, 26 F. Cas. 18 (No. 15,253) (Mass. 1840), and United States v. Adams, 24 F. Cas. 761 (No. 14,421) (SDNY 1843)). Third, inauguration of the “penny post” in England quadrupled use of the mails, and it was thought that a substantial reduction in American postal rates would have the dual virtues of driving private expresses out of business and increasing mail volume of the Post Office. This, in turn, would help reduce the Post Office’s deficit. Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d Sess., 213 (1845) (remarks of Sens. Simmons and Breese). See also H. R. Rep. No. 477, supra, at 5.
The legislative history of the sections of the Act limiting private carriage of letters shows a two-fold purpose. First, the Postmaster General and the States most distant from the commercial centers of the Northeast believed that the postal monopoly was necessary to prevent users of faster private expresses from taking advantage of early market intelligence and news of international affairs that had not yet reached the general populace through the slower mails. S. Doc. No. 66, 28th Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1845). Second, it was thought to be the duty of the Government to serve outlying, frontier areas, even if it meant doing so below cost. H. R. Rep. No. 477, supra, at 2-3. Thus, the revenue protection provisions were not seen as an end in themselves, nor in any sense as a means of ensuring certain levels of public employment, but rather were seen as the means to achieve national integration and to ensure that all areas of the Nation were equally served by the Postal Service.
The PES enable the Postal Service to fulfill its responsibility to provide service to all communities at a unifprm rate by preventing private courier services from competing selectively with the Postal Service on its most profitable routes. If competitors could serve the lower cost segment of the market, leaving the Postal Service to handle the high-cost services, the Service would lose lucrative portions of its business, thereby increasing its average unit cost and requiring higher prices to all users. See Report of the President’s Commission on Postal Organization, Towards Postal Excellence, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 129 (Comm. Print 1968). The postal monopoly, therefore, exists to ensure that postal services will be provided to the citizenry at large, and not to secure employment for postal workers.
The Unions’ claim on the merits is that the Postal Service has failed to comply with the mandate of 39 U. S. C. § 601(b) that the PES be suspended only if the public interest requires. The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that the PES were not designed to protect postal employment or further postal job opportunities, but the Unions argue that the courts should look beyond the PES to the entire 1970 PR A in applying the zone-of-interests test. The Unions argue that because one of the purposes of the labor-management provisions of the PRA was to stablize labor-management relations within the Postal Service, and because the PES is the “linchpin” of the Postal Service, employment opportunities of postal workers are arguably within the zone of interests covered by the PES. The Unions rely upon our opinion in Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388 (1987), to support this contention.
Clarke is the most recent in a series of cases in which we have held that competitors of regulated entities have standing to challenge regulations. Clarke, supra; Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 (1971); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). In Clarke, we said that “we are not limited to considering the statute under which respondents sued, but may consider any provision that helps us to understand Congress’ overall purposes in the National Bank Act.” 479 U. S., at 401. This statement, like all others in our opinions, must be taken in the context in which it was made. In the next paragraph of the opinion, the Court pointed out that 12 U. S. C. §36, which the plaintiffs in that case claimed had been misinterpreted by the Comptroller, was itself “a limited exception to the otherwise applicable requirement of [12 U. S. C.] §81,” limiting the places at which a national bank could transact business to its headquarters and any “branches” permitted by §36. Thus the zone-of-interests test was to be applied not merely in the light of § 36, which was the basis of the plaintiffs’ claim on the merits, but also in the light of § 81, to which § 36 was an exception.
The situation in the present case is quite different. The only relationship between the PES, upon which the Unions rely for their claim on the merits, and the labor-management provisions of the PRA, upon which the Unions rely for their standing, is that both were included in the general codification of postal statutes embraced in the PRA. The statutory provisions enacted and reenacted in the PRA are spread over some 65 pages in the United States Code and take up an entire title of that volume. We said in Lujan that “the relevant statute [under the APA] of course, is the statute whose violation is the gravamen of the complaint.” 497 U. S., at 886. To adopt the unions’ contention would require us to hold that the “relevant statute” in this case is the PRA, with all of its various provisions united only by the fact that they deal with the Postal Service. But to accept this level of generality in defining the “relevant statute” could deprive the zone-of-interests test of virtually all meaning.
Unlike the two sections of the National Bank Act discussed in Clarke, supra, none of the provisions of the PES have any integral relationship with the labor-management provisions of the PRA. When it enacted the PRA, Congress made no substantive changes to those portions of the PES codified in the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1693-1699; Congress readopted without change those portions of the PES codified in the Postal Service Code, 39 U. S. C. §§601-606; and Congress required the Postal Service to conduct a 2-year study and reevaluation of the PES before deciding whether those laws should be modified or repealed. PRA, Pub. L. 91-375, §7, 84 Stat. 783; S. Rep. No. 91-912, p. 22 (1970); H. R. Rep. No. 91-1104, p. 48 (1970).
None of the documents constituting the PRA legislative history suggest that those concerned with postal reforms saw any connection between the PES and the provisions of the PRA dealing with labor-management relations. The Senate and House Reports simply note that the proposed bills continue existing law without change and require the Postal Service to conduct a study of the PES. The Court of Appeals referred to the PES as the “linchpin” of the Postal Service, which it may well be; but it stretches the zone-of-interests test too far to say that because of that fact those who a different part of the PRA was designed to benefit may challenge a violation of the PES.
It would be a substantial extension of our holdings in Clarke, supra, Data Processing, supra, and Investment Co. Institute, supra, to allow the Unions in this case to leapfrog from their asserted protection under the labor-management provisions of the PRA to their claim on the merits under the PES. We decline to make that extension, and hold that the Unions do not have standing to challenge the Postal Service’s suspension of the PES to permit private couriers to engage in international remailing. We therefore do not reach the merits of the Unions’ claim that the suspension was not in the public interest. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Title 39 U. S. C. § 410 provides in pertinent part:
“[N]o Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.”
The questions presented in this case are as follows:
“1. Are postal employees within the ‘zone of interest’ of the Private Express Statutes that establish and allow the United States Postal Service to suspend restrictions on the private carriage of letters when ‘the public interest requires?’
“2. Did the Postal Service act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously in promulgating its international remail regulation under the ‘public interest’ standard for suspending the Private Express Statutes where it found no adverse effects on revenues and found general benefits to the public, competition, and users of remail services?” Brief for Petitioner i.
The Postal Service argues that since “congressional preclusion of judicial review is in effect jurisdictional,” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 353, n. 4 (1984), the issue cannot be waived by the parties. We do not agree. Section 410, at most, exempts the Postal Service from the APA. The judicial review provisions of the APA are not jurisdictional, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99 (1977), so a defense based on exemption from the APA can be waived by the Government. Whether § 410(a) exempts the Postal Service from APA review is in essence a question whether Congress intended to allow a certain cause of action against the Postal Service. Whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction, and may be assumed without being decided. Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 476, n. 5 (1979).
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1696 provides:
“Private express for letters and packets
“(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
“(b) Whoever transmits by private express or other unlawful means, or delivers to any agent thereof, or deposits at any appointed place, for the purpose of being so transmitted any letter or packet, shall be fined not more than $50.
“(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of title 39, shall be observed as to each piece.”
Title 39 U. S. C. § 601 provides:
“Letters carried out of the mail
“(a) A letter may be carried out of the mails when—
“(1) it is enclosed in an envelope;
“(2) the amount of postage which would have been charged on the letter if it had been sent by mail is paid by stamps, or postage meter stamps, on the envelope;
“(3) the envelope is properly addressed;
“(4) the envelope is so sealed that the letter cannot be taken from it without defacing the envelope;
“(5) any stamps on the envelope are canceled in ink by the sender; and
“(6) the date of the letter, of its transmission or receipt by the carrier is endorsed on the envelope in ink.
“(b) The Postal Service may suspend the operation of any part of this section upon any mail route where the public interest requires the suspension.”
The PES are competition statutes that regulate the conduct of competitors of the Postal Service. The postal employees for whose benefit the Unions have brought suit here are not competitors of either the Postal Service or remailers. Employees have generally been denied standing to enforce competition laws because they lack competitive and direct injury. See, e. g., Adams v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 264 U. S. App. D. C. 174, 828 F. 2d 24 (1987) (former airline employees denied standing to assert antitrust claim against airline that allegedly drove their former employer out of business), cert, denied sub nom. Union de Transports Aeriens v. Beckman, 485 U. S. 934 (1988); Curtis v. Campbell-Taggart, Inc., 687 F. 2d 336 (CA10) (employees of corporation injured by anti-competitive conduct denied standing under antitrust laws), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1090 (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:
|
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 proceeding brought by the National Labor Relations Board charging unfair labor practices of the respondent, Mexia Textile Mills, a manufacturer of cotton goods at Mexia, Texas, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. On the Board’s petition for enforcement of its cease and desist order, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit referred the case back to the Board with directions to take evidence and report whether the order had been complied with by the respondent; if so, whether the matter should not be dismissed as moot; and, if not, what recommendations the Board had to make. We granted certiorari upon the claim that the effect of the order of the Court of Appeals was at variance with previous decisions of this Court. 338 TJ. S. 909 (1950).
The pertinent facts are these. In November 1944, the Board conducted an election at the respondent’s plant, in which the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O., received an overwhelming majority. The Board thereupon certified that Union as the exclusive representative of those production and maintenance employees who constituted the appropriate bargaining unit designated by the Board. In January 1947 the Union filed a charge with the Board complaining that respondent had refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union and was thus guilty of unfair labor practices within the meaning of §§ 8 (1) and 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board issued its complaint pursuant to those charges in June 1947. Respondent, in answer, admitted that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, denied the charges contained in the complaint, and alleged, inter alia, that the Union no longer represented a majority of employees in the bargaining unit, though the number of employees who had withdrawn was unknown to respondent. A hearing was held before a trial examiner in August 1947. The Trial Examiner denied respondent’s motions for a more definite statement of the complaint, and for an order permitting the inspection and copying of certain evidence. Respondent’s counsel thereupon withdrew from the hearing and took no further part therein.
In December 1947 the Trial Examiner issued his report. He concluded that “From the evidence, it is apparent that, although the respondent conferred with the Union on possible contract provisions, it did not bargain in good faith and had no intention of doing so.” The failure to bargain was manifest from evidence of incidents taking place from the time of the certification of the Union until a month before its complaint was filed. Unilateral wage increases and respondent’s efforts to shunt the Union representatives from one company official to another in search of the final authority in wage and contract negotiations — these and other findings led the Examiner to conclude that “an unmistakeable effort to escape genuine collective bargaining” was demonstrated. Further, the Examiner determined, there was no merit in the respondent’s contention that the Union did not retain the membership of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit. Respondent, having taken no part in the hearing, did not of course introduce any evidence to support its allegation.
The Examiner recommended, in substance, that respondent be ordered to cease and desist from its refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union. No exceptions to the report were filed within the time permitted by § 10 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, and in July 1948 the Board adopted the Trial Examiner’s findings and issued the recommended order, as required by §10 (c).
In April 1949 the Board petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for enforcement of its order. Respondent filed a motion for the taking of additional evidence, alleging that since the report of the Trial Examiner, “during the year 1948,” it had “entered into good faith bargaining with the Union,” but that an agreement had been prevented by the Union’s “arbitrary, capricious and intransigent attitude . . . .” A copy of a letter respondent had sent to the Board’s Regional Director, shortly after the Trial Examiner’s report, was attached to respondent’s motion. The letter stated that while respondent “did not see fit to argue” about past “disagreements and strikes” before the Trial Examiner, it was then “more than willing to accept [his] recommendations . . . .” Respondent also alleged that after “the record in the instant case was closed” it had come to the conclusion that the Union no longer represented a majority of employees in the bargaining unit.
On June 3, 1949, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered that
“action on petitioner’s motion should be deferred and the matter be referred back to the Board with directions to take evidence and report: (1) whether and to what extent its order has been complied with by-respondent; (2) whether and why, if the order has been complied with, the matter should not be dismissed as moot; and (3) if the matter is not moot, what recommendations or requests the Board has to make in the premises . . .
We think it plain from the cases that the employer’s compliance with an order of the Board does not render the cause moot, depriving the Board of its opportunity to secure enforcement from an appropriate court. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has apparently recognized this rule both before and after the decision in the instant cases. A Board order imposes a continuing obligation; and the Board is entitled to have the resumption of the unfair practice barred by an enforcement decree. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remarked, “no more is involved than whether what the law already condemned, the court shall forbid; and the fact that its judgment adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt, is not a circumstance to which a court will ordinarily lend a friendly ear.” Labor Board v. General Motors Corp., 179 F. 2d 221, 222 (1950). The Act does not require the Board to play hide-and-seek with those guilty of unfair labor practices.
That the respondent doubts the Union’s ability to muster a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit does not justify the denial of an enforcement decree. Explicit congressional policy stands in the way of permitting the employers to stall enforcement of the Board’s orders on this ground. Under § 9 (c) of the Act “an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf” may “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 section 9 (a) . . . .” § 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii). Petitions by the employer concerning selection of bargaining representatives are limited to those “alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9 (a) . . . .” § 9 (c) (1) (B). To authorize the employer to assert diminution in membership in the certified union in an enforcement proceeding subverts the statutory mandate to leave these matters to the Board in separate proceedings under § 9 (c).
It is of course equally clear that a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to § 10 (e) of the labor relations acts is “addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court,” Southport Petroleum Co. v. Labor Board, 315 U. S. 100, 104 (1942)) Labor Board v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 U. S. 9 (1943). We are told that the order of the Court of Appeals is justified in this case because the issue of compliance, so clearly irrelevant in the ordinary course of review, is imbued with relevance should the respondent’s counsel move to adduce additional evidence when the case reaches the Court of Appeals.
The cases are to the contrary. Labor Board v. Condenser Corp., 128 F. 2d 67, 81 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1942); Labor Board v. Swift & Co., 129 F. 2d 222, 224 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1942); Labor Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 98 F. 2d 488, 493 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1938), and cases therein cited. If compliance with an order of the Board is irrelevant to the reviewing court’s function after the new evidence has been adduced, we do not see that there is point in adducing evidence of that compliance. This Court has emphasized that the “power to adduce additional evidence granted to the Circuit Court of Appeals by § 10 (e) cannot be employed to enlarge the statutory scope of judicial review.” Labor Board v. Donnelly Garment Co., 330 U. S. 219, 234-235 (1947). As the managers on the part of the House of Representatives for the Conference Committee reported concerning the Wagner Act, that statute contemplated that there be “immediately available to the Board an existing court decree to serve as a basis for contempt proceedings,” in the event a renewal of the unfair practice occurs after the enforcement order. H. R. Rep. No. 1371, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5. See also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 55; compare H. R. Rep. No. 245, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 43, 93. Section 10 (e), which “in effect formulates a familiar principle regarding newly discovered evidence,” Labor Board v. Donnelly Garment Co., supra, 330 U. S. at 234, does not authorize a discretion so broad that evidence irrelevant as a matter of law may be considered “material.” Compare Griffin v. United States, 336 U. S. 704, 708 (1949), with United States v. Johnson, 327 U. S. 106 (1946).
The cases cited by respondent do not touch this controlling issue. The order of the Court of Appeals must be vacated and the enforcement of the Board order decreed pursuant to § 10 (e), unless “extraordinary circumstances” are pleaded which justify the respondent’s failure to urge its objections before the Board.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom
Mr. Justice Jackson joins, dissenting.
Compliance with an order of the National Labor Relations Board is, of course, no defense to the Board’s petition for judicial enforcement of its order. Therefore, a Court of Appeals would be abusing the authority conferred by § 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, if, upon such a petition for enforcement, it even temporarily withheld enforcement merely for the purpose of asking the Board to report to it whether the order had already been complied with. Even if it had, the Board is entitled to a formal decree as a safeguard against repetition of the unfair labor practice. If in the cases before us the Court of Appeals had, by seeking light from the Board on the issue of compliance, in effect ruled that compliance with an order of the Board was relevant to enforcement, it would be incumbent upon this Court, in the fair administration of law, to issue its discretionary writ of certiorari and reverse the orders of the Court of Appeals summarily.
But the action of the Court of Appeals in these two cases cannot fairly be interpreted as defiance of the settled principle of law that compliance by an employer with the Board’s order is not a defense to an application for its enforcement. In a series of decisions prior to its actions in these two cases, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in common with all other circuits, has enforced orders of the Board despite allegations of compliance. Nor are these two cases to be interpreted as departures from the principle which that court has heretofore recognized and obeyed. It has explicitly advised us that the opinions and orders in these two cases “were not intended to be, they were not, departures” from the established rule. Labor Board v. Cooper Co., 179 F. 2d 241. Whatever justification there may have been when we granted certiorari for attributing to the court below a volte-face on its own repeated application of a settled principle of law, there was none after its decision in the Cooper case ten days later. Yet it is only by attributing to the Court of Appeals a departure which that court has disavowed that it may be charged with an abuse of discretion which alone would have warranted our taking these cases for review.
The fact is that in both these cases representations were made to the Court of Appeals of circumstances arising subsequent to the orders issued by the Board which amount to more than a claim that the employer had complied with what the Board had directed. The claims concern change in the union affiliation of employees and recalcitrance on the part of the union, and not of the employer, toward effectuating the Board's order. To be sure, there was a clause in the court's order which, taken abstractly, looked as though the court desired to be informed on the issue of compliance and the Court of Appeals did not spell out with particularity these other claims, but they were embraced in a catch-all clause for further “evidence and report” by the Board.
This raises for me important issues of judicial administration. Due regard for the considerations that should govern the exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction and for the effective functioning of the Courts of Appeals in the whole scheme of the federal judiciary indicates dismissal of these writs.
We are dealing with one of the appellate tribunals of the United States to which Congress has seen fit to commit the final determination of this type of controversy, subject only to the reviewing power of this Court. Review is to be exercised, however, not as a matter of course, but only in those rare instances where constitutional issues, or conflicts of circuits, or obvious considerations of a public importance call for our adjudication. In establishing the Courts of Appeals, Congress intended to create courts of great dignity and ability whose decisions were to be final except in the very limited instances where the Supreme Bench should pronounce for the whole nation. This design for the Courts of Appeals was powerfully reinforced by the Judiciary Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 936, in that it withdrew all but a few categories of cases from the obligatory jurisdiction of this Court. The volume of business that would be drawn to this Court by the overriding national importance of the issues was bound to be so heavy that adequate disposition of them was assumed to preclude the grant of certiorari in cases, however erroneously decided below, in which the incidence of error was too small compared with the drain that their consideration would make on the thought and energy demanded of this Court by the cases which inevitably belong here. And so the Court has said again and again that the writ of certiorari ought not to be employed to bring here cases which, in their essential impact, concern a restricted and perhaps a unique set of circumstances and do not involve the pronouncement by a Court of Appeals of a general doctrine on which this Court ought to have the last say.
No candid student of the actual operation of certiorari can feel confident that the criteria professed for its exercise have been adequately respected. This Court is too frequently engaged in deciding cases which ought not to occupy the highest Court in the land, because they divert its energy from those matters to which it cannot give too much unburdened thought. And when comparison is made between the issues at stake in petitions that have been granted and those in which petitions have been denied, the contrast is at times glaring.
This has two consequences that are to be deprecated in the administration of the federal courts, and they are avoidable without aiming at the moon. By taking cases that ought not to be taken we obviously encourage petitions to be filed that have no excuse for being here. The fact that term after term hundreds of petitions are denied indicates that our screening process is such as to encourage the hope that is eternal in the breast of losing counsel. One does not have to be an easy generalizer of national characteristics to believe that litigiousness is one of our besetting sins. A relaxed observance of the considerations that supposedly govern our certiorari jurisdiction is not calculated to discourage litigiousness.
Equally undesirable is the effect, however insidious, upon Courts of Appeals. If, barring only exceptional cases, they are to be deemed final courts of appeals, consciousness of such responsibility will elicit in them, assuming they are manned by judges fit for their tasks, the qualities appropriate for such responsibility. Contrariwise, encouragement in regarding Courts of Appeals merely as way-stations to this Court is bound to have a weakening effect on the administration of tribunals whose authority and qualities we should be alert to promote.
These are general considerations, but due regard for them goes, I believe, to the very marrow of high judicial performance. Let me apply them to the cases in hand. A year ago three circuit judges of long experience deferred motions of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its orders (one of which had been outstanding for two and one-half years) by requesting the Board for “additional evidence” which these judges deemed material. The court made this request under § 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, with respect to various claims, outlined above, as they emerged in the proceedings before it. When it was confronted with the employers’ applications for leave to adduce such additional evidence, the court presumably examined the cases in this Court as to the nature of its power to grant them and noted that our cases held that such applications are “addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court.” Southport Petroleum Co. v. Labor Board, 315 U. S. 100, 104; Labor Board v. Donnelly Garment Co., 330 U. S. 219, 233-34. In granting the applications, the court, expressly reserving decision on the merits, merely referred the matters back to the Board for its assistance in furnishing further information and for its recommendations and requests “in the light of such further information.” Indeed, that court has rather plaintively explained that in the two cases which are now reversed “nothing was decided.” Labor Board v. Cooper Co., 179 F. 2d 241..
The Court notes that the Board has held that the continued majority status of a certified union may be challenged by an employer in § 9 (c) proceedings. Whitney’s, 81 N. L. R. B. 75. There is neither explicit authorization nor explicit denial in the statute of the right of an employer to make such a challenge in enforcement proceedings. Nothing in the text or context of the statute or any consideration underlying its policy precludes the relevance of continued majority status to enforcement, especially where loss of majority may be due to employee dissatisfaction with alleged union intransigence. It appears to me arbitrary to deny to a Court of Appeals, in the fair exercise of its discretion under § 10 (e), the right to ask the Board for light on this issue, if for no other reason than that the Board’s views would be helpful in the judicial determination of the issue.
Fully mindful of the heavy load of cases before the Board, I venture to suggest that it could have speedily disposed of the matters that on the record appeared to trouble the Court of Appeals, could have reported back to the court, and could have secured a prompt disposition of its petitions for enforcement. Any adverse rulings by the court could then have been brought here by the Board, not with any ambiguity inherent in a discretionary ruling, but with the full clarity of an adjudication on the merits. Instead, the Board comes here to review the court’s interim orders, petitions for certiorari resting on a special set of unique circumstances are granted, and the Court of Appeals is now reversed by attributing to it a disavowed disregard of an important principle in the administration of the Labor Management Relations Act.
In the light of the entire series of decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, both before and after the orders in this case, it does not seem to me reasonable to interpret the orders now before us as demands on the Board for findings merely as to compliance with the orders sought to be enforced. That court’s decisions preclude such intendment. Since the record permits, we ought to attribute to a Court of Appeals not a willful disregard of principle and, as such, an abuse of discretion, but an honest desire to get light on happenings after the Board’s orders relevant to its duties as a court of equity. Courts of Appeals are also human institutions. By attributing to the Court of Appeals an abusive exercise of discretion when the record may fairly be otherwise interpreted, we not only needlessly rebuke that court; we take action calculated to chill other judges in exercising with utter freedom a discretion which we have heretofore pronounced they possess.
I would leave the action of the Court of Appeals to take the course which I believe wisely should have been taken when their orders were entered. To that end, I would dismiss these writs as improvidently granted.
49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.
61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 141 et seq.
146 of the 164 valid votes were cast in favor of the union, of the approximately 186 eligible voters.
Labor Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261, 271 (1938); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U. S. 197, 230 (1938); Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U. S. 217, 225 (1949); Labor Board v. Draper Corp., 159 F. 2d 294, 297 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1947); Labor Board v. Remington Rand, 94 F. 2d 862, 869-870 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1938); Labor Board v. Condenser Corp., 128 F. 2d 67, 81 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1942); Labor Board v. Baltimore Transit Co., 140 F. 2d 51, 55 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1944); Labor Board v. Toledo Desk & Fixture Co., 158 F. 2d 426 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1946); Labor Board v. Bachelder, 125 F. 2d 387, 388 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1942); Labor Board v. Swift & Co., 129 F. 2d 222, 224 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1942); Labor Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 98 F. 2d 488 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1938); Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co. v. Labor Board, 118 F. 2d 304, 307 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1941). Cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 304 U. S. 257 (1938).
Labor Board v. Fickett-Brown Mfg. Co., 140 F. 2d 883, 884 (1944); Labor Board v. The Cooper Co., 179 F. 2d 241 (1950).
See Labor Board v. Remington Rand, 94 F. 2d 862, 869-870 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1938). See also, §§ 203.46, 203.47 of the Board’s regulations under the Wagner Act, 11 Fed. Reg. 177A-605, 177A-610 (1946), and §§ 203.52 and 203.53 of the rules printed at 12 Fed. Reg. 5651, 5662 (1947); Labor Board v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Co., 96 F. 2d 197 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1938). Compare Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 702, 705-706 (1944).
The Board has held that it is the forum before which an employer may challenge a certified union’s continued representative status, Matter of Whitney’s, 81 N. L. R. B. 75 (1949), in § 9 (c) proceedings.
Section 10 (e) provides in part:
“If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Board, its members, agent, or agency, and to be made a part of the transcript.” 61 Stat. 148, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 160 (e).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A United States Attorney filed an information in a Federal District Court charging that the appellee, Lem Hoy, “did attempt to induce, assist, encourage, and solicit, certain alien persons to migrate to the United States as contract laborers . . . who were not alien contract laborers duly entitled to migrate to the United States under the Act of February 5, 1917, or to enter or migrate to the United States under any other law of the United States, as the defendant then and there well knew.” The conduct charged was made an offense by § 5 of the 1917 Immigration Act referred to in the information. 39 Stat. 874, 879, 8 U. S. C. § 139. Hoy appeared, waived indictment, asked for a bill of particulars, and moved to dismiss the information on the ground that § 5 of the 1917 Act had been repealed by § 5 (g) of the Farm Labor Supply Appropriation Act of 1944. 58 Stat. 11, 15-16, 50 U. S. C. App., Supp. V, § 1355 (g). The bill of particulars showed that Hoy had written a letter to certain persons living in Mexico to induce them to come to the United States to work for him. In the letter Hoy told them that “it makes no difference if you pass as contraband (smuggle in), as wherever the Immigration catches you I will get you out with a bond.” The letter also directed the aliens to see a man near the border who would “bring” them to Hoy for $25, and stated that Hoy would “arrange everything.” It was stipulated that Hoy wanted the men to work for him as agricultural laborers.
Holding that the 1944 Farm Labor Act had made the 1917 Act inapplicable to such farm laborers, and therefore to those who induced their entry, the District Court dismissed the information. Since this dismissal was based on the construction of the 1917 Act as the Government sought to apply it in the information, the case is properly here on direct appeal from the District Court. 18 U. S. C. Supp. V § 682, 28 U. S. C. § 345.
The 1944 Farm Labor Act, by its terms, was designed to facilitate the wartime employment, and therefore the immigration into the United States for a limited stay, of agricultural laborers from North, South, and Central America, and islands adjacent thereto. In determining whether this information was properly dismissed, it is appropriate for us to. consider whether Congress intended in the 1944 Act to remove all restrictions, enforceable by sanctions, against immigration into the United States of such agricultural laborers from the western hemisphere; and at the same time whether it intended to repeal, not only the provision which prohibited contract laborers from entering the country, but also the long-standing law which made it a criminal offense to induce such persons, barred by law, to enter. If the 1944 Act has these effects, it marks a complete reversal of the congressional policy which has been followed for more than half a century.
In line with this policy, the purpose of the 1917 Act, according to its title, was “To regulate the immigration of aliens to, and the residence of aliens in, the United States.” It provided detailed qualifications for persons to be admitted to the country. Certain persons were to be completely barred, such as idiots, epileptics, chronic alcoholics, vagrants, criminals, polygamists, prostitutes, persons afflicted with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, persons who advise, advocate, or teach opposition to organized government or its overthrow by force, illiterates, and contract laborers, defined as persons induced or encouraged to come to this country by offers or promises of employment. The 1917 Act further provided for deportation of improperly admitted aliens, and authorized the promulgation of regulations to enforce the various provisions looking to exclusion of all persons except those qualified to enter the United States under the prescribed statutory standards. Pursuant to the broad terms of the 1917 and other supplementary Acts, a bureau of immigration and naturalization, now a part of the Department of Justice, has been established to examine the qualifications of those seeking admission and otherwise to enforce and administer the immigration laws in the interior and at the borders.
The 1944 Farm Labor Act does not on its face purport to relax the standards of the 1917 and other Acts, except in a very limited way. It does not abolish the screening, administrative and enforcement function of the immigration authorities. Indeed the sponsor of the bill on the Senate floor explained that the measure proposed made certain, by provision for strict control of immigration and immigrants, that the stay of workers admitted pursuant to its provisions would be wholly temporary, and that “we” who sponsored the bill “are not in any way interfering with the firmly established national immigration policy.”
Section 5 (g) of the 1944 Act, relied on as wholly excepting agricultural laborers from the restrictions of the 1917 Act, is set out below. It will be noted that this section does permit entrance of agricultural workers who, but for this Act, would not be admitted under the former law. The only exceptions from the long list of non-admissibles under the 1917 and other Acts are these: illiterates and those who have been induced to come into the country by promises of employment, or whose passage has been paid by corporations or other persons. By specifically lifting the immigration barriers in these respects, Congress left the barriers in effect which barred physical and mental defectives, those with certain diseases, etc. And even the exceptions granted were not unconditional, for under the 1944 Act agricultural laborers could still be admitted only “for such time and under such conditions ... as may be required by regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization with the approval of the Attorney General . . . .”
In pursuance of their authority under this Act, the immigration authorities have promulgated regulations which provide in detail for the admission of agricultural laborers who are “in all respects admissible under the provisions of the immigration laws except” as to the particular limited provisions of the 1917 Act designated in the 1944 Act. 8 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. § 115.2 (c). And as shown by the Senate and House reports and hearings on the 1944 Act, a vast program was to be carried out to permit agricultural laborers to enter and to remain in the United States, but only for a limited time and under such conditions as conform with the immigration laws and regulations, and in accordance, so far as this case is concerned, with agreements made with the Government of Mexico. Far from abolishing the responsibilities of the immigration authorities in examining and approving these persons at the border and supervising their stay, the 1944 Act, the treaty and the regulations, although changing those responsibilities in some respects, have actually increased them. Aliens must still make a lawful entry at the places designated for their examination, screening, and registration. Those who do not meet the statutory standards of the 1917 Act, with the minor exceptions made in the 1944 Act, must be turned back. And those who are permitted to enter remain subject to supervision, control, and early deportation by immigration authorities.
This brings us to the contention that Hoy cannot be prosecuted under § 5 of the 1917 Act because the 1944 Act provides that § 5 “shall not apply to the importation of aliens under this title.” But Hoy was not charged with inducing or encouraging the Mexican aliens whom he wrote to come in “under this title.” He was allegedly inviting them to enter the country in disregard and defiance of “this title” and all other law. Thus he was specifically charged with inducing aliens to come into this country who were not entitled to enter under the 1917 Act or “under any other law of the United States, as . . . [he] then and there well knew.” If this charge, as clarified by the bill of particulars, is true, he was urging aliens to come into this country without passing through the immigration stations, without regard to the length of their stay, or whether they were barred by reason of disease, physical weakness, or any of the other disqualifications set out in the 1917 and other laws or regulations.
The 1944 Act was intended to permit alien agricultural workers to enter the country for a limited time under Government rules and regulations after proper proofs to Government officials that the aliens were so qualified. It is true that the law was intended to fill the need for agricultural workers by removing the 1917 prohibition against would-be employers’ inviting and inducing foreign workers to come to the United States. But we are not persuaded that the law, which provided specific limitations and requisites to entry under it, can properly be interpreted to authorize would-be employers to invite, induce and offer rewards to aliens to circumvent immigration processing and to enter the United States in disregard and defiance of law. The 1917 prohibition against employers inducing laborers to enter the country, enforceable by sanctions, removed obstacles which might hinder immigration authorities in the performance of their duties; we do not think the 1944 Act was intended to license employers to obstruct their performance. The information charged an offense and it should not have been dismissed.
Reversed.
Compare 39 Stat. 894, 8 U. S. C. § 163 (crime to aid or assist any person to enter who believes in violent overthrow of government) ; 39 Stat. 880, 43 Stat. 166, 8 U. S. C. § 145 (crime to bring to the United States an alien with certain diseases); 45 Stat. 1551, 8 U. S. C. § 180a (crime for alien to enter at any place other than at an immigration point, or to elude examination). See also 35 Stat. 1152, 18 U. S. C. § 550 which provides that “Whoever directly commits ... an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal.”
See 23 Stat. 332; 32 Stat. 1213; 34 Stat. 898; 41 Stat. 1008; Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 463-465.
22 Stat. 214, 24 Stat. 415, 26 Stat. 1085, 28 Stat. 780, 32 Stat. 825, 828, 37 Stat. 736, 737, 54 Stat. 1238, 8 U. S. C. §§ 100-103.
90 Cong. Rec. 864 (1944).
"In order to facilitate the employment by agricultural employers in the United States of native-born residents of North America, South America, and Central America, and the islands adjacent thereto, desiring to perform agricultural labor in the United States, during continuation of hostilities in the present war, any such resident desiring to enter the United States for that purpose shall be exempt from the payment of head tax required by section 2 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, and from other admission charges, and shall be exempt from those excluding provisions of section 3 of such Act which relate to contract laborers, the requirements of literacy, and the payment of passage by corporations, foreign government, or others; and any such resident shall be admitted to perform agricultural labor in the United States for such time and under such conditions (but not including the exaction of bond to insure ultimate departure from the United States) as may be required by regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization with the approval of the Attorney General; and in the event such regulations require documentary evidence of the country of birth of any such resident which he is unable to furnish, such requirement may be waived by the admitting officer of the United States at the point where such resident seeks entry into the United States if such official has other proof satisfactory to him that such resident is a native of the country claimed as his birthplace. Each such resident shall be provided with an identification card (with his photograph and fingerprints) to be prescribed under such regulations which shall be in lieu of all other documentary requirements, including the registration at time of entry or after entry required by the Alien Registration Act of 1940. Any such resident admitted under the foregoing provisions who fails to maintain the status for which he was admitted or to depart from the United States in accordance with the terms of his admission shall be taken into custody under a warrant issued by the Attorney General at any time after entry and deported in accordance with section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. Sections 5 and 6 of such Act shall not apply to the importation of aliens under this title. No provision of this title shall authorize the admission into the United States of any enemy alien.” § 5 (g) Farm Labor Supply Appropriation Act, 1944, 58 Stat. 11, 15-16, 50 U. S. C. App. Supp. V, 1355 (g).
See H. Rep. No. 246, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 3, 4, 6 (1943); H. Rep. No. 358, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1943); Sen. Rep. No. 157, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 3, 4 (1943).
For example, under the treaty with Mexico governing wartime immigration of these farm laborers our Government has the right to determine where in the United States workers are needed most and to send them there. Other provisions of the treaty require that 10% of each worker’s wages be earmarked and returned for deposit in Mexico, and that their living and working conditions meet specified standards. These provisions require close supervision of the admitted aliens by immigration authorities. 56 Stat. 1759-1768; 57 Stat. 1152-1163.
The phrase “this title” refers only to the “Farm Labor Supply Appropriation Act, 1944,” § 5 (1), 58 Stat. 11, 17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner recovered a judgment in the Court of Claims against the United States for an overpayment of its excess profits taxes for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, in the amount of $211,899.28, plus interest thereon “as provided by law.” 143 Ct. Cl. 342, 163 F. Supp. 633. Of the principal sum of the judgment, $150,016.21 was attributable to an unused excess profits credit carry-back from the succeeding year ended March 31, 1943.
Acting in accordance with the provisions of § 3771 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the Commissioner computed and allowed statutory interest on the latter sum from June 14, 1945, the date on which petitioner filed its claim for refund, to April 25, 1959 — 30 days prior to issuance of the refund check — in the amount of $124,784.72. Thereafter, petitioner moved the Court of Claims for relief from the Commissioner’s interpretation of the judgment, contending that interest should be computed, under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2411 (a), from the earliest date the overpayment could have been determined (the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the year involved, i. e., March 31, 1943), rather than from the date it filed its claim for refund (June 14, 1945) as provided in § 3771 (e), and that it was thus entitled to the further sum of $51,252.69. The motion was denied, without opinion.
Because of the importance of the question involved to the proper administration of the internal revenue laws, and to settle a conflict between the lower federal courts upon the question, we granted certiorari. 364 U. S. 861.
The question thus presented is whether the date from which interest accrues on an overpayment of taxes attributable to an unused excess profits credit carry-back is governed by § 3771 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, or by 28 U. S. C. § 2411 (a).
Petitioner contends that, because refund of the tax was not awarded administratively but by the “judgment of [a] court,” the date Jrom which interest runs is governed by the provisions of § 2411 (a), and that it is thus entitled to interest from “the date of the payment” on the “overpayment” which, it argues, became ascertainable, and hence should be regarded as made, on March 31, 1943. The Government, on the other hand, contends that § 3771 (e) is a special statute relating exclusively to tax refunds attributable to the carry-back provisions of the internal revenue laws, and hence prevails, as respects the special subject of carry-backs, over the general provisions of § 2411 (a). After a careful review of these and other statutes and their legislative history, we have concluded that the Government is right.
Section 3771 (e) of the 1939 Code deals specifically with the subject of interest on tax refunds attributable to the carry-back of a net operating loss or an unused excess profits tax credit, and is “an integral part of the carry-back provision [s]” of the internal revenue laws. Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., 338 U. S. 561, 568. It specifically says that “[i]f the Commissioner determines that any part of an overpayment is attributable to . . . [an] unused excess profits credit for a succeeding taxable year, no interest shall be allowed or paid with respect to such part of the overpayment for any period before the filing of a claim for credit or refund of such part of the overpayment or the filing of a petition with the Tax Court, whichever is earlier.” The refund awarded here was solely “attributable to [an] unused excess profits credit for [the] succeeding taxable year.” How, their, can petitioner be entitled to interest “for any period before the filing of a claim for credit or refund”?
Petitioner agrees that if its award had been made administratively by the Commissioner or the Tax Court, rather than by the “judgment” of the Court of Claims, interest would not be allowable on the refund for any period prior to the filing of its claim. But it argues that the language of § 2411 (a) — “In any judgment of any court rendered ... for any overpayment in respect of any internal-revenue tax, interest shall be allowed . . . upon the amount of the overpayment, from the date of the payment or collection thereof” — requires the allowance of interest “from the date of the payment or collection” of the tax when recovery is awarded by a District Court or, as here, by the Court of Claims. The effect of petitioner’s contention thus is that Congress has made the starting date of interest in such cases dependent upon the forum selected by the taxpayer. Its argument would mean — in fact, it frankly proceeds on the theory — that a taxpayer, holding a refund claim attributable to an unused excess profits credit, could, by proceeding in a District Court or the Court of Claims, recover interest from the date when a claim for refund could have been filed, yet if he proceeded through the Tax Court he could not recover interest for any period prior to the actual filing of his claim, even though the Tax Court’s final judgments (or orders) are subject to review by the United States Courts of Appeals and ultimately by this Court. In the light of the provisions of § 3771 (e) and its legislative history, it is almost certain that Congress did not intend such an anomalous, nonuniform and discriminatory result.
Petitioner further contends that § 2411 (a) is a later enactment than § 3771 (e) and, for that reason, should take precedence over it. We do not believe that § 2411 (a) can fairly be regarded as a later enactment than § 3771 (e), for at the time § 3771 (e) was enacted, in 1942, a predecessor provision of § 2411 (a) had long been on the books. Save for the word “hereby” — of no possible significance — that predecessor provision (§ 177 (b) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 284 (b)) was identical with the present §2411 (a). But even if petitioner were correct in concluding that § 2411 (a) is to be regarded as the later enactment, it would not necessarily take precedence over § 3711 (e), for it is familiar law that a specific statute controls over a general one “without regard to priority of enactment.” Townsend v. Little, 109 U. S. 504, 512. See, e. g., Ginsberg & Sons v. Popkin, 285 U. S. 204, 208; MacEvoy Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 102, 107; Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 228-229.
Section 3771 (e) specifically fixes the date from which interest shall run on carry-back refunds. It came into the law with the Revenue Act of 1942, which authorized carry-backs. A carry-back is an exceptional relief measure in that it permits a departure from the basic annual accounting rule. The carry-back provisions “were enacted to ameliorate the unduly drastic consequences of taxing income strictly on an annual basis. They were designed to permit a taxpayer to set off its lean years against its lush years, and to strike something like an average taxable income computed over a period longer than one year.” Libson Shops, Inc., v. Koehler, 353 U. S. 382, 386.
The significant feature of a carry-back is that it permits an adjustment of an earlier liability upon the basis of subsequent events. It contemplates that the initial tax obligation was not incorrectly or mistakenly imposed but was actually due, but that an adjustment may be made upon the basis of the taxpayer’s gain or loss in the succeeding year or years, and it is evident from the very terms of § 3771 (e) that Congress thought it would be unfair to the Government to require it to pay interest on a claim brought about by such a retroactive adjustment prior to the time when the taxpayer took affirmative steps to bring home to the Commissioner that he is now in position to claim, and claims, a readjustment of his past admittedly correct tax liability. Section 3771 (e) does not, of course, deny interest on carry-back refunds. It only prohibits the accrual of interest prior to the time the taxpayer’s claim therefor is filed with, and thus made known to, the Commissioner.
The report of the Senate Finance Committee on the bill that became § 3771 (e) clearly discloses that these were Congress’ purposes in adopting the section. It said:
“A taxpayer entitled to a carry-back of a net operating loss or an unused excess profits credit (see sec. 204 of the bill) will not be able to determine the deduction on account of such carry-back until the close of the future taxable year in which he sustains the net operating loss or has the unused excess profits credit. He must therefore file his return and pay his tax without regard to such deduction, and must file a claim for refund at the close of the succeeding taxable year when he is able to determine the amount of such carry-back. Inasmuch as any overpayment resulting from the deduction of such carry-back does not occur, as a practical matter, until the net operating loss or the unused excess profits credit for the future taxable year is determined, and inasmuch as it is desirable to insure promptness in the filing of claims to inform the Commissioner that such deductions have been determined, this section provides that no interest will he allowed with respect to any such overpayment for any period before the claim therefor is filed, or a petition asserting such overpayment is filed with the Board of Tax Appeals, whichever is earlier.” (Emphasis added.)
This surely shows Congress’ purpose to deny interest on carry-back refunds for any period prior to the time they could be determined, and also to prevent, through delay in the presentation of claims, the accumulation of interest after that date and prior to the filing of the claim.
In providing, in § 6611 (f) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, that overpayments resulting from the carry-back of net operating losses “shall be deemed not to have been made prior to the close of the taxable year in which such net operating loss arises,” Congress recognized that it was making a change from existing law. The relevant Committee Report makes this clear. It said, in pertinent part, that:
“Existing law denies interest on an overpayment caused by a carry-back for any period prior to the filing of a claim for credit or refund of such amount (or filing a petition with the Tax Court with respect to such amount). Under this [proposed] section, interest is denied only for the period prior to the close of the taxable year in which the net operating loss arises. This is consistent with the rule for interest on underpayments (see the discussion of sec. 6601).”
In the light of the provisions of § 3771 (e) and its clear legislative history, we think it is a special statute relating solely to, and exclusively governing, tax refunds attributable to the carry-back provisions of the internal revenue laws, and hence prevails, as respects the special subject of carry-backs, over the general provisions of § 2411 (a). The judgment of the Court of Claims was therefore correct and must be
Affirmed.
In Carter v. Liquid Carbonic Pacific Corp., 97 F. 2d 1, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a result contrary to that reached by the Court of Claims in this case.
Internal Revenue Code of 1939:
Ҥ3771. Interest on Overpayments.
“(a) Rate. — Interest shall be allowed and paid upon any overpayment in respect of any internal revenue tax at the rate of 6 per centum per annum.
“(b) Period. — Such interest shall be allowed and paid as follows:
“(1) Credits. — In the case of a credit ....
“(2) Refunds. — In' the case of a refund, from the date of the overpayment to a date preceding the date of the refund check by not more than thirty days ....
“(e) [as added by §153 (d), Revenue Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798, 847] Claims Based on Carry-Back of Loss or Credit. — If the Commissioner determines that any part of an overpayment is attributable to the inclusion in computing the net operating loss deduction for the taxable year of any part of the net operating loss for a succeeding taxable year or to the inclusion in computing the unused excess profits credit adjustment for the taxable year of any part of the unused excess profits credit for a succeeding taxable year, no interest shall be allowed or paid with respect to such part of the overpayment for any period before the filing of a claim for credit or refund of such part of the overpayment or the filing of a petition with the Tax Court, whichever is earlier.”
28 U. S. C.:
“§ 2411 [as amended by § 120, Act of May 24, 1949, c. 139, 63 Stat. 89, 106], Interest.
“(a) In any judgment of any court rendered (whether against the United States, a collector or deputy collector of internal revenue, a former collector or deputy collector, or the personal representative in case of death) for any overpayment in respect of any internal-revenue tax, interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6 per centum per annum upon the amount of the overpayment, from the date of the payment or collection thereof to a date preceding the date of the refund cheek by not more than thirty days, such date to be determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner is authorized to tender by check payment of any such judgment, with interest as herein provided, at any time after such judgment becomes final, whether or not a claim for such payment has been duly filed, and such tender shall stop the running of interest, whether or not such refund check is accepted by the judgment creditor.”
It will be noted that petitioner stops short of claiming that it is entitled to interest from the date it paid its 1942 excess profits tax. It claims, rather, that interest runs from the end of the succeeding .tax year that gave rise to the carry-back (i. e., March 31, 1943). The Government’s position, on the other hand, is that the interest runs from June 14, 1945, the date on which the refund claim was first presented.
Petitioner points to the fact that in Lasky v. Commissioner, 352 U. S. 1027, the Tax Court was held to be an administrative agency.
Petitioner does not in fact claim interest from the date it actually paid its excess profits taxes for the year 1942 but, rather, from the end of the succeeding tax year that gave rise to the carry-back, i. e., March 31, 1943. See n. 4.
The history of 28 U. S. C. § 2411 (a) and its predecessor provisions goes back to 1911. See § 177 (b) of the Judicial Code, enacted in 1911 (c. 231, 36 Stat. 1141), as amended by the Revenue Act of 1921 (c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, § 1324 (b)), as further amended by the Revenue Act of 1926 (c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, § 1117). Further amendments occurred in 1928 (45 Stat. 791, § 615) and in 1936 (49 Stat. 1648, § 808). The 1948 codification omitted from the Judicial Code all reference to interest on tax overpayments, but, by a correction Act in 1949 (c. 139, 63 Stat. 89, § 120), Congress restored the section to the Judicial Code as §2411 (a). The only difference between § 177 (b) as it stood in 1942, and § 2411 (a) as it stands today, is that the word “hereby” no longer appears. Thus, § 3771 (e) is not only the specific enactment designed to control the subject of interest in carry-back cases, but it is also a later enactment than §2411 (a).
S. Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 123-124.
That Congress did not propose to allow interest for any period prior to presentment of the claim is further confirmed by the provisions of § 6 of the Tax Adjustment Act of 1945, c. 340, 59 Stat. 517, amending § 3771 (e). Section 4 of that Act added a new section to the Internal Revenue Code, § 3780, providing for tentative carry-back adjustments. The concurrent amendment of § 3771 (e) specifies that interest shall not start to run prior to the date application is made for the tentative carry-back adjustments.
H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. A418.
Section 6601 (e) provides that if the amount of tax is reduced by a carry-back loss, the reduction shall not affect the interest payable thereon by the taxpayer for the period ending with the close of the year in which the loss arises. Section 292 (c) of the 1939 Code (added by § 6 of the Tax Adjustment Act of 1945, c. 340, 59 Stat. 517) provided: “If any part of a deficiency is determined by the Commissioner to be attributable ... to a carry-back to which an overpayment described in section 3771 (e) . . . in any other tax is attributable ... no interest shall be assessed or paid under subsection (a) [providing that interest is payable on a deficiency from the date prescribed for the payment of the tax] with respect to such part of the deficiency for any period during which interest was not allowed with respect to such overpayment . . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, a student at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Medical School, was dismissed by petitioner officials of the school during her final year of study for failure to- meet academic standards. Respondent sued petitioners under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging, among other constitutional violations, that petitioners had not accorded her procedural due process prior to her dismissal. The District Court, after conducting a full trial, concluded that respondent had been afforded all of the rights guaranteed her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, 538 F. 2d 1317 (1976), and a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a divided court. 542 F. 2d 1335 (1976). We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 964, to consider what procedures must be accorded to a student at a state educational institution whose dismissal may constitute a deprivation of “liberty” or “property” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Respondent was admitted with advanced standing to the Medical School in the fall of 1971. During the final years of a student’s education at the school, the student is required to pursue in “rotational units” academic and clinical studies pertaining to various medical disciplines such as obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, and surgery. Each student’s academic performance at the School is evaluated on a periodic basis by the Council on Evaluation, a body composed of both faculty and students, which can recommend various actions including probation and dismissal. The recommendations of the Council are reviewed by the Coordinating Committee, a body composed solely of faculty members, and must ultimately be approved by the Dean. Students are not typically allowed to appear before either the Council or the Coordinating Committee on the occasion of their review of the student’s academic performance.
In the spring of respondent’s first year of study, several faculty members expressed dissatisfaction with her clinical performance during a pediatrics rotation. The faculty members noted that respondent’s “performance was below that of her peers in all clinical patient-oriented settings,” that she was erratic in her attendance at clinical sessions, and that she lacked a critical concern for personal hygiene. Upon the recommendation of the Council on Evaluation, respondent was advanced to her second and final year on a probationary basis.
Faculty dissatisfaction with respondent’s clinical performance continued during the following year. For example, respondent’s docent, or faculty adviser, rated her clinical skills as “unsatisfactory.” In the middle of the year, the Council again reviewed respondent’s academic progress and concluded that respondent should not be considered for graduation in June of that year; furthermore, the Council recommended that, absent “radical improvement,” respondent be dropped from the school.
Respondent was permitted to take a set of oral and practical examinations as an “appeal” of the decision not to permit her to graduate. Pursuant to this “appeal,” respondent spent a substantial portion of time with seven practicing physicians in the area who enjoyed a good reputation among their peers. The physicians were asked to recommend whether respondent should be allowed to graduate on schedule and, if not, whether she should be dropped immediately or allowed to remain on probation. Only two of the doctors recommended that respondent be graduated on schedule. Of the other five, two recommended that she be immediately dropped from the school. The remaining three recommended that she not be allowed to graduate in June and be continued on probation pending further reports on her clinical progress. Upon receipt of these recommendations, the Council on Evaluation reaffirmed its prior position.
The Council met again in mid-May to consider whether respondent should be allowed to remain in school beyond June of that year. Noting that the report on respondent’s recent surgery rotation rated her performance as “low-satisfactory,” the Council unanimously recommended that “barring receipt of any reports that Miss Horowitz has improved radically, [she] not be allowed to re-enroll in the . . . School of Medicine.” The Council delayed making its recommendation official until receiving reports ón other rotations; when a report on respondent’s emergency rotation also turned out to be negative, the Council unanimously reaffirmed its recommendation that respondent be dropped from the school. The Coordinating Committee and the Dean approved the recommendation and notified respondent, who appealed the decision in writing to the University’s Provost for Health Sciences. The Provost sustained the school’s actions after reviewing the record compiled during the earlier proceedings.
II
A
To be entitled to the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, respondent must in a case such as this demonstrate that her dismissal from the school deprived her of either a “liberty” or a “property” interest. Respondent has never alleged that she was deprived of a property interest. Because property interests are creatures of state law, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599-603 (1972), respondent would have been required to show at trial that her seat at the Medical School was a “property” interest recognized by Missouri state law. Instead, respondent argued that her dismissal deprived her of “liberty” by substantially impairing her opportunities to continue her medical education or to return to employment in a medically related field.
The Court of Appeals agreed, citing this Court’s opinion in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972). In that case, we held that the State had not deprived a teacher of any liberty or property interest in dismissing the teacher from a nontenured position, but noted:
“[T]here is no suggestion that the State, in declining to re-employ the respondent, imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. The State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities.” Id., at 573.
We have recently had an opportunity to elaborate upon the circumstances under which an employment termination might infringe a protected liberty interest. In Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976), we upheld the dismissal of a policeman without a hearing; we rejected the theory that the mere fact of dismissal, absent some publicizing of the reasons for the action, could amount to a stigma infringing one's liberty:
“In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, we recognized that the nonretention of an untenured college teacher might make him somewhat less attractive to other employers, but nevertheless concluded that it would stretch the concept too far 'to suggest that a person is deprived of “liberty” when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains as free as before to seek another.’ Id., at 575. This same conclusion applies to the discharge of a public employee whose position is terminable at the will of the employer when there is no public disclosure of the reasons for the discharge.
“In this case the asserted reasons for the City Manager’s decision were communicated orally to the petitioner in private and also were stated in writing in answer to- interrogatories after this litigation commenced. Since the former communication was not made public, it cannot properly form the basis for a claim that petitioner’s interest in his 'good name, reputation, honor, or integrity’ was thereby impaired.” Id., at 348 (footnote omitted).
The opinion of the Court of Appeals, decided only five weeks after we issued our opinion in Bishop, does not discuss whether a state university infringes a liberty interest when it dismisses a student without publicizing allegations harmful to the student’s reputation. Three judges of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc on the ground that “the reasons for Horowitz’s dismissal were not released to the public but were communicated to her directly by school officials.” Citing Bishop, the judges concluded that “[a]bsent such public disclosure, there is no deprivation of a liberty interest.” 542 F. 2d, at 1335. Petitioners urge us to adopt the view of these judges and hold that respondent has not been deprived of a liberty interest.
B
We need not decide, however, whether respondent’s dismissal deprived her of a liberty interest in pursuing a medical career. Nor need we decide whether respondent’s dismissal infringed any other interest constitutionally protected against deprivation without procedural due process. Assuming the existence of a liberty or property interest, respondent has been awarded at least as much due process as the Fourteenth Amendment requires. The school fully informed respondent of the faculty’s dissatisfaction with her clinical progress and the danger that this posed to timely graduation and continued enrollment. The ultimate decision to dismiss respondent was careful and deliberate. These procedures were sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree with the District Court that respondent
“was afforded full procedural due process by the '[school]. In fact, the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that the school went beyond [constitutionally required] procedural due process by affording [respondent] the opportunity to be examined by seven independent physicians in order to be absolutely certain that their grading of the [respondent] in her medical skills was correct.” App. 47.
In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975), we held that due process requires, in connection with the suspension of a student from public school for disciplinary reasons, “that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” Id., at 581. The Court of Appeals apparently read Goss as requiring some type of formal hearing at which respondent could defend her academic ability and performance. All that Goss required was an “informal give-and-take” between the student and the administrative body dismissing him that would, at least, give the student “the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.” Id., at 584. But we have frequently emphasized that “[t]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 895 (1961). The need for flexibility is well illustrated by the significant difference between the failure of a student to meet academic standards and the violation by a student of valid rules of conduct. This difference calls for far less stringent procedural requirements in the case of an academic dismissal.
Since the issue first arose 50 years ago, state and lower federal courts have recognized that there are distinct differences between decisions to suspend or dismiss a student for disciplinary purposes and similar actions taken for academic reasons which may call for hearings in connection with the former but not the latter. Thus, in Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19, 102 N. E. 1095 (1913), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected an argument, based on several earlier decisions requiring a hearing in disciplinary contexts, that school officials' must also grant a hearing before excluding a student on academic grounds. According to the court, disciplinary cases have
"no application. . . . Misconduct is a very different matter from failure to attain a standard of excellence in studies. A determination as to the fact involves investigation of a quite different kind. A public hearing may be regarded as helpful to the ascertainment of misconduct and useless or harmful in finding out the truth as to scholarship.” Id., at 22-23, 102 N. E., at 1097.
A similar conclusion has been reached by the other state courts to consider the issue. See, e. g., Mustell v. Rose, 282 Ala. 358, 367, 211 So. 2d 489, 498, cert. denied, 393 U. S. 936 (1968); cf. Foley v. Benedict, 122 Tex. 193, 55 S. W. 2d 805 (1932). Indeed, until the instant decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Courts of Appeals were also unanimous in concluding that dismissals for academic (as opposed to disciplinary) cause do not necessitate a hearing before the school’s decisionmaking body. See Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F. 2d 448 (CA5 1976); Gaspar v. Bruton, 513 F. 2d 843 (CA10 1975). These prior decisions of state and federal courts, over a period of 60 years, unanimously holding that formal hearings before decisionmaking bodies need not be held in the case of academic dismissals, cannot be rejected lightly. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 118-119, 131-132 (1934); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 69-71 (1932); Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31 (1922).
Reason, furthermore, clearly supports the perception of these decisions. A school is an academic institution, not a courtroom or administrative hearing room. In Goss, this Court felt that suspensions of students for disciplinary reasons have a sufficient resemblance to traditional judicial and administrative factfinding to call for a “hearing” before the relevant school authority. While recognizing that school authorities must be afforded the necessary tools to maintain discipline, the Court concluded:
“[I]t would be a strange disciplinary system in an educational institution if no communication was sought by the disciplinarian with the student in an effort to inform him of his dereliction and to let him tell his side of the story in order to make sure that an injustice is not done.
“{It] equiring effective notice and informal hearing permitting the student to give his version of the events will provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action. At least the disciplinarian will be alerted to the existence of disputes about facts and arguments about cause and effect.” 419 U. S., at 580, 583-584.
Even in the context of a school disciplinary proceeding, however, the Court stopped short of requiring a formal hearing since “further formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary nature may not only make it too costly as a regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as a part of the teaching process.” Id., at 583.
Academic evaluations of a student, in contrast to disciplinary determinations, bear little resemblance to the judicial and administrative factfinding proceedings to which we have traditionally attached a full-hearing requirement. In Goss, the school’s decision to suspend the students rested on factual conclusions that the individual students had participated in demonstrations that had disrupted classes, attacked a police officer, or caused physical damage to school property. The requirement of a hearing, where the student could present his side of the factual issue, could under such circumstances “provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action.” Ibid. The decision to dismiss respondent, by comparison, rested on the academic judgment of school officials that she did not have the necessary clinical ability to perform adequately as a medical doctor and was making insufficient progress toward that goal. Such a judgment is by its nature more subjective and evaluative than the typical factual questions presented in the average disciplinary decision. Like the decision of an individual professor as to the proper grade for a student in his course, the determination whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons requires an expert evaluation of cumulative information and is not readily adapted to the procedural tools of-judicial or administrative decisionmaking.
Under such circumstances, we decline to ignore the historic judgment of .educators and thereby formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring a hearing. The educational process is not by nature adversary; instead it centers around a continuing relationship between faculty and students, “one in which the teacher must occupy many roles — educator, adviser, friend, and, at times, parent-substitute.” Goss v. Lopes, 419 U. S., at 594 (Powell, J., dissenting). This is especially true as one advances through the varying regimes of the educational system, and the instruction becomes both more individualized and more specialized. In Goss, this Court concluded that the value of some form of hearing in a disciplinary context outweighs any resulting harm to the academic environment. Influencing this conclusion was clearly the belief that disciplinary proceedings, in which the teacher must decide whether to punish a student for disruptive or insubordinate behavior, may automatically bring an adversary flavor to the normal student-teacher relationship. The same conclusion does not follow in the academic context. We decline to further enlarge the judicial presence in the academic community and thereby risk deterioration of many beneficial aspects of the faculty-student relationship. We recognize, as did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court over 60 years ago, that a hearing may be “useless or harmful in finding out the truth as to scholarship.” Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne, 216 Mass., at 23, 102 N. E., at 1097.
“Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint. ... By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968). We see no reason to intrude on that historic control in this case.
Ill
In reversing the District Court on procedural due process grounds, the Court of Appeals expressly failed to “reach the substantive due process ground advanced by Horowitz.” 538 F. 2d, at 1321 n. 5. Respondent urges that we remand the cause to the Court of Appeals for consideration of this additional claim. In this regard, a number of lower courts have implied in dictum that academic dismissals from state institutions can be enjoined if “shown to be clearly arbitrary or capricious.” Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F. 2d, at 449. See Gaspar v. Bruton, 513 F. 2d, at 850, and citations therein. Even assuming that the courts can review under such a standard an academic decision of a public educational institution, we agree with the District Court that no showing of arbitrariness or capriciousness has been made in this case. Courts are particularly ill-equipped to evaluate academic performance. The factors discussed in Part II with respect to procedural due process speak a fortiori here and warn against any such judicial intrusion into academic decisionmaking. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Respondent concedes that petitioners have not “invoke[d] any regulations to bar” her from seeking out employment in the medical field or from finishing her medical education at a different institution. Brief for Respondent 21. Cf. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 573. Indeed, the Coordinating Committee in accepting the recommendation of the Council that respondent be dismissed, noted that “as with all students, should sufficient improvement take place, she could be considered for readmission to the School of Medicine.” The Court of Appeals, however, relied on the testimony of a doctor employed by the Kansas City Veterans’ Administration to the effect that respondent’s dismissal would be “a significant black mark.” On the Medical School side, it was the doctor’s view that respondent “would have great difficulty to get into another medical school, if at all.” As for employment, if two people were applying for a position with the Veterans’ Administration with “otherwise . . . equal qualifications, roughly, I would lean heavily to the other person who was not dismissed from a graduate school.” 538 F. 2d 1317, 1320-1321, n. 3 (1976).
The Court of Appeals held without elaboration that the dismissal had been “effected without the hearing required by the fourteenth amendment.” 538 F. 2d, at 1321. No express indication was given as to what the minimum requirements of such a hearing would be. One can assume, however, that the contours of the hearing would be much the same as those set forth in Greenhill v. Bailey, 519 F. 2d 5 (CA8 1975), which also involved an academic dismissal and upon, which the Court of Appeals principally relied. Greenhill held that the student must be “accorded an opportunity to appear personally to contest [the allegations of academic deficiency]. We stop short,, however, of requiring full trial-type procedures in such situations. A graduate or professional school is, after all, the best judge of its students’ academic performance and their ability to master the required curriculum. The presence of attorneys or the imposition of rigid rules of cross-examination at a hearing for a student . . . would serve no useful purpose, notwithstanding that the dismissal in question may be of permanent duration. But an ‘informal give-and-take’ between the student and the administrative body dismissing him . . . would not unduly burden the educational process and would, at least, give the student ‘the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.’ ’’ Id., at 9 (footnote omitted), quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S., at 584. Respondent urges us to go even further than the Court of Appeals and require “the fundamental safeguards of representation by counsel, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses.” Brief for Respondent 36.
We fully recognize that the deprivation to which respondent was subjected — dismissal from a graduate medical school — was more severe than the 10-day suspension to which the high school students were subjected in Goss. And a relevant factor in determining the nature of the requisite due process is “the private interest that [was] affected by the official action.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976). But the severity of the deprivation is only one of several factors that must be weighed in deciding the exact due process owed. Ibid. We conclude that considering all relevant factors, including the evaluative nature of the inquiry and the significant and historically supported interest of the school in preserving its present framework for academic evaluations, a hearing is not required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The district court’s grant of relief is based on a confusion of the court’s power to review disciplinary actions by educational institutions on the one hand, and academic decisions on the other hand. This Court has been in the vanguard of the legal development of due process protections for students ever since Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1961, 294 F. 2d 150, cert. denied 1961, 368 U. S. 930 .... However, the due process requirements of notice and hearing developed in the Dixon line of cases have been carefully limited to disciplinary decisions. When we explained that ‘the student at the tax supported institution cannot be arbitrarily disciplined without the benefit of the ordinary, well recognized principles of fair play’, we went on to declare that ‘[w]e know of no case which holds that colleges and universities are subject to the supervision or review of the courts in the uniform application of their academic standards. Indeed, Dixon infers to the contrary.’ Wright v. Texas Southern University, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F. 2d 728, 729. Misconduct and failure to attain a standard of scholarship cannot be equated. A hearing may be required to determine charges of misconduct, but a hearing may be useless or harmful in finding out the truth concerning scholarship. There is a clear dichotomy between a student’s due process rights in disciplinary dismissals and in academic dismissals.” 529 F. 2d, at 449-450.
In Greenhill v. Bailey, supra, the Court of Appeals held that a hearing had been necessary where a medical school not only dismissed a student for academic reasons but also sent a letter to the Liaison Committee of the Association of the American Medical Colleges suggesting that the student either lacked “intellectual ability” or had insufficiently prepared his course work. The court specifically noted that “there has long been a distinction between cases concerning disciplinary dismissals, on the one hand, and academic dismissals, on the other” and emphasized that it did not wish to “blur that distinction.” 519 F. 2d, at 8. In the court’s opinion, the publicizing of an alleged deficiency in the student’s intellectual ability removed the case from the typical instance of academic dismissal and called for greater procedural protections. Cf. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976).
Respondent contends in passing that she was not dismissed because of “clinical incompetence,” an academic inquiry, but for disciplinary reasons similar to those involved in Goss. Thus, as in Goss, a hearing must be conducted. In this regard, respondent notes that the school warned her that significant improvement was needed not only in the area of clinical performance but also in her personal hygiene and in keeping to her clinical schedules. The record, however, leaves no doubt that respondent was dismissed for purely academic reasons, a fact assumed without discussion by the lower courts. Personal hygiene and timeliness may be as important factors in a school’s determination of whether a student will make a good medical doctor as the student’s ability to take a case history or diagnose an illness. Questions of personal hygiene and timeliness, of course, may seem more analogous to traditional factfinding than other inquiries that a school may make in academically evaluating a student. But in so évaLuating the student, the school considers and weighs a variety of factors, not all of which, as noted earlier, are adaptable to the factfinding hearing. And the critical faculty-student relationship may still be injured if a hearing is required.
Respondent alleges that the school applied more stringent standards in evaluating her performance than that of other students because of her sex, religion, and physical appearance. The District Court, however, found: “There was no evidence that [respondent] was in any manner evaluated differently from other students because of her sex or because of her religion. With regard to [respondent’s] physical appearance, this in and of itself did not cause [her] to be evaluated any differently than any of the other students.” App. 45.
Respondent also contends that petitioners failed to follow their own rules respecting evaluation of medical students and that this failure amounted to a constitutional violation under Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363 (1957). We disagree with both respondent’s factual and legal contentions. As for the facts, the record clearly shows that the school followed its established rules, except where new rules had to be designed in an effort to further protect respondent, as with the practical “appeal” that petitioners allowed respondent to take. The District Court specifically found that “the progress status of [respondent] in the medical school was evaluated in a manner similar to and consistent with the evaluation of other similarly situated students, with the exception that [respondent’s] docent . . . went to even greater lengths to assist [respondent] in an effort for her to obtain her M. D. degree, than he did for any of his other students.” App. 45. As for the legal conclusion that respondent draws, both Service and Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260 (1954), upon which Service relied, enunciate principles of federal administrative law rather than of constitutional law binding upon 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:
|
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than 40 years. Padilla served this Nation with honor as a member of the U. S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. He now faces deportation after pleading guilty to the transportation of a large amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In this postconviction proceeding, Padilla claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence prior to his entering the plea, but also told him that he “ 'did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long’” 253 S. W. 3d 482, 483 (Ky. 2008). Padilla relied on his counsel’s erroneous advice when he pleaded guilty to the drug charges that made his deportation virtually mandatory. He alleges that he would have insisted on going to trial if he had not received incorrect advice from his attorney.
Assuming the truth of his allegations, the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied Padilla postconviction relief without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel does not protect a criminal defendant from erroneous advice about deportation because it is merely a “collateral” consequence of his conviction. Id., at 485. In its view, neither counsel’s failure to advise petitioner about the possibility of removal, nor counsel’s incorrect advice, could provide a basis for relief.
We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. 1169 (2009), to decide whether, as a matter of federal law, Padilla’s counsel had an obligation to advise him that the offense to which he was pleading guilty would result in his removal from this country. We agree with Padilla that constitutionally competent counsel would have advised him that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter that we do not address.
I
The landscape of federal immigration law has changed dramatically over the last 90 years. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms over time have expanded the class of deport-able offenses and limited the authority of judges to alleviate the harsh consequences of deportation. The “drastic measure” of deportation or removal, Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10 (1948), is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes.
The Nation’s first 100 years was “a period of unimpeded immigration.” C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure §1.2a, p. 5 (1959). An early effort to empower the President to order the deportation of those immigrants he “judge[d] dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” Act of June 25, 1798, ch. 58, 1 Stat. 571, was short lived and unpopular. Gordon § 1.2, at 5. It was not until 1875 that Congress first passed a statute barring convicts and prostitutes from entering the country, Act of Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 141, 18 Stat. 477. Gordon § 1.2b, at 6. In 1891, Congress added to the list of excludable persons those “who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.” Act of Mar. 3,1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084.
The Immigration Act of 1917 (1917 Act) brought “radical changes” to our law. S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong, 2d Sess., 54-55 (1950). For the first time in our history, Congress made classes of noncitizens deportable based on conduct committed on American soil. Id., at 55. Section 19 of the 1917 Act authorized the deportation of “any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United States....” 39 Stat. 889. And §19 also rendered deportable noncitizen recidivists who commit two or more crimes of moral turpitude at any time after entry. Ibid. Congress did not, however, define the term “moral turpitude.”
While the 1917 Act was “radical” because it authorized deportation as a consequence of certain convictions, the Act also included a critically important procedural protection to minimize the risk of unjust deportation: At the time of sentencing or within 30 days thereafter, the sentencing judge in both state and federal prosecutions had the power to make a recommendation “that such alien shall not be deported.” Id., at 890. This procedure, known as a judicial recommendation against deportation, or JRAD, had the effect of binding the Executive to prevent deportation; the statute was “consistently... interpreted as giving the sentencing judge conclusive authority to decide whether a particular conviction should be disregarded as a basis for deportation,” Janvier v. United States, 793 F. 2d 449, 452 (CA2 1986). Thus, from 1917 forward, there was no such creature as an automatically deportable offense. Even as the class of'deport-able offenses expanded, judges retained discretion to ameliorate unjust results on a case-by-case basis.
Although narcotics offenses — such as the offense at issue in this case — provided a distinct basis for deportation as early as 1922, the JRAD procedure was generally available to avoid deportation in narcotics convictions. See United States v. O’Rourke, 213 F. 2d 759, 762 (CA8 1954). Except for “technical, inadvertent and insignificant violations of the laws relating to narcotics,” ibid., it appears that courts treated narcotics offenses as crimes involving moral turpitude for purposes of the 1917 Act’s broad JRAD provision. See ibid, (recognizing that until 1952 a JRAD in a narcotics case “was effective to prevent deportation” (citing Dang Nam v. Bryan, 74 F. 2d 379, 380-381 (CA9 1934))).
In light of both the steady expansion of deportable offenses and the significant ameliorative effect of a JRAD, it is unsurprising that, in the wake of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), the Second Circuit held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel applies to a JRAD request or lack thereof, see Janvier, 793 F. 2d 449. See also United States v. Castro, 26 F. 3d 557 (CA5 1994). In its view, seeking a JRAD was “part of the sentencing” process, Janvier, 793 F. 2d, at 452, even if deportation itself is a civil action. Under the Second Circuit’s reasoning, the impact of a conviction on a noncitizen’s ability to remain in the country was a central issue to be resolved during the sentencing process — not merely a collateral matter outside the scope of counsel’s duty to provide effective representation.
However, the JRAD procedure is no longer part of our law. Congress first circumscribed the JRAD provision in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and in 1990 Congress entirely eliminated it, 104 Stat. 5050. In 1996, Congress also eliminated the Attorney General’s authority to grant discretionary relief from deportation, 110 Stat. 3009-596, an authority that had been exercised to prevent the deportation of over 10,000 noncitizens during the 5-year period prior to 1996, INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 296 (2001). Under contemporary law, if a noncitizen has committed a removable offense after the 1996 effective date of these amendments, his removal is practically inevitable but for the possible exercise of limited remnants of equitable discretion vested in the Attorney General to cancel removal for non-citizens convicted of particular classes of offenses. See 8 U. S. C. § 1229b. Subject to limited exceptions, this discretionary relief is not available for an offense related to trafficking in a controlled substance. See § 1101 (a)(43)(B); § 1228.
These changes to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part — indeed, sometimes the most important part — of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes.
II
Before deciding whether to plead guilty, a defendant is entitled to “the effective assistance of competent counsel.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 771 (1970); Strickland, 466 U. S., at 686. The Supreme Court of Kentucky rejected Padilla’s ineffectiveness claim on the ground that the advice he sought about the risk of deportation concerned only collateral matters, i. e., those matters not within the sentencing authority of the state trial court. 253 S. W. 3d, at 483-484 (citing Commonwealth v. Fuartado, 170 S. W. 3d 384 (2005)). In its view, “collateral consequences are outside the scope of representation required by the Sixth Amendment,” and, therefore, the “failure of defense counsel to advise the defendant of possible deportation consequences is not cognizable as a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” 253 S. W. 3d, at 483. The Kentucky high court is far from alone in this view.
We, however, have never applied a distinction between direct and collateral consequences to define the scope of constitutionally “reasonable professional assistance” required under Strickland, 466 U. S., at 689. Whether that distinction is appropriate is a question we need not consider in this case because of the unique nature of deportation.
We have long recognized that deportation is a particularly severe “penalty,” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 740 (1893); but it is not, in a strict sense, a criminal sanction. Although removal proceedings are civil in nature, see INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984), deportation is nevertheless intimately related to the criminal process. Our law has enmeshed criminal convictions and the penalty of deportation for nearly a century, see Part I, supra, at 360-364. And, importantly, recent changes in our immigration law have made removal nearly an automatic result for a broad class of noncitizen offenders. Thus, we find it “most difficult” to divorce the penalty from the conviction in the deportation context. United States v. Russell, 686 F. 2d 35, 38 (CADC 1982). Moreover, we are quite confident that noncitizen defendants facing a risk of deportation for a particular offense find it even more difficult. See St Cyr, 533 U. S., at 322 (“There can be little doubt that, as a general matter, alien defendants considering whether to enter into a plea agreement are acutely aware of the immigration consequences of their convictions”).
Deportation as a consequence of a criminal conviction is, because of its close connection to the criminal process, uniquely difficult to classify as either a direct or a collateral consequence. The collateral versus direct distinction is thus ill suited to evaluating a Strickland claim concerning the specific risk of deportation. We conclude that advice regarding deportation is not categorically removed from the ambit of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim.
III
Under Strickland, we first determine whether counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” 466 U. S., at 688. Then we ask whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694. The first prong — constitutional deficiency — is necessarily linked to the practice and expectations of the legal community: “The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id., at 688. We long have recognized that “[prevailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards and the like... are guides to determining what is reasonable....” Ibid.; Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U. S. 4, 7 (2009) (per curiam); Florida v. Nixon, 543 U. S. 175, 191, and n. 6 (2004); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 524 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 396 (2000). Although they are “only guides,” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688, and not “inexorable commands,” Bobby, 558 U. S., at 8, these standards may be valuable measures of the prevailing professional norms of effective representation, especially as these standards have been adapted to deal with the intersection of modern criminal prosecutions and immigration law.
The weight of prevailing professional norms supports the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the risk of deportation. National Legal Aid and Defender Assn., Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation § 6.2 (1995); G. Herman, Plea Bargaining § 3.03, pp. 20-21 (1997); Chin & Holmes, Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 697, 713-718 (2002); A. Campbell, Law of Sentencing §13:23, pp. 555, 560 (3d ed. 2004); Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2 Compendium of Standards for Indigent Defense Systems, Standards for Attorney Performance, pp. DIO, H8-H9, J8 (2000) (providing survey of guidelines across multiple jurisdictions); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and Defense Function 4-5.1(a), p. 197 (3d ed. 1993); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty 14-3.2(f), p. 116 (3d ed. 1999). “ [Authorities of every stripe — including the American Bar Association, criminal defense and public defender organizations, authoritative treatises, and state and city bar publications — universally require defense attorneys to advise as to the risk of deportation consequences for non-citizen clients....” Brief for Legal Ethics, Criminal Procedure, and Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 12-14 (footnotes omitted) (citing, inter alia, National Legal Aid and Defender Assn., Performance Guidelines for Criminal Prosecution §§6.2-6.4 (1997); S. Bratton & E. Kelley, Practice Points: Representing a Non-citizen in a Criminal Case, 31 The Champion 61 (Jan./Feb. 2007); N. Tooby, Criminal Defense of Immigrants § 1.3 (3d ed. 2003); 2 Criminal Practice Manual §§45:3,45:15 (West 2009)).
We too have previously recognized that “ ‘[preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence.’” St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 322 (quoting 3 Bender, Criminal Defense Techniques §§60A.01, 60A.02[2] (1999)). Likewise, we have recognized that “preserving the possibility of” discretionary relief from deportation under § 212(c) of the 1952 INA, 66 Stat. 187, repealed by Congress in 1996, “would have been one of the principal benefits sought by defendants deciding whether to accept a plea offer or instead to proceed to trial.” St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 323. We expected that counsel who were unaware of the discretionary relief measures would “follofw] the advice of numerous practice guides” to advise themselves of the importance of this particular form of discretionary relief. Ibid., n. 50.
In the instant case, the terms of the relevant immigration statute are succinct, clear, and explicit in defining the removal consequence for Padilla’s conviction. See 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (“Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance..., other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable”). Padilla’s counsel could have easily determined that his plea would make him eligible for deportation simply from reading the text of the statute, which addresses not some broad classification of crimes but specifically commands removal for all controlled substances convictions except for the most trivial of marijuana possession offenses. Instead, Padilla’s counsel provided him false assurance that his conviction would not result in his removal from this country. This is not a hard case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla’s plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel’s advice was incorrect.
Immigration law can be complex, and it is a legal specialty of its own. Some members of the bar who represent clients facing criminal charges, in either state or federal court or both, may not be well versed in it. There will, therefore, undoubtedly be numerous situations in which the deportation consequences of a particular plea are unclear or uncertain. The duty of the private practitioner in such cases is more limited. When the law is not succinct and straightforward (as it is in many of the scenarios posited by Justice Alito), a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was in this case, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.
Accepting his allegations as true, Padilla has sufficiently alleged constitutional deficiency to satisfy the first prong of Strickland. Whether Padilla is entitled to relief on his claim will depend on whether he can satisfy Strickland’s second prong, prejudice, a matter we leave to the Kentucky courts to consider in the first instance.
IV
The Solicitor General has urged us to conclude that Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim only to the extent that he has alleged affirmative misadvice. In the United States’ view, “counsel is not constitutionally required to provide advice on matters that will not be decided in the criminal case...,” though counsel is required to provide accurate advice if she chooses to discuss these matters. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10.
Respondent and Padilla both find the Solicitor General’s proposed rule unpersuasive, although it has support among the lower courts. See, e. g., United States v. Couto, 311 F. 3d 179, 188 (CA2 2002); United States v. Kwan, 407 F. 3d 1005 (CA9 2005); Sparks v. Sowders, 852 F. 2d 882 (CA6 1988); United States v. Russell, 686 F. 2d 35 (CADC 1982); State v. Rojas-Martinez, 2005 UT 86, 125 P. 3d 930, 935; In re Resendiz, 25 Cal. 4th 230, 19 P. 3d 1171 (2001). Kentucky describes these decisions isolating an affirmative misadvice claim as “result-driven, incestuous... [, and] completely lacking in legal or rational bases.” Brief for Respondent 31. We do not share that view, but we agree that there is no relevant difference “between an act of commission and an act of omission” in this context. Id., at 30; Strickland, 466 U. S., at 690 (“The court must then determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance”); see also State v. Paredez, 2004-NMSC-036, 136 N. M. 533, 538-539.
A holding limited to affirmative misadvice would invite two absurd results. First, it would give counsel an incentive to remain silent on matters of great importance, even when answers are readily available. Silence under these circumstances would be fundamentally at odds with the critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of “the advantages and disadvantages of a plea agreement.” Libretti v. United States, 516 U. S. 29, 50-51 (1995). When attorneys know that their clients face possible exile from this country and separation from their families, they should not be encouraged to say nothing at all. Second, it would deny a class of clients least able to represent themselves the most rudimentary advice on deportation even when it is readily available. It is quintessentially the duty of counsel to provide her client with available advice about an issue like deportation, and the failure to do so “clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, 62 (1985) (White, J., concurring in judgment).
We have given serious consideration to the concerns that the Solicitor General, respondent, and amici have stressed regarding the importance of protecting the finality of convictions obtained through guilty pleas. We confronted a similar “floodgates” concern in Hill, see id., at 58, but nevertheless applied Strickland to a claim that counsel had failed to advise the client regarding his parole eligibility before he pleaded guilty.
A flood did not follow in that decision’s wake. Surmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task. See, e. g., 466 U. S., at 689 (“Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential”); id., at 693 (observing that “[a]ttorney errors... are as likely to be utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be prejudicial”). Moreover, to obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S. 470, 480, 486 (2000). There is no reason to doubt that lower courts — now quite experienced with applying Strickland — can effectively and efficiently use its framework to separate specious claims from those with substantial merit.
It seems unlikely that our decision today will have a significant effect on those convictions already obtained as the result of plea bargains. For at least the past 15 years, professional norms have generally imposed an obligation on counsel to provide advice on the deportation consequences of a client’s plea. See supra, at 368-371. We should, therefore, presume that counsel satisfied their obligation to render competent advice at the time their clients considered pleading guilty. Strickland, 466 U. S., at 689.
Likewise, although we must be especially careful about recognizing new grounds for attacking the validity of guilty pleas, in the 25 years since we first applied Strickland to claims of ineffective assistance at the plea stage, practice has shown that pleas are less frequently the subject of collateral challenges than convictions obtained after a trial. Pleas account for nearly 95% of all criminal convictions. But they account for only approximately 30% of the habeas petitions filed. The nature of relief secured by a successful collateral challenge to a guilty plea — an opportunity to withdraw the plea and proceed to trial — imposes its own significant limiting principle: Those who collaterally attack their guilty pleas lose the benefit of the bargain obtained as a result of the plea. Thus, a different calculus informs whether it is wise to challenge a guilty plea in a habeas proceeding because, ultimately, the challenge may result in a less favorable outcome for the defendant, whereas a collateral challenge to a conviction obtained after a jury trial has no similar downside potential.
Finally, informed consideration of possible deportation can only benefit both the State and noncitizen defendants during the plea-bargaining process. By bringing deportation consequences into this process, the defense and prosecution may well be able to reach agreements that better satisfy the interests of both parties. As in this case, a criminal episode may provide the basis for multiple charges, of which only a subset mandate deportation following conviction. Counsel who possess the most rudimentary understanding of the deportation, consequences of a particular criminal offense may be able to plea bargain creatively with the prosecutor in order to craft a conviction and sentence that reduce the likelihood of deportation, as by avoiding a conviction for an offense that automatically triggers the removal consequence. At the same time, the threat of deportation may provide the defendant with a powerful incentive to plead guilty to an offense that does not mandate that penalty in exchange for a dismissal of a charge that does.
In sum, we have long recognized that the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Hill, 474 U. S., at 57; see also Richardson, 397 U. S., at 770-771. The severity of deportation — “the equivalent of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 390-391 (1947) — only underscores how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client that he faces a risk of deportation.
V
It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson, 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less.
Taking as true the basis for his motion for postconviction relief, we have little difficulty concluding that Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether Padilla is entitled to relief will depend on whether he can demonstrate prejudice as a result thereof, a question we do not reach because it was not passed on below. See Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 535 U. S. 467, 530 (2002).
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Kentucky is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Padilla’s crime, like virtually every drug offense except for only the most insignificant marijuana offenses, is a deportable offense under 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
In 1907, Congress expanded the class of excluded persons to include individuals who “admit” to having committed a crime of moral turpitude. Act of Feb. 20, 1907, ch. 1134, §2,34 Stat. 899.
As enacted, the statute provided:
“That the provision of this section respecting the deportation of aliens convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall not apply to one who has been pardoned, nor shall such deportation be made or directed if the court, or judge thereof, sentencing such alien for such crime shall, at the time of imposing judgment or passing sentence or within thirty days thereafter,... make a recommendation to the Secretary of Labor that such alien shall not be deported in pursuance of this Act.” 1917 Act, 39 Stat. 889-890.
This provision was codified in 8 U. S. C. § 1251(b) (1994 ed.) (transferred to § 1227 (2006 ed.)). The judge's nondeportation recommendation was bind-mg on the Secretary of Labor and, later, the Attorney General after control of immigration removal matters was transferred from the former to the latter. See Janvier v. United States, 793 F. 2d 449, 452 (CA2 1986).
Congress first identified narcotics offenses as a special category of crimes triggering deportation in the 1922 Narcotic Drug Act. Act of May 26,1922, ch. 202, 42 Stat. 596. After the 1922 Act took effect, there was some initial confusion over whether a narcotics offense also had to be a crime of moral turpitude for an individual to be deportable. See Weedin v. Moy Fat, 8 F. 2d 488, 489 (GA9 1925) (holding that an individual who committed narcotics offense was not deportable because offense did not involve moral turpitude). However, lower courts eventually agreed that the narcotics offense provision was “special,” Chung Que Fong v. Nagle, 15 F. 2d 789, 790 (CA9 1926); thus, a narcotics offense did not need also to be a crime of moral turpitude (or to satisfy other requirements of the 1917 Act) to trigger deportation. See United States ex rel. Grimaldi v. Ebey, 12 F. 2d 922, 923 (CA7 1926); Todaro v. Munster, 62 F. 2d 963, 964 (CA10 1933).
The INA separately codified the moral turpitude offense provision and the narcotics offense provision -within 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a) (1994 ed.) under subsections (a)(4) and (a)(11), respectively. See 66 Stat. 201, 204, 206. The JRAD procedure, codified in 8 U. S. C. § 1251(b) (1994 ed.), applied only to the “provisions of subsection (a)(4),” the crimes-of-moral-turpitude provision. 66 Stat. 208; see United States v. O’Rourke, 213 F. 2d 759, 762 (CA8 1954) (recognizing that, under the 1952 INA, narcotics offenses were no longer eligible for JRADs).
The changes to our immigration law have also involved a change in nomenclature; the statutory text now uses the term “removal” rather than “deportation.” See Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U. S. 348, 350, n. 1 (2001).
See Brief for Asian American Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae 12-27 (providing real-world examples).
There is some disagreement among the courts over how to distinguish between direct and collateral consequences. See Roberts, Ignorance Is Effectively Bliss: Collateral Consequences, Silence, and Misinformation in the Guilty-Plea Process, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 119, 124, n. 15 (2009). The disagreement over how to apply the direet/eollateral distinction has no bearing on the disposition of this case because, as even Justice Auto agrees, counsel must, at the very least, advise a noncitizen “defendant that a criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences,” post, at 375 (opinion concurring in judgment). See also post, at 387 (“I do not mean to suggest that the Sixth Amendment does no more than require defense counsel to avoid misinformation”). In his concurring opinion, Justice Auto has thus departed from the strict rule applied by the Supreme Court of Kentucky and in the two federal cases that he dtes, post, at 375-376.
See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 202 F. 3d 20 (CA1 2000); United States v. Del Rosario, 902 F. 2d 55 (CADC 1990); United States v. Yearwood, 863 F. 2d 6 (CA4 1988); Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F. 3d 327 (CA5 2008); Broomes v. Ashcroft, 358 F. 3d 1251 (CA10 2004); United States v. Campbell, 778 F. 2d 764 (CA11 1985); Oyekoya v. State, 558 So. 2d 990 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989); State v. Rosas, 183 Ariz. 421, 904 P. 2d 1245 (App. 1995); State v. Montalban, 2000-2739 (La. 2/26/02), 810 So. 2d 1106; Commonwealth v. Frometa, 520 Pa. 552, 555 A. 2d 92 (1989).
As Justice Auto explains at length, deportation consequences are often unclear. Lack of clarity in the law, however, does not obviate the need for counsel to say something about the possibility of deportation, even though it will affect the scope and nature of counsel’s advice.
As the Commonwealth conceded at oral argument, were a defendant’s lawyer to know that a particular offense would result in the client’s deportation and that, upon deportation, the client and his family might well be killed due to circumstances in the client’s home country, any decent attorney would inform the client of the consequences of his plea. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38. We think the same result should follow when the stakes are not life and death but merely “banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 390-391 (1947).
However, we concluded that, even though Strickland applied to petitioner’s claim, he had not sufficiently alleged prejudice to satisfy Strickland’s second prong. Hill, 474 U. S., at 59-60. This disposition further underscores the fact that it is often quite difficult for petitioners who have acknowledged their guilt to satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong.
Justice Auto believes that the Court misreads Hill, post, at 383-384. In Hill, the Court recognized — for the first time — that Strickland applies to advice respecting a guilty plea. 474 U. S., at 58 (“We hold, therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel”). It is true that Hill does not control the question before us. But its import is nevertheless clear. Whether Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim follows from Hill, regardless of the fact that the Hill Court did not resolve the particular question respecting misadvice that was before it.
See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, p. 418 (31st ed. 2005) (Table 5.17) (only approximately 5%, or 8,612 out of 68,533, of federal criminal prosecutions go to trial); id., at 450 (Table 5.46) (only approximately 5% of all state felony criminal prosecutions go to trial).
See V. Flango, National Center
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease involves the applicability of the “collapsible corporation” provisions of the federal income tax laws which, during the period relevant here, were set forth in §117 (m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. These provisions require that under certain circumstances, gain from the sale of stock which would otherwise be considered as long-term capital gain, and accordingly taxed at a maximum rate of 25%, must be reported as ordinary income.
The three taxpayers who are petitioners here became .associated in 1938 and have since participated in a number of construction projects, usually through corporations in which the stock was equally divided. In 1948 the petitioners received a commitment from the Federal Housing Administration to insure loans for the construction of a multiple-dwelling apartment project in Queens County, New York. Two corporations were formed to carry out this project, and each petitioner was issued one-third of the stock in each corporation. After the costs of construction had been paid, the corporations each had an unüsed amount of mortgage loan funds remaining, and in 1950 the petitioners sold their stock at a profit, receiving as part of the sale transaction distributions from the corporations which included the unused funds. The petitioners reported the excess of the amounts received over their bases in the stock as long-term capital gains of $313,854.17 each.
The Commissioner asserted a deficiency, treating the gain as ordinary income on the ground that the corporations were “collapsible” within the meaning of § 117 (m). The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner, 36 T. C. 22, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court, 305 F. 2d 949, holding that (1) the taxpayers had the requisite “view” during construction of the property (see note 1, supra); (2) more than 70% of the gain realized by the taxpayers was attributable to 'the constructed property (id.); and (3) § 117 (m) applies even if the constructed buildings would have produced capital gain on a sale by the taxpayers had no corporations been formed. This last holding was in response to an argument by the taxpayers based on a theory similar to that adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Ivey, 294 F. 2d 799. In view of the conflict between the decision below and that in Ivey on this point, we granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 933, stating that the grant was limited to the following question:
“Whether Section 117 (m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which provides that gain ‘from the sale or exchange ... of stock of a collapsible. corporation’ is taxable as ordinary income rather than capital gain, is inapplicable in circumstances where the stockholders would have been entitled to capital gains treatment had they conducted the enterprise in their individual capacities without utilizing a corporation.”
Briefly summarized, petitioners’ argument runs as follows: As the legislative history shows, the collapsible corporation. provisions of the code were designed to close a loophole through which some persons hgd been able to convert ordinary income into long-term capital gain by use of the corporate form. For example, in the case of an individual who constructed a^property which he held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business, any gain from the sale of the asset would be ordinary income; but if that same individual were to form a corporation to construct the property, intending to sell his stock on the. completion of construction, it was at least arguable prior to the enactment of § 117 (m) that the proceeds of the ultimate sale of the stock were entitled to capital-gains treatment. It was this and similar devices that § 117 (m) was designed to frustrate, but it was not intended to have the inequitable effect of converting into ordinary income what would properly have been a capital gain prior to its enactment even in the absence of any corporate form. Thus, it is argued, the phrase “gain attributable to such property,” as used in § 117 (m), must apply only to profit that would have constituted ordinary income if a corporation had not been utilized, for only in such cases is the corporation made to serve as a device for tax avoidance. In the present case, neither the corporation nor the individual petitioners were in the trade or business of selling apartment buildings, and thus the corporations were not used to convert ordinary income into capital gain and the provisions of § 117 (m) are inapplicable.
We have concluded that petitioners! contentions must be rejected. Their argument is wholly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the language of § 117 (m), and we find nothing in the purpose of the statute, as indicated by its legislative history, to warrant any departure from that meaning in this ease.
I.
As to the language used, § 117 (m) defines a collapsible corporation as embracing one formed or availed of principally for. the manufacture, construction, or production of property with a view to (1) the sale or exchange of stock prior to the realization by the corporation of a substantial part of the net income, from the property and (2) the realization “of'gain attributable to such property.” The section is then expressly made inapplicable to gain realized during any year, “unless more than 70 per centum of such gain is attributable to the property so manufactured, constructed, or produced.” If used in their ordinary meaning, the word “gain” in these contexts simply refers to the excess of proceeds over cost or basis, and the phrase “attributable to” merely confines consideration to that gain caused or generated by the property in question. With these definitions, the section makes eminent sense, since the terms operate to limit its application to cases in which the corporation was availed of with a view to profiting from the constructed property by a sale or exchange of stock soon after completion of construction and in which a substantial part of the profit from the sale or exchange of stock in a given year was in fact generated by such property.
There is nothing in the language or structure of the section to demand or even justify reading into these provisions the additional requirement that the taxpayer must in fact have been using the corporate form as a device to convert ordinary income into capital gain. If a corporation owns but one asset, and the shareholders sell their stock at a profit resulting from an increase in the value of the asset, they have “gain attributable to” that asset in the natural meaning of the phrase regardless of their desire, or lack of desire, to avoid thp bite of federal income taxes.
II.
Nor is there anything in the legislative history that would lead us to depart from the plain meaning of the statute as petitioners would have us do. There can of course be no question that the purpose *éí § 117 (m) was, as petitioners contend, to close a loophole that Congress feared could be used to convert ordinary income into capital gain. See H. R. Rep. No. 2319, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cóng., 2d Sess. But the crucial point for present purposes is that the method chosen to close this loophole was to establish a carefully and elaborately. defined category of transactions in which what might otherwise be a capital gain would have to be treated as ordinary income. There is no indication whatever of any congressional desire to have the Commissioner or the courts make a determination in each case as to whether the use of the corporation was for tax avoidance. Indeed, the drawing of certain arbitrary lines not here involved — such as making the section inapplicable to any shareholder owning .10% or less of the stock or to any gain realized more than three years after the completion of construction — tends to refute any such indication. It is our understanding, in other words, that Congress intended to define what it believed to be a tax avoidance device rather than to leave the presence or absence of tax avoidance elements for decision on a case-to-case basis.
We are reinforced in this conclusion by the practical difficulties — indeed the impossibilities — of considering without more legislative guidance than is furnished by § 117 (m) whether there has in fact been “conversion” of ordinarv income into capital gains in a particular case. For example, if we were to inquire whether or not the profit would have been ordinary income had an enterprise been individually owned,- would we treat each taxpaying shareholder differently and look only to his trade or business or would we consider the matter in terms of the trade or business of any or at least a substantial number of the shareholders? There is simply no basis in the statute for a judicial resolution of this question, and indeed when Congress addressed itself to the problem in 1958, it approved an intricate formulation falling between these two extremes.
As a further example, what if the individual in question is not himself engaged in any-trade or business but owns stock in varying amounts in a' number of corporate ventures-*other than the one before the court? Do we pierce each of the corporate veils, regardless of the extent and share of the individual’s investment, and charge him with being in the trade or business of each such corporation? Again, there is no basis for a rational judicial answer; the judgment is essentially a legislative one and in the 1958 amendments Congress enacted a specific provision, designed to deal with this matter, that is far too complex to be summarized here.
These examples should suffice to demonstrate the point: The question whether there has in fact been a “conversion” of ordinary income in a particular case is far easier to state than to answer, and involves a number of thorny issues that may not appear on the surface. We find no basis in either the terms or the history of § 117 (m) for concluding that Congress intended the Commissioner and the courts to enter this thicket and to arrive at ad hoc determinations for every taxpayer. Accordingly, the judgments below must be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Section 117 (m) was added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 by the Revenue Act of 1950, § 212 (a), 64 Stat. 934. The section was amended by the Revenue Act of 1951, § 326, 65 Stat. 502. It was reenacted without substantial change as § 341 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat. 107, and was amended by the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, §20 (a), 72 Stat. 1615, and by the Act of October 16,1962, § 13 (f) (4), 76 Stat. 1035. As originally enacted, and during the period relevant here, it provided:
“(1) Treatment of gain to shareholders. — Gain from the sale or exchange (whether in liquidation or otherwise) of stock of a collapsible corporation, to the extent that it would be considered (but for the provisions of this subsection) as gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 6 months, shall; except as provided in paragraph (3), be considered as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is not a capital asset.
“(2) Definitions.—
“ (A) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘collapsible corporation’ means a corporation formed or availed of principally for the manufacture, construction, or production of property, or for the holding of stock in a corporation so formed or availed of, with a view to—
“(i) the sale or exchange of stock by its shareholders (whether in liquidation or otherwise), or a distribution to its shareholders, prior to the realization by the corppration manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property of a substantial part of the net income to be derived from such property, and
“(ii) the realization by such shareholders of gain attributable to such property.
. . . . .
“(3) Limitations on application of subsection. — In the case of gain realized by a shareholder upon his stock in a collapsible corporation—
“ (A) this subsection shall not apply unless, at any time after the commencement of the manufacture, construction, or production of the property, such shareholder (i) owned (or was considered as owning) more than 10 per centum in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, or (ii) owned stock which was considered as owned at such time by another shareholder who then owned (or was considered as owning) more than 10 per centum in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation;
“(B) this subsection shall not apply to the gain recognized during a taxable year unless more than 70 per centum of siich gain is attributable to the property so manufactured, constructed, or produced; and
"(C) this subsection shall not apply to gain realized after the expiration of three years following the completion of such manufácture, construction, or production. . .- .”
Petitioners Benjamin and Harry Neisloss are builders; petitioner Braunstein, an architect Their wives are parties only by virtue of the filing of joint returns.
The parties have agreed that the distributions from the corporations and the amounts received directly from the buyers of the stock may be considered together, as if the entire amount had been received from the, buyers.
Int. Rev. Code, 1939, § 117 (a) (1) (A).
The Government has assumed for purposes of its argument here, but does not concede, that petitioners would have been entitled to capital-gains treatment had they conducted the enterprise without utilizing a corporation.
Int. Rev. Code, 1954, § 341 (e), added by the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, § 20 (a), 72 Stat. 1615.
Int. Rev. Code, 1954, §341 (e)(1)(C).
The Government has emphasized in its argument here that the present case involves a particularly “blatant” conversion of ordinary income because by charging the corporations only for the out-of-pocket costs of construction “petitioners contributed their services create a valuable property for the corporation [s] and then realized upon that value by selling their stock.” Thus, the Government concludes, the petitioners claim as capital gain “what ought to have been (and, in an arm’s-length transaction, would have been) .taxed as compensation for services.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1940 Congress, as an integral part of selective service legislation, has protected the reemployment rights of veterans. The principle underlying this legislation is that he who is “called to the colors [is] not to be penalized on his return by reason of his absence from his civilian job.” Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 284. Petitioners, reemployed veterans, sued respondent railroad, their employer, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. They claimed that they have been deprived of seniority rights to which they are entitled under the Universal Military Training and Service Act and the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The District Court held that petitioners were not entitled to the relief they sought. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 306 F. 2d 870. We granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 905, because of the importance of the question in administering the statute protecting veterans’ reemployment rights. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners were initially employed by respondent railroad as carmen helpers. At the time of their original employment and since, the railroad has suffered from a shortage of qualified journeymen carmen mechanics. The collective bargaining agreement between the union representing the carmen, the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, and the railroad has provided methods for alleviating this shortage. Whenever the railroad is unable to employ persons presently qualified as carmen mechanics, the agreement provides for the advancement or “upgrading” of carmen helpers to provisional carman status. Representatives of the railroad and the union jointly select the helpers to be so advanced. A helper thus “upgraded” can then be employed by the railroad to perform the work of a journeyman carman mechanic and is entitled to be paid a carman mechanic’s wage.
Under the labor agreement, however, the “upgraded” helper does not immediately acquire permanent seniority as a journeyman. He retains his seniority as a helper until completing 1,040 days of actual work as a carman mechanic. At the end of that time the upgraded helper is considered a “qualified carman.” He may then acquire a seniority date as a journeyman by making an election to that effect in writing.
Petitioners were upgraded from carmen helpers in accordance with the terms of the agreement. They were subsequently inducted into military service. At the time of his induction, Tilton had worked 145 days as a carman, Beck 851 days, and McClearn 21 days. Upon his honorable discharge from military service, each petitioner promptly returned to employment at the railroad, was reemployed as an upgraded carman, and thereafter satisfactorily completed the remainder of the 1,040-day work period necessary to qualify for journeyman status. Each, thereupon, immediately elected to acquire seniority as a journeyman carman mechanic. In each case, the railroad established petitioners’ seniority as journeymen as of the date each actually completed the 1,040-day work period. As a result, petitioners had journeyman seniority junior to that of some carmen who had been upgraded to provisional carman status after petitioners were so advanced but who — because they were not absent in military service — were able to complete the 1,040-day service requirement before petitioners.
These nonveterans are now ahead of petitioners on the journeymen carmen’s seniority roster and enjoy the advantages which seniority dictates, such as work preference and order of layoff and recall.
Petitioners contend that under this arrangement their absence in military service improperly affected their seniority because non veteran employees who were junior on the temporary upgraded list are now senior on the permanent carmen’s list.
Petitioners’ claim rests upon §§9 (c)(1) and 9 (c)(2) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. In §9 (c)(1) Congress directed that veterans returning from military service be restored to their civilian employment “without loss of seniority.” This provision was first enacted as part of the National Guard Act, Joint Resolution of August 27, 1940, c. 689, 54 Stat. 858. The Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee in reporting the conference and final version of the bill explained that one of the purposes of the reemployment provisions was to ensure restoration of the veteran to his “seniority status.” 86 Cong. Rec. 10761. The reemployment provisions, including what is now §9 (c)(1), were carried over into the Selective Service Bill, 86 Cong. Rec. 10922-10923, and became § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 890, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 308.
In Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, the Court first considered and specifically interpreted the language in § 8 (c) of the 1940 Act dealing with restoration to veterans of their civilian employment “without loss of seniority.” The Court said: “Congress recognized in the Act the existence of seniority systems and seniority rights. It sought to preserve the veteran’s rights under those systems and to protect him against loss under them by reason of his absence.” Id., at 288. The Court observed:
“Thus he 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.” Id., at 284-285.
This “escalator principle” was reaffirmed by the Court in Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U. S. 40, and restated in Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 338 U. S. 278, 283:
“[A]n honorably discharged veteran, covered by the statute, [is] entitled by the Act to be restored not to a position which would be the precise equivalent of that which he had left when he joined the Armed Forces, but rather to a position which, on the moving escalator of terms and conditions affecting that particular employment, would be comparable to the position which he would have held if he had remained continuously in his civilian employment.”
Following these decisions Congress, in 1948, expressly approved the “escalator principle” and continuous employment standard applied by the Court by adopting § 9 (c)(2) of the present Act which provides:
“It is declared to be the sense of the Congress that any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) of this section should be so restored in such manner as to give him such status in his employment as he would have enjoyed if he had continued in such employment continuously from the time of his entering the armed forces until the time of his restoration to such employment.” 62 Stat. 604, 615-616, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 459 (c)(2).
Section 9 (c)(2), in effect, confirms the Court’s interpretation of the meaning of § 8 (c) of the 1940 Act which is identical with §9(c)(l) of the present Act. McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 357 U. S. 265, 271.
It was in light of this background that the Court decided Diehl v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 348 U. S. 960, which petitioners contend, and which we agree, controls the present case. Diehl involved facts and issues virtually identical with those now before us. Diehl, like petitioners, was a railroad carman helper temporarily “upgraded” to carman status. He was inducted into military service while holding this upgraded position and, upon his return was restored to it. The collective bargaining agreement between the railroad and the union provided that upgraded carmen who had completed 1,160 days of work in that capacity could elect journeymen car-man status. Upgraded men junior to Diehl had completed the requisite work period while he was in service and had been given seniority ahead of Diehl. Upon completion of the training period, Diehl protested claiming, as petitioners do here, that under §§ 9 (c)(1) and 9 (c)(2) of the Act, he was entitled to seniority as of the earlier date on which he would have completed the work period but for his absence in military service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided against the veteran, on the ground that the Act protects only rights which are a mere function of time in grade and does not entitle the veteran to be treated as if he had been actively employed or trained during the period of military service. This Court reversed, per curiam, holding that “[u]pon the facts disclosed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 211 F. 2d 95, the applicable Acts of Congress, and the opinion of this Court in Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 338 U. S. 278, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.” Diehl v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 348 U. S. 960.
Although it would be difficult to conceive of a more applicable and controlling precedent, the court below attempted to distinguish Diehl on the ground that there it had been stipulated that the claimant “would have completed” the work period on a given date if there had been no military service interruption. 306 F. 2d, at 877. “These stipulated words,” the court said, “imply that the work completion was not dependent upon prior resolution of any contingency or uncertainty.” Ibid. This case, unlike Diehl the court declared, “lacks the essentials of the automatic in the entire system of promotion from carman helper to full-fledged carman.” Ibid. This distinction, in our view, is untenable.
There is no room for doubt in this case that “on the moving escalator of terms and conditions affecting [this] particular employment,” Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 338 U. S. 278, 283, had petitioners remained continuously on the job during the period of their military service, they would have completed the work period and qualified as journeymen in advance of those who passed them in seniority during their absence. Each petitioner was entitled, under the labor agreement, to do carman’s work ahead of any upgraded after him. It was only because of petitioners’ military service that men upgraded after them were able to work more days as provisional car-men and to qualify as journeymen before them. But for their absence, petitioners would have qualified as journeymen carmen and achieved the seniority dates they now claim. This was confirmed by the testimony of the railroad’s Chief Personnel Officer, Mr. Smith, who in effect conceded that the railroad under the collective bargaining agreement had no discretion to refuse journeyman’s status to a helper who had successfully completed the work period:
“Q. Now, you have testified that these men, when they completed their three years or thousand and forty days of work, did not automatically acquire carman seniority. As soon as they made an election, the railroad had no choice but to give them the seniority, did it?
“A. [Mr. Smith] That’s right.
“Q. In other words, as soon as they completed the work requirement, made the election as of that time, they became carmen and drew a seniority date?
“A. [Mr. Smith] Correct.”
It is evident, therefore, that promotion upon completion of the training period was as automatic here as in Diehl.
The Court of Appeals, alternatively, refused to follow Diehl on the assumption that it was overruled sub silentio by the subsequent decision of this Court in McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 357 U. S. 265. The court below interpreted McKinney to hold that for a veteran to be entitled to an advancement in status, “the promotion in question [must] be automatic and . . . seemingly . . . automatic as a matter of foresight rather than of hindsight.” 306 F. 2d, at 876. The court concluded that advancement to journeyman car-man status in the instant cases did not meet that standard because it was subject to certain contingencies or “variables”: lay-offs due to illness or reduction in force; the continuing unavailability of enough qualified carmen to fill carmen’s positions; continuing satisfactory work by petitioners in the upgraded position; and petitioners’ decisions as to whether or not to elect full carman status. 306 F. 2d, at 877. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held the eventual acquisition by petitioners of journeyman carman status could not have been foreseen with absolute certainty at the time they entered military service and that, under McKinney, they were therefore not entitled to seniority status as of the date they would probably have achieved it but for their military service.
In this reading of McKinney, the Court of Appeals erred. McKinney was not intended to and did not overrule Diehl. Nor did McKinney establish a requirement of absolute foreseeability. That case did not involve the Diehl-type situation where advancement depends essentially upon continuing employment. It turned upon the fact that the collective bargaining agreement there in issue made the exercise of management discretion a prerequisite to promotion. The Court concluded, therefore, that the advancement was not basically dependent upon continued employment. This is clear from the Court’s statement that:
“Promotion to a group 1 position from group 2, in which petitioner had formerly been employed, is not dependent simply on seniority. Under Rule 1 (3) (A) of the collective bargaining agreement it is dependent on fitness and ability and the exercise of a discriminating managerial choice. . . . The statute does not envisage overriding an employer’s discretionary choice by any such mandatory promotion.” 357 U. S., at 272.
Furthermore, the Court’s mandate in McKinney supports the view that the Court did not adopt a rule of absolute foreseeability. In remanding the case, the Court granted McKinney leave to amend his complaint to allege, if such was the fact, that in practice under the collective bargaining agreement “advancement from group 2 to group 1 is automatic.” 357 U. S., at 274. If the Court had intended to adopt a rule of absolute foreseeability of automatic advancement, it would not have permitted McKinney to amend his complaint. It was apparent that McKinney, when he left for service, could not have predicted with absolute certainty that a group 1 position would fall vacant in his absence; that he would be in adequate health to bid for it; that he would elect to bid for it; and that he would not have lost his lower position because of unsatisfactory performance. Properly read, therefore, McKinney holds that where advancement depends on an employer’s discretionary choice not exercised prior to entry into service, a returning veteran cannot show within the reasonable certainty required by the Act that he would have enjoyed advancement simply by virtue of continuing employment during the time he was in military service.
It would be virtually impossible for a veteran to show, as the Court of Appeals would require, that it was absolutely certain, “as a matter of foresight” when he entered military service, that all circumstances essential to obtaining an advancement in' status would later occur. To exact such certainty as a condition for insuring a veteran’s seniority rights would render these statutorily protected rights without real meaning. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “In this world nothing is certain but déath and taxes.” In every veteran seniority case the possibility exists that work of the particular type might not have been available; that the veteran would not have worked satisfactorily during the period of his absence; that he might not have elected to accept the higher position; or that sickness might have prevented him from continuing his employment. In light of the purpose and history of this statute, however, we cannot assume that Congress intended possibilities of this sort to defeat the veteran’s seniority rights. “This legislation,” the Court said in Fishgold v. Sullivan Dry dock & Repair Corp., supra, at 285, “is to be liberally construed for the benefit of those who left private life to serve their country . . . .” So construed, we conclude that Congress intended a reemployed veteran, who, upon returning from military service, satisfactorily completes his interrupted training, to enjoy the seniority status which he would have acquired by virtue of continued employment but for his absence in military service. This requirement is met if, as a matter of foresight, it was reasonably certain that advancement would have occurred, and if, as a matter of hindsight, it did in fact occur.
This does not mean that under §§ 9 (c) (1) and 9 (c) (2) the veteran, upon returning from service, must be considered for promotion or seniority purposes as if he had continued to work on the job. A returning veteran cannot claim a promotion that depends solely upon satisfactory completion of a prerequisite period of employment training unless he first works that period. But upon satisfactorily completing that period, as petitioners did here, he can insist upon a seniority date reflecting the delay caused by military service. Any lesser protection, would deny him the benefit of the salutary provisions of §§ 9 (c)(1) and 9 (c) (2) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Section 9 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 614, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 459, provides in relevant part as follows:
“(b) In the case of any such person who, in order to perform such training and service, has left or leaves a position (other than a temporary position) in the employ of any employer and who (1) receives such certificate, and (2) makes application for reemployment within ninety days after he is relieved from such training and service or from hospitalization continuing after discharge for a period of not more than one year—
“(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 or his successor in interest to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay; or
“ (ii) if not qualified to perform the duties of such position by reason of disability sustained during such service but qualified to perform the duties of any other position in the employ of such employer or his successor in interest, be restored by such employer or his successor in interest to such other position the duties of which he is qualified to perform as will provide him like seniority, status, and pay, or the nearest approximation thereof consistent with the circumstances in his case,
“unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so;
“(c)(1) Any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) of this section shall be considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during his period of training and service in the armed forces, shall be so restored 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.
“ (2) It is declared to be the sense of the Congress that any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) of this section should be so restored in such manner as to give him such status in his employment as he would have enjoyed if he had continued in such employment continuously from the time of his entering the armed forces until the time of his restoration to such employment.”
Petitioners were represented by the United States Attorney, pursuant to the provisions of 50 U. S. C. App. § 459 (d). The Railway Employes’ Department, AFL-CIO, has filed in this Court a brief amicus curiae opposing petitioners’ claims.
The opinion of the District Court is not reported.
The agreement provides in pertinent part:
“A helper who has been or who is later advanced to carman will retain seniority as helper. When he has completed a total of 1040 days of service as carman he shall be considered as a qualified carman. At the completion of the 1040 days of service he will make his choice in writing to acquire a seniority date as carman as of the ending date of the 1040 days of service as such and relinquish his seniority as helper. If he fails to do so he will return to status of helper and will not again be considered in the selection of men for advancement under this agreement. He may, however, at a later date be employed as a carman and acquire a seniority date as carman as of the date so employed but will automatically lose seniority as a helper.”
The present § 9 (c) (1) is a reenactment of § 9 (c) (1) of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, 614, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 459, which had reenacted § 8 (c) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
It is not absolutely clear that' there was such a stipulation in Diehl. The Court of Appeals in Tilton said: “The parties in their briefs here both refer to a stipulation in Diehl. We find no clear reference to a stipulation in the opinions of either the Third Circuit or the district court. Inasmuch, however, as the plaintiffs’ present counsel argued the Diehl case in the Supreme Court, we assume the existence of the stipulation.” 306 F. 2d, at 877, n. 8.
These contingencies were present in Diehl but did not bar relief.
The only discretion in the present case was that vested in the railroad and union to select from among the carmen helpers those to be upgraded. This discretion had been exercised in petitioners’ favor prior to their entry into military service.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Last Term we issued a decree in this case which enjoined the State of New Mexico “to comply with its Article 111(a) obligation under the Pecos River Compact and to determine the extent of its obligation in accordance with the formula approved by the decisions of this Court.” Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U. S. 124, 133 (1987). We retained jurisdiction for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the decree as might be deemed proper. In particular, we approved the Special Master’s recommendation that a River Master be appointed in this case, and requested that on remand the Special Master “recommend an amendment to the decree, specifying as he deems necessary the duties of the River Master and the consequences of his determinations. Any other suggestions for amendments should also be called to our attention.” Id., at 135.
The Special Master has now submitted a report, which includes a proposed amended decree. New Mexico’s.motion for leave to file a reply brief is granted. New Mexico’s exceptions to the report are overruled. The report is approved and an amended decree will issue forthwith. The- Special Master has also recommended a person to serve as River Master. We accept that recommendation.
AMENDED DECREE
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed That:
I
DEFINITIONS
A. For purposes of this Decree:
1. “Accounting year” is the calendar year during which the River Master makes the calculations required by Article III.B.l. below; “water year” is the calendar year immediately preceding the accounting year.
2. “Manual” is the Pecos River Master’s Manual admitted into evidence as Texas Exhibit 108, which is an integral part of this Decree. The Manual may be modified from time to time in accordance with the terms of this Decree.
3. “Overage” is the amount of water delivered by New Mexico in any water year which exceeded the Article 111(a) obligation for that year.
4. “Shortfall” is the amount by which the water delivered by New Mexico in any water year fell short of the Article 111(a) obligation for that year.
II
INJUNCTION
A. The State of New Mexico, its officers, attorneys, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined:
1. To comply with Article 111(a) of the Pecos River Compact and to meet the obligation thereof by delivering water to Texas at state line as prescribed in this Decree.
2. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a final Report of the River Master identifying a shortfall, to submit to the River Master a proposed plan providing for verifiable action by New Mexico that will increase the amount of water at state line prior to March 31 of the year following the accounting year by the amount of the shortfall. In order to identify the incremental amount of water being delivered to Texas to satisfy a prior shortfall, the plan shall:
(a) Identify the specific actions to be taken by New Mexico to increase the amount of water flowing to Texas, including, if applicable, the points at which water will enter the river or diversions will be curtailed;
(b) Specify the dates and times the actions will be taken;
(c) Provide a calculation under the procedures and equations set forth in the Manual of the amount of water that can be presumed to arrive at state line as a result of the actions;
(d) Identify the means by which the actions can be verified and provide assurances that documents and data necessary for verification will be submitted to the River Master within thirty (30) days from the date the actions are taken;
(e) Provide guarantees that the water to be delivered pursuant to the plan will not be diverted within New Mexico.
3. To comply prior to March 31 of the year following the accounting year with the terms of an Approved Plan to remedy any shortfall. Compliance with an Approved Plan will be deemed to satisfy the shortfall. Subject to the review provided in Article III.D. of this Decree, the calculations made pursuant to Article II.A.2(c), as approved by the River Master, shall be determinative of the amount of water delivered at state line.
III
RIVER MASTER
A. Appointment. The appointment of a River Master is made by the attached Order of Appointment.
B. Duties. The River Master shall perform the following duties:
1. Calculate in accounting year 1988, beginning with water year 1987, and continuing every year thereafter, pursuant to the methodology set forth in the Manual:
(a) The Article 111(a) obligation;
(b) Any shortfall or overage, which calculation shall disregard deliveries of water pursuant to an Approved Plan;
(c) The net shortfall, if any, after subtracting any overages accumulated in previous years, beginning with water year 1987.
2. Deliver to the parties a Preliminary Report setting forth the tentative results of the calculations required by Section III.B.l. of this Decree by May 15 of the accounting year;
3. Consider any written objections to the Preliminary Report submitted by the parties prior to June 15 of the accounting year;
4. Deliver to the parties a Pinal Report setting forth the final results of the calculations required by Section III.B.l. of this Decree by July 1 of the accounting year;
5. Review any plan proposed by New Mexico pursuant to Article II. A.2. of this Decree for its efficacy in satisfying any shortfall and consider any written objections to the plan which are submitted by Texas by September 1 of the accounting year.
6. Modify the proposed plan as is deemed necessary to ensure satisfaction of the shortfall and deliver to the parties such Approved Plan by October 1 of the accounting year;
7. Deliver to the parties and file with this Court a Compliance Report by June 1 of the year following any accounting year in which there is an Approved Plan, which report shall include a finding of New Mexico’s compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the Approved Plan and the reasons for such finding.
C. 'Modification of Manual.
1. The River Master shall modify the Manual in accordance with any written agreement of the parties. Such written agreement shall state the effective date of the modification and whether it is to be retroactive. If retroactive, the agreement shall specify the procedures for making the retroactive adjustments.
2. Absent written agreement of the parties, upon motion by either party and for good, cause shown, the River Master may modify the Manual. Opposition to any such motion shall be submitted to the River Master in writing within thirty (30) days after service of the motion or within such extended time as may be allowed by the River Master. Additional written submissions and any oral presentation will be at the River Master’s discretion. The River Master may adopt, reject, or amend the proposed modification and shall serve upon the parties his or her written Modification Determination and the grounds therefor. The River Master may also defer decision on a proposed modification, but if no action is taken within one (1) year of its submission, the motion shall be deemed denied.
3. A modification of the Manual by motion shall be first applicable to the water year in which the modification becomes effective.
4. All modifications of the Manual shall be transmitted immediately to the Clerk of this Court and shall be retained in the files for this case.
D. Effect ofRiver Master’s Determination. Unless stayed by this Court, any Final Report, Approved Plan, Compliance Report, or Modification Determination (hereinafter, collectively, “Final Determination”) shall be effective upon its adoption, and shall be subject to review by this Court only on a showing that the Final Determination is clearly erroneous. A party seeking review of a Final Determination must file a motion with the Clerk of this Court within thirty (30) days of its adoption, which motion shall set forth the Final Determination on which review is sought and a concise statement of the basis of the claim that the Final Determination is clearly erroneous.
E. Authority of Pecos River Commission. Nothing in this Decree is intended to displace the authority of the Pecos River Commission to administer the Pecos River Compact, and if the Commissioners reach agreement on any matter, the parties shall advise the Court and seek an appropriate amendment to this Decree.
F. Communication with River Master. Ex parte communications with the River Master are forbidden. Any written communication with the River Master by motion or otherwise shall be simultaneously served by mail on the opposing party. Any oral communication with the River Master shall be made in the presence of the opposing party, whether by telephone conference call or in person.
G. Distribution of Costs. The compensation of, and the costs and expenses incurred by, the River Master shall be approved by the Court and borne equally by the State of Texas and the State of New Mexico.
IV
DISMISSAL OF UNITED STATES
A. The United States is dismissed from this proceeding without prejudice.
V
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the Decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy.
ORDER APPOINTING RIVER MASTER
It Is Ordered that Neil S. Grigg be and he hereby is appointed River Master of the Pecos River for the purpose of performing the duties set forth in the Amended Decree of March 28, 1988.
It Is Further Ordered that the River Master shall have the power and authority to subpoena information or data, compiled in reasonable usable form, which he deems necessary or desirable for the proper and efficient performance of his duties.
It Is Further Ordered that the River Master is allowed his necessary expenses and reasonable fees for his services, statements for which shall be submitted quarterly to the Court for its approval. Upon Court approval, such statements will be paid by the State of New Mexico and the State of Texas.
It Is Further Ordered that if the position of River Master becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court.
Justice Stevens 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:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Respondents are the executors and trustees of the estate of William Bate Williams. They brought this action for refund, with interest, of $35,899.12 of federal estate taxes and interest paid under protest. The relevant facts, set forth in respondents’ complaint and admitted by the Collector’s motion to dismiss, are as follows:
William Bate Williams died in 1943. Under the terms of his will, the entire gross estate of $508,411.17 was bequeathed to respondents to hold in trust for the testator’s
“beloved mother, Elizabeth Bate Williams, for and during her natural life, with the full power and authority herein conferred.
“I hereby direct both my executors and my trustees to pay to my mother the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty (750.00) Dollars a month to be used by her as she sees fit. In the event the income from my estate is not sufficient to pay the said Seven Hundred Fifty ($750.00) Dollars each month, then my executors and trustees are hereby empowered, authorized and directed to encroach on the corpus of the estate to pay said amount and to sell any of my property, real or personal, for this purpose.
“In addition to this amount my said executors and trustees are authorized and empowered to use and expend in their discretion any portion of my estate, either income or principal, for the pleasure, comfort and welfare of my mother.
“The first object to be accomplished in the administration and management of my estate and this trust is to take care of and provide for my mother in such manner as she may desire and my executors and trustees are fully authorized and likewise directed to manage my estate primarily for this purpose.”
The will went on to provide for distribution of the corpus of the estate remaining at the mother’s death. Twenty-five per cent of the total remaining estate was bequeathed to the testator’s cousin, and stated sums in cash were left to other named legatees. After these legacies, the balance of the estate was directed to be paid over to four named charities, in equal shares.
At the time of the testator’s death the estate was earning a net income of approximately $15,000 per year, $6,000 more than the amount directed to be paid, at $750 per month, to the testator’s mother. The mother at that time was eighty-five years old, lived on substantially less than $750 per month, and had independent investments worth approximately $100,000 which netted her an income of about $300 per month. A woman of moderate needs and without dependents, she died three years later without having requested respondents to invade the trust corpus in her behalf.
The disputed estate tax liability resulted from respondents’ attempt to deduct from the gross estate the portion bequeathed to the four charities, in reliance on the charitable deduction provision of § 812 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Commissioner denied the deduction. The Collector here resists the refund claim, on the ground that the possibility of invasion of the corpus on behalf of the testator’s mother prevented the ultimate charitable interest, at the testator’s death, from being “presently ascertainable, and hence severable from the interest in favor of the private use,” within the meaning of the applicable Treasury Regulation.
On the authority of Merchants Bank v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 256, the District Court granted the Collector’s motion to dismiss. 74 F. Supp. 113. The Court of Appeals reversed. 166 F. 2d 993. It held that, notwithstanding the language of the testamentary provision for the "pleasure, comfort and welfare” of the mother, the complaint’s allegations of the mother’s great age, independent means and modest tastes raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the trust corpus was threatened with invasion and the charitable interest hence subject to depletion in favor of the testator’s mother.
We agree with the District Court that this case is governed by the decision in the Merchants Bank case and that the suit should be dismissed. It is apparent on the face of the complaint that this testator’s will did not limit the trustees’ disbursements to conformity with some ready standard — as where, for example, trustees are to provide the prime beneficiary with such sums as “may be necessary to suitably maintain her in as much comfort as she now enjoys.” Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U. S. 151, 154. The stated income here directed to be paid to the mother was “to be used by her as she sees fit.” Beyond this the trustees were empowered to invade or wholly utilize the corpus of the estate for the mother’s “pleasure, comfort and welfare,” bearing in mind the testator’s injunction that “The first object to be accomplished ... is to take care of and provide for my mother in such manner as she may desire . . . .” As in the Merchants Bank case, where the trustees had discretion to disburse sums for the “comfort, support, maintenance, and/or happiness” of the prime beneficiary, so here we think it the “salient fact . . . that the purposes for which the widow could, and might wish to have the funds spent do not lend themselves to reliable prediction.” 320 U. S. 256, 258, 262.
We do not overlook the unlikelihood that a woman of the mother’s age and circumstances would abandon her customary frugality and squander her son’s wealth. But, though there may have been little chance of that extravagance which would waste a part or consume the whole of the charitable interest, that chance remained. What common experience might regard as remote in the generality of cases may nonetheless be beyond the realm of precise prediction in the single instance. The contingency which would have diminished or destroyed the charitable interest here considered might well have been insured against, but such an arithmetic generalization of experience would not have made this charitable interest “presently ascertainable.” “Rough guesses, approximations, or even the relatively accurate valuations on which the market place might be willing to act are not sufficient.” Merchants Bank v. Commissioner, supra at 261.
Nor do we think it significant that the trust corpus was intact at the mother’s death, for the test of present ascertainability of the ultimate charitable interest is applied “at the death of the testator.” Ibid. The charitable deduction is a matter of congressional grace, and it is for Congress to determine the advisability of permitting amendment of estate tax returns at such time as the probable vesting of the charitable interest has reduced itself to unalterable fact.
Reversed-.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Jackson dissent upon the grounds stated in dissent in Merchants Bank v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 256, at 263.
26 U. S. C. §812 (d), 53 Stat. 124-125, as amended by Revenue Act of 1942, §408 (a), 56 Stat. 949, and Revenue Act of 1943, §511 (a), 58 Stat. 74-75.
“If a trust is created for both a charitable and a private purpose, deduction may be taken of the value of the beneficial interest in favor of the former only insofar as such interest is presently ascertainable, and hence severable from the interest in favor of the private use. . . .” U. S. Treas. Reg. 105 § 81.44 (1942). Cf. id. at §81.46: “If the legatee, devisee, donee, or trustee is empowered to divert the property or fund, in whole or in part, to a use or purpose which would have rendered it, to the extent that it is subject to such power, not deductible had it been directly so bequeathed, devised, or given by the decedent, deduction will be limited to that portion, if any, of the property or fund which is exempt from an exercise of such power.”
In view of the express priority accorded the mother’s wishes, respondents’ fiduciary duty to the ultimate beneficiaries, private and charitable, was ineffective to guarantee preservation of any predictable fraction of the corpus for disposition after the mother’s death. The testator, indeed, made the gifts to charity subordinate not only to his mother’s interest but to that of all the private beneficiaries, stating in his will that the charitable interest “is a residuary bequest . . . and is not to infringe on any of the other legacies here-inbefore provided.”
“. . . [T]he fundamental question in the case at bar, is not whether this contingent interest can be insured against or its value guessed at, but what construction shall be given to a statute. Did Congress in providing for the determination of the net estate taxable, intend that a deduction should be made for a contingency, the actual value of which cannot be determined from any known data? Neither taxpayer, nor revenue officer — -even if equipped with all the aid which the actuarial art can supply — could do more than guess at the value of this contingency. It is clear that Congress did not intend that a deduction should be made for a contingent gift of that character.” Humes v. United States, 276 U. S. 487, 494.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966). The issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to require a defendant who alleges incompetence to stand trial to bear the burden of proving so by a preponderance of the evidence.
In 1984, petitioner Teofilo Medina, dr., stole a gun from a pawnshop in Santa Ana, California. In the weeks that followed, he held up two gas stations, a drive-in dairy, and a market, murdered three employees of those establishments, attempted to rob a fourth employee, and shot at two passersby who attempted to follow his getaway car. Petitioner was apprehended less than one month after his crime spree began and was charged with a number of criminal offenses, including three counts of first-degree murder. Before trial, petitioner’s counsel moved for a competency hearing under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1368 (West 1982), on the ground that he was unsure whether petitioner had the ability to participate in the criminal proceedings against him. 1 Record 320.
Under California law, “[a] person cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while such person is mentally incompetent.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1367 (West 1982). A defendant is mentally incompetent “if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” Ibid. The statute establishes a presumption that the defendant is competent, and the party claiming incompetence bears the burden of proving that the defendant is incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. § 1369(f) (“It shall be presumed that the defendant is mentally competent unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent”).
The trial court granted the motion for a hearing and the preliminary issue of petitioner’s competence to stand trial was tried to a jury. Over the course of the 6-day hearing, in addition to lay testimony, the jury heard conflicting expert testimony about petitioner’s mental condition. The Supreme Court of California gives this summary:
“Dr. Gold, a psychiatrist who knew defendant while he was in the Arizona prison system, testified that defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic and was incompetent to assist his attorney at trial. Dr. Echeandia, a clinical psychologist at the Orange County jail, doubted the accuracy of the schizophrenia diagnosis, and could not express an opinion on defendant’s competence to stand trial. Dr. Sharma, a psychiatrist, likewise expressed doubts regarding the schizophrenia diagnosis and leaned toward a finding of competence. Dr. Pierce, a psychologist, believed defendant was schizophrenic, with impaired memory and hallucinations, but nevertheless was competent to stand trial. Dr. Sakurai, a jail psychiatrist, opined that although defendant suffered from depression, he was competent, and that he may have been malingering. Dr. Sheffield, who treated defendant for knife wounds he incurred in jail, could give no opinion on the competency issue.” 51 Cal. 3d 870, 880, 799 P. 2d 1282, 1288 (1990).
During the competency hearing, petitioner engaged in several verbal and physical outbursts. App. 62, 81-82; 3 Record 671, 699, 916. On one of these occasions, he overturned the counsel table. App. 81-82.
The trial court instructed the jury in accordance with § 1369(f) that “the defendant is presumed to be mentally competent and he has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally incompetent as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability.” App. 87. The jury found petitioner competent to stand trial. Id., at 89. A new jury was empaneled for the criminal trial, 4 Record 1020, and petitioner entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, 51 Cal. 3d, at 899, 799 R 2d, at 1300. At the conclusion of the guilt phase, petitioner was found guilty of all three counts of first-degree murder and a number of lesser offenses. Id., at 878-879, 799 P. 2d, at 1287. He moved to withdraw his insanity plea, and the trial court granted the motion. Two days later, however, petitioner moved to reinstate his insanity plea. Although his counsel expressed the view that reinstatement of the insanity plea was “tactically unsound,” the trial court granted petitioner’s motion. Id., at 899, 799 P. 2d, at 1300-1301. A sanity hearing was held, and the jury found that petitioner was sane at the time of the offenses. At the penalty phase, the jury found that the murders were premeditated and deliberate and returned a verdict of death. The trial court imposed the death penalty for the murder convictions and sentenced petitioner to a prison term for the remaining offenses. Id., at 878-880, 799 P. 2d, at 1287-1288.
On direct appeal to the California Supreme Court, petitioner did not challenge the standard of proof set forth in § 1369(f), but argued that the statute violated his right to due process by placing the burden of proof on him to establish that he was not competent to stand trial. In addition, he argued that § 1369(f) violates due process by establishing a presumption that a defendant is competent to stand trial unless proven otherwise. The court rejected both of these contentions. Relying upon our decision in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790 (1952), which rejected a due process challenge to an Oregon statute that required a criminal defendant to prove the defense of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court observed that “the states ordinarily have great latitude to deeide the proper placement of proof burdens.” 51 Cal. 3d, at 884, 799 P. 2d, at 1291. In its view, § 1369(f) “does not subject the defendant to hardship or oppression,” because “one might reasonably expect that the defendant and his counsel would have better access than the People to the facts relevant to the court’s competency inquiry.” Id., at 885, 799 P. 2d, at 1291. The court also rejected petitioner’s argument that it is “irrational” to retain a presumption of competence after sufficient doubt has arisen as to a defendant’s competence to warrant a hearing and “deeline[d] to hold as a matter of due process that such a presumption must be treated as a mere presumption affecting the burden of production, which disappears merely because a preliminary, often undefined and indefinite, ‘doubt’ has arisen that justifies further inquiry into the matter.” Id., at 885, 799 P. 2d, at 1291-1292. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 924 (1991), and now affirm.
II
Petitioner argues that our decision in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), provides the proper analytical framework for determining whether California’s allocation of the burden of proof in competency hearings comports with due process. We disagree. In Mathews, we articulated a three-factor test for evaluating procedural due process claims which requires a court to consider
“[fjirst, 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.
In our view, the Mathews balancing test does not provide the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules which, like the one at bar, are part of the criminal process. E. g., People v. Fields, 62 Cal. 2d 538, 542, 399 P. 2d 369, 371 (competency hearing “must be regarded as part of the proceedings in the criminal case”) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 858 (1965).
In the field of criminal law, we “have defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly” based on the recognition that, “[bjeyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Due Process Clause has limited operation.” Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S. 342, 352 (1990); accord, United States v. Lovasco, 431 U. S. 783, 790 (1977). The Bill of Rights speaks in explicit terms to many aspects of criminal procedure, and the expansion of those constitutional guarantees under the open-ended rubric of the Due Process Clause invites undue interference with both considered legislative judgments and the careful balance that the Constitution strikes between liberty and order. As we said in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 564 (1967), “it has never been thought that [decisions under the Due Process Clause] establish this Court as a rule-making organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure.” Accord, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 70 (1991); Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 438, n. 6 (1983).
Mathews itself involved a due process challenge to the adequacy of administrative procedures established for the purpose of terminating Social Security disability benefits, and the Mathews balancing test was first conceived to address due process claims arising in the context of administrative law. Although we have since characterized, the Mathews balancing test as "a general approach for testing challenged state procedures under a due process claim,” Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 599 (1979), and applied it in a variety of contexts, e. g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745 (1982) (standard of proof for termination of parental rights over objection); Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof for involuntary civil commitment to mental hospital for indefinite period), we have invoked Mathews in resolving due process claims in criminal law cases on only two occasions.
In United States v. Raddatz, 447 U. S. 667 (1980), we cited to the Mathews balancing test in rejecting a due process challenge to a provision of the Federal Magistrates Act which authorized magistrates to make findings and recommendations on motions to suppress evidence. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (1985), we relied upon Mathews in holding that, when an indigent capital defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, due process requires that the defendant be provided access to the assistance of a psychiatrist. Without disturbing the holdings of Raddatz and Ake, it is not at all clear that Mathews was essential to the results reached in those cases. In Raddatz, supra, at 677-681, the Court adverted to the Mathews balancing test, but did not explicitly rely upon it in conducting the due process analysis. Raddatz, supra, at 700 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“The Court recites th[e] test, but it does not even attempt to apply it”). The holding in Ake can be understood as an expansion of earlier due process cases holding that an indigent criminal defendant is entitled to the minimum assistance necessary to assure him “a fair opportunity to present his defense” and “to participate meaningfully in [the] judicial proceeding.” Ake, supra, at 76.
The proper analytical approach, and the one that we adopt here, is that set forth in Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197 (1977), which was decided one year after Mathews. In Patterson, we rejected a due process challenge to a New York law which placed on a criminal defendant the burden of proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Bather than relying upon the Mathews balancing test, however, we reasoned that a narrower inquiry was more appropriate:
“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, Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 134 (1954) (plurality opinion), and that we should not lightly construe the Constitution so as to intrude upon the administration of justice by the individual States. Among other things, it is normally ‘within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out, including the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion/ and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless ‘it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental/ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 523 (1958); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 798 (1952); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934).” Patterson v. New York, supra, at 201-202.
Accord, Martin v. Ohio, 480 U. S. 228, 232 (1987). As Patterson suggests, because the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition, it is appropriate to exercise substantial deference to legislative judgments in this area. The analytical approach endorsed in Patterson is thus far less intrusive than that approved in Mathews.
Based on our review of the historical treatment of the burden of proof in competency proceedings, the operation of the challenged rule, and our precedents, we cannot say that the allocation of the burden of proof to a criminal defendant to prove incompetence "offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Patterson v. New York, supra, at 202 (internal quotation marks omitted). Historical practice is probative of whether a procedural rule can be characterized as fundamental. See 432 U. S., at 202; In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361 (1970). The rule that a criminal defendant who is incompetent should not be required to stand trial has deep roots in our common-law heritage. Blackstone acknowledged that a defendant “who became ‘mad’ after the commission of an offense should not be arraigned for it ‘because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought,’” and “if he became ‘mad’ after pleading, he should not be tried, ‘for how can he make his defense?’” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S., at 171 (quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *24); accord, 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *34-*35.
By contrast, there is no settled tradition on the proper allocation of the burden of proof in a proceeding to determine competence. Petitioner concedes that ‘‘[t]he common law rule on this issue at the time the Constitution was adopted is not entirely clear.” Brief for Petitioner 36. Early English authorities either express no view on the subject, e.g., Firth's Case (1790), 22 Howell St. Tr. 307,811,317-318 (1817); Kinloch’s Case (1746), 18 Howell St. Tr. 395, 411 (1813), or are ambiguous. E. g., King v. Steel, 1 Leach 452, 168 Eng. Rep. 328 (1787) (stating that, once a jury had determined that the defendant was “mute by the visitation of God” (i. e., deaf and dumb) and not “mute of malice,” there arose a “presumption of ideotism” that the prosecution could rebut by demonstrating that the defendant had the capacity “to understand by signs and tokens”).
Nineteenth century English decisions do not take a consistent position on the allocation of the burden of proof. Compare R. v. Turton, 6 Cox C. C. 385 (1854) (burden on defendant), with R. v. Davies, 3 Carrington & Kirwan 328, 175 Eng. Rep. 575 (1853) (burden on prosecution); see generally R. v. Podola, 43 Crim. App. 220, 235-236, 3 All E. R. 418, 429-430 (1959) (collecting conflicting cases). American decisions dating from the turn of the century also express divergent views on the subject. E. g., United States v. Chisolm, 149 F. 284, 290 (SD Ala. 1906) (defendant bears burden of raising a reasonable doubt as to competence); State v. Helm, 69 Ark. 167, 170-171, 61 S. W. 915, 916 (1901) (burden on defendant to prove incompetence).
Contemporary practice, while of limited relevance to the due process inquiry, see Martin v. Ohio, supra, at 236; Patterson v. New York, supra, at 211, demonstrates that there remains no settled view of where the burden of proof should lie. The Federal Government and all 50 States have adopted procedures that address the issue of a defendant’s competence to stand trial. See 18 U. S. C. §4241; S. -Brakel, J. Parry, & B. Weiner, The Mentally Disabled and the Law, Table 12.1, pp. 744-754 (3d ed. 1985). Some States have enacted statutes that, like § 1369(f), place the burden of proof on the party raising the issue. E. g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d(b) (1991); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 50, § 7403(a) (Purdon Supp. 1991). A number of state courts have said that the burden of proof may be placed on the defendant to prove incompetence. E. g., Wallace v. State, 248 Ga. 255, 258-259, 282 S. E. 2d 325, 330 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 927 (1982); State v. Aumann, 265 N. W. 2d 316, 319-320 (Iowa 1978); State v. Chapman, 104 N. M. 324, 327-328, 721 P. 2d 392, 395-396 (1986); Barber v. State, 757 S. W. 2d 359, 362-363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1091 (1989). Still other state courts have said that the burden rests with the prosecution. E, g., Diaz v. State, 508 A. 2d 861, 863-864 (Del. 1986); Commonwealth v. Crowley, 393 Mass. 393, 400-401, 471 N. E. 2d 353, 357-358 (1984); State v. Bertrand, 123 N. H. 719, 727-728, 465 A. 2d 912, 916 (1983); State v. Jones, 406 N. W. 2d 366, 369-370 (S. D. 1987).
Discerning no historical basis for concluding that the allocation of the burden of proving incompetence to the defendant violates due process, we turn to consider whether the rule transgresses any recognized principle of “fundamental fairness” in operation. Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S., at 352. Respondent argues that our decision in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790 (1952), which upheld the right of the State to place on a defendant the burden of proving the defense of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, compels the conclusion that § 1369(f) is constitutional because, like a finding of insanity, a finding of incompetence has no necessary relationship to the elements of a crime, on which the State bears the burden of proof. See also Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U. S. 877 (1976). This analogy is not convincing, because there are significant differences between a claim of incompetence and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. See Drope v. Missouri, supra, at 176-177; Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 739 (1972).
In a competency hearing, the “emphasis is on [the defendant’s] capacity to consult with counsel and to comprehend the proceedings, and . . . this is by no means the same test as those which determine criminal responsibility at the time of the crime.” Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 388-389 (Harlan, J., dissenting). If a defendant is incompetent, due process considerations require suspension of the criminal trial until such time, if any, that the defendant regains the capacity to participate in his defense and understand the proceedings against him. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960) (per curiam). The entry of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, by contrast, presupposes that the defendant is competent to stand trial and to enter a plea. Moreover, while the Due Process Clause affords an incompetent defendant the right not to be tried, Drope v. Missouri, supra, at 172-173; Pate v. Robinson, supra, at 386, we have not said that the Constitution requires the States to recognize the insanity defense. See, e.g., Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, 536-537 (1968).
Under California law, the allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant will affect competency determinations only in a narrow class of cases where the evidence is in equipoise; that is, where the evidence that a defendant is competent is just as strong as the evidence that he is incompetent. See United States v. DiGilio, 538 F. 2d 972, 988 (CA3 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1038 (1977). Our cases recognize that a defendant has a constitutional right “not to be tried while legally incompetent,” and that a State’s “failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S., at 172, 173. Once a State provides a defendant access to procedures for making a competency evaluation, however, we perceive no basis for holding that due process further requires the State to assume the burden of vindicating the defendant’s constitutional right by persuading the trier of fact that the defendant is competent to stand trial.
Petitioner relies upon federal- and state-court decisions which have said that the allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant in these circumstances is inconsistent with the rule of Pate v. Robinson, supra, at 384, where we held that a defendant whose competence is in doubt cannot be deemed to have waived his right to a competency hearing. E.g., United States v. DiGilio, supra, at 988; People v. McCullum, 66 Ill. 2d 306, 312-314, 362 N. E. 2d 307, 310-311 (1977); State v. Bertrand, supra, at 727-728, 465 A. 2d, at 916. Because “ ‘it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently “waive” his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial/” it has been said that it is also “contradictory to argue that a defendant who may be incompetent should be presumed to possess sufficient intelligence that he will be able to adduce evidence of his incompetency which might otherwise be within his grasp.” United States v. DiGilio, supra, at 988 (quoting Pate v. Robinson, supra, at 384).
In our view, the question whether a defendant whose competence is in doubt may waive his right to a competency hearing is quite different from the question whether the burden of proof may be placed on the defendant once a hearing is held. The rule announced in Pate was driven by our concern that it is impossible to say whether a defendant whose competence is in doubt has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a competency hearing. Once a competency hearing is held, however, the defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel, e. g., Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454, 469-471 (1981), and psychiatric evidence is brought to bear on the question of the defendant’s mental condition, see, e. g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1369(a), 1370 (West 1982 and Supp. 1992); see generally Brakel, Parry, & Weiner, The Mentally Disabled and the Law, at 697-698. Although an impaired defendant might be limited in his ability to assist counsel in demonstrating incompetence, the defendant’s inability to assist counsel can, in and of itself, constitute probative evidence of incompetence, and defense counsel will often have the best-informed view of the defendant’s ability to participate in his defense. E. g., United States v. David, 167 U. S. App. D. C. 117, 122, 511 F. 2d 355, 360 (1975); United States ex rel. Roth v. Zelker, 455 F. 2d 1105, 1108 (CA2), cert. denied, 408 U. S. 927 (1972). While reasonable minds may differ as to the wisdom of placing the burden of proof on the defendant in these circumstances, we believe that a State may take such factors into account in making judgments as to the allocation of the burden of proof, and we see no basis for concluding that placing the burden on the defendant violates the principle approved in Pate.
Petitioner argues that psychiatry is an inexact science, and that placing the burden of proof on the defendant violates due process because it requires the defendant to “bear the risk of being forced to stand trial as a result of an erroneous finding of competency.” Brief for Petitioner 8. Our cases recognize that “[t]he subtleties and nuances of psychiatric diagnosis render certainties virtually beyond reach in most situations,” because “[pjsychiatric diagnosis ... is to a large extent based on medical ‘impressions’ drawn from subjective analysis and filtered through the experience of the diagnostician.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 430. The Due Process Clause does not, however, require a State to adopt one procedure over another on the basis that it may produce results more favorable to the accused. See, e. g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S., at 208 (“Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person”); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934) (a state procedure “does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar”). Consistent with our precedents, it is enough that the State affords the criminal defendant on whose behalf a plea of incompetence is asserted a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he is not competent to stand trial.
Petitioner further contends that the burden of proof should be placed on the State because we have allocated the burden to the State on a variety of other issues that implicate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. E. g., Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S. 157, 168-169 (1986) (waiver of Miranda rights); Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 444-445, n. 5 (1984) (inevitable discovery of evidence obtained by unlawful means); United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164, 177-178, n. 14 (1974) (voluntariness of consent to search); Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 489 (1972) (voluntariness of confession). The decisions upon which petitioner relies, however, do not control the result here, because they involved situations where the government sought to introduce inculpatory evidence obtained by virtue of a waiver of, or in violation of, a defendant’s constitutional rights. In such circumstances, allocating the burden of proof to the government furthers the objective of “deterring lawless conduct by police and prosecution.” Ibid. No such purpose is served by allocating the burden of proof to the government in a competency hearing.
In light of our determination that the allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant does not offend due process, it is not difficult to dispose of petitioner’s challenge to the presumption of competence imposed by § 1369(f). Under California law, a defendant is required to make a threshold showing of incompetence before a hearing is required and, at the hearing, the defendant may be prevented from making decisions that are normally left to the discretion of a competent defendant. E. g., People v. Samuel, 29 Cal. 3d 489, 495-496, 629 P. 2d 485, 486-487 (1981). Petitioner argues that, once the trial court has expressed a doubt as to the defendant’s competence, a hearing is held, and the defendant is deprived of his right to make determinations reserved to competent persons, it is irrational to retain the presumption that the defendant is competent.
In rejecting this contention below, the California Supreme Court observed that “[t]he primary significance of the presumption of competence is to place on defendant (or the People, if they contest his competence) the burden of rebutting it” and that, “[b]y its terms, the presumption of competence is one which affects the burden of proof.” 51 Cal. 3d, at 885, 799 P. 2d, at 1291. We see no reason to disturb the Caiifor-nia Supreme Court’s conclusion that, in essence, the challenged presumption is a restatement of the burden of proof, and it follows from what we have said that the presumption does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Nothing in today’s decision is inconsistent with our longstanding recognition that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S., at 172-173; Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 386; see also Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U. S. 127, 139 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). Rather, our rejection of petitioner’s challenge to § 1369(f) is based on a determination that the California procedure is “constitutionally adequate” to guard against such results, Drope v. Missouri, supra, at 172, and reflects our considered view that “[traditionally, due process has required that only the most basic procedural safeguards be observed; more subtle balancing of society’s interests against those of the accused ha[s] been left to the legislative branch,” Patterson v. New York, supra, at 210.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limits the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to make public disclosure of information it has obtained in investigating and attempting to resolve a claim of employment discrimination. We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was correct in holding that a prelitigation disclosure of information in a Commission file to the employee who filed the Title YII claim is a “public” disclosure within the meaning of the statutory restrictions. 445 U. S. 926.
I
This case arose when the Commission sought evidence with respect to discrimination charges filed against the Joseph Horne Co., a division of the respondent, Associated Dry Goods Corp. Horne operates retail department stores in Pennsylvania. Between 1971 and 1973, seven Home employees filed employment discrimination charges with the Commission, six alleging sex discrimination and one alleging racial discrimination. The Commission began its investigation by requesting Horne to provide the employment records of the complainants, and statistics, documents, and other information relating to Horne’s general personnel practices. Horne refused to provide the information unless the Commission agreed beforehand not to disclose any of the requested material to the charging parties. The Commission refused to give this assurance, explaining its practice of making limited disclosure to a charging party of information in his and other files when he needs that information in connection with a potential lawsuit. When Horne continued to refuse to provide the information without an assurance of absolute secrecy, the Commission subpoenaed the material. After the Commission rejected Horne’s petition for revocation of the agency subpoena, the respondent filed this suit, asking the District Court to declare that the Commission’s limited disclosure practices violated Title VII, and to enjoin the Commission from enforcing the subpoena.
The District Court, concluding that the Commission’s disclosure of confidential information to charging parties upsets Title VII’s scheme of negotiation and settlement, held that the regulations and the provisions in the Compliance Manual covering special disclosure to charging parties violate Title VII. Accordingly, the court enforced the subpoena only on the condition that the Commission treat charging parties as members of the “public” to whom it cannot disclose any information in its files. 454 F. Supp. 387 (ED Va.). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment. EEOC v. Joseph Horne Co., 607 F. 2d 1075.
II
In enacting Title VII, Congress combined administrative and judicial means of eliminating employment discrimination. A person claiming to be the victim of discrimination must first file a charge with the Commission. The Commission must then serve notice of the charge on the employer, and begin an investigation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe the charge is true. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(b). If it finds no such reasonable cause, the Commission must dismiss the charge. Ibid. If it does find reasonable cause, it must try to eliminate the alleged discriminatory practice “by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Ibid. If its attempts at conciliation fail, the Commission may bring a civil action against the employer. § 2000e-5 (f) (1). But Title VII also makes private lawsuits by aggrieved employees an important part of its means of enforcement. If the Commission dismisses the charge, the employee may immediately file a private action. Ibid. And regardless of whether the Commission finds reasonable cause, the employee may bring an action 180 days after filing the charge if by that time the Commission has not filed its own lawsuit. Ibid.
Title VII gives the Commission two formal means of obtaining information when it investigates a charge: The Commission may examine and copy evidence in the possession of the respondent employer, § 2000e-8 (a), and subpoena evidence and documents, § 2000e-9. Congress imposed on the Commission a duty to maintain this information in. confidence. Section 706 (b) of Title VII directs that “[c]harges shall not be made public by the Commission.” If the Commission attempts informally to resolve a charge for which it has found reasonable cause, it cannot make “public” anything said or done in the course of the negotiations between the Commission and the parties; any Commission employee violating this prohibition faces criminal penalties. Ibid. Section 709 (e) of the statute supplements these prohibitions by making it a misdemeanor for any officer or employee of the Commission “to make public in any manner whatever any information” the Commission obtains through its investigative powers before the institution of any proceeding involving this information.'
Title VII nowhere defines “public.” In its regulation governing disclosure, the Commission has construed the statute’s prohibition of “public” release of information to permit pre-litigation disclosure of charges and of investigative information to the parties where such disclosure “is deemed necessary for securing appropriate relief.” 29 CFR § 1601.22 (1979). Specifically, the Commission has also created special disclosure rules permitting release of information in its files to charging parties or their attorneys, aggrieved persons in whose behalf charges have been filed and the persons or organizations who have filed the charges in their behalf, and respondents and their attorneys, so long as the request for the information is made in connection with contemplated litigation. Though normally a person can see information in the file only for the case in which he is directly involved, the Commission sometimes allows a prospective litigant to see information in files of cases brought by other employees against the same employer where that information is relevant and material to the litigant’s case. EEOC Compliance Manual § 83.7 (c). Before disclosing any information, however, the Commission expunges the names, identifying characteristics, and statements of any witnesses who have been promised anonymity, as well as the names of any other respondents. Moreover, any person requesting confidential information must execute a written agreement not to disclose the information to any other person, except as part of the normal course of litigation after a suit is filed.
Ill
For the reasons that follow, we have concluded that Congress did not include charging parties within the “public” to whom disclosure of confidential information is illegal under the provisions of Title VII here at issue. Section 706 (b) states that “[c]harges shall not be made public.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(b). The charge, of course, cannot be concealed from the charging party. Nor can it be concealed from the respondent, since the statute also expressly requires the Commission to serve notice of the charge upon the respondent within 10 days of its filing. Ibid. Thus, the “public” to whom the statute forbids disclosure of charges cannot logically include the parties to the agency proceeding. And we must infer that Congress intended the same distinction when it used the word “public” in § 709 (e), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-8 (e). The two statutory provisions treat essentially the same subject, and, absent any congressional indication to the contrary, we must assume that “public” means the same thing in the two sections.
The very limited legislative history of the disclosure provisions supports this reading. The bill passed by the House contained no restrictions on public disclosure. See H. It. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1963). The disclosure provisions were made part of the substitute bill which Senators Dirksen and Humphrey introduced in the Senate, and which the House later passed without amendment. See 110 Cong. Rec. 12819 (1964). Senator Humphrey, the cosponsor of the bill, explained that the purpose of the disclosure provisions was to prevent wide or unauthorized dissemination of unproved charges, not limited disclosures necessary to carry out the Commission’s functions: “[T]his is a ban on publicizing and not on such disclosure as is necessary to the carrying out of the Commission’s duties under the statute. . .. The amendment is not intended to hamper Commission investigations or proper cooperation with other State and Federal agencies, but rather is aimed at the making available to the general public of unproven charges.” Id., at 12723 (emphasis added). The parties to an agency proceeding are hardly members of the “general public,” especially since, as common sense and the express language of § 706 (b) show, see supra, at 598, they always have available to them the charge — proved or unproved — in the case to which they are parties.
This reading of the statute, moreover, is consistent with the coordinated scheme of administrative and judicial enforcement which Congress created to enforce Title VII. See supra, at 595. First, limited disclosure to the parties can speed the Commission’s required investigation: the Commission can more readily obtain information informally — rather than through its formal powers under 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-9— if it can present the parties with specific facts for them to corroborate or rebut. Second, limited disclosure enhances the Commission’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibility to resolve charges through informal conciliation and negotiation : A party is far more likely to settle when he has enough information to be able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent’s case as well as his own.
The respondent argues vigorously that the disclosure of investigative information to charging parties may encourage many lawsuits that would not otherwise be filed, and thus contravene the congressional policy of relying on administrative resolution and settlement. But the effect of limited disclosure may be just the opposite. The employee has little to gain from filing a futile lawsuit, and indeed faces the possibility of an adverse fee award if the suit is frivolous. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 421. Pointless litigation burdens both the parties and the federal courts, and it is in the interest of all concerned that the charging party have adequate information in assessing the feasibility of litigation. Under the respondent’s view of the statute, however, the charging party would be able to obtain that information only after filing a lawsuit. • See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-8 (e). Thus, a charging party would have to file suit in a hopeless case in order to discover that the case was hopeless. The Commission’s disclosure practice may therefore help fulfill the statutory goal of maximum possible reliance upon voluntary conciliation and administrative resolution of claims.
In any event, even if disclosure may encourage litigation in some instances, that result is not inconsistent with the ultimate purposes of Title VII. The private right of action remains an important part of Title VII’s scheme of enforcement, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 45. Congress considered the charging party a “private attorney general,” whose role in enforcing the ban on discrimination is parallel to that of the Commission itself. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, supra, at 421. The private litigant could hardly play that role without access to information needed to assess the feasibility of litigation.
IV
Nevertheless, though Congress allowed disclosure of investigative information in a charging party’s file to that party himself, nothing in the statute or its legislative history reveals any intent to allow the Commission to reveal to that charging party information in the files of other charging parties who have brought claims against the same employer. See EEOC Compliance Manual § 83.7 (c). As noted earlier, the charging party cannot logically be a member of the “public” to whom disclosure is forbidden by § 706 (b) of Title VII, and, by extension, cannot be a member of the public under § 709 (e). See supra, at 598. The reason, however, is that the charging party is obviously aware of the charge he has filed, and so cannot belong to the public to which Congress referred when it directed that “[c]harges shall not be made public.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b).
But there is no reason why the charging party should know the content of any other employee’s charge, and he must be considered a member of the public with respect to charges filed by other people. With respect to all files other than his own, he is a stranger.
The Commission notes that it often consolidates substantially similar charges for investigation, and in other instances draws upon information generated in an earlier investigation of the same employer. The Commission therefore argues that because information in one party’s file may be directly relevant to another party’s charge, it would be burdensome for it to have to reproduce the generally relevant information for each file, and unfair to a charging party to deny him access to generally relevant information that, by chance of timing, appears first and fully in another party’s file.
But the Commission’s argument is merely one of administrative convenience, and such convenience cannot override the prohibitions in the statute. Statistics and other information about an employer’s general practices may certainly be relevant to individual charges of discrimination, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 804-805, but by including such information, in full or summary form, in each individual charging party’s file, the Commission can fully comply with the statute while giving each party the information he needs to weigh the strength of his own case.
V
The Court of Appeals erred, therefore, in holding that the respondent had a categorical right to refuse to comply with the EEOC subpoena unless the Commission assured it that the information supplied would be held in absolute secrecy. The respondent was entitled only to assurance that each employee filing a charge against Horne would see information in no file other than his or her own. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 706 (b) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 259, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (b), provides in relevant part:
“Charges shall be made in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires. Charges shall not be made public by the Commission. ... If the Commission determines after such investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Nothing said or done during and as part of such informal endeavors may be made public by the Commission, its officers or employees, or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding without the consent of the persons concerned. Any person who makes public information in violation of this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . .
Section 709 (e) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 264, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-8 (e), provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Any officer or employee of the Commission who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year.”
The decision of the Court of Appeals in this ease that the Commission lacks the authority to make such a disclosure, EEOC v. Joseph Horne Co., 607 F. 2d 1075 (CA4), conflicts with that of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in H. Kessler & Co. v. EEOC, 472 F. 2d 1147. The Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits have construed the “public” disclosure provisions of the statute in virtually the same way as did the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the present case, though in the somewhat different context of the Commission’s disclosure to individual charging parties of materials emerging from a systemwide investigation of an employer’s practices after the Commission itself has brought a charge. Burlington Northern, Inc, v. EEOC, 582 F. 2d 1097 (CA7); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. EEOC, 189 U. S. App. D. C. 163, 581 F. 2d 941. Since the Commission itself brought no charge in this case, the question of how the disclosure provisions apply in that context is not before the Court.
The Commission’s general policy on disclosure is set out in 29 CFR §1601.22 (1979):
“Neither a charge, nor information obtained pursuant to section 709 (a) of Title VII, nor information obtained from records required to be kept or reports required to be filed pursuant to section 709 (e) and (d) of Title VII, shall be made matters of public information by the Commission prior to the institution of any proceedings under this Title involving such charge or information. This provision does not apply to such earlier disclosures to charging parties, or their attorneys, respondents or their attorneys, or witnesses where disclosure is deemed necessary for securing appropriate relief. This provision also does not apply to such earlier disclosures to representatives of interested Federal, State, and local authorities as may be appropriate or necessary to the carrying out of the Commission's function under Title VII, nor to the publication of data derived from such information in a form which does not reveal the identity of charging parties, respondents, or persons supplying the information.”
The Commission also has created very specific “special disclosure” rules governing the form and scope of disclosure to those persons whom the Commission treats as being separate from the “public” to whom the statute forbids any disclosure. 29 CFR § 1610.17 (d) (1979); EEOC Compliance Manual § 83 et seq.
The complaint also alleged that the EEOC disclosure rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 551, 553, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1905, and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552. In addition, it alleged that the rules were substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exceeded the Commission’s statutory authority to issue rules of the latter type only. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-12. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed any of these allegations, and the issues they raise are not now before us.
In most cases, the Commission actually begins its attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement before it makes a reasonable-cause determination. 29 CFR § 1601.20 (1979); EEOC Compliance Manual §15. If it does achieve an early settlement, the agreement states that the Commission has made no judgment on the merits of the claim. Ibid. To investigate a charge as quickly as possible and to improve the chances of an early informal resolution, the Commission holds a factfinding conference well before it makes a reasonable-cause decision, with each party presenting its version of the facts. 29 CFR § 1601.15 (c) (1979).
Under Commission regulations, the employee may obtain a right-to-sue letter upon request once 180 days have passed from the filing of the charge, 29 CFR § 1601.28 (a) (1) (1979), but the Commission may issue a right-to-sue letter earlier if it finds that it cannot complete its consideration of a charge within 180 days of filing, § 1601.28 (a)(2). The statute gives the employee 90 days from the Commission's notice of right to sue to file a private lawsuit. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1).
See n. 1, supra.
See n. 1, supra.
A charging party, however, cannot obtain information under these rules until his right to sue has attached, unless he can demonstrate a compelling need for earlier disclosure. EEOC Compliance Manual § 83.3 (a).
The Commission defines “relevant and material” as follows:
“Information in other case files is relevant or material when other case files contain charges, investigations or determinations involving the same basis (e. g., sex, religion, national origin, race) with limited exceptions such as when the private litigant’s case alleged discrimination in promotion against females and the other case file involved a male’s claim that he was not hired because of respondent’s policy of not hiring long haired males. Other case files may be relevant or material if they involve a different basis only when the treatment afforded one protected class is probative of treatment afforded the private litigant’s class (e. g., systemic discrimination against Spanish Sumamed Americans is often probative as to treatment accorded Blacks and vice versa).” EEOC Compliance Manual § 83.7(c) (2).
However, whenever the Commission discloses to a charging party information from other case files, it does not reveal the identity of the other employees who brought charges against the employer. § 83.7 (c) (4).
The Commission also expunges any records of or statements obtained in its informal settlement negotiations, except for information which the Commission can otherwise obtain under its statutory power to copy or subpoena evidence. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-8 (a), 2000e-9.
“Information in case files may be disclosed only on the condition that the person requesting disclosure agree in writing not to make the information obtained public except in the normal course of a civil action or other proceeding instituted under Title VII.” EEOC Compliance Manual §83.3 (b).
The statute also forbids public disclosure of any matters arising in informal conciliation “without the written consent of the persons concerned.” § 2000-e (5) (b). This phrase suggests that the parties, the “persons” whose consent would most obviously be necessary, are not members of the “public” to whom disclosure is forbidden.
The language in § 709 (e) forbidding disclosure “in any manner whatever,” seems clearly to refer to the means of publication, and not to the persons to whom disclosure is forbidden.
The House bill, however, did incorporate by reference the provisions of § 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 723, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 50, which prohibit FTC employees from mating “public any information obtained from the Commission without its authority . . . See H. R. 7152, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., § 710 (a) (1963). Under FTC rules construing § 10, the ban on disclosure applies only to unauthorized release of information, and does not prevent disclosure to parties to FTC proceedings. 16 CFR §§ 1.41, 1.133, 1.134 (1964) (current version at 16 CFR §§3.36, 4.10 (c) (1980)). Thus, in passing the substitute bill without amendment, the House may well have assumed that the express disclosure provisions in the Senate bill gave the Commission powers of disclosure similar to those under the FTC Act.
The other cosponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Dirksen, explained § 706 (b) ’s prohibition of any “public” disclosure of matters' revealed during informal conciliation attempts as follows: “The maximum results from the voluntary approach will be achieved if the investigation and conciliation are carried on in privacy. If voluntary compliance with this title is not achieved, the dispute will be fully exposed to public view when a court suit is filed.” 110 Cong. Rec. 8193 (1964). Senator Dirksen’s explanation strongly suggests that the parties are considered part of the private efforts at conciliation, not members of the general public to whom the dispute will be “fully exposed” after litigation begins.
The principle that courts should respect an agency’s contemporaneous construction of its founding statute, Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 408, also supports this view of Title VII, since the Commission first issued its rule permitting disclosure to the charging party shortly after Congress created the EEOC in 1966. 30 Fed. Reg. 8407 (1965). Moreover, such a contemporaneous construction deserves special deference when it has remained consistent over a long period of time. See Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 210. The Commission’s current regulation permitting such disclosure, 29 CFR § 1601.22 (1979), reflects no significant change from the original regulation. The original regulation permitted disclosure to the charging party “as may be appropriate or necessary to the carrying out of the Commission’s functions . . . .” 30 Fed. Reg. 8409 (1965). The regulation was changed in 1977 to allow disclosure to the charging party’s attorney as well as to the party himself, and to rephrase the controlling condition for disclosure as “where such disclosure is deemed necessary for securing appropriate relief.” 42 Fed. Reg. 42024 (1977) (codified at 29 CFR § 1601.22 (1979)). In the 15 years during which the Commission has consistently allowed limited disclosure to the charging party, Congress has never expressed its disapproval, and its silence in this regard suggests its consent to the Commission’s practice. United States v. Jackson, 280 U. S. 183, 196-197. In 1972 Congress made major changes in Title VII, but the only change in the disclosure provisions was a very minor one in § 706 (b): Congress amended the provision requiring consent before disclosure of conciliation matters by replacing “consent of the parties” with “consent of the persons concerned.” Section 706 (b) was also amended to permit charges to be filed “on behalf of” as well as by aggrieved parties, and the new phrase “persons concerned” .was probably intended to conform to that change. See 118 Cong. Rec. 4941 (1972).
When the Commission issues its decision on whether there is probable cause to believe the charge is true, it explains the factual bases for its conclusion. EEOC Compliance Manual §40.7. A positive finding may thereby be a spur to settlement; a negative finding may deter the employee from filing a frivolous lawsuit. If the Commission were not allowed to disclose to the parties essential facts it obtained during its investigation, it would be able to announce no more than its bare conclusion on reasonable cause, and these important benefits of the reasonable-cause determination would be lost.
Moreover, a charging party who consents to a settlement negotiated by the Commission waives his right to file a civil action. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1); see Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 364. Of course, anyone who settles a case gives up the right to litigate it. But Title VII places employment discrimination claimants in an especially difficult position by forcing them to yield initial control of their potential lawsuits to the Commission, which, in reaching agreement with the employer, might have interests different from those of the employee. It seems unlikely that Congress would force a Title VII charging party, who would have difficulty resisting the opportunity to enter the agreement negotiated by the Commission, to waive his statutory right to litigate when he cannot know the essential facts obtained in the Commission’s investigations.
An impecunious employee would be unlikely to be able to conduct a thorough investigation of his own after he filed a charge, and therefore would be tempted to file a lawsuit so that he could request appointed counsel, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(1), if the statute did not allow the Commission to give him essential investigative information before he filed suit.
The filing of a private lawsuit may actually encourage settlement. See Young v. International Telephone & Telegraph Co., 438 F. 2d 757, 764 (CA3).
The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to Title VII reflects a strong reaffirmation of the importance of the private right of action in the Title VII enforcement scheme:
“The retention of the private right of action , . is intended to make clear that an individual aggrieved by a violation of Title VII should not be forced to abandon the claim merely because of a decision by the Commission or the Attorney General as the case may be, that there are insufficient grounds for the Government to file a complaint. . . .
“It is hoped that recourse to the private lawsuit will be the exception and not the rule. . . . However, as the individual’s rights to redress are paramount under the provisions of Title VII it is necessary that all avenues be left open for quick and effective relief.” 118 Cong. Rec. 7565 (1972) (Section-by-Section analysis).
See n. 10, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted by a jury on two counts of violating the federal wagering tax law, §§ 4411 and 4412 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S.’C. §§ 4411, 4412. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 301 F. 2d 314. The petitioner contends that his conviction should have been reversed because at his trial the prosecutor was permitted to ask two witnesses incriminating questions concerning their relationship with the petitioner, with the knowledge that the witnesses would invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. We granted certiorari to resolve an asserted conflict with decisions in other circuits. 371 U. S. 858.
The theory of the prosecution’s case was that the petitioner had operated a small gambling ring in Chelsea, Massachusetts. His method of operation, according to the Government’s theory, was to visit several neighborhood stores at regular times each day for the purpose of collecting betting receipts and paying off winning bets. One of the shops he visited was a variety store owned by Irving and Annette Kahn.
Informations charging violations of the federal wager- ' ing tax laws were filed against the petitioner and the Kahns on the same day. All three were represented by the same lawyer, John H. Fitzgerald, and all three pleaded not guilty. On the day of the ’ petitioner’s trial, the Kahns changed their pleas to guilty. Because they had previously told government investigators that the petitioner had collected the wagers made in their store and had personally settled accounts with them, the Kahns were subpoenaed to appear at the petitioner’s trial.
In his opening statement to the jury, the prosecuting attorney stated that he had reason to believe “a husband and wife” would testify against the petitioner. Upon the completion of the opening statement, Mr. Fitzgerald approached the bench, and the following colloquy took place:
“Mr. Fitzgerald: Your Honor, it is my understanding that the United States Attorney is going to attempt to use the Kahns as witnesses.
“Now, keeping in mind that they are defendants, that they are entitled not to testify in their own case—
“The Court: They have pleaded guilty.
“Mr. Fitzgerald: I know that, your Honor, but still I didn’t, waive any Constitutional privileges in their behalf.
“The Court: I think the law is that they have no Constitutional privileges after they have pleaded.
“Mr. Fitzgerald: Your Honor, further that they are under investigation by the Internal Revenue Department as far as their income taxes are concerned, and everything else.
“The Court: Well, I haven’t seen them take the stand yet, and if they claim the Fifth, I will rule on it then.”
After brief testimony by the first government witness, the United States called Annette Kahn. Mr. Fitzgerald repeated his objection for the record, but made no further arguments. Mrs. Kahn then testified to her name, her address, the ownership of the store, and her acquaintance with the petitioner. She refused to answer whether she and her husband had “some type of business relationship” with the petitioner. An extended colloquy at the bench ensued. The court eventually concluded that Mrs. Kahn’s plea of guilty to the charge of engaging in the business of accepting wagers deprived her of the right to refuse to testify about her own gambling activity. But the court also ruled that she did not have to testify about any dealings with third persons since she was still, .at least theoretically, subject to prosecution for conspiracy, or possibly bribery. Mr. Fitzgerald made no new objections or arguments during this colloquy. To the contrary, he appeared to acquiésce in the questioning of Mrs. Kahn in open court once he had managed to work out a convenient means for advising her when to assert her privilege against self-incrimination.
The questioning of Mrs. Kahn was resumed after a brief recess. ■ The prosecuting attorney began a line of questioning designed to determine whether Mrs. Kahn had known of the gambling tax requirement before the date of her arrest. Mr. Fitzgerald objected, on the ground that the questions were not material. Another conference at the bench was held, in which the prosecuting attorney explained that his purpose was to show that Mrs. Kahn was not in danger of a conspiracy charge. The court sustained Mr. Fitzgerald’s objection to the materiality of the questions. The interrogation was then discontinued.
After another recess, the Government resumed the presentation of its case by calling its other witnesses. Their testimony established the following casé for the prosecution: The petitioner had been under surveillance by the government agents for one month. They had observed him following the same route twice a day, stopping for a few minutes in each of several variety and cigar stores. During the petitioner’s' afternoon round, the pockets in his coat became progressively more bulging, inferentially with material gathered in each- of the stores. Petitioner returned home with the material. No persons were seen to enter his home between his arrival after the afternoon round and his departure the next morning for the morning round. Expert testimony was introduced showing that the petitioner’s activities were consistent with those of a principal in a gambling operation. The afternoon visits during which his pockets became filled, it was testified, indicated a pick-up of the day’s betting slips, and the morning visits would fit a pattern of “setting-up” the store owners to pay off the previous day’s winning bets. The absence of any apparent contact with other persons after the petitioner’s afternoon round would indicate that he himself was acting as banker for the enterprise, and was not passing the money on to another principal. The final ingredient of the Government’s case was certain material found during a search of the petitioner’s home. This consisted of “slips of number pool wagers,” “daily double horse bet slips,” and over $1,000 cash in bills of small denominations. The gambling slips were identified by experts as those normally held by the “bookie” rather than by the bettor.
One of the key issues which developed during this part of the case was the question of whether the places regularly visited by the petitioner were, in fact, known gambling establishments. The court sustained objections by Mr. Fitzgerald to such testimony by government agents, on the ground that the agents could not testify to events observed when the petitioner was not present.
The Government then called Irving Kahn to the stand. No objection was made. Mr. Kahn testified voluntarily that he owned the store in question, and that he was acquainted with the petitioner. After being directed to answer by the court, he testified that he had had dealings with the petitioner. And, when a second claim of privilege was overruled, he' also testified that he had accepted wagers in his store. In the questioning which followed, the witness testified that the petitioner did come to his store “a couple of times a week,” but denied that the petitioner came every day in the morning and afternoon.
In the course of this interrogation the witness was asked ;a total of only four questions to which his refusal to answer was sustained. At no time during this questioning did Mr. Fitzgerald object to the questions on behalf of the petitioner, nor did he request any instructions regarding the inferences the jury might draw from these refusals to answer. , Indeed, counsel attempted in his closing argument to utilize that part of Irving .Kahn’s testimony which had contradicted the Government’s evidence about the regularity of the petitioner’s visits. The closing arguments for the Government contained no references to the Kahns’ refusal to answer, and the jury was not told that the Kahns had been arrested or charged together with the petitioner.
The court’s instructions to the jury contained the following statement with regard to the Kahns’ testimony:
“Nor should any inference be drawn against him' because the Kahns refused to testify, unless it would be a logical inference that wotíld appeal to you as háving a direct bearing upon the defendant’s guilt.”
Mr. Fitzgerald made no objection whatever to this part of the instructions.
In turning to the petitioner’s argument that his conviction must be set aside because of the circumstances described, we emphasize at' the outset what this case does not involve. No constitutional issues of any kind are presented. The petitioner does not claim any infringement of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He does not contend that the Kahns were in any way prejudiced by their assertion of this constitutional privilege. All that this case, involves, in short, is a claim of evidentiary trial error.
The petitioner’s principal contention is that reversible error was committed in permitting the Government to question the Kahns after it was known that they were going to claim their privilege not to incriminate themselves. It is said that when a witness is asked whether he participated in criminal activity with the defendant, a refusal to answer based on the privilege against self-incrimination tends to imply to the jury that a truthful answer would be in the affirmative. This inference, the petitioner argues, cannot properly be used as evidence against a criminal defendant. To support this argument, the petitioner relies on dicta in several federal cases and upon the decision in United States v. Maloney, 252 F. 2d 535, in which the Court of Appeals for the'Second. Circuit said' “Such refusals [to testify] have been uniformly held not to be a permissible basis' for inferring what would have been the answer, although logically they are very persuasive.” Id., at 537.
None of the'several decisions dealing with this question •suggests that reversible error is invariably committed whenever a witness claims his privilege not to answer. Rather, the lower, courts have looked to the surrounding circumsta #es in each case, focusing primarily on two factors, each of which suggests a distinct ground of error. First, some courts have indicated that error may be based upon a concept of prosecutorial misconduct, when the Government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege. This seems to have been one of the principal reasons underlying the finding of reversible error in United States v. Maloney, supra. In that case, the prosecution admitted knowing that two of its key witnesses could validly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and interided to do so. The prosecutor nevertheless called and questioned them. The court also found that the Government’s closing argument attempted to make use of the adverse inferences from .their refusals to testify. See also United States v. Tucker, 267 F. 2d 212. A second theory seems to rest upon the conclusion that, in the circumstances of a given case, inferences from a witness’ refusal to answer added critical-weight to the prosecution’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant. This theory seems also to have been present to some extent in the Maloney decision, where the court noted that the challenged inferences were the only corroboration for dubious and interested testimony by the Government’s chief witness. 262 F. 2d, at 536-537. On the other hand, courts have failed to find reversible error when such episodes were “no more than minor lapses through a long trial.” United States v. Hiss, 185 F. 2d 822, 832 (C. A. 2d Cir.). See also United States v. Amadio, 215 F. 2d 605, 614 (C. A. 7th Cir.). And even when the objectionable inferences might have been found prejudicial, it has been held that instructions to the jury to disregard them sufficiently cured the error.
The petitioner appears to' contend that error was committed under both theories. He stresses the fact that the prosecutor had advance notice of the Kahns’ intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment, but questioned them nevertheless. He also argues that the inferences from the Kahns’ refusals to testify were crucial to the Government’s case, pointing out that the rest of the Government’s evidence against the petitioner was entirely circumstantial.
We need not pass upon the correctness of the several lower court decisions upon which the petitioner relies, for we think that even within the basic rationale of those cases reversible error was not committed in this case. In the first place, the record does not support any inference of prosecutorial misconduct.. It is true, of course,. that Mr. Fitzgerald announced that the Kahns would invoke their testimonial privilege if questioned. But certainly the prosecutor need not accept at face value every asserted claim of privilege, no matter how frivolous. In this case, the prosecutor initially did not believe that the Kahns could properly invoke their privilege against self-incrimination, reasoning with some justification that their plea of guilty to the gambling charge would erase any testimonial privileges as to that conduct. His view of the law was supported by substantial authority, cf. Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507, 513, and was in fact upheld by the trial judge. Although it was later ruled that the guilty plea did not render all of the Kahns’ conduct immune from further prosecution, thus making testimony as to that conduct privileged, there remained an inde-. • pendent and quite proper reason to call the Kahns as witnesses. Both Mr. and Mrs. Kahn possessed nonpriv-ileged information that could be used to corroborate the Government’s case. They could, and did, testify that they knew the petitioner, that he did frequently visit their variety store, and that they themselves had engaged in accepting wagers. The Government had a right to put this evidence before the jury.
Moreover, the bulk of Mrs. Kahn’s interrogation, including the only question involving privileged information, occurred before the court ruled that she had a limited testimonial privilege. Although Mr. Kahn was called to the stand somewhat later, there had developed, at that time, still another clearly permissible reason for calling him. The court’s rulings during the questioning of the intervening witnesses had prevented the Government from introducing most of the evidence it had planned to use to show that the stores on the petitioner’s daily route were engaged in gambling. Mr. Kahn had pleaded guilty to accepting wagers, and under the District Court’s prior ruling his testimony that he had accepted wagers in his store was clearly not privileged. He did so testify, after the court directed him to answer. In the course of eliciting this and other relevant testimony, the prosecutor asked only four questions held to be privileged.
We cannot find that these few lapses, when viewed in the context of the entire trial, amounted to planned or deliberate attempts by the Government to make capital out of witnesses’ refusals to testify. We are particularly reluctant to fasten such motives on the Government’s conduct when, as here, defense counsel not only failed to object on behalf of the defendant, but in many instances actually acquiesced in the procedure as soon as the rights ' of the witnesses were secured.
Nor can we find that the few invocations of privilege by the Kahns were of such significance in the trial that they constituted reversible error even in the absence of prosecutorial misconduct. The effect of these questions was minimized by the lengthy nonprivileged testimony which the Kahns gave. They testified- about the conduct of gambling operations in their store, as well as their general association with the petitioner. Once these facts were admitted by the Kahns themselves, after government agents had testified to the petitioner’s daily visits, a natural and completely permissible inference could be drawn linking the petitioner’s visits with the admitted gambling operation. Thus the present case is not one, like Maloney, in which a witness’ refusal to testify is the only source, or even the chief source, of the inference that the witness engaged in criminal activity with the defendant. In this case the few claims of testimonial privilege were at most cumulative support for an inference already well established by the nonprivileged portion of the ■witness’ testimony.
It should be borne in mind that nothing in this case presents the issue whether the petitioner would have been entitled to instructions or other curative devices if he had asked for them. No such requests were ever made. Far from it, Mr. Fitzgerald impliedly accepted the Kahns’ testimony and attempted to use it on behalf of the petitioner in his argument to the jury. The petitioner would have us hold that even in these circumstances the court committed reversible error because it did not, sua sponte, take some affirmative action. We see no reason to’ require such extravagant protection against errors which were not obviously prejudicial and which the petitioner himself appeared to disregard.
There remains for consideration a question concerning the correctness of the court’s instruction on the subject of the Kahns’ refusals to testify. This issue was nowhere mentioned in the petition for certiorari in this Court, and under our rules it is not before us. Even if it were, we could not find that the instruction amounted to reversible error on the facts of this case. No objection was ever made to this instruction, even though counsel for the petitioner did object to other aspects of the charge. Thus, we are not concerned with whether the instruction was right, but only whether, assuming it was wrong, it was a plain error or defect “affecting substantial rights” under Rule 52 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. What has been said concerning the very limited effect of any inferences arising from the Kahns’ refusals to testify makes it clear that this brief passage in the charge could not have affected any substantial rights of the petitioner.
Affirmed.
“Me. Fitzgerald: Your Honor, may $he record show that I object to the use of this witness.
“The Court: All right, it may be noted.”
“Mr. Fitzgerald': Your Honor, may I stand beside her while she testifies, being her counsel?
“The Court: Well, I would rather have you not stand beside her, because that could impress the jury.
“But ask the questions slowly, and you can take your objection each time.
“Mr. Fitzgerald : Your Honor, if I should rise in my chair, may that be taken that she pleads the Fifth Amendment?
“The Court: Yes. Now, the question pending is what?”
“Can you tell us what those dealings [the witness’ dealings with the petitioner] were?” •
“And were you paid' a commission on all the bets you took in your variety store?”
“Who did you accept the bets for that you took in your variety store?”.
“Did you ever take bets for the defendant David Namet?”
The petitioner did not táke the stand. The court’s instruction concerning this fact was as follows:
“. you must not draw any inference from the fact that the defendant himself did not take the stand. He doesn’t have to. He can sit mute and stand or fall upon the Government’s case. Or he may take the stand as he wishes. But from the fact that he didn’t take it, you should not draw any inference against him.”
Cf. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 415-424; Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252.
See United States v. Tucker, 267 F. 2d 212, 215; United States v. Gernie, 252 F. 2d 664; United States v. Romero, 249 F. 2d 371; United States v. Cioffi, 242 F. 2d 473; United States v. Amadio, 215 F. 2d 605; United States v. Hiss, 185 F. 2d 822; Weinbaum v. United States, 184 F. 2d 330; United States v. 5 Cases, etc., 179 F. 2d 519. See generally 86 A. L. R. 2d Ann. 1443.
See, e. g., United States v. Gernie, 252 F. 2d 664 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Weinbaum v. United States, 184 F. 2d 330 (C. A. 9th Cir.). See also United States v. Maloney, supra, at 538.
See generally Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 415-426; Steioart v. United States, 366 U. S. 1.
The Government has suggested that in appropriate circumstances the defendant may be entitled to request a preliminary screening of the witness’ testimony, outside the hearing of the jury.
Finding, as we do, that this case involves neither misconduct by the prosecution nor inferences of material importance, we need not pass upon the holding in United States v. Maloney, supra, that a failure to give proper curative instructions when such elements are present constitutes plain error.
The issue was brought to this Court’s attention in the Government’s memorandum in reply to the petition.
Rule 23, par.-1 (c) of the Supreme Court Rules provides, “Only the questions set forth in the petition or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.”
Rule 30 provides, in pertinent part: “No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.”
Rule 52 provides:
“(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not, affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.
“(b) Plain Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether a superseding trustee in bankruptcy is liable for interest and penalties on federal taxes incurred by a debtor in possession during an arrangement proceeding under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. The facts are not in dispute.
On August 6, 1958, Beachcomber Motel, Inc., a Florida corporation operating a motel in Miami Beach, filed an original petition for an arrangement with its unsecured creditors under Chapter XI. Bankruptcy Act §322, 11 U. S. C. § 722 (1964 ed.). During the pend-ency of the arrangement proceeding, the corporation was permitted to operate its business as a debtor in possession under the authority of the bankruptcy court. In the course of its business operations, the corporation withheld federal income taxes and social security taxes from the wages paid to its employees and collected federal excise taxes on the receipts from its cabaret. Subsequently, the corporation was dispossessed of its property and the motel premises were closed.
Unable to proceed with a plan of arrangement with its creditors, the corporation filed a petition in bankruptcy on September 17, 1958, and was adjudged a bankrupt on the same date. Bankruptcy Act § 376 (2), 11 U. S. C. § 776 (2) (1964 ed.). On September 19, 1958, a trustee in bankruptcy, the petitioner in this case, was appointed. On October 31, 1958, the federal income taxes withheld, as well as the social security taxes and the cabaret taxes, were due to be paid. On January 31, 1959, the payroll tax imposed on employers by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act was due. The trustee in bankruptcy neither paid these, taxes nor filed any of the returns required with respect to them. On April 11, 1963, the United States submitted an administrative expense statement in the bankruptcy proceeding, claiming as administrative expenses the principal of the taxes due, penalties assessed for the trustee’s failure to file the returns for the taxes, and interest that had accumulated and would continue to accumulate on the taxes and penalties until they were paid.
The referee in bankruptcy allowed the Government’s claim for the principal of the taxes but disallowed the claims for penalties and interest. The referee’s order was affirmed in all respects by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court and allowed the claims for penalties and interest on the taxes. 346 F. 2d 32. Shortly after that decision, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite result with respect to a similar claim by the Government for interest on taxes incurred during a Chapter XI proceeding, and we granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 382 U. S. 971.
I.
It is a well-settled principle of American bankruptcy law that in cases of ordinary bankruptcy, the accumulation of interest on claims against a bankrupt estate is suspended as of the date the petition in bankruptcy is filed. Sexton v. Dreyfus, 219 U. S. 339. That rule, grounded in historical considerations of equity and administrative convenience, was specifically made applicable to the accumulation of interest on claims for taxes by the decision of this Court in New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328.
The debts in Sexton, like the taxes in Saper, were incurred during the regular business operations of the taxpayer, prior to the invocation of any procedures under the Bankruptcy Act, whereas the taxes in the present case were incurred after a petition invoking Chapter XI of the Act had been filed. On the basis of that distinction, the Government contends that the taxes here in question were entitled to bear interest throughout the bankruptcy period. We draw no such conclusion from that distinction.
We believe that the decisions of this Court in Sexton and Saper reflect the broad equitable principle that creditors should not be disadvantaged vis-á-vis one another by legal delays attributable solely to the time-consuming procedures inherent in the administration of the bankruptcy laws. In the context of interest-bearing debts, the equitable principle enunciated in Sexton and Saper rests at bottom on an awareness of the inequity that would result if, through the continuing accumulation of interest in the course of subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, obligations bearing relatively high rates of interest were permitted to absorb the assets of a bankrupt estate whose funds were already inadequate to pay the principal of the debts owed by the estate.
To be sure, the amount of interest that accumulates on a debt incurred during a Chapter XI arrangement depends upon the duration of a proceeding that takes place under the direction and authority of the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy Act §§ 342, 343, 11 U. S. C. §§ 742, 743 (1964 ed.). But interest claimed on such a debt does not arise through a “delay” of the law in any meaningful sense. The underlying obligation of the debtor in possession is incurred as part of a judicial process of rehabilitation of the debtor that the procedures of Chapter XI are designed to facilitate. Interest on a current Chapter XI obligation is therefore different in kind from interest claimed during the arrangement period on a debt incurred before the Chapter XI petition was filed. From the vantage point of prearrangement creditors, the panorama of a Chapter XI proceeding is intimately bound up with the intrusion of the bankruptcy law into the previously untrammelled relationship between a debtor and his creditors. For these creditors, the filing of the Chapter XI petition may legitimately be regarded as introducing the very sort of legal delay that bankruptcy courts, in denying claims for interest, have traditionally characterized as inequitable. On the other hand, from the vantage point of the creditor whose credit relationship arose during the Chapter XI proceeding itself, it is the subsequent filing of a petition in bankruptcy that marks the intervention of meaningful legal delays. The equitable rationale underlying our decisions in Sexton and ¡Saper is therefore fully applicable to cases in which a Chapter XI proceeding is superseded by a liquidating bankruptcy.
The principle that our past decisions thus establish is that the accumulation of interest on a debt must be suspended once an enterprise enters a period of bankruptcy administration beyond that in which the underlying interest-bearing obligation was incurred. In Saper, there were two relevant periods to be considered — the pre-petition period, before the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and the post-petition period, during the bankruptcy liquidation. The Court there upheld the accumulation of interest throughout the pre-petition period on taxes incurred during that period; it rejected only the claim for post-petition interest on the pre-petition taxes. By contrast, the circumstances of the present case commend a division into three periods — the pre-arrangement period, the arrangement period, and the liquidating bankruptcy period. A tax incurred within any one of these three periods would, we think, be entitled to bear interest against the bankrupt estate until, but not beyond, the close of the period in which it was incurred. Thus, in a case concerning taxes incurred during the first period— that is, before the filing of a petition for a Chapter XI arrangement — the Court has summarily affirmed a judgment holding that the accumulation of interest must be suspended as of the date the Chapter XI petition was filed. Where, as in the present case, the taxes have been incurred in the Chapter XI proceeding itself, application of the principle enunciated in Sexton and Saper permits interest to accrue throughout the arrangement proceeding; the principle requires only that the accumulation of interest be suspended once a petition in bankruptcy is filed.
The allowance of interest on Chapter XI debts until the filing of a petition in bankruptcy promotes the availability of capital to a debtor in possession and enhances the likelihood of achieving the goal of the proceeding, the ultimate rehabilitation of the debtor. Disallowance of interest on Chapter XI debts might seriously hinder the availability of such funds and might in many cases foreclose the prospect of the debtor’s recovery. No such significant detriment to the viability of a Chapter XI proceeding is imposed by the suspension of interest once the proceeding enters the liquidating bankruptcy period, since potential creditors can readily adjust their interest rates to accommodate their prognosis of the particular debtor’s chances of rehabilitation.
The division of the proceedings in the present case into three separate periods defining the permissible accumulation of interest is supported by the threefold hierarchy of priorities for tax claims under the Bankruptcy Act. Taxes incurred in the pre-arrangement period must be content with a fourth priority under § 64a (4) of the Bankruptcy Act. On the other hand, taxes incurred during the arrangement period are expenses of the Chapter XI proceedings and are therefore technically a part of the first priority under § 64a (1). The final sentence of that section, however, subordinates arrangement expenses within that priority to the expenses of the superseding bankruptcy administration. Tax claims incurred during Chapter XI proceedings are therefore in fact junior to claims for expenses incurred in subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. The suspension of interest on taxes incurred during the arrangement period as of the date a bankruptcy petition is filed thus corresponds to the suspension of interest on pre-arrangement taxes when a Chapter XI petition is filed. Moreover, the suspension of interest extricates the superseding trustee from a serious dilemma he would otherwise face, whether to pay subordinated Chapter XI tax claims prematurely in order to forestall the accrual of interest, or to increase the burden on the bankrupt estate by allowing the interest to accumulate.
Aside from its basis in the equitable principle that creditors of a bankrupt estate should not be disadvantaged solely by means of the law’s delay, the confinement of the accrual of interest on Chapter XI obligations to the arrangement proceeding itself is also grounded in significant considerations of administrative convenience. As the Court recognized in Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, 164, “Accrual of simple interest on unsecured claims in bankruptcy was prohibited in order that the administrative inconvenience of continuous recomputation of interest causing recompu-tation of claims could be avoided.” Thus, by accepting as a cut-off the date of filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the trustee avoids the potentially laborious procedure of recalculating the pro rata share to which each Chapter XI creditor is entitled whenever a distribution in the supervening bankruptcy is carried out.
The application of the principle of our past decisions to the facts of the present case is straightforward. Since the taxes in question were incurred during the Chapter XI arrangement proceeding itself, the United States was entitled to interest on those taxes for the duration of that period. The actual arrangement proceeding in this case, however, terminated before the taxes became payable, and, therefore, no interest on the taxes accumulated before the petition in bankruptcy was filed by the debtor in possession. The entire amount of interest sought by the United States represents interest claimed for the liquidating bankruptcy period. Since we hold that the accumulation of interest on debts incurred during Chapter XI proceedings is suspended on the date the petition in the superseding bankruptcy is filed, it is clear that the United States is not entitled to the interest that it seeks on the taxes in this case.
The result here is in no way inconsistent with the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 960, which states that persons conducting a business under the authority of a federal court shall be taxed as if they were conducting a private business. As an officer of the bankruptcy court, the debtor in possession was fully subject to taxes and interest incurred during his operation of the business in the Chapter XI arrangement. Nothing in the general language of 28 U. S. C. § 960, however, necessarily subjects the trustee in the superseding bankruptcy proceeding to an obligation to pay additional interest on those prior taxes once a petition in bankruptcy has been filed. United States v. Kalishman, 346 F. 2d 514; cf. New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328; United States v. General Engineering & Mfg. Co., 188 F. 2d 80 (C. A. 8th Cir.), aff’d, 342 U. S. 912. In the absence of explicit congressional direction, the considerations of equity and administrative convenience established by our decisions under the Bankruptcy Act clearly support this interpretation of the scope of this provision of the Judicial Code.
We find no merit in the Government’s alternative suggestion that the interest on two of the taxes here in question — those withheld from the wages of employees and those collected from the patrons of the cabaret — constitutes a trust fund over which the United States has an absolute priority under § 7501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. We need not here determine whether, with regard to the principal of those taxes, the general language of § 7501 (a) overrides the strong policy of §64a(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, which establishes a sharply defined priority that places all expenses of administration on a parity, including claims for taxes. Cf. Guarantee Co. v. Title Guaranty Co., 224 U. S. 152; Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315; Missouri v. Ross, 299 U. S. 72. The second sentence of § 7501 (a) specifically provides that interest on such a trust fund is collectible in the same manner as the taxes from which the fund arose. Since we have already determined that no interest on any of the taxes here in question accrues beyond the period of the arrangement proceeding, no interest could accumulate on a trust fund composed of the withholding and cabaret taxes.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the liability of the trustee for the interest on the taxes.
II.
The validity of the claim by the United States against the trustee for penalties for failure to file the returns for the taxes in question presents a completely different issue. The result here is governed squarely by the rationale of our decision in Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57, in which we sustained a penalty against a trustee in bankruptcy who failed to pay state automobile license taxes incurred while he was operating the business of the bankrupt estate' for the purpose of liquidation. We held in Boteler that Congress, under the predecessor of 28 U. S. C. § 960, had “with vigor and clarity declared that a trustee and other court appointees who operate businesses must do so subject to state taxes ‘the same as if such business [es] were conducted by an individual or corporation.’ ” 308 U. S., at 61. As we stated in Boteler, if the trustee were exempt from the penalty, a “State would thus be accorded the theoretical privilege of taxing businesses operated by trustees in bankruptcy on an equal footing with all other businesses, but would be denied the traditional and almost universal method of enforcing prompt payment.” Id., at 61.
The same considerations are equally applicable to the present case. It is conceded that the trustee, in his status as representative of the bankrupt estate and successor in interest to the debtor in possession, is liable for the principal of the taxes incurred by the debtor in possession, to the extent of the priority enjoyed by the taxes under § 64a (1) of the Bankruptcy Act. Once that liability is established, there can be no question that, under § 6011 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, the trustee was under an obligation to file returns for these taxes, even though the taxes themselves were incurred by the debtor in possession during the pendency of the arrangement proceeding. It therefore follows under Boteler that, in the circumstances of the present case, where a Chapter XI arrangement has been superseded by a liquidating bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act, the United States is entitled to exact the penalties here in question as a legitimate means to enforce the prompt filing of the tax returns. Although the rule in Boteler may be open to some question as applied to the facts of that case, no such difficulty is presented here. In Boteler, the trustee was penalized for his failure actually to pay the license fees within the time period prescribed by the State, even though it could not have been clear at that date that the assets of the bankrupt estate would be sufficient to pay-all of the expenses of administration that were entitled to share equally with the taxes under the first priority of § 64a (1) of the Bankrupty Act in any distribution of assets from the estate. In the present case, on the other hand, the penalties were imposed solely because of the trustee’s failure to file timely returns for the taxes incurred during the Chapter XI arrangement period. No legitimate interest would be served by permitting the trustee to escape the unburdensome responsibility of merely filing the returns and thereby notifying the United States of the taxes that are due. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the liability of the trustee for the penalties in question.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, §3402, 26 U. S. C. §3402 (1964 ed.).
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 3102, 26 U. S. C. § 3102 (1964 ed.). See also Internal Revenue Code of 1954, §3111, 26 U. S. C. §3111 (1964 ed.).
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 4231 (6), 26 U. S. C. § 4231 (6) (1964 ed.).
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 3301, 26 U. S. C. § 3301 (1964 ed.).
See § 6651 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 6651 (a) (1964 ed.), which provides:
“Addition to the tax.
“In case of failure to file any return.,. on the date prescribed therefor (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount required to be shown as tax on such return 5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate.”
The maximum penalty of 25% was assessed on the withholding, cabaret, and social security taxes, and a 15% penalty was assessed on the payroll tax. No question is raised in this ease concerning the statutory requirement of willfulness.
See § 6601 (a) of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 6601 (a) (1964 ed.), which provides:
“General rule.
“If any amount of tax imposed by this title (whether required to be shown on a return, or to be paid by stamp or by some other method) is not paid on or before the last date prescribed for payment, interest on such amount at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be paid for the period from such last date to the date paid.”
The referee did in fact allow part of the Government’s claim for interest, representing the portion that had accrued to the dates the respective taxes were assessed against the bankrupt corporation. The trustee sought no review of this anomalous aspect of the referee’s order, and the allowance of this portion of the interest is not an issue in this case. Nor did the trustee challenge the referee’s allowance of the principal of the taxes as an expense of administration. See Dayton v. Stanard, 241 U. S. 588; Michigan v. Michigan Trust Co., 286 U. S. 334; In re Lambertville Rubber Co., 111 F. 2d 45 (C. A. 3d Cir.); In re Columbia Ribbon Co., 117 F. 2d 999 (C. A. 3d Cir.); McColgan v. Maier Brewing Co., 134 F. 2d 385 (C. A. 9th Cir.); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 2088 (14th ed. 1964).
United States v. Kalishman, 346 F. 2d 514.
Cf. Thomas v. Western Car Co., 149 U. S. 95, 116-117. It is clear that the interest-bearing quality of the debt is suspended, rather than extinguished, by the filing of a petition in bankruptcy. In certain circumstances not here relevant, the accrual of interest may continue during the period of bankruptcy administration. Cf. Bruning v. United States, 376 U. S. 358; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 1858 et seq. (14th ed. 1964). See 2 Blackstone, Commentaries *488 (Cooley ed. 1899).
The decision of the Court in New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328, reflected an assimilation of tax debts to the status of other debts in bankruptcy. At the time Sexton v. Dreyfus, 219 U. S. 339, was decided, taxes incurred before bankruptcy enjoyed a highly preferred status in the succeeding bankruptcy liquidation. Thus, § 64a of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, 30 Stat. 563, granted an absolute priority to claims for taxes and imposed an affirmative duty on the trustee in bankruptcy to seek out and ascertain the amount of taxes owed and to obtain an order from the bankruptcy court for payment. See New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328, 333. As a concomitant of their absolute priority, tax claims were permitted to accumulate interest even after the date the petition in bankruptcy was filed. See In re Kallak, 147 F. 276 (D. C. D. N. D.); United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304. In 1938, however, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Act by reducing tax debts to the status of a fourth priority, 52 Stat. 874, 11 U. S. C. § 104 (a) (1964 ed.), and by requiring tax claims to be proved in the bankruptcy proceeding like ordinary debts, 52 Stat. 867, 11 U. S. C. § 93 (n) (1964 ed.). Cf. Act of May 27, 1926, c. 406, § 15, 44 Stat. 666; Wurzel, Taxation During Bankruptcy Liquidation, 55 Harv. L. Rev. 1141, 1145-1146. In Saper, the Court held that, in the light of these amendments, tax debts had become sufficiently clothed with the characteristics of other bankruptcy debts to justify the application of the general rule in Sexton to suspend the accrual of interest on such claims on the date the petition in bankruptcy was filed.
As Mr. Justice Holmes stated with regard to interest on a secured debt in Sexton v. Dreyfus, 219 U. S. 339, 344-345:
“The rule is not unreasonable when closely considered. It simply fixes the moment when the affairs of the bankrupt are supposed to be wound up. If, as in a well known illustration of Chief Justice Shaw’s, Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 198, 208, the whole matter could be settled in a day by a pie-powder court, the secured creditor would be called upon to sell or have his security valued on the spot, would receive a dividend upon that footing, would suffer no injustice, and could not complain.”
See American Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 233 U. S. 261, a case of equity receivership, where the Court stated that the general rule barring post-petition interest on pre-petition claims is not based on the fact that the claims “had lost their interest-bearing quality during that period, but is a necessary and enforced rule of distribution, due to the fact that in case of receiverships the assets are generally insufficient to pay debts in full. If all claims were of equal dignity and all bore the same rate of interest, from the date of the receivership to the date of final distribution, it would be immaterial whether the dividend was calculated on the basis of the principal alone or of principal and interest combined. But some of the debts might carry a high rate and some a low rate, and hence inequality would result in the payment of interest which accrued during the delay incident to collecting and distributing the funds. As this delay was the act of the law, no one should thereby gain an advantage or suffer a loss. For that and like reasons, in case funds are not sufficient to pay claims of equal dignity, the distribution is made only on the basis of the principal of the debt.” 233 U. S., at 266. See also Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, 164: “Moreover, different creditors whose claims bore diverse interest rates or were paid by the bankruptcy court on different dates would suffer neither gain nor loss caused solely by delay.” This equitable doctrine was itself the product of compromise between the interests of competing creditors; it was at least arguable that the intervention of bankruptcy should have prohibited payment even of pre-petition interest on debts until the principal of the debts was paid. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 1855-1856 (14th ed. 1964).
Nothing in the general language of § 378 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 778 (2) (1964 ed.), which provides that a bankruptcy proceeding superseding a Chapter XI proceeding “shall be conducted, so far as possible, in the same manner and with like effect as if a voluntary petition for adjudication in bankruptcy had been filed and a decree of adjudication had been entered on the day when the petition under this chapter [XI] was filed,” requires us to collapse these important distinctions between an arrangement proceeding and a superseding bankruptcy and to treat the taxes in question here as though they were incurred in the bankruptcy proceeding itself.
United States v. General Engineering & Mfg. Co., 188 F. 2d 80 (C. A. 8th Cir.), aff’d, 342 U. S. 912. Cf. Massachusetts v. Thompson, 190 F. 2d 10 (C. A. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 918. The same rule has been applied to suspend interest both in corporate reorganization proceedings under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, United States v. Edens, 189 F. 2d 876 (C. A. 4th Cir.), aff’d, 342 U. S. 912, and in assignments for the benefit of creditors, Matter of Pavone Textile Corp., 302 N. Y. 206, 97 N. E. 2d 755, aff’d sub nom. United States v. Bloom, 342 U. S. 912. In accord with these decisions, the United States filed no claim in the present case for interest accruing in the arrangement and liquidating bankruptcy periods on taxes incurred before the Chapter XI petition was filed.
Cf. Massachusetts v. Thompson, 190 F. 2d 10, 11 (dissenting opinion of Judge Woodbury). Section 344 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 744 (1964 ed.), specifically contemplates the creation of interest-bearing debts during the arrangement period. See also Weintraub & Levin, Practical Guide to Bankruptcy and Debtor Relief 185-186 (1964).
On the basis of statistics in the Brief of the United States submitted in this case, it appears that significant numbers of Chapter XI proceedings terminate in bankruptcy. For example, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, 1,088 Chapter XI proceedings were filed, and a debtor was adjudicated a bankrupt in 604 such proceedings that had been initiated in 1964 or prior years.
Section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §104 (a), provides:
“Debts which have priority.
“(a) The debts to have priority, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors, and to be paid in full out of bankrupt estates, and the order of payment, shall be (1) the costs and expenses of administration, including the actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate subsequent to filing the petition.... Where an order is entered in a proceeding under any chapter of this title directing that bankruptcy be proceeded with, the costs and expenses of administration incurred in the ensuing bankruptcy proceeding shall have priority in advance of payment of the unpaid costs and expenses of administration, including the allowances provided for in such chapter, incurred in the superseded proceeding... (4) taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States or any State or any subdivision thereof...
See note 17, supra. The final sentence of § 64a (1) was added by Congress in 1952, 66 Stat. 426, as amended, 76 Stat. 571.
The general principle restricting post-bankruptcy interest to the relevant tune period in which the underlying obligation was incurred is also consistent with § 63a (1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §103 (a)(1) (1964 ed.) (interest on judgments and written instruments allowed only to date of filing of petition in bankruptcy; rebate of interest required if debt was not then payable and did not bear interest), and § 63a (5), 11 U. S. C. § 103 (a) (5) (1964 ed.) (interest allowed only to date of petition on debts reduced to judgment after bankruptcy). Compare Missouri v. Earhart, 111 F. 2d 992, 996-997 (C. A. 8th Cir.).
See Ex parte Bennet, 2 Atk. 526, 527; New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328, 334; Bruning v. United States, 376 U. S. 358, 362; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 1857 (14th ed. 1964).
“Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States court shall be subject to all Federal, State and local taxes applicable to such business to the same extent as if it were conducted by an individual or corporation.” 28 U. S. C. §960 (1964 ed.).
Section 7501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §7501 (a) (1964 ed.), provides:
“General rule.
“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 amount of such fund shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and limitations (including penalties) as are applicable with respect to the taxes from which such fund arose.”
Cf. City of New York v. Rassner, 127 F. 2d 703 (C. A. 2d Cir.); United States v. Sampsell, 193 F. 2d 154 (C. A. 9th Cir.); Hercules Service Parts Corp. v. United States, 202 F. 2d 938 (C. A. 6th Cir.); In re Airline-Arista Printing Corp., 267 F. 2d 333 (C. A. 2d Cir.); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 2066, n. 27 (14th ed. 1964).
The record indicates that the assets of the bankrupt estate are sufficient to pay all expenses entitled to priority under §64a(l) of the Bankruptcy Act, and the United States has not sought to claim the principal of the taxes in question as a trust fund. See note 7, supra.
We thus have no occasion to determine whether in any event interest, which would necessarily be derived from the assets of the bankrupt estate, could accede to the principal of such a trust fund.
See note 21, supra.
Cf. In re Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 119 F. 2d 971 (C. A. 7th Cir.). See also § 6659 (a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 6659 (a)(1) (1964 ed.), which provides that penalties on taxes “shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes.”
The liability of the trustee for the principal of these taxes results from his succession in interest to the title of the debtor in possession, who, as an officer of the bankruptcy court, was clearly subject to such taxes under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 960, supra, note 21. As the successor in interest, the trustee is bound by all authorized acts of the debtor in possession. In re Wil-low Cafeterias, 111 F. 2d 429 (C. A. 2d Cir.); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy 965 (14th ed. 1964). Cf. Shapiro, Tax Effects of Bankruptcy, 1959 So. Calif. Tax Inst. 587, 588-591. In general, the trustee himself is under a duty to seek out and pay taxes accruing against the bankrupt estate during the bankruptcy itself. See 2 Collier on Bankruptcy 1752 (14th ed. 1964). Cf. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 6012 (b)(3) (trustee required to make returns of income for bankrupt corporation whether or not the business of the corporation is being operated). Unlike the situation in Part I, supra, the present question involves no major inequities between creditors of the same class. The dominant aspect here, therefore, is the continuity of interest between the debtor in- possession and the trustee as officers of the bankruptcy court. The crucial fact in the present case, so far as the obligation to file the tax returns is concerned, is that the taxes were in fact incurred during proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act. Thus, nothing said in this opinion may be taken as imposing any obligation upon a trustee in bankruptcy to file returns for taxes incurred before the initiation of proceedings under the Act. Cf. I. T. 3959, 1949-1 Cum. Bull. 90 (trustee not authorized to file federal income tax returns on behalf of a bankrupt individual).
Section 6011 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §6011 (a) (1964 ed.), provides:
“General rule.
“When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate...
Since it is clear that under § 6011 (a) the trustee himself was required to file returns for the taxes in issue, we need not determine whether penalties incurred by the debtor in possession may be assessed against the trustee. See §§57 (j) and 381 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §§93 (j), 781 (3) (1964 ed.); Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57, 59-60. Nor is there any issue raised in this case concerning the susceptibility to tax under 28 U. S. C. § 960 of a trustee whose activities do not amount to the conduct of business in any meaningful sense. See United States v. Sampsell, 266 F. 2d 631 (C. A. 9
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an aspect of the continuing problem of the interaction of federal and state laws in our complex federal system. Specifically, the question presented is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Federal Government, in its zealous pursuit of the balance due on a disaster loan made by the Small Business Administration, may obtain judgment against Ethel Mae Yazell of Lampasas, Texas. At the time the loan was made, Texas law provided that a married woman could not bind her separate property unless she had first obtained a court decree removing her disability to contract. Mrs. Yazell had not done so. At all relevant times she was a beneficiary of the peculiar institution of coverture which is now, with some exceptions, relegated to history’s legal museum.
The impact of the quaint doctrine of coverture upon the federal treasury is therefore of little consequence. Even the Texas law which gave rise to the difficulty was repealed in 1963. The amount in controversy in this extensive litigation, about $4,000, is important only to the Yazell family. But the implications of the controversy are by no means minor. Using Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, as its base, the Government here seeks to occupy new ground in the inevitable conflict between federal interest and state law. The Government was rebuffed by the trial and appellate courts. We hold that in the circumstances of this case, the state rule governs, and, accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 334 F. 2d 454.
Reference in some detail to the facts of this case will illuminate the problem. Delbert L. Yazell operated in Lampasas, Texas, a small shop to sell children’s clothing. The shop was called Yazell’s Little Ages. Occasionally, his wife, Ethel Mae, assisted in the business. The business, under Texas law, was the community property of husband and wife, who, however, were barred by the cov-erture statute from forming a partnership. Dillard v. Smith, 146 Tex. 227, 230, 205 S. W. 2d 366, 367. A disastrous flood occurred in Lampasas on May 12, 1957. The stock of Yazell’s Little Ages was ruined. Its fixtures were seriously damaged.
The Small Business Administration had a regional office in Dallas, Texas. As of December 31, 1963, the agency had outstanding in Texas, generally under the supervision of its Dallas regional office, 1,363 business loans and 4,172 disaster loans, aggregating more than $60,000,000. Upon the occurrence of the Lampasas flood, the SBA opened a Disaster Loan Office in Lam-pasas, under the direction of the Dallas office.
On June 10, 1957, Mr. Yazell conferred with a representative of the SBA about a loan to enable him to cope with the disaster to his business. After a careful, detailed but commendably prompt investigation, the head of SBA’s Disaster Loan Office wrote Mr. Yazell on June 20, 1957, that authorization for a loan of $12,000 had been received. Yazell was informed that the loan would be made upon his compliance with certain requirements. He was told that a named law firm in Lampasas had been employed by the SBA to assist him in complying with the terms of the authorization.
Yazell and his wife “doing business as” Yazell’s Little Ages then signed a note in the amount of $12,000, payable to the order of SBA in Dallas at the rate of $120 per month including 3% interest. On the same day they also executed a chattel mortgage on their stock of merchandise and their store fixtures. By express reference to Article 4000 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, the chattel mortgage exempted from its coverage retail sales made from the stock. The chattel mortgage was accompanied by a separate acknowledgment of Mrs. Yazell before a notary public, which was required by Texas law as a part of the institution of coverture. The notary attested, in the words of the applicable Texas statute, that “Ethel Mae Yazell, wife of Delbert L. Yazell . . . whose name is subscribed to the [chattel mortgage] . . . having been examined by me privily and apart from her husband . . . acknowledged such instrument to be her act and deed, and declared that she had willingly signed the same . . . .” See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 6608. See also Art. 1300, 4618 (Supp. 1964), 6605. These statutes all relate to conveyances of the marital homestead.
The note, chattel mortgage and accompanying documents were in due course sent to the Dallas office of SBA. Both the Lampasas law firm engaged by SBA to assist Yazell and the Acting Regional Counsel of SBA certified that “all action has been taken deemed desirable ... to assure the validity and legal enforceability of the Note.” Thereafter, the funds were made available to Yazell pursuant to the terms of the loan.
From the foregoing, it is clear (1) that the loan to Yazell was individually negotiated in painfully particularized detail, and (2) that it was negotiated with specific reference to Texas law including the peculiar acknowledgment set forth above. None of the prior cases decided by this Court in which the federal interest has been held to override state law resembles this case in these respects; the differences are intensely material to the resolution of the issue presented.
Next, it seems clear (1) that the SBA was aware and is chargeable with knowledge that the contract would be subject to the Texas law of coverture; (2) that both the SBA and the Yazells entered into the contract without any thought that the defense of coverture would be unavailable to Mrs. Yazell with respect to her separate property as provided by Texas law; and (3) that, in the circumstances, the United States is seeking the unconscionable advantage of recourse to assets for which it did not bargain. These points will be briefly elaborated before we reach the ultimate issue: whether, despite all of the foregoing, some “federal interest” requires us to give the United States this advantage.
It will be noted that the transaction was custom-tailored by officials of SBA located in Dallas and Lam-pasas, Texas, and undoubtedly familiar with Texas law. It was twice approved by Texas counsel who certified that “all action has been taken deemed desirable” even though no effort was made to cause Mrs. Yazell to have her incapacity removed under Texas law. In at least two decisions since 1949, federal courts had applied the Texas law of coverture in actions under federal statutes. At no time does it appear that the SBA made the slightest suggestion to the Yazells or their SBA-appointed counsel that it intended to enforce the contract against Mrs. Yazell’s separate property. The forms used, although specifically adapted to this transaction and to Texas law, made no reference to such an intent, and it is either probable or certain that no such intent existed. As stated above, the SBA now has more than 5,000 loans outstanding in Texas. The Solicitor General informed the Court that the SBA, in conformity with the general practice of government lending agencies, requires that the signature of the wife be obtained as a routine matter. If it had been intended that the result now sought by the Government would obtain, simple fairness as well as elementary craftsmanship would have dictated that in a Texas agreement the wife be advised, at least by formal notation, that she was, in the opinion of SBA, binding her separate property, despite Texas law to the contrary. Again, it must be emphasized that this was a custom-made, hand-tailored, specifically negotiated transaction. It was not a nationwide act of the Federal Government, emanating in a single form from a single source.
We now come to the basic issue which this case presents to this Court. Is there a “federal interest” in collecting the deficiency from Mrs. Yazell’s separate property which warrants overriding the Texas law of cover-ture? Undeniably there is always a federal interest to collect moneys which the Government lends. In this case, the federal interest is to put the Federal Government in position to levy execution against Mrs. Yazell’s separate property, if she has any, for the unpaid balance of the $12,000 disaster loan after the stock of merchandise and fixtures of the store have been sold, after any other community property has been sold, and after Mr. Yazell’s leviable assets have been exhausted. The desire of the Federal Government to collect on its loans is understandable. Perhaps even in the case of a disaster loan, the zeal of its representatives may be commended. But this serves merely to present the question — not to answer it. Every creditor has the same interest in this respect; every creditor wants to collect. The United States, as sovereign, has certain preferences and priorities, but neither Congress nor this Court has ever asserted that they are absolute. For example, no contention will or can be made that the United States may by judicial fiat collect its loan with total disregard of state laws such as homestead exemptions. Accordingly, generalities as to the paramountcy of the federal interest do not lead inevitably to the result the Government seeks. Our problem remains: whether in connection with an individualized, negotiated contract, the Federal Government may obtain a preferred right which is not provided by statute or specific agency regulation, which was not a part of its bargain, and which requires overriding a state law dealing with the intensely local interests of family property and the protection (whether or not it is up-to-date or even welcome) of married women.
The Government asserts that this overriding federal interest can be found in the unlimited right of the Federal Government to choose the persons with whom it will contract, citing Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U. S. 113, which is remote from the issue at hand. Realistically, in terms of Yazell’s case, this has nothing to do with our problem: The loan was made to enable Yazell to reopen the store after the disaster of the flood. The SBA chose its contractors with knowledge of the limited office of Mrs. Yazell’s signature under Texas law. That knowledge did not deter them. If they had “chosen” Mrs. Yazell as their contractor in the sense that her separate property would be liable for the loan, presumably they would have said so, and they would have proceeded with the formalities necessary under Texas law to have her disability removed. In all reality, the assertion that this case involves the'right of the United States to choose its beneficiaries cannot determine the issue before us. This case is not a call to strike the shackles of an obsolete law from the hands of a beneficent Federal Government, nor is it a summons to do battle to vindicate the rights of women. It is much more mundane and commercial than either of these. The issue is whether the Federal Government may voluntarily and deliberately make a negotiated contract with knowledge of the limited capacity and liability of the persons with whom it contracts, and thereafter insist, in disregard of such limitation, upon collecting (a) despite state law to the contrary relating to family property rights and liabilities, and (b) in the absence of federal statute, regulation or even any contract provision indicating that the state law would be disregarded.
The institution of coverture is peculiar and obsolete. It was repealed in Texas after the events of this case. It exists, in modified form, in Michigan. But the Government’s brief tells us that there are 10 other States which limit in some degree the capacity of married women to contract. In some of these States, such as California, the limitations upon the wife’s capacity and responsibility are part of an ingenious, complex, and highly purposeful distribution of property rights between husband and wife, geared to the institution of community property and designed to strike a balance between efficient management of joint property and protection of the separate property of each spouse. It is an appropriate inference from the Government’s brief that its position is that the Federal Government, in order to collect on a negotiated debt, may override all such state arrangements despite the absence of congressional enactment or agency regulation or even any stipulation in the negotiated contract or any warning to the persons with whom it contracts.
We do not here consider the question of the constitutional power of the Congress to override state law in these circumstances by direct legislation or by appropriate authorization to an administrative agency coupled with suitable implementing action by the agency. We decide only that this Court, in the absence of specific congressional action, should not decree in this situation that implementation of federal interests requires overriding the particular state rule involved here. Both theory' and the precedents of this Court teach us solicitude for state interests, particularly in the field of family and family-property arrangements. They should be overridden by the federal courts only where clear and substantial interests of the National Government, which cannot be served consistently with respect for such state interests, will suffer major damage if the state law is applied.
Each State has its complex of family and family-property arrangements. There is presented in this case no reason for breaching them. We have no federal law relating to the protection of the separate property of married women. We should not here invent one and impose it upon the States, despite our personal distaste for coverture provisions such as those involved in this case. Nor should we establish a principle which might cast doubt upon the effectiveness in relevant types of federal suits of the laws of 11 other States relating to the contractual positions of married women, which, as the Government’s brief warns us, would be affected by our decision in the present case. Clearly, in the case of these SBA loans there is no “federal interest” which justifies invading the peculiarly local jurisdiction of these States, inN .disregard of their laws, and of the subtleties reflected by the differences in the laws of the various States which generally reflect important and carefully evolved state arrangements designed to serve multiple purposes.
The decisions of this Court do not compel or embrace the result sought by the Government. None of the cases in which this Court has devised and applied a federal principle of law superseding state law involved an issue arising from an individually negotiated contract. None of these cases permitted federal imposition and enforcement of liability on a person who, according to state law, was not competent to contract. None of these cases overrode state law in the peculiarly state province of family or family-property arrangements.
This Court’s decisions applying “federal law” to supersede state law typically relate to programs and actions which by their nature are and must be uniform in character throughout the Nation. The leading case, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, involved the remedial rights of the United States with respect to federal commercial paper. United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, was treated by the Court as involving the liability of property of the United States to local taxes. D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U. S. 447, involved the rights of the FDIC as an insurer-assignee of a bank as against the maker of a note given the bank on the secret understanding it would not be called for payment. The bank deposit insurance program is general and standardized. In all relevant aspects, the terms are explicitly dictated by federal law. The Court held that FDIC was entitled to a federal rule protecting it against misrepresentations as to the financial condition of the banks it insures, accomplished by secret arrangements inconsistent with the policy of the applicable federal statutes.
On the other hand, in the type of case most closely resembling the present problem, state law has invariably been observed. The leading case is Fink v. O’Neil, 106 U. S. 272. There the United States sought to levy execution against property defined by state law as homestead and exempted by the State from execution. This Court held that Revised Statutes § 916, now Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governed, and that the United States’ remedies on judgments were limited to those generally provided by state law. These homestead exemptions vary widely. They result in a diversity of rules in the various States and in a limitation upon the power of the Federal Government to collect which is comparable to the coverture limitation. The purpose and theory of the two types of limitations are obviously related. Another illustration of acceptance of divergent and limiting state laws is afforded by Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County, 328 U. S. 204. In that case this Court held that the state classification of property owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as “real property” for tax purposes would prevail in determining whether the property was within the class of property as to which Congress had waived the federal exemption from local taxation.
Generally, in the cases applying state law to limit or condition the enforcement of a federal right, the Court has insisted that the state law is being “adopted” as the federal rule. Even so, it has carefully pointed out that this theory would make it possible to “adopt,” as the operative “federal” law, differing laws in the different States, depending upon the State where the relevant transaction takes place.
Although it is unnecessary to decide in the present case whether the Texas law of coverture should apply ex proprio vigore — on the theory that the contract here was made pursuant and subject to this provision of state law — or by “adoption” as a federal principle, it is clear that the state rule should govern. There is here no need for uniformity. There is no problem in complying with state law; in fact, SBA transactions in each State are specifically and in great detail adapted to state law. There is in this case no defensible reason to override state law unless, despite the contrary indications in Fink v. O’Neil and elsewhere as has been set forth, we are to take the position that the Federal Government is entitled to collect regardless of the limits of its contract and regardless of any state laws, however local and peculiarly domestic they may be.
The decision below is
Affirmed.
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 4626. This section, as amended by Acts 1963, 58th Leg., p. 1188, c. 472, § 6, now gives to Texas wives the capacity to contract. Under old Art. 4626 a married woman could have her disability removed.
See note 1, supra.
The Court of Appeals by a vote of two to one affirmed the decision of the District Court in favor of the wife, based upon the Texas’ law of coverture. The action was instituted by the United States to recover the balance due on a note of approximately $12,000, secured by a chattel mortgage. The note was signed by both husband and wife. The mortgage had been foreclosed, the pledged assets sold, and a deficiency judgment was rendered against the husband in this same action. No appeal was taken by the husband.
In the discussion which follows, as specifically indicated by reference to “SBA file,” we have occasionally referred to the official file of the Small Business Administration on the Yazell loan to supplement the record with facts which disclose the agency’s practice.
SBA file.
Brief of the United States, p. 12.
SBA file.
SBA file.
SBA file.
See note 1, supra.
United States v. Belt, 88 F. Supp. 510 (D. C. S. D. Tex.) (suit held barred by coverture); Texas Water Supply Corp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 204 F. 2d 190 (C. A. 5th Cir.) (case held within an exception to coverture).
SBA file.
The Ninth Circuit, in Bumb v. United States, 276 F. 2d 729 (C. A. 9th Cir.), aptly observed in response to a claim by the Small Business Administration that the “need for uniformity” excused it from complying with a California “bulk sales” statute requiring notice of intent to mortgage:
“It is true that the Small Business Administration operates throughout the United States, but such fact raises no presumption of the desirability of a uniform federal rule with respect to the validity of chattel mortgages in pursuance of the lending program of the Small Business Administration. The largeness of the business of the Small Business Administration offers no excuse for failure to comply with reasonable requirements of local law, which are designed to protect local creditors against undisclosed action by their local debtors which impair the value of their claims. It must be assumed that the Small Business Administration maintains competent personnel familiar with the laws of the various states in which it conducts business, and who are advised of the steps required by local law in order to acquire a valid security interest within the various states.” Id., at 738.
Brief for the United States, p. 11.
Contrast Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363. Compare also United States v. Helz, 314 F. 2d 301 (C. A. 6th Cir.), arising under the National Housing Act, 48 Stat. 1246, 12 U. S. C. § 1702 et seq., which issues separate forms for each State but does not negotiate with individual applicants. See United States v. View Crest Garden Apts., Inc., 268 F. 2d 380 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U. S. 884.
In this case, the Yazells’ general creditors collected about 20% of their claims.
For example, Congress has provided for preference in the case of debts owed the United States on tax delinquencies. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6321, 6323 (1964 ed.); 11 U. S. C. §104 (a) (4) (1964 ed.). 31 U. S. C. § 191 (1964 ed.) also provides a priority for the United States in some situations involving ordinary debts. See Kennedy, The Relative Priority of the Federal Government: The Pernicious Career of the Inchoate and General Lien, 63 Yale L. J. 905 (1954).
See pp. 354-356, infra.
The Government relies upon Perkins, at p. 127, for the proposition that the United States has “the unrestricted power ... to determine those with whom it will deal.” Brief for the United States, p. 9. Perkins had nothing to do with the question of the power of the United States to override state law declaring the incapacity of persons to contract. The Court there held that private companies alleging their right as potential bidders for government contracts lacked standing to challenge a federal statute requiring federal procurement contracts to include a minimum wage stipulation. The Government quotes the decision out of context, omitting the following italicized words: the Court stated that “Like private individuals and businesses, the Government enjoys the unrestricted power . . . to determine those with whom it will deal, and to fix the terms and conditions upon which it will make needed purchases.” Mrs. Yazell would subscribe to that proposition — indeed, the brunt of her case is that the Government, in entering ordinary commercial contracts, should be treated “like private individuals and businesses.”
See note 1, supra.
It is worth noting that in the only situation where the United States’ power to choose its contractors might arise — where a married woman has separate property in respect of which she seeks or the Government offers a loan — the Texas law expressly provided for her power to contract and to bind her separate property. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 4614.
Mich. Stat. Ann. §§ 26.161, 26.181, 26.182, 26.183. See Koengeter v. Holzbaugh, 332 Mich. 280, 50 N. W. 2d 778; Weingarten, Creditors’ Rights, 10 Wayne L. Rev. 184 (1963).
Brief for the United States, p. 15, n. 10. The States are, in addition to Texas and Michigan: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, and North Carolina. With the exception of Michigan, see n. 22, supra, none of these States other than Texas has a coverture rule applicable to facts such as those presented by this case.
In California a wife has full capacity to contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 158. Her separate property is liable for her own debts, as are her earnings. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 167, 171. However, in connection with California’s community property law governing the management and control of community property, see Cal. Civ. Code (Supp. 1964) §§ 172, 172a, the community property is generally not subject to the debts of the wife. Cal. Civ. Code § 167. See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-214; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 123.230.
The Government's argument, if accepted by this Court, would cast doubt, in addition, on state laws preventing wives from conveying realty without the consent of their husbands — see, e. g., Ala. Code Tit. 34, §73; Fla. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1964) §708.08; Ind. Ann. Stat. §38-102; Ky. Rev. Stat. §404.020 (executory sales contract) ; N. C. Gen. Stat. § 52-2 — or from acting as guarantors or sureties — see, e. g., Ga. Code Ann. § 53-503; Ky. Rev. Stat. § 404.010.
See, e. g., United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, which held that the exemptions from execution to satisfy federal tax liens provided in § 3691 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (now 26 U. S. C. § 6334) are exclusive of state exemptions.
See, e. g., United States v. Shimer, 367 U. S. 374 (Pennsylvania rule precluding mortgagee who buys mortgaged property at foreclosure from seeking deficiency judgment held inconsistent with scheme of Veterans Administration regulations under which mortgage issued).
On the contrary, in De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570, the Court applied state law to define “children” although the issue arose in connection with the right to renew a copyright — a peculiarly federal area. Cf. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County, 328 U. S. 204; Commissioner v. Stern, 357 U. S. 39. We do not regard Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655, as an exception. There California sought to apply its community property rule that a wife has a half interest in her husband’s life insurance if the premiums come out of community property (his earnings), in derogation of the federal statutory policy that soldiers have an absolute right to name the beneficiary of their National Service Life Insurance. The Court held that the California rule would directly have undercut congressional intent with respect to the Federal Government’s generalized, nationwide insurance program.
The Court held that a state tax rule under which movable machinery was part of the realty of a manufacturer for purposes of an ad valorem property tax could not be applied so as to subject a manufacturer renting the machinery from the United States to such an enhancement of the value of its realty. The Court held that the title to the machinery was in the United States, and was effective to protect the machinery from local taxes. But compare Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County, 328 U. S. 204.
The statute involved in D’Oench, Duhme is now the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 64 Stat. 873, 12 U. S. C. § 1811 et seq. (1964 ed.).
See also Custer v. McCutcheon, 283 U. S. 514. Rule 69 provides that procedure on execution shall be “in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held . . . except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable.” With the one exception of federal tax cases, see n. 26, supra, state execution procedure seems to be applied without question, even in suits by the United States. See, e. g.. United States v. Harpootlian, 24 F. 2d 646 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (applying state law on the time within which examination can be had of a judgment debtor after an execution against him is returned unsatisfied, over an objection by the Government that this was an improper application of a statute of limitations to the sovereign); United States v. Miller, 229 F. 2d 839 (C. A. 3d Cir.) (Pennsylvania prohibition of garnishment of future debts of garnishee to debtor).
In Texas, the value of the homestead that is exempt from execution is $5,000, as of the time of its designation as a homestead and without reference to the value of any improvements, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 3833; Tex. Const. Art. 16, §§50, 51. In Tennessee and Maine, the homestead exemption is $1,000, Tenn. Const. Art. 11, §11; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 14, §§4551, 4552; in California, it is $15,000 for the head of a family, $7,500 for all others, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1240, 1260 (Supp. 1964); cf. Cal. Const. Art. 17, § 1. If Mrs. Yazell’s separate property were a homestead under Texas law, she might have been able to defeat execution on the judgment that might have been entered against her in this suit to a far greater degree than some other debtor to the SBA could who happened to reside in Tennessee or Maine; and a Californian would do even better than Mrs. Yazell.
Other exemptions from execution vary similarly. For example, Texas, Maine and California provide for detailed personal exemptions. In Texas, a family is exempt not only as to its homestead, but also its furniture, cemetery lot, implements of husbandry, tools and books of a trade, family library and pictures, five cows and their calves, two mules, two horses, one wagon, one carriage, one gun, 20 hogs, 20 sheep, harness, provisions and forage for home consumption, current wages, clothing, 20 goats, 50 chickens, 30 turkeys, 30 ducks, 30 geese, 30 guineas, and one dog. A somewhat less extensive list is provided for persons who are not constituents of a family. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 3832, 3835. Cf. also Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 14, §4401; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§690-690.52 (1955 ed. and Supp. 1964). Texas also has other special protections, including a provision applicable to ferrymen, saving to them their ferryboat and tackle, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 3836.
Rule 64, adopting state provisional remedies for security in advance of judgment, can lead to the same kind of diversity as does Rule 69. Cf. De Beers Consolidated, Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212. State provisional remedies vary greatly. See 7 Moore’s Fed. Prac. ¶ 64.04 [3].
“In our choice of the applicable federal rule we have occasionally selected state law.” Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, 367. The Court observed in Clearfield that the difficulty of determining which state rule to apply could be a persuasive argument in favor of a federal rule. Ibid. No such difficulty exists here, of course.
In Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289, cited by the Government for the proposition that “the rights of the United States under contracts entered into as part of an authorized nationwide program are to be determined by federal and not by State law,” Brief for the United States, p. 7, the Court, while insisting that “the rule governing the interest to be recovered as damages for delayed payment of a contractual obligation to the United States is not controlled by state statute or local common law,” 313 U. S., at 296, nonetheless held that the statutory rate prevailing in the State where the obligation was undertaken and to be performed was a suitable one for adoption by the federal courts. Cf. also Board of Commissioners v. United States, 308 U. S. 343.
The Financial Assistance Manual of the Small Business Administration, SBA-500, is replete with admonitions to follow state law carefully. Thus §401.03 reads:
“Compliance with Applicable Laws. When the United States disburses its funds, it is exercising a constitutional function or power and its rights and duties are governed by Federal rather than local law. However, it is frequently necessary, in the obtaining of a marketable title or enforceable security interest in property, to follow local procedural requirements and statutes. Accordingly, care should be used in following or meeting all applicable requirements and statutes of the State in which the property is located, including the filing and refiling, recording and re-recording of any documents.”
See also, e. g., §§ 401.06, 402.04, 403.03, 404.01, 404.02, 406.02, 407.03, 407.04 (“State laws vary as to the dominion a lender must exercise over assigned accounts receivable. ... In drafting servicing provisions . . . counsel should carefully consider the applicable laws of the State . . . .”), 408.01, 410.08 (“In order to guard against this Agency’s liability for payment of insurance premiums under the standard mortgagee clause in any state the law of which . . . makes the mortgagee so liable, the regional director shall . . . .”), 706.01. Section 1008.03 authorizes a Regional Director of SBA, “In instances where a disaster area is distantly located from the Regional office and where speed and economy of administration make such procedure advisable,” to recommend to the General Counsel that “local counsel be appointed and that he be authorized to rely on such counsel for all legal matters and closing opinions.” See, in addition, 13 CFR (1965 Supp.) § 122.17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, at about 1:30 p. m. on Thursday, March 28, 1968, mailed two 12-pound packages at the post office in Mt. Vernon, Washington, a town some 60 miles from the Canadian border. One package was addressed to a post office box in Van Nuys, California, and the other to a post office box in Nashville, Tennessee. Respondent declared they contained coins. Each package was to be sent airmail registered and each was insured for $10,000, a type of mailing that the parties agree was first class, making them not subject to discretionary inspection.
When the postal clerk told a policeman who happened to be present that he was suspicious of the packages, the policeman at once noticed that the return address on the packages was a vacant housing area of a nearby junior college, and that the license plates of respondent’s car were British Columbia. The policeman called the Canadian police, who called customs in Seattle. At 3 o’clock that afternoon customs called Van Nuys and learned that the addressee of one package was under investigation in Van Nuys for trafficking in illegal coins. Due to the time differential, Seattle customs was unable to reach Nashville until the following morning, March 29, when Seattle was advised that the second addressee was also being investigated for the same crime. A customs official in Seattle thereupon filed an affidavit for a search warrant for both packages with a United States commissioner, who issued the search warrant at 4 p. m., and it was executed in Mt. Vernon at 6:30 p. m., 2% hours later. Thereupon the packages were opened, inspected, resealed, and promptly sent on their way.
Other evidence showed that respondent had brought the two packages in from Canada without declaring them. He was tried for illegally importing gold coins in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 545 and found guilty and sentenced and fined. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the coins were improperly admitted in evidence because a timely warrant had not been obtained. 414 F. 2d 758. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari, 396 U. S. 885. We reverse.
It has long been held that first-class mail such as letters and sealed packages subject to letter postage— as distinguished from newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and other printed matter — is free from inspection by-postal authorities, except in the manner provided by the Fourth Amendment. As stated in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733, decided in 1878:
“Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one’s own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.”
The course of events since 1878 has underlined the relevance and importance of the Post Office to our constitutional rights. Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 437 (dissenting opinion), said that “the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues.” We have emphasized over and over again that while Congress may classify the mail and fix the charges for its carriage, it may not set up regimes of censorship over it, Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, or encumber its flow by setting “administrative officials astride the flow of mail to inspect it, appraise it, write the addressee about it, and await a response before dispatching the mail” to him. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 306. Yet even first-class mail is not beyond the reach of all inspection; and the sole question here is whether the conditions for its detention and inspection had been satisfied. We think they had been.
The nature and weight of the packages, the fictitious return address, and the British Columbia license plates of respondent who made the mailings in this border town certainly justified detention, without a warrant, while an investigation was made. The “protective search for weapons” of a suspect which the Court approved in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 20-27, even when probable cause for an arrest did not exist, went further than we need go here. The only thing done here on the basis of suspicion was detention of the packages. There was at that point no possible invasion of the right “to be secure” in the “persons, houses, papers, and effects” protected by the Fourth Amendment against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Theoretically — and it is theory only that respondent has on his side — detention of mail could at some point become an unreasonable seizure of “papers” or “effects” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Detention for 1% hours — from 1:30 p. m. to 3 p. m. — for an investigation certainly was not excessive; and at the end of that time probable cause existed for believing that the California package was part of an illicit project. A warrant could have been obtained that day for the one package; yet the mystery of the other package remained unsolved and federal officials in Tennessee could not be reached because of the time differential. The next morning they were reached and it was learned that the second package was also probably part of an illicit project. By 4 p. m. — or 26% hours after the mailing in Mt. Vernon — a search warrant was obtained in Seattle and at 6:30 p. m., or 29 hours after the mailing, the search warrant reached Mt. Vernon, a speedy transmission considering the rush-hour time of day and the congested highway.
No interest protected by the Fourth Amendment was invaded by forwarding the packages the following day rather than the day when they were deposited. The significant Fourth Amendment interest was in the privacy of this first-class mail; and that privacy was not disturbed or invaded until the approval of the magistrate was obtained.
The rule of our decisions certainly is not that first-class mail can be detained 29 hours after mailing in order to obtain the search warrant needed for its inspection. We only hold that on the facts of this case— the nature of the mailings, their suspicious character, the fact that there were two packages going to separate destinations, the unavoidable delay in contacting the more distant of the two destinations, the distance between Mt. Vernon and Seattle — a 29-hour delay between the mailings and the service of the warrant cannot be said to be “unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Detention for this limited time was, indeed, the prudent act rather than letting the packages enter the mails and then, in case the initial suspicions were confirmed, trying to locate them en route and enlisting the help of distant federal officials in serving the warrant.
Reversed.
39 CFR §131.2 describes “first class” mail as “matter closed against postal inspection,” which follows the definition in 39 U. S. C. §4251 (a).
The question as to the right of the addressee to stop deliveries is a separate and distinct one. See No. 399, Rowan v. Post Office, post, p. 728.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The National Labor Relations Act (Act) affords employees the rights to organize and to engage in collective bargaining free from employer interference. The Act does not grant those rights to supervisory employees, however, so the statutory definition of supervisor becomes essential in determining which employees are covered by the Act. In this case, we decide the narrow question whether the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board’s) test for determining if a nurse is a supervisor is consistent with the statutory definition.
I
Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Act of July 5,1935, ch. 372,49 Stat. 449. In the early years of its operation, the Act did not exempt supervisory employees from its coverage; as a result, supervisory employees could organize as part of bargaining units and negotiate with the employer. Employers complained that this produced an imbalance between labor and management, but in 1947 this Court refused to carve out a supervisory employee exception from the Act’s broad coverage. The Court stated that “it is for Congress, not for us, to create exceptions or qualifications at odds with [the Act’s] plain terms.” Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485, 490 (1947). Later that year, Congress did just that, amending the statute so that the term “ ‘employee’ . . . shall not include . . . any individual employed as a supervisor.” 61 Stat. 137-138, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 152(3). Congress defined a supervisor as:
“[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.” 61 Stat. 138, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 152(11).
As the Board has stated, the statute requires the resolution of three questions; and each must be answered in the affirmative if an employee is to be deemed a supervisor. First, does the employee have authority to engage in 1 of the 12 listed activities? Second, does the exercise of that authority require “the use of independent judgment”? Third, does the employee hold the authority “in the interest of the employer”? Nortkcrest Nursing Home, 313 N. L. R. B. 491, 493 (1993). This case concerns only the third question, and our decision turns upon the proper interpretation of the statutory phrase “in the interest of the employer.”'
In cases involving nurses, the Board admits that it has interpreted the statutory phrase in a unique manner. Tr. of Oral Arg. 52 (Board: “[t]he Board has not applied a theory that’s phrased in the same terms to other categories of professionals”). The Board has held that “a nurse’s direction of less-skilled employees, in the exercise of professional judgment incidental to the treatment of patients, is not authority exercised ‘in the interest of the employer.’” Pet. for <pert. 15. As stated in reviewing its position on this issue in its recent decision in Northcrest Nursing Home, supra, at 491-492, the Board believes that its special interpretation of “in the interest of the employer” in cases involving nurses is necessary because professional employees (including registered nurses) are not excluded from coverage under the Act. See 29 U. S. C. § 152(12). Respondent counters that “[tjhere is simply no basis in the language of the statute to conclude that direction given to aides in the interest of nursing home residents, pursuant to professional norms, is not ‘in the interest of the employer.’ ” Brief for Respondent 30.
In this case, the Board’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that respondent, the owner and operator of the Heartland Nursing Home in Urbana, Ohio, had committed unfair labor practices in disciplining four licensed practical nurses. At Heartland, the Director of Nursing has overall responsibility for the nursing department. There is also an Assistant Director of Nursing, 9 to 11 staff nurses (including both registered nurses and the four licensed practical nurses involved in this case), and 50 to 55 nurses’ aides. The staff nurses are the senior ranking employees on duty after 5 p.m. during the week and at all times on weekends— approximately 75% of the time. The staff nurses have responsibility to ensure adequate staffing; to make daily work assignments; to monitor the aides’ work to ensure proper performance; to counsel and discipline aides; to resolve aides’ problems and grievances; to evaluate aides’ performances; and to report to management. In light of these varied activities, respondent contended, among other things, that the four nurses involved in this case were supervisors, and so not protected under the Act. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, concluding that the nurses were not supervisors. The ALJ stated that the nurses’ supervisory work did not “equate to responsibly ... directing] the aides in the interest of the employer,” noting that “the nurses’ focus is on the well-being of the residents rather than of the employer.” 306 N. L. R. B. 68, 70 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The Board stated only that “[t]he judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent’s staff nurses are employees within the meaning of the Act.” 306 N. L. R. B. 63, 63, n. 1 (1992).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 987 F. 2d 1256 (1993). The Court of Appeals had decided in earlier cases that the Board’s test for determining the supervisory status of nurses was inconsistent with the statute. See Beverly California Corp. v. NLRB, 970 F. 2d 1548 (1992); NLRB v. Beacon Light Christian Nursing Home, 825 F. 2d 1076 (1987). In Beverly, for example, the court had stated that “the notion that direction given to subordinate personnel to ensure that the employer’s nursing home customers receive ‘quality care’ somehow fails to qualify as direction given ‘in the interest of the employer’ makes very little sense to us.” 970 F. 2d, at 1552. Addressing the instant case, the court followed Beverly and again held the Board’s interpretation inconsistent with the statute. 987 F. 2d, at 1260. The court further stated that “it is up to Congress to carve out an exception for the health care field, including nurses, should Congress not wish for such nurses to be considered supervisors.” Id., at 1261. The court “reminded] the Board that it is the courts, and not the Board, who bear the final responsibility for interpreting the law.” Id., at 1260. After concluding that the Board’s test was inconsistent with the statute, the court found that the four licensed practical nurses involved in this case were supervisors. Id., at 1260-1261.
We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 810 (1993), to resolve the conflict in the Courts of Appeals over the validity of the Board’s rule. See, e. g., Waverly-Cedar Falls Health Care Center, Inc. v. NLRB, 933 F. 2d 626 (CA8 1991); NLRB v. Res-Care, Inc., 705 F. 2d 1461 (CA7 1983); Misericordia Hospital Medical Center v. NLRB, 623 F. 2d 808 (CA2 1980).
II
We must decide whether the Board’s test for determining if nurses are supervisors is rational and consistent with the Act. See Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U. S. 27, 42 (1987). We agree with the Court of Appeals that it is not.
A
The Board’s interpretation, that a nurse’s supervisory activity is not exercised in the interest of the employer if it is incidental to the treatment of patients, is similar to an approach the Board took, and we rejected, in NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U. S. 672 (1980). There, we had to determine whether faculty members at Yeshiva were “managerial employees.” Managerial employees are those who “formulate and effectuate management policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of their employer.” NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 288 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). Like supervisory employees, managerial employees are excluded from the Act’s coverage. Id., at 283 (“so clearly outside the Act that no specific exclusionary provision was thought necessary”). The Board in Yeshiva argued that the faculty members were not managerial, contending that faculty authority was “exercised in the faculty’s own interest rather than in the interest of the university.” 444 U. S., at 685. To support its position, the Board placed much reliance on the faculty members’ independent professional role in designing the curriculum and in discharging their professional obligations to the students. We found the Board’s reasoning unpersuasive:
“In arguing that a faculty member exercising independent judgment acts primarily in his own interest and therefore does not represent the interest of his employer, the Board assumes that the professional interests of the faculty and the interests of the institution are distinct, separable entities with which a faculty member could not simultaneously be aligned. The Court of Appeals found no justification for this distinction, and we perceive none. In fact, the faculty’s professional interests — as applied to governance at a university like Yeshiva — cannot be separated from those of the institution.
“... The ‘business’ of a university is education.” Id., at 688.
The Board’s reasoning fares no better here than it did in Yeshiva. As in Yeshiva, the Board has created a false dichotomy — in this case, a dichotomy between acts taken in connection with patient care and acts taken in the interest of the employer. That dichotomy makes no sense. Patient care is the business of a nursing home, and it follows that attending to the needs of the nursing home patients, who are the employer’s customers, is in the interest of the employer. See Beverly California, supra, at 1553. We thus see no basis for the Board’s blanket assertion that supervisory authority exercised in connection with patient care is somehow not in the interest of the employer.
Our conclusion is supported by the case that gave impetus to the statutory provision now before us. In Packard Motor, we considered the phrase “in the interest of an employer” contained in the definition of “employer” in the original 1935 Act. We stated that “[e]very employee, from the very fact of employment in the master’s business, is required to act in his interest.” 330 U. S., at 488. We rejected the argument of the dissenters who, like the Board in this case, advanced the proposition that the phrase covered only “those who acted for management... in formulating [and] executing its labor policies.” Id., at 496 (Douglas, J., dissenting); cf. Reply Brief for Petitioner 4 (filed July 23, 1993) (nurses are supervisors when, “in addition to performing their professional duties and responsibilities, they also possess the authority to affect the job status or pay of employees working under them”). Consistent with the ordinary meaning of the phrase, the Court in Packard Motor determined that acts within the scope of employment or on the authorized business of the employer are “in the interest of the employer.” 330 U. S., at 488-489. There is no indication that Congress intended any different meaning when it included the phrase in the statutory definition of supervisor later in 1947. To be sure, Congress altered the result of Packard Motor, but it did not change the meaning of the phrase “in the interest of the employer” when doing so. And we of course have rejected the argument that a statute altering the result reached by a judicial decision necessarily changes the meaning of the language interpreted in that decision. See Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U. S. 158, 168 (1989).
Not only is the Board’s test inconsistent with Yeshiva, Packard Motor, and the ordinary meaning of the phrase “in the interest of the employer,” it also renders portions of the statutory definition in §2(11) meaningless. Under §2(11), an employee who in the course of employment uses independent judgment to engage in 1 of the 12 listed activities, including responsible direction of other employees, is a supervisor. Under the Board’s test, however, a nurse who in the course of employment uses independent judgment to engage in responsible direction of other employees is not a supervisor. Only a nurse who in the course of employment uses independent judgment to engage in one of the activities related to another employee’s job status or pay can qualify as a supervisor under the Board’s test. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 4 (filed July 23, 1993) (nurses are supervisors when they affect “job status or pay of employees working under them”). The Board provides no plausible justification, however, for reading the responsible direction portion of §2(11) out of the statute in nurse cases, and we can perceive none.
The Board defends its test by arguing that phrases in § 2(11) such as “independent judgment” and “responsibly to direct” are ambiguous, so the Board needs to be given ample room to apply them to different categories of employees. That is no doubt true, but it is irrelevant in this particular case because interpretation of those phrases is not the underpinning of the Board’s test. The Board instead has placed exclusive reliance on the “in the interest of the employer” language in §2(11). With respect to that particular phrase, we find no ambiguity supporting the Board’s position. It should go without saying, moreover, that ambiguity in one portion of a statute does not give the Board license to distort other provisions of the statute. Yet that is what the Board seeks us to sanction in this case.
The interpretation of the “in the interest of the employer” language mandated by our precedents and by the ordinary meaning of the phrase does not render the phrase meaningless in the statutory definition. The language ensures, for example, that union stewards who adjust grievances are not considered supervisory employees and deprived of the Act’s protections. But the language cannot support the Board’s argument that supervision of the care of patients is not in the interest of the employer. The welfare of the patient, after all, is no less the object and concern of the employer than it is of the nurses. And the statutory dichotomy the Board has created is no more justified in the health care field than it would be in any other business where supervisory duties are a necessary incident to the production of goods or the provision of services.
B
Because the Board’s test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and this Court’s precedents, the Board seeks to shift ground, putting forth a series of nonstatutory arguments. None of them persuades us that we can ignore the statutory language and our case law.
The Board first contends that we should defer to its test because, according to the Board, granting organizational rights to nurses whose supervisory authority concerns patient care does not threaten the conflicting loyalties that the supervisor exception was designed to avoid. Brief for Petitioner 25. We rejected the same argument in Yeshiva where the Board contended that there was “no danger of divided loyalty and no need for the managerial exclusion” for the Yeshiva faculty members. 444 U. S., at 684. And we must reject that reasoning again here. The Act is to be enforced according to its own terms, not by creating legal categories inconsistent with its meaning, as the Board has done in nurse cases. Whether the Board proceeds through adjudication or rulemaking, the statute must control the Board’s decision, not the other way around. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Electrical Workers, 417 U. S. 790, 811 (1974); cf. Packard Motor, supra, at 493 (rejecting resort to policy and legislative history in interpreting meaning of the phrase “in the interest of the employer”). Even on the assumption, moreover, that the statute permits consideration of the potential for divided loyalties so that a unique interpretation is permitted in the health care field, we do not share the Board’s confidence that there is no danger of divided loyalty here. Nursing home owners may want to implement policies to ensure that patients receive the best possible care despite potential adverse reaction from employees working under the nurses’ direction. If so, the statute gives nursing home owners the ability to insist on the undivided loyalty of its nurses notwithstanding the Board’s impression that there is no danger of divided loyalty.
The Board also argues that “[t]he statutory criterion of having authority ‘in the interest of the employer’ . . . must not be read so broadly that it overrides Congress’s intention to accord the protections of the Act to professional employees.” Brief for Petitioner 26; see 29 U. S. C. § 152(12). The Act does not distinguish professional employees from other employees for purposes of the definition of supervisor in § 2(11). The supervisor exclusion applies to “any individual” meeting the statutory requirements, not to “any nonprofessional employee.” In addition, the Board relied on the same argument in Yeshiva, but to no avail. The Board argued that “the managerial exclusion cannot be applied in a straightforward fashion to professional employees because those employees often appear to be exercising managerial authority when they are merely performing routine job duties.” 444 U. S., at 683-684. Holding to the contrary, we said that the Board could not support a statutory distinction between the university’s interest and the managerial interest being exercised on its behalf. There is no reason for a different result here. To be sure, as recognized in Yeshiva, there may be “some tension between the Act’s exclusion of [supervisory and] managerial employees and its inclusion of professionals,” but we find no authority for “suggesting that that tension can be resolved” by distorting the statutory language in the manner proposed by the Board. Id., at 686.
Finally, as a reason for us to defer to its conclusion, the Board cites legislative history of the 1974 amendments to other sections of the Act. Those amendments did not alter the test for supervisory status in the health care field, yet the Board points to a statement in a Committee Report expressing apparent approval of the Board’s then-current application of its supervisory employee test to nurses. S. Rep. No. 93-766, p. 6 (1974); see Yeshiva, supra, at 690, n. 30. As an initial matter, it is far from clear that the Board in fact had a consistent test for nurses before 1974. Compare Avon Convalescent Center, Inc., 200 N. L. R. B. 702 (1972), with Doctors' Hospital of Modesto, Inc., 183 N. L. R. B. 950 (1970). In any event, the isolated statement in the 1974 Committee Report does not represent an authoritative interpretation of the phrase “in the interest of the employer,” which was enacted by Congress in 1947. “[I]t is the function of the courts and not the Legislature, much less a Committee of one House of the Legislature, to say what an enacted statute means.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 566 (1988). Indeed, in American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U. S. 606 (1991), the petitioner pointed to isolated statements from the same 1974 Senate Report cited here and argued that they revealed Congress’ intent with respect to a provision of the original 1935 Act. We dismissed the argument, stating that such statements do not have “the force of law, for the Constitution is quite explicit about the procedure that Congress must follow in legislating.” Id., at 616; see also Betts, 492 U. S., at 168. In this case as well, we must reject the Board’s reliance on the 1974 Committee Report. If Congress wishes to enact the policies of the Board, it can do so without indirection. See generally Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., ante, at 185-188.
Ill
An examination of the professional’s duties (or in this case the duties of the four nonprofessional nurses) to determine whether 1 or more of the 12 listed activities is performed in a manner that makes the employee a supervisor is, of course, part of the Board’s routine and proper adjudicative function. In cases involving nurses, that inquiry no doubt could lead the Board in some cases to conclude that supervisory status has not been demonstrated. The Board has not sought to sustain its decision on that basis here, however. It has chosen instead to rely on an industrywide interpretation of the phrase “in the interest of the employer” that contravenes precedents of this Court and has no relation to the ordinary meaning of that language.
To be sure, in applying §2(11) in other industries, the Board on occasion reaches results reflecting a distinction between authority arising from professional knowledge and authority encompassing front-line management prerogatives. It is important to emphasize, however, that in almost all of those cases (unlike in cases involving nurses) the Board’s decisions did not result from manipulation of the statutory phrase “in the interest of the employer,” but instead from a finding that the employee in question had not met the other requirements for supervisory status under the Act, such as the requirement that the employee exercise one of the listed activities in a nonroutine manner. See supra, at 573 (listing other requirements for supervisory status). That may explain why the Board did not cite in its submissions to this Court a single case outside the health care field approving the interpretation of “in the interest of the employer” the Board uses in nurse cases. That the Board sometimes finds a professional employee not to be a supervisor when applying other elements of the statutory definition of §2(11) cannot be shoehorned into the conclusion that the Board can rely on its strained interpretation of the phrase “in the interest of the employer” in all nurse cases. If we accepted the Board’s position in this case, moreover, nothing would prevent the Board from applying this interpretation of “in the interest of the employer” to all professional employees.
We note further that our decision casts no doubt on Board or court decisions interpreting parts of §2(11) other than the specific phrase “in the interest of the employer.” Because the Board’s interpretation of “in the interest of the employer” is for the most part confined to nurse cases, our decision will have almost no effect outside that context. Any' parade of horribles about the meaning of this decision for employees in other industries is thus quite misplaced; indeed, the Board does not make that argument.
In sum, the Board’s test for determining the supervisory status of nurses is inconsistent with the statute and our precedents. The Board did not petition this Court to uphold its order in this case under any other theory. See Brief for Respondent 21, n. 25. If the case presented the question whether these nurses were supervisors under the proper test, we would have given a lengthy exposition and analysis of the facts in the record. But as we have indicated, the Board made and defended its decision by relying on the particular test it has applied to nurses. Our conclusion that the Court of Appeals was correct to find the Board’s test inconsistent with the statute therefore suffices to resolve the case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires certain offenders to restore property lost by their victims as a result of the crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. A provision in the statute says that, when return of the property lost by the victim is "impossible, impracticable, or inadequate," the offender must pay the victim "an amount equal to ... the value of the property" less "the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned." § 3663A(b)(1)(B). The question before us is whether "any part of the property" is "returned" when a victim takes title to collateral securing a loan that an offender fraudulently obtained from the victim.
We hold that it is not. In our view, the statutory phrase "any part of the property" refers only to the specific property lost by a victim, which, in the case of a fraudulently obtained loan, is the money lent. Therefore, no "part of the property" is "returned" to the victim until the collateral is sold and the victim receives money from the sale. The import of our holding is that a sentencing court must reduce the restitution amount by the amount of money the victim received in selling the collateral, not the value of the collateral when the victim received it.
I
The relevant facts, as simplified, are the following: In 2005 petitioner Benjamin Robers, acting as a straw buyer, submitted fraudulent loan applications to two banks. The banks lent Robers about $470,000 for the purchase of two houses, upon which the banks took mortgages. When Robers failed to make loan payments, the banks foreclosed on the mortgages. In 2006 they took title to the two houses. In 2007 they sold one house for about $120,000. And in 2008 they sold the other house for about $160,000. The sales took place in a falling real estate market.
In 2010 Robers was convicted in federal court of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. See §§ 371, 1343. He was sentenced to three years of probation. And the court ordered him to pay restitution of about $220,000, roughly the $470,000 the banks lent to Robers less the $280,000 the banks received from the sale of the two houses (minus certain expenses incurred in selling them).
On appeal Robers argued that the sentencing court had miscalculated his restitution obligation. In his view, "part of the property" was "returned" to the banks when they took title to the houses. And, since the statute says that "returned" property shall be valued "as of the date the property is returned," the sentencing court should have reduced the restitution amount by more than $280,000: $280,000 was what the banks received from the sale of the houses, but since the banks sold the houses in a falling real estate market, the houses had been worth more when the banks took title to them.
The Court of Appeals rejected Robers' argument. 698 F.3d 937 (C.A.7 2012). And, because different Circuits have come to different conclusions about this kind of matter, we granted Robers' petition for certiorari. Compare id., at 942 (case below) (restitution obligation reduced by money received from sale of collateral), with United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594, 604 (C.A.9 2012) (restitution obligation reduced by value of collateral at time lender took title).
II
In our view, the phrase "any part of the property ... returned" refers to the property the banks lost, namely, the money they lent to Robers, and not to the collateral the banks received, namely, the two houses. For one thing, that is what the statute says. The phrase is part of a long sentence that reads as follows:
"(b) The order of restitution shall require that [the] defendant-
"(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense-
"(A) return the property to the owner of the property ...; or
"(B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to-
"(i) the greater of-
"(I) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or
"(II) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less
"(ii) the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned...." § 3663A (emphasis added).
The words "the property" appear seven times in this sentence. If read naturally, they refer to the "property" that was "damage[d]," "los[t]," or "destr[oyed]" as a result of the crime. § 3663A(b)(1). "Generally, 'identical words used in different parts of the same statute are ... presumed to have the same meaning.' " Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 86, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006) (quoting IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 34, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (2005)). And, if the "property" that was "damage[d]," "los[t]," or "destr[oyed]" was the money, then "the property ... returned" must also be the money. Money being fungible, however, see, e.g.,Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 716, 729-730, 178 L.Ed.2d 603 (2011);Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 606, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004), "the property ... returned" need not be the very same bills or checks.
We concede that substituting an amount of money, say, $1,000, for the words "the property" will sometimes seem awkward or unnecessary as, for example:
"[I]f return of [$1,000] ... is impossible, ... pay an amount equal to ... the greater of ... the value of [$1,000] on the date of the ... loss ... or ... the value of [$1,000] on the date of sentencing...." § 3663A(b)(1)(B).
But any such awkwardness or redundancy is the linguistic price paid for having a single statutory provision that covers property of many different kinds. The provision is not awkward as applied to, say, a swindler who obtains jewelry, is unable to return all of the jewelry, and must then instead pay an amount equal to the value of all of the jewelry obtained less the value (as of the date of the return) of any of the jewelry that he did return. It directs the court to value the returned jewelry as of the date it was returned and subtract that amount from the value of all of the jewelry the swindler obtained. As applied to money, the provision is in part unnecessary but reading the statute similarly does no harm. And the law does not require legislators to write extra language specifically exempting, phrase by phrase, applications in respect to which a portion of a phrase is not needed.
The natural reading also facilitates the statute's administration. Many victims who lose money but subsequently receive other property ( e.g., collateral securing a loan) will sell that other property and receive money from the sale. And often that sale will take place fairly soon after the victim receives the property. Valuing the money from the sale is easy. But valuing other property as of the time it was received may provoke argument, requiring time, expense, and expert testimony to resolve.
We are not convinced by Robers' arguments to the contrary. First, Robers says that, when a victim has not sold the collateral by the time of sentencing, our interpretation will lead to unfair results. A sentencing court will have only two choices, both undesirable. The court will either have to refuse to award restitution, thereby undercompensating the victim, or have to require the offender to pay the full amount lent to him, thereby giving the victim a windfall.
In our view, however, the dilemma is a false one. Other provisions of the statute allow the court to avoid an undercompensation or a windfall. Where, for example, a sale of the collateral is foreseen but has not yet taken place, the court may postpone determination of the restitution amount for two to three months after sentencing, thereby providing the victim with additional time to sell. See § 3664(d)(5). Where a victim receives, say, collateral, but does not intend to sell it, other provisions of the statute may come into play. Section 3664(f)(2) provides that upon
"determination of the amount of restitution owed to each victim, the court shall ... specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid."
Section 3664(f)(3)(A) says that a
"restitution order may direct the defendant to make a single, lump-sum payment, partial payments at specified intervals, in-kind payments, or a combination of payments at specified intervals and in-kind payments."
And § 3664(f)(4) defines "in-kind payment" as including "replacement of property." These provisions would seem to give a court adequate authority to count, as part of the restitution paid, the value of collateral previously received but not sold. Regardless, Robers has not pointed us to any case suggesting an unfairness problem. And the Government has conceded that the statute (whether through these or other provisions) provides room for "credit [s]" against an offender's restitution obligation "to prevent double recovery to the victim." Brief for United States 30 (emphasis deleted).
Robers also points out, correctly, that the statute has a proximate cause requirement. See § 3663A(a)(2) (defining "victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of" the offense (emphasis added)); § 3664(e) (Government bears the "burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense" (emphasis added)). Cf. Paroline v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1718 - 1722, 188 L.Ed.2d 714, 2014 WL 1612426, at *6-10. And Robers argues that where, as here, a victim receives less money from a later sale than the collateral was worth when received, the market and not the offender is the proximate cause of the deficiency.
We are not convinced. The basic question that a proximate cause requirement presents is "whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close connection to the conduct" at issue. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1390, 188 L.Ed.2d 392. Here, it does. Fluctuations in property values are common. Their existence (though not direction or amount) is foreseeable. And losses in part incurred through a decline in the value of collateral sold are directly related to an offender's having obtained collateralized property through fraud. That is not to say that an offender is responsible for everything that reduces the amount of money a victim receives for collateral. Market fluctuations are normally unlike, say, an unexpected natural disaster that destroys collateral or a victim's donation of collateral or its sale to a friend for a nominal sum-any of which, as the Government concedes, could break the causal chain. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-27, 38-39, 46, 50-51.
Further, Robers argues that "principles" of state mortgage law "confirm that the return of mortgage collateral compensates a lender for its losses." Brief for Petitioner 30. But whether the collateral compensates a victim for its losses is not the question before us. That question is whether the particular statutory provision at issue here requires that collateral received be valued at the time the victim received it. That statutory provision does not purport to track the details of state mortgage law. Thus, even were we to assume that Robers is right about the details of state mortgage law, we would not find them sufficient to change our interpretation.
Finally, Robers invokes the rule of lenity. To apply this rule, we would have to assume that we could interpret the statutory provision to help an offender like Robers, who is hurt when the market for collateral declines, without harming other offenders, who would be helped when the market for collateral rises. We cannot find such an interpretation. Regardless, the rule of lenity applies only if, after using the usual tools of statutory construction, we are left with a "grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having come to the end of our analysis, we are left with no such ambiguity or uncertainty here. The statutory provision refers to the money lost, not to the collateral received.
* * *
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. I write separately, however, to clarify that I see its analysis as applying only in cases where a victim intends to sell collateral but encounters a reasonable delay in doing so. See ante, at 1858 (explaining that where a victim "does not intend to sell" collateral, "other provisions of the statute may come into play," enabling a court "to count, as part of the restitution paid, the value of collateral previously received but not sold"). If a victim chooses to hold collateral rather than to reduce it to cash within a reasonable time, then the victim must bear the risk of any subsequent decline in the value of the collateral, because the defendant is not the proximate cause of that decline.
Here, although the banks did not immediately sell the homes they received as collateral, Robers did not adequately argue below that their delay reflected a choice to hold the homes as investments.* Such an argument would likely have been fruitless, because the delay appears consistent with a genuine desire to dispose of the collateral. Real property is not a liquid asset, which means that converting it to cash often takes time. See, e.g., 698 F.3d 937, 947 (C.A.7 2012) ("[R]eal property is not liquid and, absent a huge price discount, cannot be sold immediately"). And indeed, the delays here appear to have resulted from illiquidity. See App. 70 (one of the two homes was placed on the market but did not immediately sell); id., at 89 (the other attracted no bids at a foreclosure sale). Because such delays are foreseeable, it is fair for Robers to bear their cost: the diminution in the homes' value. See ante, at 1858 - 1859 (analysis of proximate causation).
In other cases, however, a defendant might be able to show that a significant delay in the sale of collateral evinced the victim's choice to hold it as an investment rather than reducing it to cash. Suppose, for example, that a bank received shares of a public company as collateral for a fraudulently obtained loan. "Common stock traded on a national exchange is ... readily convertible into cash," Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 69, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990), so if the bank waited more than a reasonable time to sell the shares, a district court could infer that the bank was not really trying to sell but instead was holding the shares as investment assets. If the shares declined in value after the bank chose to hold them, it would be wrong for the court to make the defendant bear that loss. As the Government acknowledged at oral argument, a victim's choice to hold collateral-rather than selling it in a reasonably expeditious manner-breaks the chain of proximate causation. See, e.g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 38-39, 44-45. If the collateral loses value after the victim chooses to hold it, then that "part of the victim's net los[s]" is "attributable to" the victim's "independent decisions." Id., at 39. The defendant cannot be regarded as the "proximate cause" of that part of the loss, ibid., and so cannot be made to bear it.
In such cases, I would place on the defendant the burden to show-with evidence specific to the market at issue-that a victim delayed unreasonably in selling collateral, manifesting a choice to hold the collateral. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (burden to be allocated "as justice requires"). Because Robers did not sufficiently argue below that the banks broke the chain of proximate causation by choosing to hold the homes as investments, and because the delay encountered by the banks appears to have been reasonable, it is fair for Robers to bear the cost of that delay. I therefore join the Court in affirming the restitution order.
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.
Before the District Court, Robers suggested precisely the opposite: that the banks had sold the homes too hastily, at fire-sale prices in a falling market. See App. 35 ("The drop in value could have been due to the housing market itself, or due to the victim's rush to cut their losses with the properties and take whatever price they could get at a sheriff's sale, regardless of whether the sale price reflected the fair market value of the property at the time"). Before the Seventh Circuit, Robers did suggest that the banks should have sold more quickly. See Brief for Appellant in No. 10-3794, p. 35 ("[T]here is no 'loss causation' here, ... because the kind of loss that occurred (due to the market, or to the victims holding the property longer than they should have in a declining market, or to other unknown factors) was not the kind for which the defendant's acts could have controlled or accounted"). But this argument does not imply that the banks' delay reflected a choice to hold the homes as investments, only that the banks misjudged the timing of the sales.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-B, III-C, IV-B (except for the final paragraph), IV-D, IV-E, and IV-F, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A and IV-A, the final paragraph of Part IV-B, and Parts IV-C and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Stevens join.
This case presents issues concerning the constitutional limitations, if any, upon the payment, required as a condition of employment, of dues by a nonmember to a union in the public sector.
I
Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (Act), Mich. Comp. Laws §423.201 et seq. (1978), provides that a duly selected union shall serve as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of public employees in a particular bargaining unit. The Act, which applies to faculty members of a public educational institution in Michigan, permits a union and a government employer to enter into an “agency-shop” arrangement under which employees within the bargaining unit who decline to become members of the union are compelled to pay a “service fee” to the union.
Respondent Ferris Faculty Association (FFA), an affiliate of the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and the National Education Association (NEA), serves, pursuant to this provision, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty of Ferris State College in Big Rapids, Mich. Ferris is a public institution established under the Michigan Constitution and is funded by the State. See Mich. Const., Art. VIII, §4. Since 1975, the FFA and Ferris have entered into successive collective-bargaining agreements containing agency-shop provisions. Those agreements were the fruit of negotiations between the FFA and respondent Board of Control, the governing body of Ferris. See Mich. Comp. Law §390.802 (1988).
Subsequent to this Court’s decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977), in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Michigan agency-shop provision and outlined permissible uses of the compelled fee by public-employee unions, Ferris proposed, and the FFA agreed to, the agency-shop arrangement at issue here. That agreement required all employees in the bargaining unit who did not belong to the FFA to pay a service fee equivalent to the amount of dues required of a union member. Of the $284 service fee for 1981-1982, the period at issue, $24.80 went to the FFA, $211.20 to the MEA, and $48 to the NEA.
Petitioners were members of the Ferris faculty during the period in question and objected to certain uses by the unions of their service fees. Petitioners instituted this action, pursuant to Rev. Stat. §§1979-1981, 42 U. S. C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claiming that the use of their fees for purposes other than negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining agreement with the Board of Control violated rights secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Petitioners also claimed that the procedures implemented by the unions to determine and collect service fees were inadequate.
After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court issued its opinion holding that certain union expenditures were chargeable to petitioners, that certain other expenditures were not chargeable as a matter of law, and that still other expenditures were not chargeable because the unions had failed to sustain their burden of proving that the expenditures were made for chargeable activities. 643 F. Supp. 1306 (1986).
Following a partial settlement, petitioners took an appeal limited to the claim that the District Court erred in holding that the costs of certain disputed union activities were constitutionally chargeable to the plaintiff faculty members. Specifically, petitioners objected to the District Court’s conclusion that the union constitutionally could charge them for the costs of (1) lobbying and electoral politics; (2) bargaining, litigation, and other activities on behalf of persons not in petitioners’ bargaining unit; (3) public-relations efforts; (4) miscellaneous professional activities; (5) meetings and conventions of the parent unions; and (6) preparation for a strike which, had it materialized, would have violated Michigan law.
The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting in large part, affirmed. 881 F. 2d 1388 (CA6 1989). After reviewing this Court’s cases in the area, the court concluded that each of the challenged activities was sufficiently related to the unions’ duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioners’ unit to justify compelling petitioners to assist in subsidizing it. The dissenting judge concurred with respect to convention expenses but disagreed with the majority’s resolution of the other items challenged. Id., at 1394. Because of the importance of the issues, we granted certio-rari. 496 U. S. 924 (1990).
h-1 1 — 4
This is not our first opportunity to consider the constitutional dimensions of union-security provisions such as the agency-shop agreement at issue here. The Court first addressed the question in Railway Employes v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956), where it recognized the validity of a “union-shop” agreement authorized by § 2 Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), as amended, 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Eleventh, as applied to private employees. As with the Michigan statute we consider today, the RLA provision at issue in Hanson was permissive in nature. It was more expansive than the Michigan Act, however, because the challenged RLA provision authorized an agreement that corn-pelled union membership, rather than simply the payment of a service fee by a nonmember employee.
Finding that the concomitants of compulsory union membership authorized by the RLA extended only to financial support of the union in its collective-bargaining activities, the Court determined that the challenged arrangement did not offend First or Fifth Amendment values. It cautioned, however: “If ‘assessments’ are in fact imposed for purposes not germane to collective bargaining, a different problem would be presented.” 351 U. S., at 235 (footnote omitted). It further emphasized that the Court’s approval of the statutorily sanctioned agreement did not extend to cases in which compelled membership is used “as a cover for forcing ideological conformity or other action in contravention of the First Amendment.” Id., at 238.
. Hanson did not directly concern the extent to which union dues collected under a governmentally authorized union-shop agreement may be utilized in support of ideological causes or political campaigns to which reluctant union members are opposed. The Court addressed that issue under the RLA in Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961). Unlike Hanson, the record in Street was replete with detailed information and specific factual findings that the union dues of dissenting employees had been used for political purposes. Recognizing that, in enacting § 2 Eleventh of the RLA, Congress sought to protect the expressive freedom of dissenting employees while promoting collective representation, the Street Court construed the RLA to deny unions the authority to expend dissenters’ funds in support of political causes to which those employees objected.
Two years later in Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113 (1963), another RLA case, the Court reaffirmed that holding. It emphasized the important distinction between a union’s political expenditures and “those germane to collective bargaining,” with only the latter being properly chargeable to dissenting employees under the statute.
Although they are cases of statutory construction, Street and Allen are instructive in delineating the bounds of the First Amendment in this area as well. Because the Court expressly has interpreted the RLA “to avoid serious doubt of [the statute’s] constitutionality,” Street, 367 U. S., at 749; see Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 444 (1984), the RLA cases necessarily provide some guidance regarding what the First Amendment will countenance in the realm of union support of political activities through mandatory assessments. Specifically, those cases make clear that expenses that are relevant or “germane” to the collective-bargaining functions of the union generally will be constitutionally chargeable to dissenting employees. They further establish that, at least in the private sector, those functions do not include political or ideological activities.
It was not until the decision in Abood that this Court addressed the constitutionality of union-security provisions in the public-employment context. There, the Court upheld the same Michigan statute which is before us today against a facial First Amendment challenge. At the same time, it determined that the claim that a union has utilized an individual agency-shop agreement to force dissenting employees to subsidize ideological activities could establish, upon a proper showing, a First Amendment violation. In so doing, the Court set out several important propositions:
First, it recognized that “[t]o compel employees financially to support their collective-bargaining representative has an impact upon their First Amendment interests.” 431 U. S., at 222. Unions traditionally have aligned themselves with a wide range of social, political, and ideological viewpoints, any number of which might bring vigorous disapproval from individual employees. To force employees to contribute, albeit indirectly, to the promotion of such positions implicates core First Amendment concerns. See, e. g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977) (“[T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all”).
Second, the Court in Abood determined that, as in the private sector, compulsory affiliation with, or monetary support of, a public-employment union does not, without more, violate the First Amendment rights of public employees. Similarly, an employee’s free speech rights are not unconstitutionally burdened because the employee opposes positions taken by a union in its capacity as collective-bargaining representative. “[T]he judgment clearly made in Hanson and Street is that such interference as exists is constitutionally justified by the legislative assessment of the important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations established by Congress.” 431 U. S., at 222.
In this connection, the Court indicated that the considerations that justify the union shop in the private context — the desirability of labor peace and eliminating “free riders” — are equally important in the public-sector workplace. Consequently, the use of dissenters’ assessments “for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment,” id., at 225-226, approved under the RLA, is equally permissible when authorized by a State vis-a-vis its own workers.
Third, the Court established that the constitutional principles that prevent a State from conditioning public employment upon association with a political party, see Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976) (plurality opinion), or upon professed religious allegiance, see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 (1961), similarly prohibit a public employer “from requiring [an employee] to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job” as a public educator. 431 U. S., at 235.
The Court in Abood did not attempt to draw a precise line between permissible assessments for public-sector collective-bargaining activities and prohibited assessments for ideological activities. It did note, however, that, while a similar line must be drawn in the private sector under the RLA, the distinction in the public sector may be “somewhat hazier.” Id., at 236. This is so because the “process of establishing a written collective-bargaining agreement prescribing the terms and conditions of public employment may require not merely concord at the bargaining table, but subsequent approval by other public authorities; related budgetary and appropriations decisions might be seen as an integral part of the bargaining process.” Ibid.
Finally, in Ellis, the Court considered, among other issues, a First Amendment challenge to the use of dissenters’ funds for various union expenses including union conventions, publications, and social events. Recognizing that by allowing union-security arrangements at all, it has necessarily countenanced a significant burdening of First Amendment rights, it limited its inquiry to whether the expenses at issue “involve[d] additional interference with the First Amendment interests of objecting employees, and, if so, whether they are nonetheless adequately supported by a governmental interest.” 466 U. S., at 456 (emphasis added).
Applying that standard to the challenged expenses, the Court found all three to be properly supportable through mandatory assessments. The dissenting employees in Ellis objected to charges relating to union social functions, not because those activities were inherently expressive or ideological in nature, but purely because they were sponsored by the union. Because employees may constitutionally be compelled to affiliate with a union, the Court found that forced contribution to union social events that were open to all imposed no additional burden on their First Amendment rights. Although the challenged expenses for union publications and conventions were clearly communicative in nature, the Court found them to entail little additional encroachment upon freedom of speech, “and none that is not justified by the governmental interests behind the union shop itself.” Ibid. See also Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U. S. 1 (1990), and Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U. S. 735 (1988).
Thus, although the Court’s decisions in this area prescribe a case-by-case analysis in determining which activities a union constitutionally may charge to dissenting employees, they also set forth several guidelines to be followed in making such determinations. Hanson and Street and their progeny teach that chargeable activities must (1) be “germane” to collective-bargaining activity; (2) be justified by the government’s vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding “free riders”; and (3) not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in the allowance of an agency or union shop.
Ill
In arguing that these principles exclude the charges upheld by the Court of Appeals, petitioners propose two limitations on the use by public-sector unions of dissenters’ contributions. First, they urge that they may not be charged over their objection for lobbying activities that do not concern legislative ratification of, or fiscal appropriations for, their collective-bargaining agreement. Second, as to nonpolitical expenses, petitioners assert that the local union may not utilize dissenters’ fees for activities that, though closely related to collective bargaining generally, are not undertaken directly on behalf of the bargaining unit to which the objecting employees belong. We accept the former proposition but find the latter to be foreclosed by our prior decisions.
A
The Court of Appeals determined that unions constitutionally may subsidize lobbying and other political activities with dissenters’ fees so long as those activities are “ ‘pertinent to the duties of the union as a bargaining representative.’ ” 881 F. 2d, at 1392, quoting Robinson v. New Jersey, 741 F. 2d 598, 609 (CA3 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1228 (1985). In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the inherently political nature of salary and other workplace decisions -in public employment. “To represent their members effectively,” the court concluded, “public sector unions must necessarily concern themselves not only with negotiations at the bargaining table but also with advancing their members’ interests in legislative and other ‘political’ arenas.” 881 F. 2d, at 1392.
This observation is clearly correct. Public-sector unions often expend considerable resources in securing ratification of negotiated agreements by the proper state or local legislative body. See Note, Union Security in the Public Sector: Defining Political Expenditures Related to Collective Bargaining, 1980 Wis. L. Rev. 134, 150-152. Similarly, union efforts to acquire appropriations for approved collective-bargaining agreements often serve as an indispensable prerequisite to their implementation. See Developments in the Law: Public Employment, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1611, 1732-1733 (1984). It was in reference to these characteristics of public employment that the Court in Abood discussed the “somewhat hazier” line between bargaining-related and purely ideological activities in the public sector. 431 U. S., at 236. The dual roles of government as employer and policymaker in such cases make the analogy between lobbying and collective bargaining in the public sector a close one.
This, however, is not such a case. Where, as here, the challenged lobbying activities relate not to the ratification or implementation of a dissenter’s collective-bargaining agreement, but to financial support of the employee’s profession or of public employees generally, the connection to the union’s function as bargaining representative is too attenuated to justify compelled support by objecting employees.
We arrive at this result by looking to the governmental interests underlying our acceptance of union-security arrangements. We have found such arrangements to be justified by the government’s interest in promoting labor peace and avoiding the “free-rider” problem that would otherwise accompany union recognition. Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292, 302-303 (1986); Abood, 431 U. S., at 224. Neither goal is served by charging objecting employees for lobbying, electoral, and other political activities that do not relate to their collective-bargaining agreement.
Labor peace is not especially served by allowing such charges, because, unlike collective-bargaining negotiations between union and management, our national and state legislatures, the media, and the platform of public discourse are public fora open to all. Individual employees are free to petition their neighbors and government in opposition to the union which represents them in the workplace. Because worker and union cannot be said to speak with one voice, it would not further the cause of harmonious industrial relations to compel objecting employees to finance union political activities as well as their own.
Similarly, while we have endorsed the notion that nonunion workers ought not be allowed to benefit from the terms of employment secured by union efforts without paying for those services, the so-called “free-rider” concern is inapplicable where lobbying extends beyond the effectuation of a collective-bargaining agreement. The balancing of monetary and other policy choices performed by legislatures is not limited to the workplace but typically has ramifications that extend into diverse aspects of an employee’s life.
Perhaps most important, allowing the use of dissenters’ assessments for political activities outside the scope of the collective-bargaining context would present “additional interference with the First Amendment interests of objecting employees.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 456. There is no question as to the expressive and ideological content of these activities. Further, unlike discussion by negotiators regarding the terms and conditions of employment, lobbying and electoral speech are likely to concern topics about which individuals hold strong personal views. Although First Amendment protection is in no way limited to controversial topics or emotionally charged issues, see Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 14 (1976); Abood, 431 U. S., at 231, and n. 28, the extent of one’s disagreement with the subject of compulsory speech is relevant to the degree of impingement upon free expression that compulsion will effect.
The burden upon freedom of expression is particularly great where, as here, the compelled speech is in a public context. By utilizing petitioners’ funds for political lobbying and to garner the support of the public in its endeavors, the union would use each dissenter as “an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.” Maynard, 430 U. S., at 715. The First Amendment protects the individual’s right of participation in these spheres from precisely this type of invasion. Where the subject of compelled speech is the discussion of governmental affairs, which is at the core of our First Amendment freedoms, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 484 (1957); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 14, the burden upon dissenters’ rights extends far beyond the acceptance of the agency shop and is constitutionally impermissible.
Accordingly, we hold that the State constitutionally may not compel its employees to subsidize legislative lobbying or other political union activities outside the limited context of contract ratification or implementation.
B
Petitioners’ contention that they may be charged only for those collective-bargaining activities undertaken directly on behalf of their unit presents a closer question. While we consistently have looked to whether nonideological expenses are “germane to collective bargaining,” Hanson, 351 U. S., at 235, we have never interpreted that test to require a direct relationship between the expense at issue and some tangible benefit to the dissenters’ bargaining unit.
We think that to require so close a connection would be to ignore the unified-membership structure under which many unions, including those here, operate. Under such arrangements, membership in the local union constitutes membership in the state and national parent organizations. See 643 F. Supp., at 1308. See also Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Board, 49 Cal. 3d 575, 603-604, 778 P. 2d 174, 192 (1989) (noting the inherent “close organizational relationship”).
The essence of the affiliation relationship is the notion that the parent will bring to bear its often considerable economic, political, and informational resources when the local is in need of them. Consequently, that part of a local’s affiliation fee which contributes to the pool of resources potentially available to the local is assessed for the bargaining unit’s protection, even if it is not actually expended on that unit in any particular membership year.
The Court recognized as much in Ellis. There it construed the RLA to allow the use of dissenters’ funds to help defray the costs of the respondent union’s national conventions. It reasoned that “if a union is to perform its statutory functions, it must maintain its corporate or associational existence, must elect officers to manage and carry on its affairs, and may consult its members about overall bargaining goals and policy.” 466 U. S., at 448. We see no reason why analogous public-sector union activities should be treated differently.
We therefore conclude that a local bargaining representative may charge objecting employees for their pro rata share of the costs associated with otherwise chargeable activities of its state and national affiliates, even if those activities were not performed for the direct benefit of the objecting employees’ bargaining unit. This conclusion, however, does not serve to grant a local union carte blanche to expend dissenters’ dollars for bargaining activities wholly unrelated to the employees in their unit. The union surely may not, for example, charge objecting employees for a direct donation or interest-free loan to an unrelated bargaining unit for the purpose of promoting employee rights or unionism generally. Further, a contribution by a local union to its parent that is not part of the local’s responsibilities as an affiliate but is in the nature of a charitable donation would not be chargeable to dissenters. There must be some indication that the payment is for services that may ultimately inure to the benefit of the members of the local union by virtue of their membership in the parent organization. And, as always, the union bears the burden of proving the proportion of chargeable expenses to total expenses. Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S., at 306; Abood, 431 U. S., at 239-240, n. 40; Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S., at 122. We conclude merely that the union need not demonstrate a direct and tangible impact upon the dissenting employee’s unit.
C
Justice Scalia would find “implicit in our cases since Street,” the rule that “to be constitutional, a charge must at least be incurred in performance of the union’s statutory duties.” Post, at 558. As the preceding discussion indicates, we reject this reading of our cases. This Court never has held that the First Amendment compels such a requirement and our prior decisions cannot reasonably be construed to support his stated proposition. See, e. g., Ellis, 466 U. S., at 456 (“Petitioners may feel that their money is not being well-spent, but that does not mean they have a First Amendment complaint”); see also Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U. S. 1 (1990) (distinguishing between statutory and constitutional duties in the context of integrated state bar membership).
Even if viewed merely as a prophylactic rule for enforcing the First Amendment in the union-security context, Justice Scalia’s approach ultimately must be rejected. As the relevant provisions of the Michigan Act illustrate, state labor laws are rarely precise in defining the duties of public-sector unions to their members. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that the Michigan provisions relating to collective-bargaining duties were purposefully drafted in broad terms so as to provide unions the flexibility and discretion necessary to accommodate the needs of their constituents. Here, as in the RLA context, “[t]he furtherance of the common cause leaves some leeway for the leadership of the group.” Street, 367 U. S., at 778 (Douglas, J., concurring), quoted in Abood, 431 U. S., at 222-223.
Consequently, the terms of the Act provide a poor criterion for determining which charges violate the First Amendment rights of dissenting employees. The broad language of the Act does not begin to explain which' of the specific activities at issue here fall within the union’s collective-bargaining function as contemplated by our cases. Far from providing a bright-line standard, Justice Scalia’s “statutory duties” test fails to afford courts and litigants the guidance necessary to make these particularized distinctions.
More important, Justice Scalia’s rigid approach fails to acknowledge the practicalities of the complex interrelationship between public employers, employees, unions, and the public. The role of an effective representative in this context often encompasses responsibilities that extend beyond those specifically delineated in skeletal state labor law statutes. See Abood, 431 U. S., at 236. That an exclusive bargaining representative has gone beyond the bare requirements of the law in representing its constituents through employee contributions does not automatically mean that the Constitution has been violated, at least where the funded activities have not transgressed state provisions. “The very nature of the free-rider problem and the governmental interest in overcoming it require that the union have a certain flexibility in its use of compelled funds.” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 456.
We therefore disagree with Justice Scalia that any charge that does not relate to an activity expressly authorized by statute is constitutionally invalid, irrespective of its impact, or lack thereof, on free expression. In our view, his analysis turns our constitutional doctrine on its head. Instead of interpreting statutes in light of First Amendment principles, he would interpret the First Amendment in light of state statutory law. It seems to us that this proposal bears little relation to the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect. A rule making violations of freedom of speech dependent upon the terms of state employment statutes would sacrifice sound constitutional analysis for the appearance of administrability.
We turn to the union activities at issue in this case.
> 1 — I
A
The Court of Appeals found that the union could constitutionally charge petitioners for the costs of a Preserve Public Education (PPE) program designed to secure funds for public education in Michigan, and that portion of the MEA publication, the Teacher’s Voice, which reported these activities. Petitioners argue that, contrary to the findings of the courts below, the PPE program went beyond lobbying activity and sought to affect the outcome of ballot issues and “millages” or local taxes for the support of public schools. Given our conclusion as to lobbying and electoral politics generally, this factual dispute is of little consequence. None of these activities was shown to be oriented toward the ratification or implementation of petitioners’ collective-bargaining agreement. We hold that none may be supported through the funds of objecting employees.
B
Petitioners next challenge the Court of Appeals’ allowance of several activities that the union did not undertake directly on behalf of persons within petitioners’ bargaining unit. This objection principally concerns NEA “program expenditures” destined for States other than Michigan, and the expenses of the Teacher’s Voice listed as “Collective Bargaining” and “Litigation.” Our conclusion that unions may bill dissenting employees for their share of general collective-bargaining costs of the state or national parent union is dispositive as to the bulk of the NEA expenditures. The District Court found these costs to be germane to collective bargaining and similar support services and we decline to disturb that finding. No greater relationship is necessary in the collective-bargaining context.
This rationale does not extend, however, to the expenses of litigation that does not concern the dissenting employees’ bargaining unit or, by extension, to union literature reporting on such activities. While respondents are clearly correct that precedent established through litigation on behalf of one unit may ultimately be of some use to another unit, we find extraunit litigation to be more akin to lobbying in both kind and effect. We long have recognized the important political and expressive nature of litigation. See, e. g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 431 (1963) (recognizing that for certain groups, “association for litigation may be the most effective form of political association”). Moreover, union litigation may cover a diverse range of areas from bankruptcy proceedings to employment discrimination. See Ellis, 466 U. S., at 453. When unrelated to an objecting employee’s unit, such activities are not germane to the union’s duties as exclusive bargaining representative. Just as the Court in Ellis determined that the RLA, as informed by the First Amendment, prohibits the use of dissenters’ fees for extraunit litigation, ibid., we hold that the Amendment proscribes such assessments in the public sector.
C
The Court of Appeals determined that the union constitutionally could charge petitioners for certain public relations expenditures. In this connection, the court said: “Public relations expenditures designed to enhance the reputation of the teaching profession... are, in our opinion, sufficiently related to the unions’ duty to represent bargaining unit employees effectively so as to be chargeable to dissenters.” 881 F. 2d, at 1394. We disagree. Like the challenged lobbying conduct, the public relations activities at issue here entailed speech of a political nature in a public forum. More important, public speech in support of the teaching profession generally is not sufficiently related to the union’s collective-bargaining functions to justify compelling dissenting employees to support it. Expression of this kind extends beyond the negotiation and grievance-resolution contexts and imposes a substantially greater burden upon First Amendment rights than do the latter activities.
Nor do we accept the Court of Appeals’ comparison of these public relations expenses to the costs of union social activities held in Ellis to be chargeable to dissenters. In Ellis, the Court found the communicative content of union social activities, if any, to derive solely from the union’s involvement in them. 466 U. S., at 456. “Therefore,” we reasoned, “the fact that the employee is forced to contribute does not increase the infringement of his First Amendment rights already resulting from the compelled contribution to the union.” Ibid. The same cannot be said of the public relations charges upheld by the Court of Appeals which covered “informational picketing, media exposure, signs, posters and buttons.” 643 F. Supp., at 1313.
D
The District Court and the Court of Appeals allowed charges for those portions of the Teachers’ Voice that concern teaching and education generally, professional development, unemployment, job opportunities, award programs of the MEA, and other miscellaneous matters. Informational support services such as these are neither political nor public in nature. Although they do not directly concern the members of petitioners’ bargaining unit, these expenditures are for the benefit of all and we discern no additional infringement of First Amendment rights that they might occasion. In short, we agree with the Court of Appeals that these expenses are comparable to the de minimis social activity charges approved in Ellis. See 466 U. S., at 456.
E
The Court of Appeals ruled that the union could use the fees of objecting employees to send FFA delegates to the MEA and the NEA conventions and to participate in the 13E Coordinating Council, another union structure. Petitioners challenge that determination and argue that, unlike the national convention expenses found to be chargeable to dissenters in Ellis, the meetings at issue here were those of affiliated parent unions rather than the local, and therefore do not relate exclusively to petitioners’ unit.
We need not determine whether petitioners could be commanded to support all the expenses of these conventions. The question before the Court is simply whether the unions may constitutionally require petitioners to subsidize the participation in these events of delegates from the local. We hold that they may. That the conventions were not solely devoted to the activities of the FFA does not prevent the unions from requiring petitioners’ support. We conclude above that the First Amendment does not require so close a connection. Moreover, participation by members of the local in the formal activities of the parent is likely to be an important benefit of affiliation. This conclusion is supported by the District Court’s description of the 13E Coordinating Council meeting as an event at which “bargaining strategies and representational policies are developed for the UniServ unit composed of the Ferris State College and Central Michigan University bargaining units.” 643 F. Supp., at 1326. As was held in Ellis, “[Conventions such as those at issue here are normal events... and seem to us to be essential to the union’s discharge of its duties as bargaining agent.” 466 U. S., at 448-449.
F
The chargeability of expenses incident to preparation for a strike which all concede would have been illegal under Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws §423.202 (1979), is a provocative question. At the beginning of the 1981-1982 fiscal year, the FFA and Ferris were engaged in negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement. The union perceived these efforts to be ineffective and began to prepare a “job action” or, in more familiar terms, to go out on strike. These preparations entailed the creation by the FFA and the MEA of a “crisis center” or “strike headquarters.” The District Court found that, “whatever label is attached to this facility, prior to a strike it serves as a meeting place for the local’s membership, a base from which tactical activities such as informational picketing can be conducted, and serves to apply additional pressure on the employer by suggesting, whether true or not, that the local is prepared to strike if necessary.” 648 F. Supp., at 1313.
Had the FFA actually engaged in an illegal strike, the union clearly could not have charged the expenses incident to that strike to petitioners. We can imagine no legitimate governmental interest that would be served by compelling objecting employees to subsidize activity that the State has chosen to disallow. See Male v. Grand Rapids Education Association, 98 Mich. App. 742, 295 N. W. 2d 918 (1980) (holding that, under Michigan law, compulsory-service fees cannot include money allocated to the support of public-sector strikes), appeal denied, 412 Mich. 851, 312 N. W. 2d 83 (1981). Similarly, one might expect the State to prohibit unions from using dissenters’ funds to threaten or prepare for such conduct. The Michigan Legislature, however, has chosen not to impose such a restriction, and we do not find the First Amendment to require that limitation.
Petitioners can identify no determination by the State of Michigan that mere preparation for an illegal strike is itself illegal or against public policy, and we are aware of none. Further, we accept
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Interstate Commerce Act (Act), 49 U. S. C. §10101 et seq. (1982 ed.), motor common carriers must file their rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission), and both carriers and shippers must adhere to these rates. This case requires us to determine the validity of a policy recently adopted by the ICC that relieves a shipper of the obligation of paying the filed rate when the shipper and carrier have privately negotiated a lower rate. We hold that this policy is inconsistent with the Act.
I
A
The ICC regulates interstate transportation by motor common carriers to ensure that rates are both reasonable and nondiscriminatory. See 49 U. S. C. §§ 10101(a), 10701(a), 10741(b) (1982 ed.). The Act provides that a “common carrier... may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination.” § 10741. In addition, the Act states that “[a] rate..., classification, rule, or practice related to transportation or service... must be reasonable.” § 10701(a). The ICC has primary responsibility for determining whether a rate or practice is reasonable. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 440-442 (1907). The Commission may investigate the reasonableness of a rate “on its own initiative or on complaint.” § 11701(a). When the Commission determines that a rate or practice violates the statute, it “shall prescribe the rate... or practice to be followed.” § 10704(b)(1). Moreover, motor common carriers are liable “for damages resulting from the imposition of rates for transportation or service the Commission finds to be in violation” of the Act. 49 U. S. C. § 11705(b)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. V).
The Act requires a motor common carrier to “publish and file with the Commission tariffs containing the rates for transportation it may provide.” 49 U. S. C. § 10762(a)(1) (1982 ed.). The Act also specifically prohibits a carrier from providing services at any rate other than the filed (also known as the tariff) rate:
“Except as provided in this subtitle, a carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission... shall provide that transportation or service only if the rate for the transportation or service is contained in a tariff that is in effect under this subchapter. That carrier may not charge or receive a different compensation for that transportation or service than the rate specified in the tariff whether by returning a part of that rate to a person, giving a person a privilege, allowing the use of a facility that affects the value of that transportation or service, or another device.” § 10761(a).
Deviation from the filed rate may result in the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions on the carrier or shipper. See §§ 11902-11904.
As the Court has frequently stated, the statute does not permit either a shipper’s ignorance or the carrier’s misquotation of the applicable rate to serve as a defense to the collection of the filed rate. See Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U. S. 336, 352 (1982); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97 (1915). In 1986, however, the ICC concluded that changes in the motor carrier industry “clearly warrant a tempering of the former harsh rule of adhering to the tariff rate in virtually all cases.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 3 I. C. C. 2d 99, 106 (1986) (Negotiated Rates I). Under the new policy, when cases are referred to the Commission, it “decid[es] if the collection of undercharges would be an unreasonable practice.” Id., at 100.
In Negotiated Rates I, the Commission adverted to a growing trend in the motor carrier industry whereby carriers and shippers negotiate rates lower than those on file with the ICC, and the shippers are billed for and remit payment at the negotiated rate. In many instances, however, the negotiated rate is never filed with the ICC. In some of those cases, the carrier subsequently files for bankruptcy and the trustee bills the shipper for the difference between the tariff rate and the negotiated rate, arguing that § 10761 compels the collection of the filed rather than negotiated rate. Id., at 99. The Commission concluded that, under such circumstances, “it could be fundamentally unfair not to consider a shipper’s equitable defenses to a claim for undercharges.” Id., at 103. The Commission reasoned that the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which significantly deregulated the motor carrier industry, justified the change in policy, for the new competitive atmosphere made strict application of § 10761 unnecessary to deter discrimination. 3 I. C. C. 2d, at 106. Moreover, the Commission asserted that it had authority under § 10701 to determine whether the collection of the undercharge in a particular case would constitute an unreasonable practice. Id., at 103.
The ICC clarified its new policy in NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 5 I. C. C. 2d 623 (1989) (Negotiated Rates II). The Commission explained that its policy did not recognize “equitable defenses” but rather applied the “affirmative statutory requirement] and obligatio[n]” of § 10701 that a carrier’s practices be reasonable. Id., at 631, n. 18. “[T]he Commission is finding to be an unreasonable practice... a course of conduct consisting of: (1) negotiating a rate; (2) agreeing to a rate that the shipper reasonably relies upon as being lawfully filed; (3) failing, either willfully or otherwise, to publish the rate; (4) billing and accepting payment at the negotiated rate for (sometimes) numerous shipments; and (5) then demanding additional payment at higher rates.” Id., at 628, n 11.
B
This case involves the application of the Commission’s new Negotiated Rates policy. It arises from an action by petitioner Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. (Maislin), to recover freight undercharges for 1,081 interstate shipments performed for a shipper, respondent Primary Steel (Primary), by petitioner’s subsidiary, Quinn Freight Lines (Quinn). From 1981 to 1983, Quinn, a motor common carrier certificated by the ICC, privately negotiated rates with Primary that were lower than Quinn’s rates then on file with the ICC. Quinn never filed the negotiated rates with the ICC.
In 1983, Maislin filed for bankruptcy, and a postpetition audit of its accounts revealed undercharges of $187,923.36 resulting from billing Primary at the negotiated, rather than filed, rates. The agents of the bankrupt estate, pursuant to the authorization of the Bankruptcy Court, issued balance due bills to Primary for these undercharges. When Primary refused to pay the amounts demanded, the estate brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 49 U. S. C. § 11706(a) (1982 ed.) for the difference between the filed rates and the negotiated rates.
In its answer, Primary alleged that since the parties had negotiated lower rates, rebilling at the tariff rates would constitute an unreasonable practice in violation of §10701; that the tariff rates themselves were not “reasonable” within the meaning of § 10701; and that the asserted tariff rates were otherwise inapplicable to the shipments at issue. The District Court, finding these matters to be within the primary jurisdiction of the ICC, stayed the proceeding at Primary’s request and referred the case to the Commission. App. 6-8.
The ICC ruled in Primary’s favor, rejecting Maislin’s argument that the Commission lacked the statutory power to release a shipper from liability for such undercharges. Relying on Negotiated Rates I, the ICC reiterated that § 10701 authorized it to “consider all the circumstances surrounding an undercharge suit” to determine whether collection of the filed rate would constitute an unreasonable practice. App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. In the Commission’s view, its role was “to undertake an analysis of whether a negotiated but unpublished rate existed, the circumstances surrounding assessment of the tariff rate, and any other pertinent facts.” Id., at 36a. With respect to the instant controversy, the ICC concluded that Quinn and Primary had negotiated rates other than the tariff rates' and that Primary had relied on Quinn to file the rates with the ICC. “Primary reasonably believed that the amounts quoted and billed by Quinn were the correct total charges for the transportation services it performed, that the amounts were reached as the result of negotiations between Primary and Quinn, and that, since full payment was made by [Primary],” Maislin was not entitled to recover the filed rates. Id., at 43a.
The case returned to the District Court where both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Primary, rejecting Maislin’s argument that the ICC’s new policy was, in effect, an impermissible recognition of equitable defenses to the application of the filed rate. The District Court concluded that the ICC’s policy of determining case by case whether the collection of undercharges would be an unreasonable practice under § 10701 was based on a permissible construction of the Act. 705 F. Supp. 1401, 1405-1406 (1988). The court also determined that the ICC’s finding that Maislin had engaged in an unreasonable practice was supported by substantial evidence. Id., at 1406-1407.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the approach taken by the ICC was consistent with the Act. The court reasoned that “[s]ection 10761(a), which mandates the collection of tariff rates, is only part of an overall regulatory scheme administered by the ICC, and there is no provision in the [Act] elevating this section over section 10701, which requires that tariff rates be reasonable.” 879 F. 2d 400, 405 (1989). The court concluded: “[T]he proper authority to harmonize these competing provisions is the ICC.... The approach taken by the ICC does not abolish the filed rate doctrine, but merely allows the ICC to consider all of the circumstances, including equitable defenses, to determine if strict adherence to the filed rate doctrine would constitute an unreasonable practice.” Ibid, (citation omitted). Because the Courts of Appeals have disagreed on the important issue whether the ICC’s Negotiated Rates policy is consistent with the Act, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1041 (1990).
II
The Act requires a motor common carrier to publish its rates in a tariff filed with the Commission. 49 U. S. C. § 10762 (1982 ed.). This Court has long understood that the filed rate governs the legal relationship between shipper and carrier. In Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 166, 163 (1922), the Court explained:
“The legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made, for all purposes, the legal rate, as between carrier and shipper. The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier.... This stringent rule prevails, because otherwise the paramount purpose of Congress — prevention of unjust discrimination-might be defeated.” (Citations omitted.)
See Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 415-417 (1986); Abilene Cotton Oil, 204 U. S., at 439; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 245 (1906); Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 101 (1895). The duty to file rates with the Commission, see § 10762, and the obligation to charge only those rates, see § 10761, have always been considered essential to preventing price discrimination and stabilizing rates. “In order to render rates definite and certain, and to prevent discrimination and other abuses, the statute require[s] the filing and publishing of tariffs specifying the rates adopted by the carrier, and ma[kes] these the legal rates, that is, those which must be charged to all shippers alike.” Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U. S. 370, 384 (1932).
Given the close interplay between the duties imposed by §§ 10761-10762 and the statutory prohibition on discrimination, see § 10741, this Court has read the statute to create strict filed rate requirements and to forbid equitable defenses to collection of the filed tariff. See Mugg, supra, at 245; Hefley, supra, at 101. The classic statement of the “filed rate doctrine,” as it has come to be known, is explained in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94 (1915). In that case, the Court held that a passenger who purchased a train ticket at a rate misquoted by the ticket agent did not have a defense against the subsequent collection of the higher tariff rate by the railroad.
“Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the rate of the carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge. Deviation from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers and travelers are charged with notice of it, and they as well as the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found by the Commission to be unreasonable. Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed. This rule is undeniably strict and it obviously may work hardship in some cases, but it embodies the policy which has been adopted by Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce in order to prevent unjust discrimination.” Id., at 97.
This rigid approach was deemed necessary to prevent carriers from intentionally “misquoting” rates to shippers as a means of offering them rebates or discounts. See S. Rep. No. 46, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 181, 188-190, 198-200 (1886). As the Commission itself found: “[P]ast experience shows that billing clerks and other agents of carriers might easily-become experts in the making of errors and mistakes in the quotation of rates to favored shippers, while other shippers, less fortunate in their relations with carriers and whose traffic is less important, would be compelled to pay the higher published rates.” Poor v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 418, 421-422 (1907); see also Western Transp. Co. v. Wilson & Co., 682 F. 2d 1227, 1230-1231 (CA7 1982). Despite the harsh effects of the filed rate doctrine, we have consistently adhered to it. See, e. g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U. S. 533, 535 (1983); Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 456 U. S., at 343-344; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 307 U. S. 478, 484-485 (1939); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59, 65 (1924).
The filed rate doctrine, however, contains an important caveat: The filed rate is not enforceable if the ICC finds the rate to be unreasonable. See Maxwell, supra, at 97 (filed rate applies “unless it is found by the Commission to be ■unreasonable”) (emphasis added); see also Keogh, supra, at 163 (“The legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made, for all purposes, the legal rate”) (emphasis added). The filed rate doctrine, therefore, follows from the requirement that only filed rates be collected, as commanded by §§ 10761 and 10762, the requirement that rates not be discriminatory, see § 10741, and the requirement of § 10701 that carriers adopt reasonable rates and practices. As we explained in Arizona Grocery, supra, although the filed rate is the legal rate, the Act
“did not abrogate, but [rather] expressly affirmed, the common-law duty to charge no more than a reasonable rate.... In other words, the legal rate was not made by the statute a lawful rate — it was lawful only if it was reasonable. Under [the Act] the shipper was bound to pay the legal rate; but if he could show that it was unreasonable he might recover reparation.
“The Act altered the common law by lodging in the Commission the power theretofore exercised by courts, of determining the reasonableness of a published rate. If the finding on this question was against the carrier, reparation was to be awarded the shipper, and only the enforcement of the award was relegated to the courts.” Id., at 384-385 (footnote omitted).
In the instant case, the Commission did not find that the rates were unreasonable," but rather concluded that the carrier had engaged in an unreasonable practice in violation of § 10701 that should preclude it from collecting the filed rates. The Commission argues that under the filed rate doctrine, a finding that the carrier engaged in an unreasonable practice should, like a finding that the filed rate is unreasonable, disentitle the carrier to collection of the filed rate. We have never held that a carrier’s unreasonable practice justifies departure from the filed tariff schedule. But we need not resolve this issue today because we conclude that the justification for departure from the filed tariff schedule that the ICC set forth in its Negotiated Rates policy rests on an interpretation of the Act that is contrary to the language and structure of the statute as a whole and the requirements that make up the filed rate doctrine in particular.
Under the Negotiated Rates policy, the ICC has determined that a carrier engages in an unreasonable practice when it attempts to collect the filed rate after the parties have negotiated a lower rate. The ICC argues that its conclusion is entitled to deference because § 10701 does not specifically address the types of practices that are to be considered unreasonable and because its construction is rational and consistent with the statute. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984).
We disagree. For a century, this Court has held that the Act, as it incorporates the filed rate doctrine, forbids as discriminatory the secret negotiation and collection of rates lower than the filed rate. See supra, at 126-128. By refusing to order collection of the filed rate solely because the parties had agreed to a lower rate, the ICC has permitted the very price discrimination that the Act by its terms seeks to prevent. See 49 U. S. C. § 10741 (1982 ed.). As we stated in Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 81 (1908):
“If the rates are subject to secret alteration by special agreement then the statute will fail of its purpose to establish a rate duly published, known to all, and from which neither shipper nor carrier may depart.... [The Act] has provided for the establishing of one rate, to be filed as provided, subject to change as provided, and that rate to be while in force the only legal rate. Any other construction of the statute opens the door to the possibility of the very abuses of unequal rates which it was the design of the statute to prohibit and punish.”
Congress has not diverged from this interpretation and we decline to revisit it ourselves. See California v. FERC, 495 U. S. 490, 499 (1990) (recognizing the respect “this Court must accord to longstanding and well-entrenched decisions, especially those interpreting statutes that underlie complex regulatory regimes”). Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning. Labeling the carrier’s conduct an “unreasonable practice” cannot disguise the fact that the ICC is justifying deviation from the filed rate purely on the ground that the carrier and shipper have privately negotiated a lower rate. Stripped of its semantic cover, the Negotiated Rates policy and, more specifically, the Commission’s interpretation of “unreasonable practices” thus stand revealed as flatly inconsistent with the statutory scheme as a whole, cf. Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U. S. 641, 645 (1990); Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 32 (1990), and §§10761 and 10762 in particular.
Nor can the Negotiated Rates policy be justified as a remedy for the carrier’s failure to comply with § 10762’s directive to file the negotiated rate with the ICC. See Negotiated Rates I, 3 I. C. C. 2d, at 103. The Commission argues that the carrier should not receive a windfall, i. e., the higher filed rate, from its failure to comply with the statute. See Brief for Federal Respondent 25-27. But § 10761 requires the carrier to collect the filed rate, and we have never accepted the argument that such “equities” are relevant to the application of §10761. See, e. g., Maxwell, 237 U. S., at 97. Indeed, strict adherence to the filed rate has never been justified on the ground that the carrier is equitably entitled to that rate, but rather that such adherence, despite its harsh consequences in some cases, is necessary to enforcement of the Act. See supra, at 126-128.
Compliance with §§ 10761 and 10762 is “utterly central” to the administration of the Act. Regular Common Carrier Conference v. United States, 253 U. S. App. D. C. 305, 308, 793 F. 2d 376, 379 (1986). “Without [these provisions]... it would be monumentally difficult to enforce the requirement that rates be reasonable and nondiscriminatory,... and virtually impossible for the public to assert its right to challenge the lawfulness of existing proposed rates.” Ibid, (citations omitted). Although the ICC argues that the Negotiated Rates policy does not “abolis[h] the requirement in section 10761 that carriers must continue to charge the tariff rate,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a, the policy, by sanctioning adherence to unfiled rates, undermines the basic structure of the Act. The ICC cannot review in advance the reasonableness of unfiled rates. Likewise, other shippers cannot know if they should challenge a carrier’s rates as discriminatory when many of the carrier’s rates are privately negotiated and never disclosed to the ICC. Thus, although we agree that the Commission may have discretion to craft appropriate remedies for violations of the statute, see ICC v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 467 U. S. 354, 364-365 (1984), the “remedy” articulated in the Negotiated Rates policy effectively renders nugatory the requirements of §§ 10761 and 10762 and conflicts directly with the core purposes of the Act.
The ICC maintains, however, that the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA), Pub. L. 96-296, 94 Stat. 793, justifies its Negotiated Rates policy. The MCA substantially deregulated the motor carrier industry in many ways in an effort to “promote competitive and efficient transportation services.” Pub. L. 96-296, §4, formerly codified at 49 U. S. C. § 10101(a)(7) (1976 ed., Supp. V). In addition to loosening entry controls, see §5, codified at 49 U. S. C. §10922 (1982 ed.), the MCA also created a zone of reasonableness within which carriers can raise rates without interference from the ICC. See §11, codified at 49 U. S. C. §10708 (1982 ed.). More importantly, the MCA also allows motor carriers to operate as both common carriers and contract carriers. See § 10(b)(1), amending 49 U. S. C. § 10930(a) (1982 ed.). A contract carrier transports property under exclusive agreements with a shipper, see § 10102(14), and the Commission has exempted all motor contract carriers from the requirements of §§ 10761 and 10762. See Exemption of Motor Contract Carriers from Tariff Filing Requirements, 133 M. C. C. 150 (1983), aff’d sub nom. Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Assn., Inc. v. United States, 244 U. S. App. D. C. 226, 757 F. 2d 301, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1019 (1985). The Commission has also relaxed the regulations relating to motor common carriers, most significantly, by allowing decreased rates to go into effect one day after the filing of a tariff. See Short Notice Effectiveness for Independently Filed Rates, 1 I. C. C. 2d 146 (1984), aff’d sub nom. Southern Motor Gamers Rate Conference v. United States, 773 F. 2d 1561 (CA11 1985). In Negotiated Rates I and II, the Commission concluded that in light of the more competitive environment, strict adherence to the filed rate doctrine “is inappropriate and unnecessary to deter discrimination today.” Negotiated Rates I, 3 I. C. C., at 106. According to the Commission, “ ‘the inability of a shipper to rely on a carrier’s interpretation of a tariff is a greater evil than the remote possibility that a carrier might intentionally misquote an applicable tariff rate to discriminate illegally between shippers.’” Ibid., quoting Seaboard System R. Co. v. United States, 794 F. 2d 635, 638 (CA11 1986).
We reject this argument. Although the Commission has both the authority and expertise generally to adopt new policies when faced with new developments in the industry, see American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 416 (1967), it does not have the power to adopt a policy that directly conflicts with its governing statute. Nothing in the MCA repeals §§ 10761 and 10762 or casts doubt on our prior interpretation of those sections. Generalized congressional exhortations to “increase competition” cannot provide the ICC authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements. As we said in Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., with respect to a similarly longstanding judicial interpretation of the Act:
“Congress must be presumed to have been fully cognizant of this interpretation of the statutory scheme, which had been a significant part of our settled law for over half a century, and... Congress did not see fit to change it when Congress carefully reexamined this area of the law in 1980. [Respondent has] pointed to no specific statutory provision or legislative history indicating a specific congressional intention to overturn the longstanding... construction; harmony with the general legislative purpose is inadequate for that formidable task.” 476 U. S., at 420 (footnotes omitted).
See also California v. FERC, 495 U. S., at 498, 499-500. Even before the passage of the MCA, Congress had allowed the Commission to exempt motor contract carriers from the requirement that they adhere to the published tariff, see 49 U. S. C. § 10761(b) (1982 ed.), demonstrating that Congress is aware of the requirement and has deliberately chosen not to disturb it with respect to motor common carriers.’ If strict adherence to §§ 10761 and 10762 as embodied in the filed rate doctrine has become an anachronism in the wake of the MCA, it is the responsibility of Congress to modify or eliminate these sections.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Act states that when reviewing the reasonableness of a carrier's rates, the Commission “shall authorize revenue levels that are adequate under honest, economical, and efficient management to cover total operating expenses... plus a reasonable profit." 49 U. S. C. § 10701(e) (1982 ed.).
Section 11902 provides that a shipper who knowingly receives a rebate or offset against the filed rate is liable to the Government for a civil penalty in an amount equal to three times the rebate. Section 11903(a) states that any person who “knowingly offers, grants, gives, solicits, accepts, or receives” service at less than the filed rate “shall be fined at least $1,000 but not more than $20,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.” A carrier who willfully fails to file and publish its tariffs is subject to the same penalty. See § 11903(b); see also § 11904 (corporate liability).
The Commission stated that its new policy did not "abrogate Section 10761. Rather, we emphasize that carriers must continue to charge the tariff rate, as provided in the statute. The issue here is simply whether we have the authority to consider all the circumstances surrounding an undercharge suit.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 3 I. C. C. 2d 99, 103 (1986) (citations omitted). The Commission rejected a proposal by the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) that would have declared the negotiated rate to be the maximum reasonable rate. The Commission concluded that the proposal conflicted with § 10761 because it created a “per se determination that, as a matter of law, the negotiated rate would apply.” Id., at 102.
The Commission stated: “[0]ur Negotiated Rates policy does not represent a relaxed interpretation of § 10761, but rather a separate determination under § 10701. But even if it were viewed as a reinterpretation of a previously strict construction of § 10761, it would be... well within this agency’s authority (and indeed duty) to reinterpret the Interstate Commerce Act, based on upon experience gained and changing circumstances.” NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 5 I. C. C. 2d 623, 631 (1989) (citing American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 397, 416 (1967)).
Section 11706(a) provides:
“A common carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission... must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 3 years after the claim accrues.”
See App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a-38a. The Commission relied primarily on two “rate sheets” to find that negotiated rates existed. According to the Commission, a three-page rate sheet prepared by Primary in 1981 demonstrated that Quinn, through its agent James McGowan, had negotiated a five percent across-the-board increase in rates above those in Quinn's tariff on file with the ICC. Sometime in 1982, when Primary notified Quinn that it would need relief from the rates in order to continue using Quinn, the parties orally negotiated a decrease in the rates. Primary prepared a new rate sheet which was sent to all the relevant individuals. Subsequently, whenever rates were needed for destinations other than those shown on the rate sheet, McGowan would set a new rate based on the mileage involved. The ICC concluded that “there is evidence of offers, acceptances, and approvals by the involved parties” before each of the shipments in question. Id., at 36a; see also id., at 38a.
See id., at 43a. This finding was based on the fact that McGowan represented that his superiors had approved the rates on the written rate sheets. See id., at 40a. The Commission noted that Primary’s representative was never given an actual tariff documenting that the agreed-upon rates had been filed with the ICC and that Primary’s representative had no training with respect to tariffs, but the Commission concluded that the representative “understood that Quinn would do whatever was necessary to implement the agreed upon rates. ” Id., at 32a. The Commission specifically found that “[wjhile Quinn may not have taken appropriate steps to legalize the quoted rates, it has not been demonstrated that this occurred as a result of any intent to engage in unlawful conduct." Id., at 42a.
Compare In re Caravan Refrigerated Cargo, Inc. (Supreme Beef Processors), 864 F. 2d 388 (CA5 1989), with Delta Traffic Service, Inc. v. Transtop, Inc., 902 F. 2d 101 (CA1 1990); Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Zenith Electric Corp., 899 F. 2d 642 (CAT 1990); West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 893 F. 2d 1016 (CA9 1990); Delta Traffic Service, Inc. v. Appco Paper & Plastics Corp., 893 F. 2d 472 (CA2 1990).
See also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59, 65 (1924) (“No contract of the carrier could reduce the amount legally payable; or release from liability a shipper who had assumed an obligation to pay the charges. Nor could any act or omission of the carrier (except the running of the statute of limitations) estop or preclude it from enforcing payment of the full amount by a person liable therefor”); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653 (1913) (“Neither the intentional nor accidental misstatement of the applicable published rate will bind the carrier or shipper. The lawful rate is that which the carrier must exact and that which the shipper must pay. The shipper’s knowledge of the lawful rate is conclusively presumed”).
The ICC did not determine whether the tariff rates were unreasonable even though primary respondent requested such a determination. We therefore must assume, for purposes of our decision today, that the rates were reasonable. The issue of the reasonableness of the tariff rates is open for exploration on remand.
None of our cases involving a determination by the ICC that the carrier engaged in an unreasonable practice have required departure from the filed tariff schedule altogether; instead, they have required merely the application of a different filed tariff. For example, in Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., 371 U. S. 84, 86 (1962), the Commission’s finding that a carrier had engaged in an unreasonable practice by routing intrastate shipments
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question of a State’s power to impose a special tax on the press and, by enacting exemptions, to limit its effect to only a few newspapers.
I
Since 1967, Minnesota has imposed a sales tax on most sales of goods for a price in excess of a nominal sum. Act of June 1, 1967, ch. 32, Art. XIII, § 2, 1967 Minn. Laws 2143, 2179, codified at Minn. Stat. §297A.02 (1982). In general, the tax applies only to retail sales. Ibid. An exemption for industrial and agricultural users shields from the tax sales of components to be used in the production of goods that will themselves be sold at retail. §297A.25(l)(h). As part of this general system of taxation and in support of the sales tax, see Minn. Code of Agency Rules, Tax S & U 300 (1979), Minnesota also enacted a tax on the “privilege of using, storing or consuming in Minnesota tangible personal property.” This use tax applies to any nonexempt tangible personal property unless the sales tax was paid on the sales price. Minn. Stat. §297A. 14 (1982). Like the classic use tax, this use tax protects the State’s sales tax by eliminating the residents’ incentive to travel to States with lower sales taxes to buy goods rather than buying them in Minnesota. §§297A. 14, 297A.24.
The appellant, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., “Star Tribune,” is the publisher of a morning newspaper and an evening newspaper (until 1982) in Minneapolis. From 1967 until 1971, it enjoyed an exemption from the sales and use tax provided by Minnesota for periodic publications. 1967 Minn. Laws 2187, codified at Minn. Stat. § 297A.25(l)(i) (1982). In 1971, however, while leaving the exemption from the sales tax in place, the legislature amended the scheme to impose a “use tax” on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of a publication. Act of Oct. 31, 1971, ch. 31, Art. I, § 5, 1971 Minn. Laws 2561, 2565, codified with modifications at Minn. Stat. §§297A.14, 297A.25(l)(i) (1982). Ink and paper used in publications became the only-items subject to the use tax that were components of goods to be sold at retail. In 1974, the legislature again amended the statute, this time to exempt the first $100,000 worth of ink and paper consumed by a publication in any calendar year, in effect giving each publication an annual tax credit of $4,000. Act of May 24, 1973, ch. 650, Art. XIII, § 1, 1973 Minn. Laws 1606, 1637, codified at Minn. Stat. §297A.14 (1982). Publications remained exempt from the sales tax, § 2, 1973 Minn. Laws 1639.
After the enactment of the $100,000 exemption, 11 publishers, producing 14 of the 388 paid circulation newspapers in the State, incurred a tax liability in 1974. Star Tribune was one of the 11, and, of the $893,355 collected, it paid $608,634, or roughly two-thirds of the total revenue raised by the tax. See 314 N. W. 2d 201, 203, and n. 4 (1981). In 1975, 13 publishers, producing 16 out of 374 paid circulation papers, paid a tax. That year, Star Tribune again bore roughly two-thirds of the total receipts from the use tax on ink and paper. Id., at 204, and n. 5.
Star Tribune instituted this action to seek a refund of the use taxes it paid from January 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975. It challenged the imposition of the use tax on ink and paper used in publications as a violation of the guarantees of freedom of the press and equal protection in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax against the federal constitutional challenge. 314 N. W. 2d 201 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction, 457 U. S. 1130 (1982), and we now reverse.
I — I HH
Star Tribune argues that we must strike this tax on the authority of Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936). Although there are similarities between the two cases, we agree with the State that Grosjean is not controlling.
In Grosjean, the State of Louisiana imposed a license tax of 2% of the gross receipts from the sale of advertising on all newspapers with a weekly circulation above 20,000. Out of at least 124 publishers in the State, only 13 were subject to the tax. After noting that the tax was “single in kind” and that keying the tax to circulation curtailed the flow of information, id., at 250-251, this Court held the tax invalid as an abridgment of the freedom of the press. Both the brief and the argument of the publishers in this Court emphasized the events leading up to the tax and the contemporary political climate in Louisiana. See Argument for Appellees, id., at 238; Brief for Appellees, O. T. 1936, No. 303, pp. 8-9, 30. All but one of the large papers subject to the tax had “ganged up” on Senator Huey Long, and a circular distributed by Long and the Governor to each member of the state legislature described “lying newspapers” as conducting “a vicious campaign” and the tax as “a tax on lying, 2c [sic] a lie.” Id., at 9. Although the Court’s opinion did not describe this history, it stated “[the tax] is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information,” 297 U. S., at 250, an explanation that suggests that the motivation of the legislature may have been significant.
Our subsequent cases have not been consistent in their reading of Grosjean on this point. Compare United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 384-385 (1968) (stating that legislative purpose was irrelevant in Grosjean), with Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1978) (plurality opinion) (suggesting that purpose was relevant in Grosjean); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 383 (1973) (same). Commentators have generally viewed Grosjean as dependent on the improper censorial goals of the legislature. See T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 419 (1970); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 592, n. 8, 724, n. 10 (1978). We think that the result in Grosjean may have been attributable in part to the perception on the part of the Court that the State imposed the tax with an intent to penalize a selected group of newspapers. In the case currently before us, however, there is no legislative history and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive on the part of the legislature. We cannot resolve the case by simple citation to Grosjean. Instead, we must analyze the problem anew under the general principles of the First Amendment.
hH HH
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). Minnesota, however, has not chosen to apply its general sales and use tax to newspapers. Instead, it has created a special tax that applies only to certain publications protected by the First Amendment. Although the State argues now that the tax on paper and ink is part of the general scheme of taxation, the use tax provision, quoted in n. 2, supra, is facially discriminatory, singling out publications for treatment that is, to our knowledge, unique in Minnesota tax law.
Minnesota’s treatment of publications differs from that of other enterprises in at least two important respects: it imposes a use tax that does not serve the function of protecting the sales tax, and it taxes an intermediate transaction rather than the ultimate retail sale. A use tax ordinarily serves to complement the sales tax by eliminating the incentive to make major purchases in States with lower sales taxes; it requires the resident who shops out-of-state to pay a use tax equal to the sales tax savings. E. g., National Geographic Society v. California Board of Equalization, 430 U. S. 551, 555 (1977); P. Hartman, Federal Limitations on State and Local Taxation §§10:1, 10:5 (1981); Warren & Schlesinger, Sales and Use Taxes: Interstate Commerce Pays Its Way, 38 Colum. L. Rev. 49, 63 (1938). Minnesota designed its overall use tax scheme to serve this function. As the regulations state, “[t]he ‘use tax’ is a compensating or complementary tax.” Minn. Code of Agency Rules, Tax S & U 300 (1979); see Minn. Stat. § 297A.24 (1982). Thus, in general, items exempt from the sales tax are not subject to the use tax, for, in the event of a sales tax exemption, there is no “complementary function” for a use tax to serve. See DeLuxe Check Printers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Tax, 295 Minn. 76, 203 N. W. 2d 341, 343 (1972). But the use tax on ink and paper serves no such complementary function; it applies to all uses, whether or not the taxpayer purchased the ink and paper instate, and it applies to items exempt from the sales tax.
Further, the ordinary rule in Minnesota, as discussed above, is to tax only the ultimate, or retail, sale rather than the use of components like ink and paper. “The statutory scheme is to devise a unitary tax which exempts intermediate transactions and imposes it only on sales when the finished product is purchased by the ultimate user.” Standard Packaging Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 288 N. W. 2d 234, 239 (Minn. 1979). Publishers, however, are taxed on their purchase of components, even though they will eventually sell their publications at retail.
By creating this special use tax, which, to our knowledge, is without parallel in the State’s tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. We then must determine whether the First Amendment permits such special taxation. A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest. See, e. g., United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252 (1982). Any tax that the press must pay, of course, imposes some “burden.” But, as we have observed, see supra, at 581, this Court has long upheld economic regulation of the press. The cases approving such economic regulation, however, emphasized the general applicability of the challenged regulation to all businesses, e. g., Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, at 194; Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., supra, at 184; Associated Press v. NLRB, supra, at 132-133, suggesting that a regulation that singled out the press might place a heavier burden of justification on the State, and we now conclude that the special problems created by differential treatment do indeed impose such a burden.
There is substantial evidence that differential taxation of the press would have troubled the Framers of the First Amendment. The role of the press in mobilizing sentiment in favor of independence was critical to the Revolution. When the Constitution was proposed without an explicit guarantee of freedom of the press, the Antifeder-alists objected. Proponents of the Constitution, relying on the principle of enumerated powers, responded that such a guarantee was unnecessary because the Constitution granted Congress no power to control the press. The remarks of Richard Henry Lee are typical of the rejoinders of the Antifederalists:
“I confess I do not see in what cases the congress can, with any pretence of right, make a law to suppress the freedom of the press; though I am not clear, that congress is restrained from laying any duties whatever on printing, and from laying duties particularly heavy on certain pieces printed....” R. Lee, Observation Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government, Letter IV, reprinted in 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 466, 474 (1971).
See also A Review of the Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention by a Federal Republican, reprinted in 3 H. Storing, The Complete Anti-Federalist 65, 81-82 (1981); M. Smith, Address to the People of New York on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution, reprinted in 1 B. Schwartz, supra, at 566, 575-576; cf. The Federalist No. 84, p. 440, and n. 1 (A. Hamilton) (M. Beloff ed. 1948) (recognizing and attempting to refute the argument). The concerns voiced by the Antifederalists led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. See 1 B. Schwartz, supra, at 527.
The fears of the Antifederalists were well founded. A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected. When the State imposes a generally applicable tax, there is little cause for concern. We need not fear that a government will destroy a selected group of taxpayers by burdensome taxation if it must impose the same burden on the rest of its constituency. See Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 112-113 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. See generally Stewart, “Or of the Press,” 26 Hastings L. J. 631, 634 (1975). “[A]n untrammeled press [is] a vital source of public information,” Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 250, and an informed public is the essence of working democracy.
Further, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional. See, e. g., Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95-96 (1972); cf. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U. S. 45 (1982) (First Amendment has its “fullest and most urgent” application in the case of regulation of the content of political speech). Differential taxation of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that we cannot countenance such treatment unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.
I — I
The main interest asserted by Minnesota in this case is the raising of revenue. Of course that interest is critical to any government. Standing alone, however, it cannot justify the special treatment of the press, for an alternative means of achieving the same interest without raising concerns under the First Amendment is clearly available: the State could raise the revenue by taxing businesses generally, avoiding the censorial threat implicit in a tax that singles out the press.
Addressing the concern with differential treatment, Minnesota invites us to look beyond the form of the tax to its substance. The tax is, according to the State, merely a substitute for the sales tax, which, as a generally applicable tax, would be constitutional as applied to the press. There are two fatal flaws in this reasoning. First, the State has offered no explanation of why it chose to use a substitute for the sales tax rather than the sales tax itself. The court below speculated that the State might have been concerned that collection of a tax on such small transactions would be impractical. 314 N. W. 2d, at 207. That suggestion is unpersuasive, for sales of other low-priced goods are not exempt, see n. 1, supra. If the real goal of this tax is to duplicate the sales tax, it is difficult to see why the State did not achieve that goal by the obvious and effective expedient of applying the sales tax.
Further, even assuming that the legislature did have valid reasons for substituting another tax for the sales tax, we are not persuaded that this tax does serve as a substitute. The State asserts that this scheme actually favors the press over other businesses, because the same rate of tax is applied, but, for the press, the rate applies to the cost of components rather than to the sales price. We would be hesitant to fashion a rule that automatically allowed the State to single out the press for a different method of taxation as long as the effective burden was no different from that on other taxpayers or the burden on the press was lighter than that on other businesses. One reason for this reluctance is that the very selection of the press for special treatment threatens the press not only with the current differential treatment, but also with the possibility of subsequent differentially more burdensome treatment. Thus, even without actually imposing an extra burden on the press, the government might be able to achieve censorial effects, for “[t]he threat of sanctions may deter [the] exercise [of First Amendment rights] almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963).
A second reason to avoid the proposed rule is that courts as institutions are poorly equipped to evaluate with precision the relative burdens of various methods of taxation. The complexities of factual economic proof always present a certain potential for error, and courts have little familiarity with the process of evaluating the relative economic burden of taxes. In sum, the possibility of error inherent in the proposed rule poses too great a threat to concerns at the heart of the First Amendment, and we cannot tolerate that possibility. Minnesota, therefore, has offered no adequate justification for the special treatment of newspapers.
V
Minnesota’s ink and paper tax violates the First Amendment not only because it singles out the press, but also because it targets a small group of newspapers. The effect of the $100,000 exemption enacted in 1974 is that only a handful of publishers pay any tax at all, and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax. The State explains this exemption as part of a policy favoring an “equitable” tax system, although there are no comparable exemptions for small enterprises outside the press. Again, there is no legislative history supporting the State’s view of the purpose of the amendment. Whatever the motive of the legislature in this case, we think that recognizing a power in the State not only to single out the press but also to tailor the tax so that it singles out a few members of the press presents such a potential for abuse that no interest suggested by Minnesota can justify the scheme. It has asserted no interest other than its desire to have an “equitable” tax system. The current system, it explains, promotes equity because it places the burden on large publications that impose more social costs than do smaller publications and that are more likely to be able to bear the burden of the tax. Even if we were willing to accept the premise that large businesses are more profitable and therefore better able to bear the burden of the tax, the State’s commitment to this “equity” is questionable, for the concern has not led the State to grant benefits to small businesses in general. And when the exemption selects such a narrowly defined group to bear the full burden of the tax, the tax begins to resemble more a penalty for a few of the largest newspapers than an attempt to favor struggling smaller enterprises.
VI
We need not and do not impugn the motives of the Minnesota Legislature in passing the ink and paper tax. Illicit legislative intent is not the sine qua non of a violation of the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Button, 371U. S., at 439; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 461 (1958); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 451 (1938). We have long recognized that even regulations aimed at proper governmental concerns can restrict unduly the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment. E. g., Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939). A tax that singles out the press, or that targets individual publications within the press, places a heavy burden on the State to justify its action. Since Minnesota has offered no satisfactory justification for its tax on the use of ink and paper, the tax violates the First Amendment, and the judgment below is
Reversed.
JusTiCE Blackmun joins this opinion except footnote 12.
Currently, the tax applies to sales of items for more than 90. Minn. Stat. §297A.03(2) (1982). When first enacted, the threshold amount was 160. Act of June 1, 1967, ch. 32, Art. XIII, § 3(2), 1967 Minn. Laws 2143, 2180.
After the 1974 amendment, the use tax provision read in full:
“For the privilege of using, storing or consuming in Minnesota tangible personal property, tickets or admissions to places of amusement and athletic events, electricity, gas, and local exchange telephone service purchased for use, storage or consumption in this state, there is hereby imposed on every person in this state a use tax at the rate of four percent of the sales price of sales at retail of any of the aforementioned items made to such person after October 31, 1971, unless the tax imposed by section 297A.02 [the sales tax] was paid on said sales price.
“Motor vehicles subject to tax under this section shall be taxed at the fair market value at the time of transport into Minnesota if such motor vehicles were acquired more than three months prior to its [sic] transport into this state.
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of section 297A.01 to 297A.44 to the contrary, the cost of paper and ink products exceeding $100,000 in any calendar year, used or consumed in producing a publication as defined in section 297A.25, subdivision 1, clause (i) is subject to the tax imposed by this section.” 1973 Minn. Laws 1637, codified at Minn. Stat. §297A.14 (1982).
The final paragraph was the only addition of the 1974 amendment. The provision has since been amended to increase the rate of the tax, Act of June 6, 1981, ch. 1, Art. IV, § 5, 1981 Minn. Laws 2396, but has not been changed in any way relevant to this litigation.
Although the Minnesota Legislature records some proceedings and preserves the recordings, it has specifically provided that those recordings are not to be considered as evidence of legislative intent. See Minnesota Legislative Manual, Rule 1.18, Rules of the Minn. House of Representatives; Rule 65, Permanent Rules of the Senate (1981-1982). There is no evidence of legislative intent on the record in this litigation.
A third difference is worth noting, though it may have little economic effect. The use tax is not visible to consumers, while the sales tax must, by law, be stated separately as an addition to the price. See Minn. Stat. §297A. 03(1) (1982).
The Court recognized in Oklahoma Press that the FLSA excluded seamen and farmworkers. See 327 U. S., at 193. It rejected, however, the publisher’s argument that the exclusion of these workers precluded application of the law to the employees of newspapers. The State here argues that Oklahoma Press establishes that the press cannot successfully challenge regulations on the basis of the exemption of other enterprises. We disagree. The exempt enterprises in Oklahoma Press were isolated exceptions and not the rule. Here, everything is exempt from the use tax on ink and paper, except the press.
It is true that our opinions rarely speculate on precisely how the Framers would have analyzed a given regulation of expression. In general, though, we have only limited evidence of exactly how the Framers intended the First Amendment to apply. There are no recorded debates in the Senate or in the States, and the discussion in the House of Representatives was couched in general terms, perhaps in response to Madison’s suggestion that the Representatives not stray from simple acknowledged principles. See Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-82, p. 936, and n. 5 (1973); see also Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States 16 (1941). Consequently, we ordinarily simply apply those general principles, requiring the government to justify any burdens on First Amendment rights by showing that they are necessary to achieve a legitimate overriding governmental interest, see n. 7, infra. But when we do have evidence that a particular law would have offended the Framers, we have not hesitated to invalidate it on that ground alone. Prior restraints, for instance, clearly strike to the core of the Framers’ concerns, leading this Court to treat them as particularly suspect. Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 713, 716-718 (1931); cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936) (relying on the role of the “taxes on knowledge” in inspiring the First Amendment to strike down a contemporary tax on knowledge).
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent analyzes this case solely as a problem of equal protection, applying the familiar tiers of scrutiny. Post, at 599-600. We, however, view the problem as one arising directly under the First Amendment, for, as our discussion shows, the Framers perceived singling out the press for taxation as a means of abridging the freedom of the press, see n. 6, supra. The appropriate method of analysis thus is to balance the burden implicit in singling out the press against the interest asserted by the State. Under a long line of precedents, the regulation can survive only if the governmental interest outweighs the burden and cannot be achieved by means that do not infringe First Amendment rights as significantly. See, e. g., United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 257-258, 259 (1982); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).
Cf. United States v. Lee, supra (generally applicable tax may be applied to those with religious objections).
Star Tribune insists that the premise of the State’s argument — that a generally applicable sales tax would be constitutional — is incorrect, citing Follett v. McCormick, 321 U. S. 573 (1944), Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943), and Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103 (1943). We think that Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 (1951), is more relevant and rebuts Star Tribune’s argument. There, we upheld an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation, even though it applied to prevent the door-to-door sale of subscriptions to magazines, an activity covered by the First Amendment. Although Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943), had struck down a similar ordinance as applied to the distribution of free religious literature, the Breard Court explained that case as emphasizing that the information distributed was religious in nature and that the distribution was noncommercial. 341 U. S., at 642-643. As the dissent in Breará recognized, the majority opinion substantially undercut both Martin and the cases now relied upon by Star Tribune, in which the Court had invalidated ordinances imposing a flat license tax on the sale of religious literature. See 341 U. S., at 649-650 (Black, J., dissenting) (“Since this decision cannot be reconciled with the Jones, Murdock and Martin v. Struthers cases, it seems to me that good judicial practice calls for their forthright overruling”). Whatever the value of those eases as authority after Breará, we think them distinguishable from a generally applicable sales tax. In each of those cases, the local government imposed a flat tax, unrelated to the receipts or income of the speaker or to the expenses of administering a valid regulatory scheme, as a condition of the right to speak. By imposing the tax as a condition of engaging in protected activity, the defendants in those cases imposed a form of prior restraint on speech, rendering the tax highly susceptible to constitutional challenge. Follett, supra, at 576-578; Murdock, supra, at 112, 113-114; Jones v. Opelika, 316 U. S. 584, 609, 611 (1942) (Stone, C. J., dissenting), reasoning approved on rehearing in 319 U. S. 103 (1943); see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S., at 249; see generally Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). In that regard, the cases cited by Star Tribune do not resemble a generally applicable sales tax. Indeed, our cases have consistently recognized that nondiscriminatory taxes on the receipts or income of newspapers would be permissible, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 683 (1972) (dictum); Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, at 250 (dictum); cf. Follett, supra, at 578 (preacher subject to taxes on income or property) (dictum); Murdock, supra, at 112 (same) (dictum).
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent explains that collecting sales taxes on newspapers entails special problems because of the unusual marketing practices for newspapers — sales from vending machines and at newsstands, for instance. Post, at 602. The dissent does not, however, explain why the State cannot resolve these problems by using the same methods used for items like chewing gum and candy, marketed in these same unusual ways and subject to the sales tax, see Minn. Stat. §§297A.01 (3)(c)(vi), (viii) (1982) (defining the sale of food from vending machines as a sale); see also §297A.04 (dealing with vending machine operators).
Further, Justice Rehnquist fears that the imposition of a sales tax will mean that vending machine prices will be 260 instead of 250; or prices will be 300, with publishers retaining an extra 40 per paper; or the price will be 250, with publishers absorbing the tax. Post, at 602. It is difficult to see how the use tax rectifies this problem, for it increases publishers’ costs. If the increase is a penny, the use taxes forces publishers to choose to pass the exact increment along to consumers by raising the price of the finished product to 260; or to increase the price by a nickel and retain an extra 40 per paper; or to leave the price at 250 and absorb the tax.
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent deprecates this concern, asserting that there is no threat, because this Court will invalidate any differentially more burdensome tax. Post, at 601. That assertion would provide more security if we could be certain that courts will always prove able to identify differentially more burdensome taxes, a question we explore further, infra.
We have not always avoided evaluating the relative burdens of different methods of taxation in certain cases involving state taxation of the Federal Government and those with whom it does business. See Washington v. United States, ante, p. 536; United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U. S. 452 (1977). Since McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), the Supremacy Clause has prohibited not only state taxation that discriminates against the Federal Government but also any direct taxation of the Federal Government. See generally United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720, 730-734 (1982). In spite of the rule against direct taxation of the Federal Government, States remain free to impose the economic incidence of a tax on the Federal Government, as long as that tax is not discriminatory. E. g., id., at 734-735, and n. 11; United States v. County of Fresno, supra, at 460. In that situation, then, the valid state interest in requiring federal enterprises to bear their share of the tax burden will often justify the use of differential methods of taxation. As we explained in Washington v. United States, “[Washington] has merely accommodated for the fact that it may not impose a tax directly on the United States....” Ante, at 546. The special rule prohibiting direct taxation of the Federal Government but permitting the imposition of an equivalent economic burden on the Government may not only justify the State’s use of different methods of taxation, but may also force us, within limits, see Washington, ante, at 546, n. 11, to compare the burdens of two different taxes. Nothing, however, prevents the State from taxing the press in the same manner that it taxes other enterprises. It can achieve its interest in requiring the press to bear its share of the burden by taxing the press as it taxes others, so differential taxation is not necessary to achieve its goals.
Justice White insists that the Court regularly inquires into the economic effect of taxes, relying on a number of cases arising under the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. In
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In this libel case, a public figure claims he was defamed by an author who, with full knowledge of the inaccuracy, used quotation marks to attribute to him comments he had not made. The First Amendment protects authors and journalists who write about public figures by requiring a plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statements were made with what we have called “actual malice,” a term of art denoting deliberate or reckless falsification. We consider in this opinion whether the attributed quotations had the degree of falsity required to prove this state of mind, so that the public figure can defeat a motion for summary judgment and proceed to a trial on the merits of the defamation claim.
r-H
Petitioner Jeffrey Masson trained at Harvard University as a Sanskrit scholar, and in 1970 became a professor of Sanskrit & Indian Studies at the University of Toronto. He spent eight years in psychoanalytic training, and qualified as an analyst in 1978. Through his professional activities, he came to know Dr. Kurt Eissler, head of the Sigmund Freud Archives, and Dr. Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud and a major psychoanalyst in her own right. The Sigmund Freud Archives, located at Maresfteld Gardens outside of London, serves as a repository for materials about Freud, including his own writings, letters, and personal library. The materials, and the right of access to them, are of immense value to those who study Freud and his theories, life, and work.
In 1980, Eissler and Anna Freud hired petitioner as projects director of the archives. After assuming his post, petitioner became disillusioned with Freudian psychology. In a 1981 lecture before the Western New England Psychoanalytical Society in New Haven, Connecticut, he advanced his theories of Freud. Soon after, the board of the archives terminated petitioner as projects director.
Respondent Janet Malcolm is an author and a contributor to respondent The New Yorker, a weekly magazine. She contacted petitioner in 1982 regarding the possibility of an article on his relationship with the archives. He agreed, and the two met in person and spoke by telephone in a series of interviews. Based on the interviews and other sources, Malcolm wrote a lengthy article. One of Malcolm’s narrative devices consists of enclosing lengthy passages in quotation marks, reporting statements of Masson, Eissler, and her other subjects.
During the editorial process, Nancy Franklin, a member of the fact-checking department at The New Yorker, called petitioner to confirm some of the facts underlying the article. According to petitioner, he expressed alarm at the number of errors in the few passages Franklin discussed with him. Petitioner contends that he asked permission to review those portions of the article which attributed quotations or information to him, but was brushed off with a never-fulfilled promise to “get back to [him].” App. 67. Franklin disputes petitioner’s version of their conversation. Id., at 246-247.
The New Yorker published Malcolm’s piece in December 1983, as a two-part series. In 1984, with knowledge of at least petitioner’s general allegation that the article contained defamatory material, respondent Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., published the entire work as a book, entitled In the Freud Archives.
Malcolm’s work received complimentary reviews. But this gave little joy to Masson, for the book portrays him in a most unflattering light. According to one reviewer:
“Masson the promising psychoanalytic scholar emerges gradually, as a grandiose egotist — mean-spirited, self-serving, full of braggadocio, impossibly arrogant and, in the end, a self-destructive fool. But it is not Janet Malcolm who calls him such: his own words reveal this psychological profile — a self-portrait offered to us through the efforts of an observer and listener who is, surely, as wise as any in the psychoanalytic profession.” Coles, Freudianism Confronts Its Malcontents, Boston Globe, May 27, 1984, pp. 58, 60.
Petitioner wrote a letter to the New York Times Book Review calling the book “distorted.” In response, Malcolm stated:
“Many of [the] things Mr. Masson told me (on tape) were discreditable to him, and I felt it best not to include them. Everything I do quote Mr. Masson as saying was said by him, almost word for word. (The ‘almost’ refers to changes made for the sake of correct syntax.) I would be glad to play the tapes of my conversation with Mr. Masson to the editors of The Book Review whenever they have 40 or 50 short hours to spare.” App. 222-223.
Petitioner brought an action for libel under California law in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. During extensive discovery and repeated amendments to the complaint, petitioner concentrated on various passages alleged to be defamatory, dropping some and adding others. The tape recordings of the interviews demonstrated that petitioner had, in fact, made statements substantially identical to a number of the passages, and those passages are no longer in the case. We discuss only the passages relied on by petitioner in his briefs to this Court.
Each passage before us made by petitioner during the interviews. Yet in each instance no identical statement appears in the more than 40 hours of taped interviews. Petitioner complains that Malcolm fabricated all but one passage; with respect to that passage, he claims Malcolm omitted a crucial portion, rendering the remainder misleading.
(a) “Intellectual Gigolo.” a by petitioner of his relationship with Eissler and Anna Freud as follows:
“ 'Then I met a rather attractive older graduate student and I had an affair with her. One day, she took me to some art event, and she was sorry afterward. She said, “Well, it is very nice sleeping with you in your room, but you’re the kind of person who should never leave the room — you’re just a social embarrassment anywhere else, though you do fine in your own room.” And you know, in their way, if not in so many words, Eissler and Anna Freud told me the same thing. They like me well enough “in my own room.” They loved to hear from me what creeps and dolts analysts are. I was like an intellectual gigolo — you get your pleasure from him, but you don’t take him out in public....’” In the Freud Archives 38.
The tape recordings contain the substance of petitioner’s reference to his graduate student friend, App. 95, but no suggestion that Eissler or Anna Freud considered him, or that he considered himself, an “‘intellectual gigolo.’” Instead, petitioner said:
“They felt, in a sense, I was a private asset but a public liability.... They liked me when I was alone in their living room, and I could talk and chat and tell them the truth about things and they would tell me. But that I was, in a sense, much too junior within the hierarchy of analysis, for these important training analysts to be caught dead with me.” Id., at 104.
(b) “Sex, Women, Fun.” Malcolm quoted petitioner as describing his plans for Maresfield Gardens, which he had hoped to occupy after Anna Freud’s death:
“Tt was a beautiful house, but it was dark and sombre and dead. Nothing ever went on there. I was the only person who ever came. I would have renovated it, opened it up, brought it to life. Maresfield Gardens would have been a center of scholarship, but it would also have been a place of sex, women, fun. It would have been like the change in The Wizard of Oz, from black-and-white into color.’” In the Freud Archives 33.
The tape recordings contain a similar statement, but in place of the references to “sex, women, fun” and The Wizard of Oz, petitioner commented:
“[I]t is an incredible storehouse. I mean, the library, Freud’s library alone is priceless in terms of what it contains: all his books with his annotations in them; the Schreber case annotated, that kind of thing. It’s fascinating.” App. 127.
Petitioner did talk, earlier in the interview, of his meeting with a London analyst:
“I like him. So, and we got on very well. That was the first time we ever met and you know, it was buddy-buddy, and we were to stay with each other and [laughs] we were going to pass women on to each other, and we were going to have a great time together when I lived in the Freud house. We’d have great parties there and we were [laughs] —
“... going to really, we were going to live it up.” Id., at 129.
(c) “It Sounded Better.” Petitioner spoke with Malcolm about the history of his family, including the reasons his grandfather changed the family name from Moussaieff to Masson, and why petitioner adopted the abandoned family name as his middle name. The article contains the passage:
“ ‘My father is a gem merchant who doesn’t like to stay in any one place too long. His father was a gem merchant, too — a Bessarabian gem merchant, named Moussaieff, who went to Paris in the twenties and adopted the name Masson. My parents named me Jeffrey Lloyd Masson, but in 1975 I decided to change my middle name to Moussaieff — it sounded better.’” In the Freud Archives 36.
In the most similar tape-recorded statement, Masson explained at considerable length that his grandfather had changed the family name from Moussaieff to Masson when living in France, “[jjust to hide his Jewishness.” Petitioner had changed his last name back to Moussaieff, but his then-wife Terry objected that “nobody could pronounce it and nobody knew how to spell it, and it wasn’t the name that she knew me by.” Petitioner had changed his name to Mous-saieff because he “just liked it.” “[I]t was sort of part of analysis: a return to the roots, and your family tradition and so on.” In the end, he had agreed with Terry that “it wasn’t her name after all,” and used Moussaieff as a middle instead of a last name. App. 87-89.
(d) “I Don’t Know Why I Put It In. ” The article recounts part of a conversation between Malcolm and petitioner about the paper petitioner presented at his 1981 New Haven lecture:
“[I] asked him what had happened between the time of the lecture and the present to change him from a Freudian psychoanalyst with somewhat outré views into the bitter and belligerent anti-Freudian he had become.
“Masson sidestepped my question. ‘You’re right, there was nothing disrespectful of analysis in that paper,’ he said. ‘That remark about the sterility of psychoanalysis was something I tacked on at the last minute, and it was totally gratuitous. I don’t know why I put it in.’” In the Freud Archives 53.
The tape recordings instead contain the following discussion of the New Haven lecture:
Masson: “So they really couldn’t judge the material. And, in fact, until the last sentence I think they were quite fascinated. I think the last sentence was an in, [sic] possibly, gratuitously offensive way to end a paper to a group of analysts. Uh, — ”
Malcolm: “What were the circumstances under which you put it [in]?...”
Masson: “That it was, was true.
“... I really believe it. I didn’t believe anybody would agree with me.
“... But I felt I should say something because the paper’s still well within the analytic tradition in a sense....
“... It’s really not a deep criticism of Freud. It contains all the material that would allow one to criticize Freud but I didn’t really do it. And then I thought, I really must say one thing that I really believe, that’s not going to appeal to anybody and that was the very last sentence. Because I really do believe psychoanalysis is entirely sterile....” App. 176.
(e) “Greatest Analyst Who Ever Lived. ” The article contains the following self-explanatory passage:
“A few days after my return to New York, Masson, in a state of elation, telephoned me to say that Farrar, Straus & Giroux has taken The Assault on Truth [Mas-son’s book]. 'Wait till it reaches the best-seller list, and watch how the analysts will crawl,’ he crowed. ‘They move whichever way the wind blows. They will want me back, they will say that Masson is a great scholar, a major analyst — after Freud, he’s the greatest analyst who ever lived. Suddenly they’ll be calling, begging, cajoling: “Please take back what you’ve said about our profession; our patients are quitting.” They’ll try a short smear campaign, then they’ll try to buy me, and ultimately they’ll have to shut up. Judgment will be passed by history. There is no possible refutation of this book. It’s going to cause a revolution in psychoanalysis. Analysis stands or falls with me now.’” In the Freud Archives 162.
This material does not appear in the tape recordings. Petitioner did make the following statements on related topics in one of the taped interviews with Malcolm:
“... I assure you when that book comes out, which I honestly believe is an honest book, there is nothing, you know, mean-minded about it. It’s the honest fruit of research and intellectual toil. And there is not an analyst in the country who will say a single word in favor of it.” App. 136.
“Talk to enough analysts and get them right down to these concrete issues and you watch how different it is from my position. It’s utterly the opposite and that’s finally what I realized, that I hold a position that no other analyst holds, including, alas, Freud. At first I thought: Okay, it’s me and Freud against the rest of the analytic world, or me and Freud and Anna Freud and Kur[t] Eissler and Vic Calef and Brian Bird and Sam Lipton against the rest of the world. Not so, it’s me. it’s me alone.” Id., at 139.
The tape of this interview also contains the following exchange between petitioner and Malcolm:
Masson: “... analysis stands or falls with me now.”
Malcolm: “Well that’s a very grandiose thing to say.”
Masson: “Yeah, but it’s got nothing to do with me. It’s got to do with the things I discovered.” Id., at 137.
(f) “He Had The Wrong Man.” In discussing the archives’ board meeting at which petitioner’s employment was terminated, Malcolm quotes petitioner as giving the following explanation of Eissler’s attempt to extract a promise of confidentiality:
“‘[Eissler] was always putting moral pressure on me. “Do you want to poison Anna Freud’s last days? Have you no heart? You’re going to kill the poor old woman.” I said to him, “What have I done? You’re doing it. You’re firing me. What am I supposed to do — be grateful to you?” “You could be silent about it. You could swallow it. I know it is painful for you. But you could just live with it in silence.” “Why should I do that?” “Because it is the honorable thing to do.” Well, he had the wrong man.’” In the Freud Archives 67.
From the tape recordings, on the other hand, it appears that Malcolm deleted part of petitioner’s explanation (italicized below), and petitioner argues that the “wrong man” sentence relates to something quite different from Eissler’s entreaty that silence was “the honorable thing.” In the tape recording, petitioner states:
“But it was wrong of Eissler to do that, you know. He was constantly putting various kinds of moral pressure on me and, ‘Do you want to poison Anna Freud’s last days? Have you no heart?’ He called me: ‘Have you no heart? You’re going to kill the poor old woman. Have you no heart? Think of what she’s done for you and you are now willing to do this to her.’ I said, ‘What have I, what have I done? You did it. You fired me. What am I supposed to do: thank you? be grateful to you?’ He said, Well you could never talk about it. You could be silent about it. You could swallow it. I know it’s painful for you but just live with it in silence.’ ‘Fuck you,’ I said, Why should I do that? Why? You know, why should one do that?’ ‘Because it’s the honorable thing to do and you will save face. And who knows? If you never speak about it and you quietly and humbly accept our judgment, who knows that in a few years if we don’t bring you back?’ Well, he had the wrong man.” App. 215-216.
Malcolm submitted to the District Court that not all of her discussions with petitioner were recorded on tape, in particular conversations that occurred while the two of them walked together or traveled by car, while petitioner stayed at Malcolm’s home in New York, or while her tape recorder was inoperable. She claimed to have taken notes of these unrecorded sessions, which she later typed, then discarding the handwritten originals. Petitioner denied that any discussion relating to the substance of the article occurred during his stay at Malcolm’s home in New York, that Malcolm took notes during any of their conversations, or that Malcolm gave any indication that her tape recorder was broken.
Respondents moved for summary judgment. The parties agreed that petitioner was a public figure and so could escape summary judgment only if the evidence in the record would permit a reasonable finder of fact, by clear and convincing evidence, to conclude that respondents published a defamatory statement with actual malice as defined by our cases. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 255-256 (1986). The District Court analyzed each of the passages and held that the alleged inaccuracies did not raise a jury question. The court found that the allegedly fabricated quotations were either substantially true, or were “ ‘one of a number of possible rational interpretations’ of a conversation or event that ‘bristled with ambiguities,”’ and thus were entitled to constitutional protection. 686 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (ND Cal. 1987) (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 486, 512 (1984)). The court also ruled that the “he had the wrong man” passage involved an exercise of editorial judgment upon which the courts could not intrude. 686 F. Supp., at 1403-1404.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting. 895 F. 2d 1535 (CA9 1989). The court assumed for much of its opinion that Malcolm had deliberately altered each quotation not found on the tape recordings, but nevertheless held that petitioner failed to raise a jury question of actual malice, in large part for the reasons stated by the District Court. In its examination of the “intellectual gigolo” passage, the court agreed with the District Court that petitioner could not demonstrate actual malice because Malcolm had not altered the substantive content of petitioner’s self-description, but went on to note that it did not consider the “intellectual gigolo” passage defamatory, as the quotation merely reported Kurt Eissler’s and Anna Freud’s opinions about petitioner. In any event, concluded the court, the statement would not be actionable under the “ ‘incremental harm branch’ of the ‘libel-proof’ doctrine,” id., at 1541 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 781 F. 2d 298, 310-311 (CA2 1986)).
The dissent argued that any intentional or reckless alteration would prove actual malice, so long as a passage within quotation marks purports to be a verbatim rendition of what was said, contains material inaccuracies, and is defamatory. 895 F. 2d, at 1562-1570. We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 808 (1990), and now reverse.
II
A
Under California law, “[l]ibel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing... which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 45 (West 1982). False attribution of statements to a person may constitute libel, if the falsity exposes that person to an injury comprehended by the statute. See Selleck v. Globe International, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 3d 1123, 1132, 212 Cal. Rptr. 838, 844 (1985); Cameron v. Wernick, 251 Cal. App. 2d 890, 60 Cal. Rptr. 102 (1967); Kerby v. Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 53 Cal. App. 2d 207, 213, 127 P. 2d 577, 581 (1942); cf. Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 42 Cal. 3d 254, 260-261, 721 P. 2d 87, 90-91 (1986). It matters not under California law that petitioner alleges only part of the work at issue to be false. “[T]he test of libel is not quantitative; a single sentence may be the basis for an action in libel even though buried in a much longer text,” though the California courts recognize that “[w]hile a drop of poison may be lethal, weaker poisons are sometimes diluted to the point of impotency.” Washburn v. Wright, 261 Cal. App. 2d 789, 795, 68 Cal. Rptr. 224, 228 (1968).
The First Amendment limits California’s libel law in various respects. When, as here, the plaintiff is a public figure, he cannot recover unless he proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the defamatory statement with actual malice, i. e., with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279-280 (1964). Mere negligence does not suffice. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the author “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication,” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U. S. 727, 731 (1968), or acted with a “high degree of awareness of... probable falsity,” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74 (1964).
Actual malice under the New York Times standard should not be confused with the concept of malice as an evil intent or a motive arising from spite or ill will. See Greenbelt Cooper ative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970). We have used the term actual malice as a shorthand to describe the First Amendment protections for speech injurious to reputation, and we continue to do so here. But the term can confuse as well as enlighten. In this respect, the phrase may be an unfortunate one. See Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U. S. 657, 666, n. 7 (1989). In place of the term actual malice, it is better practice that jury instructions refer to publication of a statement with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. This definitional principle must be remembered in the case before us.
B
In general, quotation marks around a passage indicate to the reader that the passage reproduces the speaker’s words verbatim. They inform the reader that he or she is reading the statement of the speaker, not a paraphrase or other indirect interpretation by an author. By providing this information, quotations add authority to the statement and credibility to the author’s work. Quotations allow the reader to form his or her own conclusions and to assess the conclusions of the author, instead of relying entirely upon the author’s characterization of her subject.
A fabricated quotation may injure reputation in at least two senses, either giving rise to a conceivable claim of defamation. First, the quotation might injure because it attributes an untrue factual assertion to the speaker. An example would be a fabricated quotation of a public official admitting he had been convicted of a serious crime when in fact he had not.
Second, regardless of the truth or falsity of the factual matters asserted within the quoted statement, the attribution may result in injury to reputation because the manner of expression or even the fact that the statement was made indicates a negative personal trait or an attitude the speaker does not hold. John Lennon once was quoted as saying of the Beatles, “We’re more popular than Jesus Christ now.” Time, Aug. 12, 1966, p. 38. Supposing the quotation had been a fabrication, it appears California law could permit recovery for defamation because, even without regard to the truth of the underlying assertion, false attribution of the statement could have injured his reputation. Here, in like manner, one need not determine whether petitioner is or is not the greatest analyst who ever lived in order to determine that it might have injured his reputation to be reported as having so proclaimed.
A self-condemnatory quotation may carry more force criticism by another. It is against self-interest to admit one’s own criminal liability, arrogance, or lack of integrity, and so all the more easy to credit when it happens. This principle underlies the elemental rule of evidence which permits the introduction of statements against interest, despite their hearsay character, because we assume “that persons do not make statements which are damaging to themselves unless satisfied for good reason that they are true.” Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 789 (citing Hileman v. Northwest Engineering Co., 346 F. 2d 668 (CA6 1965)).
Of course, quotations do not always convey that the speaker actually said or wrote the quoted material. “Punctuation marks, like words', have many uses. Writers often use quotation marks, yet no reasonable reader would assume that such punctuation automatically implies the truth of the quoted material.” Baker v. Los Angeles Examiner, 42 Cal. 3d, at 263, 721 P. 2d, at 92. In Baker, a television reviewer printed a hypothetical conversation between a station vice president and writer/producer, and the court found that no reasonable reader would conclude the plaintiff in fact had made the statement attributed to him. Id., at 267, 721 P. 2d, at 95. Writers often use quotations as in Baker, and a reader will not reasonably understand the quotations to indicate reproduction of a conversation that took place. In other instances, an acknowledgment that the work is so-called docudrama or historical fiction, or that it recreates conversations from memory, not from recordings, might indicate that the quotations should not be interpreted as the actual statements of the speaker to whom they are attributed.
The work at issue here, however, as with much journalistic writing, provides the reader no clue that the quotations are being used as a rhetorical device or to paraphrase the speaker’s actual statements. To the contrary, the work purports to be nonfiction, the result of numerous interviews. At least a trier of fact could so conclude. The work contains lengthy quotations attributed to petitioner, and neither Malcolm nor her publishers indicate to the reader that the quotations are anything but the reproduction of actual conversations. Further, the work was published in The New Yorker, a magazine which at the relevant time seemed to enjoy a reputation for scrupulous factual accuracy. These factors would, or at least could, lead a reader to take the quotations at face value. A defendant may be able to argue to the jury that quotations should be viewed by the reader as nonliteral or reconstructions, but we conclude that a trier of fact in this case could find that the reasonable reader would understand the quotations to be nearly verbatim reports of statements made by the subject.
C
The constitutional question we must consider here is whether, in the framework of a summary judgment motion, the evidence suffices to show that respondents acted with the requisite knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. This inquiry in turn requires us to consider the concept of falsity; for we cannot discuss the standards for knowledge or reckless disregard without some understanding of the acts required for liability. We must consider whether the requisite falsity inheres in the attribution of words to the petitioner which he did not speak.
In some sense, any alteration of a verbatim quotation is false. But writers and reporters by necessity alter what people say, at the very least to eliminate grammatical and syntactical infelicities. If every alteration constituted the falsity required to prove actual malice, the practice of journalism, which the First Amendment standard is designed to protect, would require a radical change, one inconsistent with our precedents and First Amendment principles. Petitioner concedes that this absolute definition of falsity in the quotation context is too stringent, and acknowledges that “minor changes to correct for grammar or syntax” do not amount to falsity for purposes of proving actual malice. Brief for Petitioner 18, 36-37. We agree, and must determine what, in addition to this technical falsity, proves falsity for purposes of the actual malice inquiry.
Petitioner argues that, excepting correction of grammar or syntax, publication of a quotation with knowledge that it does not contain the words the public figure used demonstrates actual malice. The author will have published the quotation with knowledge of falsity, and no more need be shown. Petitioner suggests that by invoking more forgiving standards the Court of Appeals would permit and encourage the publication of falsehoods. Petitioner believes that the intentional manufacture of quotations does not “represent] the sort of inaccuracy that is commonplace in the forum of robust debate to which the New York Times rule applies,” Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 513, and that protection of deliberate falsehoods would hinder the First Amendment values of robust and well-informed public debate by reducing the reliability of information available to the public.
We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker’s statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used. Under petitioner’s proposed standard, an author in this situation would lack First Amendment protection if she reported as quotations the substance of a subject’s derogatory statements about himself.
Even if a journalist has tape-recorded the spoken statement of a public figure, the full and exact statement will be reported in only rare circumstances. The existence of both a speaker and a reporter; the translation between two media, speech and the printed word; the addition of punctuation; and the practical necessity to edit and make intelligible a speaker’s perhaps rambling comments, all make it misleading to suggest that a quotation will be reconstructed with complete accuracy. The use or absence of punctuation may distort a speaker’s meaning, for example, where that meaning turns upon a speaker’s emphasis of a particular word. In other cases, if a speaker makes an obvious misstatement, for example by unconscious substitution of one name for another, a journalist might alter the speaker’s words but preserve his intended meaning. And conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word.
In all events, technical distinctions between correcting grammar and syntax and some greater level of alteration do not appear workable, for we can think of no method by which courts or juries would draw the line between cleaning up and other changes, except by reference to the meaning a statement conveys to a reasonable reader. To attempt narrow distinctions of this type would be an unnecessary departure from First Amendment principles of general applicability, and, just as important, a departure from the underlying purposes of the tort of libel as understood since the latter half of the 16th century. From then until now, the tort action for defamation has existed to redress injury to the plaintiff’s reputation by a statement that is defamatory and false. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U. S. 1, 11 (1990). As we have recognized, “[t]he legitimate state interest underlying the law of libel is the compensation of individuals for the harm inflicted on them by defamatory falsehood.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 341 (1974). If an author alters a speaker’s words but effects no material change in meaning, including any meaning conveyed by the manner or fact of expression, the speaker suffers no injury to reputation that is compensable as a defamation.
These essential principles of defamation law accommodate the special case of inaccurate quotations without the necessity for a discrete body of jurisprudence directed to this subject alone. Last Term, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., we refused “to create a wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion.’” 497 U. S., at 18 (citation omitted). We recognized that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact.” Ibid. We allowed the defamation action to go forward in that case, holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the so-called expressions of opinion could be interpreted as including false assertions as to factual matters. So too in the case before us, we reject any special test of falsity for quotations, including one which would draw the line at correction of grammar or syntax. We conclude, rather, that the exceptions suggested by petitioner for grammatical or syntactical corrections serve to illuminate a broader principle.
The common law of libel takes but one approach to the question of falsity, regardless of the form of the communication. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563, Comment c (1977); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 776 (5th ed. 1984). It overlooks minor inaccuracies and concentrates upon substantial truth. As in other jurisdictions, California law permits the defense of substantial truth and would absolve a defendant even if she cannot “justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance of the charge be proved true, irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the details.” 5 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law § 495 (9th ed. 1988) (citing cases). In this case, of course, the burden is upon petitioner to prove falsity. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 775 (1986). The essence of that inquiry, however, remains the same whether the burden rests upon plaintiff or defendant. Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as “the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.” Heuer v. Kee, 15 Cal. App. 2d 710, 714, 59 P. 2d 1063, 1064 (1936); see also Alioto v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 623 F. 2d 616, 619 (CA9 1980); Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 569 F. 2d 459, 465-466 (CA9
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We brought this case here, 327 U. S. 776, because it raises questions of importance in the administration of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. 50 Stat. 246, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. The general scheme of the Act and its operation have been before us in a series of cases. United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., 307 U. S. 533; United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288. Our immediate concern is with the provisions of the Act that distribute enforcing authority between the courts and the Secretary of Agriculture. These become relevant to the enforcement of Milk Order No. 41, an “Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the Chicago, Illinois, Marketing Area,” and more particularly the portion of that elaborate Order which defines the rights and obligations of ’“handlers” of milk. Section 941.1 (5). The Order was issued under the powers delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Section 8c of the Act.
Order No. 41 classifies milk received into the Chicago area according to its uses. To milk in each of the four classes the market administrator assigns a uniform “use value.” All handlers are required to report to the market administrator the quantity of milk purchased and put to its classified uses. On the basis of these reports, the administrator, taking into account the total quantity of milk produced and the amount devoted to each classification, as well as the balance in the- Producer-settlement Fund, and making authorized adjustments, announces monthly a uniform minimum price to be paid by handlers to producers. Since a handler’s receipts from the re-sale of milk, or the sale of milk products, vary with the amount of the milk distributed in each class, the uniform price paid by handlers will create inequities unless adjustment is made, based on the comparative use value of the milk distributed by a particular handler. The mechanism for adj ustment is the Producer-settlement Fund. Handlers are required to contribute to this Fund whenever the use value of the milk handled by them during the month is greater than the norm on which the uniform price is based. Conversely, handlers whose milk distribution is of low use value and whose fixed minimum costs are therefore out of line with their receipts, are recompensed from this Fund. Effective enforcement of such a marketing scheme rests on proper accounting, reliable reports and alert inspection. At best, however, errors are inevitable, which may call for payments by handlers into the Fund. The reliance of the industry upon that Fund makes prompt payments into it imperative.
An order for payment into the Fund and its resistance led to this litigation. The Ruzickas, handlers of milk, filed with the market administrator required reports and received from him a transcript of their account with the Fund for the period in controversy. Deficiencies were disclosed which the Ruzickas refused to pay, in disregard of § 941.8 (e) and (g) of Order 41 requiring a handler to pay within five days “the amount so billed.” Under § 8 (6) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act this suit was begun in the Northern District of Illinois for enforcement. The Government prayed for a mandatory injunction commanding compliance with Order 41 by payment of the sums alleged to be due to the Fund. If it be relevant, it was not alleged that there was danger of irreparable loss because of insolvency of the Fund. By their answer the Ruzickas justified their failure to pay, chiefly on the ground that the demand was based upon faulty inspection of their accounts and improper tests of their milk and milk products. The District Court ruled that “the defendants having failed to avail themselves of the administrative remedy provided by said Act, may not raise such issues of fact before this court.” On the issue in the suit thus limited, the District Court granted the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed the District Court, ruling that the validity of the demand by the Secretary of Agriculture may be contested in an enforcement proceeding under § 8a (6). 152 F. 2d 167.
Thus the question before us is whether a handler may resist a claim against him by the Secretary of Agriculture, made according to the procedure defined in the Act, without previously having sought to challenge the claim in a proceeding, also defined in the Act, before the Secretary of Agriculture. The answer is found on a fair reading of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act in the context of its purposes and of the scheme designed by Congress for their realization.
The sections of the statute directly relevant to our problem are set out in the margin. Briefly, the district courts of the United States are “vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce” orders issued pursuant to the Act. The Act authorizes a handler to challenge before the Secretary of Agriculture his order “or any obligation imposed in connection therewith” as “not in accordance with law,” and to ask to have it modified or to be exempted from it. When the order is so challenged, the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture, after hearing, is final but only “if in accordance with law.” Section 8c (15) (A). To test whether such ruling is “in accordance with law,” the handler may bring the Secretary’s action for review before the appropriate district court. Section 8c (15) (B). But the very subsection, (15), which gives the handler access to the Secretary of Agriculture for administrative relief and opportunity for judicial review of his determination, provides that the pendency of the procedings before the Secretary, or in the district court to review the Secretary’s ruling, “shall not impede, hinder, or delay the United States or the Secretary of Agriculture from obtaining relief” under § 8a (6). It is only when “a final decree has been rendered in proceedings between the same parties, and covering the same subject matter, instituted pursuant to this subsection (15)” that proceedings brought for enforcement under § 8a (6) “shall abate.” Section 8c (15) (B).
To be sure, Congress did not say in words that, in a proceeding under § 8a (6) to enforce an order, a handler may not question an obligation which flows from it. But meaning, though not explicitly stated in words, may be imbedded in a coherent scheme. And such we find to be the provisions taken in their entirety, as a means for attaining the purposes of the Act while at the same time protecting adequately the interests of individual handlers.
The procedure devised by Congress explicitly gave to an aggrieved handler an appropriate opportunity for the correction of errors or abuses by the agency charged with the intricate business of milk control. In addition, if the Secretary fails to make amends called for by law the handler may challenge the legality of the Secretary’s ruling in court. Handlers are thus assured opportunity to establish claims of grievances while steps for the protection of the industry as a whole may go forward. Sections 8a (6) and 8c (15) thus form a complementary procedural scheme. Contrariwise, it would make for disharmony to extrapolate from these provisions of the statute the right to consider independently, in a proceeding by the Government for the enforcement of the Secretary’s order, questions for which Congress explicitly furnished the handler an expert forum for contest with ultimate review by a district court.
The situation before us indicates how disruptive it would be to allow issues that may properly come before a district court in a proceeding under § 8c (15) to be open for independent adjudication in a suit for enforcement under § 8a (6). After a presumably careful study by those technically equipped, a program was devised for the dairy farmers in one of the large areas of the country. The success of the operation of such Congressionally authorized milk control must depend on the efficiency of its administration. Promptness of compliance by those subject to the scheme is the presupposition of Order No. 41. Thus, definite monthly deadlines are fixed by the Order for every step in the program. In large measure, the success of this scheme revolves around a “producers” fund which is solvent and to which all contribute in accordance with a formula equitably determined and of uniform applicability. Failure by handlers to meet their obligations promptly would threaten the whole scheme. Even temporary defaults by some handlers may work unfairness to others, encourage wider non-compliance, and engender those subtle forces of doubt and distrust which so readily dislocate delicate economic arrangements. To make the vitality of the whole arrangement depend on the contingencies and inevitable delays of litigation, no matter how alertly pursued, is not a result to be attributed to Congress unless support for it is much more manifest than we here find. That Congress avoided such hazards for its policy is persuasively indicated by the procedure it devised for the careful administrative and judicial consideration of a handler’s grievance. It thereby safeguarded individual as well as collective interests. In the case before us, administrative proceedings were instituted before the Secretary of Agriculture and, apparently, are awaiting his action. Presumably the Secretary of Agriculture will give the respondents the rights to which Congress said they were entitled. If they are dissatisfied with his ruling, they may question it in a district court. The interests of the entire industry need not be disturbed in order to do justice to an individual case.
It is suggested that Congress did not authorize a district court to enforce an order not “in accordance with law.” The short answer to this rather dialectic point is that whether such an order is or is not in accordance with law is not a question that brings its own immediate answer, or even an answer which it is the familiar, everyday business of courts to find. Congress has provided a special procedure for ascertaining whether such an order is or is not in accordance with law. The questions are not, or may not be, abstract questions of law. Even when they are formulated in constitutional terms, they are questions of law arising out of, or entwined with, factors that call for understanding of the milk industry. And so Congress has provided that the remedy in the first instance must be sought from the Secretary of Agriculture. It is on the basis of his ruling, and of the elucidation which he would presumably give to his ruling, that resort may be had to the courts. Congress seems to have emphasized the different functions in the enforcement of the Act that § 8a and § 8c serve by explicitly directing that the proceedings for relief instituted by a handler under § 8c shall not “impede, hinder, or delay” enforcement proceedings by the United States under § 8a.
We are dealing here solely with the rights of handlers. This is not Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288. In that case it was concluded that since Congress had provided no administrative remedy for a producer to review the legality of an order against him, presumably the courts were not closed to him. But by § 8c (15) Congress has made precisely such provisions for handlers. As to them the procedural scheme is complete.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act is one of many enactments by which Congress in regulating economic enterprise has divided the duty of enforcement between courts and administrative agencies. But there is the greatest variety in the manner in which Congress has distributed this responsibility. Those who are entitled to speak tell us that the development of the natural sciences has often suffered from premature generalization. Certainly the recent growth of administrative law counsels against generalizations regarding what is compendiously called judicial review of administrative action. And so we deem it desirable, in a case like this, to hug the shore of the precise problem before us in relation to the provisions of the particular Act immediately relevant. One general observation may, however, be permitted. Both courts and administrative bodies are law-enforcing agencies, utilized by Congress as such. In construing the enforcement provisions of legislation like the Marketing Act, it is important to remember that courts and administrative agencies are collaborative “instrumentalities of justice,” and not business rivals. See United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183, 191; Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 141 et seq. And so we are not called upon to decide what powers inhere in a court of equity, exercising due judicial discretion, even in a suit such as was here brought by the United States for the enforcement of an order under § 8a. We say this because it appears that at a stage in the proceedings in the District Court a motion for a stay, pending disposition of the petition by the Ruzickas before the Secretary of Agriculture, was made by the respondents. With the court’s leave, this motion was subsequently withdrawn. The power of the District Court to have acted on it is therefore not before us. Compare Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm’n, 316 U. S. 4; Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321.
Judgment reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.
“8a (6) The several district courts of the United States are hereby vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain any person .from violating any order, regulation, or agreement, heretofore or hereafter made or issued pursuant to this title, in any proceeding now pending or hereafter brought in said courts.
“8c (15) (A) Any handler subject to an order may file a written petition with the Secretary of Agriculture, stating that any such order or any provision of any such order or any obligation imposed in connection therewith is not in accordance with law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted therefrom. He shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the President. After such hearing, the Secretary shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which shall be final, if in accordance with law.
“8c (15) (B) The District Courts of the United States (including the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia) in any district in which such handler is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction in equity to review such ruling, provided a bill in equity for that purpose is filed within twenty days from the date of the entry of such ruling. Service of process in such proceedings may be had upon the Secretary by delivering to him a copy of the bill of complaint. If the court determines that such ruling is not in accordance with law, it shall remand such proceedings to the Secretary with directions either (1) to make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law, or (2) to take such further proceedings as, in its opinion, the law requires. The pendency of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection (15) shall not impede, hinder, or delay the United States or the Secretary of Agriculture from obtaining relief pursuant to section 8a (6) of this title. Any proceedings brought pursuant to section 8a (6) of this title (except where brought by way of counterclaim in proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection (15)) shall abate whenever a final decree has been rendered in proceedings between the same parties, and covering the same subject matter, instituted pursuant to this subsection (15).”
Section 8a (8) is also invoked by petitioner. But that section adds to the Government’s remedies. It implies no judicial review in favor of handlers.
“During the period while any such petition is pending before the Secretary and until notice of the Secretary’s ruling is given to the petitioner, the penalties imposed by the act for violation of an order cannot be imposed upon the petitioner if the court finds that the petition was filed in good faith and not for delay. The Secretary may, nevertheless, during this period proceed to obtain an injunction against the petitioner pursuant to section 8a (6) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. ... It is believed that these provisions establish an equitable and expeditious procedure for testing the validity of orders, without hampering the Government’s power to enforce compliance with their terms.” S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II-A and III, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Alito join, an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-C, and an opinion with respect to Part II-D, in which Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join.
These four consolidated cases are appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Convened as a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. § 2284, the court heard appellants’ constitutional and statutory challenges to a 2003 enactment of the Texas State Legislature that drew new district lines for the 32 seats Texas holds in the United States House of Representatives. (Though appellants do not join each other as to all claims, for the sake of convenience we refer to appellants collectively.) In 2004 the court entered judgment for appellees and issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451 (per curiam). This Court vacated that decision and remanded for consideration in light of Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267 (2004). 543 U. S. 941 (2004). The District Court reexamined appellants’ political gerrymandering claims and, in a second careful opinion, again held for the defendants. Henderson v. Perry, 399 F. Supp. 2d 756 (2005). These appeals followed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 546 U. S. 1074 (2005).
Appellants contend the new plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and that the redistricting statewide violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. Appellants also contend that the use of race and polities in drawing lines of specific districts violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judge Higginbotham and District Judges Ward and Rosenthal, brought considerable experience and expertise to the instant action, based on their knowledge of the State’s people, history, and geography. Judges Higginbotham and Ward, moreover, had served on the three-judge court that drew the plan the Texas Legislature replaced in 2003, so they were intimately familiar with the history and intricacies of the eases.
We affirm the District Court’s dispositions on the statewide political gerrymandering claims and the Voting Rights Act claim against District 24. We reverse and remand on the Voting Rights Act claim with respect to District 23. Because we do not reach appellants’ race-based equal protection claim or the political gerrymandering claim as to District 23, we vacate the judgment of the District Court on these claims.
I
To set out a proper framework for the cases, we first recount the history of the litigation and recent districting in Texas. An appropriate starting point is not the reapportionment in 2000 but the one from the census in 1990.
The 1990 census resulted in a 30-seat congressional delegation fori Texas, an increase of 3 seats over the 27 representatives allotted to the State in the decade before. See Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 956-957 (1996). In 1991 the Texas Legislature drew new district lines. At the time, the Democratic Party controlled both houses in the state legislature, the governorship, and 19 of the State’s 27 seats in Congress. Yet change appeared to be on the horizon. In the previous 30 years the Democratic Party’s post-Reconstruction dominance over the Republican Party had eroded, and by 1990 the Republicans received 47% of the statewide vote, while the Democrats received 51%. Henderson, supra, at 763; Brief for Appellee Perry et al. in No. 05-204 etc., p. 2 (hereinafter Brief for State Appellees).
Faced with a Republican opposition that could be moving toward majority status, the state legislature drew a congressional redistricting plan designed to favor Democratic candidates. Using then-emerging computer technology to draw district lines with artful precision, the legislature enacted a plan later described as the “shrewdest gerrymander of the 1990s.” M. Barone, R. Cohen, & C. Cook, Almanac of American Politics 2002, p. 1448 (2001). See Henderson, supra, at 767, and n. 47. Although the 1991 plan was enacted by the state legislature, Democratic Congressman Martin Frost was acknowledged as its architect. Session, supra, at 482. The 1991 plan “carefully constructs democratic districts ‘with incredibly convoluted lines’ and packs ‘heavily Republican’ suburban areas into just a few districts.” Henderson, supra, at 767, n. 47 (quoting M. Barone & R. Cohen, Almanac of American Politics 2004, p. 1510 (2003) (hereinafter 2004 Almanac)).
Voters who considered this unfair and unlawful treatment sought to invalidate the 1991 plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, but to no avail. See Terrazas v. Slagle, 789 F. Supp. 828, 833 (WD Tex. 1992); Terrazas v. Slagle, 821 F. Supp. 1162, 1175 (WD Tex. 1993) (per curiam). The 1991 plan realized the hopes of Democrats and the fears of Republicans with respect to the composition of the Texas congressional delegation. The 1990’s were years of continued growth for the Texas Republican Party, and by the end of the decade it was sweeping elections for statewide office. Nevertheless, despite carrying 59% of the vote in statewide elections in 2000, the Republicans only won 13 congressional seats to the Democrats’ 17. Henderson, supra, at 763.
These events likely were not forgotten by either party when it came time to draw congressional districts in conformance with the 2000 census and to incorporate two additional seats for the Texas delegation. The Republican Party controlled the governorship and the State Senate; it did not yet control the State House of Representatives, however. As so constituted, the legislature was unable to pass a redistricting scheme, resulting in litigation and the necessity of a court-ordered plan to comply with the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote requirement. See Balderas v. Texas, Civ. Action No. 6:01CV158 (ED Tex., Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff'd, 536 U. S. 919 (2002), App. E to Juris. Statement in No. 05-276, p. 202a (hereinafter Balderas, App. E to Juris. Statement). The congressional districting map resulting from the Balderas litigation is known as Plan 1151C.
As we have said, two members of the three-judge court that drew Plan 1151C later served on the three-judge court that issued the judgment now under review. Thus we have the benefit of their candid comments concerning the redistricting approach taken in the Balderas litigation. Conscious that the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts is given to political branches of government, and hesitant to “und[o] the work of one political party for the benefit of another,” the three-judge Balderas court sought to apply “only ‘neutral’ redistricting standards” when drawing Plan 1151C. Henderson, 399 F. Supp. 2d, at 768. Once the District Court applied these principles—such as placing the two new seats in high-growth areas, following county and voting precinct lines, and avoiding the pairing of incumbents—“the drawing ceased, leaving the map free of further change except to conform it to one-person, one-vote.” Ibid. Under Plan 1151C, the 2002 congressional elections resulted in a 17-to-15 Democratic majority in the Texas delegation, compared to a 59% to 40% Republican majority in votes for statewide office in 2000. Id., at 763-764. Reflecting on the Balderas plan, the District Court in Henderson was candid to acknowledge “[t]he practical effect of this effort was to leave the 1991 Democratic Party gerrymander largely in place as a ‘legal’ plan.” 399 F. Supp. 2d, at 768.
The continuing influence of a court-drawn map that “perpetuated much of [the 1991] gerrymander,” ibid., was not lost on Texas Republicans when, in 2003, they gained control of the State House of Representatives and, thus, both houses of the legislature. The Republicans in the legislature “set out to increase their representation in the congressional delegation.” Session, 298 F. Supp. 2d, at 471. See also id., at 470 (“There is little question but that the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting [a new plan] was to gain partisan advantage”). After a protracted partisan struggle, during which Democratic legislators left the State for a time to frustrate quorum requirements, the legislature enacted a new congressional districting map in October 2003. It is called Plan 1374C. The 2004 congressional elections did not disappoint the plan’s drafters. Republicans won 21 seats to the Democrats’ 11, while also obtaining 58% of the vote in statewide races against the Democrats’ 41%. Henderson, supra, at 764.
Soon after Texas enacted Plan 1374C, appellants challenged it in court, alleging a host of constitutional and statutory violations. Initially, the District Court entered judgment against appellants on all their claims. See Session, 298 F. Supp. 2d, at 457; id., at 515 (Ward, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Appellants sought relief here and, after their jurisdictional statements were filed, this Court issued Vieth v. Jubelirer. Our order vacating the District Court judgment and remanding for consideration in light of Vieth was issued just weeks before the 2004 elections. See 543 U. S. 941 (Oct. 18, 2004). On remand, the District Court, believing the scope of its mandate was limited to questions of political gerrymandering, again rejected appellants’ claims. Henderson, 399 F. Supp. 2d, at 777-778. Judge Ward would have granted relief under the theory—presented to the court for the first time on remand—that mid-decennial redistricting violates the one-person, one-vote requirement, but he concluded such an argument was not within the scope of the remand mandate. Id., at 779,784-785 (specially concurring).
II
A
Based on two similar theories that address the mid-decade character of the 2003 redistricting, appellants now argue that Plan 1374C should be invalidated as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109 (1986), the Court held that an equal protection challenge to a political gerrymander presents a justiciable case or controversy, id., at 118-127, but there was disagreement over what substantive standard to apply. Compare id., at 127-137 (plurality opinion), with id., at 161-162 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). That disagreement persists. A plurality of the Court in Vieth would have held such challenges to be nonjusticiable political questions, but a majority declined to do so. See 541 U. S., at 306 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 317 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); id., at 343 (Souter, J., dissenting); id., at 355 (Breyer, J., dissenting). We do not revisit the justiciability holding but do proceed to examine whether appellants’ claims offer the Court a manageable, reliable measure of fairness for determining whether a partisan gerrymander violates the Constitution.
B
Before addressing appellants’ arguments on mid-decade redistricting, it is appropriate to note some basic principles on the roles the States, Congress, and the courts play in determining how congressional districts are to be drawn. Article I of the Constitution provides:
“Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States....
“Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for... Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations....”
This text, we have explained, “leaves with the States primary responsibility for apportionment of their federal congressional... districts.” Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 34 (1993); see also Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 27 (1975) (“[Rjeapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body”); Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366-367 (1932) (reapportionment implicated State’s powers under Art. I, § 4). Congress, as the text of the Constitution also provides, may set further requirements, and with respect to districting it has generally required single-member districts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §4; Pub. L. 90-196, 81 Stat. 581, 2 U. S. C. §2c; Branch v. Smith, 538 U. S. 254, 266-267 (2003). But see id., at 275 (plurality opinion) (multimember districts permitted by 55 Stat. 762, 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) in limited circumstances). With respect to a mid-decade redistricting to change districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census, the Constitution and Congress state no explicit prohibition.
Although the legislative branch plays the primary role in congressional redistricting, our precedents recognize an important role for the courts when a districting plan violates the Constitution. See, e. g., Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964). This litigation is an example, as we have discussed. When Texas did not enact a plan to comply with the one-person, one-vote requirement under the 2000 census, the District Court found it necessary to draw a redistricting map on its own. That the federal courts sometimes are required to order legislative redistrieting, however, does not shift the primary locus of responsibility.
“Legislative bodies should not leave their reapportionment tasks to the federal courts; but when those with legislative responsibilities do not respond, or the imminence of a state election makes it impractical for them to do so, it becomes the ‘unwelcome obligation’ of the federal court to devise and impose a reapportionment plan pending later legislative action.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535, 540 (1978) (principal opinion) (quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 415 (1977)).
Quite apart from the risk of acting without a legislature’s expertise, and quite apart from the difficulties a court faces in drawing a map that is fair and rational, see id., at 414-415, the obligation placed upon the Federal Judiciary is unwelcome because drawing lines for congressional districts is one of the most significant acts a State can perform to ensure citizen participation in republican self-governance. That Congress is the federal body explicitly given constitutional power over elections is also a noteworthy statement of preference for the democratic process. As the Constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost in the legislatures of the States and in Congress, a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by' the courts.
It should follow, too, that if a legislature acts to replace a court-drawn plan with one of its own design, no presumption of impropriety should attach to the legislative decision to act. As the District Court noted here, Session, 298 F. Supp. 2d, at 460-461, our decisions have assumed that state legislatures are free to replace court-mandated remedial plans by enacting redistricting plans of their own. See, e. g., Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37, 44 (1982) (per curiam); Wise, supra, at 540 (principal opinion) (quoting Connor, supra, at 415); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 85 (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587 (1964). Underlying this principle is the assumption that to prefer a court-drawn plan to a legislature’s replacement would be contrary to the ordinary and proper operation of the political process. Judicial respect for legislative plans, however, cannot justify legislative reliance on improper criteria for districting determinations. With these considerations in mind, I now turn to consider appellants’ challenges to the new redistricting plan.
C
Appellants claim that Plan 1374C, enacted by the Texas Legislature- in 2003, is an unconstitutional political gerrymander. A decision, they claim, to effect mid-decennial redistricting, when solely motivated by partisan objectives, violates equal protection and the First Amendment because it serves no legitimate public purpose and burdens one group because of its political opinions and affiliation. The mid-decennial nature of the redistricting, appellants say, reveals the legislature’s sole motivation. Unlike Vieth, where the legislature acted in the context of a required decennial redistricting, the Texas Legislature voluntarily replaced a plan that itself was designed to comply with new census data. Because Texas had “no constitutional obligation to act at all” in 2003, Brief for Appellant Jackson et al. in No. 05-276, p. 26, it is hardly surprising, according to appellants, that the District Court found “[t]here is little question but that the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting Plan 1374C was to gain partisan advantage” for the Republican majority over the Democratic minority, Session, supra, at 470.
A rule, or perhaps a presumption, of invalidity when a mid-decade redistricting plan is adopted solely for partisan motivations is a salutary one, in appellants’ view, for then courts need not inquire about, nor parties prove, the discriminatory effects of partisan gerrymandering—a matter that has proved elusive since Bandemer. See Vieth, 541 U. S., at 281 (plurality opinion); Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 127 (plurality opinion). Adding to the test’s simplicity is that it does not quibble with the drawing of individual district lines but challenges the decision to redistrict at all.
For a number of reasons, appellants’ case for adopting their test is not convincing. To begin with, the state appellees dispute the assertion that partisan gain was the “sole” motivation for the decision to replace Plan 1151C. There is some merit to that criticism, for the pejorative label overlooks indications that partisan motives did not dictate the plan in its entirety. The legislature does seem to have decided to redistrict with the sole purpose of achieving a Republican congressional majority, but partisan aims did not guide every line it drew. As the District Court found, the contours of some contested district lines were drawn based on more mundane and local interests. Session, supra, at 472-473. The state appellees also contend, and appellants do not contest, that a number of line-drawing requests by Democratic state legislators were honored. Brief for State Appellees 34.
Evaluating the legality of acts arising out of mixed motives can be complex, and affixing a single label to those acts can be hazardous, even when the actor is an individual performing a discrete act. See, e. g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 259-260 (2006). When the actor is a legislature and the act is a composite of manifold choices, the task can be even more daunting. Appellants’ attempt to separate the legislature’s sole motive for discarding Plan 1151C from the complex of choices it made while drawing the lines of Plan 1374C seeks to avoid that difficulty. We should be skeptical, however, of a claim that seeks to invalidate a statute based on a legislature’s unlawful motive but does so without reference to the content of the legislation enacted.
Even setting this skepticism aside, a successful claim attempting to identify unconstitutional acts of partisan gerrymandering must do what appellants’ sole-motivation theory explicitly disavows: show a burden, as measured by a reliable standard, on the complainants’ representational rights. For this reason, a majority of the Court rejected a test proposed in Vieth that is markedly similar to the one appellants present today. Compare 541 U. S., at 336 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Just as race can be a factor in, but cannot dictate the outcome of, the districting process, so too can partisanship be a permissible consideration in drawing district lines, so long as it does not predominate”), and id., at 338 (“[A]n acceptable rational basis can be neither purely personal nor purely partisan”), with id., at 292-295 (plurality opinion), and id., at 307-308 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
The sole-intent standard offered here is no more compelling when it is linked to the circumstance that Plan 1374C is mid-decennial legislation. The text and structure of the Constitution and our case law indicate there is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature’s decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own. And even if there were, the fact of mid-decade redistricting alone is no sure indication of unlawful political gerrymanders. Under appellants’ theory, a highly effective partisan gerrymander that coincided with decennial redistricting would receive less scrutiny than a bumbling, yet solely partisan, mid-decade redistricting. More concretely, the test would leave untouched the 1991 Texas redistricting, which entrenched a party on the verge of minority status, while striking down the 2003 redistricting plan, which resulted in the majority Republican Party capturing a larger share of the seats. A test that treats these two similarly effective power plays in such different ways does not have the reliability appellants ascribe to it.
Furthermore, compared to the map challenged in Vieth, which led to a Republican majority in the congressional delegation despite a Democratic majority in the statewide vote, Plan 1374C can be seen as making the party balance more congruent to statewide party power. To be sure, there is no constitutional requirement of proportional representation, and equating a party’s statewide share of the vote with its portion of the congressional delegation is a rough measure at best. Nevertheless, a congressional plan that more closely reflects the distribution of state party power seems a less likely vehicle for partisan discrimination than one that entrenches an electoral minority. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 754 (1973). By this measure, Plan 1374C can be seen as fairer than the plan that survived in Vieth and the two previous Texas plans—all three of which would pass the modified sole-intent test that Plan 1374C would fail.
A brief for one of the amici proposes a symmetry standard that would measure partisan bias by “comparing] how both parties would fare hypothetically if they each (in turn) had received a given percentage of the vote.” Brief for Gary King et al. 5. Under that standard the measure of a map’s bias is the extent to which a majority party would fare better than the minority party, should their respective shares of the vote reverse. Amici’s, proposed standard does not compensate for appellants’ failure to provide a reliable measure of fairness. The existence or degree of asymmetry may in large part depend on conjecture about where possible vote-switchers will reside. Even assuming a court could choose reliably among different models of shifting voter preferences, we are wary of adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs. Presumably such a challenge could be litigated if and when the feared inequity arose. Cf. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 148 (1967). More fundamentally, the counterfactual plaintiff would face the same problem as the present, actual appellants: providing a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much. Without altogether discounting its utility in redistricting planning and litigation, I would conclude asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of unconstitutional partisanship.
In the absence of any other workable test for judging partisan gerrymanders, one effect of appellants’ focus on mid-decade redistricting could be to encourage partisan excess at the outset of the decade, when a legislature redistricts pursuant to its decennial constitutional duty and is then immune from the charge of sole motivation. If mid-decade redistricting were barred or at least subject to close judicial oversight, opposition legislators would also have every incentive to prevent passage of a legislative plan and try their luck with a court that might give them a better deal than negotiation with their political rivals. See Henderson, 399 F. Supp. 2d, at 776-777.
D
Appellants’ second political gerrymandering theory is that mid-decade redistricting for exclusively partisan purposes violates the one-person, one-vote requirement. They observe that population variances in legislative districts are tolerated only if they “are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.” Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 730 (1983) (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526, 531 (1969); internal quotation marks omitted). Working from this unchallenged premise, appellants contend that, because the population of Texas has shifted since the 2000 census, the 2003 redistrieting, which relied on that census, created unlawful interdistrict population variances.
To distinguish the variances in Plan 1374C from those of ordinary, 3-year-old districting plans or belatedly drawn court-ordered plans, appellants again rely on the voluntary, mid-decade nature of the redistricting and its partisan motivation. Appellants do not contend that a decennial redistricting plan would violate equal representation three or five years into the decade if the State’s population had shifted substantially. As they must, they concede that States operate under the legal fiction that their plans are constitutionally apportioned throughout the decade, a presumption that is necessary to avoid constant redistricting, with accompanying costs and instability. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 488, n. 2 (2003); Reynolds, 377 U. S., at 583. Appellants agree that a plan implemented by a court in 2001 using 2000 population data also enjoys the benefit of the so-called legal fiction, presumably because belated court-drawn plans promote other important interests, such as ensuring a plan complies with the Constitution and voting rights legislation.
In appellants’ view, however, this fiction should not provide a safe harbor for a legislature that enacts a voluntary, mid-decade plan overriding a legal court-drawn plan, thus “ ‘unnecessarily’ ” creating population variance “when there was no legal compulsion” to do so. Brief for Appellant Travis County et al. in No. 05-254, p. 18. This is particularly so, appellants say, when a legislature acts because of an exclusively partisan motivation. Under appellants’ theory this improper motive at the outset seems enough to condemn the map for violating the equal-population principle. For this reason, appellants believe that the State cannot justify under Karcher v. Daggett the population variances in Plan 1374C because they are the product of partisan bias and the desire to eliminate all competitive districts.
As the District Court noted, this is a test that turns not on whether a redistricting furthers equal-population principles but rather on the justification for redrawing a plan in the first place. Henderson, supra, at 776. In that respect appellants’ approach merely restates the question whether it was permissible for the Texas Legislature to redraw the districting map. Appellants’ answer, which mirrors their attack on mid-decennial redistricting solely motivated by partisan considerations, is unsatisfactory for reasons we have already discussed.
Appellants also contend that the legislature intentionally sought to manipulate population variances when it enacted Plan 1374C. There is, however, no District Court finding to that effect, and appellants present no specific evidence to support this serious allegation of bad faith. Because appellants have not demonstrated that the legislature’s decision to enact Plan 1374C constitutes a violation of the equal-population requirement, we find unavailing their subsidiary reliance on Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (ND Ga.) (per curiam), summarily aff'd, 542 U. S. 947 (2004). In Larios, the District Court reviewed the Georgia Legislature’s decennial redistricting of its State Senate and House of Representatives districts and found deviations from the equal-population requirement. The District Court then held the objectives of the drafters, which included partisan interests along with regionalist bias and inconsistent incumbent protection, did not justify those deviations. 300 F. Supp. 2d, at 1351-1352.. The Larios holding and its examination of the legislature’s motivations were relevant only in response to an equal-population violation, something appellants have not established here. Even in addressing political motivation as a justification for an equal-population violation, moreover, Latios does not give clear guidance. The panel explained it “need not resolve the issue of whether or when partisan advantage alone may justify deviations in population” because the plans were “plainly unlawful” and any partisan motivations were “bound up inextricably” with other clearly rejected objectives. Id., at 1352.
In sum, we disagree with appellants’ view that a legislature’s decision to override a valid, court-drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge.
Ill
Plan 1374C made changes to district lines in south and west Texas that appellants challenge as violations of §2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The most significant changes occurred to District 23, which—both before and after the redistricting—covers a large land area in west Texas, and to District 25, which earlier included Houston but now includes a different area, a north-south strip from Austin to the Rio Grande Valley.
After the 2002 election, it became apparent that District 23 as then drawn had an increasingly powerful Latino population that threatened to oust the incumbent Republican, Henry Bonilla. Before the 2003 redistricting, the Latino share of the citizen voting-age population was 57.5%, and Bonilla’s support among Latinos had dropped with each successive election since 1996. Session, 298 F. Supp. 2d, at 488-489. In 2002, Bonilla captured only 8% of the Latino vote, ibid., and 51.5% of the overall vote. Faced with this loss of voter support, the legislature acted to protect Bonilla’s incumbency by changing the lines—and hence the population mix—of the district. To begin with, the new plan divided Webb County and the city of Laredo, on the Mexican border, that formed the county’s population base. Webb County, which is 94% Latino, had previously rested entirely within District 23; under the new plan, nearly 100,000 people were shifted into neighboring District 28. Id., at 489. The rest of the county, approximately 93,000 people, remained in District 23. To replace the numbers District 23 lost, the State added voters in counties comprising a largely Anglo, Republican area in central Texas. Id., at 488. In the newly drawn district, the Latino share of the citizen voting-age population dropped to 46%, though the Latino share of the total voting-age population remained just over 50%. Id., at 489.
These changes required adjustments elsewhere, of course, so the State inserted a third district between the two districts to the east of District 23, and extended all three of them farther north. New District 25 is a long, narrow strip that winds its way from McAllen and the Mexican-border towns in the south to Austin, in the center of the State and 300 miles away. Id., at 502. In between it includes seven full counties, but 77% of its population resides in split counties at the northern and southern ends. Of this 77%, roughly half reside in Hidalgo County, which includes McAllen, and half are in Travis County, which includes parts of Austin. Ibid. The Latinos in District 25, comprising 55% of the district’s citizen voting-age population, are also mostly divided between the two distant areas, north and south. Id., at 499. The Latino communities at the opposite ends of District 25 have divergent “needs and interests,” id., at 502, owing to. “differences in socio-economic status, education, employment, health, and other characteristics,” id., at 512;
The District Court summed up the purposes underlying the redistricting in south and west Texas: “The change to Congressional District 23 served the dual goal of increasing Republican seats in general and protecting Bonilla’s incumbency in particular, with the additional political nuance that Bonilla would be reelected in a district that had a majority of Latino voting age population—although clearly not a majority of citizen voting age population and certainly not an effective voting majority.” Id., at 497. The goal in creating District 25 was just as clear: “[t]o avoid retrogression under § 5” of the Voting Rights Act given the reduced Latino voting strength in District 23. Id., at 489.
A
The question we address is whether Plan 1374C violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A State violates § 2
“if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of [a racial group] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S. C. § 1973(b).
The Court has identified three threshold conditions for establishing a §2 violation: (1) the racial group is “‘“sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.
Respondent transports steel and steel products by barge and maintains a terminal at Chickasaw, Alabama, where it performs maintenance and repair work on its barges. The employees at that terminal constitute a bargaining unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by petitioner union. Respondent between 1956 and 1958 laid off some employees, reducing the bargaining unit from 42 to 23 men. This reduction was due in part to respondent contracting maintenance work, previously done by its employees, to other companies. The latter used respondent’s supervisors to lay out the work and hired some of the laid-off employees of respondent (at reduced wages). Some were in fact assigned to work on respondent’s barges. A number of employees signed a grievance which petitioner presented to respondent, the grievance reading:
“We are hereby protesting the Company’s actions, of arbitrarily and unreasonably contracting out work to other concerns, that could and previously has been performed by Company employees.
“This practice becomes unreasonable, unjust and discriminatory in lieu [sic] of the fact that at present there are a number of employees that have been laid off for about 1 and % years or more for allegedly lack of work.
“Confronted with these facts we charge that the Company is in violation of the contract by inducing a partial lock-out, of a number of the employees who would otherwise be working were it not for this unfair practice.”
The collective agreement had both a “no strike” and a “no lockout” provision. It also had a grievance procedure which provided in relevant part as follows:
“Issues which conflict with any Federal statute in its application as established by Court procedure or matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration under this section.
“Should differences arise between the Company and the Union or its members employed by the Company as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement, or should any local trouble of any kind arise, there shall be no suspension of work on account of such differences but an earnest effort shall be made to settle such differences immediately in the following manner:
“A. For Maintenance Employees:
“First, between the aggrieved employees, and the Foreman involved;
“Second, between a member or members of the Grievance Committee designated by the Union, and the Foreman and Master Mechanic.
“Fifth, if agreement has not been reached the matter shall be referred to an impartial umpire for decision. The parties shall meet to decide on an umpire acceptable to both. If no agreement on selection of an umpire is reached, the parties shall jointly petition the United States Conciliation Service for suggestion of a list of umpires from which selection will be made. The decision of the umpire shall be final.”
Settlement of this grievance was not had and respondent refused arbitration. This suit was then commenced by the union to compel it.
The District Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint. 168 F. Supp. 702. It held after hearing evidence, much of which went to the merits of the grievance, that the agreement did not “confide in an arbitrator the right to review the defendant’s business judgment in contracting out work.” Id., at 705. It further held that “the contracting out of repair and maintenance work, as well as construction work, is strictly a function of management not limited in any respect by the labor agreement involved here.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote, 269 F. 2d 633, the majority holding that the collective agreement had withdrawn from the grievance procedure “matters which are strictly a function of management” and that contracting out fell in that exception. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 361 U. S. 912.
We held in Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, that a grievance arbitration provision in a collective agreement could be enforced by reason of § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and that the policy to be applied in enforcing this type of arbitration was that reflected in our national labor laws. Id., at 456-457. The present federal policy is to promote industrial stabilization through the collective bargaining agreement. Id., at 453-454. A major factor in achieving industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision for arbitration of grievances in the collective bargaining agreement.
Thus the run of arbitration cases, illustrated by Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, becomes irrelevant to our problem. There the choice is between the adjudication of cases or controversies in courts with established procedures or even special statutory safeguards on the one hand and the settlement of them in the more informal arbitration tribunal on the other. In the commercial case, arbitration is the substitute for litigation. Here arbitration is the substitute for industrial strife. Since arbitration of labor disputes has quite different functions from arbitration under an ordinary commercial agreement, the hostility evinced by courts toward arbitration of commercial agreements has no place here. For arbitration of labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements is part and parcel of the collective bargaining process itself.
The collective bargaining agreement states the rights and duties of the parties. It is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. See Shulman, Reason, Contract, and Law in Labor Relations, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 999, 1004-1005. The collective agreement covers the whole employment relationship. It calls into being a new common law — the common law of a particular industry or of a particular plant. As one observer has put it:
. . [I] t is not unqualifiedly true that a collective-bargaining agreement is simply a document by which the union and employees have imposed upon management limited, express restrictions of its otherwise absolute right to manage the enterprise, so that an employee’s claim must fail unless he can point to a specific contract provision upon which the claim is founded. There are too many people, too many problems, too many unforeseeable contingencies to make the words of the contract the exclusive source of rights and duties. One cannot reduce all the rules governing a community like an industrial plant to fifteen or even fifty pages. Within the sphere of collective bargaining, the institutional characteristics and the governmental nature of the collective-bargaining process demand a common law of the shop which implements and furnishes the context of the agreement. We must assume that intelligent negotiators acknowledged so plain a need unless they stated a contrary rule in plain words.”
A collective bargaining agreement is an effort to erect a system of industrial self-government. When most parties enter into contractual relationship they do so voluntarily, in the sense that there is no real compulsion to deal with one another, as opposed to dealing with other parties. This is not true of the labor agreement. The choice is generally not between entering or refusing to enter into a relationship, for that in all probability preexists the negotiations. Rather it is between having that relationship governed by an agreed-upon rule of law or leaving each and every matter subject to a temporary resolution dependent solely upon the relative strength, at any given moment, of the contending forces. The mature labor agreement may attempt to regulate all aspects of the complicated relationship, from the most crucial to the most minute over an extended period of time. Because of the compulsion to reach agreement and the breadth of the matters covered, as well as the need for a fairly concise and readable instrument, the product of negotiations (the written document) is, in the words of the late Dean Shulman, “a compilation of diverse provisions: some provide objective criteria almost automatically applicable; some provide more or less specific standards which require reason and judgment in their application; and some do little more than leave problems to future consideration with an expression of hope and good faith.” Shulman, supra, at 1005. Gaps may be left to be filled in by reference to the practices of the particular industry and of the various shops covered by the agreement. Many of the specific practices which underlie the agreement may be unknown, except in hazy form, even to the negotiators. Courts and arbitration in the context of most commercial contracts are resorted to because there has been a breakdown in the working relationship of the parties; such resort is the unwanted exception. But the grievance machinery under a collective bargaining agreement is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government. Arbitration is the means of solving the unforeseeable by molding a system of private law for all the problems which may arise and to provide for their solution in a way which will generally accord with the variant needs and desires of the parties. The processing of disputes through the grievance machinery is actually a vehicle by which meaning and content are given to the collective bargaining agreement.
Apart from matters that the parties specifically exclude, all of the questions on which the parties disagree must therefore come within the scope of the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement. The grievance procedure is, in other words, a part of the continuous collective bargaining process. It, rather than a strike, is the terminal point of a disagreement.
The labor arbitrator performs functions which are not normal to the courts; the considerations which help him fashion judgments may indeetl be foreign to the competence of courts.
"A proper conception of the arbitrator’s function is basic. He is not a public tribunal imposed upon the parties by superior authority which the parties are obliged to accept. He has no general charter to administer justice for a community which transcends the parties. He is rather part of a system of self-government created by and confined to the parties. . . .” Shulman, supra, at 1016.
The labor arbitrator’s source of law is not confined to the express provisions of the contract, as the industrial common law — the practices of the industry and the shop — is equally a part of the collective bargaining agreement although not expressed in it. The labor arbitrator is usually chosen because of the parties’ confidence in his knowledge of the common law of the shop and their trust in his personal judgment to bring to bear considerations which are not expressed in the contract as criteria for judgment. The parties expect that his judgment of a particular grievance will reflect not only what the contract says but, insofar as the collective bargaining agreement permits, such factors -as the effect upon productivity of a particular result, its consequence to the morale of the shop, his judgment whether tensions will be heightened or diminished. For the parties’ objective in using the arbitration process is primarily to further their common goal of uninterrupted production under the agreement, to make the agreement serve their specialized needs. The ablest judge cannot be expected to bring the same experience and competence to bear upon the determination of a grievance, because he cannot be similarly informed.
The Congress, however, has by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, assigned the courts the duty of determining whether the reluctant party has breached his promise to arbitrate. For arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Yet, to be consistent with congressional policy in favor of settlement of disputes by the parties through the machinery of arbitration, the judicial inquiry under § 301 must be strictly confined to the question whether the reluctant party did agree to arbitrate the grievance or did agree to give the arbitrator power to make the award he made. An order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.
We do not agree with the lower courts that contracting-out grievances were necessarily excepted from the grievance procedure of this agreement. To be sure, the agreement provides that “matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration.” But it goes on to say that if “differences” arise or if “any local trouble of any kind” arises, the grievance procedure shall be applicable.
Collective bargaining agreements regulate or restrict the exercise of management functions; they do not oust management from the performance of them. Management hires and fires, pays and promotes, supervises and plans. All these are part of its function, and absent a collective bargaining agreement, it may be exercised freely except as limited by public law and by the willingness of employees to work under the particular, unilaterally imposed conditions. A collective bargaining agreement may treat only with certain specific practices, leaving the rest to management but subject to the possibility of work stoppages. When, however, an absolute no-strike clause is included in the agreement, then in a very real sense everything that management does is subject to the agreement, for either management is prohibited or limited in the action it takes, or if not, it is protected from interference by strikes. This comprehensive reach of the collective bargaining agreement does not mean, however, that the language, “strictly a function of management,” has no meaning.
“Strictly a function of management” might be thought to refer to any practice of management in which, under particular circumstances prescribed by the agreement, it is permitted to indulge. But if courts, in order to determine arbitrability, were allowed to determine what is permitted and what is not, the arbitration clause would be swallowed up by the exception. Every grievance in a sense involves a claim that management has violated some provision of the agreement.
Accordingly, “strictly a function of management” must be interpreted as referring only to that over which' the contract gives management complete control and unfettered discretion. Respondent claims that the contracting out of work falls within this category. Contracting out work is the basis of many grievances; and that type of claim is grist in the mills of the arbitrators. A specific collective bargaining agreement may exclude contracting out from the grievance procedure. Or a written collateral agreement may make clear that contracting out was not a matter for arbitration. In such a case a grievance based solely on contracting out would not be arbitra-ble. Here, however, there is no such provision. Nor is there any showing that the parties designed the phrase “strictly a function of management” to encompass any and all forms of contracting out. In the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail, particularly where, as here, the exclusion clause is vague and the arbitration clause quite broad. Since any attempt by a court to infer such a purpose necessarily comprehends the merits, the court should view with suspicion an attempt to persuade it to become entangled in the construction of the substantive provisions of a labor agreement, even through the back door of interpreting the arbitration clause, when the alternative is to utilize the services of an arbitrator.
The grievance alleged that the contracting out was a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. There was, therefore, a dispute “as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement” which the parties had agreed would be determined by arbitration.
The judiciary sits in these cases to bring into operation an arbitral process which substitutes a regime of peaceful settlement for the older regime of industrial conflict. Whether contracting out in the present case violated the agreement is the question. It is a question for the arbiter, not for the courts.
Reversed
Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 569.]
Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), provides:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without • regard to the citizenship of the parties.” See Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448.
Note 1, supra.
In § 8 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the 1947 Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d), Congress indeed provided that where there was a collective agreement for a fixed term the duty to bargain did not require either party “to discuss or agree to any modification of the terms and conditions contained in” the contract. And see Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U. S. 332.
Complete effectuation of the federal policy is achieved when the agreement contains both an arbitration provision for all unresolved grievances and an absolute prohibition of strikes, the arbitration agreement being the “quid pro quo” for the agreement not to strike. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 455.
“Contracts which ban strikes often provide for lifting the ban under certain conditions. Unconditional pledges against strikes are, however, somewhat more frequent than conditional ones. Where conditions are attached to no-strike pledges, one or both of two approaches may be used: certain subjects may be exempted from the scope of the pledge, or the pledge may be lifted after certain procedures are followed by the union. (Similar qualifications may be made in pledges against lockouts.)
“Most frequent conditions for lifting no-strike pledges are: (1) The occurrence of a deadlock in wage reopening negotiations; and (2) violation of the contract, especially non-compliance with the grievance procedure and failure to abide by an arbitration award.
“No-strike pledges may also be lifted after compliance with specified procedures. Some contracts permit the union to strike after the grievance procedure has been exhausted without a settlement, and where arbitration is not prescribed as the final recourse. Other contracts permit a strike if mediation efforts fail, or after a specified cooling-off period.” Collective Bargaining, Negotiations and Contracts, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 77:101.
Cox, Reflections Upon Labor Arbitration, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1482, 1498-1499 (1959).
It is clear that under both the agreement in this case and that involved in American Manufacturing Co., ante, p. 564, the question of arbitrability is for the courts to decide. Cf. Cox, Reflections Upon Labor Arbitration, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1482, 1508-1509. Where the assertion by the claimant is that the parties excluded from court determination not merely the decision of the merits of the grievance but also the question of its arbitrability, vesting power to make both decisions in the arbitrator, the claimant must bear the burden of a clear demonstration of that purpose.
See Celanese Corp. of America, 33 Lab. Arb. Rep. 925, 941 (1959), where the arbiter in a grievance growing out of contracting out work said:
“In my research I have located 64 published decisions which have been concerned with this issue covering a wide range of factual situations but all of them with the common characteristic — i. e., the contracting-out of work involved occurred under an Agreement that contained no provision that specifically mentioned contracting-out of work.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This federal habeas corpus application involves the question whether Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial in his state conviction for the second-degree murder of his wife because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. The United States District Court held that he was not afforded a fair trial and granted the writ subject to the State’s right to put Sheppard to trial again, 231 F. Supp. 37 (D. C. S. D. Ohio 1964). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed by a divided vote, 346 F. 2d 707 (1965). We granted certiorari, 382 U. S. 916 (1965). We have concluded that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, reverse the judgment.
I.
Marilyn Sheppard, petitioner’s pregnant wife, was bludgeoned to death in the upstairs bedroom of their lake-shore home in Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland. On the day of the tragedy, July 4, 1954, Sheppard pieced together for several local officials the following story: He and his wife had entertained neighborhood friends, the Aherns, on the previous evening at their home. After dinner they watched television in the living room. Sheppard became drowsy and dozed off to sleep on a couch. Later, Marilyn partially awoke him saying that she was going to bed. The next thing he remembered was hearing his wife cry out in the early morning hours. He hurried upstairs and in the dim light from the hall saw a “form” standing next to his wife’s bed. As he struggled with the “form” he was struck on the back of the neck and rendered unconscious. On regaining his senses he found himself on the floor next to his wife’s bed. He rose, looked at her, took her pulse and “felt that she was gone.” He then went to his son’s room and found him unmolested. Hearing a noise he hurried downstairs. He saw a “form” running out the door and pursued it to the lake shore. He grappled with it on the beach and again lost consciousness. Upon his recovery he was lying face down with the lower portion of his body in the water. He returned to his home, checked the pulse on his wife’s neck, and “determined or thought that she was gone.” He then went downstairs and called a neighbor, Mayor Houk of Bay Village. The Mayor and his wife came over at once, found Sheppard slumped in an easy chair downstairs and asked, “What happened?” Sheppard replied: “I don’t know but somebody ough't to try to do something for Marilyn.” Mrs. Houk immediately went up to the bedroom. The Mayor told Sheppard, “Get hold of yourself. Can you tell me what happened?” Sheppard then related the above-outlined events. After Mrs. Houk discovered the body, the Mayor called the local police, Dr. Richard Sheppard, petitioner’s brother, and the Aherns. The local police were the first to arrive. They in turn notified the Coroner and Cleveland police. Richard Sheppard then arrived, determined that Marilyn was dead, examined his brother’s injuries, and removed him to the nearby clinic operated by the Sheppard family. When the Coroner, the Cleveland police and other officials arrived, the house and surrounding area were thoroughly searched, the rooms of the house were photographed, and many persons, including the Houks and the Aherns, were interrogated. The Sheppard home and premises were taken into “protective.custody” and remained so until after the trial.
From the outset officials focused suspicion on Sheppard. After a search of the house and premises on the morning of the tragedy, Dr. Gerber, the Coroner, is reported — and it is undenied — to have told his men, “Well, it is evident the doctor did this, so let’s go get the confession out of him.” He proceeded to interrogate and examine Sheppard while the latter was under sedation in his hospital room. On the same occasion, the Coroner was given the clothes Sheppard wore at the time of the tragedy together with the personal items in them. Later that afternoon Chief Eaton and two Cleveland police officers interrogated Sheppard at some length, confronting him with evidence and demanding explanations. Asked by Officer Shotke to take a lie detector test, Sheppard said he would if it were reliable. Shotke replied that it was “infallible” and “you might as well tell us all about it now.” At the end of • the interrogation Shotke told Sheppard: “I think you killed your wife.” Still later in the same afternoon a physician sent by the Coroner was permitted to make a detailed examination of Sheppard. Until the Coroner’s inquest on July 22, at which time he was subpoenaed, Sheppard made himself available for frequent and extended questioning without the presence of an attorney.
On July 7, the day of Marilyn Sheppard’s funeral, a newspaper story appeared in which Assistant County Attorney Mahon — later the chief prosecutor of Sheppard— sharply criticized the refusal of the Sheppard family to permit his immediate questioning. From there on headline stories repeatedly stressed Sheppard’s lack of cooperation with the police and other officials. Under the headline “Testify Now In Death, Bay Doctor Is Ordered,” one story described a visit by Coroner Gerber and four police officers to the hospital on July 8. When Sheppard insisted that his lawyer be present, the Coroner wrote out a subpoena and served it on him. Sheppard then agreed to submit to questioning without counsel and the subpoena was torn up. The officers questioned him for several hours. On July 9, Sheppard, at the request of the Coroner, re-enacted the tragedy at his home before the Coroner, police officers, and a group of newsmen, who apparently were invited by the Coroner. The home was locked so that Sheppard was obliged to wait outside until the Coroner arrived. Sheppard’s performance was reported in detail by the news media along with photographs. The newspapers also played up Sheppard’s refusal to take a lie detector test and “the protective ring” thrown up by his family. Front-page newspaper headlines announced on the same day that “Doctor Balks At Lie Test; Retells Story.” A column opposite that story contained an “exclusive” interview with Sheppard headlined: “ 'Loved My Wife, She Loved Me,’ Sheppard Tells News Reporter.” The next day, another headline story disclosed that Sheppard had “again late yesterday refused to take a lie detector test” and quoted an Assistant County Attorney as saying that “at the end of a nine-hour questioning of Dr. Sheppard, I felt he was now ruling [a test] out completely.” But subsequent newspaper articles reported that the Coroner was still pushing Sheppard for a lie detector test. More stories appeared when Sheppard would not allow authorities to inject him with “truth serum.”
On the 20th, the “editorial artillery” opened fire with a front-page charge that somebody is “getting away with murder.” The editorial attributed the ineptness of the investigation to “friendships, relationships, hired lawyers, a husband who ought to have been subjected instantly to the same third-degree to which any other person under similar circumstances is subjected....” The following day, July 21, another page-one editorial was headed: “Why No Inquest? Do It Now, Dr. Gerber.” The Coroner called an inquest the same day and subpoenaed Sheppard. It was staged the next day in a school gymnasium; the Coroner presided with the County Prosecutor as his advisor and two detectives as bailiffs. In the front of the room was a long table occupied by reporters, television and radio personnel, and broadcasting equipment. The hearing was broadcast with live microphones placed at the Coroner’s seat and the witness stand. A swarm of reporters and photographers attended. Sheppard was brought into the room by police who searched him in full view of several hundred spectators. Sheppard’s counsel were present during the three-day inquest but were not permitted to participate. When Sheppard’s chief counsel attempted to place some documents in the record, he was forcibly ejected from the room by the Coroner, who received cheers, hugs, and kisses from ladies in the audience. Sheppard was questioned for five and one-half hours about his actions on the night of the murder, his married life, and a love affair with Susan Hayes. At the end of the hearing the Coroner announced that he “could” order Sheppard held for the grand jury, but did not do so.
Throughout this period the newspapers emphasized evidence that tended to incriminate Sheppard and pointed out discrepancies in his statements to authorities. At the same time, Sheppard made many public statements to the press and wrote feature articles asserting his innocence. During the inquest on July 26, a headline in large type stated: “Kerr [Captain of the Cleveland Police] Urges Sheppard’s Arrest.” In the story, Detective McArthur “disclosed that scientific tests at the Sheppard home have definitely established that the killer washed off a trail of blood from the murder bedroom to the downstairs section,” a circumstance casting doubt on Sheppard’s accounts of the murder. No such evidence was produced at trial. The newspapers also delved into Sheppard’s personal life. Articles stressed his extramarital love affairs as a motive for the crime. The newspapers portrayed Sheppard as a Lothario, fully explored his relationship with Susan Hayes, and named a number of other women who were allegedly involved with him. The testimony at trial never showed that Sheppard had any illicit relationships besides the one with Susan Hayes.
On July 28, an editorial entitled “Why Don’t Police Quiz Top Suspect” demanded that Sheppard be taken to police headquarters. It described him in the following language:
“Now proved under oath to be a liar, still free to go about his business, shielded by his, family, protected by a smart lawyer who has made monkeys of the police and authorities, carrying a gun part of the time, left free to do whatever he pleases....”
A front-page editorial on July 30 asked: “Why Isn’t Sam Sheppard in Jail?” It was later titled “Quit Stalling — Bring Him In.” After calling Sheppard “the most unusual murder suspect ever seen around these parts” the article said that “[e]xcept for some superficial questioning during Coroner Sam Gerber’s inquest he has been scot-free of any official grilling....” It asserted that he was “surrounded by an iron curtain of protection [and] concealment.”
That night at 10 o’clock Sheppard was arrested at his father’s home on a charge of murder. He was taken to the Bay Village City Hall where hundreds of people, newscasters, photographers and reporters were awaiting his arrival. He was immediately arraigned — having been denied a temporary delay to secure the presence of counsel — and bound over to the grand jury.
The publicity then grew in intensity until his indictment on August 17. Typical of the coverage during this period is a front-page interview entitled: “DR. SAM: T Wish There Was Something I Could Get Off My Chest— but There Isn’t.’ ” Unfavorable publicity included items such as a cartoon of the body of a sphinx with Sheppard’s head and the legend below: “ ‘I Will Do Everything In My Power to Help Solve This Terrible Murder.’ —Dr. Sam Sheppard.” Headlines announced, inter alia, that: “Doctor Evidence is Ready for Jury,” “Corrigan Tactics Stall Quizzing,” “Sheppard 'Gay Set’ Is Revealed By Houk,” “Blood Is Found In Garage,” “New Murder Evidence Is Found, Police Claim,” “Dr. Sam Faces Quiz At Jail On Marilyn’s Fear Of Him.” On August 18, an article appeared under the headline “Dr. Sam Writes His Own Story.” And reproduced across the entire front page was a portion of the typed statement signed by Sheppard: “I am not guilty of the murder of my wife, Marilyn. How could I, who have been trained to help people and devoted my life to saving life, commit such a terrible and revolting crime?” We do not detail the coverage further. There are five volumes filled with similar clippings from each of the three Cleveland newspapers covering the period from the murder until Sheppard’s conviction in December 1954. The record includes no excerpts from newscasts on radio and television but since space was reserved in the courtroom for these media we assume that their coverage was equally large.
II.
With this background the case came on for trial two weeks before the November general election at which the chief prosecutor was a candidate for common pleas judge and the trial judge, Judge Blythin, was a candidate to succeed himself. Twenty-five days before the case was set, 75 veniremen were called as prospective jurors. All three Cleveland newspapers published the names and addresses of the veniremen. As a consequence, anonymous letters and telephone calls, as well as calls from friends, regarding the impending prosecution were received by all of the prospective jurors. The selection of the jury began on October 18, 1954.
The courtroom in which the trial was held measured 26 by 48 feet. A long temporary table was set up inside the bar, in back of the single counsel table. It ran the width of the courtroom, parallel to the bar railing, with one end less than three feet from the jury box. Approximately 20 representatives of newspapers and wire services were assigned seats at this table by the court. Behind the bar railing there were four rows of benches. These seats were likewise assigned by the court for the entire trial. The first row was occupied by representatives of television and radio stations, and the second and third rows by reporters from out-of-town newspapers and magazines. One side of the last row, which accommodated 14 people, was assigned to Sheppard’s family and the other to Marilyn’s. The public was permitted to fill vacancies in this row on special passes only. Representatives of the news media also used all the rooms on the courtroom floor, including the room where cases were ordinarily called and assigned for trial. Private telephone lines and telegraphic equipment were installed in these rooms so that reports from the trial could be speeded to the papers. Station WSRS was permitted to set up broadcasting facilities on the third floor of the courthouse next door to the jury room, where the jury rested during recesses in the trial and deliberated. Newscasts were made from this room throughout the trial, and while the jury reached its verdict.
On the sidewalk and steps in front of the courthouse, television and newsreel cameras were occasionally used to take motion pictures of the participants in the trial, including the jury and the judge. Indeed, one television broadcast carried a staged interview of the judge as he entered the courthouse. In the corridors outside the courtroom there was a host of photographers and television personnel with flash cameras, portable lights and motion picture cameras. This group photographed the prospective jurors during selection of the jury. After the trial opened, the witnesses, counsel, and jurors were photographed and televised whenever they entered or left the courtroom. Sheppard was brought to the courtroom about 10 minutes before each session began; he was surrounded by reporters and extensively photographed for the newspapers and television. A rule of court prohibited picture-taking in the courtroom during the actual sessions of the court, but no restraints were put on photographers during recesses, which were taken once each morning and afternoon, with a longer period for lunch.
All of these arrangements with the news media and their massive coverage of the trial continued during the entire nine weeks of the trial. The courtroom remained crowded to capacity with representatives of news media. Their movement in and out of the courtroom often caused so much confusion that, despite the loud-speaker system installed in the courtroom, it was difficult for the witnesses and counsel to be heard. Furthermore, the reporters clustered within the bar of the small courtroom^ made confidential talk among Sheppard and his counsel almost impossible during the proceedings. They frequently had to leave the courtroom to obtain privacy. And many times when counsel wished to raise a point with the judge out of the hearing of the jury it was necessary to move to the judge’s chambers. Even then, news media representatives so packed the judge’s anteroom that counsel could hardly return from the chambers to the courtroom. The reporters vied with each other to find out what counsel and the judge had discussed, and often these matters later appeared in newspapers accessible to the jury.
The daily record of the proceedings was made available to the newspapers and the testimony of each witness was printed verbatim in the local editions, along with objections of counsel, and rulings by the judge. Pictures of Sheppard, the judge, counsel, pertinent witnesses, and the jury often accompanied the daily newspaper and television accounts. At times the newspapers published photographs of exhibits introduced at the trial, and the rooms of Sheppard’s house were featured along with relevant testimony.
The jurors themselves were constantly exposed to the news media. Every juror, except one, testified at voir dire to reading about the case in the Cleveland papers or to having heard broadcasts about it. Seven of the 12 jurors who rendered the verdict had one or more Cleveland papers delivered in their home; the remaining jurors were not interrogated on the point. Nor were there questions as to radios or television sets in the jurors’ homes, but we must assume that most of them owned such conveniences. As the selection of the jury progressed, individual pictures of prospective members appeared daily. During the trial, pictures of the jury appeared over 40 times in the Cleveland papers alone. The court permitted photographers to take pictures of the jury in the box, and individual pictures of the members in the jury room. One newspaper ran pictures of the jurors at the Sheppard home when they went there to view the scene of the murder. Another paper featured the home life of an alternate juror. The day before the verdict was rendered — while the jurors were at lunch and sequestered by two bailiffs — the jury was separated into two groups to pose for photographs which appeared in the newspapers.
III.
We now reach the conduct of the trial. While the intense publicity continued unabated, it is sufficient to relate only the more flagrant episodes:
1. On October 9, 1954, nine days before the case went to trial, an editorial in one of the newspapers criticized defense counsel’s random poll of people on the streets as to their opinion of Sheppard’s guilt or innocence in an effort to use the resulting statistics to show the necessity for change of venue. The article said the survey “smacks of mass jury tampering,” called on defense counsel to drop it, and stated that the bar association should do something about it. It characterized the poll as “nonjudicial, non-legal, and nonsense.” The article was called to the attention of the court but no action was taken.
2. On the second day of voir dire examination a debate was staged and broadcast live over WHK radio. The participants, newspaper reporters, accused Sheppard’s counsel of throwing roadblocks in the way of the prosecution and asserted that Sheppard conceded his guilt by hiring a prominent criminal lawyer. Sheppard’s counsel objected to this broadcast and requested a continuance, but the judge denied the motion. When counsel asked the court to give some protection from such events, the judge replied that “WHK doesn’t have much coverage,” and thiat “[ajfter all, we are not trying this case by radio or in newspapers or any other means. We confine ourselves seriously to it in this courtroom and do the very best we can.”
3. While the jury was being selected, a two-inch headline asked: “But Who Will Speak for Marilyn?” The front-page story spoke of the “perfect face” of the accused. “Study that face as long as you want. Never will you get from it a hint of what might be the answer....” The two brothers of the accused were described as “Prosperous, poised. His two sisters-in law. Smart, chic, well-groomed. His elderly father. Courtly, reserved. A perfect type for the patriarch of a staunch clan.” The author then noted Marilyn Sheppard was “still off stage,” and that she was an only child whose mother died when she was very young and whose father had no interest in the case. But the author — through quotes from Detective Chief James McArthur — assured readers that the prosecution’s exhibits would speak for Marilyn. “Her story,” McArthur stated, “will come into this courtroom through our witnesses.” The article ends:
“Then you realize how what and who is missing from the perfect setting will be supplied.
“How in the Big Case justice will be done.
“Justice to Sam Sheppard.
“And to Marilyn Sheppard.”
4. As has been mentioned, the jury viewed the scene of the murder on the first day of the trial. Hundreds of reporters, cameramen and onlookers were there, and one representative of the news media was permitted to accompany the jury while it inspected the Sheppard home. The time of the jury’s visit was revealed.so far in advance that one of the newspapers was able to rent a helicopter and fly over the house taking pictures of the jurors on their tour.
5. On November 19, a Cleveland police officer gave testimony that tended to contradict details in the written statement Sheppard made to the Cleveland police. Two days later, in a broadcast heard over Station WHK in Cleveland, Robert Considine likened Sheppard to a perjurer and compared the episode to Alger Hiss’ confrontation with Whittaker Chambers. Though defense counsel asked the judge to question the jury to ascertain how many heard the broadcast, the court refused to do so. The judge also overruled the motion for continuance based on the same ground, saying:
“Well, I don’t know, we can’t stop people, in any event, listening to it. It is a matter of free speech, and the court can’t control everybody.... We are not going to harass the jury every morning.... It is getting to the point where if we do it every morning, we are suspecting the jury. I have confidence in this jury....”
6. On November 24, a story appeared under an eight-column headline: “Sam Called A 'Jekyll-Hyde’ By Marilyn, Cousin To Testify.” It related that Marilyn had recently told friends that Sheppard was a “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” character. No such testimony was ever produced at the trial. The story went on to announce: “The prosecution has -a 'bombshell witness’ on tap who will testify to Dr. Sam’s display of fiery temper — countering the defense claim that the defendant is a gentle physician with an even disposition.” Defense counsel made motions for change of venue, continuance and mistrial, but they were denied. No action was taken by the court.
7. When the trial was in its seventh week, Walter Winchell broadcast over WXEL television and WJW radio that Carole Beasley, who was under arrest in New York City for robbery, had stated that, as Sheppard’s mistress, she had borne him a child. The defense asked that the jury be queried on the broadcast. Two jurors admitted in open court that they had heard it. The judge asked each: “Would that have any effect upon your judgment?” Both replied, “No.” This was accepted by the judge as sufficient; he merely asked the jury to “pay no attention whatever to that type of scavenging.... Let’s confine ourselves to this courtroom, if you please.” In answer to the motion for mistrial, the judge said:
“Well, even, so, Mr. Corrigan, how are you ever going to prevent those things, in any event? I don’t justify them at all. I think it is outrageous, but in a sense, it is outrageous even if there were no trial here. The trial has nothing to do with it in the Court’s mind, as far as its outrage is concerned, but—
“Mr. Corrigan: I don’t know what effect it had on the mind of any of these jurors, and I can’t find out unless inquiry is made.
“The Court: How would you ever, in any jury, avoid that kind of a thing?”
8. On December 9, while Sheppard was on the witness stand he testified that he had been mistreated by Cleveland detectives after his arrest. Although he was not at the trial, Captain Kerr of the Homicide Bureau issued a press statement denying Sheppard’s allegations which appeared under the headline: “‘Bare-faced Liar,’ Kerr Says of Sam.” Captain Kerr never appeared as a witness at the trial.
9. After the case was submitted to the jury, it was sequestered for its deliberations, which took five days and four nights. After the verdict, defense counsel ascertained that the jurors had been allowed to make telephone calls to their homes every day while they were sequestered at the hotel. Although the telephones had been removed from the jurors’ rooms, the jurors were permitted to use the phones in the bailiffs’ rooms. The calls were placed by the jurors themselves; no record was kept of the jurors who made calls, the telephone numbers or the parties called. The bailiffs sat in the room where they could hear only the jurors’ end of the conversation. The court had not instructed the bailiffs to prevent such calls. By a subsequent motion, defense counsel urged that this ground alone warranted a new trial, but the motion was overruled and no evidence was taken on the question.
IV.
The principle that justice cannot survive behind walls of silence has long been reflected in the “Anglo-American distrust for secret trials.” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 268 (1948). A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. This Court has, therefore, been unwilling to place any direct limitations on the freedom traditionally exercised by the news media for “[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property.” Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 374 (1947). The “unqualified prohibitions laid down by the framers were intended to give to liberty of the press... the broadest scope that could be countenanced in an orderly society.” Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 265 (1941). And where there was “no threat or menace to the integrity of the trial,” Craig v. Harney, supra, at 377, we have consistently required that the press have a free hand, even though we sometimes deplored its sensationalism.
But the Court has also pointed out that “[l]egal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Bridges v. California, supra, at 271. And the Court has insisted that no one be punished for a crime without “a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public tribunal free of prejudice, passion, excitement, and tyrannical power.” Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 236-237 (1940). “Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice.” Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 347 (1946). But it must not be allowed to divert the trial from the “very purpose of a court system... to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 583 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting). Among these “legal procedures” is the requirement that the jury’s verdict be based on evidence received in open court, not from outside sources. Thus, in Marshall v. United States, 360 U. S. 310 (1959), we set aside a federal conviction where the jurors were exposed “through news accounts” to information that was not admitted at trial. We held that the prejudice from such material “may indeed be greater” than when it is part of the prosecution’s evidence “for it is then not tempered by protective procedures.” At 313. At the same time, we did not consider dispositive the statement of each juror “that he would not be influenced by the news articles, that he could decide the case only on the evidence of record, and that he felt no prejudice against petitioner as a result of the articles.” At 312. Likewise, in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961), even though each juror indicated that he could render an impartial verdict despite exposure to prejudicial newspaper articles, we set aside the conviction holding:
“With his life at stake, it is not requiring too much that petitioner be tried in an atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave of public passion....” At 728.
The undeviating rule of this Court was expressed by Mr. Justice Holmes over half a century ago in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462 (1907):
“The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.”
Moreover, “the burden of showing essential unfairness... as a demonstrable reality,” Adams v. United States ex rel McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 281 (1942), need not be undertaken when television has exposed the community “repeatedly and in depth to the spectacle of [the accused] personally confessing in detail to the crimes with which he was later to be charged.” Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 726 (1963). In Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466 (1965), two key witnesses were deputy sheriffs who doubled as jury shepherds during the trial. The deputies swore that they had not talked to the jurors about the case, but the Court nonetheless held that,
“even if it could be assumed that the deputies never did discuss the case directly with any members of the jury, it would be blinking reality not to recognize the extreme prejudice inherent in this continual association....” At 473.
Only last Term in Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532 (1965), we set aside a conviction despite the absence of any showing of prejudice. We said there:
“It is true that in most cases involving claims of due process deprivations we require a showing of identifiable prejudice to'the accused. Nevertheless, at times a procedure employed by the State involves such a probability that prejudice will result that it is deemed inherently lacking in due process.” At 542-543.
And we cited with approval the language of Me. Justice Black for the Court in In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955), that “our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.”
V.
It is clear that the totality of circumstances in this case also warrants such an approach. Unlike Estes, Sheppard was not granted a change of venue to a locale away from where the publicity originated; nor was his jury sequestered. The Estes jury saw none of the television broadcasts from the courtroom. On the contrary, the Sheppard jurors were subjected to newspaper, radio and television coverage of the trial while not taking part in the proceedings. They were allowed to go their separate ways outside of the courtroom, without adequate directions not to read or listen to anything concerning the case. The judge’s “admonitions” at the beginning of the trial are representative:
“I would suggest to you and caution you that you do not read any newspapers during the progress of this trial, that you do not listen to radio comments nor watch or listen to television comments, insofar as this case is concerned. You will feel very much better as the trial proceeds.... I am sure that we shall all feel very much better if we do not indulge in any newspaper reading or listening to any comments whatever about the matter while the case is in progress. After it is all over, you can read it all to your heart’s content...
At intervals during the trial, the judge simply repeated his “suggestions” and “requests” that the jurors not expose themselves to comment upon the ease. Moreover, the jurors were thrust into the role of celebrities by the judge’s failure to insulate them from reporters and photographers. See Estes v. Texas, supra, at 545-546. The numerous pictures of the jurors, with their addresses, which appeared in the newspapers before and during the trial itself exposed them to expressions of opinion from both cranks and friends. The fact that anonymous letters had been received by prospective jurors should have made the judge aware that this publicity seriously threatened the jurors’ privacy.
The press coverage of the Estes trial was not nearly as massive and pervasive as the attention given by the Cleveland newspapers and broadcasting stations to Sheppard’s prosecution. Sheppard stood indicted for the murder of his wife; the State was demanding the death penalty. For months the virulent publicity about Sheppard and the murder had made the case notorious. Charges and countercharges were aired in the news media besides those for which Sheppard was called to trial. In addition, only three months before trial, Sheppard was examined for more than five hours without counsel during a three-day inquest which ended in a public brawl. The inquest was televised live- from a high school gymnasium seating hundreds of people. Furthermore, the trial began two weeks before a hotly contested election at which both Chief Prosecutor Mahon and Judge Blythin were candidates for judgeships.
While we cannot say that Sheppard was denied due process by the judge’s refusal to take precautions against the influence of pretrial publicity alone, the court’s later rulings must be considered against the setting in which the trial was held. In light of this background, we believe that the arrangements made by the judge with the news media caused Sheppard to be deprived of that “judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled.” Estes v. Texas, supra, at 536. The fact is that bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial and newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom, hounding most of the participants in the trial, especially Sheppard. At a temporary table within a few feet of the jury box and counsel table sat some 20 reporters staring at Sheppard and taking notes. The erection of a press table for reporters inside the bar is unprecedented. The bar of the court is reserved for counsel, providing them a safe place in which to keep papers and exhibits, and to confer privately with client and co-counsel. It is designed to protect the witness and the jury from any distractions, intrusions or influences, and to permit bench discussions of the judge’s rulings away from the hearing of the public and the jury. Having assigned almost all of the available seats in the courtroom to the news media the judge lost his ability to supervise that environment. The movement of the reporters in and out of the courtroom caused frequent confusion and disruption of the trial. And the record reveals constant commotion within the bar. Moreover, the judge gave the throng of newsmen gathered in the corridors of the courthouse absolute free rein. Participants in the trial, including the jury, were forced to run a gantlet of reporters and photographers each time they entered or left the courtroom. The total lack of consideration for the privacy of the jury was demonstrated by the assignment to a broadcasting station of space next to the jury room on the floor above the courtroom, as well as the fact that jurors were allowed to make telephone calls during their five-day deliberation.
VI.
There can be no question about the nature of the publicity which surrounded Sheppard’s trial. We agree, as did the Court of Appeals, with the findings in Judge Bell’s opinion for the Ohio Supreme Court
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are three wholly owned subsidiaries of Air Reduction Corporation (Aireo). They seek a determination of the question whether deficiencies in income and declared value excess profits taxes for the year 1938 found by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are properly chargeable to them. Their contention is that they are corporate agents of Aireo, that the income from their operations is income of Aireo, and that income and excess profits taxes must be determined on that basis.
By a series of combinations and dissolutions of previously acquired subsidiary companies, Aireo had, prior to 1938, reduced the number of its subsidiaries to four. All operated strictly in accordance with contracts with Aireo. The subsidiaries were utilized by Aireo as operating companies in the four major fields of operation in which it was engaged. Air Reduction Sales Company carried on the manufacture and sale of the gaseous constituents of air; National Carbide Corporation, the manufacture and sale of calcium carbide; Pure Carbonic, Inc., the manufacture and sale of carbon dioxide; and Wilson Welder & Metals Co., the manufacture and sale of welding machines, equipment and supplies.
The contracts between Aireo and its subsidiaries provided, in substance, that the latter were employed as agents to manage and operate plants designed for the production of the products assigned to each, and as agents to sell the output of the plants. Aireo was to furnish working capital, executive management and office facilities for its subsidiaries. They in turn agreed to pay Aireo all profits in excess of six percent on their outstanding capital stock, which in each case was nominal in amount. Title to the assets utilized by the subsidiaries was held by them, and amounts advanced by Aireo for the purchase of assets and working capital were shown on the books of the subsidiaries as accounts payable to Aireo. The value of the assets of each company thus approximated the amount owed to Aireo. No interest ran on .these accounts.
Aireo and its subsidiaries were organized horizontally into six overriding divisions: corporate, operations, sales, financial, distribution, and research. Officers heading each division were, in turn, officers of the subsidiaries. Top officials of Aireo held similar positions in the subsidiary companies. Directors of the subsidiaries met only to ratify the actions of the directors and officers of Aireo.
Aireo considered the profits turned over to it by the subsidiaries pursuant to the contracts as its own income and reported it as such. Petitioners reported as income only the six per cent return on capital that each was entitled to retain. Similarly, in declaring the value of their capital stock for declared value excess profits tax purposes, the subsidiaries reported only the nominal amounts at which the stock was carried on the books of each. The Commissioner notified petitioners of substantial income and excess profits tax deficiencies in their 1938 returns, having taken the position that they are taxable on the income turned over to Aireo as well as the nominal amounts retained. The Tax Court held, however, that the income from petitioners’ operations in excess of six per cent of their capital stock was income and property of Aireo. Three judges dissented. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 167 F. 2d 304. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 335 U. S. 810, because of this conflict of opinion and the disagreement between courts as to the continuing vitality of Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330 (1918).
Petitioners’ contention is, in substance, that our decision in Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U. S. 436 (1943), which held that the tax laws require taxation of the corporate entity if it engages in “business activity,” expressly excepted the situation in which the corporation is the agent of its owner; that Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, supra, defines the content of “agency” for tax purposes; and that, as the Tax Court found, this Court’s characterization of the relationship between the corporations in the Southern Pacific case is “aptly descriptive” of the relationship between Aireo and petitioners. It must follow, according to petitioners, that income received by them and transmitted to Aireo is taxable only to Aireo.
Respondent does not quarrel with the first and third propositions. The collision occurs at the second. The issue as presented by petitioners is, therefore, whether the principal-agent relationship described in the Southern Pacific case — and the similar arrangement between Aireo and petitioners — contains the “usual incidents of an agency relationship,” as that phrase was used in Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners’ contention that the Southern Pacific case established a concept of agency that has survived our later decisions may be dealt with rather summarily. That case treated income earned by a wholly owned subsidiary before March 1, 1913, the effective date of the Income Tax Act of 1913, as having accrued to its parent prior to that date despite the fact that the actual transfer of funds by declaration of dividends occurred subsequent thereto. The theory of the case was that the two corporations could be treated as identical, for the purposes of the 1913 Act, because of the complete domination and control exercised by the parent over its subsidiary.
By this decision, this Court is said to have “looked beyond the corporate form,” and ignored “the separate entity of a corporation.” Whatever the dialectics employed, courts and commentators have agreed that parent and subsidiary were treated as one corporation for the purposes of the taxes there-in question; transfer of earnings to the parent was merely “a paper transaction.” The Southern Pacific case did not, and did not purport to, rest on any principle of agency. The only reference to the subsidiary (Central Pacific) as an agent is made in this context:
. . the Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific were in substance identical because of the complete ownership and control which the latter possessed over the former, as stockholder and in other capacities. While the two companies were separate legal entities, yet in fact, and for all practical purposes they were merged, the former being but a part of the latter, acting merely as its agent and subject in all things to its proper direction and control.” 247 U. S. at 337.
It is thus clear beyond doubt that the subsidiary was not referred to as an agent of the parent in the usual or technical sense. “Agency” and “practical identity,” as those words are used in the Southern Pacific case, are unquestionably opposite sides of the same coin. The close relationship between corporations because of compíete ownership and control of one by the other was the basis for the result reached, whatever its articulation.
That basis has been repudiated by subsequent decisions of this Court. Whatever the vitality of Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe on its special facts, we have held that a corporation formed or operated for business purposes must share the tax burden despite substantial identity, in practical operation, with its owner. Complete ownership of the corporation, and the control primarily dependent upon such ownership — the important ingredients of the Southern Pacific case — are no longer of significance in determining taxability. Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co., 287 U. S. 415 (1932).
In both of the cases last cited, the agency argument now urged upon us was made and rejected. In both cases, Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, supra, was relied upon by the taxpayers. In both, we found that the contention that the corporation was the agent of its owner was simply the argument that the subsidiary had no corporate identity distinct from its stockholders in a different form. It is true that petitioners here do not ask that they be ignored completely for tax purposes. They are willing to pay taxes on the nominal amounts they retain as Airco’s “agents.” But this fact serves to emphasize the inapplicability of the Southern Pacific case, upon which they rely. There, as in Commonwealth Improvement Co. and Moline Properties cases, the decision turned upon the question whether the corporate entity was or was not to be completely ignored for tax purposes. If the Central Pacific had been accorded any tax status in the Southern Pacific case, it unquestionably would have been taxed on the entire income it received. In fact, it was so taxed upon all income received after March 1, 1913; only income received prior thereto was considered income of the parent directly.
We think, therefore, that petitioners’ argument is without merit because based on an erroneous interpretation of Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, supra. The agency argument, to quote the opinion in Moline Properties, “is basically the same argument of identity in a different form. . . . the question of agency or not depends upon the same legal issues as does the question of identity previously discussed.” Ownership of a corporation and the control incident thereto can have no different tax consequences when clothed in the garb of agency than when worn as a removable corporate veil.
But it is necessary to go farther. The Tax Court did not, as petitioners seem to think, consider the argument that they were agents- of Aireo as different from or having any greater validity than the argument of identity of Aireo and its subsidiaries. The court, in characterizing petitioners as Airco’s agents, used that term exactly as it had been used in the Southern Pacific, Commonwealth Improvement Co., and Moline Properties cases. According to the Tax Court’s opinion:
“The issue which [was decided] in this proceeding is whether, as the respondent has determined, the income from the operations of the three petitioners belonged not to Aireo, the parent, but to the petitioners, and was taxable to them; or whether, as the three petitioners contend, the income from the operations of the petitioners in 1938, exclusive of the small amounts paid to petitioners under the contracts, belonged and was taxable to Aireo, the parent company, both because the petitioners were in fact incorporated departments, divisions, or branches of Airco’s business and because the petitioners operated pursuant to express contract with Aireo.”
The theory upon which the Tax Court expunged the deficiencies apparently was that since the Southern Pacific Co. case was not expressly overruled by Moline Properties, the “business purpose” rule laid down in the latter is not absolute, but that the corporate entity may be disregarded (or the corporation treated as an agent of its owner) for tax purposes when the facts of ownership and control of the corporation approximate those presented by the Southern Pacific case. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that under our decisions, when a corporation carries on business activity the fact that the owner retains direction of its affairs down to the minutest detail, provides all of its assets and takes all of its profits can make no difference tax-wise. The court concluded that “Even though Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, supra, set up a different test, we regard it as pro tanto no longer controlling.”
The result reached by the Court of Appeals is clearly required by our later decisions. Our reluctance to erase Southern Pacific from the books has been due not to any belief that it lays down a correct rule for tax purposes generally, but to the fact that it concerns “very peculiar facts” which make it clearly distinguishable from later cases involving the tax status of a subsidiary or other wholly owned corporation. For that reason, we have, instead, held that it lays down no rule for tax purposes. Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co., supra at p. 419; Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at p. 439. That the concept of identity of the corporation with its owner set out in the Southern Pacific case is incompatible with later decisions of this Court may be demonstrated by a consideration of the facts enumerated and relied upon by the Tax Court, which based such reliance on the emphasis placed upon similar facts in the Southern Pacific case. These facts relate to the ownership, control, and right to income reserved by the parent.
So far as control is concerned, we can see no difference in principle between Airco’s control of petitioners and that exercised over Moline Properties, Inc., by its sole stockholder. Undoubtedly the great majority of corporations owned by sole stockholders are “dummies” in the sense that their policies and day-to-day activities are determined not as decisions of the corporation but by their owners acting individually. We can see no significance, therefore, in findings of fact such as, “The Aireo board held regular meetings and exercised complete domination and control over the business of Aireo and each of the petitioners,” and “The chairman, vice chairman, and president of Aireo were in charge of the administration and management of the activities of each petitioner and carried out the policies and directives with respect to each petitioner as promulgated by the Aireo board.” We reversed the Board of Tax Appeals in Moline Properties in the face of its finding that “Full beneficial ownership was in Thompson [the sole stockholder], who continued to manage and regard the property as his own individually.”
Some stress was placed by the Tax Court, and by petitioners in argument here, upon the form of ownership of assets adopted by Aireo and its subsidiaries. Petitioners’ capital stock was, as has been stated, nominal in amount. Assets of considerable value, to which title was held by the subsidiaries, were balanced by accounts payable to Aireo on the books of each. The Tax Court thought it material that “All assets held by each petitioner were furnished to it by Aireo, which paid for them with its own cash or stock. Aireo supplied all the working capital of each petitioner.”
If Aireo had supplied assets to its subsidiaries in return for stock valued at amounts equal to the value of the assets, no question could be raised as to the reality of ownership of the assets by the subsidiaries. Aireo would then have been in a position comparable, so far as ownership of the assets of petitioners is concerned, to that of the sole stockholder in Moline Properties. We think that it can make no difference that financing of the subsidiaries was carried out by means of book indebtednesses in lieu of increased book value of the subsidiaries’ stock. A corporation must derive its funds from three sources: capital contributions, loans, and profits from operations. The fact that Aireo, the sole stockholder, preferred to supply-funds to its subsidiaries primarily by the second method, rather than either of the other two, does not make the income earned by their utilization income to Aireo. We need not decide whether the funds supplied to petitioners by Aireo were capital contributions rather than loans. It is sufficient to say that the very factors which, as petitioners contend, show that Aireo “supplied” and “furnished” their assets also indicate that petitioners were the recipients of capital contributions rather than loans.
Nor do the contracts between Aireo and petitioners by which the latter agreed to pay all profits above a nominal return to the former, on that account, become “agency” contracts within the meaning of our decisions. The Tax Court felt that the fact that Aireo was entitled to the profits by contract shows that the income “belonged to Aireo” and should not, for that reason, be taxed to petitioners. Our decisions requiring that income be taxed to those who earn it, despite anticipatory agreements designed to prevent vesting of the income in the earners, foreclose this result. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930); Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U. S. 331 (1940); United States v. Joliet & Chicago R. Co., 315 U. S. 44 (1942); Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591 (1948). Of course one of the duties of a collection agent is to transmit the money he receives to his principal according to their agreement. But the fact that petitioners were required by contract to turn over the money received by them to Aireo, after deducting expenses and nominal profits, is no sure indication that they were mere collection agents. Such an agreement is entirely consistent with the corporation-sole stockholder relationship whether or not any agency exists, and with other relationships as well.
What we have said does not foreclose a true corporate agent or trustee from handling the property and income of its owner-principal without being taxable therefor. Whether the corporation operates in the name and for the account of the principal, binds the principal by its actions, transmits money received to the principal, and whether receipt of income is attributable to the services of employees of the principal and to assets belonging to the principal are some of the relevant considerations in determining whether a true agency exists. If the corporation is a true agent, its relations with its principal must not be dependent upon the fact that it is owned by the principal, if such is the case. Its business purpose must be the carrying on of the normal duties of an agent. Absence of the factors mentioned above, and the essentiality of ownership of the corporation to the existence of any “agency” relationship in the Moline Properties, Commonwealth Improvement Co., and Southern Pacific cases, indicate the fallacy of the agency argument made in those cases.
The same fallacy is apparent in the contention that petitioners are agents of Aireo. They claim that they should be taxable on net income aggregating only $1,350, despite the fact that during the tax year (1938) they owned assets worth nearly 20 million dollars, had net sales of approximately 22 million dollars, and earned nearly four and one-half million dollars net. Their employees number in the thousands. We have passed the question whether Airco’s interest in these assets is that of owner of the subsidiaries or lender, but whatever the answer, they do not belong to Aireo as principal. The entire earnings of petitioners, except for trifling amounts, are turned .over to Aireo not because the latter could command this income if petitioners were owned by third persons, but because it owns and thus completely dominates the subsidiaries. Aireo, for sufficient reasons of its own, wished to avoid the burdens of principalship. See Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Sheldon Building Corp. v. Commissioner, 118 P. 2d 835 (1941). Compare Forshay v. Commissioner, 20 B. T. A. 537 (1930). It cannot now escape the tax consequences of that choice, no matter how bona fide its motives or longstanding its arrangements. When we referred to the “usual incidents of an agency relationship” in the Moline Properties case, we meant just that — not the identity of ownership and control disclosed by the facts of this case.
We have considered the other arguments made by petitioners and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The substance of a typical subsidiary-parent contract is .as follows: “Aireo hereby employs Sales as its agent to manage and operate, during the term of this contract, all plants for the production of oxygen, acetylene arid other gases and for the manufacture of apparatus and containers for the utilization and transportation of such gases . . . ; and likewise employs Sales as its agent to market and sell, during the term of this contract, the output of all such plants. . . . Aireo agrees (1) to give Sales the use of all cylinders, containers, motor trucks, equipment, and shipping facilities, which it now owns or may hereafter acquire; (2) to supply such working capital as Sales may need; (3) to provide such executive management (but not accounting, bookkeeping and clerical service), and office accommodation and facilities, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of Sales business .... Sales agrees (1) to manage and operate ... all of said plants; (2) to maintain the same in first class condition, charging necessary repairs and replacements to operating expense and setting aside and charging to operating expense proper reserves for depreciation ... (3) to distribute, market and sell, the product manufactured in said plants as efficiently as possible ... (4) to pay all expenses of such operation, maintenance and selling, and to discharge all expenses or liabilities incurred therein or thereby and to collect all accounts receivable or other proceeds resulting therefrom; (5) to credit monthly on its books to Aireo all profits accruing to it from the operation of-its entire business over and above an amount equal to six per cent (6%) per annum on its outstanding capital stock, which said amount it is hereby authorized to deduct and retain, and it hereby agrees to accept as full compensation for its services hereunder; and (6) to pay over to Aireo upon demand any profits becoming due and credited to Aireo as aforesaid.”
Wilson Welder had a net deficit during the year here involved and is not a petitioner in this action.
Sales had outstanding 125 shares of stock of $100 par value; Carbide’s outstanding capital stock was 50 shares of $100 par value; Carbonic also had 50 shares of $100 par value.
Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation (1948 ed.), Vol. 10A, p. 237.
Finkelstein, The Corporate Entity and the Income Tax, 44 Yale L. J. 436, 448.
In Ballantine, Separate Entity of Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, 14 Cal L. Rev. 12, 18, the writer discusses this use of the agency concept as follows: “What is meant by such terms as ‘adjunct,’ ‘agency,’ ‘instrumentality,’ ‘creature’ or ‘mouthpiece’? What conditions must exist to warrant a court in treating the A corporation as the mere adjunct of the B corporation? The word ‘agency’ is often used as a synonym of ‘adjunct,’ whatever that may mean, and as descriptive of a relation variously defined in the cases as ‘alter ego,’ ‘alias,’ ‘device,’ ‘dummy,’ ‘branch,’ ‘tool,’ ‘corporate double,’ ‘business conduit,’ ‘instrumentality,’ etc., but all in the sense of ‘means’ through which a corporation’s own business is actively prosecuted.”
The case other than Southern Pacific relied upon by the Tax Court was Munson Steamship Line v. Commissioner, 77 F. 2d 849. That case was explained in Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, as depending upon a particular legislative purpose which justified disregarding the separate entity.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit P, No. 452, October Term 1917, is an income tax statement of the subsidiary, Central Pacific Co., showing payment of income taxes on $3,333,846.18, its total net income for 1913 less one-sixth (i. e., making an allowance for the two months before the income tax law went into effect March 1).
319 U. S. at 440-441.
8 T. C. 594, 611. After enumerating the facts considered pertinent, the court concluded: “It is true, of course, that, taken separately, some of the foregoing facts would not be sufficient in themselves to make inoperative the general rule that corporations are separate juristic persons and are to be so treated for tax purposes. We think, however, that when all these facts are viewed together they bring petitioners within the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, supra.” Id. at 614.
It should be added that the Court of Appeals, whose opinion was written by its Chief Judge, did not so much as mention the agency argument now made by petitioners. Its only references to agency were isolated quotations from the -Tax Court’s opinion and the contracts quoted in footnote 1. The court’s opinion phrases the question as “when a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent corporation shall be treated for purposes of income taxation as a separate taxable person, and when as merely a part of the corporate activities of the parent.” 167 F. 2d 304,305.
Id. at 307.
Two basic distinctions between the Southern Pacific case and subsequent cases (except Gulf Oil Co. v. Lewellyn, 248 U. S. 71 (1918), which followed Southern Pacific) are immediately apparent. First, the Southern Pacific case involved taxation of the parent-owner rather than the subsidiary corporation; second, the question was when the income had been earned, rather than who had earned it. The importance of these distinctions is indicated by the fact that the subsidiary paid income taxes upon income received subsequent to March 1, 1913 (see footnote 8, supra), and that the parent did not dispute its tax liability for dividends from post-1913 earnings of the subsidiary. The decision is based on an interpretation of the Income Tax Act of 1913. The Court felt that it was not the intent of the Act to tax earnings prior to the effective date of the Act, and that the Central Pacific’s pre-1913 income had actually accrued to the parent before the effective date of the Act. The opinion states that “The case turns upon its very peculiar facts, and is distinguishable from others in which the question of the identity of a controlling stockholder with his corporation has been raised.” 247 U. S. at 338-339. By its very terms, the decision is limited to its precise facts.
Much of the testimony introduced by petitioners had to do with the intercorporate relationship between Aireo and its subsidiaries, the use of certain facilities by two or more of the subsidiaries, the duties of various officers who held positions with Aireo and its subsidiaries, and the services performed for all of the subsidiaries by certain departments of Aireo. So far as this testimony shows the integration of the corporate system and its direction by Aireo, it is, as we have indicated, immaterial. So far as it indicates that the subsidiaries received the use of equipment and services for which they were not charged, it is relevant as showing that their income was distorted to that extent, but it does not indicate that the income received “belonged” to Aireo at the time of its receipt. The Commissioner made allowance for this distortion by allocating over $400,000 of the expenses reported by Aireo to petitioners under the authority given him by § 45 of the Revenue Act of 1938, 26 U. S. C. § 45.
45 B.T.A. 647, 650.
As a practical matter, a considerable part of the assets of petitioners was supplied out of profits from their operations. Even though assets were purchased directly out of the earnings of a subsidiary, however, the amount withdrawn was entered in the accounts payable by the subsidiary and in the accounts receivable of Aireo, since substantially all profits of the subsidiaries were, by contract, payable only to the parent.
Since petitioners were required to pay all profits except very small amounts to Aireo each year, it was obviously impossible for them to pay the accounts payable to Aireo. See note 15. Mr. C. E. Adams, Chairman of Air Reduction Corporation, testified that the assets of the subsidiaries represented by the accounts payable could be realized by Aireo only upon dissolution of the subsidiaries. In other words, there was never any expectation that the accounts would be paid prior to dissolution. Since no interest ran on these accounts, the “loans” were identical, except in name, with contributions of capital. See American Cigar Co. v. Commissioner, 66 F. 2d 425; Hoyt v. Commissioner, 145 F. 2d 634; Van Clief v. Helvering, 135 F. 2d 254; Reading Co. v. Commissioner, 132 F. 2d 306. Levy and Simonds, Stockholder Advances to Corporations — Are They Loans or Capital Contributions? 25 Taxes 127, 128, state that “intention to lend and expectation of repayment are necessary to the existence of a valid debt.” The fact that no interest ran on these “loans” is, of course, further indication that they are capital contributions. Berry Motor Car Co., B. T. A. Memo. Op. Dkt. 99962, Jan. 25, 1941.
Title to gas cylinders used by petitioners, amounting in value to about $13,000,000, was retained by Aireo, but the cylinders were used by the subsidiaries without charge. Whether these, too, were capital contributions we find it unnecessary to decide in this case. Free use of the cylinders by petitioners, if they were merely on loan, may have distorted the subsidiaries’ income beyond the allocations made by the Commissioner, but that problem is not before us.
Restatement of Agency, § 427.
In United States v. Joliet & Chicago R. Co., 315 U. S. 44 (1942), a lessee railroad agreed to pay rental payments to the lessor’s stockholders directly. The lessor thereafter carried on no active business. It was nevertheless held taxable on the income received by its stockholders, since they received the payments only because they held its stock.
Art. 22 (a)-l of Treasury Regulations 101, promulgated under the Revenue Act of 1938, provides:
“Art. 22(a)-l. What included, in gross income. — Gross income includes in general compensation for personal and professional services, business income, profits from sales of and dealings in property, interest, rent, dividends, and gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law. (See sections 22(b) and 116.) In general, income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. . . .” See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207 (1920); Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 519 (1921).
In the case of a subsidiary who supplies the labor and the capital with which the income is earned, as is true of petitioners here, it can hardly be contended that it did not earn the income.
Of course even a corporation which satisfies the usual tests of agency may be disregarded by the Commissioner if it is a sham or unreal. Higgins v. Smith, 308 U. S. 473 (1940); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465 (1935). Escaping taxation is not a “business” activity. See National Investors Corp. v. Hoey, 144 F. 2d 466.
The two main purposes for the adoption by Aireo of the corporate subsidiary method of operation, as related by Mr. C. E. Adams, Chairman of Air Reduction Corp., were these:
“Frankly, in 1918 and still, Air Reduction, Inc., was and is a New York corporation. Even at that early date it became evident, as I already said, we were going to have plants scattered all over the United States. We didn’t want to domicile the parent company in 48 states of the Union and have us subject to service in all those states, that is, have the parent company subject to service in all those states, and that was distinctly a reason for using this corporate setup in connection with operations to be run as divisions, just as the contract sets forth.
“Now, in addition to that, as a practical matter, out in the field and on the firing line, to have a representative, an officer, we will say, of Pure Carbonic, when trouble arises with a customer, a vice president of Pure Carbonic, who is not an officer of Air Reduction, Inc., at all, who goes in and straightens that out with that customer, increases his cudos [sic], helps him with all his negotiating efforts, with their competitors on the outside.”
It is thus apparent that Aireo was attempting to avoid the status of principal vis-á-vis its subsidiaries. As principal it would have been subject to service of process through its agents; as owner of the subsidiary it was not. See Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 391 (1907); Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Co., 267 U. S. 333 (1925). The purpose of having officers of subsidiaries who could deal directly with customers does not indicate an agency relationship. On the contrary, the very purpose of the organization adopted was to lead customers to believe that they were dealing with top men in the company actually manufacturing and selling the products they purchased.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners seek damages from the United States for the death of Henry G. Dalehite in explosions of fertilizer with an ammonium nitrate base, at Texas City, Texas, on April 16 and 17,1947. This is a test case, representing some 300 separate personal and property claims in the aggregate amount of two hundred million dollars. Consolidated trial was had in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas on the facts and the crucial question of federal liability generally. This was done under an arrangement that the result would be accepted as to those matters in the other suits. Judgment was rendered following separate proof of damages for these individual plaintiffs in the sum of $75,000. Damages in the other claims remain to be determined. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed, however, In re Texas City Disaster Litigation, 197 F. 2d 771, and we granted certiorari, 344 U. S. 873, because the case presented an important problem of federal statutory interpretation.
The suits were filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 2671-2678, 2680. That Act waived sovereign immunity from suit for certain specified torts of federal employees. It did not assure injured persons damages for all injuries caused by such employees.
The Act provides that the federal district courts, “[s]ubject to the provisions of [the act],” are to have:
“exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” § 1346 (b).
There is an exception from the scope of this provision. Section 2680 reads:
“The provisions of this chapter and section 1346 (b) of this title shall not apply to—
“(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”
Suing under this grant of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claimed negligence, substantially on the part of the entire body of federal officials and employees involved in a program of production of the material — Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate (FGAN hereafter) — in which the original fire occurred and which exploded. This fertilizer had been produced and distributed at the instance, according to the specifications and under the control of the United States.
The adaptability of the material for use in agriculture had been recognized long prior to 1947. The Government's interest in the matter began in 1943 when the TVA, acting under its statutory delegation to undertake experiments and “manufacture” fertilizer, 48 Stat. 61, 16 U. S. C. § 83Id, first began production for commercial purposes. TVA used plant facilities formerly used for production of ammonium nitrate for explosives. In the year 1943, the War Production Board, responsible for the production and allocation of war materials, Exec. Order 9024, January 16, 1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 329, instituted a program of yearly production of 30,000 tons a month of FGAN for private domestic agricultural use through plants no longer required for ammunition production. Administration was to be carried on through the Army’s Bureau of Ordnance. The TVA specifications were followed and advice given by its experts. This early production for domestic use furnished a test for manufacture and utility of FGAN.
The particular FGAN involved at Texas City came to be produced for foreign use for these reasons: Following the World War II hostilities, the United States’ obligations as an occupying power, and the danger of internal unrest, forced this Government to deal with the problem of feeding the populations of Germany, Japan and Korea. Direct shipment of foodstuffs was impractical; available fertilizer was in short supply, and requirements from the United States were estimated at about 800,000 tons. However, some 15 ordnance plants had been deactivated and turned over to the War Assets Administration, 44 CFR, 1949, Part 401, for disposal. Under Secretary of War Royall suggested in May of 1946, and Secretary Patterson agreed, that these be used for production of fertilizer needed for export. The Director of the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion, 58 Stat. 785, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1651 et seq. (1946 ed.), acting under the power delegated by the President in Exec. Order 9347, May 27, 1943, 8 Fed. Reg. 7207, and Exec. Order 9488, October 3, 1944, 9 Fed. Reg. 12145, ordered the plants into operation. Cabinet approval followed. The War Department allocated funds from its appropriations for “Supplies” and “Military Posts” for 1946; direct appropriations for relief in the occupied areas were made by Congress in the following year. The Army’s Chief of Ordnance was delegated the responsibility for carrying out the plan, and was authorized particularly to enter into cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts with private companies for the operation of the plants’ facilities. He in turn appointed the Field Director of Ammunition Plants (FDAP) to administer the program. Thereafter the Department entered into a number of contracts with private firms — including the du Pont Co. and Hercules Powder Co. — to “operate the installation... described herein for the graining of ammonium nitrate (fertilizer grade),” but subjecting “the work to be done by the Contractor... to the general supervision, direction, control and approval of the Contracting Officer.” A detailed set of specifications was drawn up and sent to each plant which included FDAP “Specifications for Products” and a similar TVA paper. Army personnel were appointed for each plant. These were responsible for the application of these specifications, liaison with supply officials, and satisfaction of production schedules, pursuant to an Army Standard Operating Procedure. Beyond this, operations were controlled by the administering corporation which supplied the personnel and production experience required.
FGAN’s basic ingredient was ammonium nitrate, long used as a component in explosives. Its adaptability as a fertilizer stemmed from its high free nitrogen content. Hercules Powder Company had first manufactured a fertilizer compound in this form on the basis of Cairns’ Explosive Patent, No. 2,211,738, of August 13, 1940. The Cairns process contemplates a product substantially identical to the Texas City FGAN. The process was licensed to the United States. The Government produced ammonium nitrate at certain other federal plants, and shipped it in solution to the reactivated graining centers for concentration. Thereafter, in addition to clay, a mixture of petrolatum, rosin and paraffin (PRP hereafter) was added to insure against caking through water absorption. The material was then grained to fertilizer specification, dried and packaged in 6-ply paper bags, marked “Fertilizer (Ammonium Nitrate).”
At the inception of the program, however, it appeared that these particular plants were unable to produce sufficient quantities of fertilizer to meet the early needs of the planned allocation. So early shipments to the occupied territories were made up of lots privately produced, and released to the War Department by the Combined Food Board and purchased by the United States, pursuant to an allocation arrangement approved by the Board acting through the Civilian Production Administration, established by Exec. Order 9638, October 4, 1946, 10 Fed. Reg. 12591. Thereafter the private producers could replenish their supply for private sale by purchasing government-produced FGAN, if they so desired.
The particular FGAN transported to Texas City had been produced at three of the plants activated by the Government for the foreign fertilizer program, and allotted to the Lion Oil Co., which had previously sold FGAN to the Army pursuant to their sell-back agreement. The agreement provided that title was to pass to Lion on payment. The original contract of sale to the Army having provided that Lion could designate a recipient other than itself for the replacement FGAN, Lion contracted with the Walsen Company for resale. Walsen operated as broker for the French Supply Council representing the French Government which had secured a preferential fertilizer allocation from the Civilian Production Administration. Pursuant thereto Walsen transmitted the French shipping orders to Lion who turned them over to the Army for execution. The FGAN was consigned to the French Supply Council at Texas City by government bills of lading. The Council insured the shipment in its own name, arranged for credit with New York banks and assigned part thereof to Lion, sufficient to cover the shipments here involved, payable on presentation of shipping documents. It also directed Lion to “consign all lots French Supply Council for storage and eventual exportation Texas City Terminal Texas.”
By April 15, 1947, following three weeks’ warehouse storage at Texas City on orders of the French Council, some 1,850 tons of the FGAN thus resold had been loaded on the French Government-owned steamship Orandcamp, and some 1,000 tons on the privately owned High Flyer by independent stevedores hired by the French. The Orandcamp carried in addition a substantial cargo of explosives, and the High Flyer 2,000 tons of sulphur at the time. At about 8:15 a. m. of the next day-smoke was sighted in the Grandcamp hold and all efforts to halt the fire were unavailing. Both ships exploded and much of the city was leveled and many people killed.
Since no individual acts of negligence could be shown, the suits for damages that resulted necessarily predicated government liability on the participation of the United States in the manufacture and the transportation of FGAN. Following the disaster, of course, no one could fail to be impressed with the blunt fact that FGAN would explode. In sum, petitioners charged that the Federal Government had brought liability on itself for the catastrophe by using a material in fertilizer which had been used as an ingredient of explosives for so long that industry knowledge gave notice that other combinations of ammonium nitrate with other material might explode. The negligence charged was that the United States, without definitive investigation of FGAN properties, shipped or permitted shipment to a congested area without warning of the possibility of explosion under certain conditions. The District Court accepted this theory. His judgment was based on a series of findings of causal negligence which, for our purposes, can be roughly divided into three kinds — those which held that the Government had been careless in drafting and adopting the fertilizer export plan as a whole, those which found specific negligence in various phases of the manufacturing process and those which emphasized official dereliction of duty in failing to police the shipboard loading. The Court of Appeals en banc unanimously reversed, but since only three of the six judges explicitly rejected the bulk of these findings, we shall consider the case as one in which they come to us unimpaired. Cf. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 340 U. S. 498, 503; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395. Even assuming their correctness arguendo, though, it is our judgment that they do not establish a case within the Act. This is for the reason that as a matter of law the facts found cannot give the District Court jurisdiction of, the cause under the Tort Claims Act.
I.jjrhe Federal Tort Claims Act was passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress in 1946 as Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act, 60 Stat. 842, after nearly thirty years of congressional consideration. It was the offspring of a feeling that the Government should assume the obligation to pay damages for the misfeasance of employees in carrying out its work. And the private bill device was notoriously clumsy. Some simplified recovery procedure for the mass of claims was imperative. This Act was Congress’ solution, affording instead easy and simple access to the federal courts for torts within its scope.
“In the Seventy-seventh Congress, of the 1,829 private claim bills introduced and referred to the Claims Committee, 593 were approved for a total of $1,000,253.30. In the Seventy-eighth Congress 1,644 bills were introduced; 549 of these were approved for a total of $1,355,767.12.” H. It. Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.
The meaning of the governmental regulatory function exception from suits, § 2680 (a), shows most clearly in the history of the Tort Claims Bill in the Seventy-seventh Congress,r! The Seventy-ninth, which passed the Act, held no relevant hearings. Instead, it integrated the language of the Seventy-seventh Congress, which had first considered the exception, into the Legislative Reorganization Act as Title IV.
Earlier tort claims bills considered by Congress contained reservations from the abdication of sovereign immunity. Prior to 1942 these exceptions were couched in terms of specific spheres of federal activity, such as postal service, the activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the collection of taxes. In 1942, however, the Seventy-seventh Congress drafted a twofold elimination of claims based on the execution of a regulation or statute or on the exercise of a discretionary function. The language of the bills then introduced in both the House and Senate, in fact, was identical with that of § 2680 (a) as adopted. ^The exception was drafted as.a clarifying amendment to the House bill to assure protection for the Government against tort liability for errors in administration or in the exercise of discretionary functions. An Assistant Attorney General, appearing before the Committee especially for that purpose, explained it as avoiding “any possibility that the act may be construed to authorize damage suits against the Government growing out of a legally authorized activity,” merely because “the same conduct by a private individual would be tortious.” It was not “intended that the constitutionality of legislation, the legality of regulations, or the propriety of a discretionary administrative act, should be tested through the medium of a damage suit for tort. The same holds true of other administrative action not of a regulatory nature, such as the expenditure of Federal funds, the execution of a Federal project and the like.” Referring to a prior bill which had not contained the “discretionary function” exemption, the House Committee on the Judiciary was advised that “the cases embraced within [the new] subsection would have been exempted from [the prior bill] by judicial construction. It is not probable that the courts would extend a Tort Claims Act into the realm of the validity of legislation or discretionary administrative action, but H. R. 6463 makes this specific.”
The legislative history indicates that while Congress desired to waive the Government’s immunity from actions for injuries to person and property occasioned by the tortious conduct of its agents acting within their scope of business, it was not contemplated that the Government should be subject to liability arising from acts of a governmental nature or function. Section 2680 (a) draws this distinction/! Uppermost in the collective mind of Congress were the ordinary common-law torts. Of these, the example which is reiterated in the course of the repeated proposals for submitting the United States to tort liability is “negligence /n the operation of vehicles.” On the other hand (the Committee’s reports explain the boundaries of the sovereign immunity waived, as defined by this. § 2680 exception, with one paragraph which appears time and again after 1942, and in the House Report of the Congress that adopted in § 2680 (a) the limitation in the language proposed for the 77th Congress. Jit was.adopted by the Committee in almost the language of the Assistant Attorney General’s explanation. This paragraph characterizes the general exemption as “a highly important exception, intended to preclude any possibility that the bill might be construed to authorize suit for damages against the Government growing out of an authorized activity, such as a flood-control or irrigation project, where no negligence on the part of any Government agent is shown, and the only ground for suit is the contention that the same conduct by a private individual would be tortious.... The bill is not intended to authorize a suit for damages to test the validity of or provide a remedy on account of such discretionary acts even though negligently performed and involving an abuse of discretion.”
II. Turning to the interpretation of the Act, our reasoning as to its applicability to this disaster starts from the accepted jurisprudential principle that no action lies against the United States unless the legislature has authorized it. The language of the Act makes the United States liable “respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. § 2674. This statute is another example of the progressive relaxation by legislative enactments of the rigor of the immunity rule. Through such statutes that change the law, organized government expresses the social purposes that motivate its legislation. Of course, these modifications are entitled to a construction that will accomplish their aim, that is, one that will carry out the legislative purpose of allowing suits against the Government for negligence with due regard for the statutory exceptions to that policy. In interpreting the exceptions to the generality of the grant, courts include only those circumstances which are within the words and reason of the exception. They cannot do less since petitioners obtain their “right to sue from Congress [and they] necessarily must take it subject to such restrictions as have been imposed.” Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 309 U. S. 242, 251.
So, our decisions have interpreted the Act to require clear relinquishment of sovereign immunity to give jurisdiction for tort actions. Where jurisdiction was clear, though, we have allowed recovery despite arguable procedural objections.
One only need read § 2680 in its entirety to conclude that Congress exercised care to protect the Government from claims, however negligently caused, that affected the governmental functions. Negligence in administering the Alien Property Act, or in establishing a quarantine, assault, libel, fiscal operations, etc., was barred. An analysis of § 2680 (a), the exception with which we are concerned, emphasizes the congressional purpose to except the acts here charged as negligence from the authorization to sue. It will be noted from the form of the section, see p. 18, supra, that there are two phrases describing the excepted acts of government employees. The first deals with acts or omissions of government employees, exercising due care in carrying out statutes or regulations whether valid or not. It bars tests by tort action of the legality of statutes and regulations. The second is applicable in this case. It excepts acts of discretion in the performance of governmental functions or duty “whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” Not only agencies of government are covered but all employees exercising discretion. It is clear that the just-quoted clause as to abuse connotes both negligence and wrongful acts in the exercise of the discretion because the Act itself covers only “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee,” “within the scope of his office” “where the United States, if a private person, would be liable.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (b). The exercise of discretion could not be abused without negligence or a wrongful act. The Committee reports, note 21, supra, show this. They say § 2680 (a) is to preclude action for “abuse of discretionary authority... whether or not negligence is alleged to have been involved.” They speak of excepting a “remedy on account of such discretionary acts even though negligently performed and involving an abuse of discretion.”
So we know that the draftsmen did not intend it to relieve the Government from liability for such common-law torts as an automobile collision caused by the negligence of an employee, see p. 28, supra, of the administering agency. We know it was intended to cover more than the administration of a statute or regulation because it appears disjunctively in the second phrase of the section. The “discretion” protected by the section is not that of the judge — a power to decide within the limits of positive rules of law subject to judicial review. It is the discretion of the executive or the administrator to act according to one’s judgment of the best course, a concept of substantial historical ancestry in American law.
This contention is met by petitioners with these arguments:
“To accept the foregoing close and narrow reasoning [of the Court of Appeals], which is unrealistic, is to say that a program and undertaking and operation, however like it may be to some private corporation or operation such as the manufacture of an explosive, is nevertheless throughout discretionary, if the concept thereof is born in discretion.... Petitioners assert that in the manufacturing... of FGAN,... the Government was not charged with any discretionary function or opportunity of discretion, but was charged with the duty of due and reasonable care.
“This Court has always applied the theory of discretionary function only to the executive and legislative levels, and has made such function the basis of freedom from interference by the courts a personal one to the particular executive or the legislative branch. Such discretionary function may not be delegated down to subordinates and to others.”
“The Government’s argument, adopted by Judge Rives, is that the responsible Government employees were choosing between alternative courses of action in the steps they took.... The argument is that the alleged negligence was in the exercise of 'discretion’ simply because it involved a choice.
“The negligence involved here was far removed from any Cabinet decision to provide aid to Germans and Japanese.... It is directed only to the mistakes of judgment and the careless oversight of Government employees who were carrying out a program of manufacturing and shipping fertilizer and who failed to concern themselves as a reasonable man should with the safety of others.... Congress delegated to Ordnance no 'discretion’ thus to commit wrong.”
) It is unnecessary to define, apart from this case, precisely where discretion ends. It is enough to hold, as we do, that the “discretionary function or duty” that cannot form a basis for suit under the Tort Claims Act includes more than the initiation of programs and activities. It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations. Where there is room for policy judgment and decision there is discretion. It necessarily follows that acts of subordinates in carrying out the operations of government in accordance with official directions cannot be actionable. If it were not so, the protection of § 2680 (a) would fail at the time it would be needed, that is, when a subordinate performs or fails to perform a causal step, each action or nonaction being directed by the superior, exercising, perhaps abusing, discretion.^
III. That the cabinet-level decision to institute the fertilizer export program was a discretionary act is not seriously disputed. Nor do we think that there is any doubt that the need for further experimentation with FGAN to determine the possibility of its explosion, under conditions likely to be encountered in shipping, and its combustibility was a matter to be determined by the discretion of those in charge of the production. Obviously, having manufactured and shipped the commodity FGAN for more than three years without even minor accidents, the need for further experimentation was a matter of discretion. Reported instances of heating or bag damage were investigated and experiments, to the extent deemed necessary, were carried on. In dealing with ammonium nitrate in any form, the industry, and of course Ordnance, were well aware that care must be taken. The best indication of the care necessary came from experience in FGAN production. The TVA had produced FGAN since 1943, and their experience, as we have indicated, pp. 18-20, was not only available to Ordnance but was used by them to the most minute detail. It is, we think, just such matters of governmental duties that were excepted from the Act.
¿We turn, therefore, to the specific acts of negligence charged in the manufacture. Each was in accordance with, and done under, specifications and directions as to how the FGAN^was produced at the plants. The basic “Plan” was drafted by the office of the Field Director of Ammunition Plants in June, 1946, prior to beginning production. It was drawn up in the light of prior experience by private enterprise and the TYA. In fact it was, as we have pointed out, based on the latter agency’s engineering techniques, and specifically adopted the TVA process description and specifications. This Plan was distributed to the various plants at'the inception of the program.
Besides its general condemnation of the manufacture of FGAN, the District Court cited four specific acts of negligence in manufacture. Each of these acts looked upon as negligence was directed by this Plan. Applicable excerpts follow. Bagging temperature was fixed. The type of bagging and the labeling thereof were also established. The PRP coating, too, was included in the specifications. The acts found to have been negligent were thus.performed under the direction of a plan developed at a high level under a direct delegation of plan-making authority from the apex of the Executive Department. The establishment of this Plan, delegated to the Field Director’s Office^ supra, p. 20, [clearly required the exercise of expert judgmentT]
This is to be seen, for instance, in the matter of the coating. The PRP was added in order to insure against water absorption. At stake was no mere matter of taste; ammonium nitrate when wet cakes and is difficult to spread on fields as a fertilizer. So the considerations that dictated the decisions were crucial ones, involving the feasibility of the program itself, balanced against present knowledge of the effect of such a coating and the general custom of similar private industries.
And, assuming that high bagging temperatures in fact obtained as the District Court found, the decision to bag at the temperature fixed was also within the exception. Maximum bagging temperatures were first established under the TYA specifications. That they were the product of an exercise of judgment, requiring consideration of a vast spectrum of factors, including some which touched directly the feasibility of the fertilizer export program, is clear. For instance, it appears several times in the record that the question of bagging temperatures was discussed by the Army plant officials, among others. In January, 1947, the Bureau of Explosives of the Association of American Railroads wrote to Ordnance concerning a boxcar fire of FGAN. The letter suggested a reduction of bagging temperatures. The Field Director of Ammunition Plants consulted the commanding officers on the matter. Those of two of the plants which manufactured the Texas City FGAN replied that loading was effected at about 200°. Both, however, recommended that reduced temperatures would be inadvisable. It would be possible to keep the product in graining kettles for a longer period or to install cooling equipment. But both methods would result in greatly increased production costs and/or greatly reduced production. This kind of decision is not one which the courts, under the Act, are empowered to cite as “negligence”; especially is this so in the light of the contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of FGAN.
As well, serious judgment was involved in the specification of the bag labels and bills of lading. The importance of this rests on the fact that it is the latest point in time and geography when the Government did anything directly related to the fire, for after bagging the FGAN was of course physically in the hands of various non-governmental agents. So, since there was serious room for speculation that the most direct operative fact causing the immediate fire on the Grandcamp arose from errors that the French Council, longshoremen or ship staff committed, it was and is important for the petitioners to emphasize the seriousness of the alleged labeling mistake.
This, too, though, falls within the exception for acts of discretion. The Plan had been prepared in this regard by the Transportation Officer of the Director’s Office. His decision in the matter was dictated by the ICC regulations. These did not provide for a specific classification for the material other than as fertilizer. Labeling it as anything but “oxidizing material” was not required — indeed was probably forbidden — and even this requirement was waived for bags of less than 200 pounds. To the extent, then, that the Army had a choice in the matter, its decision not to seek to list its FGAN in any other fashion was within the exception. The immunity of a decision as to labeling, in fact, is quite clearly shown by the fact that the ICC’s regulations, for instance, could not be attacked by claimants under the Act by virtue of the first phrase of § 2680 (a).
4n short, the alleged “negligence” does not subject the Government to liability. The decisions held culpable were all responsibly made at a planning rather than operational level and involved considerations more or less important to the practicability of the Government’s fertilizer program. J
“There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable,” MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382, 389, 111 N. E. 1050, 1053. Here, nothing so startling was adduced. The entirety of the evidence compels the view that FGAN was a material that former experience showed could be handled safely in the manner it was handled here. Even now no one has suggested that the ignition of FGAN was anything but a complex result of the interacting factors of mass, heat, pressure and composition.
IY. The findings of negligence on the part of the Coast Guard in failing to supervise the storage of the FGAN, and in fighting the fire after it started, were rejected by a majority of the Court of Appeals. 197 F. 2d, at 777, 780, 781. We do not enter into an examination of these-factual findings. We prefer, again, to rest our decision on the Act.
The District Court’s holding that the Coast Guard and other agencies were negligent in failing to prevent the fire by regulating storage or loading of the fertilizer in some different fashion is like his specific citations of negligence discussed above. They are classically within the exception. “The power to adopt regulations or bylaws... for the preservation of the public health, or to pass ordinances prescribing and regulating the duties of policemen and firemen... are generally regarded as discretionary, because, in their nature, they are legislative.” Weightman v. Corporation of Washington, 1 Black 39, 49. The courts have traditionally refused to question the judgments on which they are based. Zywicki v. Jos. R. Foard Co., 206 F. 975; Gutowski v. Mayor of Baltimore, 127 Md. 502, 96 A. 630; State v. General Stevedoring Co., 213 F. 51.
As to the alleged failure in fighting the fire, we think this too without the Act. The Act did not create new causes of action where none existed before.
“... the liability assumed by the Government here is that created by 'all the circumstances,’ not that which a few of the circumstances might create. We find no parallel liability before, and we think no new one has been created by, this Act. Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.” Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, 142.
It did not change the normal rule that an alleged failure or carelessness of public firemen does not create private actionable rights. Our analysis of the question is determined by what was said in the Feres case. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 and 2674. The Act, as was there stated, limited United States liability to “the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. § 2674. Here, as there, there is no analogous liability; in fact, if anything is doctrinally sanctified in the law of torts it is the immunity of communities and other public bodies for injuries due to fighting fire. This case, then, is much stronger than Feres. We pointed out only one state decision which denied government liability for injuries incident to service to one in the state militia. That cities, by maintaining fire-fighting organizations, assume no liability for personal injuries resulting from their lapses is much more securely entrenched. The Act, since it relates to claims to which there is no analogy in general tort law, did not adopt a different rule. See Steitz v. City of Beacon, 295 N. Y. 51, 64 N. E. 2d 704. To impose liability for the alleged nonfeasance of the Coast Guard would be like holding the United States liable in tort for failure to impose a quarantine for, let us say, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
V. Though the findings of specific and general negligence do not support a judgment of government liability, there is yet to be disposed of some slight residue of theory of absolute liability without fault. This is reflected both in the District Court’s finding that the FGAN constituted a nuisance, and in the contention of petitioners here. We agree with the six judges of the Court of Appeals, 197 F. 2d 771, 776, 781, 786, that the Act does not extend to such situations, though of course well known in tort law generally. It is to be invoked only on a “negligent or wrongful act or omission” of an employee. Absolute liability, of course, arises irrespective of how the tortfeasor conducts himself; it is imposed automatically when any damages are sustained as a result of the decision to engage in the dangerous activity. The degree of care used in performing the activity is irrelevant to the application of that doctrine. But the statute requires a negligent act. So it is our judgment that liability does not arise by virtue either of United States ownership of an “inherently dangerous commodity” or property, or of engaging in an “extra-hazardous” activity. United States v. Hull, 195 F. 2d 64, 67.
Petitioners rely on the word “wrongful” though as showing that something in addition to negligence is covered. This argument, as we have pointed out, does not override the fact that the Act does require some brand of misfeasance or nonfeasance, and so could not extend to liability without fault; in addition, the legislative history of the word indicates clearly that it was not added to the jurisdictional grant with any overtones of the absolute liability theory. Rather, Committee discussion indicates that it had a much narrower inspiration: “trespasses” which might not be considered strictly negligent. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 2690, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 43-44. Had an absolute liability theory been intended to have been injected into the Act, much more suitable models could have been found, see e. g., the Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. §§ 742-743, in regard to maintenance and cure. Street, Tort Liability of the State: The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Crown Proceedings Act, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 341, 350.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
The District Court’s analysis of the specific aspects of the manufacture was foreshadowed by his theory of the foreseeability of the risk which he set out early in the findings. His first finding of fact contained these words: “This record discloses blunders, mistakes, and acts of negligence, both of omission and commission, on the part of Defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, in deciding to begin
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On occasion, a would-be doctrinal rule or test finds its way into our case law through simple repetition of a phrase— however fortuitously coined. A quarter century ago, in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255 (1980), the Court declared that government regulation of private property “effects a taking if [such regulation] does not substantially advance legitimate state interests____” Id., at 260. Through reiteration in a half dozen or so decisions since Agins, this language has been ensconced in our Fifth Amendment takings jurisprudence. See Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U. S. 687, 704 (1999) (citing cases).
In the case before us, the lower courts applied Agins’ “substantially advances” formula to strike down a Hawaii statute that limits the rent that oil companies may charge to dealers who lease service stations owned by the companies. The lower courts held that the rent cap effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because it does not substantially advance Hawaii’s asserted interest in controlling retail gasoline prices. This case requires us to decide whether the “substantially advances” formula announced in Agins is an appropriate test for determining whether a regulation effects a Fifth Amendment taking. We conclude that it is not.
I
The State of Hawaii, whose territory comprises an archipelago of 132 islands clustered in the midst of the Pacific Ocean, is located over 1,600 miles from the U. S. mainland and ranks among the least populous of the 50 States. Because of Hawaii’s small size and geographic isolation, its wholesale market for oil products is highly concentrated. When this lawsuit began in 1997, only two refineries and six gasoline wholesalers were doing business in the State. As of that time, respondent Chevron U. S. A. Inc. was the largest refiner and marketer of gasoline in Hawaii: It controlled 60 percent of the market for gasoline produced or refined in-state and 30 percent of the wholesale market on the State’s most populous island, Oahu.
Gasoline is sold at retail in Hawaii from about 300 different service stations. About half of these stations are leased from oil companies by independent lessee-dealers, another 75 or so are owned and operated by “open” dealers, and the remainder are owned and operated by the oil companies. Chevron sells most of its product through 64 independent lessee-dealer stations. In a typical lessee-dealer arrangement, Chevron buys or leases land from a third party, builds a service station, and then leases the station to a dealer on a turnkey basis. Chevron charges the lessee-dealer a monthly rent, defined as a percentage of the dealer’s margin on retail sales of gasoline and other goods. In addition, Chevron requires the lessee-dealer to enter into a supply contract, under which the dealer agrees to purchase from Chevron whatever is necessary to satisfy demand at the station for Chevron’s product. Chevron unilaterally sets the wholesale price of its product.
The Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 257 in June 1997, apparently in response to concerns about the effects of market concentration on retail gasoline prices. See 1997 Haw. Sess. Laws no. 257, § 1. The statute seeks to protect independent dealers by imposing certain restrictions on the ownership and leasing of service stations by oil companies. It prohibits oil companies from converting existing lessee-dealer stations to company-operated stations and from locating new company-operated stations in close proximity to existing dealer-operated stations. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§486H-10.4(a), (b) (1998 Cum. Supp.). More importantly for present purposes, Act 257 limits the amount of rent that an oil company may charge a lessee-dealer to 15 percent of the dealer’s gross profits from gasoline sales plus 15 percent of gross sales of products other than gasoline. § 486H-10.4(c).
Thirty days after Act 257’s enactment, Chevron sued the Governor and Attorney General of Hawaii in their official capacities (collectively Hawaii) in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, raising several federal constitutional challenges to the statute. As pertinent here, Chevron claimed that the statute’s rent cap provision, on its face, effected a taking of Chevron’s property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Chevron sought a declaration to this effect as well as an injunction against the application of the rent cap to its stations. Chevron swiftly moved for summary judgment on its takings claim, arguing that the rent cap does not substantially advance any legitimate government interest. Hawaii filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all of Chevron’s claims.
To facilitate resolution of the summary judgment motions, the parties jointly stipulated to certain relevant facts. They agreed that Act 257 reduces by about $207,000 per year the aggregate rent that Chevron would otherwise charge on 11 of its 64 lessee-dealer stations. On the other hand, the statute allows Chevron to collect more rent than it would otherwise charge at its remaining 53 lessee-dealer stations, such that Chevron could increase its overall rental income from all 64 stations by nearly $1.1 million per year. The parties further stipulated that, over the past 20 years, Chevron has not fully recovered the costs of maintaining lessee-dealer stations in any State through rent alone. Rather, the company recoups its expenses through a combination of rent and product sales. Finally, the joint • stipulation states that Chevron has earned in the past, and anticipates that it will continue to earn under Act 257, a return on its investment in lessee-dealer stations in Hawaii that satisfies any constitutional standard.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Chevron, holding that “Act 257 fails to substantially advance a legitimate state interest, and as such, effects an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Cayetano, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1014 (1998). The District Court accepted Hawaii’s argument that the rent cap was intended to prevent concentration of the retail gasoline market — and, more importantly, resultant high prices for consumers — by maintaining the viability of independent lessee-dealers. Id,., at 1009-1010. The court concluded that the statute would not substantially advance this interest, however, because it would not actually reduce lessee-dealers’ costs or retail prices. It found that the rent cap would allow incumbent lessee-dealers, upon transferring occupancy rights to a new lessee, to charge the incoming lessee a premium reflecting the value of the rent reduction. Accordingly, the District Court reasoned, the incoming lessee’s overall expenses would be the same as in the absence of the rent cap, so there would be no savings to pass along to consumers. Id., at 1010-1012. Nor would incumbent lessees benefit from the rent cap, the court found, because the oil company lessors would unilaterally raise wholesale fuel prices in order to offset the reduction in their rental income. Id., at 1012-1014.
On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court had applied the correct legal standard to Chevron’s takings claim. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Cayetano, 224 F. 3d 1030, 1033-1037 (2000). The Court of Appeals vacated the grant of summary judgment, however, on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the Act would benefit consumers. Id., at 1037-1042. Judge William Fletcher concurred in the judgment, maintaining that the “reasonableness” standard applicable to “ordinary rent and price control laws” should instead govern Chevron’s claim. Id., at 1048.
On remand, the District Court entered judgment for Chevron after a 1-day bench trial in which Chevron and Hawaii called competing expert witnesses (both economists) to testify. 198 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (2002). Finding Chevron’s expert witness to be “more persuasive” than the State’s expert, the District Court once again concluded that oil companies would raise wholesale gasoline prices to offset any rent reduction required by Act 257, and that the result would be an increase in retail gasoline prices. Id., at 1187-1189. Even if the rent cap did reduce lessee-dealers’ costs, the court found, they would not pass on any savings to consumers. Id., at 1189. The court went on to reiterate its determination that Act 257 would enable incumbent lessee-dealers to sell their leaseholds at a premium, such that incoming lessees would not obtain any of the benefits of the rent cap. Id., at 1189-1190. And while it acknowledged that the rent cap could preclude oil companies from constructively evicting dealers through excessive rents, the court found no evidence that Chevron or any other oil company would attempt to charge such rents in the absence of the cap. Id., at 1191. Finally, the court concluded that Act 257 would in fact decrease the number of lessee-dealer stations because the rent cap would discourage oil companies from building such stations. Id., at 1191-1192. Based on these findings, the District Court held that “Act 257 effected] an unconstitutional regulatory taking given its failure to substantially advance any legitimate state interest.” Id., at 1193.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that its decision in the prior appeal barred Hawaii from challenging the application of the “substantially advances” test to Chevron’s takings claim or from arguing for a more deferential standard of review. 363 F. 3d 846, 849-855 (2004). The panel majority went on to reject Hawaii’s challenge to the application of the standard to the facts of the case. Id., at 855-858. Judge Fletcher dissented, renewing his contention that Act 257 should not be reviewed under the “substantially advances” standard. Id., at 859-861. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 924 (2004), and now reverse.
II
A
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, see Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897), provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As its text makes plain, the Takings Clause “does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power.” First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 314 (1987). In other words, it “is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.” Id., at 315 (emphasis in original). While scholars have offered various justifications for this regime, we have emphasized its role in “bar[ring] Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960); see also Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 325 (1893).
The paradigmatic taking requiring just compensation is a direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property. See, e. g., United States v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U. S. 114 (1951) (Government’s seizure and operation of a coal mine to prevent a national strike of coal miners effected a taking); United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 (1945) (Government’s occupation of private warehouse effected a taking). Indeed, until the Court’s watershed decision in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 (1922), “it was generally thought that the Takings Clause reached only a ‘direct appropriation’ of property, or the functional equivalent of a ‘practical ouster of [the owner’s] possession.’” Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1014 (1992) (citations omitted and emphasis added; brackets in original); see also id., at 1028, n. 15 (“[E]arly constitutional theorists did not believe the Takings Clause embraced regulations of property at all”).
Beginning with Mahon, however, the Court recognized that government regulation of private property may, in some instances, be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster — and that such “regulatory takings” may be compensable under the Fifth Amendment. In Justice Holmes’ storied but cryptic formulation, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” 260 U. S., at 415. The rub, of course, has been — and remains — how to discern how far is “too far.” In answering that question, we must remain cognizant that “government regulation — by definition — involves the adjustment of rights for the' public good,” Andrus v. Allard, 444 U. S. 51, 65 (1979), and that “Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not.be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law,” Mahon, supra, at 413.
Our precedents stake out two categories of regulatory action that generally will be deemed per se takings for Fifth Amendment purposes. First, where government requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her property — however minor — it must provide just compensation. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982) (state law requiring landlords to permit cable companies to install cable facilities in apartment buildings effected a taking). A second categorical rule applies to regulations that completely deprive an owner of “all economically beneficial us[e]” of her property. Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1019 (emphasis in original). We held in Lucas that the government must pay just compensation for such “total regulatory takings,” except to the extent that “background principles of nuisance and property law” independently restrict the owner’s intended use of the property. Id., at 1026-1032.
Outside these two relatively narrow categories (and the special context of land-use exactions discussed below, see infra, at 546-548), regulatory takings challenges are governed by the standards set forth in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978). The Court in Penn Central acknowledged that it had hitherto been “unable to develop any ‘set formula’ ” for evaluating regulatory takings claims, but identified “several factors that have particular significance.” Id., at 124. Primary among those factors are “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” Ibid. In addition, the “character of the governmental action” — for instance whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through “some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good” — may be relevant in discerning whether a taking has occurred. Ibid. The Penn Central factors — though each has given rise to vexing subsidiary questions — have served as the principal guidelines for resolving regulatory takings claims that do not fall within the physical takings or Lucas rules. See, e. g., Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U. S. 606, 617-618 (2001); id., at 632-634 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
Although our regulatory takings jurisprudence cannot be characterized as unified, these three inquiries (reflected in Loretto, Lucas, and Penn Central) share a common touchstone. Each aims to identify regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain. Accordingly, each of these tests focuses directly upon the severity of the burden that government imposes upon private property rights. The Court has held that physical takings require compensation because of the unique burden they impose: A permanent physical invasion, however minimal the economic cost it entails, eviscerates the owner’s right to exclude others from entering and using her property — perhaps the most fundamental of all property interests. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 384 (1994); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, 831-832 (1987); Loretto, supra, at 433; Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979). In the Lucas context, of course, the complete elimination of a property’s value is the determinative factor. See Lucas, supra, at 1017 (positing that “total, deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner’s point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation”). And the Penn Central inquiry turns in large part, albeit not exclusively, upon the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.
B
In Agins v. City of Tiburon, a case involving a facial takings challenge to certain municipal zoning ordinances, the Court declared that “[t]he application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, see Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, 188 (1928), or denies an owner economically viable use of his land, see Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 138, n. 36 (1978).” 447 U. S., at 260. Because this statement is phrased in the disjunctive, Agins’ “substantially advances” language has been read to announce a stand-alone regulatory takings test that is wholly independent of Penn Central or any other test. Indeed, the lower courts in this case struck down Hawaii’s rent control statute based solely upon their findings that it does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest. See supra, at 534, 536. Although a number of our takings precedents have recited the “substantially advances” formula minted in Agins, this is our first opportunity to consider its validity as a freestanding takings test. We conclude that this formula prescribes an inquiry in the nature of a due process, not a takings, test, and that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.
There is no question that the “substantially advances” formula was derived from due process, not takings, precedents. In support of this new language, Agins cited Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, a 1928 case in which the plaintiff claimed that a city zoning ordinance “deprived him of his property without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment,” id., at 185. Agins then went on to discuss Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926), a historic decision holding that a municipal zoning ordinance would survive a substantive due process challenge so long as it was not “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Id., at 395 (emphasis added); see also Nectow, supra, at 187-188 (quoting the same “substantial relation” language from Euclid).
When viewed in historical context, the Court’s reliance on Nectow and Euclid'is understandable. Agins was the Court’s first case involving a challenge to zoning regulations in many decades, so it was natural to turn to these seminal zoning precedents for guidance. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Agins v. City of Tiburon, O. T. 1979, No. 79-602, pp. 12-13 (arguing that Euclid “set out the principles applicable to a determination of the facial validity of a zoning ordinance attacked as a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”). Moreover, Agins’ apparent commingling of due process and takings inquiries had some precedent in the Court’s then-recent decision in Penn Central. See 438 U. S., at 127 (stating in dicta that “[i]t is . . . implicit in Goldblatt [v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590 (1962),] that a use restriction on real property may constitute a ‘taking’ if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose, see Nectow v. Cambridge, supra”). But see Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590, 594-595 (1962) (quoting “‘reasonably necessary’” language from Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133,137 (1894), a due process case, and applying a deferential “ ‘reasonableness’ ” standard to determine whether a challenged regulation was a “valid exercise of the . . . police power” under the Due Process Clause). Finally, when Agins was decided, there had been some history of referring to deprivations of property without due process of law as “takings,” see, e. g., Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 740 (1970), and the Court had yet to clarify whether “regulatory takings” claims were properly cognizable under the Takings Clause or the Due Process Clause, see Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, 197-199 (1985).
Although Agins’ reliance on due process precedents is understandable, the language the Court selected was regrettably imprecise. The “substantially advances” formula suggests a means-ends test: It asks, in essence, whether a regulation of private property is effective in achieving some legitimate public purpose. An inquiry of this nature has some logic in the context of a due process challenge, for a regulation that fails to serve any legitimate governmental objective may be so arbitrary or irrational that it runs afoul of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 846 (1998) (stating that the Due Process Clause is intended, in part, to protect the individual against “the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective”). But such a test is not a valid method of discerning whether private property has been “taken” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.
In stark contrast to the three regulatory takings tests discussed above, the “substantially advances” inquiry reveals nothing about the magnitude or character of the burden a particular regulation imposes upon private property rights. Nor does it provide any information about how any regulatory burden is distributed among property owners. In consequence, this test does not help to identify those regulations whose effects are functionally comparable to government appropriation or invasion of private property; it is tethered neither to the text of the Takings Clause nor to the- basic justification for allowing regulatory actions to be challenged under the Clause.
Chevron appeals to the general principle that the Takings Clause is meant “ To bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ ” Brief for Respondent 17-21 (quoting Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49). But that appeal is clearly misplaced, for the reasons just indicated. A test that tells us nothing about the actual burden imposed on property rights, or how that burden is allocated, cannot tell us when justice might require that the burden be spread among taxpayers through the payment of compensation. The owner of a property subject to a regulation that effectively serves a legitimate state interest may be just as singled out and just as burdened as the owner of a property subject to an ineffective regulation. It would make little sense to say that the second owner has suffered a taking while the first has not. Likewise, an ineffective regulation may not significantly burden property rights at all, and it may distribute any burden broadly and evenly among property owners. The notion that such a regulation nevertheless “takes” private property for public use merely by virtue of its ineffectiveness or foolishness is untenable.
Instead of addressing a challenged regulation’s effect on private property, the “substantially advances” inquiry probes the regulation’s underlying validity. But such an inquiry is logically prior to and distinct from the question whether a regulation effects a taking, for the Takings Clause presupposes that the government has acted in pursuit of a valid public purpose. The Clause expressly requires compensation where government takes private property “for public use.” It does not bar government from interfering with property rights, but rather requires compensation “in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.” First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, 482 U. S., at 315 (emphasis added). Conversely, if a government action is found to be impermissible — for instance because it fails to meet the “public use” requirement or is so arbitrary as to violate due process — that is the end of the inquiry. No amount of compensation can authorize such action.
Chevron’s challenge to the Hawaii statute in this case illustrates the flaws in the “substantially advances” theory. To begin with, it is unclear how significantly Hawaii’s rent cap actually burdens Chevron’s property rights. The parties stipulated below that the cap would reduce Chevron’s aggregate rental income on 11 of its 64 lessee-dealer stations by about $207,000 per year, but that Chevron nevertheless expects to receive a return on its investment in these stations that satisfies any constitutional standard. See supra, at 534. Moreover, Chevron asserted below, and the District Court found, that Chevron would recoup any reductions in its rental income by raising wholesale gasoline prices. See supra, at 535. In short, Chevron has not clearly argued— let alone established — that it has been singled out to bear any particularly severe regulatory burden. Rather, the gravamen of Chevron’s claim is simply that Hawaii’s rent cap will not actually serve the State’s legitimate interest in protecting consumers against high gasoline prices. Whatever the merits of that claim, it does not sound under the Takings Clause. Chevron plainly does not seek compensation for a taking of its property for a legitimate public use, but rather an injunction against the enforcement of a regulation that it alleges to be fundamentally arbitrary and irrational.
Finally, the “substantially advances” formula is not only doctrinally untenable as a takings test — its application as such would also present serious practical difficulties. The Agins formula can be read to demand heightened means-ends review of virtually any regulation of private property. If so interpreted, it would require courts to scrutinize the efficacy of a vast array of state and federal regulations — a task for which courts are not well suited. Moreover, it would empower — and might often require — courts to substitute their predictive judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert agencies.
Although the instant case is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, it foreshadows the hazards of placing courts in this role. To resolve Chevron’s takings claim, the District Court was required to choose between the views of two opposing economists as to whether Hawaii’s rent control statute would help to prevent concentration and supracompetitive prices in the State’s retail gasoline market. Finding one expert to be “more persuasive” than the other, the court concluded that the Hawaii Legislature’s chosen regulatory strategy would not actually achieve its objectives. See 198 F. Supp. 2d, at 1187-1193. The court determined that there was no evidence that oil companies had charged, or would charge, excessive rents. See id., at 1191. Based on this and other findings, the District Court enjoined further enforcement of Act 257’s rent cap provision against Chevron. We find the proceedings below remarkable, to say the least, given that we have long eschewed such heightened scrutiny when addressing substantive due process challenges to government regulation. See, e. g., Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117, 124-125 (1978); Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 730-732 (1963). The reasons for deference to legislative judgments about the need for, and likely effectiveness of, regulatory actions are by now well established, and we think they are no less applicable here.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the “substantially advances” formula announced in Agins is not a valid method of identifying regulatory takings for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. Since Chevron argued only a “substantially advances” theory in support of its takings claim, it was not entitled to summary judgment on that claim.
III
We emphasize that our holding today — that the substantially advances” formula is not a valid takings test — does not require us to disturb any of our prior holdings. To be sure, we applied a “substantially advances” inquiry in Agins itself, see 447 U. S., at 261-262 (finding that the challenged zoning ordinances “substantially advance[d] legitimate governmental goals”), and arguably also in Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 485-492 (1987) (quoting “‘substantially advance[s]”’ language and then finding that the challenged statute was intended to further a substantial public interest). But in no case have we found a compensa-ble taking based on such an inquiry. Indeed, in most of the cases reciting the “substantially advances” formula, the Court has merely assumed its validity when referring to it in dicta. See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 334 (2002); Del Monte Dunes, 526 U. S., at 704; Lucas, 505 U. S., at 1016; Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 534 (1992); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121, 126 (1985).
It might be argued that this formula played a role in our decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994). See Brief for Respondent 21-23. But while the Court drew upon the language of Agins in these cases, it did not apply the “substantially advances” test that is the subject of today’s decision. Both Nollan and Dolan involved Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use ex-actions — specifically, government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit. See Dolan, supra, at 379-380 (permit to expand a store and parking lot conditioned on the dedication of a portion of the relevant property for a “greenway,” including a bike/pedestrian path); Nollan, supra, at 828 (permit to build a larger residence on beachfront property conditioned on dedication of an easement allowing the public to traverse a strip of the property between the owner’s seawall and the mean high-tide line).
In each case, the Court began with the premise that, had the government simply appropriated the easement in question, this would have been a per se physical taking. Dolan, supra, at 384; Nollan, supra, at 831-832. The question was whether the government could, without paying the compensation that would otherwise be required upon effecting such a taking, demand the easement as a condition for granting a development permit the government was entitled to deny. The Court in Nollan answered in the affirmative, provided that the exaction would substantially advance the same government interest that would furnish a valid ground for denial of the permit. 483 U. S., at 834-837. The Court further refined this requirement in Dolan, holding that an adjudicative exaction requiring dedication of private property must also be “ ‘rough[ly] proportiona[l]’ . . . both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” 512 U. S., at 391; see also Del Monte Dunes, supra, at 702 (emphasizing that we have not extended this standard “beyond the special context of [such] exactions”).
Although Nollan and Dolan quoted Agins’ language, see Dolan, supra, at 385; Nollan, supra, at 834, the rule those decisions established is entirely distinct from the “substantially advances” test we address today. Whereas the “substantially advances” inquiry before us now is unconcerned with the degree or type of burden a regulation places upon property, Nollan and Dolan both involved dedications of property so onerous that, outside the exactions context, they would be deemed per se physical takings. In neither case did the Court question whether the exaction would substantially advance some legitimate state interest. See Dolan, supra, at 387-388; Nollan, supra, at 841. Rather, the issue was whether the exactions substantially advanced the same interests that land-use authorities asserted would allow them to deny the permit altogether. As the Court explained in Dolan, these cases involve a special application of the “doctrine of ‘unconstitutional conditions,’” which provides that “the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right — here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use — in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit has little or no relationship to the property.” 512 U. S., at 385. That is worlds apart from a rule that says a regulation affecting property constitutes a taking on its face solely because it does not substantially advance a legitimate government interest. In short, Nollan and Dolan cannot be characterized as applying the “substantially advances” test we address today, and our decision should not be read to disturb these precedents.
H= * *
Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property “effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t].” Agins, 447 U. S., at 260. The lower courts in this case took that statement to its logical conclusion, and in so doing, revealed its imprecision. Today we correct course. We hold that the “substantially advances” formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence. In so doing, we reaffirm that a plaintiff seeking to challenge a government regulation as an uncompensated taking of private property may proceed under one of the other theories discussed above — by alleging a “physical” taking, a Lucas-type “total regulatory taking,” a Penn Central taking, or a land-use exaction violating the standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan. Because Chevron argued only a “substantially advances” theory in support of its takings claim, it was not entitled to summary judgment on that claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit 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:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents for decision important questions regarding the applicability to the United States of the restrictions against stay of state court proceedings contained in 28 U. S. C. § 2283 and the propriety of the injunction decreed by the District Court and sustained by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner in 1953 had filed a peti-tory action in a Louisiana state court against respondent-mineral-lessees of the United States. In that action, a suit by one out of possession claiming title to, and possession of, immovables, petitioner sought to have itself declared owner of the mineral rights under land owned by the United States, and it also sought an accounting for oil and other minerals removed by respondent-lessees under their lease from the United States. Petitioner founded its claim on Louisiana Act No. 315 of 1940, La. Rev. Stat., 1950, § 9:5806, which, it alleged, made “impre-scriptible” a reservation of mineral rights.in a deed of December 21,1938, to the United States by its predecessor in title.
Respondent-lessees filed exceptions in the state court proceedings, urging that under Louisiana law the lessor should be made a party and the lessees discharged from the suit, that this was essentially a suit against the United States, which had not consented to be sued, that the United States was an indispensable party, and that no cause of action had been stated. The state trial court found that a cause of action had been stated, and it overruled the exceptions.
At this point the United States, joining petitioner and other interested parties as defendants, brought the present suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to quiet title to the mineral rights; it also sought a preliminary injunction to restrain petitioner from prosecuting its action in the state court. The United States based its claim of ownership on the provision in the 1938 deed from petitioner’s predecessor in title that the reservation of mineral rights would expire on April 1,1945, subject to certain conditions not material to this case. The United States claimed that irreparable injury in the form of loss of royalties would result from any temporary, wrongful dispossession of its lessees by the state court proceedings. Affidavits were also submitted in support of the claim that permanent loss of wells currently producing oil would probably result from any temporary cessation of production. The petitioner moved to dismiss the United States’ complaint on the ground that the state court had already assumed jurisdiction over the property in question; in the alternative, petitioner moved to stay the federal proceedings pending determination of the state court action because questions of state law were involved.
The District Court held that, since the United States was not a party to the state court suit, the title of the United States could be tried only in the federal court action and that an injunction against prosecution of the state proceedings should issue to protect its jurisdiction pending determination of the ownership of the property. 127 F. Supp. 439. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the preliminary injunction was proper because “the district court under the clear provisions of the statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1345, became vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine the title of the United States to the mineral rights claimed by appellant.” 224 F. 2d 381, 383-384. Because of the presence of important and difficult questions of federal-state relations, questions more difficult than the Government appears to have found them, we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 964.
28 U. S. C. § 2283 provides:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
It must first be decided whether this section applies to stays sought by the United States because different answers to this question will put different aspects on other issues in the case. An analogous problem was presented in United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, where the Court held that the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U. S. C. § 101, that no federal court had jurisdiction, subject to qualifications, to issue an injunction in labor disputes to prohibit certain acts, did not apply to the United States. Thé Norris-LaGuardia Act, like 28 U. S. C. § 2283, effected, in general language, a limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Furthermore, since it was largely the diversity jurisdiction which spawned the substantive problems that the Norris-LaGuardia Act removed from the federal courts, the limitations on the federal courts imposed by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, like those of 28 U. S. C. § 2283, were in an area of federal-state relations calling for particular circumspection in adjudication.
In interpreting the general language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Court relied heavily on “an old and well-known rule,” albeit a rule of construction, “that statutes which in general terms divest pre-existing rights or privileges will not be applied to the sovereign without express words to that effect.” 330 U. S., at 272. While, strictly speaking, any “pre-existing” rights would have to be found in the 1789-1793 pre-statute period, the rationale of the rule requires not that the rights be “preexisting” but rather that they would exist apart from the statute. There can be no doubt, apart from the restrictions of 28 U. S. C. § 2283, of the right of the United States to enjoin state court proceedings whenever the prerequisites for relief by way of injunction be present. Treating the rule invoked in the United Mine Workers case merely as an aid to construction, it would by itself lead us to hold that the general language of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 did not apply to the United States in the absence of countervailing considerations, such as significant legislative history pointing toward its inclusion or inferences clearly to be drawn from relevant presuppositions for so including it.
In United Mine Workers, the Court did not rely entirely on the rule of construction because its reading of the Act as a whole and the legislative history supported the conclusion that the United States was not to be included. In this case, there is no legislative material to support or to gainsay the applicability of the rule of construction. There is, however, a persuasive reason why the federal court’s power to stay state court proceedings might have been restricted when a private party was seeking the stay but not when the United States was seeking similar relief. The statute is designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts. This policy is much more compelling when it is the litigation of private parties which threatens to draw the two judicial systems into conflict than when it is the United States which seeks a stay to prevent threatened irreparable injury to a national interest. The frustration of superior federal interests that would ensue from precluding the Federal Government from obtaining a stay of state court proceedings except under the severe restrictions of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 would be so great that we cannot reasonably impute such a purpose to Congress from the general language of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 alone. It is always difficult to feel confident about construing an ambiguous statute when the aids to construction are so meager, but the interpretation excluding the United States from the coverage of the statute seems to us preferable in the context of healthy federal-state relations.
The question still remains whether the granting of an injunction was proper in the circumstances of this case. We start with one certainty. The suit in the federal court was the only one that could finally determine the basic issue in the litigation — whether the title of the United States to the mineral rights was affected by Louisiana Act No. 315 of 1940. The United States was not a party to the state suit and, under settled principles, title to land in possession of the United States under a claim of interest cannot be tried as against the United States by a suit against persons holding under the authority of the United States. See United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196. Although the state court might mould petitioner’s suit to try title into a suit for possession or might merely order respondent-lessees to account for minerals removed, nevertheless such proceedings could not settle the basic issue in the litigation and might well cause confusion if they resulted in a judgment inconsistent with that subsequently rendered by the federal court.
Petitioner relies heavily on United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U. S. 463. There, in a federal district court proceeding, the United States was claiming by assignment certain funds of three Russian insurance companies that were being held in the custody of a state court, in connection with the liquidation of the companies, subject to court orders concerning distribution to claimants under the state insurance laws. On the basis of this claim, the United States sought to enjoin distribution of the funds and to require payment of them to it. This Court, affirming dismissal of the complaints and denial of the injunction, held that the state court had obtained jurisdiction over the funds first and that the litigation should be resolved in that court. The Court also noted that there were numerous other claimants, indispensable parties, who had not been made parties to the federal court suit. In remitting the United States to the state court, the Court saw no “impairment of any rights” of the United States or “any sacrifice of its proper dignity as a sovereign.” Id., at 480-481.
The situation in the present case is different. All the parties in the state court proceeding have been joined in the federal proceeding. Moreover, the Bank of New York case presented the more unusual situation where the United States, like any private claimant, made a claim against funds that it never possessed and that were in the hands of depositaries appointed by the state court. In this case, a private party is seeking by a state proceeding to obtain property currently in the hands of persons holding under the United States; the United States is seeking to protect that possession and quiet title by a federal court proceeding. Therefore, since the position of the United States is essentially a defensive one, we think that it should be permitted to choose the forum in this case, even though the state litigation has the elements of an action characterized as quasi in rem. We therefore hold that the District Court properly exercised its jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the federal court and to prevent the effectuation of state court proceedings that might conflict with the ultimate federal court judgment.
One further aspect of the case remains to be considered. The District Court advanced this additional ground for its decision:
"Moreover-, if the state court suit is allowed to proceed to final judgment, the rights of the United States to the property in question will actually be determined ‘behind its back’ ... for the reason that, since ownership of these mineral rights will turn on an interpretation of a state statute . . . this court and the appellate federal courts may be required, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins ... to follow that judgment in spite of the fact that the United States is not a party to those proceedings. . . .” 127 F. Supp., at 444.
But the fact that the United States is not a party to the state court litigation does not mean that the federal court should initiate interpretation of a state statute. In fact, where questions of constitutionality are involved — and the Government contends that an application of the state statute adverse to its interests would be unconstitutional — our rule has been precisely the opposite: “as questions of federal constitutional power have become more and more intertwined with preliminary doubts about local law, we have insisted that federal courts do not decide questions of constitutionality on the basis of preliminary guesses regarding local law.” Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105; see Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 383; Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 498-502.
The Government contends that Act No. 315 of 1940 does not apply when the parties themselves have contracted for a reservation of specific duration and that if the statute is construed to apply to this situation, it would impair the obligation of the Government’s contract. Petitioner disagrees. The Supreme Court of Louisiana has never considered the specific issue or even discussed generally the rationale of the statute, especially with reference to problems of constitutionality. The District Court recognized the importance of the statute in deciding this case; it also recognized that a problem of interpretation was involved, that the statute cannot be read by him who runs. What are the situations to which the statute is applicable? Is the statute merely declaratory of prior Louisiana law? What are the problems that it was designed to meet? The answers to these questions are, or may be, relevant. Before attempting to answer them and to decide their relation to the issues in the case, we think it advisable to have an interpretation, if possible, of the state statute by the only court that can interpret the statute with finality, the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana declaratory judgment procedure appears available to secure such an interpretation, La. Rev. Stat., 1950, 13:4231 et seq., and the United States of course may appear to urge its interpretation of the statute. See Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, 512-513. It need hardly be added that the state courts in such a proceeding can decide definitively only questions of state law that are not subject to overriding-federal law.
We therefore modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals to permit an interpretation of the state statute to be sought with every expedition in the state court in conformity with this opinion.
Modified and affirmed.
The reservation, in its pertinent portion, provided: “The Vendor reserves from this sale the right to mine and remove, or to grant to others the right to mine and remove, all oil, gas and other valuable minerals which may be deposited in or under said lands, and to remove any oil, gas or other valuable minerals from the premises; the right to enter upon said lands at any time for the purpose of mining and removing said oil, gas and minerals, said right, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, to expire April 1, 1945, it being understood, however, that the vendors will pay to the United States of America, 5% of the gross proceeds received by them as royalties or otherwise from all oil or minerals so removed from in or under the aforedescribed lands, until such time as the vendors shall have paid to the United States of America, the sum of $25,000, being the purchase price paid by said United States of America for the aforedescribed properties.
“Provided that at the termination of the ten (10) year period of reservation, if not extended, or at the termination of any extended period in case the operation has not been carried on for the number of days stated, the right to mine shall terminate, and complete fee in the land become vested in the United States.
“The reservation of the oil and mineral rights herein made for the original period of ten (10) years and for any extended period or periods in accordance with the above provisions shall not be affected by any subsequent conveyance of all or any of the aforementioned properties by the United States of America, but said mineral rights shall, subject to the conditions above ... set forth, remain vested in the vendors.”
Act No. 315 provides: “. . . when land is acquired by conventional deed or contract, condemnation or expropriation proceedings by the United States of America, or any of its subdivisions or agencies, from any person, firm or corporation, and by the act of acquisition, verdict or judgment, oil, gas, and/or other minerals or royalties are reserved, or the land so acquired is by the act of acquisition conveyed subject to a prior sale or reservation of oil, gas and/or other minerals or royalties, still in force and effect, said rights so reserved or previously sold shall be imprescriptible." See also the prior Act No. 151 of 1938 providing that prescription should not run against a reservation of mineral rights in real estate acquired by the United States or the State of Louisiana.
The basic provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2283 go back to 1793, 1 Stat. 335.
Most of the lower federal courts that have considered this problem have, without much discussion, reached the same result. E. g., United States v. Taylor’s Oak Ridge Corp., 89 F. Supp. 28; United States v. Cain, 72 F. Supp. 897; United States v. Phillips, 33 F. Supp. 261, reversed on other grounds, 312 U. S. 246; United States v. McIntosh, 57 F. 2d 573; United States v. Babcock, 6 F. 2d 160, reversed for modification, 9 F. 2d 905; United States v. Inaba, 291 F. 416. But see United States v. Land Title Bank & Trust Co., 90 F. 2d 970; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 62 F. Supp. 1017, appeal dismissed by stipulation, 151 F. 2d 1022.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The charter of Tampa, Florida, authorizes the issuance of certain arrest warrants by clerks of the Tampa Municipal Court. The sole question in this case is whether these clerks qualify as neutral and detached magistrates for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. We hold that they do.
Appellant was arrested for impaired driving on a warrant issued by a clerk of the municipal court. He moved the court to quash the warrant on the ground that it was issued by a nonjudicial officer in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. When , the motion was denied, he initiated proceedings in the Florida courts by means of that State’s writ of common-law certiorari. The state proceedings culminated in the holding of the Florida Supreme Court that “[t]he clerk and deputy clerks of the municipal court of the City of Tampa are neutral and detached ‘magistrates’ ... for the purpose of issuing arrest warrants within the requirements of the United States Constitution . . . 250 So. 2d 4, 5 (1071). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 1014 (1972).
I.
A clerk of the municipal court is appointed by the city clerk from a classified list of civil servants and assigned to work in the municipal .court. The statute does not specify the qualifications necessary for this job, but no law degree or special legal training is required. The clerk’s duties are to receive trafile fines, prepare the court’s dockets and records, fill out commitment papers and perform other routine clerical tasks. Apparently he may issue subpoenas. He may nbt, however, sit as a judge, and he may not issue a search warrant or even a felony or misdemeanor arrest warrant for .violations of state laws. The only warrants he may issue are for the arrest of those charged with having breached municipal ordinances of the city of Tampa.
Appellant, contending that the Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be issued by “judicial officers,” argues that even this limited warrant authority is constitutionally invalid. He reasons that warrant applications of whatever nature cannot be assured the discerning, independent review compelled by the. Fourth Amendment when the review is performed by less than a judicial officer. It is less than clear, however, as to who would qualify as a “judicial officer” under appellant’s theory. There is some suggestion in. appellant’s brief that a judicial officer must be a lawyer or the municipal court judge himself. A more complete portrayal of appellant’s position would be that the Tampa clerks are disqualified .as judicial officers not merely because they are not lawyers or judges, but because they lack the institutional independence associated with the judiciary in that they are members of the civil service, appointed by the city clerk, “an executivé official,” and enjoy no statutorily specified tenure in office.
II
Past decisions of the Court have mentioned review by a “judicial officer” prior to issuance of a warrant, Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 564 (1971); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 356 (1967); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1963); Jones v. United. States, 362 U. S. 257; 270 (1960); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948). Income eases the term “judicial'officer” appears to have been used interchangeably with that of “magistrate.” Katz v. United States, supra, and Johnson v. United States, supra. In others, it was intended simply to underscore the now accepted fact that' someone independent of the police and prosecution must determine probable cause. Jones v. United States, supra; Wong Sun v. United States, supra. The very term “judicial officer” implies, of course, some connection with the judicial branch. But it has never been held that only a lawyer or judge could grant a warrant, regardless of the court system or the. type of warrant involved. In Jones, supra, at 270-271, the Court implied that United States Commissioners, many of whom were.not lawyers or judges, were nonetheless “independent judicial officers.”
The Court frequently has employed the term “magistrate” to denote those who may issue warrants. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 449-453 (1971); Whiteley v. Warden, supra, at 566; Katz v. United States, supra, at 356-357; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108 (1965); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 486 (1958); Johnson v. United States, supra, at 13-14; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 464 (1932). Historically, a magistrate has been defined broadly as “a public civil officer, possessing such power, legislative, executive or judicial, as the government appointing him may ordain,” Compton v. Alabama, 214 U. S. 1, 7 (1909), or, in a narrower sense “an inferior judicial officer, such as a justice of the peace.” Ibid. More recent definitions have not much changed.
An examination of the Court’s decisions reveals that the terms “magistrate” and “judicial officer” have been used interchangeably. Little attempt was made to define either term, to distinguish the one from the other, or to' advance one as the definitive Fourth Amendment requirement. We find no commandment in either, term, however,., that all warrant authority naust reside exclusively in a lawyer or judge.. Such a requirement would have been incongruous when even within the federal system warrants were until recently widely issued by nonlawyers.
To attempt to extract further significance from the ¿bove terminology would be both unnecessary and futile. The substance of the Constitution’s warrant requirements does not turn on the labeling of the issuing party. The warrant traditionally has represented an independent assurance that a search and arrest will not proceed without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person or place named in the warrant is involved in the crime. Thus, an issuing magistrate must meet two tests. He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search. This Court long has insisted that inferences of probable cause be drawn by “a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, supra, at 14; Oiordenello v. United States, supra, at 486. In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, the Court last Term voided- a search warrant issued by the state attorney general “who was actively in charge of the investigation and later was to bé chief prosecutor at the trial.” Id., at 450. If, on the other hand, detachment and capacity do conjoin, the magis-traté has satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s purpose.
Ill
. The requisite detachment is present in the case at hand'.' Whatever else, neutrality and detachment might entail, it is clear that they require severance and disengagement from activities of law enforcement. There has-been no showing whatever here of partiality, or affiliation of these clerks with prosecutors or police. The record shows no, connection with any law enforcement activity or authority which would distort the independent judgment the Fourth Amendment requires. Appellant himself expressly refused to allege anything to that effect. The municipal court clerk is assigned not to the police or prosecutor but to the municipal court judge for whom he does much of his work. In this sense, he may well be termed a “judicial officer.” While á statutorily specified term of office and appointment by someone other than “an executive authority” might be desirable, the absence of such features is hardly disqualifying. Judges themselves take office under differing circumstances. Some ' are appointed, but many are elected by legislative bodies or by the people. Many enjoy but limited terms and are subject to re-appointment or re-election. Most depend for their salary level upon the legislative branch. We will not elevate requirements for the independence of a municipal clerk to a level higher than that prevailing with respect to many judges. The clerk’s neutrality has not been impeached: he is removed from prosecutor or police and works within the judicial branch subject to the supervision of the municipal court judge.
Appellant likewise has failed to demónstrate that these clerks lack capacity to determine probable cause. The clerk’s authority extends only to the issuance of arrest warrants for breach of municipal ordinances." We presume from the nature of the clerk’s position that he would be able to deduce from the facts on an affidavit before him whether there was probable cause to believe a citizen guilty of impaired driving, breach of peace, drunkenness, trespass, or the multiple other common offenses covered by a municipal code. There has been no showing that this is too difficult a task for a clerk to accomplish. Our legal system has long entrusted non-lawyers to evaluate more complex and significant factual data than that in the case at hand. Grand juries daiiy determine probable cause prior to rendering indictments, and trial juries assess whether guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The significance and responsibility of these lay judgments betray any belief that the Tampa clerks could not determine probable cause for arrest.
We decide today only that clerks of. the municipal coutt may constitutionally issue thé warrants in question. We have not considered whether the actual issuance was based upon an adequate showing of probable cause. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964). Appellant did not submit this question to the courts below, 237 So. 2d 231 (1970), 250 So. 2d 4 (1971), and we will not decide it here initially. The single question is whether power has been lawfully vested, not whether it has been constitutionally exercised.
Nor need we determine whether a State may lodge warrant authorityun someone entirely outside the sphere of the judicial branch. ' Many persons may not qualify as the kind of “public civil officers” we have come to associate with the term “magistrate.” Had the Tampa clerk been entirely divorced from á judicial position, this-case would have presented different considerations. Here, however, the clerk is an employee of the judicial branch of' the city of Tampa, disassociated from the role of law enforcement. On the record in this case, the independent status of the clerk.cannot be questioned.
What we' do reject today is any per se invalidation of a state or local warrant system on the ground that the issuing magistrate i§ not a lawyer or judge. Communities may have sound reasons for delegating the responsibility of issuing warrants to competent personnel other than judges of lawyers. Many-municipal courts face stiff and unrelenting caseloads. A judge pressured with the docket before him may give warrant applications more brisk and summary treatment than would a clerk. All this is not to. imply that a judge or lawyer would not normally provide the most desirable review of warrant requests. But our federal system warns of converting desirable practice into constitutional commandment. It recognizes in plural and diverse state activities one key to national innovation and vitality. States are entitled to. some flexibility and leeway in their designation of magistrates, so long as all are neutral and detached and capable of the probable-cause determination required of them.
We affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
Affirmed.
The relevant Florida .statute and Tampa charter provisions are set forth below:
1. Section 168.04 of Fla. Stat. (1965) reads as follows:
"The clerk may administer an oath to and take affidavit of any person charging another with an offense by breach of an ordinance, and may issue a warrant to the marshal to- have the accused person arrested and brought before the mayor for trial. The marshal may, in the absence of the mayor and clerk from the police station, administer oaths to affidavits of complaints and issue warrants- for the arrest, of persons complained against.” ■
2. Section 495 of the Charter of the City of Tampa enacted by . the legislature of the State of Florida in Section 17, Chapter 5363, Laws of Florida 1903, reads as follows:
“The Chief of Police, or any policeman of the City of Tampa, may arrest, without warrant, any person Violating any of the ordinances of said city, committed in the presencé of such-officer, and when knowledge of the violation of any ordinance of said city shall come to said chief of police or policeman, not committed in his presence, he shall at once make affidavit, before the judge or clerk of the municipal court, against the person' charged with such violation, whereupon said judge or clerk shall issue a warrant for the arrest of such person.”
' 3. Section 160 of the Charter of the City of Tampa enacted by the legislature of the State of Florida in Sectioii 1, Chapter 61-2915, Laws of Florida 1961, reads as follows:
“The city clerk of the City of Tampa,-with the approval of the mayor, may appoint one' or moré deputies, such deputy or deputies • to be selected from the approved classified list of the city civil service, and to have and exercise the same powers as the city clerk himself, including but not limited to the issuance of warrants. One or more of such deputies may be designated as clerks of the municipal court.”
Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 7, 20, 21.
Brief for Appellant 6; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.
Brief for Appellant 12 — 13; Reply Brief for Appellant 8.
Reply Brief for Appellant 8; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-12.
The United States Commissioner system has, of course, been replaced by the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1107.
In Compton, a notary public was deemed a “magistrate,” but the Court has nowhere indicated that the term denotes solely a lawyer or judge.
Dictionary (2d ed. 1957), defines magistrate as “[a] person clothed with power as a public civil officer; a public civil officer invested with executive or judicial powers . . or, more narrowly, “[a] magistrate of a class having summary, often criminal, jurisdiction, as a justice of the peace, or one of certain officials having a .similar jurisdiction Random. House Dictionary (1966) defines magistrate as (1) “a civil officer charged with the administration of the law” and' (2) “a minor judicial, officer, as a justice of the peace or a police justice, having jurisdiction to try minor criminal cases and to conduct. preliminary examinations of persons charged with serious crimes.”
United States Commissioners were not required to be lawyers until passage of the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968. Even under this Act, a limited exception to lawyer’s status is afforded part-time magistrates. 28 U. S. C. §631 (b)(1).
Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.
Some communities, such as those in rural or sparsely settled areas,'may have, a shortage of available lawyers and judges and must entrust responsibility for issuing warrants to other qualified persons. The Federal Magistrates Act, for example, explicitly makes provision for nonlawyers to be appointed in those coinmumties where members of the bar aré not available. 28 U. S. C. § 631 (b) (1).
See generally Mass Production Justice and the Constitutional Ideal (C. Whitebread ed., 1970).
States differ significantly as to whom they entrust the authority to grant a warrant. See Burke v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz. App. 576, 579, 416 P. 2d 997, 1000 (1966); Parks v. Superior Court, 236 P. 2d 874, 882 (Ct. App. Cal. 1951); Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 272, 63 A. 2d 589, 594 (1948); Grano v. State, -Del.-, —, 257 A. 2d 768, 773-774 (1969); Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 250 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1971); State v. Swafford, 250. Ind. 541, 546, 237. N. E. 2d 580, 584 (1968); State ex rel. French v. Hendricks Superior Court, 252 Ind. 213, 247 N. E. 2d 519 (1969); Bailey v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 600, 606, 191 P. 2d 894, 898 (1948); State v. Guidry, 247 La. 631, 635-636, 173 So. 2d 192, 194 (1965); Wampler v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 231 Md. 639, 648, 191 A. 2d 594, 600 (1963); LaChapelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 318 Mass. 166, 168-170, 61 N. E. 2d 8, 10 (1945); State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N. W. 2d 591 (1967); People v. Richter, 206 Misc. 304, 306-307, 133 N. Y. S. 2d 685, 688 (1954); State v. Furmage, 250 N. C. 616, 625-626, 109 S. E. 2d 563, 570 (1959); Moseley v. Welch, 218 S. C. 242, 250, 62 S. E. 2d 313, 317 (1950); State v. Jefferson, 79 Wash. 2d 345, 348-349, 485 P. 2d 77, 79 (1971); State ex rel. Sahley v. Thompson, 151 W. Va. 336, 342-343, 151 S. E. 2d 870, 873 (1966); State ex rel. White v. Simpson, 28 Wis. 2d 590, 137 N. W. 2d 391 (1965); State Van Brocklin, 194 Wis. 441, 217 N. W. 277 (1927).
Harlan, Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance, 49 A. B. A. J. 943, 944 (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 the first day of his trial on four counts of selling cocaine in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 4705 (a) (1964 ed.), petitioner failed to return for the afternoon session. He had been present at the expiration of the morning session when the court announced that the lunch recess would last until 2 p. m., and he had been told by his attorney to return to the courtroom at that time. The judge recessed the trial until the following morning, but petitioner still did not appear. His wife testified that she had left the courtroom the previous day with petitioner after the morning session; that they had separated after sharing a taxicab to Roxbury; that he had not appeared ill; and, finally, that she had not heard from him since. The trial judge then denied a motion for mistrial by defense counsel, who asserted that the jurors’ minds would be tainted by petitioner’s absence and that continuation of the trial in his absence deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Relying upon Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 43, which expressly provides that a defendant’s voluntary absence “shall not prevent continuing the trial,” the court found that petitioner had absented himself voluntarily from the proceedings.
Throughout the remainder of the trial, the court admonished the jury that no inference of guilt could be drawn from petitioner’s absence. Petitioner was found guilty on all four counts. Following his subsequent arrest, he was sentenced to the statutory five-year minimum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 478 F. 2d 681 (CA1 1973), and we now grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
There is no challenge to the trial court’s conclusion that petitioner’s absence from the trial was voluntary, and no claim that the continuation of the trial was not authorized by Rule 43. Nor are we persuaded that Rule 43 is unconstitutional or that petitioner was deprived of any constitutional rights in the circumstances before us. Rule 43 has remained unchanged since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1945; and with respect to the consequences of the defendant’s voluntary absence from trial, it reflects the longstanding rule recognized by this Court in Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442, 455 (1912):
“[W]here the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, the prevailing rule has been, that if, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he were present.” (Citations omitted.)
Under this rule, the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly rejected petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner, however, insists that his mere voluntary absence from his trial cannot be construed as an effective waiver, that is, “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938), unless it is demonstrated that he knew or had been expressly warned by the trial court not only that he had a right to be present but also that the trial would continue in his absence and thereby effectively foreclose his right to testify and to confront personally the witnesses against him.
Like the Court of Appeals,, we cannot accept this position. Petitioner had no right to interrupt the trial by his voluntary absence, as he implicitly concedes by urging only that he should have been warned that no such right existed and that the trial would proceed in his absence. The right at issue is the right to be present, and the question becomes whether that right was effectively waived by his voluntary absence. Consistent with Rule 43 and Diaz, we conclude that it was.
It is wholly incredible to suggest that petitioner, who was at liberty on bail, had attended the opening session of his trial, and had a duty to be present at the trial, see Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1951), entertained any doubts about his right to be present at every stage of his trial. It seems equally incredible to us, as it did to the Court of Appeals, “that a defendant who flees from a courtroom in the midst of a trial — where judge, jury, witnesses and lawyers are present and ready to continue — would not know that as a consequence the trial could continue in his absence.” 478 F. 2d, at 691. Here the Court of Appeals noted that when petitioner was questioned at sentencing regarding his flight, he never contended that he was unaware that a consequence of his flight would be a continuation of the trial without him. Moreover, no issue of the voluntariness of his disappearance was ever raised. As was recently noted, “there can be no doubt whatever that the governmental prerogative to proceed with a trial may not be defeated by conduct of the accused that prevents the trial from going forward.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 349 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). Under the circumstances present here, the Court of Appeals properly applied Rule 43 and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Affirmed.
Rule 43 provides, in pertinent part:
“The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules. In prosecutions for offenses not punishable by death, the defendant's voluntary absence after the trial has been commenced in his presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to and including the return of the verdict.”
Following an independent review, of the transcripts from the trial and sentencing hearing, the Court of Appeals also concluded that petitioner knew that he was entitled to be present in court during every stage of his trial and that his absence was a product of his voluntary choice. 478 F. 2d 689, 691 n. 4 (1973).
This was substantially the holding of United States v. McPherson, 137 U. S. App. D. C. 192, 195, 421 P. 2d 1127, 1130 (1969), on which petitioner relies. But the Court of Appeals in the case now before us disagreed with McPherson, and, in our view, rightly so. McPherson itself appears to have strayed from recent precedent in the District of Columbia Circuit, Cureton v. United States, 130 U. S. App. D. C. 22, 396 F. 2d 671 (1968), as well as from older authority. See Falk v. United States, 15 App. D. C. 446, 454-461 (1899). In Cureton, supra, Judge Fahy stated the controlling rule:
“[I]f a defendant at liberty remains away during his trial the court may proceed provided it is clearly established that his absence is voluntary. He must be aware of the processes taking place, of his right and of his obligation to be present, and he must have no sound reason for remaining away.” 130 U. S. App. D. C., at 27, 396 F. 2d, at 676 (citation omitted).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case, 525 U. S. 809 (1998), to decide whether a prosecutor violates an attorney’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession when the prosecutor causes the attorney to be searched at the same time his client is testifying before a grand jury. We eon-elude that such conduct by a prosecutor does not violate an attorney’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession.
This case arises out of the the “Menendez Brothers,” Lyle and Erik Menendez, for the murder of their parents. Petitioners David Corn and Carol Najera are Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorneys, and respondent Paul Gabbert is a criminal defense attorney. In early 1994, after the first Menendez trial ended in a hung jury, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office assigned Conn and Najera to prosecute the case on retrial. Conn and Najera learned that Lyle Menendez had written a letter to Traci Baker, his former girlfriend, in which he may have instructed her to testify falsely at trial. Gabbert represented Baker, who had testified as a defense witness in the first trial. Conn obtained and served Baker with a subpoena directing her to testify before the Los Angeles County grand jury and also directing her to produce at that time any correspondence that she had received from Lyle Menendez, After Gabbert unsuccessfully sought to quash the portion of the subpoena directing Baker to produce the Menendez correspondence, Conn and Najera obtained a warrant to search Baker’s apartment for any such correspondence. When police tried to execute the warrant, Baker told the police that she had given all her letters from Menendez to Gabbert.
Three days later, on March 21, 1994, Baker appeared as directed before the grand jury, accompanied by Gabbert. Believing that Gabbert might have the letter on his person, Conn directed a police detective to secure a warrant to search Gabbert. California law provides that a warrant to search an attorney must be executed by a court-appointed special master. When the Special Master arrived, Gabbert requested that the search take place in a private room. He did not request that his client’s grand jury testimony be postponed. The Special Master searched Gabbert in the private room, and Gabbert produced two pages of a three-page letter from Lyle Menendez to Baker.
At approximately the same time that the search of Gab-bert was taking place, Najera called Baker before the grand jury and began to question her. After being sworn, Najera asked Baker whether she was acquainted with Lyle Menen-dez. Baker replied that she had been unable to speak with her attorney because he was “still with the special master.” Brief for Petitioners 6. A short recess was taken during which time Baker was unable to speak with Gabbert. He was aware that Baker sought to speak with him, but apparently stated that the prosecutors would simply have to delay the questioning until they finished searching him. Baker returned to the grand jury room and declined to answer the question “upon the advice of [my] counsel” on the basis of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-inerimination. Id., at 7. Najera asked a followup question, and Baker again asked for a short recess to confer with Gabbert. Baker was again unable to locate Gabbert, and she again returned to the grand jury room and asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege. At this point, the grand jury recessed.
actions of the prosecutors were illegal, Gabbert brought suit against them and other officials in Federal District Court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. Relevant to this appeal by Conn and Najera, he contended that his Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession without unreasonable government interference was violated when the prosecutors executed a search warrant at the same time his client was testifying before the grand jury. Conn and Najera moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the District Court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Conn and Najera were not entitled to qualified immunity on Gab-bert’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. 131 F. 3d 793 (CA9 1997). Relying on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 572 (1972), and earlier cases of this Court recognizing a right to choose one’s vocation, the Court of Appeals concluded that Gabbert had a right to practice his profession without undue and unreasonable government interference. 131 F. 3d, at 800. The Court of Appeals also held that based upon notions of ‘“common sense,’” id., at 801, the right allegedly violated in this case was clearly established, and as a result, Conn and Najera were not entitled to qualified immunity: “The plain and intended result [of the prosecutors’ actions] was to prevent Gabbert from consulting with Baker during her grand jury appearance. These actions were not objectively reasonable, and thus the prosecutors are not protected by qualified immunity from answering Gabbert’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.” Id., at 802-803. We granted certiorari and now reverse.
Section 1983 provides a federal cause any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights. 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In order to prevail in a § 1983 action for civil damages from a government official performing discretionary functions, the defense of qualified immunity that our cases have recognized requires that the official be shown to have violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). Thus a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U. S. 226, 232-233 (1991); see also County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 841, n. 5 (1998).
We find no support in our cases for the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Gabbert had a Fourteenth Amendment right which was violated in this case. The Court of Appeals relied primarily on Board of Regents v. Roth. In Roth, this Court repeated the pronouncement in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923), that the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment “‘denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized ... as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” Roth, supra, at 572 (quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). But neither Roth nor Meyer even came close to identifying the asserted “right” violated by the prosecutors in this case. Meyer held that substantive due process forebade a State from enacting a statute that prohibited teaching in any language other than English. 262 U. S., at 399, 402-403. And Roth was a procedural due process case which held that an at-will college professor had no “property” interest in his job within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require the university to hold a hearing before terminating him. 408 U. S., at 578. Neither case will bear the weight placed upon it by either the Court of Appeals or Gabbert: Neither ease supports the conclusion that the actions of the prosecutors in this case deprived Gabbert of a liberty interest in practicing law.
Similarly, none of the other eases relied upon by the Court of Appeals or suggested by Gabbert provide any more than scant metaphysical support for the idea that the use of a search warrant by government actors violates an attorney’s right to practice his profession. In a line of earlier cases, this Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one’s field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation. See, e. g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 (1889) (upholding a requirement of licensing before a person can practice medicine); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41 (1915) (invalidating on equal protection grounds a state law requiring companies to employ 80% United States citizens). These cases all deal with a complete prohibition of the right to engage in a calling, and not the sort of brief interruption which occurred here.
Gabbert also relies on Schware v. of N. M., 353 U. S. 232, 238-239 (1957), for the proposition that a State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause. Schware held that former membership in the Communist Party and an arrest record relating to union activities could not be the basis for completely excluding a person from the practice of law. Like Dent, supra, and Truax, supra, it does not deal with a brief interruption as a result of legal process. No case of this Court has held that such an intrusion can rise to the level of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty right to choose and follow one’s calling. That right is simply not infringed by the inevitable interruptions of our daily routine as a result of legal process, which all of us may experience from time to time.
Gabbert argues search interfered with his client’s right to have him outside the grand jury room and available to consult with her. A grand jury witness has no constitutional right to have counsel present during the grand jury proceeding, United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564, 581 (1976), and no decision of this Court has held that a grand jury witness has a right to have her attorney present outside the jury room. We need not decide today whether such a right exists, because Gab-bert clearly had no standing to raise the alleged infringement of the rights of his client Tracy Baker. “[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975).
course does have standing to complain of the allegedly unreasonable timing of the execution of the search warrant to prevent him from advising his client. In essence then, he argues that the prosecutors searched him in an unreasonable manner. We have held that where another provision of the Constitution “provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection,” a court must assess a plaintiff’s claims under that explicit provision and “not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process.’ ” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 395 (1989). Challenges to the reasonableness of a search by government agents clearly fall under the Fourth Amendment, and not the Fourteenth.
We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment right to practice one’s calling is not violated by the execution of a search warrant, whether calculated to annoy or even to prevent consultation with a grand jury witness. In so holding, we thus of course pretermit the question whether such a right was “clearly established” as of a given day. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding to the contrary is therefore reversed.
It is so ordered.
Gabbert also brought a claim under § 1983 that Conn and Najera had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. That claim is not before us and we express no opinion on it.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 principal question presented by this appeal is whether a Minnesota statute, imposing certain registration and reporting requirements upon only those religious organizations that solicit more than fifty per cent of their funds from nonmembers, discriminates against such organizations in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
HH
Appellants are John R. Larson, Commissioner of Securities, and Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, of the State of Minnesota. They are, by virtue of their offices, responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Minnesota charitable solicitations Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 309.50-309.61 (1969 and Supp. 1982). This Act, in effect since 1961, provides for a system of registration and disclosure respecting charitable organizations, and is designed to protect the contributing public and charitable beneficiaries against fraudulent practices in the solicitation of contributions for purportedly charitable purposes. A charitable organization subject to the Act must register with the Minnesota Department of Commerce before it may solicit contributions within the State. § 309.52. With certain specified exceptions, all charitable organizations registering under §309.52 must file an extensive annual report with the Department, detailing, inter alia, their total receipts and income from all sources, their costs of management, fundraising, and public education, and their transfers of property or funds out of the State, along with a description of the recipients and purposes of those transfers. §309.53. The Department is authorized by the Act to deny or withdraw the registration of any charitable organization if the Department finds that it would be in “the public interest” to do so and if the organization is found to have engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest practices. §309.532, subd. 1 (Supp. 1982). Further, a charitable organization is deemed ineligible to maintain its registration under the Act if it expends or agrees to expend an “unreasonable amount” for management, general, and fund-raising costs, with those costs being presumed unreasonable if they exceed thirty per cent of the organization’s total income and revenue. § 309.555, subd. 1a (Supp. 1982).
From 1961 until 1978, all “religious organizations” were exempted from the requirements of the Act. But effective March 29, 1978, the Minnesota Legislature amended the Act so as to include a “fifty per cent rule” in the exemption provision covering religious organizations. § 309.515, subd. 1(b). This fifty per cent rule provided that only those religious organizations that received more than half of their total contributions from members or affiliated organizations would remain exempt from the registration and reporting requirements of the Act. 1978 Minn. Laws, ch. 601, § 5.
Shortly after the enactment of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), the Department notified appellee Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (Unification Church) that it was required to register under the Act because of the newly enacted provision. Appellees Valente, Barber, Haft, and Korman, claiming to be followers of the tenets of the Unification Church, responded by bringing the present action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appellees sought a declaration that the Act, on its face and as applied to them through §309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule, constituted an abridgment of their First Amendment rights of expression and free exercise of religion, as well as a denial of their right to equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; appellees also sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Appellee Unification Church was later joined as a plaintiff by stipulation of the parties, and the action was transferred to a United States Magistrate.
After obtaining a preliminary injunction, appellees moved for summary judgment. Appellees’ evidentiary support for this motion included a “declaration” of appellee Haft, which described in some detail the origin, “religious principles,” and practices of the Unification Church. App. A-7—A-14. The declaration stated that among the activities emphasized by the Church were “door-to-door and public-place proselytizing and solicitation of funds to support the Church,” id,., at A-8, and that the application of the Act to the Church through § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule would deny its members their “religious freedom,” id., at A-14. Appellees also argued that by discriminating among religious organizations, § 309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule violated the Establishment Clause.
Appellants replied that the Act did not infringe appel-lees’ freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Appellants sought to distinguish the present case from Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943), where this Court invalidated a municipal ordinance that had required the licensing of Jehovah’s Witnesses who solicited donations in exchange for religious literature, by arguing that unlike the activities of the petitioners in Murdock, appellees’ solicitations bore no substantial relationship to any religious expression, and that they were therefore outside the protection of the First Amendment. Appellants also contended that the Act did not violate the Establishment Clause. Finally, appellants argued that appellees were not entitled to challenge the Act until they had demonstrated that the Unification Church was a religion and that its fundraising activities were a religious practice.
The Magistrate determined, however, that it was not necessary for him to resolve the questions of whether the Unification Church was a religion, and whether appellees’ activities were religiously motivated, in order to reach the merits of appellees’ claims. Rather, he found that the “over-breadth” doctrine gave appellees standing to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. On the merits, the Magistrate held that the Act was facially unconstitutional with respect to religious organizations, and was therefore entirely void as to such organizations, because §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule failed the second of the three Establishment Clause “tests” set forth by this Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971). The Magistrate also held on due process grounds that certain provisions of the Act were unconstitutional as applied to any groups or persons claiming the religious-organization exemption from the Act. The Magistrate therefore recommended, inter alia, that appel-lees be granted the declarative and permanent injunctive relief that they had sought — namely, a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to religious organizations and their members, and an injunction against enforcement of the Act as to any religious organization. Accepting these recommendations, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of appellees on these issues.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 637 F. 2d 562 (1981). On the issue of standing,. the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s application of the overbreadth doctrine, citing Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, 634 (1980), for the proposition that “a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court.” 637 F. 2d, at 564—565. On the merits, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s holding that the “inexplicable religious classification” embodied in the fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), violated the Establishment Clause. Id., at 565-570. Applying the Minnesota rule of severability, the Court of Appeals also held that § 309.515, subd. 1(b), as a whole should not be stricken from the Act, but rather that the fifty per cent rule should be stricken from § 309.515, subd. 1(b). Id., at 570. But the court disagreed with the District Court’s conclusion that appellees and others should enjoy the religious-organization exemption from the Act merely by claiming to be such organizations: The court held that proof of religious-organization status was required in order to gain the exemption, and left the question of appellees’ status “open... for further development.” Id., at 570-571. The Court of Appeals accordingly vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the action for entry of a modified injunction and for further appropriate proceedings. Id., at 571. We noted probable jurisdiction. 452 U. S. 904 (1981).
h-H HH
Appellants argue that appellees are not entitled to be heard on their Establishment Clause claims. Their rationale for this argument has shifted, however, as this litigation has progressed. Appellants’ position in the courts below was that the Unification Church was not a religion, and more importantly that appellees’ solicitations were not connected with any religious purpose. From these premises appellants concluded that appellees were not entitled to raise their Establishment Clause claims until they had demonstrated that their activities were within the protection of that Clause. The courts below rejected this conclusion, instead applying the overbreadth doctrine in order to allow appellees to raise their Establishment Clause claims. In this Court, appellants have taken an entirely new tack. They now argue that the Unification Church is not a “religious organization” within the meaning of Minnesota’s charitable solicitations Act, and that the Church therefore would not be entitled to an exemption under §309.515, subd. 1(b), even if the fifty per cent rule were declared unconstitutional. From this new premise appellants conclude that the courts below erred in invalidating §309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule without first requiring appellees to demonstrate that they would have been able to maintain their exempt status but for that rule, and thus that its adoption had caused them injury in fact. We have considered both of appellants’ rationales, and hold that neither of them has merit.
“The essence of the standing inquiry is whether the parties seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction have ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59, 72 (1978), quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). This requirement of a “personal stake” must consist of “a ‘distinct and palpable injury...’to the plaintiff,” Duke Power Co., supra, at 72, quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975), and “a ‘fairly traceable’ causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct,” Duke Power Co., supra, at 72, quoting Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 261 (1977). Application of these constitutional standards to the record before us and the factual findings of the District Court convince us that the Art. Ill requirements for standing are plainly met by appellees.
Appellants argue in this Court that the Unification Church is not a “religious organization” within the meaning of the Act, and therefore that appellees cannot demonstrate injury in fact. We note at the outset, however, that in the years before 1978 the Act contained a general exemption provision for all religious organizations, and that during those years the Unification Church was not required by the State to register and report under the Act. It was only in 1978, shortly after the addition of the fifty per cent rule to the religious-organization exemption, that the State first attempted to impose the requirements of the Act upon the Unification Church. And when the State made this attempt, it deliberately chose to do so in express and exclusive reliance upon the newly enacted fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b). See n. 4, supra. The present suit was initiated by appel-lees in direct response to that attempt by the State to force the Church’s registration. It is thus plain that appellants’ stated rationale for the application of the Act to appellees was that § 309.515, subd. 1(b), did apply to the Unification Church. But § 309.515, subd. 1(b), by its terms applies only to religious organizations. It follows, therefore, that an essential premise of the State’s attempt to require the Unification Church to register under the Act by virtue of the fifty per cent rule in § 309.515, subd. 1(b), is that the Church is a religious organization. It is logically untenable for the State to take the position that the Church is not such an organization, because that position destroys an essential premise of the exercise of statutory authority at issue in this suit.
In the courts below, the State joined issue precisely on the premise that the fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), was sufficient authority in itself to compel appellees’ registration. The adoption of that premise precludes the position that the Church is not a religious organization. And it remains entirely clear that if we were to uphold the constitutionality of the fifty per cent rule, the State would, without more, insist upon the Church’s registration. In this Court, the State has changed its position, and purports to find independent bases for denying the Church an exemption from the Act. Considering the development of this case in the courts below, and recognizing the premise inherent in the State’s attempt to apply the fifty per cent rule to appellees, we do not think that the State’s change of position renders the controversy between these parties any less concrete. The fact that appellants chose to apply §309.515, subd. 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule as the sole statutory authority requiring the Church to register under the Act compels the conclusion that, at least for purposes of this suit challenging that State application, the Church is indeed a religious organization within the meaning of the Act.
With respect to the question of injury in fact, we again take as the starting point of our analysis the fact that the State attempted to use § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule in order to compel the Unification Church to register and report under the Act. That attempted use of the fifty per cent rule as the State’s instrument of compulsion necessarily gives ap-pellees standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the rule. The threatened application of §309.515, subd. 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule to the Church surely amounts to a distinct and palpable injury to appellees: It disables them from soliciting contributions in the State of Minnesota unless the Church complies with registration and reporting requirements that are hardly de minimis. Just as surely, there is a fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct — here, between the claimed disabling and the threatened application of §309.515, subd. ■ 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule.
Of course, the Church cannot be assured of a continued religious-organization exemption even in the absence of the fifty per cent rule. See n. 30, infra. Appellees have not yet shown an entitlement to the entirety of the broad injunctive relief that they sought in the District Court — namely, a permanent injunction barring the State from subjecting the Church to the registration and reporting requirements of the Act. But that fact by no means detracts from the palpability of the particular and discrete injury caused to appellees by the State’s threatened application of §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule. See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S., at 261-262. The Church may indeed be compelled, ultimately, to register under the Act on some ground other than the fifty per cent rule, and while this fact does affect the nature of the relief that can properly be granted to appellees on the present record, it does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear the present case. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 287 (1977). In sum, contrary to appellants’ suggestion, appellees have clearly demonstrated injury in fact.
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent attacks appellees’ Art. Ill standing by arguing that appellees “have failed to show that a favorable decision of this Court will redress the injuries of. which they complain.” Post, at 270. This argument follows naturally from the dissent’s premise that the only meaningful relief that can be given to appellees is a total exemption from the requirements of the Act. See post, at 264, 265, 270. But the argument, like the premise, is incorrect. This litigation began after the State attempted to compel the Church to register and report under the Act solely on the authority of §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule. If that rule is declared unconstitutional, as appellees have requested, then the Church cannot be required to register and report under the Act by virtue of that rule. Since that rule was the sole basis for the State’s attempt to compel registration that gave rise to the present suit, a discrete injury of which appellees now complain will indeed be completely redressed by a favorable decision of this Court.
Furthermore, if the fifty per cent rule of §309.515, subd. 1(b), is declared unconstitutional, then the Church cannot be compelled to register and report under the Act unless the Church is determined not to be a religious organization. And as the Court of Appeals below observed:
“[A] considerable burden is on the state, in questioning a claim of a religious nature. Strict or narrow construction of a statutory exemption for religious organizations is not favored. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F. 2d 127, 129 (D. C. Cir. 1957, Burger, J.).” 637 F. 2d, at 570.
At the very least, then, a declaration that §309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule is unconstitutional would put the State to the task of demonstrating that the Unification Church is not a religious organization within the meaning of the Act — and such a task is surely more burdensome than that of demonstrating that the Church’s proportion of nonmember contributions exceeds fifty per cent. Thus appel-lees will be given substantial and meaningful relief by a favorable decision of this Court.
Since we conclude that appellees have established Art. Ill standing, we turn to the merits of the case.
HH HH 1 — 1
A
The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another. Before the Revolution, religious establishments of differing denominations were common throughout the Colonies. But the Revolutionary generation emphatically disclaimed that European legacy, and “applied the logic of secular liberty to the condition of religion and the churches.” If Parliament had lacked the authority to tax unrepresented colonists, then by the same token the newly independent States should be powerless to tax their citizens for the support of a denomination to which they did not belong. The force of this reasoning led to the abolition of most denominational establishments at the state level by the 1780’s, and led ultimately to the inclusion of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment in 1791.
This constitutional prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause. Madison once noted: “Security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.” Madison’s vision — freedom for all religion being guaranteed by free competition between religions — naturally assumed that every denomination would be equally at liberty to exercise and propagate its beliefs. But such equality would be impossible in an atmosphere of official denominational preference. Free exercise thus can be guaranteed only when legislators— and voters — are required to accord to their own religions the very same treatment given to small, new, or unpopular denominations. As Justice Jackson noted in another context, “there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.” Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 112 (1949) (concurring opinion).
Since Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), this Court has adhered to the principle, clearly manifested in the history and logic of the Establishment Clause, that no State can “pass laws which aid one religion” or that “prefer one religion over another.” Id., at 15. This principle of denominational neutrality has been restated on many occasions. In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), we said that “[t]he government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects.” Id., at 314. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968), we stated unambiguously: “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion.... The State may not adopt programs or practices... which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion.... This prohibition is absolute.” Id., at 104, 106, citing Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 225 (1963). And Justice Goldberg cogently articulated the relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause when he said that “[t]he fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government... effect no favoritism among sects... and that it work deterrence of no religious belief.” Abington School District, supra, at 305. In short, when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.
B
The fifty per cent rule of §309.515, subd. 1(b), clearly grants denominational preferences of the sort consistently and firmly deprecated in our precedents. Consequently, that rule must be invalidated unless it is justified by a compelling governmental interest, cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 269-270 (1981), and unless it is closely fitted to further that interest, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116-117 (1943). With that standard of review in mind, we turn to an examination of the governmental interest asserted by appellants.
Appellants assert, and we acknowledge, that the State of Minnesota has a significant interest in protecting its citizens from abusive practices in the solicitation of funds for charity, and that this interest retains importance when the solicitation is conducted by a religious organization. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals, 637 F. 2d, at 567, that the Act, “viewed as a whole, has a valid secular purpose,” and we will therefore assume, arguendo, that the Act generally is addressed to a sufficiently “compelling” governmental interest. But our inquiry must focus more narrowly, upon the distinctions drawn by § 309.515, subd. 1(b), itself: Appellants must demonstrate that the challenged fifty per cent rule is closely fitted to further the interest that it assertedly serves.
Appellants argue that § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s distinction between contributions solicited from members and from nonmembers is eminently sensible. They urge that members are reasonably assumed to have significant control over the solicitation of contributions from themselves to their organization, and over the expenditure of the funds that they contribute, as well. Further, appellants note that as a matter of Minnesota law, members of organizations have greater access than nonmembers to the financial records of the organization. Appellants conclude:
“Where the safeguards of membership funding do not exist, the need for public disclosure is obvious....
“... As public contributions increase as a percentage of total contributions, the need for public disclosure increases.... The particular point at which public disclosure should be required... is a determination for the legislature. In this case, the Act’s ‘majority’ distinction is a compelling point, since it is at this point that the organization becomes predominantly public-funded.” Brief for Appellants 29.
We reject the argument, for it wholly fails to justify the only aspect of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), under attack — the selective fifty per cent rule. Appellants’ argument is based on three distinct premises: that members of a religious organization can and will exercise supervision and control over the organization’s solicitation activities when membership contributions exceed fifty per cent; that membership control, assuming its existence, is an adequate safeguard against abusive solicitations of the public by the organization; and that the need for public disclosure rises in proportion with the percentage of nonmember contributions. Acceptance of all three of these premises is necessary to appellants’ conclusion, but we find no substantial support for any of them in the record.
Regarding the first premise, there is simply nothing suggested that would justify the assumption that a religious organization will be supervised and controlled by its members simply because they contribute more than half of the organization’s solicited income. Even were we able to accept appellants’ doubtful assumption that members will supervise their religious organization under such circumstances, the record before us is wholly barren of support for appellants’ further assumption that members will effectively control the organization if they contribute more than half of its solicited income. Appellants have offered no evidence whatever that members of religious organizations exempted by § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule in fact control their organizations. Indeed, the legislative history of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), indicates precisely to the contrary. In short, the first premise of appellants’ argument has no merit.
Nor do appellants offer any stronger justification for their second premise — that membership control is an adequate safeguard against abusive solicitations of the public by the organization. This premise runs directly contrary to the central thesis of the entire Minnesota charitable solicitations Act — namely, that charitable organizations soliciting contributions from the public cannot be relied upon to regulate themselves, and that state regulation is accordingly necessary. Appellants offer nothing to suggest why religious organizations should be treated any differently in this respect. And even if we were to assume that the members of religious organizations have some incentive, absent in nonreligious organizations, to protect the interests of nonmembers solicited by the organization, appellants’ premise would still fail to justify the fifty per cent rule: Appellants offer no reason why the members of religious organizations exempted under §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule should have any greater incentive to protect nonmembers than the members of nonexempted religious organizations have. Thus we also reject appellants’ second premise as without merit.
Finally, we find appellants’ third premise — that the need for public disclosure rises in proportion with the percentage of nonmember contributions — also without merit. The flaw in appellants’ reasoning here may be illustrated by the following example. Church A raises $10 million, 20 per cent from nonmembers. Church B raises $50,000, 60 per cent from nonmembers. Appellants would argue that although the public contributed $2 million to Church A and only $30,000 to Church B, there is less need for public disclosure with respect to Church A than with respect to Church B. We disagree; the need for public disclosure more plausibly rises in proportion with the absolute amount, rather than with the percentage, of nonmember contributions. The State of Minnesota has itself adopted this view elsewhere in §309.515: With qualifications not relevant here, charitable organizations that receive annual nonmember contributions of less than $10,000 are exempted from the registration and reporting requirements of the Act. §309.515, subd. 1(a).
We accordingly conclude that appellants have failed to demonstrate that the fifty per cent rule in §309.515, subd. 1(b), is “closely fitted” to further a “compelling governmental interest.”
C
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), we announced three “tests” that a statute must pass in order to avoid the prohibition of the Establishment Clause.
“First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.’ Walz [v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664, 674 (1970)].” Id., at 612-613.
As our citations of Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236 (1968), and Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664 (1970), indicated, the Lemon v. Kurtzman “tests” are intended to apply to laws affording a uniform benefit to all religions, and not to provisions, like § 309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule, that discriminate among religions. Although application of the Lemon tests is not necessary to the disposition of the case before us, those tests do reflect the same concerns that warranted the application of strict scrutiny to § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule. The Court of Appeals found that rule to be invalid under the first two Lemon tests. We view the third of those tests as most directly implicated in the present case. Justice Harlan well described the problems of entanglement in his separate opinion in Walz, where he observed that governmental involvement in programs concerning religion
“may be so direct or in such degree as to engender a risk of politicizing religion.... [RJeligious groups inevitably represent certain points of view and not infrequently assert them in the political arena, as evidenced by the continuing debate respecting birth control and abortion laws. Yet history cautions that political fragmentation on sectarian lines must be guarded against.... [Government participation in certain programs, whose very nature is apt to entangle the state in details of administration and planning, may escalate to the point of inviting undue fragmentation.” 397 U. S., at 695.
The Minnesota statute challenged here is illustrative of this danger. By their “very nature,” the distinctions drawn by § 309.515, subd. 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule “engender a risk of politicizing religion” — a risk, indeed, that has already been substantially realized.
It is plain that the principal effect of the fifty per cent rule in §309.515, subd. 1(b), is to impose the registration and reporting requirements of the Act on some religious organizations but not on others. It is also plain that, as the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]he benefit conferred [by exemption] constitutes a substantial advantage; the burden of compliance with the Act is certainly not de minimis” 637 F. 2d, at 568. We do not suggest that the burdens of compliance with the Act would be intrinsically impermissible if they were imposed evenhandedly. But this statute does not operate evenhandedly, nor was it designed to do so: The fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), effects the selective legislative imposition of burdens and advantages upon particular denominations. The “risk of politicizing religion” that inheres in such legislation is obvious, and indeed is confirmed by the provision’s legislative history. For the history of §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule demonstrates that the provision was drafted with the explicit intention of including particular religious denominations and excluding others. For example, the second sentence of an early draft of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), read: “A religious society or organization which solicits from its religious affiliates who are qualified under this subdivision and who are represented in a body or convention that elects and controls the governing board of the religious society or organization is exempt from the requirements of... Sections 309.52 and 309.53.” Minn. H. 1246, 1977-1978 Sess., §4 (read Apr. 6, 1978). The legislative history discloses that the legislators perceived that the italicized language would bring a Roman Catholic Archdiocese within the Act, that the legislators did not want the amendment to have that effect, and that an amendment deleting the italicized clause was passed in committee for the sole purpose of exempting the Archdiocese from the provisions of the Act. Transcript of Legislative Discussions of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), as set forth in Declaration of Charles C. Hunter (on file in this Court) 8-9. On the other hand, there were certain religious organizations that the legislators did not want to exempt from the Act. One State Senator explained that the fifty per cent rule was “an attempt to deal with the religious organizations which are soliciting on the street and soliciting by direct mail, but who are not substantial religious institutions in... our state.” Id., at 13. Another Senator said, “what you’re trying to get at here is the people that are running around airports and running around streets and soliciting people and you’re trying to remove them from the exemption that normally applies to religious organizations.” Id., at 14. Still another Senator, who apparently had mixed feelings about the proposed provision, stated, “I’m not sure why we’re so hot to regulate the Moonies anyway.” Id., at 16.
In short, the fifty per cent rule’s capacity — indeed, its express design — to burden or favor selected religious denominations led the Minnesota Legislature to discuss the characteristics of various sects with a view towards “religious gerrymandering,” Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 452 (1971). As The Chief Justice stated in Lemon, 403 U. S., at 620: “This kind of state inspection and evaluation of the religious content of a religious organization is fraught with the sort of entanglement that the Constitution forbids. It is a relationship pregnant with dangers of excessive government direction... of churches.”
1 — I <
In sum, we conclude that the fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), is not closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling governmental interest asserted by appellants, and that the provision therefore violates the Establishment Clause. Indeed, we think that §309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule sets up precisely the sort of official denominational preference that the Framers of the First Amendment forbade. Accordingly, we hold that appellees cannot be compelled to register and report under the Act on the strength of that provision.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....” It is applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940).
Section 309.51, subd. 1(a) (1969), repealed in 1973, provided in pertinent part:
“[S]ections 309.50 to 309
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether, in a suit against an employer alleging intentional racial discrimination in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), the trier of fact’s rejection of the employer’s asserted reasons for its actions mandates a finding for the plaintiff.
I
Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary’s in August 1978 and was promoted to shift commander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980.
In 1983 MDCHR conducted an investigation of the administration of St. Mary’s, which resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January 1984. Respondent retained his position, but John Powell became the new chief of custody (respondent’s immediate supervisor) and petitioner Steve Long the new superintendent. Prior to these personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory employment record, but soon thereafter became the subject of repeated, and increasingly severe, disciplinary actions. He was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984. He received a letter of reprimand for alleged failure to conduct an adequate investigation of a brawl between inmates that occurred during his shift on March 21. He was later demoted from shift commander to correctional officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates entered their use of a St. Mary’s vehicle into the official logbook on March 19, 1984. Finally, on June 7, 1984, he was discharged for threatening Powell during an exchange of heated words on April 19.
Respondent brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that petitioner St. Mary’s violated § 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), and that petitioner Long violated Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, by demoting and then discharging him because of his race. After a full bench trial, the District Court found for petitioners. 756 F. Supp. 1244 (ED Mo. 1991). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, 970 F. 2d 487 (1992), and we granted certiorari, 506 U. S. 1042 (1993).
II
Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides in relevant part: With the goal of “progressively... sharpening] the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination,” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 255, n. 8 (1981), our opinion in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory-treatment cases. The plaintiff in such a case, we said, must first establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a “prima facie” case of racial discrimination. Burdine, supra, at 252-253. Petitioners do not challenge the District Court’s finding that respondent satisfied the minimal requirements of such a prima facie case (set out in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802) by proving (1) that he is black, (2) that he was qualified for the position of shift commander, (3) that he was demoted from that position and ultimately discharged, and (4) that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a white man. 756 F. Supp., at 1249-1250.
“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
“(1)... to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race....” 42 U.S. C. § 2000e-2(a).
Under the McDonnell Douglas scheme, “[establishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.” Burdine, supra, at 254. To establish a “presumption” is to say that a finding of the predicate fact (here, the prima facie case) produces “a required conclusion in the absence of explanation” (here, the finding of unlawful discrimination). 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence §67, p. 536 (1977). Thus, the McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case — i. e., the burden of “producing evidence” that the adverse employment actions were taken “for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Bur-dine, 450 U. S., at 254. “[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,” reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment action. Id., at 254-255, and n. 8. It is important to note, however, that although the McDonnell Douglas presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant, “[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” 450 U. S., at 253. In this regard it operates like all presumptions, as described in Federal Rule of Evidence 301:
“In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.”
Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent. 756 F. Supp., at 1250. Our cases make clear that at that point the shifted burden of production became irrelevant: “If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted,” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 255, and “drops from the case,” id., at 255, n. 10. The plaintiff then has “the full and fair opportunity to demonstrate,” through presentation of his own case and through cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, “that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision,” id., at 256, and that race was. He retains that “ultimate burden of persuading the [trier of fact] that [he] has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Ibid.
The District Court, acting as trier of fact in this bench trial, found that the reasons petitioners gave were not the real reasons for respondent’s demotion and discharge. It found that respondent was the only supervisor disciplined for violations committed by his subordinates; that similar and even more serious violations committed by respondent’s co-workers were either disregarded or treated more leniently; and that Powell manufactured the final verbal confrontation in order to provoke respondent into threatening him. 756 F. Supp., at 1250-1251. It nonetheless held that respondent had failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that his race was the determining factor in petitioners’ decision first to demote and then to dismiss him. In short, the District Court concluded that “although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade to terminate him, he has not proven that the crusade was racially rather than personally motivated.” Id., at 1252.
The Court of Appeals set this determination aside on the ground that “[o]nce [respondent] proved all of [petitioners’] proffered reasons for the adverse employment actions to be pretextual, [respondent] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 970 F. 2d, at 492. The Court of Appeals reasoned:
“Because all of defendants’ proffered reasons were discredited, defendants were in a position of having offered no legitimate reason for their actions. In other words, defendants were in no better position than if they had remained silent, offering no rebuttal to an established inference that they had unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race.” Ibid.
That is not so. By producing evidence (whether ultimately persuasive or not) of nondiscriminatory reasons, petitioners sustained their burden of production, and thus placed themselves in a “better position than if they had remained silent.” In the nature of things, the determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment. For the burden-of-production determination necessarily precedes the credibility-assessment stage. At the close of the defendant’s case, the court is asked to decide whether an issue of fact remains for the trier of fact to determine. None does if, on the evidence presented, (1) any rational person would have to find the existence of facts constituting a prima facie case, and (2) the defendant has failed to meet its burden of production — i. e., has failed to introduce evidence which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. In that event, the court must award judgment to the plaintiff as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) (in the case of jury trials) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) (in the case of bench trials). See F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure §7.9, p. 327 (3d ed. 1985); 1 Louisell & Mueller, Federal Evidence § 70, at 568. If the defendant has failed to sustain its burden but reasonable minds could differ as to whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes the facts of a prima facie case, then a question of fact does remain, which the trier of fact will be called upon to answer.
If, on the other hand, the defendant has succeeded in carrying its burden of production, the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens — is no longer relevant. To resurrect it later, after the trier of fact has determined that what was “produced” to meet the burden of production is not credible, flies in the face of our holding in Burdine that to rebut the presumption “[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.” 450 U. S., at 254. The presumption, having fulfilled its role of forcing the defendant to come forward with some response, simply drops out of the picture. Id., at 255. The defendant’s “production” (whatever its persuasive effect) having been made, the trier of fact proceeds to decide the ultimate question: whether plaintiff has proved “that the defendant intentionally discriminated against [him]” because of his race, id., at 253. The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, “[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required,” 970 P. 2d, at 493 (emphasis added). But the Court of Appeals’ holding that rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons compels judgment for the plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 that a presumption does not shift the burden of proof, and ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the “ultimate burden of persuasion.” See, e. g., Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 716 (1983) (citing Burdine, supra, at 256); Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 187 (1989); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 245-246 (1989) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 260 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 270 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 286-288 (Kennedy, J., joined by The Chief Justice and Scalia, J., dissenting); Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U. S. 867, 875 (1984); cf. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642, 659-660 (1989); id., at 668 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977, 986 (1988).
Ill
Only one unfamiliar with our case law will be upset by the dissent’s alarum that we are today setting aside “settled precedent,” post, at 525, “two decades of stable law in this Court,” ibid., “a framework carefully crafted in precedents as old as 20 years,” post, at 540, which “Congress is [aware]” of and has implicitly approved, post, at 542. Panic will certainly not break out among the courts of appeals, whose divergent views concerning the nature of the supposedly “stable law in this Court” are precisely what prompted us to take this case — a divergence in which the dissent’s version of “settled precedent” cannot remotely be considered the “prevailing view.” Compare, e. g., EEOC v. Flasher Co., 986 F. 2d 1312, 1321 (CA10 1992) (finding of pretext does not mandate finding of illegal discrimination); Galbraith v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 944 F. 2d 275, 282-283 (CA6 1991) (same) (opinion of Boggs, J.), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 945 (1992); 944 F. 2d, at 283 (same) (opinion of Guy, J., concurring in result); Samuels v. Raytheon Corp., 934 F. 2d 388, 392 (CA1 1991) (same); Holder v. City of Raleigh, 867 F. 2d 823, 827-828 (CA4 1989) (same); Benzies v. Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, 810 F. 2d 146, 148 (CA7) (same) (dictum), cert. denied, 483 U. S. 1006 (1987); Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. of Ed., 717 F. 2d 525, 529 (CA11 1983) (same) (dictum), with Hicks v. St. Mary’s Honor Center, 970 F. 2d, at 492-493 (case below) (finding of pretext mandates finding of illegal discrimination), cert. granted, 506 U. S. 1042 (1993); Tye v. Board of Ed. of Polaris Joint Vocational School Dist., 811 F. 2d 315, 320 (CA6) (same), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 924 (1987); King v. Palmer, 250 U. S. App. D. C. 257, 260, 778 F. 2d 878, 881 (1985) (same); Duffy v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 738 F. 2d 1393, 1395-1396 (CA3) (same), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1087 (1984); Lopez v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 930 F. 2d 157, 161 (CA2) (same) (dictum), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 880 (1991); Caban-Wheeler v. Elsea, 904 F. 2d 1549, 1554 (CA11 1990) (same) (dictum); Thornbrough v. Columbus & Greenville R. Co., 760 F. 2d 633, 639-640, 646-647 (CA5 1985) (same) (dictum). We mean to answer the dissent’s accusations in detail, by examining our cases, but at the outset it is worth noting the utter implausibility that we would ever have held what the dissent says we held.
As we have described, Title VII renders it unlawful “for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Here (in the context of the now-permissible jury trials for Title VII causes of action) is what the dissent asserts we have held to be a proper assessment of liability for violation of this law: Assume that 40% of a business’ work force are members of a particular minority group, a group which comprises only 10% of the relevant labor market. An applicant, who is a member of that group, applies for an opening for which he is minimally qualified, but is rejected by a hiring officer of that same minority group, and the search to fill the opening continues. The rejected applicant files suit for racial discrimination under Title VII, and before the suit comes to trial, the supervisor who conducted the company’s hiring is fired. Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has a prima facie case, see 411 U. S., at 802, and under the dissent’s interpretation of our law not only must the company come forward with some explanation for the refusal to hire (which it will have to try to confirm out of the mouth of its now antagonistic former employee), but the jury must be instructed that, if they find that explanation to be incorrect, they must assess damages against the company, whether or not they believe the company was guilty of racial discrimination. The disproportionate minority makeup of the company’s work force and the fact that its hiring officer was of the same minority group as the plaintiff will be irrelevant, because the plaintiff’s case can be proved “indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” 450 U. S., at 256. Surely nothing short of inescapable prior holdings (the dissent does not pretend there are any) should make one assume that this is the law we have created.
We have no authority to impose liability upon an employer for alleged discriminatory employment practices unless an appropriate factfinder determines, according to proper procedures, that the employer has unlawfully discriminated. We may, according to traditional practice, establish certain modes and orders of proof, including an initial rebuttable presumption of the sort we described earlier in this opinion, which we believe McDonnell Douglas represents. But nothing in law would permit us to substitute for the required finding that the employer’s action was the product of unlawful discrimination, the much different (and much lesser) finding that the employer’s explanation of its action was not believable. The dissent’s position amounts to precisely this, unless what is required to establish the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is a degree of proof so high that it would, in absence of rebuttal, require a directed verdict for the plaintiff (for in that case proving the employer’s rebuttal noncredible would leave the plaintiff’s directed-verdict case in place, and compel a judgment in his favor). Quite obviously, however, what is required to establish the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is infinitely less than what a directed verdict demands. The dissent is thus left with a position that has no support in the statute, no support in the reason of the matter, no support in any holding of this Court (that is not even contended), and support, if at all, only in the dicta of this Court’s opinions. It is to those that we now turn — begrudgingly, since we think it generally undesirable, where holdings of the Court are not at issue, to dissect the sentences of the United States Reports as though they were the United States Code.
The principal case on which the dissent relies is Burdine. While there are some statements in that opinion that could be read to support the dissent’s position, all but one of them bear a meaning consistent with our interpretation, and the one exception is simply incompatible with other language in the case. Burdine describes the situation that obtains after the employer has met its burden of adducing a nondiscriminatory reason as follows: “Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” 450 U. S., at 253. The dissent takes this to mean that if the plaintiff proves the asserted reason to be false, the plaintiff wins. But a reason cannot be proved to be “a pretext for discrimination” unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason. Burdine’s later allusions to proving or demonstrating simply “pretext,” e. g., id., at 258, are reasonably understood to refer to the previously described pretext, i. e., “pretext for discrimination.”
Burdine also says that when the employer has met its burden of production “the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity.” Id., at 255. The dissent takes this to mean that the factual inquiry reduces to whether the employer’s asserted reason is true or false — if false, the defendant loses. But the “new level of specificity” may also (as we believe) refer to the fact that the inquiry now turns from the few generalized factors that establish a prima facie case to the specific proofs and rebuttals of discriminatory motivation the parties have introduced.
In the next sentence, Burdine says that “[p]lacing this burden of production on the defendant thus serves... to frame the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.” Id., at 255-256. The dissent thinks this means that the only factual issue remaining in the case is whether the employer’s reason is false. But since in our view “pretext” means “pretext for discrimination,” we think the sentence must be understood as addressing the form rather than the substance of the defendant’s production burden: The requirement that the employer “clearly set forth” its reasons, id., at 255, gives the plaintiff a “full and fair” rebuttal opportunity.
A few sentences later, Burdine says: “[The plaintiff] now must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision. This burden now merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Id., at 256. The dissent takes this “merger” to mean that “the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination” is replaced by the mere burden of “demonstrating] that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision.” But that would be a merger in which the little fish swallows the big one. Surely a more reasonable reading is that proving the employer’s reason false becomes part of (and often' considerably assists) the greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination.
Finally, in the next sentence Burdine says: “[The plaintiff] may succeed in this [i e., in persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination] either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 804-805.” Ibid. We must agree with the dissent on this one: The words bear no other meaning but that the falsity of the employer’s explanation is alone enough to compel judgment for the plaintiff. The problem is that that dictum contradicts or renders inexplicable numerous other statements, both in Burdine itself and in our later case law — commencing with the very citation of authority Burdine uses to support the proposition. McDonnell Douglas does not say, at the cited pages or elsewhere, that all the plaintiff need do is disprove the employer’s asserted reason. In fact, it says just the opposite: “[O]n the retrial respondent must be given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence that the presumptively valid reasons for his rejection were in fact a coverupfor a racially discriminatory decision.” 411 U. S., at 805 (emphasis added). “We... insist that respondent under § 703(a)(1) must be given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence that whatever the stated reasons for his rejection, the decision was in reality racially premised.” Id., at 805, n. 18 (emphasis added). The statement in question also contradicts Burdine’s repeated assurance (indeed, its holding) regarding the burden of persuasion: “The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” 450 U. S., at 253. “The plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion.” Id., at 256. And lastly, the statement renders inexplicable Burdine’s explicit reliance, in describing the shifting burdens of McDonnell Douglas, upon authorities setting forth the classic law of presumptions we have described earlier, including Wigmore’s Evidence, 450 U. S., at 253, 254, n. 7, 255, n. 8, James’ and Hazard’s Civil Procedure, id., at 255, n. 8, Federal Rule of Evidence 301, ibid., Maguire’s Evidence, Common Sense and Common Law, ibid., and Thayer’s Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, id., at 255, n. 10. In light of these inconsistencies, we think that the dictum at issue here must be regarded as an inadvertence, to the extent that it describes disproof of the defendant’s reason as a totally independent, rather than an auxiliary, means of proving unlawful intent.
In sum, our interpretation of Burdine creates difficulty with one sentence; the dissent’s interpretation causes many portions of the opinion to be incomprehensible or deceptive. But whatever doubt Burdine might have created was eliminated by Aikens. There we said, in language that cannot reasonably be mistaken, that “the ultimate question [is] discrimination vel non.” 460 U. S., at 714. Once the defendant “responds to the plaintiff’s proof by offering evidence of the reason for the plaintiff’s rejection, the factfinder must then decide” not (as the dissent would have it) whether that evidence is credible, but “whether the rejection was discriminatory within the meaning of Title VII.” Id., at 714-715. At that stage, we said, “[t]he District Court was... in a position to decide the ultimate factual issue in the case,” which is “whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” Id., at 715 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). The McDonnell Douglas methodology was “ ‘never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.’” 460 U. S., at 715 (quoting Furnco, 438 U. S., at 577). Rather, once the defendant has responded to the plaintiff’s prima facie case, “[t]he district court has before it all the evidence it needs to decide” not (as the dissent would have it) whether defendant’s response is credible, but “whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” 460 U. S., at 715 (internal quotation marks omitted). “On the state of the record at the close of the evidence, the District Court in this case should have proceeded to this specific question directly, just as district courts decide disputed questions of fact in other civil litigation.” Id., at 715-716. In confirmation of this (rather than in contradiction of it), the Court then quotes the problematic passage from Bur-dine, which says that the plaintiff may carry her burden either directly “ ‘or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.’ ” 460 U. S., at 716. It then characterizes that passage as follows: “In short, the district court must decide which party’s explanation of the employer’s motivation it believes.” Ibid. It is not enough, in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination. It is noteworthy that Justice Blackmun, although joining the Court’s opinion in Aikens, wrote a separate concurrence for the sole purpose of saying that he understood the Court’s opinion to be saying what the dissent today asserts. That concurrence was joined only by Justice Brennan. Justice Marshall would have none of that, but simply refused to join the Court’s opinion, concurring without opinion in the judgment. We think there is little doubt what Aikens meant.
IV
We turn, finally, to the dire practical consequences that the respondents and the dissent claim our decision today will produce. What appears to trouble the dissent more than anything is that, in its view, our rule is adopted “for the benefit of employers who have been found to have given false evidence in a court of law,” whom we “favo[r]” by “exempting them from responsibility for lies.” Post, at 537. As we shall explain, our rule in no way gives special favor to those employers whose evidence is disbelieved. But initially we must point out that there is no justification for assuming (as the dissent repeatedly does) that those employers whose evidence is disbelieved are perjurers and liars. See ante, at 536-537 (“the employer who lies”; “the employer’s lie”; “found to have given false evidence”; “lies”); post, at 540 (“benefit from lying”; “must lie”; “offering false evidence”), 540, n. 13 (“employer who lies”; “employer caught in a lie”; “rewarded for its falsehoods”), 540 (“requires a party to lie”). Even if these were typically cases in which an individual defendant’s sworn assertion regarding a physical occurrence was pitted against an individual plaintiff’s sworn assertion regarding the same physical occurrence, surely it would be imprudent to call the party whose assertion is (by a mere preponderance of the evidence) disbelieved, a perjurer and a liar. And in these Title VII cases, the defendant is ordinarily not an individual but a company, which must rely upon the statement of an employee — often a relatively low-level employee — as to the central fact; and that central fact is not a physical occurrence, but rather that employee’s state of mind. To say that the company which in good faith introduces such testimony, or even the testifying employee himself, becomes a liar and a perjurer when the testimony is not believed, is nothing short of absurd.
Undoubtedly some employers (or at least their employees) will be lying. But even if we could readily identify these perjurers, what an extraordinary notion, that we “exempt them from responsibility for their lies” unless we enter Title VII judgments for the plaintiffs! Title VII is not a cause of action for perjury; we have other civil and criminal remedies for that. The dissent’s notion of judgment-for-lying is seen to be not even a fair and evenhanded punishment for vice, when one realizes how strangely selective it is: The employer is free to lie to its heart’s content about whether the plaintiff ever applied for a job, about how long he worked, how much he made — indeed, about anything and everything except the reason for the adverse employment action. And the plaintiff is permitted to lie about absolutely everything without losing a verdict he otherwise deserves. This is not a major, or even a sensible, blow against fibbery.
The respondent’s argument based upon the employer’s supposed lying is a more modest one: “A defendant which unsuccessfully offers a ‘phony reason’ logically cannot be in a better legal position [i. e., the position of having overcome the presumption from the plaintiff’s prima facie case] than a defendant who remains silent, and offers no reasons at all for its conduct.” Brief for Respondent 21; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11, 17-18. But there is no anomaly in that, once one recognizes that the McDonnell Douglas presumption is a procedural device, designed only to establish an order of proof and production. The books are full of procedural rules that place the perjurer (initially, at least) in a better position than the truthful litigant who makes no response at all. A defendant who fails to answer a complaint will, on motion, suffer a default judgment that a deceitful response could have avoided. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 55(a). A defendant whose answer fails to contest critical averments in the complaint will, on motion, suffer a judgment on the pleadings that untruthful denials could have avoided. Rule 12(c). And a defendant who fails to submit affidavits creating a genuine issue of fact in response to a motion for summary judgment will suffer a dismissal that false affidavits could have avoided. Rule 56(e). In all of those cases, as under the McDonnell Douglas framework, perjury may purchase the defendant a chance at the fact-finder — though there, as here, it also carries substantial risks, see Rules 11 and 56(g); 18 U. S. C. § 1621.
The dissent repeatedly raises a procedural objection that is impressive only to one who mistakes the basic nature of the McDonnell Douglas procedure. It asserts that “the Court now holds that the further enquiry [i. e., the inquiry that follows the employer’s response to the prima facie case] is wide open, not limited at all by the scope of the employer’s proffered explanation.” Post, at 533. The plaintiff cannot be expected to refute “reasons not articulated by the employer, but discerned in the record by the factfinder.” Ante, at 534. He should not “be saddled with the tremendous disadvantage of having to confront, not the defined task of proving the employer’s stated reasons to be false, but the amorphous requirement of disproving all possible nondiscriminatory reasons that a factfinder might find lurking in the record.” Post, at 534-535. “Under the scheme announced today, any conceivable explanation for the employer’s actions that might be suggested by the evidence, however unrelated to the employer’s articulated reasons, must be addressed by [the] plaintiff.” Post, at 537. These statements imply that the employer’s “proffered explanation,” his “stated reasons,” his “articulated reasons,” somehow exist apart from the record — in some pleading, or perhaps in some formal,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once more the Court is required to resolve the conflicting constitutional claims of congressional power and of an individual’s right to resist its exercise. The congressional power in question concerns the internal process of Congress in moving within its legislative domain; it involves the utilization of its committees to secure “testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 160. The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.
Broad as it is, the power is not, however, without limitations. Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the Government. Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into matters that are exclusively the concern of the Judiciary. Neither can it supplant the Executive in what exclusively belongs to the Executive. And the Congress, in common with all branches of the Government, must exercise its powers subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action, more particularly in the context of this case the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights.
The congressional power of inquiry, its range and scope, and an individual’s duty in relation to it, must be viewed in proper perspective. McGrain v. Daugherty, supra; Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 214; Black, Inside a Senate Investigation, 172 Harpers Monthly 275 (February 1936). The power and the right of resistance to it are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions. In the present case congressional efforts to learn the extent of a nation-wide, indeed world-wide, problem have brought one of its investigating committees into the field of education. Of course, broadly viewed, inquiries cannot be made into the teaching that is pursued in any of our educational institutions. When academic teaching-freedom and its corollary learning-freedom, so essential to the well-being of the Nation, are claimed, this Court will álways be on the alert against intrusion by Congress into this constitutionally protected domain.' But this does not mean that the Congress is precluded from interrogating a witness merely because he is a teacher. An educational institution is not a constitutional sanctuary from inqfiiry into matters that may otherwise be within the constitutional legislative domain merely for the reason that inquiry is made of someone within its walls.
In the setting of this framework of constitutional history, practice and legal precedents, we turn to the particularities of this case.
We here review petitioner’s conviction under 2 U. S. C. § 192 for contempt of Congress, arising from his refusal to answer certain questions put to him by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the course of an inquiry concerning alleged Communist infiltration into the field of education.
The case is before us for the second time. Petitioner’s conviction was originally affirmed in 1957 by a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals, 100 U. S. App. D. C. 13, 240 F. 2d 875, This Court granted certiorari, 354 U. S. 930, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, which had reversed a contempt of Congress conviction, and which was decided after the Court of Appeals’ decision here had issued. Thereafter the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reaffirmed the conviction by a divided court. 102 U. S. App. D. C. 217, 252 F. 2d 129. We again granted certiorari, 356 U. S. 929, to consider petitioner’s statutory and constitutional challenges to his conviction, and particularly his claim that the judgment below cannot stand under our decision in the Watkins case.
Pursuant to a subpoena; and accompanied by counsel,, petitioner on Juné 28, 1954, appeared as a witness before this congressional Subcommittee. After answering a few preliminary questions and testifying that he had been a graduate student and teaching fellow at the University of Michigan from 1947 to 1950 and an instructor in psychology at Vassar College from 1950 to shortly before his appearance before the Subcommittee, petitioner objected generally to the right of the Subcommittee to inquire into his “political” and “religious” beliefs or any “other personal and private affairs” or “associational activities,” upon grounds set forth in a previously prepared memorandum which he was allowed to file with the Subcommittee. Thereafter petitioner specifically declined to answer each of the following five questions:
“Are you now a member of the Communist Party? [Count One.]
“Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? [Count Two.]
“Now, you have stated that you knew Francis Crowley. Did you know Francis Crowley as a member of the Communist Party? [Count Three.]
“Were you ever a member of the Haldane Club of the Communist Party while at the University of Michigan? [Count Four.]
. “Were you a member while a student of the University of Michigan Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions?” [Count Five.]
In each instance the grounds of refusal were those set forth in the prepared statement. Petitioner expressly disclaimed reliance upon “the Fifth Amendment.”
Following receipt of the Subcommittee’s report of these occurrences the House duly certified the matter to the District of Columbia United States Attorney for contempt proceedings. An indictment in five Counts, each embracing one of petitioner’s several refusals to answer, ensued. With the consent of both sides the case was tried to the court without a jury, and upon conviction under all Counts a general sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $250 was imposed.
Since this sentence was less than the maximum punishment authorized by the statute for conviction under any one Count, the judgment below must be upheld if the conviction upon any of the Counts is sustainable. See Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 147; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53; Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U. S. 431. As we conceive the ultimate issue in this case to be whether petitioner could properly be convicted of contempt for refusing to answer questions relating to his participation in or knowledge of alleged Communist Party activities at educational institutions in this country, we find it unnecessary to consider the validity of his conviction under the Third and Fifth Counts, the only ones involving questions which on their face do not directly relate to such participation or knowledge.
Petitioner’s various contentions resolve themselves into three propositions: First, the compelling of testimony by the Subcommittee was neither legislatively authorized nor constitutionally permissible because of the vagueness of Rule XI of the- House of Representatives, Eighty-third Congress, the charter of authority of the parent Committee. Second, petitioner was not adequately apprised of the pertinency of the Subcommittee’s questions to the subject matter of the inquiry: Third, the questions petitioner refused to answer infringed rights protected by the First Amendment.
Subcommittee’s Authority to Compel Testimony.
At the outset it should be noted that Rule XI authorized this Subcommittee to compel testimony within the framework of the investigative authority conferred on the Un-American Activities Committee. Petitioner contends that Watkins v. United States, supra, nevertheless held the grant of this power in all circumstances ineffective because of the vagueness of Rule XI in delineating the Committee jurisdiction to which its exercise was to be appurtenant. This view of Watkins was accepted by two of the dissenting judges below. 102 U. S. App. D. C., at 124, 252 F. 2d, at 136.
The Watkins case cannot properly be read as standing for such a proposition. A principal contention in Watkins was that the refusals to answer were justified because the requirement of 2 U. S. C. § 192 that the questions asked be. “pertinent to the question under inquiry” had not been satisfied. 354 U. S., at 208-209. This Court reversed the conviction solely on that ground, holding that Watkins had not been adequately apprised of the subject matter of the Subcommittee’s investigation or the pertinéncy thereto of the questions he refused to answer. Id., at 206-209, 214-215; and see the concurring opinion in that case, id., at 216. In so deciding the Court dréw upon Rule XI only as one of the facets in the total mise en scene in its search for the “question under inquiry” in that particular investigation. Id., at 209-215. The Court, in other words, was not dealing with Rule XI at large, and indeed in effect stated that no such issue was before it, id., at 209. That the vagueness of Rule XI was not alone determinative is also shown by the Court’s further statement that aside from the Rule “the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee; or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic [imder inquiry] clear.” Ibid. In short, while Watkins was critical of Rule XI, it did not involve the broad and inflexible holding petitioner now attributes to it.
Petitioner also contends, independently of Watkins, that the vagueness of Rule XI deprived the Subcommittee of the right to compel testimony in this investigation into Comm: mist activity. We cannot agree with this contention, which in its furthest reach would mean that the House Un-American Activities Committee under its existing authority has no right to compel testimony in any circumstances. Granting the vagueness of the Rule, we; may not read it in isolation from its long history in the House of Representatives. Just as legislation is often given meaning by the gloss of legislative reports, administrative interpretation, and long usage, so the proper meaning of an authorization to a congressional committee is not to be derived alone from its abstract terms unrelated to the definite content furnished them by the course of congressional actions. The Rule comes to us with a “persuasive gloss of legislative history,” United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194, 199, which shows beyond doubt that in pursuance of its legislative concerns in the domain pf “national security” the House has clothed the Un-American. Activities Committee with pervasive authority to investigate Communist activities in this country.
The essence of that history can be briefly stated. The Un-American Activities Committee, originally known as the Dies Committee, was-first established by the House in 1938. The Committee was principally a consequence of concern over the activities of the German-American Bund, whose members were suspected of allegiance to Hitler Germany, and of the Communist Party, supposed by many to be under the domination of the Soviet Union. From the beginning, without interruption to the present time, and with the undoubted knowledge and approval of the House, the Committee has devoted a major part of its energies to the investigation of Communist activities. More particularly, in 1947 the Committee announced a wide-range program in this field', pursuant to which during the years 1948 to 1952 it conducted diverse inquiries into such alleged Communist activities as espionage; efforts'to learn atom bomb secrets; infiltration into labor, farmer, veteran, professional, youth, and motion picture groups; and in addition held a number of hearings upon various legislative proposals to curb Communist activities. •
In the context of these unremitting pursuits, the House has steadily continued the life of. the Committee at the commencement of each new Congress; it has never narrowed the powers of the Committee, whose authority has remained throughout identical with'that contained in ’Rule XI; and it has continuingly supported the Committee’s activities with substantial appropriations. Beyond this, the Committee was raised to the level of a standing committee of the House in 1945, it having been but a special committee prior to that time.
In light of this long and illuminating history it can hardly be. seriously argued that the investigation of Communist, activities generally, and the attendant use of compulsory process, was beyond the purview of the. Committee’s intended authority under Rule XI.
We are urged, however, to construe Rule XI. so as at least to exclude the field of education from the Committee’s compulsory authority. Two of the four dissenting judges below relied entirely, the other, two alternatively, on this ground, 102 U. S. App. D. C., at 224, 226, 252 F. 2d, at 136, 138. The. contention is premised on the course we took in United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, where in order to avoid constitutional issues we construed narrowly the authority of the congressional committee there involved. We cannot follow that route here, for this is not a case where Rule XI has to “speak for itself, since Congress put no gloss upon it at the time of its passage,” nor one where the subsequent history of.the Rule, has the “infirmity of post litem motam, self-. serving declarations.” See United States v. Rumely, supra, at 44-45, 48.
To the contrary, the legislative gloss on Rule XI is again compelling. Not only is there no indication that the House ever viewed the field of education as being outside the Committee’s authority under Rule XI,. but the legislative history affirmatively evinces House approval of this phase of the Committee’s work. During the first year of its activities, 1938, the Committee, heard testimony on alleged Communist activities at Brooklyn College, N. Y. The following year it conducted similar hearings relating to the American Student Union and the Teachers Union. The field of “Communist influences in education” was one of the items contained in the Committee’s 1947 program. Other investigations including education took place in 1952 and 1953. And in 1953, after the Committee had instituted the investigation involved in this case, the desirability of investigating Communism in education was specifically discussed during consideration of its appropriation for that year,- which after controversial debate was approved.
In this framework of the Committee’s history we must conclude that its legislative authority to conduct the inquiry presently under consideration is unassailable, and that independently of whatever bearing the broad scope of Rule. XI may have on the issue of “pertinency” in a given investigation into Communist, activities, as in Watkins, the Rule cannot be said to be constitutionally infirm on the score of vagueness. The constitutional permissibility of that authority otherwise is a matter to be discussed later.
Pertinency Claim.
Undeniably a conviction for contempt under 2 U. S. C. § 192 cannot stand unless the questions asked are pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Watkins v. United States, supra, at 214-215. But the factors which led us to rest decision on this ground in Watkins were very different from those involved here.
In Watkins the petitioner had made specific objection to the Subcommittee’s questions on the ground of pertinency; the question under inquiry had not been disclosed in any illuminating manner; and the questions asked the petitioner were not only amorphous on their face, but in some instances clearly foreign to the alleged subject matter of the • investigation — “Communism in labor.” Id., at 185, 209-215.
In contrast, petitioner in the case before us raised no objections on the ground of pertinency at the time any of the questions were put to him. It is true that the memorandum which petitioner brought with him to the Subcommittee hearing contained the statement, “to ask me whether I am or have been a member of the Communist Party may have dire consequences. I might wish to... challenge the pertinency of the question to the investigation,” and at another point quoted from this Court’s opinion in Jones v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 298 U. S. 1, language relating to a witness’ right to be informed of the pertinency of questions asked him by an administrativé agency. These státements cannot, however., be accepted as the equivalent of a pertinency objection. At best they constituted but a contemplated objection to questions still unasked, and buried as they were in the context of petitioner’s general challenge to the power of the Subcommittee they can hardly be considered adequate, within the meaning of wjiat was said in Watkins, supra, at 214-215, to trigger what would have been thé Subcommittee’s reciprocal obligation had it been faced with a pertinency objection.
We need not, however, rest decision on petitioner’s failure to object on this score, for here “pertinency” was made to appear “with undisputable clarity.” Id., at 214. First of all, it goes without saying that the scope of the Committee’s authority was for the House, not a witness, to determine, subject to the ultimate reviewing responsibility of this Court. What we deal with here is whether petitioner was sufficiently apprised of “the topic under inquiry” thus authorized “and the connective.reasoning whereby the precise questions asked relate[d] to it.” Id., at 215. In light of his prepared memorandum of constitutional objections there can be no doubt that this petitioner was well aware of the Subcommittee’s authority and purpose to question him as it did. See p. 123, supra. In addition the other sources of this information which we recognized in Watkins, supra, at 209-215, leave no room for a “pertinency” objection on this record. The subject matter of the inquiry had been identified at the commencement of the investigation as Communist infiltration into the field of education. Just prior to petitioner’s appearance before the Subcommittee, the scope of the day’s hearings had been-announced as “in the main communism in education and the experiences and background in the party by Francis X. T. Crowley. It will deal with activities in Michigan, Boston, and in some small degree, New York.” Petitioner had heard the Subcommittee interrogate the witness Crowley along the same lines as he, petitioner, was evidently to be questioned, and had listened to Crowley’s testimony identifying him as a former member of an alleged Communist student organization at the University of Michigan while they both. were, in attendance there. Further; petitioner had stood mute in the face of the Chairman’s statement as to why he had been calíed as a witness by the Subcommittee. And, lastly, unlike Watkins, id., at 182-185, petitioner refused to answer questions as to his own Communist, Party affiliations, whose pertinency of course was clear beyond doubt.
Petitioner’s contentions on this aspect of the case cannot be sustained.
Constitutional Contentions.
Our function, at this point, is purely one of constitutional adjudication in the particular case and upon the particular record before us, not to pass judgment upon the general wisdom or efficacy of the activities of this Committee in a vexing and complicated field.
. The precise constitutional issue confronting us is whether the Subcommittee’s inquiry into petitioner’s past or present membership in the Communist iParty transgressed the provisions of the First Amendment, which.of course reach and limit congressional investigations. Watkins, supra, at 197.
The Court’s past cases establish sure guides to decision. Undeniably, the First Amendment in some circumstances protects an individual from being compelled to disclose his associational relationships. However, the protections of the First Amendment, unlike a proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, do not afford a witness the right to resist inquiry in all circumstances. Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown. These principles were recognized in the Watkins case, where, in speaking of the First Amendment in relation to congressional inquiries, we said (at p. 198): “It- is manifest that despite the adverse effects which follow upon compelled disclosure of private matters, not all such inquiries are barred.... The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness.” See also American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 399-400; United States v. Rumely, supra, at 43-44. More recently in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463-466, wé applied the same principles in judging state action claimed to infringe rights of association assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and stated that the “ ‘subordinating interest of the State must be compelling’ ” in order to overcome the individual constitutional rights at stake. See Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 255, 265 (concurring opinion). In light of these principles we now consider petitioner’s First Amendment claims.
The first question is whether this investigation was related to a valid legislative purpose, for Congress may ■not constitutionally require an individual to disclose his political relationships or other private affairs except in relation to such a purpose. See Watkins v. United States, supra, at 198.
That Congress has wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity in this Country, and to conduct appropriate investigations in aid thereof, is hardly debatable. The existence of such power has never been questioned by this Court, and it is sufficient to say, without particularization, that Congress has enacted or considered in this field a wide range of legislative measures, not a few of which have stemmed from recommendations of- the very Committee whose actions have been drawn in question here. In the last analysis this power rests on the- right of self-preservation, “the ultimate value of any society,” Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 509. Justification for its exercise in turn rests on the long and widely accepted viey that the tenets of the Communist Party include the ultimate overthrow of the Government of the-United States by force and violence, a view which has been given formal expression by the Congress.
On these'premises, this Court in its constitutional adjudications has consistently-refused to view the Communist Party as an ordinary political party, and has upheld federal legislation aimed at the Communist problem which in a different context would certainly have raised constitutional issues of the gravest character. See, e. g., Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524; Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522. On the same premises this Court, has upheld under the Fourteenth Amendment state legislation requiring those occupying of seeking public office to disclaim knowing membership in any organization advocating overthrow of the Government by force and violence, which legislation none can avoid seeing was aimed at membership in the Communist Party. See Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U. S. 56; Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U. S. 716. See also Beilan v. Board of Public Education, 357 U. S. 399; Lerner v. Casey, 357 U. S. 468; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485. Similarly, in other areas, this Court has recognized the close nexus between the Communist Party and vidlent overthrow of government. See Dennis v. United States, supra; American Communications Assn. v. Douds, supra. To suggest that because the Communist Party may also sponsor peaceable political reforms the constitutional issues before us should now be judged as if that Party were just an ordinary political party from the standpoint of national security, is to ask this Court to blind itself to world affairs which have determined the whole course of our national policy since the close of World War II, affairs to which Judge Learned Hand gave vivid expression in his opinion in United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 2d 201, 213, and to the vast burdens which these conditions have entailed for the entire Nation.
We think that investigatory power in this domain is not to be denied Congress solely because the field of education is involved.' Nothing in the prevailing opinions in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, stands for a contrary view. The vice.existing there was that the questioning of Sweezy, who had not been shown ever to halve been connected with the Communist Party, as. to the contents of a lecture he had given at the University of New /Hampshire, and as to his connections with the Progressive Party, then on the ballot as a normal political party in some 26 States, was too far removed from the premises on which the constitutionality of the State’s investigation had to depend to withstand attack under the Fourteenth Amendment. See the concurring opinion in Sweezy, supra, at 261, 265, 266, n. 3. This is a very different' thing from inquiring into the extent to which the Communist Party has succeeded in infiltrating into our universities, or elsewhere, persons and groups committed to furthering the objective of overthrow. See Note 20, supra. Indeed we do not understand petitioner here to suggest that Congress in no.circumstances may inquire into Communist activity in the field of education. Rather, his position is in effect that this particular investigation was aimed not at the revolutionary aspects but at the theoretical classroom discussion of communism.
In our opinion this position rests on a too constricted view of the nature of the investigatory process, and is not supported by a fair assessment of the record before us. An investigation of advocacy of or preparation for overthrow certainly embraces the right to identify a witness as a member of the Communist Party, see Barsky v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 127, 167 F. 2d 241, and to inquire into the various manifestations of the Party’s tenets. The strict requirements of a prosecution under the Smith Act, see Dennis v. United States, supra, and Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, are not the measure of the permissible scope of a congressional investigation into “overthrow,” for of necessity the investigatory process must proceed step by step. Nor can it fairly be concluded that this investigation was directed at controlling what is being taught at our universities rather than at overthrow. The statement of the Subcommittee Chairman at the opening of the investigation evinces no such intention, and so‘ far as this record reveals nothing thereafter transpired which would justify our holding that the thrust of the investigation later changed. The record discloses considerable testimony concerning the foreign domination and revolutionary purposes and efforts of the Communist Party. That there was also testimony on the abstract philosophical level does not detract from the dominant theme of this investigation — Communist infiltration furthering the alleged ultimate purpose of overthrow. And certainly the conclusion would not be justified that the questioning of petitioner would have exceeded permissible bounds had he not shut' off the Subcommittee at the threshold.
Nor can we accept the further contention that this investigation should not be deemed to.have been in' furtherance of a legislative purpose because the true objective of the Committee and of the Congress was purely “exposure.” So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the.exercise of that power. Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 455, and cases there cited, “It is, of course, true,” as was said in McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 55, “that if there be no authority in the judiciary to restrain a lawful exercise of power by another department of the government, where a wrong motive or. purpose has impelled to the exertion of the power, thát abuses of a power conferred may be temporarily effectual. The remedy for this, however, lies, not in the abuse by the judicial authority of its functions, but in the people, ijpon whom, after all, under our institutions, reliance must be placed for the correction of abuses committed in the exerr cise of-a lawful power.” These principles of course apply as.well to committee investigations into the need for legislation as to the enactments which such investigations may produce. Cf. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 377-378. Thus, in stating in. the Watkins case, p. 200,'; that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” we at the same time declined to inquire into the “motives of committee members,” and recognized that their “motives alone would not vitiate an investigation which had been“instituted by a House of Congress -if that assembly’s- legislative purpose is being served.” Having - scrutinized this record we cannot say that the unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals which first considered this case was wrong in concluding that “the primary purposes of the inquiry were in aid of legislative processes.” 240 F. 2d, at 881. Certainly this is not-a case like Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 192, where “the House of Representatives not only exceeded the limit of its own authority, but assumed a power which could only be properly exercised by another branch of the government, because it was in its nature clearly judicial.” See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 171. The constitutional legislative power of Congress in this instance is beyond question.
Finally, the record is barren of other factors which in themselves might sometimes lead to the conclusion that the individual interests at stake were not subordinate to those of the state. There is no indication in this record that the Subcommittee was attempting to pillory witnesses. Nor did petitioner’s appearance as a witness follow from indiscriminate dragnet procedures, lacking in probable cause for belief that he possessed information which might be helpful to the Subcommittee. And the relevancy of the questions put to him by the Subcommittee is not open to doubt.
We conclude that the balance between the individual and the governmental interests here at stake must be struck in favor of the latter, and that therefore the provisions of the First Amendment have not been offended.
We hold that petitioner’s conviction for contempt of Congress discloses no infirmity, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be
Affirmed.
“Every person who having been summoned as á witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, of any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed'guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”
In the words of the panel of the Court of Appeals which first heard the case this memorandum “can best be described as a" lengthy-legal brief attacking the jurisdiction of the committee to ask appellant any questions or to conduct any inquiry at all, based on the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the prohibition against bills of attainder, and the doctrine of separation of powers.” 100 U. S. App. D. C., at 17, n. 4, 240 F. 2d, at 879, n. 4.
We take this to mean the privilege against self-incrimination.
See Note 1, supra.
H. Res. 5, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 99 Cong. Rec. 15, 18, 24. The Committee’s charter appears as paragraph 17 (b) of Rule XI. References to the Rule throughout this opinion are intended to signify that paragraph.
“The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by.our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.” H. Res. 5 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 99 Cong. Rec. 15, 18, 24. The Rule remains current in the same form. H. Res. 7, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., Cong. Rec., Jan. 7, 1959, p. 13.
Had Watkins reached to the extent now claimed by petitioner a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, not a remand for further consideration, would have been required when this case first came to us.
H. Res. 282, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 83 Cong. Rec. 7568, 7586.
See debate on the original authorizing resolution, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 83 Cong. Rec. 7567, 7572-7573, 7577, 7583-7586.
H. R. Rep. No. 2, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1476, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2277, 77th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2748, 77th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2233, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2742, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; Report of the Committee on Un-American Activities to the United States House of Representatives, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., December 31, 1948 (Committee Print); H. R. Rep. No. 1950, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep No. 3249, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2431, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2516, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1192, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 57, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1648, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 53, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
The scope of the program was as follows:
“1. To expose and ferret out the Communists and Communist sympathizers in the Federal Government.
“2. To spotlight the spectacle of having outright Communists controlling and dominating some of the most vital unions in American labor.
“3.- To institute a countereducational program against the subversive propaganda which has been hurled at the American people.
“4. Investigation of those groups and movements which are trying to dissipate our atomic bomb knowledge for the benefit of a foreign power.
“5. Investigation of Communist influences in Hollywood.
“6. Investigation of Communist influences in education.
“7. Organization of the research staff so as to furnish reference
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners are plaintiffs in a suit seeking reapportionment of the Mississippi Legislature. In the most recent of the Court’s decisions in this extended litigation, Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 426 (1977), it reversed the judgment of the District Court and directed that court to draw a new reapportionment plan for the 1979 elections “with a compelling awareness of the need for its expeditious accomplishment.”
On remand, and after further proceedings, the parties developed a settlement plan. Negotiations broke down, however, over the wording of a consent decree. In the meantime, the State had adopted a new statutory reapportionment plan fashioned by the legislature. Because the Attorney General of the United States, acting pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, refused to approve the legislature’s plan, the State brought suit under the Act in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaration that the plan does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
Acting on the state defendants’ motion, the District Court in this case determined to stay all proceedings until judgment was entered in the District of Columbia litigation. If upheld, the statutory plan would supersede any court-ordered one. See Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U. S. 535, 539-542 (1978). Petitioners then submitted this motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the District Court to adopt a plan. Petitioners contend that some reapportionment scheme must be in effect by June 7, the filing deadline for the 1979 elections. Petitioners argue that the legislature’s plan may not be in effect by that date, and that, unless the court files its plan now, time limitations effectively will preclude them from obtaining review of that order in this Court. It is argued in response that immediate filing would be unduly disruptive if the filed plan were supplanted before June 7. The District Court has indicated, however, that, absent the conclusion of the District of Columbia suit, it will order a plan into effect on May 7.
The only issue here, therefore, is whether this Court should require the District Court to file its plan now rather than on May 7; we do not question the good faith of the District Court. We believe, however, that the better course is to file its plan now. In the unlikely event that a legislative plan should supersede the court plan before May 7, potential candidates would have more than a month to reassess their prospects. If, on the other hand, the legislative plan does not go into effect and the court plan is filed only on May 7, this Court will be faced with requests for emergency review that, if granted, could force changes only days before the June 7 deadline.
Leave to file the petition is therefore granted. The District Court is instructed, forthwith and without further delay, to adopt a final plan for the reapportionment of the Mississippi Legislature. Our consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus is continued for 30 days. See Connor v. Coleman, 425 U. S. 675, 679 (1976).
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this motion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Marlon D. Green, a Negro, applied for a job as a pilot with respondent Continental Air Lines, Inc., an interstate air carrier. His application was submitted at Continental’s headquarters in Denver, Colorado, and was later considered and rejected there. Green then made complaint to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission that Continental had refused to hire him because he was a Negro. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act of 1957 provides that it is an unfair employment practice for an employer “to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote, or to discriminate in matters of compensation against, any person otherwise qualified, because of race, creed, color, national origin or ancestry.” After investigation and efforts at conciliation, the Commission held extensive hearings and found as a fact “that the only reason that the Complainant was not selected for the training school was because of his race.” The Commission ordered Continental to cease and desist from such discriminatory practices and to “give to the Complainant the first opportunity to enroll in its training school in its next course . . . .” On review the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver set aside the Commission’s findings and dismissed Green’s complaint. It held that the Anti-Discrimination Act could not “constitutionally be extended to cover the flight crew personnel of an interstate air carrier” because it would impose an undue burden upon commerce in violation of Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress power “To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ,” and because the field of law concerning racial discrimination in the interstate operation of carriers is preempted by the Railway Labor Act, the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, and Federal Executive Orders. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of dismissal but discussed only the question of whether the Act as applied placed an undue burden on commerce, concluding that it did. 149 Colo. 259, 368 P. 2d 970 (1962). The obvious importance of even partial invalidation of a state law designed to prevent the discriminatory denial of job opportunities prompted us to grant certiorari. 371 U. S. 809 (1962).
First. Continental argues that the State Supreme Court decision rested on an independent and adequate nonfederal ground. For that argument, it relies on the trial court's statement “that the Colorado legislature was not attempting to legislate concerning problems involving interstate commerce” and the statement of the Supreme Court of Colorado that:
“The only question resolved was that of jurisdiction. The trial court determined that the Act was inapplicable to employees of those engaged in interstate commerce, and the judgment was based exclusively on that ground.” 149 Colo., at 265, 368 P. 2d, at 973.
We reject this contention. The trial court itself did not rest on this ground. Instead, it clearly and unequivocally stated that the case presented a constitutional question of whether the Act could legally be applied to interstate operations. Nor did the Supreme Court of Colorado rely on this ground. It interpreted the trial court's opinion as having held that the Act was invalid insofar as it regulated interstate air carriers. The Court further stated that the question was whether the Act could be applied to interstate carriers, which it answered by concluding that under the Federal Constitution the State Legislature had no power to deal with such matters. We are satisfied that the courts below rested their judgments on their interpretation of the United States Constitution and the preemptive effect of federal statutes and Executive Orders.
Second. In holding that the Colorado statute imposed an undue burden on commerce, the State Supreme Court relied on the principle, first stated in Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 How. 299, that States have no power to act in those areas of interstate commerce which by their nature require uniformity of regulation, even though Congress has not legislated on the subject. The State Court read two prior decisions of this Court, Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485 (1878), and Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373 (1946), as having established that the field of racial discrimination by an interstate carrier must be free from diverse state regulation and governed uniformly, if at all, by Congress. We do not believe those cases stated so encompassing a rule. The line separating the powers of a State from the exclusive power of Congress is not always distinctly marked; courts must examine closely the facts of each case to determine whether the dangers and hardships of diverse regulation justify foreclosing a State from the exercise of its traditional powers. This was emphatically pointed out in Hall v. DeCuir, supra, the very case upon which Continental chiefly relies:
“Judges not unfrequently differ in their reasons for a decision in which they concur. Under such circumstances it would be a useless task to undertake to fix an arbitrary rule by which the line must in all cases be located. It is far better to leave a matter of such delicacy to be settled in each case upon a view of the particular rights involved.” 95 U. S., at 488.
The circumstances in Hall v. DeCuir were that a Louisiana law forbidding carriers to discriminate on account of race or color had been applied so as to hold a steamboat owner liable for damages for assigning a colored passenger to one cabin rather than another. This was held to violate the Commerce Clause, but only after a careful analysis of the effects of the law on that carrier and its passengers. Among other things, the Court pointed out that if each of the 10 States bordering the Mississippi River were free to regulate the carrier and to provide for its own passengers and freight, the resulting confusion would produce great inconvenience and unnecessary hardships. The Court concluded that:
“Commerce cannot flourish in the midst of such embarrassments. No carrier of passengers can conduct his business with satisfaction to himself, or comfort to those employing him, if on one side of a State line his passengers, both white and colored, must be permitted to occupy the same cabin, and on the other be kept separate. Uniformity in the regulations by which he is to be governed from one end to the other of his route is a necessity in his business . . . .” 95 U. S., at 489.
After the same kind of analysis, the Court in Morgan v. Virginia, supra, held that a Virginia law requiring segregation of motor carrier passengers, including those on interstate journeys, infringed the Commerce Clause because uniform regulation was essential. The Court emphasized the restriction on the passengers’ freedom to choose accommodations and the inconvenience of constantly requiring passengers to shift seats. As in Hall v. DeCuir, the Court explicitly recognized the absence of any one, sure test for deciding these burden-on-commerce cases. It concluded, however, that the circumstances before it showed that there would be a practical interference with carrier transportation if diverse state laws were permitted to stand. The importance of a particularized inquiry into the existence of a burden on commerce is again illustrated by Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U. S. 28 (1948), where the Court had before it a state statute requiring common carriers to serve all people alike regardless of color. The Court upheld the law as applied to steamships transporting patrons between Michigan and Canada. Following the rule that each case must be adjudged on its particular facts, the Court concluded that neither Hall nor Morgan was “comparable in its facts, whether in the degree of localization of the commerce' involved; in the attenuating effects, if any, upon the commerce . . . ; or in any actual probability of conflicting regulations by different sovereignties.” 333 U. S., at 39.
We are not convinced that commerce will be unduly burdened if Continental is required by Colorado to refrain from racial discrimination in its hiring of pilots in that State. Not only is the hiring within a State of an employee, even for an interstate job, a much more localized matter than the transporting of passengers from State to State but more significantly the threat of diverse and conflicting regulation of hiring practices is virtually nonexistent. In Hall and in Morgan the Court assumed the validity both of state laws requiring segregation and of state laws forbidding segregation. Were there a possibility that a pilot hired in Colorado could be barred solely because of his color from serving a carrier in another State, then this case might well be controlled by our prior holdings. But under our more recent decisions any state or federal law requiring applicants for any job to be turned away because of their color would be invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The kind of burden that was thought possible in the Hall and Morgan cases, therefore, simply cannot exist here. It is, of course, possible that States could impose such onerous, harassing, and conflicting conditions on an interstate carrier’s hiring of employees that the burden would hamper the carrier’s satisfactory performance of its functions. But that is not this case. We hold that the Colorado statute as applied here to prevent discrimination in hiring on account of race does not impose a constitutionally prohibited burden upon interstate commerce.
Third. Continental argues that federal law has so pervasively covered the field of protecting people in interstate commerce from racial discrimination that the States are barred from enacting legislation in this field. It is not contended, however, that the Colorado statute is in direct conflict with federal law, that it denies rights granted by Congress, or that it stands as an obstacle to the full effectiveness of a federal statute. Rather Continental argues that:
“When Congress has taken the particular subject-matter in hand coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go.”
But this Court has also said that the mere “fact of identity does not mean the automatic invalidity of state measures.” To hold that a state statute identical in purpose with a federal statute is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, we must be able to conclude that the purpose of the federal statute would to some extent be frustrated by the state statute. We can reach no such conclusion here.
Continental relies first on the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, now the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and its broad general provisions forbidding air carriers to subject any particular person to “any unjust discrimination or any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever” and requiring “The promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices . . . .” This is a familiar type of regulation, aimed primarily at rate discrimination injurious to shippers, competitors, and localities. But we may assume, for present purposes, that these provisions prohibit racial discrimination against passengers and other customers and that they protect job applicants or employees from discrimination on account of race. The Civil Aeronautics Board and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency have indeed broad authority over flight crews of air carriers, much of which has been exercised by regulations. Notwithstanding this broad authority, we are satisfied that Congress in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and its successor had no express or implied intent to bar state legislation in this field and that the Colorado statute, at least so long as any power the Civil Aeronautics Board may have remains “dormant and unexercised,” will not frustrate any part of the purpose of the federal legislation.
There is even less reason to say that Congress, in passing the Railway Labor Act and making certain of its provisions applicable to air carriers, intended to bar States from protecting employees against racial discrimination. No provision in the Act even mentions discrimination in hiring. It is true that in several cases we have held that the exclusive bargaining agents authorized by the Act must not use their powers to discriminate against minority groups whom they are supposed to represent. And we have held that employers too may be enjoined from carrying out provisions of a discriminatory bargaining agreement. But the duty the Act imposes is one of fair representation and it is imposed upon the union. The employer is merely prohibited from aiding the union in breaching its duty. Nothing in the Railway Labor Act or in our cases suggests that the Act places upon an air carrier a duty to engage only in fair nondiscriminatory hiring practices. The Act has never been used for that purpose, and we cannot hold it bars Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
Finally, we reject the argument that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act cannot constitutionally be enforced because of Executive Orders requiring government contracting agencies to include in their contracts clauses by which contractors agree not to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their race, religion, color, or national origin. The District Court purported to take judicial notice that “a certificated commercial carrier by air [such as respondent] is obligated to and in fact does transport United States mail under contract with the United States Government.” The Government answers that in fact it has no contract with Continental and that, while 49 U. S. C. § 1375 requires air lines to carry mail, it does not forbid discrimination on account of race or compel the execution of a contract subject to Executive Orders. We do not rest on this ground alone, however, nor do we reach the question of whether an Executive Order can foreclose state legislation. It is impossible for us to believe that the Executive intended for its orders to regulate air carrier discrimination among employees so pervasively as to preempt state legislation intended to accomplish the same purpose.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1960) § 80-24-6.
The Commission also found that Continental was “guilty of a discriminatory and unfair employment practice in requiring on its application form, the racial identity of the applicant and the requirement of a photo to be attached to the application,” contrary to the Commission’s regulation.
44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 151-188.
52 Stat. 973, as amended, 49 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) §§401-722, now Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1542.
It is not claimed in this case that the Colorado Act discriminated against interstate commerce, see, e. g., Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454 (1940), or that it places a substantial economic burden on Continental, see, e. g., Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U. S. 520 (1959).
See, e. g., California v. Thompson, 313 U. S. 109 (1941); Erie B. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685 (1914).
E. g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962).
See McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115 (1913).
See, e. g., United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U. S. 62 (1956).
See, e. g., Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538 (1945); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941).
Charleston & W. C. B. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U. S. 597, 604 (1915).
California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 730 (1949).
52 Stat. 973, as amended, 49 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) §§ 401-722.
The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 was substantially reenacted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1542. Some of the powers and duties of the Civil Aeronautics Board were transferred to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency.
49 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 484 (b), now 49 U. S. C. § 1374 (b).
49 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 402 (c), now 49 U. S. C. § 1302 (c).
Compare Interstate Commerce Act § 3 (1), 49 U. S. C. § 3 (1).
See Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F. 2d 499 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956); United States v. City of Montgomery, 201 F. Supp. 590 (M. D. Ala. 1962); cf. Henderson v. United States, 339 U. S. 816 (1950); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80 (1941).
See 49 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) §§ 552, 559, now 49 U. S. C. §§ 1422, 1429.
See, e. g., 14 CFR §§ 20.40, 20.42-20.45, 20.121, 21.1, 40.300.
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Rel. Bd., 330 U. S. 767, 775 (1947). See Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943); H. P. Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U. S. 79 (1939).
If the federal authorities seek to deal with discrimination in hiring practices and their power to do so is upheld, that would raise questions not presented here. Compare California v. Thompson, 313 U. S. 109 (1941), with California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725 (1949).
44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 151-188.
See, e. g., Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944).
See, e. g., Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768, 775 (1952).
Executive Order No. 10479, 18 Fed. Reg. 4899 (Aug. 13, 1953), Executive Order No. 10557, 19 Fed. Reg. 5655 (Sept. 3, 1954), both revoked and superseded by Executive Order No. 10925, 26 Fed. Reg. 1977 (Mar. 6, 1961).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Jeeps were first mass-produced in 1941 for the U. S. Army by the Willys-Overland Motor Company in Toledo, Ohio. Nearly 60 years later, the city of Toledo and State of Ohio sought to encourage the current manufacturer of Jeeps— DaimlerChrysler — to expand its Jeep operation in Toledo, by offering local and state tax benefits for new investment. Taxpayers in Toledo sued, alleging that their local and state tax burdens were increased by the tax breaks for Daimler-Chrysler, tax breaks that they asserted violated the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed that a state tax credit offered under Ohio law violated the Commerce Clause, and state and local officials and DaimlerChrysler sought review in this Court. We are obligated before reaching this Commerce Clause question to determine whether the taxpayers who objected to the credit have standing to press their complaint in federal court. We conclude that they do not, and we therefore can proceed no further.
I
Ohio levies a franchise tax “upon corporations for the privilege of doing business in the state, owning or using a part or all of its capital or property in [the] state, or holding a certificate of compliance authorising it to do business in [the] state.” Wesnovtek Corp. v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St. 3d 312, 313, 2005-Ohio-1826, ¶ 2, 825 N. E. 2d 1099, 1100; see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5733.01 (Lexis 2005). A taxpayer that purchases “new manufacturing machinery and equipment” and installs it at sites in the State receives a credit against the franchise tax. See § 5733.33(B)(1) (Lexis 1999). Municipalities in Ohio may also offer partial property tax waivers to businesses that agree to invest in qualifying areas. See § 5709.62(C)(1)(a) (Lexis 2005). With consent from local school districts, the partial property tax waiver can be increased to a complete exemption. See § 5709.62(D)(1).
In 1998, DaimlerChrysler entered into a contract with the city of Toledo. Under the contract, DaimlerChrysler agreed to expand its Jeep assembly plant at Stickney Avenue in Toledo. In exchange, the city agreed to waive the property tax for the plant, with the consent of the two school districts in which the plant is located. Because DaimlerChrysler undertook to purchase and install “new manufacturing machinery and equipment,” it was also entitled to a credit against thé state franchise tax. See § 5733.33(B)(1) (Lexis 1999).
Plaintiffs filed suit against various state and local officials and DaimlerChrysler in state court, alleging that these tax benefits violated the Commerce Clause. Most of the plaintiffs were residents of Toledo, who paid taxes to both the city of Toledo and State of Ohio. They claimed that they were injured because the tax breaks for DaimlerChrysler diminished the funds available to the city and State, imposing a “disproportionate burden” on plaintiffs. App. 18a, 23a, 28a.
Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. See 28 U. S. C. § 1441. Plaintiffs filed motions to remand the case to state court. See § 1447(c). One of the grounds on which they sought remand concerned their standing. They professed “substantial doubts about their ability to satisfy either the constitutional or the prudential limitations on standing in the federal court,” and urged the District Court to avoid the issue entirely by remanding. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Remand to State Court in No. 3:00cv7247, p. 13, Record, Doc. 17 (footnote omitted).
The District Court declined to remand the case, concluding that, “[a]t the bare minimum, the Plaintiffs who are taxpayers have standing to object to the property tax exemption and franchise tax credit statutes under the ‘municipal taxpayer standing’ rule articulated in Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923).” App. 78a (citations omitted). On the merits, the District Court found that neither tax benefit violated the Commerce Clause. See 154 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (2001). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the District Court as to the municipal property tax exemption, but held that the state franchise tax credit violated the Commerce Clause. See 386 F. 3d 738 (2004). The Court of Appeals did not address the issue of standing.
Defendants sought certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit’s invalidation of the franchise tax credit and plaintiffs sought certiorari to review the upholding of the property tax exemption. We granted certiorari to consider whether the franchise tax credit violates the Commerce Clause, 545 U. S. 1165 (2005); the Michigan Supreme Court had decided a similar question contrary to the Sixth Circuit’s analysis here. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, 440 Mich. 400, 488 N. W. 2d 182 (1992). We also asked the parties to address whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the franchise tax credit in this litigation.
II
We have “an obligation to assure ourselves” of litigants’ standing under Article III. Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180 (2000). We therefore begin by addressing plaintiffs’ claims that they have standing as taxpayers to challenge the franchise tax credit.
A
Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), grounded the Federal Judiciary’s authority to exercise judicial review and interpret the Constitution on the necessity to do so in the course of carrying out the judicial function of deciding cases. As Marshall explained, “[tjhose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Id., at 177. Determining that a matter before the federal courts is a proper case or controversy under Article III therefore assumes particular importance in ensuring that the Federal Judiciary respects “ ‘the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society,’ ” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975)). If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.
This Court has recognized that the case-or-controversy limitation is crucial in maintaining the “‘tripartite allocation of power’ ” set forth in the Constitution. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 474 (1982) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 95 (1968)). Marshall again made the point early on, this time in a speech in the House of Representatives. “A case in law or equity,” Marshall remarked,
“was a term... of limited signification. It was a controversy between parties which had taken a shape for judicial decision. If the judicial power extended to every question under the constitution it would involve almost every subject proper for legislative discussion and decision; if to every question under the laws and treaties of the United States it would involve almost every subject on which the executive could act. The division of power [among the branches of government] could exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.” 4 Papers of John Marshall 95 (C. Cullen ed. 1984).
As this Court has explained, “ ‘[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of govern-, ment than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.’” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818 (1997) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 37 (1976)).
The case-or-controversy requirement thus plays a critical role, and “Article III standing... enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 11 (2004). The “core component” of the requirement that a litigant have standing to invoke the authority of a federal court “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992). The requisite elements of this “core component derived directly from the Constitution” are familiar: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen, supra, at 751. We have been asked to decide an important question of constitutional law concerning the Commerce Clause. But before we do so, we must find that the question is presented in a “case” or “controversy” that is, in James Madison’s words, “of a Judiciary Nature.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 430 (M. Farrand ed. 1966). That requires plaintiffs, as the parties now asserting federal jurisdiction, to carry the burden of establishing their standing under Article III.
B
Plaintiffs principally claim standing by virtue of their status as Ohio taxpayers, alleging that the franchise tax credit “depletes the funds of the State of Ohio to which the Plaintiffs contribute through their tax payments” and thus “diminish[es] the total funds available for lawful uses and impos[es] disproportionate burdens on” them. App. 28a; see also Brief for Respondents 24. On several occasions, this Court has denied federal taxpayers standing under Article III to object to a particular expenditure of federal funds simply because they are taxpayers. Thus the alleged “deprivation of the fair and constitutional use of [a federal taxpayer’s] tax dollar” cannot support a challenge to the conveyance of Government land to a private religious college, Valley Forge, supra, at 476, 482 (internal quotation marks and some brackets omitted), and “the interest of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury furnishes no basis” to argue that a federal agency’s loan practices are unconstitutional, Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464, 478 (1938); see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974).
The animating principle behind these cases was announced in their progenitor, Frothingham v. Mellon, decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923). In rejecting a claim that improper federal appropriations would “increase the burden of future taxation and thereby take [the plaintiff’s] property without due process of law,” the Court observed that a federal taxpayer’s
“interest in the moneys of the Treasury... is shared with millions of others; is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the funds, so remote, fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a court of equity.” Id., at 486, 487.
This logic is equally applicable to taxpayer challenges to expenditures that deplete the treasury, and to taxpayer challenges to so-called “tax expenditures,” which reduce amounts available to the treasury by granting tax credits or exemptions. In either case, the alleged injury is based on the asserted effect of the allegedly illegal activity on public revenues, to which the taxpayer contributes.
Standing has been rejected in such cases because the alleged injury is not “concrete and particularized,” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560, but instead a grievance the taxpayer “suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally,” Frothingham, supra, at 488. In addition, the injury is not “actual or imminent,” but instead “conjectural or hypothetical.” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted). As an initial matter, it is unclear that tax breaks of the sort at issue here do in fact deplete the treasury: The very point of the tax benefits is to spur economic activity, which in turn increases government revenues. In this very action, the Michigan plaintiffs claimed that they were injured because they lost out on the added revenues that would have accompanied Daimler-Chrysler’s decision to expand facilities in Michigan. See n. 2, supra.
Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is also “conjectural or hypothetical” in that it depends on how legislators respond to a reduction in revenue, if that is the consequence of the credit. Establishing injury requires speculating that elected officials will increase a taxpayer-plaintiff’s tax bill to make up a deficit; establishing redressability requires speculating that abolishing the challenged credit will redound to the benefit of the taxpayer because legislators will pass along the supposed increased revenue in the form of tax reductions. Neither sort of speculation suffices to support standing. See ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605, 614 (1989) (opinion of Kennedy, J.) (“[I]t is pure speculation whether the lawsuit would result in any actual tax relief for respondents”); Warth, 422 U. S., at 509 (criticizing a taxpayer standing claim for the “conjectural nature of the asserted injury”).
A taxpayer plaintiff has no right to insist that the government dispose of any increased revenue it might experience as a result of his suit by decreasing his tax liability or bolstéring programs that benefit him. To the contrary, the decision of how to allocate any such savings is the very epitome of a policy judgment committed to the “broad and legitimate discretion” of lawmakers, which “the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict.” ASARCO, supra, at 615 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Under such circumstances, we have no assurance that the asserted injury is “imminent”— that it is “certainly impending.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 158 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 564-565, n. 2.
The foregoing rationale for rejecting federal taxpayer standing applies with undiminished force to state taxpayers. We indicated as much in Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429 (1952). In that case, we noted our earlier holdings that “the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect” to support standing to challenge “their manner of expenditure.” Id., at 433. We then “reiterate^]” what we had said in rejecting a federal taxpayer challenge to a federal statute “as equally true when a state Act is assailed: ‘The [taxpayer] must be able to show... that he has sustained... some direct injury... and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.’ ” Id., at 433-434 (quoting Frothingham, supra, at 488); see ASARCO, supra, at 613-614 (opinion of Kennedy, J.) (“[W]e have likened state taxpayers to federal taxpayers” for purposes of taxpayer standing (citing Doremus, supra, at 434)).
The allegations of injury that plaintiffs make in their complaint furnish no better basis for finding standing than those made in the cases where federal taxpayer standing was denied. Plaintiffs claim that DaimlerChrysler’s tax credit depletes the Ohio fisc and “impos[es] disproportionate burdens on [them].” App. 28a. This is no different from similar claims by federal taxpayers we have already rejected under Article III as insufficient to establish standing. See, e. g., Frothingham, 262 U. S., at 486 (allegation of injury that the effect of government spending “will be to increase the burden of future taxation and thereby take [plaintiff’s] property without due process of law”).
State policymakers, no less than their federal counterparts, retain broad discretion to make “policy decisions” concerning state spending “in different ways... depending on their perceptions of wise state fiscal policy and myriad other circumstances.” ASARCO, supra, at 615 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Federal courts may not assume a particular exercise of this state fiscal discretion in establishing standing; a party seeking federal jurisdiction cannot rely on such “[speculative inferences... to connect [his] injury to the challenged actions of [the defendant],” Simon, 426 U. S., at 45; see also Allen, 468 U. S., at 759. Indeed, because state budgets frequently contain an array of tax and spending provisions, any number of which may be challenged on a variety of bases, affording state taxpayers standing to press such challenges simply because their tax burden gives them an interest in the state treasury would interpose the federal courts as “ Virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness’” of state fiscal administration, contrary to the more modest role Article III envisions for federal courts. See id., at 760-761 (quoting Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 15 (1972)).
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that state taxpayers have no standing under Article III to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.
c
Plaintiffs argue that an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing should exist for Commerce Clause challenges to state tax or spending decisions, analogizing their Commerce Clause claim to the Establishment Clause challenge we permitted in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83. Flast held that because “the Establishment Clause... specifically limit[s] the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, §8,” “a taxpayer will have standing consistent with Article III to invoke federal judicial power when he alleges that congressional action under the taxing and spending clause is in derogation of” the Establishment Clause. Id., at 105-106. Flast held out the possibility that “other specific [constitutional] limitations” on Article I, § 8, might surmount the “barrier to suits against Acts of Congress brought by individuals who can assert only the interest of federal taxpayers.” 392 U. S., at 105, 85. But as plaintiffs candidly concede, “only the Establishment Clause” has supported federal taxpayer suits since Flast. Brief for Respondents 12; see Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U. S. 589, 618 (1988) (“Although we have considered the problem of standing and Article III limitations on federal jurisdiction many times since [Flast], we have consistently adhered to Flast and the narrow exception it created to the general rule against taxpayer standing”).
Quite apart from whether the franchise tax credit is analogous to an exercise of congressional power under Article I, § 8, plaintiffs’ reliance on Flast is misguided: Whatever rights plaintiffs have under the Commerce Clause, they are fundamentally unlike the right not to “ ‘contribute three pence... for the support of any one [religious] establishment.’ ” 392 U. S., at 103 (quoting 2 Writings of James Madison 186 (G. Hunt ed. 1901)). Indeed, plaintiffs compare the Establishment Clause to the Commerce Clause at such a high level of generality that almost any constitutional constraint on government power would “specifically limit” a State’s taxing and spending power for Flast purposes. 392 U. S., at 105; see Brief for Respondents 14 (“In each case, the harm to be avoided by [the two Clauses] is the loss of governmental neutrality”). And even if the two Clauses are similar in that they often implicate governments’ fiscal decisions, see id., at 13-14, a finding that the Commerce Clause satisfies the Flast test would leave no principled way of distinguishing those other constitutional provisions that we have recognized constrain governments’ taxing and spending decisions, see, e. g., Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221 (1987) (invalidating state sales tax under the Free Press Clause). Yet such a broad application of Flast’s exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing would be quite at odds with its narrow application in our precedent and Flast’s own promise that it would not transform federal courts into forums for taxpayers’ “generalized grievances.” 392 U. S., at 106.
Flast is consistent with the principle, underlying the Article III prohibition on taxpayer suits, that a litigant may not assume a particular disposition of government funds in establishing standing. The Flast Court discerned in the history of the Establishment Clause “the specific evils feared by [its drafters] that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general.” Id., at 103. The Court therefore understood the “injury” alleged in Establishment Clause challenges to federal spending to be the very “extraction] and spen[ding]” of “tax money” in aid of religion alleged by a plaintiff. Id., at 106. And an injunction against the spending would of course redress that injury, regardless of whether lawmakers would dispose of the savings in a way that would benefit the taxpayer-plaintiffs personally. See Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 514 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[T]he plaintiffs’ invocation of the Establishment Clause was of decisive importance in resolving the standing issue in [Flast]”).
Plaintiffs thus do not have state taxpayer standing on the ground that their Commerce Clause challenge is just like the Establishment Clause challenge in Flast.
Ill
Plaintiffs also claim that their status as municipal taxpayers gives them standing to challenge the state franchise tax credit at issue here. The Frothingham Court noted with approval the standing of municipal residents to enjoin the “illegal use of the moneys of a municipal corporation,” relying on “the peculiar relation of the corporate taxpayer to the corporation” to distinguish such a case from the general bar on taxpayer suits. 262 U. S., at 486, 487; see ASARCO, 490 U. S., at 613-614 (opinion of Kennedy, J.) (reiterating distinction). Plaintiffs here challenged the municipal property tax exemption as municipal taxpayers. That challenge was rejected by the Court of Appeals on the merits, and no issue regarding plaintiffs’ standing to bring it has been raised. In plaintiffs’ challenge to the state franchise tax credit, however, they identify no municipal action contributing to any claimed injury. Instead, they try to leverage the notion of municipal taxpayer standing beyond challenges to municipal action, in two ways.
A
First, plaintiffs claim that because state law requires revenues from the franchise tax to be distributed to local governments, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5733.12 (Lexis 2005), the award of a credit to DaimlerChrysler reduced such distributions and thus depleted the funds of “local governments to which Respondents pay taxes.” Brief for Respondents 16. But plaintiffs’ challenge is still to the state law and state decision, not those of their municipality. We have already explained why a state taxpayer lacks standing to challenge a state fiscal decision on the grounds that it might affect his tax liability. All plaintiffs have done in recasting their claims as ones brought by municipal taxpayers whose municipalities receive funding from the State — the level of which might be affected by the same state fiscal decision — is introduce yet another level of conjecture to their already hypothetical claim of injury.
And in fact events have highlighted the peril of assuming that any revenue increase resulting from a taxpayer suit will be put to a particular use. Ohio’s General Assembly suspended the statutory budget mechanism that distributes franchise tax revenues to local governments in 2001 and again in its subsequent biennial budgets. See Amended Substitute H. B. 94, 124th General Assembly §140 (2001), available at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillTextl24/ 124_HB_94_ENR.pdf (all Internet materials as visited May 12, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); Amended Substitute H. B. 95, 125th General Assembly § 139 (2003), available at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/ BillTextl25/125_HB_95_EN2_N.pdf; Amended Substitute H. B. 66, 126th General Assembly §557.12 (2005), available at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillTextl26/126_HB_ 66_EN2d.pdf. Any effect that enjoining DaimlerChrysler’s credit will have on municipal funds, therefore, will not result from automatic operation of a statutory formula, but from a hypothesis that the state government will choose to direct the supposed revenue from the restored franchise tax to municipalities. This is precisely the sort of conjecture we may not entertain in assessing standing. See ASARCO, supra, at 614 (opinion of Kennedy, J.).
B
The second way plaintiffs seek to leverage their standing to challenge the municipal property tax exemption into a challenge to the franchise tax credit is by relying on Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966). According to plaintiffs, the “supplemental jurisdiction” recognized in that case supports jurisdiction over all their claims, once the District Court determined they had standing to challenge the property tax exemption. Brief for Respondents 17-18.
Gibbs held that federal-question jurisdiction over a claim may authorize a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that may be viewed as part of the same case because they “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” as the federal claim. 383 U. S., at 725. Plaintiffs assume that Gibbs stands for the proposition that federal jurisdiction extends to all claims sufficiently related to a claim within Article III to be part of the same case, regardless of the nature of the deficiency that would keep the former claims out of federal court if presented on their own.
Our general approach to the application of Gibbs, however, has been markedly more cautious. For example, as a matter of statutory construction of the pertinent jurisdictional provisions, we refused to extend Gibbs to allow claims to be asserted against nondiverse parties when jurisdiction was based on diversity, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U. S. 365 (1978), and we refused to extend Gibbs to authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not satisfy statutory amount-in-controversy requirements, see Finley v. United States, 490 U. S. 545 (1989). As the Court explained just last Term, “[w]e have not... applied Gibbs’ expansive interpretive approach to other aspects of the jurisdictional statutes.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 553 (2005) (applying 28 U. S. C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, to allow a federal court in a diversity action to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional diverse plaintiffs whose claims failed to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold).
What we have never done is apply the rationale of Gibbs to permit a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that does not itself satisfy those elements of the Article III inquiry, such as constitutional standing, that “serv[e] to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Whitmore, 495 U. S., at 155. We see no reason to read the language of Gibbs so broadly, particularly since our standing cases confirm that a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press. See Allen, 468 U. S., at 752 (“[T]he standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted” (emphasis added)). We have insisted, for instance, that “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.” Laidlaw, 528 U. S., at 185; see Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 109 (1983). But if standing were commutative, as plaintiffs claim, this insistence would make little sense when all claims for relief derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” as they certainly appear to have in both Laidlaw, supra, at 175-179, and Lyons, supra, at 97-98.
Plaintiffs’ reading of Gibbs to allow standing as to one claim to suffice for all claims arising from the same “nucleus of operative fact” would have remarkable implications. The doctrines of mootness, ripeness, and political question all originate in Article Ill’s “case” or “controversy” language, no less than standing does. See, e. g., National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Department of Interior, 538 U. S. 803, 808 (2003) (ripeness); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (1997) (mootness); Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S., at 215 (political question). Yet if Gibbs’ “common nucleus” formulation announced a new definition of “case” or “controversy” for all Article III purposes, a federal court would be free to entertain moot or unripe claims, or claims presenting a political question, if they “derived from” the same “operative fact[s]” as another federal claim suffering from none of these defects. Plaintiffs’ reading of Gibbs, therefore, would amount to a significant revision of our precedent interpreting Article III. With federal courts thus deciding issues they would not otherwise be authorized to decide, the “ ‘tripartite allocation of power’ ” that Article III is designed to maintain, Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 474, would quickly erode; our emphasis on the standing requirement’s role in maintaining this separation would be rendered hollow rhetoric. As we have explained, “[t]he actual-injury requirement would hardly serve the purpose... of preventing courts from undertaking tasks assigned to the political branches[,] if once a plaintiff demonstrated harm from one particular inadequacy in government administration, the court were authorized to remedy all inadequacies in that administration.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 357 (1996).
Lewis emphasized that “[t]he remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” Ibid. Plaintiffs’ theory of ancillary standing would contravene this principle. Plaintiffs failed to establish Article III injury with respect to their state taxes, and even if they did do so with respect to their municipal taxes, that injury does not entitle them to seek a remedy as to the state taxes. As the Court summed up the point in Lewis, “standing is not dispensed in gross.” Id., at 358, n. 6.
* * *
All the theories plaintiffs have offered to support their standing to challenge the franchise tax credit are unavailing. Because plaintiffs have no standing to challenge that credit, the lower courts erred by considering their claims against it on the merits. The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is therefore vacated in part, and the cases are remanded for dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenge to the franchise tax credit.
It is so ordered.
Ohio has begun phasing out the franchise tax and has discontinued offering new credits against the tax like the one DaimlerChrysler received. See §§ 5733.01(G), 5733.33(B)(1) (Lexis 2005). Where relevant, therefore, the citations in this opinion are to the statutes in effect at the time DaimlerChrysler made its investment.
Other plaintiffs were residents of Toledo who claimed they were injured because they were displaced by the DaimlerChrysler expansion and Michigan residents who claimed injury because DaimlerChrysler would have expanded its operations in Michigan but for the Ohio investment tax credit. Plaintiffs neither identified these allegations as a basis for standing in their merits brief before this Court nor referred to them at oral argument. Any argument based on these allegations is therefore abandoned. See, e. g., United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 843, 855, and n. 3 (1996).
Because defendants removed the case from state court to District Court, plaintiffs were not initially the parties that invoked federal jurisdiction. Indeed, plaintiffs initially expressed doubts as to their standing. Nonetheless, because “[w]e presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record,” Renne v. Geary, 501 U. S. 312, 316 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted), the party asserting federal jurisdiction when it is challenged has the burden of establishing it. Whatever the parties’ previous positions on the propriety of a federal forum, plaintiffs, as the parties seeking to establish federal jurisdiction, must make the showings required for standing.
The majority of the Courts of Appeals to have considered the issue have reached a similar conclusion. See, e. g., Booth v. Hvass, 302 F. 3d 849 (CA8 2002); Board of Ed. of Mt. Sinai Union Free School Dist. v. New York State Teachers Retirement System, 60 F. 3d 106 (CA2 1995); Colorado Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F. 2d 1394 (CA10 1992); Taub v. Kentucky, 842 F. 2d 912 (CA6 1988); Korioth v. Briscoe, 523 F. 2d 1271 (CA5 1975); but cf. Arakaki v. Lingle, 423 F. 3d 954, 967-969 (CA9 2005) (finding state taxpayer standing in light of Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F. 2d 1169 (CA9 1984), but noting that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605 (1989), would “carry persuasive value” absent Hoohuli).
In defending the contrary position, plaintiffs rely on three cases from the Courts of Appeals. But two of those cases hold only that, once a litigant has standing to request invalidation of a particular agency action, it may do so by identifying all grounds on which the agency may have “ ‘failed to comply with its statutory mandate.’ ” Sierra Club v. Adams, 578 F. 2d 389, 392 (CADC 1978) (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 737 (1972)); see also Iowa Independent Bankers v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve, 511 F. 2d 1288, 1293-1294 (CADC 1975). They do not establish that the litigant can, by virtue of his standing to challenge one government action, challenge other governmental actions that did not injure him. In the third case, the Court of Appeals relied substantially on the fact that “all courts possess an inherent power to prevent unprofessional conduct by those attorneys who are practicing before them” in allowing the Government to contest the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions for decision are (1) whether §10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 701-706, is an independent grant to district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for social security benefits and (2), if not, whether § 205 (g) of the Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of the Secretary’s decision.
I
Title II of the Social Security Act provides disability benefits for a claimant who demonstrates that he suffers a physical or mental disability within the meaning of the Act and that the disability arose prior to the expiration of his insured status. 42 U. S. C. §§416 (i), 423. The administrative process is begun when he files a claim with the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR §§ 404.905-404.907 (1976). If the claim is administratively denied, regulations permit administrative reconsideration within a six-month period. §§404.909-404.915. Should a request for reconsideration prove unsuccessful, the claimant may, within 60 days, ask for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. V), and a discretionary appeal from an adverse determination of the law judge lies to the Appeals Council. 20 CFR §§ 404.945-404.947 (1976). Finally § 205 (g) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which [the claimant] was a party . . . .”
The Act and regulations thus create an orderly administrative mechanism, with district court review of the final decision of the Secretary, to assist in the original processing of the more than 7,600,000 claims filed annually with the Administration. See Social Security Administration, The Year in Review—The Administration of Social Security Programs 1975, p. 54 (1976). By regulation, however, the administrative scheme provides for additional consideration of the claim. This is in the form of regulations for reopening of the agency determination within specified time limits after the date of initial determination: 12 months as a matter of right and four years “upon a finding of good cause,” which exists if new material evidence is provided or specific errors are discovered. 20 CFR §§ 404.957 (a), (b), 404.958 (1976). Moreover, the regulations permit reopening “[a]t any time” for the purpose of correcting clerical errors or errors on the face of relevant evidence. § 404.957 (c) (8).
On January 30, 1964, respondent filed his initial claim with the agency for disability payments and disability insurance benefits, alleging inability to work because of epilepsy and blackout spells. The claim proceeded through the several steps of the administrative procedures. An Administrative Law Judge found that respondent was ineligible for benefits on the ground that he had not demonstrated a relevant disability of sufficient severity. The Appeals Council, in June 1966, sustained this decision, and respondent did not pursue judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision under § 205 (g).
Almost seven years later, on March 5, 1973, respondent filed a second claim alleging the same bases for eligibility. His claim was again processed through administrative channels under the Secretary’s regulations. The Administrative Law Judge viewed the new application as barred by res judicata, see 20 CFR § 404.937 (1976), but also treated the application as requiring the determination “whether the claimant is entitled to have his prior application reopened . . . ." App. 33-34. Concluding that respondent’s evidence was “merely rep[e]titio[u]s and cumulative,” id., at 35, and finding no errors on the face of the evidence, ibid., the Administrative Law Judge denied reopening and dismissed the claim.
Respondent thereupon filed this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, challenging the Secretary’s decision not to reopen, and resting jurisdiction on § 205 (g), 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g). The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground stated in its unpublished memorandum that “this court is without jurisdiction to consider the subject matter of this suit.” Pet. for Cert. 13a-14a. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. Sanders v. Weinberger, 522 F. 2d 1167 (1975). The Court of Appeals agreed that jurisdiction to review a refusal to reopen a claim proceeding on the ground of abuse of discretion was not authorized by the Social Security Act. Id., at 1169. The court held, however, that § 205 (h) did not limit judicial review to those methods “expressly authorize[d]” by the Social Security Act itself. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which “contains an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy,” afforded the District Court jurisdiction of respondent’s complaint. 522 F. 2d, at 1169. We granted certiorari sub nom. Mathews v. Sanders, 426 U. S. 905 (1976). We reverse.
II
A
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its construction of § 10 of the APA as an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction is contrary to the conclusion reached by several other Courts of Appeals. 522 F. 2d, at 1169. This conflict is understandable. None of the codified statutory sections that constitute § 10 is phrased like the usual grant of jurisdiction to proceed in the federal courts. On the other hand, the statute undoubtedly evinces Congress’ intention and understanding that judicial review should be widely available to challenge the actions of federal administrative officials. Consequently, courts and commentators have sharply divided over whether the statute should be read to provide a distinct basis of jurisdiction for the review of agency actions. Three decisions of this Court arguably have assumed, with little discussion, that the APA is an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 410 (1971); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U. S. 367, 372 (1962). However, an Act of Congress enacted since our grant of certiorari in this case now persuades us that the better view is that the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions.
On October 21, 1976, Congress enacted Pub. L. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, which amends 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) to eliminate the requirement of a specified amount in controversy as a prerequisite to the maintenance of “any [§ 1331] action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity.” The obvious effect of this modification, subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate. We conclude that this amendment now largely undercuts the rationale for interpreting the APA as an independent jurisdictional provision.
As noted previously, the actual text of § 10 of the APA nowhere contains an explicit grant of jurisdiction to challenge agency action in the federal courts. Furthermore, even the advocates of jurisdiction under the APA acknowledge that there is no basis for concluding that Congress, in enacting § 10 of the APA, actually conceived of the Act in jurisdictional terms. See, e. g., Byse & Fiocca, supra, n. 5, at 328. Thus, the argument in favor of APA jurisdiction rests exclusively on the broad policy consideration that, given the shortcomings of federal mandamus jurisdiction, such a construction is warranted by the rational policy of affording federal judicial review of actions by federal officials acting pursuant to federal law, notwithstanding the absence of the requisite jurisdictional amount. See id., at 330-331; Jaffe, supra, n. 5, at 165. We do not find this argument to be compelling in light of Congress’ apparent intention by the 1976 amendment to restructure afresh the scope of federal-question jurisdiction.
In amending § 1331, Congress obviously has expressly acted to fill the jurisdictional void created by the pre-existing amount-in-controversy requirement. This new jurisdictional grant was qualified, however, by the retention of § 205 (h) as preclusive of actions such as this that arise under the Social Security Act. Read together, the expansion of § 1331, coupled with the retention of § 205 (h), apparently expresses Congress’ view of the desired contours of federal-question jurisdiction over agency action. A broad reading of the APA in this instance would serve no purpose other than to modify Congress’ new jurisdictional enactment by overriding its decision to limit § 1331 through the preservation of § 205 (h). Squarely faced with the question of APA jurisdiction for the first time, Congress’ explicit entry into the jurisdictional area counsels against our reading the APA as an implied jurisdictional grant designed solely to fill such an interstitial gap in § 1331 jurisdiction. This is particularly so since neither the text nor the history of the APA speaks in favor of such a reading, and the 1976 Congress, in redefining § 1331, appears not to have envisioned the APA as playing any such stopgap role.
We thus conclude that the APA does not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action.
B
Respondent contends that notwithstanding the above, the Social Security Act itself, specifically § 205 (g), should be construed to authorize judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary not to reopen a claim of benefits. All Courts of Appeals that have considered this contention have rejected it. We also agree that § 205 (g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits.
The pertinent part of § 205 (g) provides:
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a “final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.” But a petition to reopen a prior final decision may be denied without a hearing as provided in § 205 (b), 42 U. S. C. § 405 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. V); see Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F. 2d 1, 4 (CA2 1966); Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F. 2d 1005, 1007 (CA5 1975). Indeed, the opportunity to reopen final decisions and any hearing convened to determine the propriety of such action are afforded by the Secretary’s regulations and not by the Social Security Act. Moreover, an interpretation that would allow a claimant judicial review simply by filing—and being denied—a petition to reopen his claim would frustrate the congressional purpose, plainly evidenced in § 205 (g), to impose a 60-day limitation upon judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision on the initial claim for benefits. 20 CFR § 404.951 (1976). Congress’ determination so to limit judicial review to the original decision denying benefits is a policy choice obviously designed to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility claims. Our duty, of course, is to respect that choice.
Respondent argues, however, that Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975), and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), have rejected this interpretation of § 205 (g). We do not agree. It is true that both cases authorized judicial review under § 205 (g) of the Secretary’s decision to deny or discontinue social security benefits notwithstanding the absence of a prior § 205 (b) hearing. In both instances, however, the claimants challenged the Secretary’s decisions on constitutional grounds. Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and, therefore, access to the courts is essential to the decision of such questions. Furthermore, since federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 is precluded by § 205 (h), Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 761, a decision denying § 205 (g) jurisdiction in Salfi or Eldridge would effectively have closed the federal forum to the adjudication of colorable constitutional claims. Thus those cases merely adhered to the well-established principle that when constitutional questions are in issue, the availability of judicial review is presumed, and we will not read a statutory scheme to take the “extraordinary” step of foreclosing jurisdiction unless Congress’ intent to do so is manifested by “ 'clear and convincing’ ” evidence. 422 U. S., at 762; Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 366-367 (1974).
This is not one of those rare instances where the Secretary’s denial of a petition to reopen is challenged on constitutional grounds. Respondent seeks only an additional opportunity to establish that he satisfies the Social Security Act’s eligibility standards for disability benefits. Therefore, § 205 (g) does not afford subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The pertinent provisions of § 10, as codified in 6 U. S. C. §§ 701-704, are the following:
"§ 701. Application; definitions.
“(a) This chapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that—
“(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
“ (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.”
Ҥ 702. Right of review.
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
Ҥ 703. Form and venue of proceeding.
“The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction. Except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement.” (Sections 702 and 703 were amended by Pub. L. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721, in respects to be discussed infra, at 105-107, insofar as it modifies the scope of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331.)
Ҥ 704. Actions reviewable.
“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsiderations, or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile is inoperative, for an appeal to superior agency authority.”
Section 205 (g) of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as added and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), provides in pertinent part:
“Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. . . .”
Section 205 (h) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. §405 (h), provides:
“The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under [§ 1331 et seq.] of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”
This section has been held to require the exhaustion of available administrative procedures, to foreclose jurisdiction under the general grant of federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and to route review through § 205 (g). See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 757, 761 (1975).
The Courts of Appeals for the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits have held that § 10 of the APA is an independent grant of jurisdiction. See Bradley v. Weinberger, 483 F. 2d 410 (CA1 1973); Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Johnston, 295 F. 2d 856 (CA4 1961); Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F. 2d 1005 (CA5 1975); Sanders v. Weinberger, 522 F. 2d 1167 (CA7 1975) (case below); Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F. 2d 53 (CA9 1970); Brennan v. Udall, 379 F. 2d 803 (CA10 1967); Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 165 U. S. App. D. C. 284, 507 F. 2d 1107 (1974). The Courts of Appeals for the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits disagree. Zimmerman v. United States, 422 F. 2d 326 (CA3 1970); Bramblett v. Desobry, 490 F. 2d 405 (CA6 1974); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F. 2d 529 (CA8 1967). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit views the question as unsettled. See South Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Mathews, 541 F. 2d 910 (1976).
Compare, e. g., Byse & Fiocca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 and “Nonstatutory” Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 308 (1967), K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 23.02 (Supp. 1976), and L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 165 (1965) (all advocating APA jurisdiction), with Cramton, Nonstatutory Review of Federal Administrative Action: The Need for Statutory Reform of Sovereign Immunity, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and Parties Defendant, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 389 (1970), and C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3568 (1975) (rejecting APA jurisdiction).
Title 5 U. S. C. § 702 makes clear that a person wronged by agency action “is entitled to judicial review thereof.” But § 703 suggests that this language was not intended as an independent jurisdictional foundation, since such judicial review is to proceed “in a court specified by statute” or “in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Both of these clauses seem to look to outside sources of jurisdictional authority. Thus, at best, the text of § 10 is ambiguous in providing a separate grant of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Respondent argues that Congress intended its modification of § 1331 to be supplementary to the APA, and, therefore, contemplated that the APA would remain as a distinct jurisdictional provision. But the contrary seems true, for the legislative history suggests that Congress believed that the APA does not confer jurisdiction over administrative action, and, therefore, deletion of the jurisdictional amount from § 1331 was warranted. This understanding was made explicit by the Senate Judiciary Committee: “An anomaly in Federal jurisdiction prevents an otherwise competent United States district court from hearing certain cases seeking ‘non-statutory’ review of Federal administrative action, absent the jurisdictional amount in controversy required by 28 U. S. C. section 1331, the general ‘Federal question’ provision. These cases ‘arise under’ the Federal Constitution or Federal statutes, and the committee believes they are appropriate matters for the exercise of Federal judicial power regardless of the monetary amount involved.” S. Rep. No. 94-996, p. 12 (1976) (emphasis supplied); see H. R. Rep. No. 94-1656, p. 13 (1976).
See Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F. 2d 1, 4-5 (CA2 1966); Davis v. Richardson, 460 F. 2d 772, 775 (CA3 1972); Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F. 2d, at 1007-1008; Maddox v. Richardson, 464 F. 2d 617, 621 (CA6 1972); Stuckey v. Weinberger, 488 F. 2d 904, 909 (CA9 1973); Neighbors v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 511 F. 2d 80, 81 (CA10 1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the propriety of an injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The injunction prohibited specified parties from litigating a certain matter in the Texas state courts. We must determine whether this injunction is permissible under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which generally bars federal courts from granting injunctions to stay proceedings in state courts.
I
In 1977 Leong Chong, a resident of the Republic of Singapore, was accidentally killed in that country while performing repair work on a ship owned by respondent Esso Tankers, Inc., a subsidiary of respondent Exxon Corporation. Petitioner Chick Kam Choo, also a resident of Singapore, is Chong’s widow. In 1978 she brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, presenting claims under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. §688, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U. S. C. § 761, the general maritime law of the United States, App. 4, and the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§71.001-71.031 (1986).
Respondents moved for summary judgment on the Jones Act and DOHSA claims, arguing that Chong was not a seaman, which rendered the Jones Act inapplicable, and that Chong had not died on the “high seas” but while the ship was in port, which rendered the DOHSA inapplicable. App. 9-10. Respondents also moved for summary judgment on the claim involving the general maritime law of the United States, arguing that due to the lack of substantial contacts with the United States, the maritime law of Singapore, not that of the United States, governed. Id., at 10 (citing Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U. S. 571 (1953); Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354 (1959)). In addition to seeking summary judgment, respondents moved for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that under the criteria identified in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947), the District Court was not a convenient forum.
In 1980, the District Court, adopting the memorandum and recommendations of a Magistrate, granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the Jones Act and DOHSA claims. The court agreed with respondents that those statutes were inapplicable. App. 29-31, 34. With respect to the general maritime law claim, the District Court applied factors identified in Lauritzen and Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U. S. 306 (1970), to the choice-of-law question and concluded that the “statutory and maritime law of the United States should not be applied.” App. 32. This conclusion led the court to grant summary judgment on petitioner’s general maritime law claim, as well as to consider whether dismissal of the rest of the case was warranted under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. After reviewing the various factors set out in Gilbert, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate and accordingly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, provided respondents submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F. 2d 693, cert. denied, 464 U. S. 826 (1983).
Rather than commence litigation in Singapore, however, petitioner filed suit in the Texas state courts. Although the state complaint initially included all the claims in the federal complaint, as well as a claim based on Singapore law, petitioner later voluntarily dismissed the federal claims. This left only the Texas state law claim and the Singapore law claim. See Brief for Petitioners 4, n. 4. .Respondents briefly succeeded in removing the case to the District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately held that complete diversity did not exist and the case was returned to the District Court with instructions to remand it to state court. 764 F. 2d 1148 (1985).
Respondents then initiated a new action in federal court requesting an injunction to prevent petitioner and her attorneys, Benton Musslewhite and Joseph C. Blanks, “from seeking to relitigate in any state forum the issues finally decided” in the federal court’s 1980 dismissal. App. 93. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, prohibited the issuance of such an injunction. App. 96-98. Respondents, in turn, moved for summary judgment and a final injunction. Id., at 104-108. The District Court granted respondents’ motion and permanently enjoined petitioner and her attorneys “from prosecuting or commencing any causes of action or claims against [respondents] in the courts of the State of Texas or any other state . . . arising out of or related to the alleged wrongful death of Leong Chong.” Id., at 119.
Petitioner appealed, reiterating her contention that the injunction violated the Anti-Injunction Act. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected this argument. The panel majority concluded that the injunction here fell within the “relitigation” exception to the Act, which permits a federal court to issue an injunction “to protect or effectuate its judgments.” The majority reasoned that an injunction was necessary to prevent relitigation of the forum non conveniens issue because petitioner pointed to no additional factor that made the “Texas court in Houston a more convenient forum for this litigation than a United States District Court in Houston.” 817 F. 2d 307, 312 (1987). The majority acknowledged that due to an “open courts” provision in the Texas Constitution, Art. I, § 13, which is reflected in the Texas Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 71.031 (1986), the state courts may not apply the same, or indeed, any forum non conveniens analysis to petitioner’s case. Rather, as the Court of Appeals noted, it is possible that “Texas has constituted itself the world’s forum of final resort, where suit for personal injury or death may always be filed if nowhere else.” 817 F. 2d, at 314 (footnote omitted). In this maritime context, however, the Court of Appeals majority concluded that the so-called “re vers e-Erie” uniformity doctrine, see, e. g., Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S. 207, 222-223 (1986), required that federal forum non conveniens determinations pre-empt state law. Because the Court of Appeals found any independent state/oram non conveniens inquiry to be pre-empted, it held that the injunction was permissible. Chief Judge Clark wrote separately but joined this conclusion. 817 F. 2d, at 325. Judge Reavley dissented, maintaining that the Texas courts should be allowed to apply their own open courts forum non conveniens standard. The dissent also criticized the majority’s “bold new rule of preemption” which had the effect of “nullifying] the Texas open forum law for admiralty cases.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals’ ruling conflicted with a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F. 2d 1477 (1988), cert. pending sub nom. Crowley Maritime Corp. v. Zipfel, No. 87-1122, which held that the Anti-Injunction Act precluded an injunction in similar circumstances. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 484 U. S. 952 (1987), and now reverse and remand.
The Anti-Injunetion Act generally prohibits the federal courts from interfering with proceedings in the state courts:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U. S. C. §2283.
The Act, which has existed in some form since 1793, see Act of Mar. 2, 1793, ch. 22, § 5, 1 Stat. 335, is a necessary concomitant of the Framers’ decision to authorize, and Congress’ decision to implement, a dual system of federal and state courts. It represents Congress’ considered judgment as to how to balance the tensions inherent in such a system. Prevention of frequent federal court intervention is important to make the dual system work effectively. By generally barring such intervention, the Act forestalls “the inevitable friction between the state and federal courts that ensues from the injunction of state judicial proceedings by a federal court.” Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U. S. 623, 630-631 (1977) (plurality opinion). Due in no small part to the fundamental constitutional independence of the States, Congress adopted a general policy under which state proceedings “should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately this Court.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 287 (1970).
Congress, however, has permitted injunctions in certain, specific circumstances, namely, when expressly authorized by statute, necessary in aid of the court’s jurisdiction, or necessary to protect or effectuate the court’s judgment. These exceptions are designed to ensure the effectiveness and supremacy of federal law. But as the Court has recognized, the exceptions are narrow and are “not [to] b,e enlarged by loose statutory construction.” Ibid. See also Clothing Workers v. Richman Brothers Co., 348 U. S. 511, 514 (1955). Because an injunction staying state proceedings is proper only if it falls within one of the statutory exceptions, Atlantic Coast Line, supra, at 286-287, and because the last of the three exceptions is the only one even arguably applicable here, the central question in this case is whether the District Court’s injunction was necessary “to protect or effectuate” the District Court’s 1980 judgment dismissing petitioner’s lawsuit from federal court.
The relitigation exception was designed to permit a federal court to prevent state litigation of an issue that previously was presented to and decided by the federal court. It is founded in the well-recognized concepts of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The proper scope of the exception is perhaps best illustrated by this Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast Line, supra.
That case arose out of a union’s decision to picket a railroad. The railroad immediately sought an injunction from a Federal District Court to prevent the picketing. The court refused to enjoin the union, issuing an order in 1967 that concluded. in part, that the unions were “free to engage in self-help." Id., at 289. The railroad then went to state court, where an injunction was granted. Two years later this Court held that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., prohibited state court injunctions such as the one the railroad had obtained. Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369 (1969). This decision prompted the union to move in state court to dissolve the injunction, but the state court declined to do so. Rather than appeal, however, the union returned to federal court and obtained an injunction against the enforcement of the state court injunction. The District Court read its 1967 order as deciding not just that federal law did not authorize an injunction, but that federal law pre-empted the State from interfering with the union’s right of self-help by issuing an injunction. Accordingly, the court concluded that an injunction was necessary to protect that judgment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that the federal court injunction was improper even assuming that the state court’s refusal to dissolve its injunction was erroneous. 398 U. S., at 291, n. 5. After carefully reviewing the arguments actually presented to the District Court in the original 1967 litigation and the precise language of the District Court’s order, we rejected the District Court’s later conclusion that its 1967 order had addressed the propriety of an injunction issued by a state court:
“Based solely on the state of the record when the [1967] order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. Not only was that point never argued-to the court, but there is no language in the order that necessarily implies any decision on that question.” Id., at 290.
Thus, as Atlantic Coast Line makes clear, an essential prerequisite for applying the relitigation exception is that the claims or issues which the federal injunction insulates from litigation in state proceedings actually have been decided by the federal court. Moreover, Atlantic Coast Line illustrates that this prerequisite is strict and narrow. The Court assessed the precise state of the record and what the earlier federal order actually said; it did not permit the District Court to render a post hoc judgment as to what the order was intended to say. With these principles in mind, we turn to the two claims petitioner seeks to litigate in the Texas state courts.
First, petitioner asserts a claim under Singapore law. App. 40. The District Court did not resolve the merits of this claim in its 1980 order. Rather, the only issue decided by the District Court was that petitioner’s claims should be dismissed under the federal forum non conveniens doctrine. Federal forum non conveniens principles simply cannot determine whether Texas courts, which operate under a broad “open-courts” mandate, would consider themselves an appropriate forum for petitioner’s lawsuit. See Tex. Const., Art. I, §13; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §71.031 (1986). Cf. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1987). Respondents’ arguments to the District Court in 1980 re-fleeted this distinction, citing federal cases almost exclusively and discussing only federal forum non conveniens principles. See App. 10-12, 17-26. Moreover, the Court of Appeals expressly recognized that the Texas courts would apply a significantly different forum non conveniens analysis. 817 F. 2d, at 314. Thus, whether the Texas state courts are an appropriate forum for petitioner’s Singapore law claims has not yet been litigated, and an injunction to foreclose consideration of that issue is not within the relitigation exception.
Respondents seek to avoid this problem by arguing that any separate state law determination is pre-empted under the “re vers e-Erie” principle of federal maritime law. See generally Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U. S., at 222-223; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149 (1920); Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205 (1917). Under this view, which was shared by the Court of Appeals, the only permissible forum non conveniens determination in this maritime context is the one made by the District Court, and an injunction may properly issue to prevent the state courts from undertaking any different approach.
The contention that an independent state forum non conveniens determination is pre-empted by federal maritime law, however, does little to help respondents unless that preemption question was itself actually litigated and decided by the District Court. Since respondents concede that it was not, Tr. of Oral Arg. 32, the relitigation exception cannot apply. As we have previously recognized, “a federal court does not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area pre-empted by federal law, even when the interference is unmistakably clear.” Atlantic Coast Line, 398 U. S., at 294. See also Clothing Workers v. Richman Brothers Co., 348 U. S. 511 (1955). Rather, when a state proceeding presents a federal issue, even a pre-emption issue, the proper course is to seek resolution of that issue by the state court.
This is the course respondents must follow with respect to the Singapore law claim. It may be that respondents’ reading of the pre-emptive force of federal maritime forum non conveniens determinations is correct. This is a question we need not reach and on which we express no opinion. We simply hold that respondents must present their pre-emption argument to the Texas state courts, which are presumed competent to resolve federal issues. Cf. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., supra, at 15-16; Clothing Workers, supra, at 518. Accordingly, insofar as the District Court enjoined the state courts from considering petitioner’s Singapore law claim, the injunction exceeded the restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act.
Finally, petitioner asserts a claim under Texas state law. In contrast to the Singapore law claim, the validity of this claim was adjudicated in the original federal action. Respondents argued to the District Court in 1980 that under applicable choice-of-law principles, the law of Singapore must control petitioner’s suit. See App. 10. The District Court expressly agreed, noting that only two of the eight relevant factors “point toward American law,” and concluding that the “statutory and maritime law of the United States should not be applied.” Id., at 32. Petitioner seeks to relitigate this issue in state court by arguing that “there are substantial and/or significant contacts” with the United States such that “the application of American and Texas law is mandated.” Id., at 39. Because in its 1980 decision the District Court decided that Singapore law must control petitioner’s lawsuit, a decision that necessarily precludes the application of Texas law, an injunction preventing relitigation of that issue in state court is within the scope of the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, insofar as the District Court enjoined the state courts from considering petitioner’s claim under the substantive law of Texas, the injunction was permissible.
Because the injunction actually entered by the District Court, id,., at 118-119, was broader than the limited injunction we find acceptable, we must reverse the judgment approving a broad injunction and remand for entry of a more narrowly tailored order. Of course, the fact that an injunction may issue under the Anti-Injunction Act does not mean that it must issue. On remand the District Court should decide whether it is appropriate to enter an injunction.
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.
Choo’s attorneys, Benton Musslewhite and Joseph C. Blanks, having been specifically enjoined by the District Court, are also petitioners before this Court. For convenience, however, we shall use the term “petitioner” to refer only to Choo.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns an endeavor by Arizona voters to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering-the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power. "[P]artisan gerrymanders," this Court has recognized, "[are incompatible] with democratic principles." Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 292, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004) (plurality opinion); id., at 316, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment). Even so, the Court in Vieth did not grant relief on the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymander claim. The plurality held the matter nonjusticiable. Id., at 281, 124 S.Ct. 1769. Justice KENNEDY found no standard workable in that case, but left open the possibility that a suitable standard might be identified in later litigation. Id., at 317, 124 S.Ct. 1769.
In 2000, Arizona voters adopted an initiative, Proposition 106, aimed at "ending the practice of gerrymandering and improving voter and candidate participation in elections." App. 50. Proposition 106 amended Arizona's Constitution to remove redistricting authority from the Arizona Legislature and vest that authority in an independent commission, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC or Commission). After the 2010 census, as after the 2000 census, the AIRC adopted redistricting maps for congressional as well as state legislative districts.
The Arizona Legislature challenged the map the Commission adopted in January 2012 for congressional districts. Recognizing that the voters could control redistricting for state legislators, Brief for Appellant 42, 47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3-4, the Arizona Legislature sued the AIRC in federal court seeking a declaration that the Commission and its map for congressional districts violated the "Elections Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. That Clause, critical to the resolution of this case, provides:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations...." Art. I, § 4, cl. 1.
The Arizona Legislature's complaint alleged that "[t]he word 'Legislature' in the Elections Clause means [specifically and only] the representative body which makes the laws of the people," App. 21, ¶ 37; so read, the Legislature urges, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. The AIRC responded that, for Elections Clause purposes, "the Legislature" is not confined to the elected representatives; rather, the term encompasses all legislative authority conferred by the State Constitution, including initiatives adopted by the people themselves.
A three-judge District Court held, unanimously, that the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue; dividing two to one, the Court rejected the Legislature's complaint on the merits. We postponed jurisdiction and instructed the parties to address two questions: (1) Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit? (2) Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014).
We now affirm the District Court's judgment. We hold, first, that the Arizona Legislature, having lost authority to draw congressional districts, has standing to contest the constitutionality of Proposition 106. Next, we hold that lawmaking power in Arizona includes the initiative process, and that both § 2a(c) and the Elections Clause permit use of the AIRC in congressional districting in the same way the Commission is used in districting for Arizona's own Legislature.
I
A
Direct lawmaking by the people was "virtually unknown when the Constitution of 1787 was drafted." Donovan & Bowler, An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States, in Citizens as Legislators 1 (S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C. Tolbert eds. 1998). There were obvious precursors or analogues to the direct lawmaking operative today in several States, notably, New England's town hall meetings and the submission of early state constitutions to the people for ratification. See Lowell, The Referendum in the United States, in The Initiative, Referendum and Recall 126, 127 (W. Munro ed. 1912) (hereinafter IRR); W. Dodd, The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions 64-67 (1910). But it was not until the turn of the 20th century, as part of the Progressive agenda of the era, that direct lawmaking by the electorate gained a foothold, largely in Western States. See generally Persily, The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative, Referendum and Recall Developed in the American West, 2 Mich. L. & Pol'y Rev. 11 (1997).
The two main "agencies of direct legislation" are the initiative and the referendum. Munro, Introductory, in IRR 8. The initiative operates entirely outside the States' representative assemblies; it allows "voters [to] petition to propose statutes or constitutional amendments to be adopted or rejected by the voters at the polls." D. Magleby, Direct Legislation 1 (1984). While the initiative allows the electorate to adopt positive legislation, the referendum serves as a negative check. It allows "voters [to] petition to refer a legislative action to the voters [for approval or disapproval] at the polls." Ibid. "The initiative [thus] corrects sins of omission" by representative bodies, while the "referendum corrects sins of commission." Johnson, Direct Legislation as an Ally of Representative Government, in IRR 139, 142.
In 1898, South Dakota took the pathmarking step of affirming in its Constitution the people's power "directly [to] control the making of all ordinary laws" by initiative and referendum. Introductory, id., at 9. In 1902, Oregon became the first State to adopt the initiative as a means, not only to enact ordinary laws, but also to amend the State's Constitution. J. Dinan, The American State Constitutional Tradition 62 (2006). By 1920, the people in 19 States had reserved for themselves the power to initiate ordinary lawmaking, and, in 13 States, the power to initiate amendments to the State's Constitution. Id., at 62, and n. 132, 94, and n. 151. Those numbers increased to 21 and 18, respectively, by the close of the 20th century. Ibid.
B
For the delegates to Arizona's constitutional convention, direct lawmaking was a "principal issu[e]." J. Leshy, The Arizona State Constitution 8-9 (2d ed. 2013) (hereinafter Leshy). By a margin of more than three to one, the people of Arizona ratified the State's Constitution, which included, among lawmaking means, initiative and referendum provisions. Id., at 14-16, 22. In the runup to Arizona's admission to the Union in 1912, those provisions generated no controversy. Id., at 22.
In particular, the Arizona Constitution "establishes the electorate [of Arizona] as a coordinate source of legislation" on equal footing with the representative legislative body. Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 108 Ariz. 449, 451, 501 P.2d 391, 393 (1972); Cave Creek Unified School Dist. v. Ducey, 233 Ariz. 1, 4, 308 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2013) ("The legislature and electorate share lawmaking power under Arizona's system of government." (internal quotation marks omitted)). The initiative, housed under the article of the Arizona Constitution concerning the "Legislative Department" and the section defining the State's "legislative authority," reserves for the people "the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution." Art. IV, pt. 1, § 1. The Arizona Constitution further states that "[a]ny law which may be enacted by the Legislature under this Constitution may be enacted by the people under the Initiative." Art. XXII, § 14. Accordingly, "[g]eneral references to the power of the 'legislature' " in the Arizona Constitution "include the people's right (specified in Article IV, part 1) to bypass their elected representatives and make laws directly through the initiative." Leshy xxii.
C
Proposition 106, vesting redistricting authority in the AIRC, was adopted by citizen initiative in 2000 against a "background of recurring redistricting turmoil" in Arizona. Cain, Redistricting Commissions: A Better Political Buffer? 121 Yale L. J. 1808, 1831 (2012). Redistricting plans adopted by the Arizona Legislature sparked controversy in every redistricting cycle since the 1970's, and several of those plans were rejected by a federal court or refused preclearance by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See id., at 1830-1832.
Aimed at "ending the practice of gerrymandering and improving voter and candidate participation in elections," App. 50, Proposition 106 amended the Arizona Constitution to remove congressional redistricting authority from the state legislature, lodging that authority, instead, in a new entity, the AIRC. Ariz. Const., Art. IV, pt. 2, § 1, ¶¶ 3-23. The AIRC convenes after each census, establishes final district boundaries, and certifies the new districts to the Arizona Secretary of State. ¶¶ 16-17. The legislature may submit nonbinding recommendations to the AIRC, ¶ 16, and is required to make necessary appropriations for its operation, ¶ 18. The highest ranking officer and minority leader of each chamber of the legislature each select one member of the AIRC from a list compiled by Arizona's Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. ¶¶ 4-7. The four appointed members of the AIRC then choose, from the same list, the fifth member, who chairs the Commission. ¶ 8. A Commission's tenure is confined to one redistricting cycle; each member's time in office "expire[s] upon the appointment of the first member of the next redistricting commission." ¶ 23.
Holders of, or candidates for, public office may not serve on the AIRC, except candidates for or members of a school board. ¶ 3. No more than two members of the Commission may be members of the same political party, ibid., and the presiding fifth member cannot be registered with any party already represented on the Commission, ¶ 8. Subject to the concurrence of two-thirds of the Arizona Senate, AIRC members may be removed by the Arizona Governor for gross misconduct, substantial neglect of duty, or inability to discharge the duties of office. ¶ 10.
Several other States, as a means to curtail partisan gerrymandering, have also provided for the participation of commissions in redistricting. Some States, in common with Arizona, have given nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions binding authority over redistricting. The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular initiative, develops redistricting plans which become effective if approved by public referendum. Still other States have given commissions an auxiliary role, advising the legislatures on redistricting, or serving as a "backup" in the event the State's representative body fails to complete redistricting. Studies report that nonpartisan and bipartisan commissions generally draw their maps in a timely fashion and create districts both more competitive and more likely to survive legal challenge. See Miller & Grofman, Redistricting Commissions in the Western United States, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 637, 661, 663-664, 666 (2013).
D
On January 17, 2012, the AIRC approved final congressional and state legislative maps based on the 2010 census. See Arizona Independent Redistricting, Final Maps, http://azredistricting.org/Maps/Final-Maps/default. asp (all Internet materials as visited June 25, 2015, and included in Clerk of Court's case file). Less than four months later, on June 6, 2012, the Arizona Legislature filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, naming as defendants the AIRC, its five members, and the Arizona Secretary of State. The Legislature sought both a declaration that Proposition 106 and congressional maps adopted by the AIRC are unconstitutional, and, as affirmative relief, an injunction against use of AIRC maps for any congressional election after the 2012 general election.
A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), unanimously denied a motion by the AIRC to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. The Arizona Legislature, the court determined, had "demonstrated that its loss of redistricting power constitute[d] a [sufficiently] concrete injury." 997 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1050 (2014). On the merits, dividing two to one, the District Court granted the AIRC's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Decisions of this Court, the majority concluded, "demonstrate that the word 'Legislature' in the Elections Clause refers to the legislative process used in [a] state, determined by that state's own constitution and laws." Id., at 1054. As the "lawmaking power" in Arizona "plainly includes the power to enact laws through initiative," the District Court held, the "Elections Clause permits [Arizona's] establishment and use" of the Commission. Id., at 1056. Judge Rosenblatt dissented in part. Proposition 106, in his view, unconstitutionally denied "the Legislature" of Arizona the "ability to have any outcome-defining effect on the congressional redistricting process." Id., at 1058.
We postponed jurisdiction, and now affirm.
II
We turn first to the threshold question: Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit? Trained on "whether the plaintiff is [a] proper party to bring [a particular lawsuit,]" standing is "[o]ne element" of the Constitution's case-or-controversy limitation on federal judicial authority, expressed in Article III of the Constitution. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997). "To qualify as a party with standing to litigate," the Arizona Legislature "must show, first and foremost," injury in the form of " 'invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent.' " Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). The Legislature's injury also must be "fairly traceable to the challenged action" and "redressable by a favorable ruling." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Arizona Legislature maintains that the Elections Clause vests in it "primary responsibility" for redistricting. Brief for Appellant 51, 53. To exercise that responsibility, the Legislature urges, it must have at least the opportunity to engage (or decline to engage) in redistricting before the State may involve other actors in the redistricting process. See id., at 51-53. Proposition 106, which gives the AIRC binding authority over redistricting, regardless of the Legislature's action or inaction, strips the Legislature of its alleged prerogative to initiate redistricting. That asserted deprivation would be remedied by a court order enjoining the enforcement of Proposition 106. Although we conclude that the Arizona Legislature does not have the exclusive, constitutionally guarded role it asserts, see infra, at 2671 - 2677, one must not "confus[e] weakness on the merits with absence of Article III standing." Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. ----, ----, n. 10, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434, n. 10, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); see Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (standing "often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted," but it "in no way depends on the merits" of the claim).
The AIRC argues that the Legislature's alleged injury is insufficiently concrete to meet the standing requirement absent some "specific legislative act that would have taken effect but for Proposition 106." Brief for Appellees 20. The United States, as amicus curiae, urges that even more is needed: the Legislature's injury will remain speculative, the United States contends, unless and until the Arizona Secretary of State refuses to implement a competing redistricting plan passed by the Legislature. Brief for United States 14-17. In our view, the Arizona Legislature's suit is not premature, nor is its alleged injury too "conjectural" or "hypothetical" to establish standing. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S., at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Two prescriptions of Arizona's Constitution would render the Legislature's passage of a competing plan and submission of that plan to the Secretary of State unavailing. Indeed, those actions would directly and immediately conflict with the regime Arizona's Constitution establishes. Cf.
Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 944, n. 2, 102 S.Ct. 3456, 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (failure to apply for permit which "would not have been granted" under existing law did not deprive plaintiffs of standing to challenge permitting regime). First, the Arizona Constitution instructs that the Legislature "shall not have the power to adopt any measure that supersedes [an initiative], in whole or in part,... unless the superseding measure furthers the purposes" of the initiative. Art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(14). Any redistricting map passed by the Legislature in an effort to supersede the AIRC's map surely would not "furthe[r] the purposes" of Proposition 106. Second, once the AIRC certifies its redistricting plan to the Secretary of State, Arizona's Constitution requires the Secretary to implement that plan and no other. See Art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(17); Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 211 Ariz. 337, 351, 121 P.3d 843, 857 (App.2005) (per curiam ) ("Once the Commission certifies [its] maps, the secretary of state must use them in conducting the next election."). To establish standing, the Legislature need not violate the Arizona Constitution and show that the Secretary of State would similarly disregard the State's fundamental instrument of government.
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997), does not aid AIRC's argument that there is no standing here. In Raines, this Court held that six individual Members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the Line Item Veto Act. Id., at 813-814, 829-830, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"). The Act, which gave the President authority to cancel certain spending and tax benefit measures after signing them into law, allegedly diluted the efficacy of the Congressmembers' votes. Id., at 815-817, 117 S.Ct. 2312. The "institutional injury" at issue, we reasoned, scarcely zeroed in on any individual Member. Id., at 821, 117 S.Ct. 2312. "[W]idely dispersed," the alleged injury "necessarily [impacted] all Members of Congress and both Houses... equally." Id., at 829, 821, 117 S.Ct. 2312. None of the plaintiffs, therefore, could tenably claim a "personal stake" in the suit. Id., at 830, 117 S.Ct. 2312.
In concluding that the individual Members lacked standing, the Court "attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [the Raines plaintiffs had] not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress." Id., at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312. "[I]ndeed," the Court observed, "both houses actively oppose[d] their suit." Ibid. Having failed to prevail in their own Houses, the suitors could not repair to the Judiciary to complain. The Arizona Legislature, in contrast, is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury, and it commenced this action after authorizing votes in both of its chambers, App. 26-27, 46. That "different... circumstanc[e]," 521 U.S., at 830, 117 S.Ct. 2312, was not sub judice in Raines.
Closer to the mark is this Court's decision in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939). There, plaintiffs were 20 (of 40) Kansas State Senators, whose votes "would have been sufficient to defeat [a] resolution ratifying [a] proposed [federal] constitutional amendment." Id., at 446, 59 S.Ct. 972. We held they had standing to challenge, as impermissible under Article V of the Federal Constitution, the State Lieutenant Governor's tie-breaking vote for the amendment. Ibid. Coleman, as we later explained in Raines, stood "for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." 521 U.S., at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Our conclusion that the Arizona Legislature has standing fits that bill. Proposition 106, together with the Arizona Constitution's ban on efforts to undermine the purposes of an initiative, see supra, at 2663 - 2664, would "completely nullif[y]" any vote by the Legislature, now or "in the future," purporting to adopt a redistricting plan. Raines, 521 U.S., at 823-824, 117 S.Ct. 2312.
This dispute, in short, "will be resolved... in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action."
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Accordingly, we proceed to the merits.
III
On the merits, we instructed the parties to address this question: Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? The Elections Clause is set out at the start of this opinion, supra, at 2658 - 2659. Section 2a(c) provides:
"Until a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment, the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportionment shall be elected in the following manner: [setting out five federally prescribed redistricting procedures]."
Before focusing directly on the statute and constitutional prescriptions in point, we summarize this Court's precedent relating to appropriate state decisionmakers for redistricting purposes. Three decisions compose the relevant case law: Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 36 S.Ct. 708, 60 L.Ed. 1172 (1916); Hawke v. Smith (No. 1), 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 495, 64 L.Ed. 871 (1920); and Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932).
A
Davis v. Hildebrant involved an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio vesting in the people the right, exercisable by referendum, to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law enacted by the State's legislature. A 1915 Act redistricting the State for the purpose of congressional elections had been submitted to a popular vote, resulting in disapproval of the legislature's measure. State election officials asked the State's Supreme Court to declare the referendum void. That court rejected the request, holding that the referendum authorized by Ohio's Constitution, "was a part of the legislative power of the State," and "nothing in [federal statutory law] or in [the Elections Clause] operated to the contrary." 241 U.S., at 567, 36 S.Ct. 708. This Court affirmed the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment. In upholding the state court's decision, we recognized that the referendum was "part of the legislative power" in Ohio, ibid., legitimately exercised by the people to disapprove the legislation creating congressional districts. For redistricting purposes, Hildebrant thus established, "the Legislature" did not mean the representative body alone. Rather, the word encompassed a veto power lodged in the people. See id., at 569, 36 S.Ct. 708 (Elections Clause does not bar "treating the referendum as part of the legislative power for the purpose of apportionment, where so ordained by the state constitutions and laws").
Hawke v. Smith involved the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Ohio's Legislature had ratified the Amendment, and a referendum on that ratification was at issue. Reversing the Ohio Supreme Court's decision upholding the referendum, we held that "ratification by a State of a constitutional amendment is not an act of legislation within the proper sense of the word." 253 U.S., at 229, 40 S.Ct. 495. Instead, Article V governing ratification had lodged in "the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States" sole authority to assent to a proposed amendment. Id., at 226, 40 S.Ct. 495. The Court contrasted the ratifying function, exercisable exclusively by a State's legislature, with "the ordinary business of legislation." Id., at 229, 40 S.Ct. 495. Davis v. Hildebrant, the Court explained, involved the enactment of legislation, i.e., a redistricting plan, and properly held that "the referendum [was] part of the legislative authority of the State for [that] purpose." 253 U.S., at 230, 40 S.Ct. 495.
Smiley v. Holm raised the question whether legislation purporting to redistrict Minnesota for congressional elections was subject to the Governor's veto. The Minnesota Supreme Court had held that the Elections Clause placed redistricting authority exclusively in the hands of the State's legislature, leaving no role for the Governor. We reversed that determination and held, for the purpose at hand, Minnesota's legislative authority includes not just the two houses of the legislature; it includes, in addition, a make-or-break role for the Governor. In holding that the Governor's veto counted, we distinguished instances in which the Constitution calls upon state legislatures to exercise a function other than lawmaking. State legislatures, we pointed out, performed an "electoral" function "in the choice of United States Senators under Article I, section 3, prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment," a "ratifying" function for "proposed amendments to the Constitution under Article V," as explained in Hawke v. Smith, and a "consenting" function "in relation to the acquisition of lands by the United States under Article I, section 8, paragraph 17." 285 U.S., at 365-366, 52 S.Ct. 397.
In contrast to those other functions, we observed, redistricting "involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect." Id., at 366, 52 S.Ct. 397. Lawmaking, we further noted, ordinarily "must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments." Id., at 367, 52 S.Ct. 397. In Minnesota, the State's Constitution had made the Governor "part of the legislative process." Id., at 369, 52 S.Ct. 397. And the Elections Clause, we explained, respected the State's choice to include the Governor in that process, although the Governor could play no part when the Constitution assigned to "the Legislature" a ratifying, electoral, or consenting function. Nothing in the Elections Clause, we said, "attempt[ed] to endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State ha[d] provided that laws shall be enacted." Id., at 368, 52 S.Ct. 397.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in dissent, features, indeed trumpets repeatedly, the pre-Seventeenth Amendment regime in which Senators were "chosen in each State by the Legislature thereof." Art. I, § 3; see post, at 2677 - 2678, 2681 - 2682, 2687. If we are right, he asks, why did popular election proponents resort to the amending process instead of simply interpreting "the Legislature" to mean "the people"? Post, at 2677 - 2678. Smiley, as just indicated, answers that question. Article I, § 3, gave state legislatures "a function different from that of lawgiver," 285 U.S., at 365, 52 S.Ct. 397; it made each of them "an electoral body" charged to perform that function to the exclusion of other participants, ibid. So too, of the ratifying function. As we explained in Hawke, "the power to legislate in the enactment of the laws of a State is derived from the people of the State." 253 U.S., at 230, 40 S.Ct. 495. Ratification, however, "has its source in the Federal Constitution" and is not "an act of legislation within the proper sense of the word." Id., at 229-230, 40 S.Ct. 495.
Constantly resisted by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, but well understood in opinions that speak for the Court: "[T]he meaning of the word 'legislature,' used several times in the Federal Constitution, differs according to the connection in which it is employed, depend[ent] upon the character of the function which that body in each instance is called upon to exercise." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 434, 52 S.Ct. 607, 76 L.Ed. 1204 (1932) (citing Smiley, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795). Thus "the Legislature" comprises the referendum and the Governor's veto in the context of regulating congressional elections. Hildebrant, see supra, at 2666; Smiley, see supra, at 2667. In the context of ratifying constitutional amendments, in contrast, "the Legislature" has a different identity, one that excludes the referendum and the Governor's veto. Hawke, see supra, at 2666 - 2667.
In sum, our precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor's veto. The exercise of the initiative, we acknowledge, was not at issue in our prior decisions. But as developed below, we see no constitutional barrier to a State's empowerment of its people by embracing that form of lawmaking.
B
We take up next the statute the Court asked the parties to address, 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c), a measure modeled on the Reapportionment Act Congress passed in 1911, Act of Aug. 8 (1911 Act), ch. 5, § 4, 37 Stat. 14. Section 2a(c), we hold, permits use of a commission to adopt Arizona's congressional districts. See supra, at 2666.
From 1862 through 1901, the decennial congressional apportionment Acts provided that a State would be required to follow federally prescribed procedures for redistricting unless "the legislature" of the State drew district lines. E.g., Act of July 14, 1862, ch. 170, 12 Stat. 572; Act of Jan. 16, 1901, ch. 93, § 4, 31 Stat. 734. In drafting the 1911 Act, Congress focused on the fact that several States had supplemented the representative legislature mode of lawmaking with a direct lawmaking role for the people, through the processes of initiative (positive legislation by the electorate) and referendum (approval or disapproval of legislation by the electorate). 47 Cong. Rec. 3508 (statement of Sen. Burton); see supra, at 2659 - 2660. To accommodate that development, the 1911 Act eliminated the statutory reference to redistricting by the state "legislature" and instead directed that, if a State's apportionment of Representatives increased, the State should use the Act's default procedures for redistricting "until such State shall be redistricted in the manner provided by the laws thereof." Ch. 5, § 4, 37 Stat. 14 (emphasis added).
Some Members of Congress questioned whether the language change was needed. In their view, existing apportionment legislation (referring to redistricting by a State's "legislature") "suffic[ed] to allow, whatever the law of the State may be, the people of that State to control [redistricting]." 47 Cong. Rec. 3507 (statement of Sen. Shively); cf. Shiel v. Thayer, Bartlett Contested Election Cases, H.R. Misc. Doc. No. 57, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 351 (1861) (view of House Committee of Elections Member Dawes that Art. I, § 4's reference to "the Legislature" meant simply the "constituted authorities, through whom [the State] choose[s] to speak,"
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two intertwined questions concerning a civil litigant’s right to obtain transcripts of federal criminal grand jury proceedings. First, what justification for disclosure must a private party show in order to overcome the presumption of grand jury secrecy applicable to such transcripts? Second, what court should assess the strength of this showing — the court where the civil action is pending, or the court that acts as custodian of the grand jury documents?
I
Respondent Petrol Stops Northwest is a gasoline retailer unaffiliated with any major oil company. In 1973, it operated 104 service stations located in Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, and several other States. On December 13,1973, respondent filed an antitrust action in the District of Arizona against 12 large oil companies, including petitioners Douglas Oil Co. of California and Phillips Petroleum Co. In its complaint, respondent alleged that on January 1, 1973, there had been a sharp reduction in the amount of gasoline offered for sale to it, and that this reduction had resulted from a conspiracy among the oil companies to restrain trade in gasoline, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2. As a part of this conspiracy, respondent charged, petitioners and their codefendants had fixed the prices of gasoline at the retail and wholesale distribution levels in California, Oregon, and Washington.
Respondents Gas-A-Tron of Arizona and Coinoco also independently sell gasoline through service stations they own or lease. Unlike respondent Petrol Stops Northwest, however, their operations are limited to the vicinity of Tucson, Ariz. On November 2, 1973, Gas-A-Tron and Coinoco filed an antitrust complaint in the District of Arizona naming as defendants nine large oil companies, including petitioner Phillips Petroleum Co. Like respondent Petrol Stops Northwest, Gas-A-Tron and Coinoco alleged that as of January 1, 1973, their supply of gasoline had been sharply reduced, and attributed this reduction to a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The specific charges of illegal behavior asserted by the two retailers substantially paralleled those made by Petrol Stops Northwest in its complaint, and included an allegation that the defendants had fixed the price of gasoline at the wholesale and retail levels.
Although the issues and defendants in the two actions were substantially the same, the cases were assigned to two different judges in the District of Arizona. In February 1974, respondents served upon petitioners a set of interrogatories which included a request that petitioners state whether either of their companies at any time between January 1, 1968, and December 14, 1974 (sic), had had any communication with any of their competitors concerning the wholesale price of gasoline to be sold to unaffiliated retailers. Petitioners also were asked to produce any documents they had concerning such communications. Petitioners responded that they were aware of no such communications, and therefore could produce no documents pertinent to the request.
In the meantime, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice had been investigating since 1972 the pricing behavior on the west coast of several major oil companies, including petitioners. See App. 26. As part of this investigation, employees of petitioners were called to testify before a grand jury empaneled in the Central District of California. The Government’s investigation culminated on March 19, 1975, when the grand jury returned an indictment charging petitioners and four other oil companies with having conspired to fix the price of “rebrand gasoline” in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. The indictment alleged that the price-fixing conspiracy had begun in July 1970 and had continued at least until the end of 1971.
Although initially all six defendants charged in the criminal indictment pleaded not guilty, by December 1975, each had pleaded nolo contendere and was fined $50,000. Before changing their pleas, petitioners, acting pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (a)(1)(A), asked the District Court for the Central District of California to give them copies of the transcripts of testimony given by their employees before the grand jury. Their request was granted, and it appears that petitioners continue to possess copies of these transcripts.
In October 1976, respondents served upon petitioners requests under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 34 for production of the grand jury transcripts in petitioners’ possession. Petitioners objected to the requests for production, arguing that the transcripts were not relevant to the private antitrust actions and that they were not likely to lead to any admissible evidence. Respondents did not pursue their discovery requests by making a motion in the Arizona trial court under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 37 to compel discovery. See n. 17, infra. Rather, they filed a petition in the District Court for the Central District of California asking that court, as guardian of the grand jury transcripts under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e), to order them released to respondents. An attorney from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice appeared and indicated that the Government had no objection to respondents’ receiving the transcripts already made available to petitioners under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (a)(1)(A). He suggested to the court, however, that the real parties in interest were petitioners, and therefore that they should be given an opportunity to be heard. The California District Court accepted this suggestion, and petitioners participated in the proceedings as parties adverse to respondents.
After briefing and oral argument, the court ordered the Chief of the Antitrust Division’s Los Angeles Office “to produce for [respondents’] inspection and copying all grand jury transcripts previously disclosed to Phillips Petroleum Company or Douglas Oil Company of California or their attorneys relating to the indictment in United States v. Phillips, et al., Criminal Docket No. 75-377.” App. 48-49. The production order was subject, however, to several protective conditions. The transcripts were to “be disclosed only to counsel for [respondents] in connection with the two civil actions” pending in Arizona. Furthermore, under the court’s order the transcripts of grand jury testimony “may be used... solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness or refreshing the recollection of a witness, either in deposition or at trial” in the Arizona actions. Finally, the court forbade any further reproduction of the matter turned over to respondents, and ordered that the material be returned to the Antitrust Division “upon completion of the purposes authorized by this Order.”
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the disclosure order. Petrol Stops Northwest v. United States, 571 F. 2d 1127 (1978). The Court of Appeals noted that under United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677 (1958), a party seeking access to grand jury transcripts must show a “particularized need.” In evaluating the strength of the need shown in the present case, the Ninth Circuit considered two factors: the need for continued grand jury secrecy and respondents’ need for the requested material. The court found the former need to be insubstantial, as the grand jury proceeding had concluded three years before and the transcripts already had been released to petitioners. As to respondents’ claim, the court conceded that it knew little about the Arizona proceedings, but speculated that the transcripts would facilitate the prosecution of respondents’ civil suits: Petitioners’ answers to the 1974 interrogatories concerning price communications with competitors appeared to be at odds with their pleas of nolo contendere in the California criminal action.
II
Petitioners contend that the courts below erred in holding that, because the grand jury had dissolved and the requested material had been disclosed already to the defendants, respondents had to show only a “slight need” for disclosure. According to petitioners, this approach to disclosure under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) is contrary to prior decisions of this Court indicating that “a civil litigant must demonstrate a compelling necessity for specified grand jury materials before disclosure is proper.” Brief for Petitioners 16.
We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. See, e. g., United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., supra. In particular, we have noted several distinct interests served by safeguarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. First, if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution as well as to inducements. There also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment. Finally, by preserving the secrecy of the proceedings, we assure that persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule.
For all of these reasons, courts have been reluctant to lift unnecessarily the veil of secrecy from the grand jury. At the same time, it has been recognized that in some situations justice may demand that discrete portions of transcripts be made available for use in subsequent proceedings. See, e. g., United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 233-234 (1940). Indeed, recognition of the occasional need for litigants to have access to grand jury transcripts led to the provision in Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) (2) (C) (i) that disclosure of grand jury transcripts may be made “when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”
In United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., the Court sought to accommodate the competing needs for secrecy and disclosure by ruling that a private party seeking to obtain grand jury transcripts must demonstrate that “without the transcript a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done.” 356 U. S., at 682. Moreover, the Court required that the showing of need for the transcripts be made “with particularity” so that “the secrecy of the proceedings [may] be lifted discretely and lim-itedly.” Id., at 683. Accord, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U. S. 395, 400 (1959).
In Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966), the Court considered a request for disclosure of grand jury records in quite different circumstances. It was there held to be an abuse of discretion for a District Court in a criminal trial to refuse to disclose to the defendants the grand jury testimony of four witnesses who some years earlier had appeared before a grand jury investigating activities of the defendants. The grand jury had completed its investigation, and the witnesses whose testimony was sought already had testified in public concerning the same matters. The Court noted that “[n]one of the reasons traditionally advanced to justify nondisclosure of grand jury minutes” was significant in those circumstances, id., at 872 n. 18, whereas the defendants had shown it to be likely that the witnesses’ testimony at trial was inconsistent with their prior grand jury testimony.
From Procter & Gamble and Dennis emerges the standard for determining when the traditional secrecy of the grand jury may be broken: Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6 (e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed. Such a showing must-be made even when the grand jury whose transcripts are sought has concluded its operations, as it had in Dennis. For in considering the effects of disclosure on grand jury proceedings, the courts must consider not only the immediate effects upon a particular grand jury, but also the possible effect upon the functioning of future grand juries. Persons called upon to testify will consider the likelihood that their testimony may one day be disclosed to outside parties. Fear of future retribution or social stigma may act as powerful deterrents to those who would come forward and aid the grand jury in the performance of its duties. Concern as to the future consequences of frank and full testimony is heightened where the witness is an employee of a company under investigation. Thus, the interests in grand jury secrecy, although reduced, are not eliminated merely because the grand jury has ended its activities.
It is clear from Procter & Gamble and Dennis that disclosure is appropriate only in those cases where the need for it outweighs the public interest in secrecy, and that the burden of demonstrating this balance rests upon the private party seeking disclosure. It is equally clear that as the considerations justifying secrecy become less relevant, a party asserting a need for grand jury transcripts will have a lesser burden in showing justification. Accord, Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F. 2d 768, 774 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. J. L. Simmons Co. v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 889 (1977); U. S. Industries, Inc. v. United States District Court, 345 F. 2d 18, 21 (CA9), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 814 (1965); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure § 106, p. 173 (1969). In sum, as so often is the situation in our jurisprudence, the court’s duty in a case of this kind is to weigh carefully the competing interests in light of the relevant circumstances and the standards announced by this Court. And if disclosure is ordered, the court may include protective limitations on the use of the disclosed material, as did the District Court in this case. Moreover, we emphasize that a court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial discretion. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, supra, at 399.
Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals erred in the standard by which it assessed the request for disclosure under Rule 6 (e). The District Court made clear that the question before it was whether a particularized need for disclosure outweighed the interest in continued grand jury secrecy. See App. 53-55. Similarly, the Court of Appeals correctly understood that the standard enunciated in Procter & Gamble requires a court to examine the extent of the need for continuing grand jury secrecy, the need for disclosure, and the extent to which the request was limited to that material directly pertinent to the need for disclosure.
Ill
Petitioners contend, irrespective of the legal standard applied, that the District Court for the Central District of California was not the proper court to rule on respondents’ motion for disclosure. Petitioners note that the Court of Appeals and the District Court both purported to base their decisions in part upon the need for use of the requested material in the civil antitrust proceedings pending in Arizona. This determination necessarily involved consideration of the nature and status of the Arizona proceedings, matters peculiarly within the competence of the Arizona District Court.
Although the question is an important one, this Court heretofore has had no occasion to consider which court or courts may direct disclosure of grand jury minutes under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e), The federal courts that have addressed the question generally have said that the request for disclosure of grand jury minutes under Rule 6 (e) must be directed toward the court under whose auspices the grand jury was empan-neled. See Illinois v. Sarbaugh, supra, at 772-773; Gibson v. United States, 131 U. S. App. D. C. 143, 144, 403 F. 2d 166, 167 (1968); Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 21 F. R. D. 233, 235 (DC 1957); accord, 1 Wright, supra, § 106, p. 174. But see United States v. American Oil Co., 264 F. Supp. 93, 95 (ED Mo. 1966). Indeed, those who seek grand jury transcripts have little choice other than to file a request with the court that supervised the grand jury, as it is the only court with control over the transcripts.
Quite apart from practical necessity, the policies underlying Rule 6 (e) dictate that the grand jury’s supervisory court participate in reviewing such requests, as it is in the best position to determine the continuing need for grand jury secrecy. Ideally, the judge who supervised the grand jury should review the request for disclosure, as he will have firsthand knowledge of the grand jury’s activities. But even other judges of the district where the grand jury sat may be able to discover facts affecting the need for secrecy more easily than would judges from elsewhere around the country. The records are in the custody of the district court, and therefore are readily available for reference. Moreover, the personnel of that court' — and particularly those of the United States Attorney’s office who worked with the grand jury — are more likely to be informed about the grand jury proceedings than those in a district that had no prior experience with the subject of the request. We conclude, therefore, that, in general, requests for disclosure of grand jury transcripts should be directed to the court that supervised the grand jury’s activities.
It does not follow, however, that in every case the court in which the grand jury sat should make the final decision whether a request for disclosure under Rule 6 (e) should be granted. Where, as in this case, the request is made for use in a case pending in another district, the judges of the court having custody of the grand jury transcripts will have no firsthand knowledge of the litigation in which the transcripts allegedly are needed, and no practical means by which such knowledge can be obtained. In süch a case, a judge in the district of the grand jury cannot weigh in an informed manner the need for disclosure against the need for maintaining grand jury secrecy. Thus, it may well be impossible for that court to apply the standard required by the decisions of this Court, reiterated above, for determining whether the veil of secrecy should be lifted. See supra, at 221-224.
In the Electrical Equipment Cases, a federal court contemplated a similar quandary. Following the convictions of 29 heavy electrical equipment manufacturers for price fixing, about 1,900 private damages suits were filed in 34 Federal Districts around the country. See Note, Release of Grand Jury Minutes in the National Deposition Program of the Electrical Equipment Cases, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1133 (1964). During one of these suits, plaintiffs asked the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to disclose portions of a witness' grand jury testimony so that they could be used to refresh the witness' memory during a deposition. Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 210 F. Supp. 486 (ED Pa. 1962). The request was directed to Judge Clary, who had supervised the grand jury and also was in charge of the deposition. He had no difficulty, therefore, setting forth in detail in his opinion both the need for secrecy and the need for disclosure.
Recognizing, however, that the other District Courts in which related actions were pending might face similar requests for the grand jury minutes under his control, Judge Clary outlined a procedure by which parties in the future could put forward such requests. In the court’s words:
“[T]he Grand Jury transcript of any witness deposed in [these suits], either in this district or in any other district of the United States in which these cases are pending, should be made available to the deposition Judge for use in his district. There may be and probably will be many instances during these national depositions when disclosure may be advisable.... The refusal [to order disclosure in this case] cannot rule out production where in camera examination by a deposition Judge uncovers material discrepancy or significant facts which the witness concealed, or failed to remember, at his deposition. Such disclosure as is necessary to uncover full and complete facts must be allowed. If, at the completion of any deposition taken in the national program, a motion is made for the production of that witness’ Grand Jury testimony, and if the deposition Judge requests it from this Court for examination in camera, the testimony will be immediately made available to him. The deposition Judge may then contrast the Grand Jury testimony with the deposition and determine, in his own discretion, whether in the interest of justice there is compelling need for disclosure.” Id., at 491.
Because Judge Clary in his opinion had discussed with care the various secrecy concerns as they applied to the transcripts before him, district courts called upon in the future to rule upon disclosure motions could weigh these concerns against the need for disclosure. In this way, the court provided precisely what was required by the situation: a coordinating of the informed views of both the civil trial court and the grand jury court concerning the propriety of disclosing portions of the grand jury minutes. Several other federal courts, recognizing the need for collaboration, have devised means by which both the court of the grand jury and the court of the collateral civil proceeding may participate in the decision whether transcripts should be released under Rule 6 (e). See In re 1975-2 Grand Jury Investigation, 566 F. 2d 1293, 1296 (CA5 1978); Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F. 2d, at 773 n. 5; Baker v. United States Steel Corp., 492 F. 2d 1074, 1076-1077 (CA2 1974); Gibson v. United States, 131 U. S. App. D. C., at 144-145, 403 F. 2d, at 167-168.
In the present case, the District Court for the Central District of California was called upon to make an evaluation entirely beyond its expertise. The District Judge readily conceded that he had no knowledge of the civil proceedings pending several hundred miles away in Arizona. App. 58. Nonetheless, he was asked to rule whether there was a “particularized need” for disclosure of portions of the grand jury transcript and whether this need outweighed the need for continued grand jury secrecy. Generally we leave it to the considered discretion of the district court to determine the proper response to requests for disclosure under Rule 6 (e). See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U. S., at 399. We have a duty, however, to guide the exercise of discretion by district courts, and when necessary to overturn discretionary decisions under Rule 6 (e). See, e. g., Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966).
We find that the District Court here abused its discretion in releasing directly to respondents the grand jury minutes they requested. Appreciating that it was largely ignorant of the Arizona civil suits, the court nonetheless made a judgment concerning the relative needs for secrecy and disclosure. The court based its decision largely upon the unsupported assertions of counsel during oral argument before it, supplemented only by the criminal indictment returned by the grand jury, the civil complaints, and petitioners’ response to a single interrogatory that appeared to be inconsistent with petitioners’ nolo contendere plea in the criminal case. Even the court’s comparison of the criminal indictment and the civil complaints did not indicate unambiguously what, if any, portions of the grand jury transcripts would be pertinent to the subject of the Arizona actions, as only some of the same parties were named and only some of the same territory was covered.
The possibility of an unnecessary breach of grand jury secrecy in situations such as this is not insignificant. A court more familiar with the course of the antitrust litigation might have seen important differences between the allegations of the indictment and the contours of the conspiracy respondents sought to prove in their civil actions — differences indicating that disclosure would likely be of little value to respondents, save perhaps as a mechanism for general discovery. Alternatively, the courts where the civil proceedings were pending might have considered disclosure at that point in the litigation to be premature; if there were to be conflicts between petitioners’ statements and their actions in the criminal proceedings, the court might have preferred to wait until they ripened at depositions or even during testimony at trial.
Under these circumstances, the better practice would have been for the District Court, after making a written evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy and a determination that the limited evidence before it showed that disclosure might be appropriate, to send the requested materials to the court where the civil cases were pending. The Arizona court, armed with its special knowledge of the status of the civil actions, then could have considered the requests for disclosure in light of the California court’s evaluation of the need for continued grand jury secrecy. In this way, both the need for continued secrecy and the need for disclosure could have been evaluated by the courts in the best position to make the respective evaluations.
We do not suggest, of course, that such a procedure would be required in every case arising under Rule 6 (e). Circumstances that dictate the need for cooperative action between the courts of different districts will vary, and procedures to deal with the many variations are best left to the rulemaking procedures established by Congress. Undoubtedly there will be cases in which the court to whom the Rule 6 (e) request is directed will be able intelligently, on the basis of limited knowledge, to decide that disclosure plainly is inappropriate or that justice requires immediate disclosure to the requesting party, without reference of the matter to any other court. Our decision today therefore is restricted to situations, such as that presented by this case, in which the district court having custody of the grand jury records is unlikely to have dependable knowledge of the status of, and the needs of the parties in, the civil suit in which the desired transcripts are to be used.
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.
“Transcripts” is used herein to refer to the verbatim recordings of testimony given before a grand jury.
Also named as defendants were Continental Oil Co. (an affiliate of petitioner Douglas Oil); Gulf Oil Co.; Shell Oil Co.; Exxon Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Union Oil Co. of California; Amoco Oil Co.; Standard Oil Co. of California; Standard Oil Co. of Indiana; and Armour Oil Co.
In addition, the complaint charged that the defendants had tied the sale of gasoline to the leasing of service stations, had entered into a concerted refusal to deal with independent gasoline retailers, had maintained a monopoly over the refinery capacity of the United States, and had set predatory prices.
Also named as defendants were Union Oil Co. of California; Amoco Oil Co.; Standard Oil Co. of Indiana; Shell Oil Co.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Standard OE Co. of California; Exxon Corp.; and Diamond Shamrock.
In addition, Gas-A-Tron and Coinoco charged that the oE companies had violated the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. §§ 13-13b and 21a, by selling gasoline to affiliated retaEers at prices more favorable than those offered unaffiliated retailers such as respondents.
In its response to the interrogatory, petitioner Phillips stated:
“Since October, 1969, it has been Phillips’ policy to refrain from any conversations or communications with any and all of its competitors relating in any way to prices except in situations where Phillips is selling to or buying from a competitor and the price of the product being bought and sold obviously must be discussed.” 2 Record 6.
In addition to petitioners, Powerene Oil Co., Fletcher Oil & Refining Co., Golden Eagle Refining Co., and MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co. were named as codefendants. The indictment alleged, in part, that the defendants and co-conspirators had engaged in an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade, “in violation of Section 1 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, as amended (15 U. S. C. § 1), commonly known as the Sherman Act.... The aforesaid combination and conspiracy has consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action among the defendants and co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which have been to increase, fix, stabilize and maintain the price of rebrand gasoline.” App. 126-127.
“Rebrand gasoline” is defined in the indictment to mean “gasoline sold for resale in service stations under a trademark or brand name not owned or controlled by an oil refiner.” Id., at 124. It appears to be undisputed that the gasoline purchased by respondents from the major oil companies was “rebrand gasoline” within the meaning of the indictment.
As an initial matter, respondents argue that petitioners lack standing to object to the disclosure order, as the only interest in grand jury secrecy remaining in this case is a public one. Accord, United States v. American Oil Co., 456 F. 2d 1043 (CA3 1972) (per curiam). Contra, Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F. 2d 768 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. J. L. Simmons Co. v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 889 (1977). There can be no question that there is standing under Art. Ill for petitioners to object to the disclosure order, as release of the transcripts to their civil adversaries could result in a substantial injury to them. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975). Moreover, the interest petitioners assert is one legally protected under the Court’s rulings concerning grand jury secrecy. One of the several interests promoted by grand jury secrecy is the protection of the innocent accused from disclosure of the accusations made against him before the grand jury. See n. 10, infra. Although petitioners in the present case were indicted and pleaded nolo contendere, under our decisions they nonetheless are legally entitled to protection, as there may have been accusations made for which no indictment was returned.
Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public, and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. See Calkins, Grand Jury Secrecy, 63 Mich. L. Rev. 455, 457 (1965). The rule of grand jury secrecy was imported into our federal common law and is an integral part of our criminal justice system. See Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 362 (1956); United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 513 (1943). Federal Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) codifies the requirement that grand jury activities generally be kept secret, by providing:
“A grand juror, an interpreter, a stenographer, an operator of a recording device, a typist who transcribes recorded testimony, [or] an attorney for the Government... shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided for in these rules.... A knowing violation of rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court.”
Although the purpose for grand jury secrecy originally was protection of the criminally accused against an overreaching Crown, see Calkins, Grand Jury Secrecy, supra, with time it came to be viewed as necessary for the proper functioning of the grand jury. See n. 10, infra.
In United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 681-682, n. 6 (1958), we said that the reasons for grand jury secrecy had been summarized correctly in United States v. Rose, 215 F. 2d 617, 628-629 (CA3 1954):
“(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witness who may testify before [the] grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.’ ”
Federal Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) provides in full:
“(e) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure.—
“(1) General rule. — A grand juror, an. interpreter, a stenographer, an operator of a recording device, a typist who transcribes recorded testimony, an attorney for the Government, or any person to whom disclosure is made under paragraph (2) (A) (ii) of this subdivision shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with this rule. A knowing violation of rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court.
“(2) Exceptions.—
“(A) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury, other than its deliberations and the vote of any grand juror, may be made to—
“(i) an attorney for the government for use in the performance of such attorney’s duty; and
“(ii) such government personnel as are deemed necessary by an attorney for the government to assist an attorney for the government in the performance of such attorney’s duty to enforce Federal criminal law.
“(B) Any person to whom matters are disclosed under subparagraph (A) (ii) of this paragraph shall not utilize that grand jury material for any purpose other than assisting the attorney for the government in the performance of such attorney’s duty to enforce Federal criminal law. An attorney for the government shall promptly provide the district court, before which was impaneled the grand jury whose material has been so disclosed, with the names of the persons to whom such disclosure has been made.
“(C) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made—
“(i) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; or
“(ii) when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury.
“(3) Sealed Indictments — The Federal magistrate to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. Thereupon the clerk shall seal the indictment and no person shall disclose the return of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warrant or summons.”
Although Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e) was amended in 1977, all parties agree that the changes do not bear upon the issues in the present case.
As noted in United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S., at 683, the typical showing of particularized need arises when a litigant seeks to use “the grand jury transcript at the trial to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection, to test his credibility and the like.” Such use is necessary to avoid misleading the trier of fact. Moreover, disclosure can be limited strictly to those portions of a particular witness’ testimony that bear upon some aspect of his direct testimony at trial.
The transcripts sought by respondents already had been given to the target companies in the grand jury investigation. Thus, release to respondents will not enhance the possibility of retaliatory action by employers in this case. But the other factors supporting the presumption of secrecy remain and must be considered.
As petitioners point out, the Court of Appeals did say that, because of the circumstances, “the party seeking disclosure should not be required to demonstrate a large compelling need,” and that a “minimal showing of particularized need” would suffice. Petrol Stops Northwest v. United States, 571 F. 2d 1127
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 138 (1968).
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question involved in this proceeding under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act concerns the power of the Commission in framing an order pursuant to its finding that respondents had conspired to adopt and use a zone delivered pricing system in their sale of lead pigments. In its general cease and desist order prohibiting concert of action among respondents in the further use of such system, the Commission inserted a provision directing each respondent individually to cease and desist from adopting the same or a similar system of pricing for the purpose or with the effect of “matching” the prices of competitors. The respondents assert that this is beyond the power of the Commission, and the Court of Appeals agreed, 227 F. 2d 825, striking that provision from the Commission’s order. We granted certiorari, 351 U. S. 961, because of the importance of the question in the administration of the Act. We restore the stricken provision of the Commission order, permitting it to stand with the interpretations placed upon it in this opinion.
I.
The original proceeding under § 5 of the Act was commenced in 1944. The order was entered on a second amended complaint filed in 1946. After protracted hearings, the Commission entered its findings which the Court of Appeals has held to be supported by substantial evidence. The findings material here are as follows:
The pricing practice of the industry as to the sale of white lead in oil prior to 1933 is not shown in the record. However, National Lead had as early as 1910 sold this pigment on the basis of territorial differentials involving free freight to specified towns. The differentials added to the base price were generally uniform for some 589 cities listed in National Lead’s pricing system in 1933. The charge to purchasers outside the listed cities was the base price plus actual freight to the nearest listed city. In the sales of dry white lead and lead oxides it appears that by the sales practice prior to 1933 there was a uniform delivered price in the case of the white lead, while the purchasers of lead oxides paid the freight charge in addition to the base price.
Beginning in July 1933, the industry held a series of meetings in Chicago for the ostensible purpose of drafting a code of fair competition to govern it under the National Industrial Recovery Act. These meetings resulted in an understanding and agreement among those attending, including respondents, to sell lead pigments “on the basis of flat delivered prices to customers within designated zones, with uniform differentials applicable as between such zones . . . .” 49 E. T. C. 840. Four zoning systems were established covering the various lead pigments. As an example, the system for white lead in oil and “keg” products consisted of 12 geographical zones, one known as a par zone. The remaining zones in this system were known as premium zones, the price in each being determined by adding a set premium to the par zone price. These premiums varied from $.125 per cwt. in two of the zones to a high of $1 per cwt. in the premium zone covering the State of New Mexico. The zones were highly artificial and zone boundaries led to bizarre results at times, with purchasers located near the plants of respondents being charged higher prices than those located at a distance from the plants. The industry, including respondents, not only agreed to sell at the same zone delivered prices in identical geographical zones but also adopted uniform discounts, terms of sale, and differentials with respect to certain of their products. A further agreement was to sell white lead in oil on the basis of consignment contracts.
The Commission stated that “nowhere in the code, nor in any preliminary draft of a code produced at the meetings of any of the committees, is there any reference to the use of zones or to territorial differences in the prices of lead pigments, or to the use of agency or consignment contracts or arrangements in the sale of white lead-in-oil.” Id., at 839. The Commission added that “with certain exceptions, the respondents have followed the pricing practices and have adhered to the terms and conditions for the sale of lead pigments agreed upon in 1933 and 1934 as herein found from 1934 to the present time.” Id., at 849. The respondents admit that they are bound by these findings and we see no reason to disturb them.
II.
The Commission entered an order prohibiting respondents from entering into or carrying out any “planned common course of action,” agreement, or conspiracy to sell at prices determined pursuant to a “zone delivered price system,” or any other system resulting in identical prices at the points of sale. The order also included a provision, to which respondents strenuously object, directing each of them to cease and desist from
“quoting or selling lead pigments at prices calculated or determined in whole or in part pursuant to or in accordance with a zone delivered price system for the purpose or with the effect of systematically matching the delivered price quotations or the delivered prices of other sellers of lead pigments and thereby preventing purchasers from finding any advantage in price in dealing with one or more sellers as against another.” Id., at 873-874.
The Commission, in an accompanying opinion, stated that in all cases where it found violations of the law, “it is the Commission’s duty to determine to the best of its ability the remedy necessary to suppress such activity and to take every precaution to preclude its revival.” Id., at 884. In this case, the opinion pointed out, the respondents cooperatively revised the pricing practices in the industry by establishing a “uniform zone pricing system.” Detailed discussions were carried on which resulted not only in an agreement, but “maps showing the boundaries of the zones to be observed . . . were distributed” by the individual respondents. Id., at 884. Each respondent has “since that time . . . followed the pricing system and adhered to the zone boundaries so discussed and shown on these maps.” Ibid. Discussing the complaint, the Commission in its opinion further noted that charges were included against each respondent as to its individual use of and adherence'to the zone system of selling “ ‘for the purpose and with the effect of enabling the respondents to match exactly their offers to sell lead pigments to any prospective purchaser at any destination, thereby eliminating competition between and among themselves.’... It was the adherence by each of them to this system of pricing that made the combination work. . . . Unless and until each of the respondents is prohibited from so adhering to the system and from so using the zones, the evils springing from the combination, one of which is to eliminate price competition, may well continue indefinitely. Unless the respondents, representing practically the entire economic power in the industry, are deprived of the device which made their combination effective, an order merely prohibiting the combination may well be a useless gesture.” Id., at 884-885. In its view, the Commission added, the “prohibition is necessary, not because it is unlawful in all circumstances for an individual seller, acting independently, to sell its products on a delivered price basis in specified territories, but to make the order fully effective against the trade restraining conspiracy in which each of the respondents [defendants] participated.” Id., at 884. When and if competition is restored and the individual prohibition is no longer necessary, the Commission expressed its intention, upon application, to vacate the latter provision of its order.
III.
At the beginning we must understand the limits of the contested portion of the order. First, it is temporary. Though its life expectancy is not definite, it is clear that the Commission was creating a breathing spell during which independent pricing might be established without the hang-over of the long-existing pattern of collusion. Second, the order is directed solely at the use of a zone delivered pricing system and no other. This system is a pricing method based on geographic divisions or zones, the boundaries of which are entirely drawn by the seller. His delivered price is the same throughout a particular geographic zone so drawn up by him. Customarily the delivered price is different between zones, though as here, widely separated zones, geographically, might have the same delivered price. It is well to mention here that while this Court has passed upon the validity of basing point systems of sales, Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 324 U. S. 726 (1945), it has not decided the validity of the zone pricing plan used here. Third, zone delivered pricing per se is not banned by the order. The Commission might have made the order more specific by entering a flat prohibition of the use for a definite period of the device found to be “the very cornerstone of the . . . conspiracy,” i. e., zone pricing. See Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, 428 (1945), where the corporate defendants were enjoined from “forming or joining any such trade association” for a period of five years. But the Commission chose the more flexible sanction, i. e., the limited use of zone delivered pricing. However, it concluded that the future use should be temporarily restricted for the protection of the public. And so, delivered zone pricing violates the order only when two conditions are present: (1) identical prices with competitors (2) resulting from zone delivered pricing. Considering these conditions with the mechanics of the zone plan, we see that the only way prices can be systematically identical is for the zones of competitors to be so drawn as to be in whole or in part identical and for zone prices to be the same in those zones which coincide or overlap.
Respondents contend that the cease and desist order, as written, excludes the benefits of § 2 (b) of the Clayton Act. While § 2 (b) “does not concern itself with pricing systems . . . [but] only [with] the seller’s 'lower’ price and [with] that only to the extent that it is made 'in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor,’ ” Federal Trade Commission v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 324 U. S. 746, 753 (1945), this section is read into every Commission order. Federal Trade Commission v. Ruberoid Co., 343 U. S. 470, 476 (1952). Since § 2 (b) must, therefore, be read into this order, the respondents are afforded all of the benefits of that section.
IV.
It is the contention of respondents that the contested paragraph of the order effectively bans the noncollusive, individual use of zone pricing, a lawful, competitive sales method, and is therefore beyond the authority of the Commission. Respondents further assert that even if the Commission had such authority its exercise here was entirely improper, unnecessary, and would, in fact, hamper competition in the industry. They stress that the complaint did not include a charge that the individual use of zone pricing was unlawful; that it came into the case after the Trial Examiner had filed his recommended decision and order; and that respondents were denied the opportunity of rebutting the charge by evidence showing zone pricing to be “a logical, economical, and competitive method of doing business.” The insertion of the objectionable paragraph, they contend, violates due process in that they had no opportunity to defend. Since § 2 (b) is read into every Commission order and since it would allow respondents to rebut the charge, their contention is completely answered and we shall not deal with it further.
It goes without saying that the requirements of a fair hearing include notice of the claims of the opposing party and an opportunity to meet them. Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1 (1938). The record indicates that the respondents were afforded those safeguards. The emphasis that there was no charge, no evidence, no finding to support the inclusion of the objectionable provision in the order is misplaced. Its insertion was nothing more than a mode of implementation, selected by the Commission, to enforce its findings of violations of the Act. Moreover, the record is replete with evidence that counsel supporting the complaint would seek the use of such a method of enforcement. As far back as in early 1947, while the case was before the Examiner, the issue concerning the effect of the zone pricing system used by respondents was before the Commission on motions to dismiss. Admittedly Count II of the complaint dealt with the use of the zone system itself. The Commission overruled the motions to dismiss, adopting the view of counsel supporting the complaint that its allegations were directed against the effects of the alleged system or method, i. e., the zone pricing plan, and “not against individual instances" of discrimination in pricing. Furthermore, in May 1948, almost five years before the decree was entered, counsel supporting the complaint filed written exceptions to the recommended decision of the Examiner on the ground, among others, that it did not include a provision similar to the one objected to here. If respondents thought rebuttal evidence necessary, the record is bare of any effort on their part to offer it. Nor was any request made to reopen the case for that purpose after it reached the Commission.
We pass on to respondents’ major contention questioning the power of the Commission. As the Court has said many times before, the Commission may exercise only the powers granted it by the Act. Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co., 272 U. S. 554, 559 (1926). The relevant sections empower the Commission to prevent the use of unfair methods of competition and authorize it, after finding an unfair method present, to enter an order requiring the offender “to cease and desist” from using such unfair method.
The Court has held that the Commission is clothed with wide discretion in determining the type of order that is necessary to bring an end to the unfair practices found to exist. In Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 327 U. S. 608 (1946), the Court named the Commission “the expert body to determine what remedy is necessary to eliminate the unfair or deceptive trade practices which have been disclosed. It has wide latitude for judgment and the courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist.” Id., at 612-613. Thereafter, in Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 726 (1948), the Court pointed out that the Congress, in passing the Act, “felt that courts needed the assistance of men trained to combat monopolistic practices in the framing of judicial decrees in antitrust litigation.” In the light of this, the Court reasoned, it should not “lightly modify” the orders of the Commission. Again, in Federal Trade Commission v. Ruberoid Co., supra, at 473, we said that “if the Commission is to attain the objectives Congress envisioned, it cannot be required to confine its road block to the narrow lane the transgressor has traveled; it must be allowed effectively to close all roads to the prohibited goal, so that its order may not be by-passed with impunity.” We pointed out there that Congress had placed the primary responsibility for fashioning orders upon the Commission. These cases narrow the issue to the question: Does the remedy selected have a “reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist”? We believe that it does. First, the simplicity of operation of the plan lends itself to unlawful manipulation; second, it had been used in the industry for almost a quarter of a century; and, third, its originator and chief beneficiary had been previously adjudged a violator of the antitrust laws. United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319 (1947).
The respondents were found to have plainly disregarded the law. In this respect the Commission correctly considered the circumstances under which the illegal acts occurred. Those in utter disregard of law, as here, “call for repression by sterner measures than where the steps could reasonably have been thought permissible.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 89-90 (1950). Respondents made no appeal here from some of the findings as to their guilt. Having lost the battle on the facts, they hope to win the war on the type of decree. They fight for the right to continue to use individually the very same weapon with which they carried on their unlawful enterprise. The Commission concluded that this must not be permitted. It was “not obliged to assume, contrary to common experience, that a violator of the antitrust laws will relinquish the fruits of his violation more completely than [it] requires . . . International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 400 (1947). Although the zone plan might be used for some lawful purposes, decrees often suppress a lawful device when it is used to carry out an unlawful purpose. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436 (1940); United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U. S. 707 (1944). In such instances the Court is obliged not only to suppress the unlawful practice but to take such reasonable action as is calculated to preclude the revival of the illegal practices. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, supra, at 461; Local 167, I. B. T. v. United States, 291 U. S. 293 (1934). See also United States v. United States Gypsum Co., supra; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 188 (1944). We therefore conclude that, under the circumstances here, the Commission was justified in its determination that it was necessary to include some restraint in its order against the individual corporations in order to prevent a continuance of the unfair competitive practices found to exist. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Education Society, 302 U. S. 112, 120 (1937). We shall now examine the restraint imposed.
Respondents point out that in only one other case in the long history of the Commission has a similar order been entered. They say our restoration of the contested paragraph will effectively prevent competition. In its supplemental memorandum, see note 5, supra, the Commission has clearly stated its understanding of the scope and effect of the order. It is our conclusion that the order was not intended to and does not prohibit or interfere with independent delivered zone pricing per se. Nor does it prohibit the practice of the absorption of actual freight as such in order to foster competition. Furthermore, as we have said, there is read into the order the provision of § 2 (b) of the Clayton Act as to the right of a seller in good faith to meet the lower price of a competitor. This is not to say that a seller may plead this section in defense of the use of an entire pricing system. The section is designed to protect competitors in individual transactions.
Respondents pose hypothetical situations which they say may rise up to plague them. However, “we think it would not be good judicial administration,” as our late Brother Jackson said in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 401 (1947), to strike the contested paragraph of the order to meet such conjectures. The Commission has reserved jurisdiction to meet just such contingencies. As actual situations arise they can be presented to the Commission in evidentiary form rather than as fantasies. And, we might add, if there is a burden that cannot be made lighter after application to the Commission, then respondents must remember that those caught violating the Act must expect some fencing in. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, at 187.
Reversed.
38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45.
The three principal lead pigments are dry white lead, white lead in oil, and the lead oxides, red lead and litharge. Dry white lead is a fine white powder used as a pigment in paints. White lead in oil is white lead with linseed oil added and is sold for use as the basic ingredient in exterior house paint. Lead oxides and litharge are sold to electric storage battery manufacturers as the basic raw material for battery plates. Red lead is also the basic ingredient in red lead paint commonly used as a protective coating for iron and steel structures.
The par zone includes a number of northeastern and midwestern States. However, some cities located within these States are excluded from the par zone. On the other hand, the San Francisco area is a par zone, as is the City of St. Louis, though both are located in States not included in par zone areas. For a detailed discussion and maps of the operation of the zone pricing system, see the findings, 49 F. T. C. 840-870.
Our discussion of the zone delivered pricing system should in no way be construed as our approval of its use. We do not reach that question.
At oral argument, counsel for the Federal Trade Commission was requested by the Court to submit a statement on behalf of the Commission setting forth its view as to the scope of the disputed paragraph of the cease and desist order. In response, the Commission supplied its interpretation which coincides with that set out here.
49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (b).
We need not discuss the full scope of the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, nor their relative breadth in comparison with those of a court of equity. As this Court said in May Dept. Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376, 390 (1945), "The test ... is whether the Board might have reasonably concluded . . . that such an order was necessary . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the kind and amount of evidence necessary to sustain a jury’s verdict that an employer unlawfully discriminated on the basis of age. Specifically, we must resolve whether a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiff’s case consists exclusively of a prima facie case of discrimination and sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant’s legitimate, nondiseriminatory explanation for its action. We must also decide whether the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the particular circumstances presented here.
I
In October 1995, petitioner Roger Reeves was 57 years old and had spent 40 years in the employ of respondent, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers. 197 P. 3d 688,690 (CA5 1999). Petitioner worked in a department known as the “Hinge Room,” where he supervised the “regular line.” Ibid. Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, supervised the Hinge Room’s “special line,” and Russell Caldwell, the manager of the Hinge Room and age 45, supervised both petitioner and Oswalt. Ibid. Petitioner’s responsibilities included recording the attendance and hours of those under his supervision, and reviewing a weekly report that listed the hours worked by each employee. 3 Record 38-40.
In the summer of 1995, Caldwell informed Powe Chesnut, the director of manufacturing and the husband of company president Sandra Sanderson, that “production was down” in the Hinge Room because employees were often absent and were “coming in late and leaving early” 4 id., at 203-204. Because the monthly attendance reports did not indicate a problem, Chesnut ordered an audit of the Hinge Room’s timesheets for July, August, and September of that year. 197 F. 3d, at 690. According to Chesnut’s testimony, that investigation revealed “numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations on the part of Caldwell, Reeves, and Os-walt.” Ibid. Following the audit, Chesnut, along with Dana Jester, vice president of human resources, and Tom Whitaker, vice president of operations, recommended to company president Sanderson that petitioner and Caldwell be fired. Id., at 690-691. In October 1995, Sanderson followed the recommendation and discharged both petitioner and Caldwell. Id., at 691.
In June 1996, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, con-tending that he had been fired because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. At trial, respondent contended that it had fired petitioner due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records, while petitioner attempted to demonstrate that respondent’s explanation was pretext for age discrimination. 197 F. 3d, at 692-693. Petitioner introduced evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance and hours of the employees under his supervision, and that Chesnut, whom Oswalt described as wielding “absolute power” within the company, 3 Record 80, had demonstrated age-based animus in his dealings with petitioner. 197 F. 3d,- at 693.
During the trial, the District Court twice denied oral motions by respondent for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the case went to the jury. 3 Record 183; 4 id., at 354. The court instructed the jury that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prove age was a determinative or motivating factor in the decision to terminate him, then your verdict shall he for the defendant.” Tr. 7 (Jury Charge) (Sept. 12, 1997). So charged, the jury returned a verdict in favor of petitioner, awarding him $35,000 in compensatory damages, and found that respondent’s age discrimination had been “willfu[l].” 197 F. 3d, at 691. The District Court accordingly entered judgment for petitioner in the amount of $70,000, which included $35,000 in liquidated damages based on the jury’s finding of willfulness. Ibid. Respondent then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively moved for a new trial, while petitioner moved for front pay. 2 Record, Doc. Nos. 36, 38. The District Court denied respondent’s motions and granted petitioner’s, awarding him $28,490.80 in front pay for two years’ lost income. 2 id., Doe. Nos. 40,41.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of unlawful discrimination. 197 F. 3d, at 694. After noting respondent’s proffered justification for petitioner’s discharge, the eourt acknowledged that petitioner “very well may” have offered sufficient evidence for “a reasonable jury [to] have found that [respondent’s] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual.” Id., at 693. The court explained, however, that this was “not dis-positive” of the ultimate issue — namely, “whether Reeves presented sufficient evidence that his age motivated [respondent’s] employment decision.” Ibid. Addressing this question, the court weighed petitioner’s additional evidence of discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his discharge. See id., at 693-694. Specifically, the eourt noted that Chesnut’s age-based comments “were not made in the direct context of Reeves’s termination”; there was no allegation that the two other individuals who had recommended that petitioner be fired (Jester and Whitaker) were motivated by age; two of the decisionmakers involved in petitioner’s discharge (Jester and Sanderson) were over the age of 50; all three of the Hinge Room supervisors were accused of inaccurate recordkeeping; and several of respondent’s management positions were filled by persons over age 50 when petitioner was fired. Ibid. On this basis, the court concluded that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that he had been discharged because of his age. Id., at 694.
We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 985 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to whether a plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination (as defined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973)), combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to reject the employer’s nondiseriminatory explanation for its decision, is adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination. Compare Kline v. TVA, 128 F. 3d 337 (CA6 1997) (prima facie ease combined with sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer’s explanation always creates jury issue of whether employer intentionally discriminated); Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F. 3d 1519 (CA11 1997) (same), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1045 (1998); Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F. 3d 1061 (CA3 1996) (same) (en bane), cert. denied, 521U. S. 1129 (1997); Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp., 17 F. 3d 1104 (CA8) (same), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 946 (1994); Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F. 3d 1120 (CA7 1994) (same); Washington v. Garrett, 10 F. 3d 1421 (CA9 1993) (same), with Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F. 3d 1284 (CADC 1998) (en banc) (plaintiff’s discrediting of employer’s explanation is entitled to considerable weight, such that plaintiff should not be routinely required to submit evidence over and above proof of pretext), and with Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F. 3d 1332 (CA2 1997) (en banc) (plaintiff must introduce sufficient evidence for jury to find both that employer’s reason was false and that real reason was discrimination), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1075 (1998); Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F. 3d 989 (CA5 1996) (same); Theard v. Glaxo, Inc., 47 F. 3d 676 (CA4 1995) (same); Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 P. 3d 255 (CA1 1994) (same).
II
Under the ADEA, it is “unlawful for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1). When a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment, “liability depends on whether the protected trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer’s decision.” Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 610 (1993). That is, the plaintiff’s age must have “actually played a role in [the employer’s decisionmaking] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.” Ibid. Recognizing that “the question facing triers of fact in discrimination eases is both sensitive and difficult,” and that “[tjhere will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony as to the employer’s mental processes,” Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 716 (1983), the Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit in this case, have employed some variant of the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas to analyze ADEA claims that are based principally on circumstantial evidence. See, e. g., Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 206 F. 3d 420, 429 (CA4 2000); Galabya v. New York City Bd. of Ed., 202 F. 3d 636, 639 (CA2 2000); Hall v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F. 3d 1074, 1077-1078 (CADC 1999); Beaird v. Seagate Technology Inc., 145 F. 3d 1159, 1165 (CA10), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1054 (1998); Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F. 3d 986, 990-991 (CA8 1998); Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F. 3d 1428, 1432 (CA11), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 962 (1998); Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.; 130 F. 3d 1101, 1108 (CA31997) (en banc); Kaniff v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA7 1997); Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F. 3d 454, 456-457 (CA9 1995); Bodenheimer v. PPG Industries, Inc., 5 F. 3d 955, 957 (CA5 1998); Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F. 2d 816, 823 (CA11991), cert. denied, 504 U. S. 985 (1992); Ackerman v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 670 F. 2d 66, 69 (CA6 1982). This Court has not squarely addressed whether the McDonnell Douglas framework, developed to assess claims brought under § 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), also applies to ADEA actions. Because the parties do not dispute the issue, we shall assume, arguendo, that the McDonnell Douglas framework is fully applicable here. Cf. O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U. S. 308, 311 (1996).
McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have “established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in... discriminatory-treatment eases.” St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 (1993). First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie ease of discrimination. Ibid.; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252-253 (1981). It is undisputed that petitioner satisfied this burden here: (i) at the time he was fired, he was a member of the class protected by the ADEA (“individuals who are at least 40 years of age,” 29 U. S. C. § 631(a)), (ii) he was otherwise qualified for the position of Hinge Room supervisor, (iii) he was discharged by respondent, and (iv) respondent successively hired three persons in their thirties to fill petitioner's position. See 197 F. 3d, at 691-692. The burden therefore shifted to respondent to “producfe) evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Burdine, supra, at 254. This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it “can involve no credibility assessment.” St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 509. Respondent met this burden by offering admissible evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that petitioner was fired because of his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. See 197 F. 3d, at 692. Accordingly, “the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens” — disappeared, St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 510, and the sole remaining issue was “discrimination vel non,” Aikens, supra, at 714.
Although intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this framework, “[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. And in attempting to satisfy this burden, the plaintiff — once the employer produces sufficient evidence to support a nondiseriminatory explanation for its decision — must be afforded the “opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Ibid.; see also St Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 507-508. That is, the plaintiff may attempt to establish that he was the victim of intentional discrimination “by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is- unworthy of credence.” Burdine, supra, at 256. Moreover, although the presumption of discrimination “drops out of the picture” once the defendant meets its burden of production, St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 511, the trier of fact may still consider the evidence establishing the plaintiff’s prima facie case “and inferences properly drawn therefrom... on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual,” Burdine, supra, at 255, n. 10.
In this case, the evidence supporting respondent’s explanation for petitioner’s discharge consisted primarily of testimony by Chesnut and Sanderson and documentation of petitioner’s alleged “shoddy record keeping.” 197 F. 3d, at 692. Chesnut testified that a 1993 audit of Hinge Room operations revealed “a very lax assembly line” where employees were not adhering to general work rules. 4 Record 197-199. As a result of that audit, petitioner was placed on 90 days’ probation for unsatisfactory performance. 197 F. 3d, at 690. In 1995, Chesnut ordered another investí-gation of the Hinge Room, which, according to his testimony, revealed that petitioner was not correctly recording the absences and hours of employees. 4 Record 204-205. Respondent introduced summaries of that investigation documenting several attendance violations by 12 employees under petitioner’s supervision, and noting that each should have been disciplined in some manner. See App. 21-24, 30-37; 4 Record 206-208. Chesnut testified that this failure to discipline absent and late employees is “extremely important when you are dealing with a union” because uneven enforcement across departments would keep the company “in grievance and arbitration cases, which are costly, all the time.” 4 id., at 206. He and Sanderson also stated that petitioner’s errors, by failing to adjust for hours not worked, cost the company overpaid wages. 3 id., at 100, 142,154; 4 id., at 191-192,213. Sanderson testified that she accepted the recommendation to discharge petitioner because he had “intentionally falsif[ied] company pay records.” 3 id., at 100.
Petitioner, however, made a substantial showing that respondent’s explanation was false. First, petitioner offered evidence that he had properly maintained the attendance records. Most of the timekeeping errors cited by respondent involved employees who were not marked late but who were recorded as having arrived at the plant at 7 a.m. for the 7 a.m. shift. 3 id., at 118-123; 4 id., at 240-247,283-285, 291, 293-294. Respondent contended that employees arriving at 7 a.m. could not have been at their workstations by 7 a.m., and therefore must have been'late. 3 id., at 119-120; 4 id., at 241, 245. But both petitioner and Oswalt testified that the company's automated timeeloek often failed to scan employees’ timecards, so that the timesheets would not record any time of arrival. 3 id., at 6, 85; 4 id., at 334-335. On these occasions, petitioner and Oswalt would visually cheek the workstations and record whether the employees were present at the start of the shift. 3 id., at 6, 85-87; 4 id., at 335. They stated that if an employee arrived promptly but the timesheet contained no time of arrival, they would reconcile the two by marking “7 a.m.” as the employee’s arrival time, even if the employee actually arrived at the plant earlier. Ibid. On cross-examination, Chesnut acknowledged that the timecloek sometimes malfunctioned, and that if “people were there at their work station[s]” at the start of the shift, the supervisor “would write in seven o’clock.” 4 id., at 244. Petitioner also testified that when employees arrived before or stayed after their shifts, he would assign them additional work so they would not be overpaid. See 197 F. 3d, at 693.
Petitioner similarly cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any failure to discipline late and absent employees. Petitioner testified that his job only included reviewing the daily and weekly attendance reports, and that disciplinary writeups were based on the monthly reports, which were reviewed by Caldwell. 3 Record 20-22; 4 id., at 335. Sand-erson admitted that Caldwell, and not petitioner, was responsible for citing employees for violations of the company’s attendance policy. 3 id., at 20-21,137-138. Further, Chesnut conceded that there had never been a union grievance or employee complaint arising from petitioner’s recordkeeping, and that the company had never calculated the amount of overpayments allegedly attributable to petitioner’s errors. 4 id., at 267, 301. Petitioner also testified that, on the day he was fired, Chesnut said that his discharge was due to his failure to report as absent one employee, Gina Mae Coley, on two days in September 1995. 3 id., at 23, 70; 4 id., at 335-336. But petitioner explained that he had spent those days in the hospital, and that Caldwell was therefore responsible for any overpayment of Coley. 3 id., at 17, 22. Finally, petitioner stated that on previous occasions that employees were paid for hours they had not worked, the company had simply adjusted those employees’ next paychecks to correct the errors. 3 id., at 72-73.
Based on this evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner “very well may be correct” that “a reasonable jury could have found that [respondent’s] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual.” 197 F. 3d, at 693. Nonetheless, the court held that this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of liability: “We must; as an essential final step, determine whether Beeves presented sufficient evidence that his age motivated [respondent’s] employment decision.” Ibid. And in making this determination, the Court of Appeals ignored the evidence supporting petitioner’s prima facie case and challenging respondent’s explanation for its decision. See id., at 693-694. The court confined its review of evidence favoring petitioner to that evidence showing that Chesnut had directed derogatory, age-based comments at petitioner, and that Chesnut had singled out petitioner for harsher treatment than younger employees. See ibid. It is therefore apparent that the court believed that only this additional evidence of discrimination was relevant to whether the jury’s verdict should stand. That is, the Court of Appeals proceeded from the assumption that a prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant’s legitimate, nondiserimi-natory reason for its decision, is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a jury’s finding of intentional discrimination.
In so reasoning, the Court of Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove intentional discrimination through indirect evidence. This much is evident from our decision in St. Mary’s Honor Center. There we held that the factfinder’s rejection of the employer’s legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for its action does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. 509 U. S., at 511. The ultimate question is whether the employer intentionally discriminated, arid proof that “the employer’s proffered reason is unpersuasive, or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily establish that the plaintiff’s proffered reason... is correct.” Id., at 524. In other words, “[i]t is not enough... to disbelieve the employer; the fact-finder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.” Id., at 519.
In reaching this conclusion, however, we reasoned that it is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation. Specifically, we stated:
“The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination.” Id., at 511.
Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive. See id., at 517 (“[P]roving the employer’s reason false becomes part of (and often considerably assists) the greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination”). In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 296 (1992); see also Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 620-621 (1896); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §278(2), p. 133 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1979). Moreover, once the employer’s justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the most likely alternative explanation, especially since the employer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for its decision. Cf. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978) (“[W]hen all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration”). Thus, a plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.
This is not to say that such a showing by the plaintiff will always be adequate to sustain a jury’s finding of liability. Certainly there will be instances where, although the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and set forth sufficient evidence to reject the defendant’s explanation, no rational factfinder could conclude that the action was discriminatory. For instance, an employer would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the record conclusively revealed some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred. See Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F. 3d, at 1291-1292; see also Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F. 3d, at 1338 (“[I]f the circumstances show that the defendant gave the false explanation to conceal something other than discrimination, the inference of discrimination will be weak or nonexistent”). To hold otherwise would be effectively to insulate an entire category of employment discrimination cases from review under Rule 50, and we have reiterated that trial courts should not “‘treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact.’” St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 524 (quoting Aikens, 460 U. S., at 716).
Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer’s ease and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See infra, at 151-152. For purposes of this ease, we need not — and could not — resolve all of the circumstances in which such factors would entitle an employer to judgment as a matter of law. It suffices to say that, because a prima facie case and sufficient evidence to reject the employer’s explanation may permit a finding of liability, the Court of Appeals erred in proceeding from the premise that a plaintiff must always introduce additional, independent evidence of discrimination.
hH hH h-1
A
The remaining question is whether, despite the Court of Appeals’ misconception of petitioner’s evidentiary burden, respondent was nonetheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Rule 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a); see also Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. 440, 447-448 (2000). The Courts of Appeals have articulated differing formulations as to what evidence a court is to consider in ruling on a Rule 50 motion. See Venture Technology, Inc. v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., decided with Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of America, 459 U. S. 1007, 1009 (1982) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certio-rari). Some decisions have stated that review is limited to that evidence favorable to the nonmoving party, see, e. g., Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 84 F. 3d 803, 807 (CA6 1996); Simpson v. Skelly Oil Co., 371 F. 2d 563, 566 (CA8 1967), while most have held that review extends to the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, see, e. g., Tate v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 997 F. 2d 1438, 1436 (CA111993); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F. 2d 365, 374 (CA5 1969) (en bane).
On closer examination, this conflict seems more semantic than real. Those decisions holding that review under Rule 50 should be limited to evidence favorable to the nonmovant appear to have their genesis in Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53 (1949). See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529, pp. 297-301 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). In Wilkerson, we stated that “in passing upon whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to the jury we need look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of” the nonmoving party. 336 U. S., at 57. But subsequent decisions have clarified that this passage was referring to the evidence to which the trial court should give credence, not the evidence that the court should review. In the analogous context of summary judgment under Rule 56, we have stated that the court must review the record “taken as a whole.” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986). And the standard for granting summary judgment “mirrors” the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that “the inquiry under each is the same.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 250-251 (1986); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323 (1986). It therefore follows that, in entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court should review all of the evidence in the record.
In doing so, however, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U. S. 545, 554-555 (1990); Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, at 254; Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U. S. 690, 696, n. 6 (1962). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Liberty Lobby, supra, at 255. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. See Wright & Miller 299. That is, the court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that “evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeaehed, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.” Id., at 300.
B
Applying this standard here, it is apparent that respondent was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this case, in addition to establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and creating a jury issue as to the falsity of the employer’s explanation, petitioner introduced additional evidence that Chesnut was motivated by age-based animus and was principally responsible for petitioner’s firing. Petitioner testified that Chesnut had told him that he “was so old [he] must have come over on the Mayflower” and, on one occasion when petitioner was having difficulty starting a machine, that he “was too damn old to do [his] job.” 3 Record 26. According to petitioner, Chesnut would regularly “cuss at me and shake his finger in my face.” 3 id., at 26-27. Oswalt, roughly 24 years younger than petitioner, corroborated that there was an “obvious difference” in how Chesnut treated them. 3 id., at 82. He stated that, although he and Chesnut “had [their] differences,” “it was nothing compared to the way [Chesnut] treated Roger.” Ibid. Oswalt explained that Chesnut “tolerated quite a bit” from him even though he “defied” Chesnut “quite often,” but that Chesnut treated petitioner “[i]n a manner, as you would... treat... a child when... you’re angry with [him].” 3 id., at 82-83. Petitioner also demonstrated that, according to company records, he and Oswalt had nearly identical rates of productivity in 1993. 3 id., at 163-167; 4 id., at 225-226. Yet respondent conducted an efficiency study of only the regular line, supervised by petitioner, and placed only petitioner on probation. 3 id., at 166-167; 4 id., at 229. Ches-nut conducted that efficiency study and, after having testified to the contrary on direct examination, acknowledged on cross-examination that he had recommended that petitioner be placed on probation following the study. 4 id., at 197-199, 237.
Further, petitioner introduced evidence that Chesnut was the actual decisionmaker behind his firing. Chesnut was married to Sanderson, who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner. 3 id., at 90, 152. Although Sand-erson testified that she fired petitioner because he had “intentionally falsified] company pay records,” 3 id., at 100, respondent only introduced evidence concerning the inaccuracy of the records, not their falsification. A1994 letter authored by Chesnut indicated that he berated other company directors, who were supposedly his coequals, about how to do their jobs. PI. Exh. 7, 3 Record 108-112. Moreover, Oswalt testified that all of respondent’s employees feared Chesnut, and that Chesnut had exercised “absolute power” within the company for “[a]s long as [he] can remember.” 3 id., at 80.
In holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict, the Court of Appeals misapplied the standard of review dictated by Rule 50. Again, the court disregarded critical evidence favorable to petitioner — - namely, the evidence supporting petitioner’s prima facie case and undermining respondent’s nondiscriminatory
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 writ of certiorari is granted.
We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals of October 20, 1954, reversing and remanding this cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment was correct. It is not necessary for us to pass on the question presented under its subsequent judgment of November 17, 1954, directing a new trial. We vacate the latter judgment, which directed the new trial, and we reinstate the former one which instructed the trial court to dismiss the indictment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rutledge
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases carry forward another step the sequence in decision represented by Falbo, Billings, Estep and Smith. Each petitioner has been convicted for violating § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act (54 Stat. 894, 50 U. S. C. App. § 311), Dodez for failing to report for work of national importance after being ordered to do so and Gibson for having unlawfully deserted the camp to which he had been assigned for such work.
In each instance the conviction was sustained on appeal and certiorari was granted because of the importance of the questions presented for the administration of the Act. No. 23, 326 U. S. 708, restored to the docket for reargument before a full bench; No. 86, 328 U. S. 828.
The principal issues relate to the time of completing the administrative selective process and the effect in each case of what was done in this respect upon the petitioner’s right to make defense in the criminal proceedings on various grounds going to the validity of the classification.
In both cases tendered defenses of this character were excluded in the trial court and the exclusion was sustained on appeal. The effect was, in Gibson’s case, to rule that although he had completed the administrative process by reporting to the camp, pursuant to the requirement of the Falbo decision, nevertheless his remedy, if any, on account of the alleged misclassification was by habeas corpus, not by defense in the criminal cause. 149 F. 2d 751. In Dodez’ case it was held that by refusing to report for service at the camp he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and therefore under the Falbo doctrine he could not question his classification in the criminal suit. 154 F. 2d 637.
I.
Both petitioners are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each has claimed consistently since the time of his registration that he is a minister of religion and therefore exempt from training and service under the Act. Each was denied this classification (IV-D), being classified instead as a conscientious objector (IV-E). Administrative appeals were exhausted. Pursuant to the classifications given and the applicable statutory provisions and regulations, Dodez and Gibson were assigned to work of national importance and ordered to report for such work at designated camps.
Dodez refused to go to the camp. But Gibson, thinking the Falbo decision required him to report there in order to exhaust his administrative remedies, went to the camp, remained for five days, and then departed without leave. It is undisputed that he intended at no time to submit to the camp’s jurisdiction or authority and that he at all times made this intent clear. Everything he did was done solely to make sure that the administrative process had been finished and with a view to avoiding the barrier Falbo encountered in his trial when he sought to question his classification.
Obviously the petitioners have sought to reach the same point, namely, the place at which the selective process is exhausted administratively, but have differed concerning its exact location. Dodez maintains that the point was reached, under the applicable regulations, when his preinduction physical examination had been given and he was found acceptable for service by the Selective Service System. This was on February 21, 1944, two months prior to the date (April 21, 1944) when he was ordered to report for work and refused to go.
On the other hand, Gibson argues that until the preliminaries to actual service, including physical examination, were completed at the camp, he was not foreclosed by going through with them from exercising his choice not to submit to the camp’s jurisdiction, cf. Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U. S. 542, or, upon doing so, from asserting the invalidity of his classification in a criminal trial either for failing to report for service or for desertion from the camp. Cf. Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114; Smith v. United States, ibid. Clearly, on the facts and the issues, the question as to Dodez, like that in Falbo’s case, is whether he went far enough to exhaust the administrative process; while as to Gibson it is said that he went too far, that is, beyond the point of completing that process, and that this cut off the right of defense concededly available to him at that point.
II.
If these cases were controlled in all respects by the regulations effective when Falbo’s case was decided, Dodez would seem clearly to fall within the decision’s proscription. The Court there said: “Completion of the functions of the local boards and appellate agencies, important as are these functions, is not the end of the selective service process. The selectee may still be rejected at the induction center and the conscientious objector who is opposed to noncombatant duty may be rejected at the civilian public service camp. The connected series of steps into the national service which begins with registration with the local board does not end until the registrant is accepted by the army, navy, or civilian public service camp. Thus a board order to report is no more than a necessary intermediate step in a united and continuous process designed to raise an army speedily and efficiently.” 320 U. S. at 553. Since acceptability for service was not finally determined under the regulations then applicable until the registrant had reached camp, had there undergone or waived the specified physical examinations, and thereupon had been found acceptable, and since Falbo had not taken those steps, the Court held he was not entitled to question his classification and therefore sustained his conviction.
However, intermediate the Falbo decision and issuance of the order to Dodez to report, the regulations governing the procedure relating to selection for service were changed and in a manner which Dodez says relieved him from the necessity of going to the camp in order to complete the administrative process. The Government now concedes, we think properly, that Dodez is right in this view.
It is not necessary to review in detail the regulations which were governing in Falbo’s case, since they are not controlling in either of the present ones. Although it is now argued that the Court misconceived their effect, we need only to note that it was within the registrant’s power to secure a physical examination by the camp physician by indicating a change in his physical condition, it could not be known in advance in any case whether he would demand it, and until this was determined it could not be known finally and irrevocably whether he would be “accepted for work of national importance.” The decision therefore correctly ruled that “the conscientious objector who is opposed to noncombatant duty may be rejected at the civilian public service camp” and that the board’s order to report there for service was “no more than a necessary intermediate step” in the continuous selective process, which was not ended until the last possibility for rejection had been exhausted. Under those regulations there was no final and conclusive acceptance for service until after those procedures at the camp were completed.
It was exactly in this respect, however, that the changes made in the regulations immediately after the Falbo decision and shortly prior to issuance of Dodez’ order to report, together with still others made later but prior to the order to Gibson, were effective. The changes were extensive and important. The altered regulations are lengthy. We therefore give a summary in the margin, noting the more important differences between those applicable to Dodez and those in effect as to Gibson.
It is of some importance to note that the changes affecting both registrants were made in consequence of the enactment of § 5 of Public Law 197, 78th Congress, approved December 5, 1943. 57 Stat. 596, 599, 50 U. S. C. App. § 304a. This required preinduction physical examinations to be given before the registrant was ordered to report for induction and service. Previously he first had been ordered to report for induction, was then given his preinduction examination by the armed forces and, on being found acceptable, was inducted at once. The major changes in the regulations giving effect to § 5 were made on January 10, 1944, one week after the Falbo decision came down, some taking effect on that date, others on February 2d following. These applied to Dodez. Still others not applicable to him but operative as to Gibson took effect on June 7,1944.
The changed regulations, following out the command of § 5 of Public Act 197, provided for a preinduction physical examination to be given before issuance of the order to report for induction, rather than afterward. Section 629.1 of Amendment No. 200 (9 F. R. 440-442), effective January 10, 1944. This was the basic amendment. It applied to all registrants subject to call for service, including those classified IV-E. Moreover, by Amendment No. 210 (9 F. R. 1416), effective February 2, 1944, § 653.11 of the regulations applicable to men so classified was changed to eliminate the previously effective paragraph (c) providing for physical examination by the camp physician on indication of changed condition and consequent possible rejection at the camp. Instead the amended regulation stated simply that (a), when the “assignee” had reported to the camp, the camp director should “complete the Order to Report for Work of National Importance (Form 50)”; and (b) place, as specified, on the assignee’s papers, “a statement that [the] registrant is accepted” for work at the designated camp, stating also the date and place of acceptance; (c) the local board, “upon receiving notice that a registrant has been accepted for work,” should not “change his classification but shall note the fact of his acceptance” on Form 100; and (d), if the assignee failed to report when required, the camp director was to notify the Director of Selective Service. (Emphasis added.)
The effect of the statute and the amended regulation was to place the order to report for service nearer the end of the administrative process than it had been previously, so far as concerned the power of the registrant to take action which might result in his rejection. The elimination of the provision permitting medical examination at the camp, by Amendment No. 210, removed any chance the registrant formerly had to secure rejection by demanding examination there, and left to be performed at the camp only the formal entries of “completing the Order to Report” and noting the fact, time and place of “acceptance” upon the assignee’s papers, together with the duties of notifying the local board of acceptance or the Director of Selective Service of failure to report.
Although the amended regulations thus speak of “completing the Order to Report” and of placing on his papers “a statement that a registrant is accepted,” we agree that these were only formal matters to be performed by camp officials, and left nothing to be done by them or by the applicant after reaching the camp which might result in his being rejected or released from the duty to remain and perform the further duties imposed on him. To construe the regulations otherwise would be to force the registrant not only to perform all requirements affording possibility of relief but also to go through with purely formal steps to be taken by camp officials offering no such possibility. Exacting this would stretch the requirement of exhausting the administrative process beyond any reason supporting it. Cf. Levers v. Anderson, 326 U. S. 219. And, as appears from Gibson’s experience, by going through with those formalities Dodez would have found himself confronted with the Government’s contention that he had gone too far.
We hold therefore, in accordance with Dodez’ view and the Government’s concession, that he was not required to report to the camp, under the regulations effective when his order to report became operative, in order to complete the administrative process; and that he therefore was not foreclosed by the Falbo decision from making any defense open to him in his criminal trial under the statute or the Constitution aside from the effect of that decision. Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114; Smith v. United States, ibid.; cf. Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U. S. 542.
This view requires reversal of the judgment in No. 86 and remanding the cause to the District Court for a further trial. Dodez insists however that we should go further and determine the case finally upon the merits. He urges that the evidence properly tendered and admissible upon the excluded defenses, as well as that adduced, would support no other verdict than one of acquittal and that therefore the trial court should have sustained his motion to dismiss the cause. Accordingly he asks for a judgment here directing that such relief be given.
In the Estep and Smith cases, after holding that the petitioners had been wrongfully denied opportunity to defend by attacking the validity of their classifications, this Court reversed the convictions and remanded the causes for new trials, stating: “We express no opinion on the merits of the defenses which were tendered. Since the petitioners were denied the opportunity to show that their local boards exceeded their jurisdiction, a new trial must be had in each case.” 327 U. S. at 125. Dodez’situ-ation is identical, in this respect, with those of Estep and Smith. Accordingly we remand the cause, as was done in the Smith and Estep cases, for further proceedings in the trial court, without expressing opinion upon those further issues.
III.
The Government urges that the conclusion we have accepted for Dodez forces the contrary result in Gibson’s case No. 23. The argument, as we have pointed out, is not that Gibson fell short of exhausting the administrative process, for he clearly had done this. It is rather that he went beyond what was required for that purpose, thereby became subject to the camp’s jurisdiction, and in doing this irrevocably foreclosed himself from defending against the charge of desertion on the ground that his classification was invalid.
The Government’s position is founded upon analogy to the cases which hold that one who has been inducted into the armed forces, although wrongfully, becomes subject to.military jurisdiction, is thereafter amenable to its processes, and can secure his release from service or military custody only by resort to habeas corpus.
Applying the analogy, the Government insists that when Gibson went to the camp and there went through the preliminary formalities for becoming a member, he became “inducted” as a camp member, just as one becomes a member of the armed forces by undergoing the induction ceremony, cf. Billings v. Truesdell, supra, even though the induction is in violation of his rights. Thereafter, the argument continues, Gibson became subject to the camp’s “jurisdiction,” just as the wrongfully inducted soldier would become subject to military jurisdiction; and, like the latter, cannot raise the illegality of his induction as a defense to a charge of violating any duty imposed upon inducted members; but must seek his relief, if any, by the writ of habeas corpus. Since the Act and the regulations laid upon camp members a duty to remain and perform the further duties prescribed for them, Gibson’s departure without leave amounted to desertion; his defense of wrongful classification is no more open to him than a defense of illegal induction would be open to a wrongfully inducted soldier violating a military order; and his remedy, if any, is to apply for release from the camp through habeas corpus.
The argument is supported by extensive reference to the regulations in force when Gibson was ordered to report, including the changes affecting Dodez and the others which became effective June 7, 1944, by Amendment No. 236 (9 F. R. 6207). The important changes this amendment made were two, namely: (1) to reintroduce into § 653.11 the provision applicable in Falbo’s case but eliminated as to Dodez by Amendment No. 210, effective February 2,1944, for medical examinations to be given at the camp to determine change in condition; and (2) to add to the preexisting requirement for the camp director’s noting the fact of acceptance on the registrant’s papers the explicit new provision that this should be done “irrespective of the determination which is made as a result of the examination.”
The Government also emphasizes two other regulations. One is § 652.12, requiring the local board to provide transportation for registrants reporting to it for transportation to the camp. The other, § 652.13, providing that a Class IV-E registrant “after he has left the local board in accordance with § 652.12 for work of national importance under civilian direction is under the jurisdiction of the camp to which he is assigned.” (Emphasis added.)
The short effect of § 653.11, as altered at the time of Gibson’s order to report, was to retain the requirements for formal entries of “acceptance” and giving notice, at the camp, which applied to Dodez; to reintroduce the provision for physical examination there; but at the same time to nullify the possibility this presented in Falbo’s case for giving relief, by providing that the camp director should note the fact of acceptance “irrespective of the determination which is made as the result of” this examination.
Taking account of revised § 653.11 as precluding any possibility for securing administrative relief at the camp, the Government regards § 652.13 as marking the precise and crucial line for crossing from the board’s jurisdiction into that of the camp, namely, at the point where the registrant begins his journey to the camp. To take this step, it says, is equivalent to the oath in the induction ceremony prescribed for men entering the armed forces, cf. Billings v. Truesdell, supra; and produces the.same consequences for foreclosing the defense of illegal classification, regardless of intention to submit to the camp’s jurisdiction, indeed in spite of Gibson’s unwavering manifestation of intention not to submit.
Much of the argument was devoted to whether, on the basis of the Government’s analogy, § 652.13.could be taken to fix the end of the “interval of choice,” cf. Billings v. Truesdell, supra, in view of the constantly changing character of the regulations, the absence of any prescribed induction ceremony such as the Billings case involved, and the consequent difficulty confronting one seeking to comply with the Falbo decision in ascertaining the exact location of such a line. We do not find it necessary to consider the conflicting contentions in this respect, or therefore to scrutinize the regulations with a view to locating such a point. More fundamental considerations are controlling.
We have said that the Government’s argument is founded entirely upon analogy, because no case has ruled that one who becomes subject to the “jurisdiction” of -a work camp under the Selective Service procedure thereby forfeits his right to defend against a charge of desertion or other breach of duty, on the ground that his classification was invalid. Nor has it been held that his only recourse for release from the camp is by way of habeas corpus. Furthermore, we think there are compelling reasons why the analogy does not hold true.
In the first place, there are obvious and important differences between the two situations which it is sought to connect by the claimed resemblance. Not the least is that in the one instance the person concerned crosses the vast gulf between civil and military jurisdiction, with all the attendant consequences for change in status and rights, whereas in the other no such chasm is traversed. The alleged transfer of “jurisdiction” is only from one civilian agency to another, both branches of the Selective Service System, and there is none at all from the authority of the civilian courts as agencies for the enforcement of obligations imposed by the law. There is in fact no change in “jurisdiction” whatsoever, except in the sense that from the time he becomes a camp member the registrant’s duties are different and his orders come through different channels of the same agency.
Unlike the man “actually inducted,” the person classified IV-E remains a civilian; his duties are not military in character; he is not subject to military discipline or authority; and for violation of duties or orders he cannot be tried by court martial or military tribunal. On the contrary, the Selective Service Act expressly provides the same civil penalties and mode of trial for violating duties arising when he enters the camp as for those arising before that time.
There is therefore no such profound change in rights, duties and status as occurs when one crosses the line between civil and military jurisdiction by being “actually inducted” under the rule of Billings v. Truesdell, supra. It was this change and the consequences it entailed, together with the statute’s command that no one should be tried by military or naval court martial in any case arising under the Act until he had been actually inducted, which we there held to require placing the line precisely, not only for exhausting administrative remedies under the Falbo rule, but also for marking the point of actual induction at which the registrant’s right ends to choose between going forward into the service and incurring the civil liability for breach of that duty.
The person classified as conscientious objector is never confronted with that choice. He is relieved by the Act from any duty to perform military service. He is not threatened with induction. He is in fact farther removed from military status or jurisdiction after he is finally assigned to civilian public service of national importance, and for this reason is rejected for military service, than-he was before that time. His choice is not between going into service and taking the civil penalty laid for violating that duty. It is between performing civilian service under civilian authority and incurring the civil penalty for refusing to do so.
Moreover, in the case of one entering the armed forces, the loss of civil rights, including those of recourse to the civil courts other than by way of habeas corpus, results altogether by virtue of the change from civilian to military status. The reasons underlying those rulings do not apply in the case of one who does not undergo that change, remains at all times a civilian, subject only to civilian duties and to civil penalties for violating them. There is not the same necessity or compulsion in such a case for bringing about forfeiture of civilian rights, including remedies for questioning the validity of the order the registrant is charged with violating. That compulsion arises from the necessity for preventing interruption of military processes by intrusion of the civil courts beyond the essential minimum of keeping open the habeas corpus channel to show that the military authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with the individual. It is on this foundation that the forfeiture of other civil remedies is held to take place.
But there is no such necessity, or therefore any such foundation for forfeiture, in the case of one classified as a conscientious objector and assigned for work of national importance. Serious as are the consequences of his refusal to perform that work, dealing with such breaches of duty by the civil courts does not involve, in the remotest sense, interruption or interference by civilian authority with military processes or jurisdiction. Entirely wanting therefore is any such foundation for forfeiture of civil rights as exists in the case of one inducted into the armed services. Without such a foundation the analogy dissolves and with it the asserted forfeiture.
This becomes even more clear when it is recalled that one basis for the forfeiture, which the Government has maintained, is that habeas corpus is available for the person classified IV-E and wrongfully denied classification and exemption as a minister of religion. This remedy, it was asserted originally, is adequate and exclusive, and therefore should be held to foreclose resort to other forms of relief.
But here again the asserted analogy fails. It has been clearly established that the remedy by way of habeas corpus is open to the wrongfully inducted member of the armed forces to secure his release. But at the argument it was conceded that neither the camp director nor other officials of the Selective Service System are authorized to use force to arrest or restrain one who refuses to remain in the camp. And this, it was also admitted, would make doubtful the availability of relief by way of habeas corpus. Indeed it might well be urged that the remedy is not available for one charged with violation of any duty, whether failure to report to the camp, to remain there, or to perform other obligations, since the only compulsion laid upon such a person by the Act or otherwise is the force of the legal command plus the provision for criminal penalty in case of disobedience.
We need not decide this question, however, and we express no opinion upon it. For it is enough to destroy the analogy the Government seeks to draw that the remedy by habeas corpus is an uncertain one. Should it be found unavailable and at the same time we should rule that petitioner’s defense could not be made in the criminal proceeding, he would be left entirely without remedy, a result consistent neither with our decision in the cases of Estep and Smith, supra, nor with the statute. No more, we think, is it consistent with the Act or those rulings to foreclose the right of defense upon the basis of uncertainty whether the habeas corpus remedy might be had.
Finally, Congress has provided expressly for enforcing the duty to report to the camp for work and duties arising thereafter through the criminal proceedings and penalties prescribed by § 11.. In its view these were adequate for the purpose. Nothing in the section or the statute, in the light of our prior decisions, can be taken to indicate that Congress intended persons charged with violating such duties to be deprived of their rights of defense on the ground of invalid classification, either absolutely should habeas corpus prove unavailable or contingently depending upon how the doubt concerning that remedy’s availability might be resolved. The Government concedes that Congress intended some remedy to be available. We know of no way by which this can be assured, in such a case as Gibson’s, otherwise than by permitting the defense to be raised in the criminal trial.
The analogy failing, for both of the reasons we have stated, by which it is sought to confine the remedy to habeas corpus, we think the defense has been left open for presentation in this case and should have been allowed. Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114; Smith v. United States, ibid.
Gibson, like Dodez, and for similar reasons, insists that we should dispose of the case upon the merits, by examining and sustaining his defense. The same course should be followed for Gibson in this respect as was directed for Dodez.
We express no opinion concerning whether a different result might follow for one in Gibson’s position if he should remain at the camp for a substantially longer period and then depart without leave.
The question raised concerning venue has been determined adversely to Gibson’s contention by our decision in United States v. Anderson, 328 U. S. 699.
The judgments are reversed and the causes are remanded to the District Courts from which they came, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Murphy joins in the opinion of the Court for the reasons stated therein and for the additional reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549, 555, and in his concurring opinion in Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 125.
Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549; Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U. S. 542; Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114; Smith v. United States, ibid.
Section 11 provides, in part: “Any person charged as herein provided with the duty of carrying out any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules or regulations made or directions given thereunder, who shall knowingly fail or neglect to perform such duty,... shall, upon conviction in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment...
Section 652.11 (a) of the regulations imposes the duty on persons classified IV-E to comply with the order to report for work of national importance; and by § 653.12 assignees are required to report to the camp to which they are assigned and to remain therein until released or transferred elsewhere by proper authority, except when on authorized missions or leave.
149 F. 2d 751 (C. C. A. 8); 154 F. 2d 637 (C. C. A. 6).
Apparently in both cases the important changes in the applicable regulations made after the Falbo decision were not called to the attention of the trial courts or the Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The exemption is provided by § 5 (d) of the Act, 54 Stat. 885, 888, as follows: “Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, and students who are preparing for the ministry in theological or divinity schools recognized as such for more than one year prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be exempt from training and service (but not from registration) under this Act.”
Pursuant to § 5 (g) of the Act, which provides that persons so classified shall be assigned to noncombatant service or, if conscientiously opposed to this, then to “work of national importance under civilian direction.”
See text Part II infra at note 19; also note 13.
At that time § 653.11 (c) of the Selective Service Regulations provided: “If the assignee indicates that his physical condition has changed since his final-type physical examination for registrants in Class IV-E, the camp physician shall examine him with reference thereto. If the assignee is not accepted for work of national importance, the Camp Director will indicate the reason therefor, and the assignee, pending instructions from the Director of Selective Service, will be retained in the camp or hospitalized where necessary.” Cf. note 10.
This provision, effective by Amendment No. 40 on March 16, 1942 (7 F. R. 2093), was eliminated entirely by Amendment No. 210 (9 F. R. 1416), effective February 2,1944, a little more than two months prior to the date specified for Dodez to report for work, namely, April 21, 1944; but was restored in modified form on June 7, 1944, by Amendment No. 236 (9 F. R. 6207), nearly two months before Gibson was ordered to report on August 21 of that year.
A confession of error on the part of the United States “does not relieve this Court of the performance of the judicial function. The considered judgment of the law enforcement officers that reversible error has been committed is entitled to great weight, but our judicial obligations compel us to examine independently the errors confessed.” Young v. United States, 315 U. S. 257, 258-259.
The contention is that § 653.11 (e) of the regulations as it then stood, see note 8, provided for physical examination at the camp and possible rejection there only if the registrant on reporting indicated a change in his physical condition and that this was effective only as to persons sustaining such a change, not to others, of whom Falbo was one. The argument assumes that the registrant’s actual condition, not the possibility that a change might occur and be found in any case, was controlling not only to determine the outcoifae of the examination, but to foreclose the possibility that change might be “indicated” and, in that event, final determination of acceptability would be made after the examination.
The regulation clearly contemplated that, upon receipt of such instructions from the Director of Selective Service, the registrant might be rejected or released.
The decision was rendered January 3, 1944. The basic changes in the regulations were made January 10, 1944. See text infra at notes 13-17.
After a registrant has been classified IV-E he is given a preinduction physical examination. Reg. §§ -629.1, 629.2. If found acceptable for service he is issued a certificate of fitness. Reg. § 629.32. Thereafter the local board notifies the Director of Selective Service that the registrant is available for assignment to work of national importance, Reg. § 652.1, and such an assignment is sent to the local board. Upon receipt thereof, the local board issues to the registrant an order to report for work of national importance, commanding him to report at a designated time and place, Reg. § 652.11. When the registrant reports, transportation to a camp for work of national importance is furnished, Reg. § 652.12. Thereafter he “is under the jurisdiction of the camp to which he is assigned.” The local board then can take no further steps with regard to such registrant without instructions from the Director of Selective Service, but should report any information to the Director of Selective Service which might affect the registrant’s status, Reg. § 652.13.
Upon arrival at the camp the registrant (now called assignee in the regulations) is given a physical examination, although at the time the case of Dodez arose specific provision for such an examination was not made in the regulations. See note 8. It was merely provided that “the camp director shall, on the bottom of page 4 of the Original and First Copy of the Report of Physical Examination and Induction (Form 221), place a statement that a registrant is accepted for work of national importance at the civilian public service camp to which the registrant has been assigned.” Reg. § 653.11 (b). However, this regulation subsequently was amended in the form applicable to the case of Gibson. See note 28 infra.
The statute, in so far as is now material, provided: “Any registrant within the categories herein defined when it appears that his induction will shortly occur shall, upon request, be ordered by his local board in accordance with schedules authorized by the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of Selective Service, to any regularly established induction station for a preinduction physical examination, subject to reexaminations.
“The commanding officer of such induction station where such physical examination is conducted under this provision shall issue to the registrant a certificate showing his physical fitness or lack thereof, and this examination shall be accepted by the local board, subject to periodic reexamination. Those registrants who are classified as I-A at the time of such physical examination and who are found physically qualified for military service as a result thereof, shall remain so classified and report for induction in regular order.”
Compare the procedure outlined in Billings v. Truesdell, 321, U. S. 542.
See notes 18, 19, infra, and text for the principal changes.
These are noted specifically infra at note 28 and text.
Pertinently the basic regulation provided: “Every registrant, before he is ordered to report for induction, shall be givema pre-induction physical examination under the provisions of this part unless (1) he signs a Request for Immediate Induction (Form 219) or (2) he is a delinquent....”
Because § 653.11 as changed by Amendment No. 210 is crucial in Dodez' case, the exact language is quoted: “(a) When the assignee has reported to camp, the camp director shall complete the Order to Report for Work of National Importance (Form 50). Four copies of the completed Order to Report for Work of National Importance (Form 50) shall be sent to the Director of Selective Service; one copy will be retained by the camp director. The Director of Selective Service will forward two copies of the Order to Report for Work of National Importance (Form 50) to the appropriate State Director of Selective Service, who will retain one copy for his files and mail the other copy to the local board for filing in the registrant’s Cover Sheet (Form 53).
“(b) The camp director shall, on the bottom of page 4 of the Original and First Copy of the Report of Physical Examination and Induction (Form 221), •place a statement that a registrant is accepted for work of national importance at the civilian public service camp to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Patent Act requires that a patent specification "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006 ed.) (emphasis added). This case, involving a heart-rate monitor used with exercise equipment, concerns the proper reading of the statute's clarity and precision demand. According to the Federal Circuit, a patent claim passes the § 112, ¶ 2 threshold so long as the claim is "amenable to construction," and the claim, as construed, is not "insolubly ambiguous." 715 F.3d 891, 898-899 (2013). We conclude that the Federal Circuit's formulation, which tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others, does not satisfy the statute's definiteness requirement. In place of the "insolubly ambiguous" standard, we hold that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Expressing no opinion on the validity of the patent-in-suit, we remand, instructing the Federal Circuit to decide the case employing the standard we have prescribed.
I
Authorized by the Constitution "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their ... Discoveries," Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, Congress has enacted patent laws rewarding inventors with a limited monopoly. "Th[at] monopoly is a property right," and "like any property right, its boundaries should be clear." Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 152 L.Ed.2d 944 (2002). See also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996) ("It has long been understood that a patent must describe the exact scope of an invention and its manufacture...."). Thus, when Congress enacted the first Patent Act in 1790, it directed that patent grantees file a written specification "containing a description ... of the thing or things ... invented or discovered," which "shall be so particular" as to "distinguish the invention or discovery from other things before known and used." Act of Apr. 10, 1790, § 2, 1 Stat. 110.
The patent laws have retained this requirement of definiteness even as the focus of patent construction has shifted. Under early patent practice in the United States, we have recounted, it was the written specification that "represented the key to the patent." Markman, 517 U.S., at 379, 116 S.Ct. 1384. Eventually, however, patent applicants began to set out the invention's scope in a separate section known as the "claim." See generally 1 R. Moy, Walker on Patents § 4.2, pp. 4-17 to 4-20 (4th ed. 2012). The Patent Act of 1870 expressly conditioned the receipt of a patent on the inventor's inclusion of one or more such claims, described with particularity and distinctness. See Act of July 8, 1870, § 26, 16 Stat. 201 (to obtain a patent, the inventor must "particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which [the inventor] claims as his invention or discovery").
The 1870 Act's definiteness requirement survives today, largely unaltered. Section 112 of the Patent Act of 1952, applicable to this case, requires the patent applicant to conclude the specification with "one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006 ed.). A lack of definiteness renders invalid "the patent or any claim in suit." § 282, ¶ 2(3).1
II
A
The patent in dispute, U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 ('753 patent), issued to Dr. Gregory Lekhtman in 1994 and assigned to respondent Biosig Instruments, Inc., concerns a heart-rate monitor for use during exercise. Previous heart-rate monitors, the patent asserts, were often inaccurate in measuring the electrical signals accompanying each heartbeat (electrocardiograph or ECG signals). The inaccuracy was caused by electrical signals of a different sort, known as electromyogram or EMG signals, generated by an exerciser's skeletal muscles when, for example, she moves her arm, or grips an exercise monitor with her hand. These EMG signals can "mask" ECG signals and thereby impede their detection. App. 52, 147.
Dr. Lekhtman's invention claims to improve on prior art by eliminating that impediment. The invention focuses on a key difference between EMG and ECG waveforms: while ECG signals detected from a user's left hand have a polarity opposite to that of the signals detected from her right hand,2 EMG signals from each hand have the same polarity. The patented device works by measuring equalized EMG signals detected at each hand and then using circuitry to subtract the identical EMG signals from each other, thus filtering out the EMG interference.
As relevant here, the '753 patent describes a heart-rate monitor contained in a hollow cylindrical bar that a user grips with both hands, such that each hand comes into contact with two electrodes, one "live" and one "common." The device is illustrated in figure 1 of the patent, id., at 41, reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion.
Claim 1 of the '753 patent, which contains the limitations critical to this dispute, refers to a "heart rate monitor for use by a user in association with exercise apparatus and/or exercise procedures." Id., at 61. The claim "comprise[s]," among other elements, an "elongate member" (cylindrical bar) with a display device; "electronic circuitry including a difference amplifier"; and, on each half of the cylindrical bar, a live electrode and a common electrode "mounted ... in spaced relationship with each other." Ibid.3 The claim sets forth additional elements, including that the cylindrical bar is to be held in such a way that each of the user's hands "contact[s]" both electrodes on each side of the bar. Id., at 62. Further, the EMG signals detected by the two electrode pairs are to be "of substantially equal magnitude and phase" so that the difference amplifier will "produce a substantially zero [EMG] signal" upon subtracting the signals from one another. Ibid.
B
The dispute between the parties arose in the 1990's, when Biosig allegedly disclosed the patented technology to StairMaster Sports Medical Products, Inc. According to Biosig, StairMaster, without ever obtaining a license, sold exercise machines that included Biosig's patented technology, and petitioner Nautilus, Inc., continued to do so after acquiring the StairMaster brand. In 2004, based on these allegations, Biosig brought a patent infringement suit against Nautilus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
With Biosig's lawsuit launched, Nautilus asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reexamine the '753 patent. The reexamination proceedings centered on whether the patent was anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art-principally, a patent issued in 1984 to an inventor named Fujisaki, which similarly disclosed a heart-rate monitor using two pairs of electrodes and a difference amplifier. Endeavoring to distinguish the '753 patent from prior art, Biosig submitted a declaration from Dr. Lekhtman. The declaration attested, among other things, that the '753 patent sufficiently informed a person skilled in the art how to configure the detecting electrodes so as "to produce equal EMG [signals] from the left and right hands." Id., at 160. Although the electrodes' design variables-including spacing, shape, size, and material-cannot be standardized across all exercise machines, Dr. Lekhtman explained, a skilled artisan could undertake a "trial and error" process of equalization. This would entail experimentation with different electrode configurations in order to optimize EMG signal cancellation. Id., at 155-156, 158.4
In 2010, the PTO issued a determination confirming the patentability of the '753 patent's claims.
Biosig thereafter reinstituted its infringement suit, which the parties had voluntarily dismissed without prejudice while PTO reexamination was underway. In 2011, the District Court conducted a hearing to determine the proper construction of the patent's claims, see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996) (claim construction is a matter of law reserved for court decision), including the claim term "in spaced relationship with each other." According to Biosig, that "spaced relationship" referred to the distance between the live electrode and the common electrode in each electrode pair. Nautilus, seizing on Biosig's submissions to the PTO during the reexamination, maintained that the "spaced relationship" must be a distance "greater than the width of each electrode." App. 245. The District Court ultimately construed the term to mean "there is a defined relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on one side of the cylindrical bar and the same or a different defined relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode on the other side of the cylindrical bar," without any reference to the electrodes' width. App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a-44a.
Nautilus moved for summary judgment, arguing that the term "spaced relationship," as construed, was indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. The District Court granted the motion. Those words, the District Court concluded, "did not tell [the court] or anyone what precisely the space should be," or even supply "any parameters" for determining the appropriate spacing. Id., at 72a.
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. A claim is indefinite, the majority opinion stated, "only when it is 'not amenable to construction' or 'insolubly ambiguous.' " 715 F.3d 891, 898 (2013) (quoting Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (C.A.Fed.2005)). Under that standard, the majority determined, the '753 patent survived indefiniteness review. Considering first the "intrinsic evidence"- i.e., the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history-the majority discerned "certain inherent parameters of the claimed apparatus, which to a skilled artisan may be sufficient to understand the metes and bounds of 'spaced relationship.' " 715 F.3d, at 899. These sources of meaning, the majority explained, make plain that the distance separating the live and common electrodes on each half of the bar "cannot be greater than the width of a user's hands"; that is so "because claim 1 requires the live and common electrodes to independently detect electrical signals at two distinct points of a hand." Ibid. Furthermore, the majority noted, the intrinsic evidence teaches that this distance cannot be "infinitesimally small, effectively merging the live and common electrodes into a single electrode with one detection point." Ibid. The claim's functional provisions, the majority went on to observe, shed additional light on the meaning of "spaced relationship." Surveying the record before the PTO on reexamination, the majority concluded that a skilled artisan would know that she could attain the indicated functions of equalizing and removing EMG signals by adjusting design variables, including spacing.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Schall reached the majority's result employing "a more limited analysis." Id., at 905. Judge Schall accepted the majority's recitation of the definiteness standard, under which claims amenable to construction are nonetheless indefinite when "the construction remains insolubly ambiguous." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court's construction of "spaced relationship," Judge Schall maintained, was sufficiently clear: the term means "there is a fixed spatial relationship between the live electrode and the common electrode" on each side of the cylindrical bar. Ibid. Judge Schall agreed with the majority that the intrinsic evidence discloses inherent limits of that spacing. But, unlike the majority, Judge Schall did not "presum[e] a functional linkage between the 'spaced relationship' limitation and the removal of EMG signals." Id., at 906. Other limitations of the claim, in his view, and not the " 'spaced relationship' limitation itself," "included a functional requirement to remove EMG signals." Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 896, 187 L.Ed.2d 702 (2014), and now vacate and remand.
III
A
Although the parties here disagree on the dispositive question-does the '753 patent withstand definiteness scrutiny-they are in accord on several aspects of the § 112, ¶ 2 inquiry. First, definiteness is to be evaluated from the perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art. See, e.g., General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402 (1938). See also § 112, ¶ 1 (patent's specification "shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same" (emphasis added)). Second, in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history. See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 48-49, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966) (specification); Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 741, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 152 L.Ed.2d 944 (2002) (prosecution history). Third, "[d]efiniteness is measured from the viewpoint of a person skilled in [the] art at the time the patent was filed." Brief for Respondent 55 (emphasis added). See generally Sarnoff & Manzo, An Introduction to, Premises of, and Problems With Patent Claim Construction, in Patent Claim Construction in the Federal Circuit 9 (E. Manzo ed. 2014) ("Patent claims ... should be construed from an objective perspective of a [skilled artisan], based on what the applicant actually claimed, disclosed, and stated during the application process.").
The parties differ, however, in their articulations of just how much imprecision § 112, ¶ 2 tolerates. In Nautilus' view, a patent is invalid when a claim is "ambiguous, such that readers could reasonably interpret the claim's scope differently." Brief for Petitioner 37. Biosig and the Solicitor General would require only that the patent provide reasonable notice of the scope of the claimed invention. See Brief for Respondent 18; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9-10.
Section 112, we have said, entails a "delicate balance." Festo, 535 U.S., at 731, 122 S.Ct. 1831. On the one hand, the definiteness requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of language. See ibid. Some modicum of uncertainty, the Court has recognized, is the "price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation." Id., at 732, 122 S.Ct. 1831 . One must bear in mind, moreover, that patents are "not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally," but rather to those skilled in the relevant art. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 437, 22 S.Ct. 698, 46 L.Ed. 968 (1902) (also stating that "any description which is sufficient to apprise [steel manufacturers] in the language of the art of the definite feature of the invention, and to serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent").5
At the same time, a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby " 'appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.' " Markman, 517 U.S., at 373, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (quoting McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800 (1891)). 6 Otherwise there would be "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942). And absent a meaningful definiteness check, we are told, patent applicants face powerful incentives to inject ambiguity into their claims. See Brief for Petitioner 30-32 (citing patent treatises and drafting guides). See also Federal Trade Commission, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies With Competition 85 (2011) (quoting testimony that patent system fosters "an incentive to be as vague and ambiguous as you can with your claims" and "defer clarity at all costs").7 Eliminating that temptation is in order, and "the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in ... patent claims." Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (C.A.Fed.2008). See also Hormone Research Foundation, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (C.A.Fed.1990) ("It is a well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee is free to be his or her own lexicographer....").
To determine the proper office of the definiteness command, therefore, we must reconcile concerns that tug in opposite directions. Cognizant of the competing concerns, we read § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt accords with opinions of this Court stating that "the certainty which the law requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter." Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 37 S.Ct. 82, 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). See also United Carbon, 317 U.S., at 236, 63 S.Ct. 165 ("claims must be reasonably clear-cut"); Markman, 517 U.S., at 389, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (claim construction calls for "the necessarily sophisticated analysis of the whole document," and may turn on evaluations of expert testimony).
B
In resolving Nautilus' definiteness challenge, the Federal Circuit asked whether the '753 patent's claims were "amenable to construction" or "insolubly ambiguous." Those formulations can breed lower court confusion, 8 for they lack the precision § 112, ¶ 2 demands. It cannot be sufficient that a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent's claims; the definiteness inquiry trains on the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application, not that of a court viewing matters post hoc. To tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim "insolubly ambiguous" would diminish the definiteness requirement's public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging "zone of uncertainty," United Carbon, 317 U.S., at 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, against which this Court has warned.
Appreciating that "terms like 'insolubly ambiguous' may not be felicitous," Brief for Respondent 34, Biosig argues the phrase is a shorthand label for a more probing inquiry that the Federal Circuit applies in practice. The Federal Circuit's fuller explications of the term "insolubly ambiguous," we recognize, may come closer to tracking the statutory prescription. See, e.g.,715 F.3d, at 898 (case below) ("[I]f reasonable efforts at claim construction result in a definition that does not provide sufficient particularity and clarity to inform skilled artisans of the bounds of the claim, the claim is insolubly ambiguous and invalid for indefiniteness." (internal quotation marks omitted)). But although this Court does not "micromanag[e] the Federal Circuit's particular word choice" in applying patent-law doctrines, we must ensure that the Federal Circuit's test is at least "probative of the essential inquiry." Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Falling short in that regard, the expressions "insolubly ambiguous" and "amenable to construction" permeate the Federal Circuit's recent decisions concerning § 112, ¶ 2's requirement.9 We agree with Nautilus and its amici that such terminology can leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.10
IV
Both here and in the courts below, the parties have advanced conflicting arguments as to the definiteness of the claims in the '753 patent. Nautilus maintains that the claim term "spaced relationship" is open to multiple interpretations reflecting markedly different understandings of the patent's scope, as exemplified by the disagreement among the members of the Federal Circuit panel.11 Biosig responds that "spaced relationship," read in light of the specification and as illustrated in the accompanying drawings, delineates the permissible spacing with sufficient precision.
"[M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view," Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005), we decline to apply the standard we have announced to the controversy between Nautilus and Biosig. As we have explained, the Federal Circuit invoked a standard more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows. We therefore follow our ordinary practice of remanding so that the Court of Appeals can reconsider, under the proper standard, whether the relevant claims in the '753 patent are sufficiently definite. See, e.g., Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 515, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 438, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996).
* * *
For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
IMAGE
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.
In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub.L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, enacted in 2011, Congress amended several parts of the Patent Act. Those amendments modified §§ 112 and 282 in minor respects not pertinent here. In any event, the amended versions of those provisions are inapplicable to patent applications filed before September 16, 2012, and proceedings commenced before September 16, 2011. See §§ 4(e), 15(c), 20( l ), 125 Stat. 297, 328, 335, notes following 35 U.S.C. §§ 2, 111, 119. Here, the application for the patent-in-suit was filed in 1992, and the relevant court proceedings were initiated in 2010. Accordingly, this opinion's citations to the Patent Act refer to the 2006 edition of the United States Code.
This difference in polarity occurs because the heart is not aligned vertically in relation to the center of the body; the organ tilts leftward from apex to bottom. App. 213.
As depicted in figure 1 of the patent, id., at 41, reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion, the live electrodes are identified by numbers 9 and 13, and the common electrodes, by 11 and 15.
Dr. Lekhtman's declaration also referred to an expert report prepared by Dr. Henrietta Galiana, Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at McGill University, for use in the infringement litigation. That report described how Dr. Galiana's laboratory technician, equipped with a wooden dowel, wire, metal foil, glue, electrical tape, and the drawings from the '753 patent, was able in two hours to build a monitor that "worked just as described in the ... patent." Id., at 226.
See also Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 58, 65-66, 43 S.Ct. 322, 67 L.Ed. 523 (1923) (upholding as definite a patent for an improvement to a paper-making machine, which provided that a wire be placed at a "high" or "substantial elevation," where "readers ... skilled in the art of paper making and versed in the use of the ... machine" would have "no difficulty ... in determining ... the substantial [elevation] needed" for the machine to operate as specified).
See also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942) ("The statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when they clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise."); General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402 (1938) ("The limits of a patent must be known for the protection of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive genius of others and the assurance that the subject of the patent will be dedicated ultimately to the public.").
Online at http:// www. ftc. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ documents/ reports/ evolving- ip- marketplace- aligning- patent- notice- and- remedies- competition- report- federal- trade/ 110307 patentreport. pdf (as visited May 30, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).
See, e.g., Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., --- F.Supp.2d ----, ----, 2014 WL 869092, *4 (M.D.Fla., Mar. 5, 2014) (finding that "the account," as used in claim, "lacks definiteness," because it might mean several different things and "no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions," but that "the extent of the indefiniteness ... falls far short of the 'insoluble ambiguity' required to invalidate the claim").
E.g.,Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1366 (C.A.Fed.2010) ("the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning"); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (C.A.Fed.2005) ("Only claims 'not amenable to construction' or 'insolubly ambiguous' are indefinite."); Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (C.A.Fed.2001) ("If a claim is insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can properly be adopted, we have held the claim indefinite."). See also Dept. of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.02(I), p. 294 (9th ed. 2014) (PTO manual describing Federal Circuit's test as upholding a claim's validity "if some meaning can be gleaned from the language").
The Federal Circuit suggests that a permissive definiteness standard " 'accord[s] respect to the statutory presumption of patent validity.' " 715 F.3d 891, 902 (2013) (quoting Exxon Research, 265 F.3d, at 1375). See also § 282, ¶ 1 ("[a] patent shall be presumed valid," and "[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity"); Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2242, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011) (invalidity defenses must be proved by "clear and convincing evidence"). As the parties appear to agree, however, this presumption of validity does not alter the degree of clarity that § 112, ¶ 2 demands from patent applicants; to the contrary, it incorporates that definiteness requirement by reference. See § 282, ¶ 2(3) (defenses to infringement actions include "[i]nvalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with ... any requirement of [§ 112]").
The parties nonetheless dispute whether factual findings subsidiary to the ultimate issue of definiteness trigger the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and, relatedly, whether deference is due to the PTO's resolution of disputed issues of fact. We leave these questions for another day. The court below treated definiteness as "a legal issue [the] court reviews without deference," 715 F.3d, at 897, and Biosig has not called our attention to any contested factual matter-or PTO determination thereof-pertinent to its infringement claims.
Notably, however, all three panel members found Nautilus' arguments unavailing.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 motion for leave to file petition for an original writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
The disposition of an application to this Court for habeas corpus is so rarely to be made by this Court directly that Congress has given the Court authority to transfer such an application to an appropriate district court. 28 U. S. C. § 2241. I do not favor such a disposition of this application because the substance of the allegations now made has already been considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York and on review by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Neither can I join the Court in denying the application without more. I would set the application down for hearing before the full Court tomorrow forenoon. Oral argument frequently has a force beyond what the written word conveys.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the interpretation of § 318 of the Federal Power Act, as added, 49 Stat. 863, 16 U. S. C. § 825q, entitled “Conflict of jurisdiction,” which governs certain overlapping responsibilities of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the regulation of power companies under the Public Utility Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 803.
M
The Public Utility Act subjects some companies that transmit and distribute electric power to overlapping regulatory jurisdiction of the SEC and FERC, successor to the Federal Power Commission (FPC). Title I, known as the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), 49 Stat. 803, gives the SEC jurisdiction over certain transactions among registered public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries and affiliates. Title II, the Federal Power Act (FPA), 49 Stat. 838, gives FERC jurisdiction over the transmission and sale at wholesale of electric power in interstate commerce. FERC-regulated electric power companies that are subsidiaries or affiliates of registered public utility holding companies are therefore subject to SEC regulation as well. Respondent Ohio Power Company, part of the American Electric Power system (AEP), is one such company; petitioners are 15 small Ohio villages and cities that are AEP’s wholesale customers.
The dispute in this case begins in a series of orders issued by the SEC in the 1970’s, authorizing Ohio Power to establish and capitalize an affiliate, Southern Ohio Coal Company (SOCCO), to secure and develop a reliable source of coal for the whole AEP system. The first order, in 1971, approved the sale and purchase of SOCCO’s stock, and in the course of outlining the conditions of that approval, stated that SOCCO’s charges for coal would be “based on” actual costs. Ohio Power Co., SEC Holding Company Act Release (HCAR) No. 17383 (Dec. 2, 1971). In 1978, the SEC authorized further investment by Ohio Power, and this time its order indicated that the price of coal “will not exceed the cost thereof to the seller.” Ohio Power Co., HCAR No. 20515 (Apr. 24, 1978), 14 S. E. C. Docket 928, 929. In 1979, in the course of another financing approval order, the SEC noted that Ohio Power would pay SOCCO less than the actual cost of coal if Ohio Power’s after-tax capital costs exceeded a certain level. Southern Ohio Coal Co., HCAR No. 21008 (Apr. 17, 1979). The final order in 1980, approving further SOCCO financing, indicated that “[t]he price at which SOC[C]0’s coal will be sold to AEP system companies will not exceed the cost thereof to the seller.” Southern Ohio Coal Co., HCAR No. 21537 (Apr. 25, 1980).
In 1982, Ohio Power filed rate increases for its wholesale service. FERC initiated a rate proceeding under §§ 205 and 206 of the FPA, 16 U. S. C. §§824d, 824e, and quickly settled all issues save the reasonableness of Ohio Power’s SOCCO coal costs. Pursuant to §206 of the FPA, FERC disallowed that portion of Ohio Power’s coal costs that did not satisfy FERC’s “comparable market” test. Under this test, utilities that purchase coal from affiliates may recover only the price that they would have incurred had they purchased coal under a comparable coal supply contract with a nonaffili-ated supplier. In Ohio Power’s case, FERC found that Ohio Power had paid approximately 50% more than that market price in 1980, approximately 94% more in 1981, and between 24% and 33% more during the period 1982 through 1986. Accordingly, FERC ordered Ohio Power to establish rates calculated to recover from its customers no more than the comparable market price for coal, and to refund prior overcharges. The agency rejected Ohio Power’s argument that the SEC, by the above-mentioned orders, had “approved” the coal charges by SOCCO, and that § 318 of the FPA ousts FERC of jurisdiction to regulate the same “subject matter” by declaring those charges unreasonable and thus unrecoverable in Ohio Power’s wholesale rates. Ohio Power Co., 39 FERC ¶ 61,098 (1987).
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding FERC’s disallowance of the charges to be precluded by §318. Ohio Power Co. v. FERC, 279 U. S. App. D. C. 327, 880 F. 2d 1400 (1989). We granted certiorari. 494 U. S. 1055 (1990).
I — I I — I
As decided by the Court of Appeals, and as argued here, two questions were presented in this case: (1) whether §318 bars all FERC regulation of a subject matter regulated by the SEC, or only such regulation as actually imposes a conflicting requirement; and (2) if an actual conflict is prerequisite, whether it exists here. In our view, however, there is another question antecedent to these and ultimately dis-positive of the present dispute: whether the SEC and FERC orders before us impose requirements with respect to a subject matter that is within the scope of §318. We believe they do not.
Section 318 provides as follows:
“Conflict of jurisdiction
“If, with respect to the issue, sale, or guaranty of a security, or assumption of obligation or liability in respect of a security, the method of keeping accounts, the filing of reports, or the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or any other subject matter, any person is subject both to a requirement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or of a rule, regulation, or order thereunder and to a requirement of this chapter or of a rule, regulation, or order thereunder, the requirement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 shall apply to such person, and such person shall not be subject to the requirement of this chapter, or of any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, with respect to the same subject matter, unless the Securities and Exchange Commission has exempted such person from such requirement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, in which case the requirements of this chapter shall apply to such person.” (Emphasis added.)
Crucial to the outcome of the present case is the lengthy conditional clause that begins this section, setting forth a list of subjects “with respect to [which]” duplicative requirements will trigger the pre-emption rule. More specifically, the key to the outcome is the phrase “or any other subject matter,” which we have italicized in the above passage. The Court of Appeals appears to have assumed that it parallels the other phrases setting forth various objects of the prepositional phrase “with respect to.” We do not think it reasonably bears that interpretation.
To begin with, that interpretation renders the preceding enumeration of specific subjects entirely superfluous — in effect adding to that detailed list “or anything else.” Because the other four categories of enumeration are so disparate, the canon of ejusdem generis cannot be invoked to prevent the phrase “or any other subject matter” from swallowing what precedes it, leaving a statute that might as well have read “If, with respect to any subject matter . . . .” Such an interpretation should not be adopted unless the language renders it unavoidable. Here, however, the text not only does not compel that result but positively militates against it.
As the Court of Appeals read § 318, the conditional clause lists five separate areas of duplicative requirements. Bracketed numbers inserted into the text would appear as follows:
“If, with respect to [1] the issue, sale, or guaranty of a security, or assumption of obligation or liability in respect of a security, [2] the method of keeping accounts, [3] the filing of reports, or [4] the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or [5] any other subject matter ...”
This reading, however, creates two problems of enumeration: First, it renders the “or” that introduces the fourth category duplicative (“If, with respect to [1], [2], [3], or [4], or [5]”), and second, it produces the peculiar omission of an “or” before the last item listed within the text of the fourth category (“the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities”). In casual conversation, perhaps, such absentminded duplication and omission are possible, but Congress is not presumed to draft its laws that way. The attribution of such imprecision is readily avoided by placing the phrase “or any other subject matter” within the fourth enumeration clause, reading that to embrace “[4] the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or any other subject matter.” It is inelegant, perhaps, to refer to “the acquisition or disposition of . . . [a] subject matter,” but that inelegance must be preferred to a reading that introduces both redundancy and omission, and that renders the section’s careful enumeration of subjects superfluous.
Moreover, and most importantly, when § 318 is read in this fashion it takes on a shape that gives meaning to what otherwise seems a random listing of specific subject matters (with “any other subject matter” tagged on at the end). So interpreted, it addresses (as its caption promises) the “Conflict of jurisdiction” within four areas of plainly parallel authority granted both to the SEC, under PUHCA, and to the FPC (FERC), under the FPA. The first category, “the issue, sale, or guaranty of a security, or assumption of obligation or liability in respect of a security,” refers to §'204 of the FPA, 16 U. S. C. §824c, which requires all such transactions to be approved by FERC order, and to §6 of PUHCA, 15 U. S. C. § 79f, which in certain cases requires similar approval by the SEC; the second, “the method of keeping accounts,” refers to §301, 16 U. S. C. §825, which authorizes FERC to prescribe accounts and records, and to § 15, 15 U. S. C. § 79o, which similarly authorizes the SEC; the third, “the filing of reports,” refers to §304, 16 U. S. C. §825c, which authorizes FERC to require “periodic or special reports,” and §14, 15 U. S. C. § 79n, which similarly empowers the SEC; and the fourth, “the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or any other subject matter” refers to §203, 16 U. S. C. § 824b, which requires all purchases of securities of other public utilities, and all sales of facilities worth more than $50,000, to be approved by FERC order, and to § 9, 15 U. S. C. § 79i, which requires SEC approval of acquisitions of “securities and utility assets and other interests.” The language of § 318 does not track precisely the language of any of these other sections, but the PUHCA and FPA sections making up each of the four sets are not themselves precisely parallel, so that some alternative formulation to bridge the gap would be expected.
Our reading is confirmed by longtime understanding and practice. An expert commentary upon the specific topic of overlapping SEC and FPC jurisdiction, written about 10 years after passage of the Public Utility Act, assumed as we have that § 318 implicated only the four FPC sections that we have identified. See Welch, Functions of the Federal Power Commission in Relation to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 14 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 81, 88 (1945). And as far as we have been able to determine, in 50 years of administering the FPA, FERC and its predecessor, the FPC, have never decided an issue under § 318 except in connection with orders promulgated under those four sections. Never before this case has §318 been used as a general conflicts provision, policing the entire regulatory border between the two agencies.
It is not necessarily true that § 318 gives the SEC precedence only when the specific sections that we have referred to are the jurisdictional basis for both the FEEC and the SEC action — as they are not, of course, here. But the text of the section, as we have explicated it above, does require that the “same subject matter” as to which the duplicative requirements exist be one of those specifically enumerated, and not some different, more general “other subject matter”— such as what the Court of Appeals relied upon, “[t]he price term of sales contracts between associated companies,” 279 U. S. App. D. C., at 333, 880 F. 2d, at 1406. In the context of the present case, the only enumerated subject matter conceivably pertinent is contained within what we have referred to as the fourth category. To prevail under §318, Ohio Power would have to establish that it has been subjected both to an SEC requirement under PUHCA and to a FERC requirement under the FPA, “with respect to . . . the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or any other subject matter.” The acquisition of SOCCO by Ohio Power might fit the quoted description, so that requirements in the SEC orders might qualify; but it is impossible to identify any FERC requirement that is imposed (as §318 demands) “with respect to the same subject matter.” One might say, we suppose, that a FERC rate requirement is imposed “with respect to the disposition” of electric power— though it does some violence to the interpretive rule of ejusdem generis to say that electric power qualifies as an “other subject matter” at the end of a list that includes securities, capital assets, and facilities, see, e. g., Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 588 (1980); id., at 601 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Third National Bank in Nash ville v. Impac Limited, Inc., 432 U. S. 312, 322 (1977). But even if one accepts that FERC’s rate order is a requirement qualifying under § 318, it is still a requirement with respect to a different subject matter from (and not, as §318 requires, “with respect to the same subject matter” as) the acquisition of SOCCO. The combination of SEC requirements with respect to the acquisition of SOCCO and FERC requirements with respect to the disposition of electric power would not bring §318 into play.
Ill
Our conclusion that §318 has no application to this case does not end review of the FERC order. Remaining to be resolved is the alternative ground relied upon by Judge Mik-va’s concurrence in the Court of Appeals, Ohio Power Co. v. FERC, 279 U. S. App. D. C., at 337, 880 F. 2d, at 1410-namely, the argument that FERC’s decision violates its own regulation, which provides that where the price of fuel purchased from an affiliate “is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory body, such cost shall be deemed to be reasonable and includable” in wholesale rates. 18 CFR § 35.14(a)(7) (1990). Also available, and unresolved by the Court of Appeals, is the argument that the FERC-prescribed rate is not “just and reasonable” because it “traps” costs which the Government itself has approved — disregarding a governmental assurance, possibly implicit in the SEC approvals, that Ohio Power will be permitted to recoup the cost of acquiring and operating SOCCO. Cf. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U. S. 953 (1986). We express no view on these questions, and leave them to be resolved by the Court of Appeals.
The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The vast majority of these were orders under § 203, in connection with utilities’ requests for approval of merger or of disposition of assets. See Florida Power Corp., 2 FERC ¶61,038, p. 61,092 (1978); Potomac Edison Co., 54 F. P. C. 1465, 1466 (1975); Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 39 F. P. C. 277, 279 (1968); Buckeye Power, Inc., 38 F. P. C. 519, 520 (1967); Buckeye Power, Inc., 38 F. P. C. 253, 259 (1967); Minnesota Power & Light Co., 37 F. P. C. 1059, 1060-1061 (1967); Arkansas Power & Light Co., 35 F. P. C. 341 (1966); Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 34 F. P. C. 107, 108 (1965); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 34 F. P. C. 17, 20 (1965); Arkansas Power & Light Co., 32 F. P. C. 1537, 1539 (1964); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 32 F. P. C. 1263, 1265 (1964); Kentucky Utilities Co., 32 F. P. C. 622, 623 (1964); South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 29 F. P. C. 1045, 1048 (1963); Philadelphia Electric Co., 28 F. P. C. 1025, 1027 (1962); Arkansas Power & Light Co., 28 F. P. C. 844, 846 (1962); Pennsylvania Electric Co., 27 F. P. C. 81, 84 (1962); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 25 F. P. C. 1195, 1196 (1961); Arkansas Power & Light Co., 25 F. P. C. 1151, 1152 (1961); Alabama Power Co., 25 F. P. C. 1018, 1020 (1961); Northern States Power Co., 25 F. P. C. 974, 977 (1961); Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 25 F. P. C. 146, 149 (1961); Northern States Power Co., 24 F. P. C. 457, 460 (1960); Commonwealth Edison Co., 24 F. P. C. 94, 96 (1960); Minnesota Power & Light Co., 23 F. P. C. 868, 869 (1960); Mississippi Valley Public Service Co., 23 F. P. C. 104, 108 (1960); Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 22 F. P. C. 737, 739 (1959); Arkansas Power & Light Co., 22 F. P. C. 457, 458 (1959); Northern States Power Co., 21 F. P. C. 780, 782 (1959); Conowingo Power Co., 21 F. P. C. 511, 513-514 (1959); Philadelphia Electric Power Co., 21 F. P. C. 157, 160 (1959); Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 20 F. P. C. 358, 360 (1958); Northern States Power Co., 20 F. P. C. 355, 357 (1958); Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 20 F. P. C. 205, 206-207 (1958); Orange & Rockland Electric Co., 19 F. P. C. 269, 276 (1958); Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 18 F. P. C. 827, 829 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 18 F. P. C. 532, 536-537 (1957); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 18 F. P. C. 525, 528 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 18 F. P. C. 395, 397 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 18 F. P. C. 135, 137 (1957); Kentucky Utilities Co., 18 F. P. C. 44, 46 (1957); Amesbury Electric Light Co., 18 F. P. C. 1 (1957); Nantahala Power & Light Co., 17 F. P. C. 899, 901 (1957); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 17 F. P. C. 669, 670 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 17 F. P. C. 639, 641 (1957); Georgia Power & Light Co., 17 F. P. C. 324, 327 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 16 F. P. C. 876, 880 (1956); Scranton Electric Co., 15 F. P. C. 1078, 1081 (1956); St. Joseph Light & Poiver Co., 14 F. P. C. 985 (1955); Frontier Poiver Co., 14 F. P. C. 941, 944 (1955); Carolina Aluminum Co., 14 F. P. C. 829, 830 (1955); Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 14 F. P. C. 821, 822 (1955); Pennsylvania Water & Power Co., 14 F. P. C. 706, 711 (1955); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 14 F. P. C. 639, 641 (1955); Connecticut River Power Co., 14 F. P. C. 501, 503 (1955); Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 13 F. P. C. 1563, 1564 (1954); Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 13 F. P. C. 1334, 1335 (1954); Rockland Light & Power Co., 13 F. P. C. 1300, 1302 (1954); Kentucky Utilities Co., 13 F. P. C. 907, 908 (1954); West Penn Power Co., 13 F. P. C. 866, 868 (1954); Ohio Edison Co., 12 F. P. C. 1437, 1438 (1953); Lake Superior District Power Co., 12 F. P. C. 1434, 1435 (1953); Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 12 F. P. C. 1394, 1395-1396 (1953); Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 12 F. P. C. 1318, 1319 (1953); Louisiana Power & Light Co., 12 F. P. C. 1168, 1169 (1953); Kansas City Power & Light Co., 11 F. P. C. 1112, 1113 (1952); Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 11 F. P. C. 1114, 1115-1116 (1952); Potomac Light & Power Co., 11 F. P. C. 1069, 1070 (1952); South Penn Power Co., 11 F. P. C. 1070, 1071 (1952); Missouri Public Service Co., 10 F. P. C. 1120, 1122 (1951); Athol Gas & Electric Co., 10 F. P. C. 729, 731 (1951); Pennsylvania Electric Co., 9 F. P. C. 1304, 1306 (1950); Rhode Island Power Transmission Co., 9 F. P. C. 942, 944 (1950); Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 9 F. P. C. 859, 861 (1950); Northwestern Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 9 F. P. C. 862, 863-864 (1950); Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 9 F. P. C. 617, 619 (1950); Potomac Electric Power Co., 8 F. P. C. 997 (1949); Bellows Falls Hydro-Electric Corp., 7 F. P. C. 777, 780 (1948); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 6 F. P. C. 428, 429 (1947); Northern Virginia Power Co., 5 F. P. C. 458, 459 (1946); Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 4 F. P. C. 1001, 1002 (1945); Worcester Suburban Electric Co., 4 F. P. C. 929, 930-931 (1945); Wachusett Electric Co., 4 F. P. C. 920, 921 (1945); California Public Service Co., 4 F. P. C. 812, 814 (1944); Utah Power & Light Co., 4 F. P. C. 791, 792 (1944); Indiana General Service Co., 4 F. P. C. 783, 785 (1944); Empire District Electric Co., 4 F. P. C. 665, 669 (1944); Virginia Electric & Power Co., 4 F. P. C. 51, 53-54 (1944); Eastern Shore Public Service Co., 4 F. P. C. 382, 384 (1943); Otter Tail Power Co., 3 F. P. C. 1054, 1056 (1943); Superior Water, Light & Power Co., 3 F. P. C. 960, 962 (1943); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 3 F. P. C. 883, 885 (1942); Point Pleasant Water & Light Co., 3 F. P. C. 755, 757 (1942); Eastern Shore Public Service Co., 3 F. P. C. 723, 724 (1942); Florida Power Co., 3 F. P. C. 719 (1942); Virginia Public Service Co., 3 F. P. C. 704, 706 (1942); Associated Maryland Electric Power Corp., 3 F. P. C. 646, 652 (1942); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 3 F. P. C. 629, 631 (1942); In re Pennsylvania Electric Co., 3 F. P. C. 544, 546 (1943); In re Pennsylvania Electric Co., 3 F. P. C. 557, 558 (1943); In re Olcott Falls Co., 3 F. P. C. 310, 312 (1942); South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 3 F. P. C. 1007, 1011 (1943); Otter Tail Power Co., 2 F. P. C. 935, 936 (1941); In re Twin State Gas & Electric Co., 2 F. P. C. 122, 123 (1940); Lexington Utilities Co., 1 F. P. C. 787 (1939); In re Evans, 1 F. P. C. 511, 515-518 (1937).
A large number of orders discussing § 318 arose under § 204, in connection with requests for approval of securities sales or issuance. See Buckeye Power, Inc., 38 F. P. C., at 259; Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 34 F. P. C., at 108; Philadelphia Electric Co., 28 F. P. C., at 1027; Utah Power & Light Co., 28 F. P. C. 97, 98-99 (1962); Pacific Power & Light Co., 27 F. P. C. 623, 626 (1962); Northern States Power Co., 25 F. P. C. 974, 977 (1961); Northern States Power Co., 24 F. P. C. 457, 460 (1960); Mississippi Valley Public Service Co., 23 F. P. C., at 108; Holyoke Water Power Co., 21 F. P. C. 676, 678 (1959); Conowingo Power Co., 21 F. P. C., at 513-514; Minnesota Power & Light Co., 21 F. P. C. 214, 215 (1959); Northern States Power Co., 20 F. P. C. 355, 357 (1958); Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 20 F. P. C., at 207; Orange & Rockland Electric Co., 19 F. P. C., at 275-276; Holyoke Water Power Co., 18 F. P. C. 821, 826 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 18 F. P. C., at 536-537; Kentucky Utilities Co., 18 F. P. C. 44, 46 (1957); Northern States Power Co., 16 F. P. C., at 880; Interstate Power Co., 15 F. P. C. 1355, 1356-1357 (1956); Rockland Light & Power Co., 13 F. P. C., at 1302; Wisconsin River Power Co., 8 F. P. C. 1111, 1112 (1949); In re Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 5 F. P. C. 52, 54 (1946); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 3 F. P. C., at 631; California Electric Power Co., 2 F. P. C. 1099, 1100 (1941); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 2 F. P. C. 1027, 1028 (1941); Otter Tail Power Co., 2 F. P. C. 1022, 1024-1025 (1941); Nevada-California Electric Co., 2 F. P. C. 956, 957 (1941); Otter Tail Power Co., 2 F. P. C., at 937; In re Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 2 F. P. C. 350, 356 (1941); Sierra Pacific Power Co., 2 F. P. C. 839, 841 (1940); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 2 F. P. C. 831, 833 (1940).
Only a few orders involved § 301 (accounting requirements) and § 304 (reporting requirements). See Appalachian Power Co., 28 F. P. C. 1199, 1223-1237 (1962); Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 14 F. P. C. 858, 859 (1955); Metropolitan Edison Co., 14 F. P. C. 736, 737 (1955); In re Arkan sas Power & Light Co., 8 F. P. C. 106, 127-128 (1949); Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 4 F. P. C. 1070, 1071 (1946); In re Superior Water, Light & Power Co., 3 F. P. C. 254, 257 (1942).
The slight indication in the legislative history that conferees who added the phrase “or any other subject matter” might have intended such a general conflicts provision, cf. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1903, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 75 (1935), is contradicted by the fact that their revision eliminated the word “or” that had previously appeared before “facilities,” rather than the “or” that introduced the fourth category. Compare id., at 63 with S. 2796, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 292 (in House, June 13, 1935), and S. 2796, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 295 (in Senate, May 13,1935). In any case, the legislative history is overborne by the text.
The same conclusion would follow if we regarded the action qualifying for § 318 treatment to be, not Ohio Power’s acquisition of SOCCO, but Ohio Power’s acquisition of coal (implicit in its acquisition of SOCCO). It remains impossible to find any FERC requirement imposed “with respect to the same” acquisition. The FERC pricing requirement imposed with respect to the disposition of electric power is still not pre-empted by § 318.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether appellate courts in the federal system should vacate civil judgments of subordinate courts in cases that are settled after appeal is filed or certio-rari sought.
I
In 1984 and 1985, Northtown Investments built the Bonner Mall in Bonner County, Idaho, with financing from a bank in that State. In 1986, respondent Bonner Mall Partnership (Bonner) acquired the mall, while petitioner U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (Bancorp) acquired the loan and mortgage from the Idaho bank. In 1990, Bonner defaulted on its real estate taxes and Bancorp scheduled a foreclosure sale.
The day before the sale, Bonner filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho. It filed a reorganization plan that depended on the “new value exception” to the absolute priority rule. Ban-corp moved to suspend the automatic stay of its foreclosure imposed by 11 U. S. C. § 362(a), arguing that Bonner’s plan was unconfirmable as a matter of law for a number of reasons, including unavailability of the new value exception. The Bankruptcy Court eventually granted the motion, concluding that the new value exception had not survived enactment of the Bankruptcy Code. The court stayed its order pending an appeal by Bonner. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho reversed, In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 142 B. R. 911 (1992); Bancorp took an appeal in turn, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F. 3d 899 (1993).
Bancorp then petitioned for a writ of certiorari. After we granted the petition, 510 U. S. 1039 (1994), and received briefing on the merits, Bancorp and Bonner stipulated to a consensual plan of reorganization, which received the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The parties agreed that confirmation of the plan constituted a settlement that mooted the case. Bancorp, however, also requested that we exercise our power under 28 U. S. C. § 2106 to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Bonner opposed the motion. We set the vacatur question for briefing and argument. 511 U. S. 1002-1003 (1994).
II
Respondent questions our power to entertain petitioner’s motion to vacate, suggesting that the limitations on the judicial power conferred by Article III, see U. S. Const., Art. Ill, § 1, “may, at least in some cases, prohibit an act of vacatur when no live dispute exists due to a settlement that has rendered a case moot.” Brief for Respondent 21 (emphasis in original).
The statute that supplies the power of vacatur provides:
“The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. §2106.
Of course, no statute could authorize a federal court to decide the merits of a legal question not posed in an Article III case or controversy. For that purpose, a case must exist at all the stages of appellate review. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975); Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895). But reason and authority refute the quite different notion that a federal appellate court may not take any action with regard to a piece of litigation once it has been determined that the requirements of Article III no longer are (or indeed never were) met. That proposition is contradicted whenever an appellate court holds that a district court lacked Article III jurisdiction in the first instance, vacates the decision, and remands with directions to dismiss. In cases that become moot while awaiting review, respondent’s logic would hold the Court powerless to award costs, e.g., Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359, 362-363 (1921), or even to enter an order of dismissal.
Article III does not prescribe such paralysis. “If a judgment has become moot [while awaiting review], this Court may not consider its merits, but may make such disposition of the whole case as justice may require.” Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U. S. 671, 677 (1944). As with other matters of judicial administration and practice “reasonably ancillary to the primary, dispute-deciding function” of the federal courts, Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398 U. S. 74, 111 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in denial of writ), Congress may authorize us to enter orders necessary and appropriate to the final disposition of a suit that is before us for review. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 389-390 (1989); see also id., at 417 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Ill
The leading case on vacatur is United States v. Munsing-wear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950), in which the United States sought injunctive and monetary relief for violation of a price control regulation. The damages claim was held in abeyance pending a decision on the injunction. The District Court held that the respondent’s prices complied with the regulations and dismissed the complaint. While the United States’ appeal was pending, the commodity at issue was decontrolled; at the respondent’s request, the case was dismissed as moot, a disposition in which the United States acquiesced. The respondent then obtained dismissal of the damages action on the ground of res judicata, and we took the case to review that ruling. The United States protested the unfairness of according preclusive effect to a decision that it had tried to appeal but could not. We saw no such unfairness, reasoning that the United States should have asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s decision before the appeal was dismissed. We stated that “[t]he established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.” Id., at 39. We explained that vacatur “clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance.” Id., at 40. Finding that the United States had “slept on its rights,” id., at 41, we affirmed.
The parties in the present case agree that vacatur must be decreed for those judgments whose review is, in the words of Munsingwear, “ ‘prevented through happenstance’ ” — that is to say, where a controversy presented for review has “become moot due to circumstances unattributable to any of the parties.” Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 82, 83 (1987). They also agree that vacatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court. The contested question is whether courts should vacate where mootness results from a settlement. The centerpiece of petitioner’s argument is that the Mun-singwear procedure has already been held to apply in such cases. Munsingwear’s description of the “established practice” (the argument runs) drew no distinctions between categories of moot cases; opinions in later cases granting vacatur have reiterated the breadth of the rule, see, e. g., Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U. S. 92, 93 (1979) (per curiam); and at least some of those cases specifically involved mootness by reason of settlement, see, e. g., Lake Coal Co. v. Roberts & Schaeffer Co., 474 U. S. 120 (1985) (per curiam).
But Munsingwear, and the post -Munsingwear practice, cannot bear the weight of the present case. To begin with, the portion of Justice Douglas’ opinion in Munsingwear describing the “established practice” for vacatur was dictum; all that was needful for the decision was (at most) the proposition that vacatur should have been sought, not that it necessarily would have been granted. Moreover, as Munsing-wear itself acknowledged, see 340 U. S., at 40, n. 2, the “established practice” (in addition to being unconsidered) was not entirely uniform, at least three cases having been dismissed for mootness without vacatur within the four Terms preceding Munsingwear. See, e. g., Schenley Distilling Corp. v. Anderson, 333 U. S. 878 (1948) (per curiam). Nor has the post-Munsingwear practice been as uniform as petitioner claims. See, e. g., Allen & Co. v. Pacific Dunlop Holdings, Inc., 510 U. S. 1160 (1994); Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. v. Postmaster General, 488 U. S. 998 (1989); St. Luke's Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals v. Presbyterian/St. Lukes Medical Center, 459 U. S. 1025 (1982). Of course all of those decisions, both granting vacatur and denying it, were per curiam, with the single exception of Karcher v. May, supra, in which we declined to vacate. This seems to us a prime occasion for invoking our customary refusal to be bound by dicta, e. g., McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 312, n. 11 (1967), and our customary skepticism toward per curiam dispositions that lack the reasoned consideration of a full opinion, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 670-671 (1974). Today we examine vacatur once more in the light shed by adversary presentation.
The principles that have always been implicit in our treatment of moot cases counsel against extending Munsingwear to settlement. From the beginning we have disposed of moot cases in the manner “ ‘most consonant to justice’... in view of the nature and character of the conditions which have caused the case to become moot.” United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 477-478 (1916) (quoting South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 145 U. S. 300, 302 (1892)). The principal condition to which we have looked is whether the party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action. See Hamburg-Amerikanische, supra, at 478 (remanding a moot case for dismissal because “the ends of justice exact that the judgment below should not be permitted to stand when without any fault of the [petitioner] there is no power to review it upon the merits”); Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S., at 362 (remanding for dismissal because “without fault of the plaintiff in error, the defendant in error, after the proceedings below,. . . causfed] the case to become moot”).
The reference to “happenstance” in Munsingwear must be understood as an allusion to this equitable tradition of vacatur. A party who seeks review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment. See Hamburg-Amerikanische, supra, at 477-478. The same is true when mootness results from unilateral action of the party who prevailed below. See Walling, 321 U. S., at 675; Heitmuller, supra, at 362. Where mootness results from settlement, however, the losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim to the equitable remedy of vacatur. The judgment is not unreviewable, but simply unreviewed by his own choice. The denial of vacatur is merely one application of the principle that “[a] suitor’s conduct in relation to the matter at hand may disentitle him to the relief he seeks.” Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 17 (1963) (citing Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 438 (1963)).
In these respects the case stands no differently than it would if jurisdiction were lacking because the losing party failed to appeal at all. In Karcher v. May, supra, two state legislators, acting in their capacities as presiding officers of the legislature, appealed from a federal judgment that invalidated a state statute on constitutional grounds. After the jurisdictional statement was filed the legislators lost their posts, and their successors in office withdrew the appeal. Holding that we lacked jurisdiction for want of a proper appellant, we dismissed. The legislators then argued that the judgments should be vacated under Munsingwear. But we denied the request, noting that “[t]his controversy did not become moot due to circumstances unattributable to any of the parties. The controversy ended when the losing party— the [State] Legislature — declined to pursue its appeal. Accordingly, the Munsingwear procedure is inapplicable to this case.” Karcher, 484 U. S., at 83. So, too, here.
It is true, of course, that respondent agreed to the settlement that caused the mootness. Petitioner argues that va-catur is therefore fair to respondent, and seeks to distinguish our prior cases on that ground. But that misconceives the emphasis on fault in our decisions. That the parties are jointly responsible for settling may in some sense put them on even footing, but petitioner’s case needs more than that. Respondent won below. It is petitioner’s burden, as the party seeking relief from the status quo of the appellate judgment, to demonstrate not merely equivalent responsibility for the mootness, but equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur. Petitioner’s voluntary forfeiture of review constitutes a failure of equity that makes the burden decisive, whatever respondent’s share in the mooting of the case might have been.
As always when federal courts contemplate equitable relief, our holding must also take account of the public interest. “Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. They are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by a va-catur.” Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp., 510 U. S. 27, 40 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Congress has prescribed a primary route, by appeal as of right and certiorari, through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial judgments. To allow a party who steps off the statutory path to employ the secondary remedy of vacatur as a refined form of collateral attack on the judgment would — quite apart from any considerations of fairness to the parties — disturb the orderly operation of the federal judicial system. Munsingwear establishes that the public interest is best served by granting relief when the demands of “orderly procedure,” 340 U. S., at 41, cannot be honored; we think conversely that the public interest requires those demands to be honored when they can.
Petitioner advances two arguments meant to justify vaca-tur on systemic grounds. The first is that appellate judgments in cases that we have consented to review by writ of certiorari are reversed more often than they are affirmed, are therefore suspect, and should be vacated as a sort of prophylactic against legal error. It seems to us inappropriate, however, to vacate mooted cases, in which we have no constitutional power to decide the merits, on the basis of assumptions about the merits. Second, petitioner suggests that “[vacating a moot decision, and thereby leaving an issue . . . temporarily unresolved in a Circuit, can facilitate the ultimate resolution of the issue by encouraging its continued examination and debate.” Brief for Petitioner 33. We have found, however, that debate among the courts of appeals sufficiently illuminates the questions that come before us for review. The value of additional intracircuit debate seems to us far outweighed by the benefits that flow to litigants and the public from the resolution of legal questions.
A final policy justification urged by petitioner is the facilitation of settlement, with the resulting economies for the federal courts. But while the availability of vacatur may facilitate settlement after the judgment under review has been rendered and certiorari granted (or appeal filed), it may deter settlement at an earlier stage. Some litigants, at least, may think it worthwhile to roll the dice rather than settle in the district court, or in the court of appeals, if, but only if, an unfavorable outcome can be washed away by a settlement-related vacatur. And the judicial economies achieved by settlement at the district-court level are ordinarily much more extensive than those achieved by settlement on appeal. We find it quite impossible to assess the effect of our holding, either way, upon the frequency or systemic value of settlement.
Although the case before us involves only a motion to vacate, by reason of settlement, the judgment of a court of appeals (with, of course, the consequential vacation of the underlying judgment of the district court), it is appropriate to discuss the relevance of our holding to motions at the court-of-appeals level for vacatur of district-court judgments. Some opinions have suggested that vacatur motions at that level should be more freely granted, since district-court judgments are subject to review as of right. See, e. g., Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Yanakas, 11 F. 3d 381, 384 (CA2 1993). Obviously, this factor does not affect the primary basis for our denying vacatur. Whether the appellate court’s seizure of the case is the consequence of an appellant’s right or of a petitioner’s good luck has no bearing upon the lack of equity of a litigant who has voluntarily abandoned review. If the point of the proposed distinction is that district-court judgments, being subject to review as of right, are more likely to be overturned and hence presumptively less valid: We again assert the inappropriateness of disposing of cases, whose merits are beyond judicial power to consider, on the basis of judicial estimates regarding their merits. Moreover, as petitioner’s own argument described two paragraphs above points out, the reversal rate for cases in which this Court grants certiorari (a precondition for our vacatur) is over 50% — more than double the reversal rate for appeals to the courts of appeals. See Fisch, Rewriting History: The Propriety of Eradicating Prior Decisional Law Through Settlement and Vacatur, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 589, 595, n. 25 (1991) (citing studies).
We hold that mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review. This is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced in that fashion. As we have described, the determination is an equitable one, and exceptional circumstances may conceivably counsel in favor of such a course. It should be clear from our discussion, however, that those exceptional circumstances do not include the mere fact that the settlement agreement provides for vacatur — which neither diminishes the voluntariness of the abandonment of review nor alters any of the policy considerations we have discussed. Of course even in the absence of, or before considering the existence of, extraordinary circumstances, a court of appeals presented with a request for vacatur of a district-court judgment may remand the case with instructions that the district court consider the request, which it may do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
* * *
Petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is denied. The case is dismissed as moot. See this Court’s Rule 46.
It is so ordered.
As described by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the new value exception “allows the shareholders of a corporation in bankruptcy to obtain an interest in the reorganized debtor in exchange for new capital contributions over the objections of a class of creditors that has not received full payment on its claims.” In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F. 3d 899, 901 (1993). We express no view on the existence of such an exception under the Bankruptcy Code.
The Solicitor General, who has filed an amicus brief in support of petitioner, would apparently distinguish these unvacated cases on the ground that the dismissal was pursuant to this Court’s Rule 46.1 (or its predecessor), which provides for dismissal when “all parties... agrefe],” But such an exception to vacatur for mootness is not mentioned in Munsingwear; nor, we may add, do we see any reason of policy to commend it.
We thus stand by Munsingwear’s dictum that mootness by happenstance provides sufficient reason to vacate. Whether that principle was correctly applied to the circumstances of that case is another matter. The suit for injunctive relief in Munsingwear became moot on appeal because the regulations sought to be enforced by the United States were annulled by Executive Order. See Fleming v. Munsingwear, Inc., 162 F. 2d 125, 127 (CA8 1947). We express no view on Munsingwear’s implicit conclusion that repeal of administrative regulations cannot fairly be attributed to the Executive Branch when it litigates in the name of the United States.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-B, and III-C, and an opinion with respect to Part III-A, in which Justice Marshall, Justice Powell, and Justice Scalia join.
The questions for decision here arise under §316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA or Act), 90 Stat. 490, as renumbered and amended, 2 U. S. C. §441b. The first question is whether appellee Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL), a nonprofit, nonstock corporation, by financing certain activity with its treasury funds, has violated the restriction on independent spending contained in § 441b. That section prohibits corporations from using treasury funds to make an expenditure “in connection with” any federal election, and requires that any expenditure for such purpose be financed by voluntary contributions to a separate segregated fund. If appellee has violated § 441b, the next question is whether application of that section to MCFL’s conduct is constitutional. We hold that the appellee’s use of its treasury funds is prohibited by §441b, but that §441b is unconstitutional as applied to the activity of which the Federal Election Commission (FEC or Commission) complains.
J — <
□>
MCFL was incorporated m January 1973 as a nonprofit, nonstock corporation under Massachusetts law. Its corporate purpose as stated in its articles of incorporation is:
“To foster respect for human life and to defend the right to life of all human beings, born and unborn, through educational, political and other forms of activities and in addition to engage in any other lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized... App. 84.
MCFL does not accept contributions from business corporations or unions. Its resources come from voluntary donations from “members,” and from various fundraising activities such as garage sales, bake sales, dances, raffles, and picnics. The corporation considers its “members” those persons who have either contributed to the organization in the past or indicated support for its activities.
Appellee has engaged in diverse educational and legislative activities designed to further its agenda. It has organized an ecumenical prayer service for the unborn in front of the Massachusetts Statehouse; sponsored a regional conference to discuss the issues of abortion and euthanasia; provided speakers for discussion groups, debates, lectures, and media programs; and sponsored an annual March for Life. In addition, it has drafted and submitted legislation, some of which has become law in Massachusetts; sponsored testimony on proposed legislation; and has urged its members to contact their elected representatives to express their opinion on legislative proposals.
MCFL began publishing a newsletter in January 1973. It was distributed as a matter of course to contributors, and, when funds permitted, to noncontributors who had expressed support for the organization. The total distribution of any one issue has never exceeded 6,000. The newsletter was published irregularly from 1973 through 1978: three times in 1973, five times in 1974, eight times in 1975, eight times in 1976, five times in 1977, and four times in 1978. Id., at 88. Each of the newsletters bore a masthead identifying it as the “Massachusetts Citizens for Life Newsletter,” as well as a volume and issue number. The publication typically contained appeals for volunteers and contributions and information on MCFL activities, as well as on matters such as the results of hearings on bills and constitutional amendments, the status of particular legislation, and the outcome of refer-enda, court decisions, and administrative hearings. Newsletter recipients were usually urged to contact the relevant decisionmakers and express their opinion.
B
In September 1978, MCFL prepared and distributed a “Special Edition” prior to the September 1978 primary elections. While the May 1978 newsletter had been mailed to 2,109 people and the October 1978 newsletter to 3,119 people, more than 100,000 copies of the “Special Edition” were printed for distribution. The front page of the publication was headlined “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO VOTE PRO-LIFE,” and readers were admonished that “[n]o pro-life candidate can win in November without your vote in September.” “VOTE PRO-LIFE” was printed in large bold-faced letters on the back page, and a coupon was provided to be clipped and taken to the polls to remind voters of the name of the “pro-life” candidates. Next to the exhortation to vote “pro-life” was a disclaimer: “This special election edition does not represent an endorsement of any particular candidate.” Id., at 101.
To aid the reader in selecting candidates, the flyer listed the candidates for each state and federal office in every voting district in Massachusetts, and identified each one as either supporting or opposing what MCFL regarded as the correct position on three issues. A “y” indicated that a candidate supported the MCFL view on a particular issue and an “n” indicated that the candidate opposed it. An asterisk was placed next to the names of those incumbents who had made a “special contribution to the unborn in maintaining a 100% pro-life voting record in the state house by actively supporting MCFL legislation.” While some 400 candidates were running for office in the primary, the “Special Edition” featured the photographs of only 13. These 13 had received a triple “y” rating, or were identified either as having a 100% favorable voting record or as having stated a position consistent with that of MCFL. No candidate whose photograph was featured had received even one “n” rating.
The “Special Edition” was edited by an officer of MCFL who was not part of the staff that prepared the MCFL newsletters. The “Special Edition” was mailed free of charge and without request to 5,986 contributors, and to 50,674 others whom MCFL regarded as sympathetic to the organization’s purposes. The Commission asserts that the remainder of the 100,000 issues were placed in public areas for general distribution, but MCFL insists that no copies were made available to the general public. The “Special Edition” was not identified on its masthead as a special edition of the regular newsletter, although the MCFL logotype did appear at its top. The words “Volume 5, No. 3, 1978” were apparently handwritten on the Edition submitted to the FEC, but the record indicates that the actual Volume 5, No. 3, was distributed in May and June 1977. The corporation spent $9,812.76 to publish and circulate the “Special Edition,” all of which was taken from its general treasury funds.
A complaint was filed with the Commission alleging that the “Special Edition” was a violation of §441b. The complaint maintained that the Edition represented an expenditure of funds from a corporate treasury to distribute to the general public a campaign flyer on behalf of certain political candidates. The FEC found reason to believe that such a violation had occurred, initiated an investigation, and determined that probable cause existed to believe that MCFL had violated the Act. After conciliation efforts failed, the Commission filed a complaint in the District Court under § 437g(a)(6)(A), seeking a civil penalty and other appropriate relief.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted MCFL’s motion, holding that: (1) the election publications could not be regarded as “expenditures” under §441b(b)(2); (2) the “Special Edition” was exempt from the statutory prohibition by virtue of § 431(9)(B)(i), which in general exempts news commentary distributed by a periodical publication unaffiliated with any candidate or political party; and (3) if the statute applied to MCFL, it was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. 589 F. Supp. 646, 649 (Mass. 1984).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the statute was applicable to MCFL, but affirmed the District Court’s holding that the statute as so applied was unconstitutional. 769 F. 2d 13 (1985). We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 1049 (1986), and now affirm.
r-H hH
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the “Special Edition” is not outside the reach of §441b. First, we find no merit in appellee’s contention that preparation and distribution of the “Special Edition” does not fall within that section’s definition of “expenditure.” Section 441b(b)(2) defines “contribution or expenditure” as the provision of various things of value “to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election...” (emphasis added). MCFL contends that, since it supplied nothing to any candidate or organization, the publication is not within § 441b. However, the general definitions section of the Act contains a broader definition of “expenditure,” including within that term the provision of anything of value made “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office... 2 U. S. C. § 431(9)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Since the language of the statute does not alone resolve the issue, we must look to the legislative history of §441b to determine the scope of the term “expenditure.”
That history clearly confirms that § 441b was meant to proscribe expenditures in connection with an election. We have exhaustively recounted the legislative history of the predecessors of this section in prior decisions. See Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 402-409 (1972); United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 570-587 (1957). This history makes clear that Congress has long regarded it as insufficient merely to restrict payments madadirectly to candidates or campaign organizations. The first explicit expression of this came in 1947, when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, ch. 120, §304, 61 Stat. 136, 159, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §610 (1970 ed.), the criminal statute prohibiting corporate contributions and expenditures to candidates. The statute as amended forbade any corporation or labor organization to make a “contribution or expenditure in connection with any election...” for federal office. The 1946 Report of the House Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures explained the rationale for the amendment, noting that it would undermine the basic objective of § 610
“if it were assumed that the term ‘making any contribution' related only to the donating of money directly to a candidate, and excluded the vast expenditures of money in the activities herein shown to be engaged in extensively. Of what avail would a law be to prohibit the contributing direct to a candidate and yet permit the expenditure of large sums in his behalf?” H. R. Rep. No. 2739, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 40, quoted in Automobile Workers, supra, at 581.
During the legislative debate on the bill, Senator Taft was asked whether § 610 permitted a newspaper published by a railway union to put out a special edition in support of a political candidate, or whether such activity would be considered a political expenditure. The Senator replied: “If it were supported by union funds contributed by union members as union dues it would be a violation of the law, yes. It is exactly as if a railroad itself, using its stockholders’ funds, published such an advertisement in the newspaper supporting one candidate as against another....” 93 Cong. Rec. 6436-6437 (1947).
United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106 (1948), narrowed the scope of this prohibition, by permitting the use of union funds to publish a special edition of the weekly CIO News distributed to union members and purchasers of the issue. In Automobile Workers, supra, however, we held that a union was subject to indictment for using union dues to sponsor political advertisements on commercial television. Distinguishing CIO, we stated that the concern of the statute “is the use of corporation or union funds to influence the public at large to vote for a particular candidate or a particular party.” 352 U. S., at 589.
The Federal Election Campaign Act enacted the prohibition now found in § 441b. This portion of the Act simply ratified the existing understanding of the scope of § 610. See Pipefitters, supra, at 410-411. Representative Hansen, the sponsor of the provision, declared:
“The effect of this language is to carry out the basic intent of section 610, which is to prohibit the use of union or corporate funds for active electioneering directed at the general public on behalf of a candidate in a Federal election.” 117 Cong. Rec. 43379 (1971).
The Representative concluded:
“The net effect of the amendment, therefore, is to tighten and clarify the provisions of section 610 of title 18, United States Code, and to codify the case law.” Ibid.
Thus, the fact that § 441b uses the phrase “to any candidate... in connection with any election,” while § 610 provided “in connection with any primary election,” is not evidence that Congress abandoned its restriction, in force since 1947, on expenditures on behalf of candidates. We therefore find no merit in MCFL’s argument that only payments to a candidate or organization fall within the scope of § 441b.
Appellee next argues that the definition of an expenditure under § 441b necessarily incorporates the requirement that a communication “expressly advocate” the election of candidates, and that its “Special Edition” does not constitute express advocacy. The argument relies on the portion of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), that upheld the disclosure requirement for expenditures by individuals other than candidates and by groups other than political committees. See 2 U. S. C. § 434(c). There, in order to avoid problems of overbreadth, the Court held that the term “expenditure” encompassed “only funds used for communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” 424 U. S., at 80 (footnote omitted). The rationale for this holding was:
“[T]he distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not only do candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on various issues, but campaigns themselves generate issues of public interest.” Id., at 42 (footnote omitted).
We agree with appellee that this rationale requires a similar construction of the more intrusive provision that directly regulates independent spending. We therefore hold that an expenditure must constitute “express advocacy” in order to be subject to the prohibition of § 441b. We also hold, however, that the publication of the “Special Edition” constitutes “express advocacy.”
Buckley adopted the “express advocacy” requirement to distinguish discussion of issues and candidates from more pointed exhortations to vote for particular persons. We therefore concluded in that case that a finding of “express advocacy” depended upon the use of language such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” etc., Buckley, supra, at 44, n. 52. Just such an exhortation appears in the “Special Edition.” The publication not only urges voters to vote for “pro-life” candidates, but also identifies and provides photographs of specific candidates fitting that description. The Edition cannot be regarded as a mere discussion of public issues that by their nature raise the names of certain politicians. Rather, it provides in effect an explicit directive: vote for these (named) candidates. The fact that this message is marginally less direct than “Vote for Smith” does not change its essential nature. The Edition goes beyond issue discussion to express electoral advocacy. The disclaimer of endorsement cannot negate this fact. The “Special Edition” thus falls squarely within § 441b, for it represents express advocacy of the election of particular candidates distributed to members of the general public.
Finally, MCFL argues that it is entitled to the press exemption under 2 U. S. C. § 431(9)(B)(i) reserved for
“any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any... newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.”
MCFL maintains that its regular newsletter is a “periodical publication” within this definition, and that the “Special Edition” should be regarded as just another issue in the continuing newsletter series. The legislative history on the press exemption is sparse; the House of Representatives’ Report on this section states merely that the exemption was designed to
“make it plain that it is not the intent of Congress in the present legislation to limit or burden in any way the first amendment freedoms of the press or of association. [The exemption] assures the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-1239, p. 4 (1974).
We need not decide whether the regular MCFL newsletter is exempt under this provision, because, even assuming that it is, the “Special Edition” cannot be considered comparable to any single issue of the newsletter. It was not published through the facilities of the regular newsletter, but by a staff which prepared no previous or subsequent newsletters. It was not distributed to the newsletter’s regular audience, but to a group 20 times the size of that audience, most of whom were members of the public who had never received the newsletter. No characteristic of the Edition associated it in any way with the normal MCFL publication. The MCFL masthead did not appear on the flyer, and, despite an apparent belated attempt to make it appear otherwise, the Edition contained no volume and issue number identifying it as one in a continuing series of issues.
MCFL protests that determining the scope of the press exemption by reference to such factors inappropriately focuses on superficial considerations of form. However, it is precisely such factors that in combination permit the distinction of campaign flyers from regular publications. We regard such an inquiry as essential, since we cannot accept the notion that the distribution of such flyers by entities that happen to publish newsletters automatically entitles such organizations to the press exemption. A contrary position would open the door for those corporations and unions with in-house publications to engage in unlimited spending directly from their treasuries to distribute campaign material to the general public, thereby eviscerating § 441b’s prohibition.
In sum, we hold that MCFL’s publication and distribution of the “Special Edition” is in violation of § 441b. We therefore turn to the constitutionality of that provision as applied to appellee.
Ill
A
Independent expenditures constitute expression “‘at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.’” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 39 (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 32 (1968)). See also FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U. S. 480, 493 (1985) (NCPAC) (independent expenditures “produce speech at the core of the First Amendment”). We must therefore determine whether the prohibition of § 441b burdens political speech, and, if so, whether such a burden is justified by a compelling state interest. Buckley, supra, at 44-45.
The FEC minimizes the impact of the legislation upon MCFL’s First Amendment rights by emphasizing that the corporation remains free to establish a separate segregated fund, composed of contributions earmarked for that purpose by the donors, that may be used for unlimited campaign spending. However, the corporation is not free to use its general funds for. campaign advocacy purposes. While that is not an absolute restriction on speech, it is a substantial one. Moreover, even to speak through a segregated fund, MCFL must make very significant efforts.
If it were not incorporated, MCFL’s obligations under the Act would be those specified by § 434(c), the section that prescribes the duties of “[e]very person (other than a political committee).” Section 434(c) provides that any such person that during a year makes independent expenditures exceeding $250 must: (1) identify all contributors who contribute in a given year over $200 in the aggregate in funds to influence elections, § 434(c)(1); (2) disclose the name and address of recipients of independent expenditures exceeding $200 in the aggregate, along with an indication of whether the money was used to support or oppose a particular candidate, § 434(c)(2)(A); and (3) identify any persons who make contributions over $200 that are earmarked for the purpose of furthering independent expenditures, § 434(c)(2)(C). All unincorporated organizations whose major purpose is not campaign advocacy, but who occasionally make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, are subject only to these regulations.
Because it is incorporated, however, MCFL must establish a “separate segregated fund” if it wishes to engage in any independent spending whatsoever. § § 441b(a), (b)(2)(C). Since such a fund is considered a “political committee” under the Act, § 431(4)(B), all MCFL independent expenditure activity is, as a result, regulated as though the organization’s major purpose is to further the election of candidates. This means that MCFL must comply with several requirements in addition to those mentioned. Under § 432, it must appoint a treasurer, § 432(a); ensure that contributions are forwarded to the treasurer within 10 or 30 days of receipt, depending on the amount of contribution, § 432(b)(2); see that its treasurer keeps an account of every contribution regardless of amount, the name and address of any person who makes a contribution in excess of $50, all contributions received from political committees, and the name and address of any person to whom a disbursement is made regardless of amount, § 432(c); and preserve receipts for all disbursements over $200 and all records for three years, §§ 432(c),(d). Under §433, MCFL must file a statement of organization containing its name, address, the name of its custodian of records, and its banks, safety deposit boxes, or other depositories, §§ 433(a),(b); must report any change in the above information within 10 days, § 433(c); and may dissolve only upon filing a written statement that it will no longer receive any contributions nor make disbursements, and that it has no outstanding debts or obligations, § 433(d)(1).
Under § 434, MCFL must file either monthly reports with the FEC or reports on the following schedule: quarterly reports during election years, a pre-election report no later than the 12th day before an election, a postelection report within 30 days after an election, and reports every 6 months during nonelection years, §§ 434(a)(4)(A),(B). These reports must contain information regarding the amount of cash on hand; the total amount of receipts, detailed by 10 different categories; the identification of each political committee and candidate’s authorized or affiliated committee making contributions, and any persons making loans, providing rebates, refunds, dividends, or interest or any other offset to operating expenditures in an aggregate amount over $200; the total amount of all disbursements, detailed by 12 different categories; the names of all authorized or affiliated committees to whom expenditures aggregating over $200 have been made; persons to whom loan repayments or refunds have been made; the total sum of all contributions, operating expenses, outstanding debts and obligations, and the settlement terms of the retirement of any debt or obligation. § 434(b). In addition, MCFL may solicit contributions for its separate segregated fund only from its “members,” §§441b(b)(4)(A), (C), which does not include those persons who have merely contributed to or indicated support for the organization in the past. See FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S. 197, 204 (1982).
It is evident from this survey that MCFL is subject to more extensive requirements and more stringent restrictions than it would be if it were not incorporated. These additional regulations may create a disincentive for such organizations to engage in political speech. Detailed record-keeping and disclosure obligations, along with the duty to appoint a treasurer and custodian of the records, impose administrative costs that many small entities may be unable to bear. Furthermore, such duties require a far more complex and formalized organization than many small groups could manage. Restriction of solicitation of contributions to “members” vastly reduces the sources of funding for organizations with either few or no formal members, directly limiting the ability of such organizations to engage in core political speech. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, as in this case, an incorporated group of like-minded persons might seek donations to support the dissemination of their political ideas and their occasional endorsement of political candidates, by means of garage sales, bake sales, and raffles. Such persons might well be turned away by the prospect of complying with all the requirements imposed by the Act. Faced with the need to assume a more sophisticated organizational form, to adopt specific accounting procedures, to file periodic detailed reports, and to monitor garage sales lest nonmembers take a fancy to the merchandise on display, it would not be surprising if at least some groups decided that the contemplated political activity was simply not worth it.
Thus, while §441b does not remove all opportunities for independent spending by organizations such as MCFL, the avenue it leaves open is more burdensome than the one it forecloses. The fact that the statute’s practical effect may be to discourage protected speech is sufficient to characterize §441b as an infringement on First Amendment activities. In Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965), for instance, we held that the absence of certain procedural safeguards rendered unconstitutional a State’s film censorship program. Such procedures were necessary, we said, because, as a practical matter, without them “it may prove too burdensome to seek review of the censor’s determination.” Id., at 59. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), reviewed a state program under which taxpayers applying for a certain tax exemption bore the burden of proving that they did not advocate the overthrow of the United States and would not support a foreign government against this country. We noted: “In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result which the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.” Id., at 526. The same may be said of §441b, for its practical effect on MCFL in this case is to make engaging in protected speech a severely demanding task.
B
When a statutory provision burdens First Amendment rights, it must be justified by a compelling state interest. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 31; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963). The FEC first insists that justification for §441b’s expenditure restriction is provided by this Court’s acknowledgment that “the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation.” National Right to Work Committee, supra, at 209-210. The Commission thus relies on the long history of regulation of corporate political activity as support for the application of § 441b to MCFL. Evaluation of the Commission’s argument requires close examination of the underlying rationale for this longstanding regulation.
We have described that rationale in recent opinions as the need to restrict “the influence of political war chests tunneled through the corporate form,” NCPAC, 470 U. S., at 501; to “eliminate the effect of aggregated wealth on federal elections,” Pipefitters, 407 U. S., at 416; to curb the political influence of “those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital,” Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 585; and to regulate the “substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form of organization,” National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S., at 207.
This concern over the corrosive influence of concentrated corporate wealth reflects the conviction that it is important to protect the integrity of the marketplace of political ideas. It acknowledges the wisdom of Justice Holmes’ observation that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market....” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., joined by Brandeis, J., dissenting).
Direct corporate spending on political activity raises the prospect that resources amassed in the economic marketplace may be used to provide an unfair advantage in the political marketplace. Political “free trade” does not necessarily require that all who participate in the political marketplace do so with exactly equal resources. See NCPAC, supra (invalidating limits on independent spending by political committees); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 39-51 (striking down expenditure limits in 1971 Campaign Act). Relative availability of funds is after all a rough barometer of public support. The resources in the treasury of a business corporation, however, are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas. They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas.
By requiring that corporate independent expenditures be financed through a political committee expressly established to engage in campaign spending, § 441b seeks to prevent this threat to the political marketplace. The resources available to this fund, as opposed to the corporate treasury, in fact reflect popular support for the political positions of the committee. Pipefitters, supra, acknowledged this objective of § 441b in noting the statement of Representative Hansen, its sponsor, that the “ ‘underlying theory’ ” of this regulation “ ‘is that substantial general purpose treasuries should not be diverted to political purposes,’” and that requiring funding by voluntary contributions would ensure that “‘the money collected is that intended by those who contribute to be used for political purposes and not money diverted from another source.’” 407 U. S., at 423-424 (quoting 117 Cong. Rec. 43381 (1971)). See also Automobile Workers, supra, at 582 (Congress added proscription on expenditures to Corrupt Practices Act “to protect the political process from what it deemed to be the corroding effect of money employed in elections by aggregated power”). The expenditure restrictions of §441b are thus meant to ensure that competition among actors in the political arena is truly competition among ideas.
Regulation of corporate political activity thus has reflected concern not about use of the corporate form per se, but about the potential for unfair deployment of wealth for political purposes. Groups such as MCFL, however, do not pose that danger of corruption. MCFL was formed to disseminate political ideas, not to amass capital. The resources it has available are not a function of its success in the economic marketplace, but its popularity in the political marketplace. While MCFL may derive some advantages from its corporate form, those are advantages that redound to its benefit as a political organization, not as a profit-making enterprise. In short, MCFL is not the type of “traditional corporatio[n] organized for economic gain,” NCPAC, supra, at 500, that has been the focus of regulation of corporate political activity.
National Right to Work Committee does not support the inclusion of MCFL within § 441b’s restriction on direct independent spending. That case upheld the application to a nonprofit corporation of a different provision of §441b: the limitation on who can be solicited for contributions to a political committee. However, the political activity at issue in that case was contributions, as the committee had been established for the purpose of making direct contributions to political candidates. 459 U. S., at 200. We have consistently held that restrictions on contributions require less com-polling justification than restrictions on independent spending. NCPAC, 470 U. S. 480 (1985); California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182, 194, 196-197 (1981); Buckley, supra, at 20-22.
In light of the historical role of contributions in the corruption of the electoral process, the need for a broad prophylactic rule was thus sufficient in National Right to Work Committee to support a limitation on the ability of a committee to raise money for direct contributions to candidates. The limitation on solicitation in this case, however, means that nonmember corporations can hardly raise any funds at all to engage in political speech warranting the highest constitutional protection. Regulation that would produce such a result demands far more precision than §441b provides. Therefore, the desirability of a broad prophylactic rule cannot justify treating alike business corporations and appellee in the regulation of independent spending.
The Commission next argues in support of §441b that it prevents an organization from using an individual’s money for purposes that the individual may not support. We acknowledged the legitimacy of this concern as to the dissenting stockholder and union member in National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S., at 208, and in Pipefitters, 407 U. S., at 414-415. But such persons, as noted, contribute investment funds or union dues for economic gain, and do not necessarily authorize the use of their money for political ends. Furthermore, because such individuals depend on the organization for income or for a job, it is not enough to tell them that any unhappiness with the use of their money can be redressed simply by leaving the corporation or the union. It was thus wholly reasonable for Congress to require the establishment of a separate political fund to which persons can make voluntary contributions.
This rationale for regulation is not compelling with respect to independent expenditures by appellee. Individuals who contribute to appellee are fully aware of its political purposes, and in fact contribute precisely because they support those purposes. It is true that a contributor may not be aware of the exact use to which his or her money ultimately may be put, or the specific candidate that it may be used to support. However, individuals contribute to a political organization in part because they regard such a contribution as a more effective means of advocacy than spending the money under their own personal direction. Any contribution therefore necessarily involves at least some degree of delegation of authority to use such funds in a manner that best serves the shared political purposes of the organization and contributor. In addition, an individual desiring more direct control over the use of his or her money can simply earmark the contribution for a specific purpose, an option whose availability does not depend on the applicability of § 441b. Cf. § 434(c)(2)(C) (entities other than political committees must disclose names of those persons making earmarked contributions over $200). Finally, a contributor dissatisfied with how funds are used can simply stop contributing.
The Commission maintains that, even if contributors may be aware that a contribution to appellee will be used for political purposes in general, they may not wish such money to be used for electoral campaigns in particular. That is, persons may desire that an organization use their contributions to further a certain cause, but may not want the organization to use their money to urge support for or opposition to political candidates solely on the basis of that cause. This concern can be met, however, by means far more narrowly tailored and less burdensome than §441b’s restriction on direct expenditures: simply requiring that contributors be informed that their money may be used for such a purpose.
It is true that National Right to Work Committee, supra, held that the goal of protecting minority interests justified solicitation restrictions on a nonprofit corporation operating a political committee established to make direct contributions to candidates. As we have noted above, however, the Government enjoys greater latitude in limiting contributions than in regulating independent expenditures. Supra, at 259-260. Given a contributor’s awareness of the political activity of appellee, as well as the readily available remedy of refusing further donations, the interest protecting contributors is simply insufficient to support §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Texas, reflecting widely established policies in the criminal law of this country, has long had on its books so-called recidivist or habitual-criminal statutes. Their effect is to enhance the punishment of those found guilty of crime who are also shown to have been convicted of other crimes in the past. The three cases at hand challenge the procedures employed by Texas in the enforcement of such statutes.
Until recently, and at the time of the convictions before us, the essence of those procedures was that, through allegations in the indictment and the introduction of proof respecting a defendant’s past convictions, the jury trying the pending criminal charge was fully informed of such previous derelictions, but was also charged by the court that such matters were not to be taken into account in assessing the defendant’s guilt or innocence under the current indictment.
The facts in the cases now here are these. In Spencer (No. 68), the petitioner was indicted for murder, with malice, of his common-law wife. The indictment alleged that the defendant had previously been convicted of murder with malice, a factor which if proved would entitle the jury to sentence the defendant to death or to prison for not less than life under Texas Pen. Code Art. 64, n. 1, supra, whereas if the prior conviction was not proved the jury could fix the penalty at death or a prison term of not less than two years, see Texas Pen. Code Art. 1257. Spencer made timely objections to the reading to the jury of that portion of the indictment, and objected as well to the introduction of evidence to show his prior conviction. The jury was charged that if it found that Spencer had maliciously killed the victim, and that he had previously been convicted of murder with malice, the jury was to “assess his punishment at death or confinement in the penitentiary for life.” The jury was instructed as well that it should not consider the prior conviction as any evidence of the defendant’s guilt on the charge on which he was being tried. Spencer was found guilty and sentenced to death.
In Bell (No. 69), the petitioner was indicted for robbery, and the indictment alleged that he had been previously convicted of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Bell moved to quash the indictment on the ground, similar to that in Spencer, that the allegation and reading to the jury of a prior offense was prejudicial and would deprive him of a fair trial. Similar objections were made to the offer of. documentary evidence to prove the prior conviction. The court’s charge to the jury stated that the prior conviction should not be considered in passing upon the issue of guilt or innocence on the primary charge. The sentencing procedure in this non-capital case was somewhat different from that in Spencer. The jury was instructed that if it found the defendant guilty only of the present robbery charge, it could fix his sentence at not less than five years nor more than life. See Texas Pen. Code Art. 1408. But if it found that Bell had also been previously convicted as alleged in the indictment, it should bring in a verdict of guilty of robbery by assault and a further finding that the allegations “charging a final conviction for the offense of bank robbery are true.” The jury so found, and the judge fixed punishment, set by law for such a prior offender, at life imprisonment in the penitentiary. See Texas Pen. Code Art. 62, note 1, supra.
The Reed case (No. 70), involving a third-offender prosecution for burglary, see Texas Pen. Code Art. 63, n. 1, supra, entailed the same practice as followed in Bell.
The common and sole constitutional claim made in these cases is that Texas’ use of prior convictions in the current criminal trial of each petitioner was so egregiously unfair upon the issue of guilt or innocence as to offend the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” We took these cases for review, 382 U. S. 1022, 1023, 1025, because the courts of appeals have divided on the issue. For reasons now to follow we affirm the judgments below.
The road to decision, it seems to us, is clearly indicated both by what the petitioners in these cases do not contend and by the course of the authorities in closely related fields. No claim is made here that recidivist statutes are themselves unconstitutional, nor could there be under our cases. Such statutes and other enhanced-sentence laws, and procedures designed to implement their underlying policies, have been enacted in all the States, and by the Federal Government as well. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 2114; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32 (c)(2); D. C. Code §22-104 (1961). Such statutes, though not in the precise procedural circumstances here involved, have been sustained in this Court on several occasions against contentions that they violate constitutional strictures dealing with double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities. Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673; McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311; Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616; Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728; Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448.
Nor is it contended that it is unconstitutional for the jury to assess the punishment to be meted out to a defendant in a capital or other criminal case, or to make findings as to whether there was or was not a prior conviction even though enhanced punishment is left to be imposed by the judge. The States have always been given wide leeway in dividing responsibility between judge and jury in criminal cases. Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. S. 314; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581; cf. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U. S. 3; Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 405, n. 8.
Petitioners do not even appear to be arguing that the Constitution is infringed if a jury is told of a defendant's prior crimes. The rules concerning evidence of prior offenses are complex, and' vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they can be summarized broadly. Because such evidence is generally recognized to have potentiality for prejudice, it is usually excluded except when it is particularly probative in showing such things as intent, Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U. S. 613, Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 282 S. W. 2d 393; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 39, 126 S. W. 1131; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex. Cr. R. 197, 319 S. W. 2d 115; malice, Moss v. State, 364 S. W. 2d 389; motive, Moses v. State, 168 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 328 S. W. 2d 885; a system of criminal activity, Haley v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 223 S. W. 202; or when the defendant has raised the issue of his character, Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469, Perkins v. State, 152 Tex. Cr. R. 321, 213 S. W. 2d 681; or when the defendant has testified and the State seeks to impeach his credibility, Giacone v. State, 124 Tex. Cr. R. 141, 62 S. W. 2d 986.
Under Texas law the prior convictions of the defendants in the three cases before the Court today might have been admissible for any one or more of these universally accepted reasons. In all these situations, as under the recidivist statutes, the jury learns- of prior crimes committed by the defendant, but the conceded possibility of prejudice is believed to be outweighed by the validity of the State’s purpose in permitting introduction of the evidence. The defendants’ interests are protected by limiting instructions, see Giacone v. State, supra, and by the discretion residing with the trial judge to limit or forbid the admission of particularly prejudicial evidence even though admissible under an accepted rule of evidence. See Spears v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 14, 216 S. W. 2d 812; 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 29a (3d ed. 1940); Uniform Rule of Evidence 45; Model Code of Evidence, Rule 303.
This general survey sufficiently indicates that the law of evidence, which has been chiefly developed by the States, has evolved a set of rules designed to reconcile the possibility that this type of information will have some prejudicial effect with the admitted usefulness it has as a factor to be considered by the jury for any one of a large number of valid purposes. The evidence itself is usually, and in recidivist cases almost always, of a documentary kind, and in the cases before us there is no claim that its presentation was in any way inflammatory. Compare Marshall v. United States, 360 U. S. 310. To say the United States Constitution is infringed simply because this type of evidence may be prejudicial and limiting instructions inadequate to vitiate prejudicial effects, would make inroads into this entire complex code of state criminal evidentiary law, and would threaten other large areas of trial jurisprudence. For example, all joint trials, whether of several codefendants or of one defendant charged with multiple offenses, furnish inherent opportunities for unfairness when evidence submitted as to one crime (on which there may be an acquittal) may influence the jury as to a totally different charge. See Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U. S. 232; cf. Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84; Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U. S. 440. This type of prejudicial effect is acknowledged to inhere in criminal practice, but it is justified on the grounds that (1) the jury is expected to follow instructions in limiting this evidence to its proper function, and (2) the convenience of trying different crimes against the same person, and connected crimes against different defendants, in the same trial is a valid governmental interest.
Such an approach was in fact taken by the Court in Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469. There, in a federal prosecution, the Government was permitted to cross-examine defense witnesses as to the defendant’s character and to question them about a prior conviction. The Court, recognizing the prejudicial effect of this evidence, noted that “limiting instructions on this subject are no more‘difficult to comprehend or apply than those upon various other subjects,” id., at 485, and held that this Court was not the best forum for developing rules of evidence, and would, therefore, not proscribe the longstanding practice at issue. A fortiori, this reasoning applies in the cases before us today which arise not under what has been termed the supervisory power of this Court over proceedings in the lower federal courts, see Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373, but in the form of a constitutional claim that would require us to fashion rules of procedure and evidence in state courts. It is noteworthy that nowhere in Michelson did the Court or dissenting opinions approach the issue in constitutional terms.
It is contended nonetheless that in this instance the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the exclusion of prejudicial evidence of prior convictions even though limiting instructions are given and even though a valid state purpose — enforcement of the habitual-offender statute — is served. We recognize that the use of prior-crime evidence in a one-stage recidivist trial may be thought to represent a less cogent state interest than does its use for other purposes, in that other procedures for applying enhancement-of-sentence statutes may be available to the State that are not suited in the other situations in which such evidence is introduced. We do not think that this distinction should lead to a different constitutional result.
Cases in this Court have long proceeded on the premise that the Due Process Clause guarantees the fundamental elements of fairness in a criminal trial. See, e. g., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510; Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455; cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; see Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333; cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12. But it has never been thought that such cases establish this Court as a rule-making organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure. And none of the specific provisions of the Constitution ordains this Court with such authority. In the face of the legitimate state purpose and the long-standing and widespread use that attend the procedure under attack here, we find it impossible to say that because of the possibility of some collateral prejudice the Texas procedure is rendered unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause as it has been interpreted and applied in our past cases. As Mr. Justice Cardozo had occasion to remark, a state rule of law “does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at bar.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105. See also Buchalter v. New York, 319 U. S. 427.
Petitioners’ reliance on Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368, is misplaced. There the Court held unconstitutional the New York procedure leaving to the trial jury alone the issue of the voluntariness of a challenged confession, an area of law that has been characterized by the development of particularly stiff constitutional rules. See Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. The Court held that a judicial ruling was first required to determine whether as a matter of law — federal constitutional law — the confession could be deemed voluntary. This requirement of a threshold hearing before a judge on the federal question of voluntariness lends no solid support to the argument made here — that a two-stage jury trial is required whenever a State seeks to invoke an habitual-offender statute. It is true that the Court in Jackson supported its holding by reasoning that a general jury verdict was not a “reliable” vehicle for determining the issue of voluntariness because jurors might have difficulty in separating the issues of voluntariness from that of guilt or innocence. But the emphasis there was on protection of a specific constitutional right, and the Jackson procedure was designed as a specific remedy to ensure that an involuntary confession was not in fact relied upon by the jury. In the procedures before us, in contrast, no specific federal right — such as that dealing with confessions — is involved; reliance is placed solely on a general “fairness” approach. In this area the Court has always moved with caution before striking down state procedures. It would be extravagant in the extreme to take Jackson as evincing a general distrust on the part of this Court of the ability of juries to approach their task responsibly and to sort out discrete issues given to them under proper instructions by the judge in a criminal case, or as standing for the proposition that limiting instructions can never purge the erroneous introduction of evidence or limit evidence to its rightful purpose. Compare Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84; Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790.
It is fair to say that neither the Jackson ease nor any other due process decision of this Court even remotely supports the proposition that the States are not free to enact habitual-offender statutes of the type Texas has chosen and to admit evidence during trial tending to prove allegations required under the statutory scheme.
Tolerance for a spectrum of state procedures dealing with a common problem of law enforcement is especially appropriate here. The rate of recidivism is acknowledged to be high, a wide variety of methods of dealing with the problem exists, and experimentation is in progress. The common-law procedure for applying recidivist statutes, used by Texas in the cases before us, which requires allegations and proof of past convictions in the current trial, is, of course, the simplest and best known procedure. Some jurisdictions deal with the recidivist issue in a totally separate proceeding, see, e. g., Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, and as already observed (n. 2, supra) Texas to some extent has recently changed to that course. In some States such a proceeding can be instituted even after conviction on the new substantive offense, see Ore. Rev. Stat. § 168.040 (1959); Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616. The method for determining prior convictions varies also between jurisdictions affording a jury trial on this issue, e. g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.11 (1965); and those leaving that question to the court, see, e. g., Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32 (a); Mo. Rev. Stat. §556.280 (2) (1959). Another procedure, used in Great Britain and Connecticut, see Coinage Offences Act, 1861, 24 & 25 Viet., c. 99; State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 113 A. 452, requires that the indictment allege both the substantive crime and the prior conviction, that both parts be read to the defendant prior to trial, but that only the allegations relating to the substantive crime be read to the jury. If the defendant is convicted, the prior-offense elements are then read to the jury which considers any factual issues raised. Yet another system relies upon the parole authorities to withhold parole in accordance with their findings as to prior convictions. See, e. g., N. J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4-123.12 (1964). And within each broad approach described, other variations occur.
A determination of the “best” recidivist trial procedure necessarily involves a consideration of a wide variety of criteria, such as which method provides most adequate notice to the defendant and an opportunity to challenge the accuracy and validity of the alleged prior convictions, which method best meets the particular jurisdiction’s allocation of responsibility between court and jury, which method is best accommodated to the State’s established trial procedures, and of course which method is apt to be the least prejudicial in terms of the effect of prior-crime evidence on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. To say that the two-stage jury trial in the English-Connecticut style is probably the fairest, as some commentators and courts have suggested, and with which we might well agree were the matter before us in a legislative or rule-making context, is a far cry from a constitutional determination that this method of handling the problem is compelled by the Fourteenth Amendment. Two-part jury trials are rare in our jurisprudence; they have never been compelled by this Court as a matter of constitutional law, or even as a matter of federal procedure. With recidivism the major problem that it is, substantial changes in trial procedure in countless local courts around the country would be required were this Court to sustain the contentions made by these petitioners. This we are unwilling to do. To take such a step would be quite beyond the pale of this Court’s proper function in our federal system. It would be a wholly unjustifiable encroachment by this Court upon the constitutional power of States to promulgate their own rules of evidence to try their own state-created crimes in their own state courts, so long as their rules are not prohibited by any provision of the United States Constitution, which these rules are not. The judgments in these cases are
Affirmed.
The recidivist statutes here involved are Articles 62, 63, and 64 of the Texas Pen. Code (1952).
Article 62 provides: “If it be shown on the trial of a felony less than capital that the defendant has been before convicted of the same offense, or one of the same nature, the punishment on such second or other subsequent conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offenses in ordinary cases.”
Article 63 provides: “Whoever shall have been three times convicted of a felony less than capital shall on such third conviction be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary.”
Article 64 provides: “A person convicted a second time of any offense to which the penalty of death is affixed as an alternate punishment shall not receive on such second conviction a less punishment than imprisonment for life in the penitentiary.”
These procedures were embodied in Texas Code Crim. Proe. Art. 642 (1941), providing as follows: “A jury being impaneled in any criminal action, the cause shall proceed in the following order: 1. The indictment or information shall be read to the jury by the attorney prosecuting. ... 4. The testimony on the part of the State shall be offered.” By judicial gloss it appears that, at least in noncapital cases, a defendant by stipulating his prior convictions could keep knowledge of them away from the jury. See Pitcock v. State, 367 S. W. 2d 864. But see the decision below in Spencer, 389 S. W. 2d 304, for the inapplicability of the stipulation rule in eapital eases. In the view we take of the constitutional issue before us we consider it immaterial whether or not that course was open to any of the petitioners. Subsequent to the present convictions Texas has passed a new law respecting the procedure governing recidivist cases, the effect of which seems to be that except in capital cases the jury is not given the recidivist issue until it has first found the defendant guilty under the principal charge. Texas Code Crim. Proc. Art. 36.01, effective January 1, 1966. Since these cases were all tried under the older procedure, the new statute is not before us.
The question of whether Spencer is properly here as an appeal, a matter which we postponed to consideration of the merits, is a tangled one. See Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282; Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 565-567 (1953). Rather than undertake to resolve it, we think it more profitable to dismiss this appeal, treat it as a petition for certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, and grant the petition, particularly as there is pending in the Court Spencer's timely filed alternative petition for certiorari, which has been held to await the outcome of this appeal. Accordingly we have in this opinion referred to Spencer as a “petitioner.”
The Reed case, unlike the Spencer and Bell cases which come to us from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, is here from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming the District Court’s dismissal of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Texas recidivist procedure did not offend the United States Constitution. 343 F. 2d 723.
The Third Circuit in United States v. Banmiller, 310 F. 2d 720, held a similar Pennsylvania procedure, when applied in capital cases, unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit held a comparable Maryland recidivist practice unconstitutional in all cases. Lane v. Warden, 320 F. 2d 179. The Fifth Circuit in Breen v. Beto, 341 F. 2d 96, and again in the Reed case before us today, 343 F. 2d 723, and the Eighth Circuit in Wolfe v. Nash, 313 F. 2d 393, have held such procedures constitutional. The Ninth Circuit in Powell v. United States, 35 F. 2d 941, sustained the procedure in the context of a second offense under § 29 of the National Prohibition Act, 41 Stat. 316.
See annotations at 58 A. L. R. 20, 82 A. L. R. 345, 79 A. L. R. 2d 826; Note, Recidivist Procedures, 40 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 332 (1965).
These Texas cases reflect the rules prevailing in nearly all common-law jurisdictions. See generally McCormick, Evidence §§ 157-158 (1954); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence §§221-243 (Anderson ed. 1955); 1 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 215-218 (3d ed. 1940 and 1964 Supp.); Note, Other Crimes Evidence at Trial, 70 Yale L. J. 763 (1961). For the English rules, substantially similar, see Cross, Evidence 292-333 (2d ed. 1963). Recent commentators have criticized the rule of general exclusion, and have suggested a broader range of admissibility. Model Code of Evidence, Rule 311; Carter, The Admissibility of Evidence of Similar Facts, 69 L. Q. Rev. 80 (1953), 70 L. Q. Rev. 214 (1954); Note, Procedural Protections of the Criminal Defendant, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 426, 435-451 (1964). For the use of this type of evidence in continental jurisdictions, see Glanville Williams, The Proof of Guilt 181 (2d ed. 1958); 1 Wigmore, supra, § 193.
Indeed the most recent scholarly study of jury behavior does not sustain the premise that juries are especially prone to prejudice when prior-crime evidence is admitted as to credibility. Kalven & Zeisel, The American Jury (1966). The study contrasts the effect of such evidence on judges and juries and concludes that “Neither the one nor the other can be said to be distinctively gullible or skeptical.” Id., at 180.
See “Careers in Crime,” a statistical survey collected in Uniform Crime Reports for the United States — 1965, p. 27 (Dept, of Justice, 1966). The Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1966, reveals that 62% of prisoners committed to federal prisons in the year ending June 30, 1965, had been previously committed. Id., at 163.
For a survey and analysis of the various recidivist procedures, see Note, Recidivist Procedures, 40 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 332 (1965); see also Note, The Pleading and Proof of Prior Convictions in Habitual Criminal Prosecutions, 33 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 210 (1958).
Texas juries have had authority to impose punishment since 1846, but in all but 11 States this power is held by the judge. See Reid, The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 44 Tex. L. Rev. 983, 1008-1009 (1966).
See, e. g., Lane v. Warden, 320 F. 2d 170; Note, 40 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 332, 348 (1965). Other commentators have cautioned against a too hasty adoption of the two-stage trial. See the Second Circuit decision in United States v. Curry, 358 F. 2d 904, 914-915, where the court discussed the procedure as it applied in federal capital cases, and concluded: “Given the many considerations which may affect the necessity for a two-stage trial in each case, and considering the questionable desirability of this untested technique, we think it best to leave this question to the discretion of the trial court.” See also the discussion of the practical and administrative disadvantages of such a procedure in Frady v. United States, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 108-109, 348 F. 2d 84, 114-115 (dissenting opinion). We have been presented with no positive information concerning actual experience with a separate penalty procedure that would bear on a decision to impose it upon all the States as a matter of constitutional law. One study suggests that as a practical matter such a procedure has not proved helpful to defendants: “The California experience, dating back to 1957, has rather been that defense counsel have often neglected to prepare adequately for the penalty phase and have exhibited a lack of sophistication concerning what facts should be advanced as mitigating. Apparently, the approach of defense lawyers has been to devote the bulk of their efforts to the substantive issue of guilt and to relegate the penalty phase to a minor role. On the other hand, the prosecution has taken complete advantage of the penalty phase and has attempted to marshal and to present to the jury all of the aggravating circumstances that exist.” Note, Executive Clemency in Capital Cases, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 136, 167 (1964).
In cases where, as in Spencer, a jury itself fixes the penalty, the effect of the emphasis in The Chief Justice’s separate opinion upon the use of a stipulation would in reality be to require, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a two-stage jury trial. For a stipulation no less than evidentiary proof would bring the fact of prior convictions before the trial jury.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the affirmance by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a finding that a patent has not been infringed is a sufficient reason for vacating a declaratory judgment holding the patent invalid.
Respondent, Morton International, Inc. (Morton), is the owner of two patents on chemical compounds used in polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In 1983 Morton filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that petitioners, Cardinal Chemical Company and its affiliates (Cardinal), had infringed those patents. Cardinal filed an answer denying infringement and a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid. While this case was pending in the District Court, Morton filed two other actions against other alleged infringers of the same patents. One was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the other in the District of Delaware. The defendants in both cases, like Cardinal, filed counterclaims for declaratory judgments that the patents were invalid. Of the three, the Louisiana ease was tried first and, in 1988, resulted in a judgment for the defendant finding no infringement and declaring the patents invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of no infringement but vacated the judgment of invalidity. The Delaware case is still pending.
In 1990 this case proceeded to a 5-day bench trial. The South Carolina District Court concluded, as had the Louisiana District Court, that the patentee had failed to prove infringement and that the defendant-counterelaimant had proved by clear and convincing evidence that both patents were invalid. Accordingly, the court mandated two separate judgments: one dismissing the action for infringement with prejudice, and another on the counterclaim, declaring the patents invalid.
Again, Morton appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging both the dismissal of its infringement claim and the judgment of invalidity. Cardinal filed a cross-appeal contending that it was entitled to an award of fees pursuant to 35 U. S. C. §285 and that Morton should be sanctioned for prosecuting a frivolous appeal. The defendant in the third, Delaware, case filed a brief amicus curiae urging the court to affirm the judgment of invalidity. Again, however, after affirming the dismissal of the infringement claim, the Federal Circuit vacated the declaratory judgment. It explained:
“Since we have affirmed the district court’s holding that the patents at issue have not been infringed, we need not address the question of validity. Vieau v. Japax, Inc., 823 F. 2d 1510, 1517, 3 USPQ 2d 1094, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we vacate the holding of invalidity.” 959 F. 2d 948, 952 (1992).
The court also ruled that Morton was not liable for fees because it had advanced an argument that “apparently it was not in a position to raise earlier.” Ibid. Judge Lourie concurred in the result, but believed the parties were entitled to an affirmance of the invalidity holding “so that they can plan their future affairs accordingly.” Id., at 954.
Both parties then filed petitions for rehearing, arguing that the court should have decided the validity issue instead of vacating the District Court’s declaratory judgment; they also filed suggestions for rehearing en bane, urging the Court of Appeals to reconsider its post-1987 practice of routinely vacating a declaratory judgment of invalidity whenever noninfringement is found. Over the dissent of three of its judges, the court declined those suggestions. Chief Judge Nies filed a thorough explanation of that dissent; she found no “justification for our Vieau decision either legally or as a ‘policy’.... The parties can now look only to the Supreme Court for correction.” 967 F. 2d 1571, 1578 (CA Fed. 1992).
Cardinal filed a petition for certiorari asserting that the Federal Circuit errs in applying a per se rule to what should be a discretionary matter. Pet. for Cert. 13. Morton did not oppose the grant of certiorari, but instead pointed out that it also had an interest in having the validity issue adjudicated. It explained that, after the Federal Circuit had twice refused substantive review of findings that its two patents were invalid, the patents have been
“effectively stripped of any power in the marketplace.
“If Morton were to proceed against another infringer, the district court, in all likelihood would accept the twice-vacated invalidity holdings, just as the district court below adopted wholesale the [Louisiana] district court’s invalidity holdings, without any independent evaluation as to whether those holdings were correct. Further, any future accused infringer would, in all likelihood, argue for an award of attorney’s fees as Cardinal has done here, on the ground that Morton should have known better than sue on an ‘invalid patent’....
“The value of Morton’s patents is therefore essentially zero — effectively not enforceable and viewed with a jaundiced eye by competitors and district courts alike. [Morton] has lost valuable property rights... without due process of law.” Brief for Respondent 16-17.
Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from all United States District Courts in patent litigation, the rule that it applied in this case, and has been applying regularly since its 1987 decision in Vieau v. Japax, Inc., 823 F. 2d 1510, is a matter of special importance to the entire Nation. We therefore granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 813 (1992).
I
The Federal Circuit’s current practice of routinely vacating declaratory judgments regarding patent validity following a determination of noninfringement originated in two eases decided by different panels of that court on the same day. In Vieau, the patentee had appealed adverse rulings on damages, infringement, and validity and the alleged infringer had filed a cross-appeal asserting that the District Court should have declared the patent invalid. After affirming the District Court’s finding of noninfringement, the Federal Circuit concluded:
“Our disposition on the issue of infringement renders moot the appeal of the propriety of a directed verdict on the issues of damages and willful infringement. There is no indication that Japax’s cross-appeal on invalidity extends beyond the litigated claims or the accused devices found to be noninfringing. Accordingly, we also dismiss the cross-appeal as moot. The judgment entered by the district court with respect to each of the mooted issues is therefore vacated. It is affirmed with respect to infringement.” 823 F. 2d, at 1517.
Judge Bennett filed a concurring opinion, fleshing out this perfunctory holding and explaining that there was no need to review the declaratory judgment of invalidity in the absence of any “continuing dispute (such as the presence or threat of further litigation) regarding other claims or other accused devices that remains unresolved by the finding of noninfringement.”
In the second case, Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 821 F. 2d 627 (CA Fed. 1987), the District Court had held that the patent was not infringed and that the defendantcounterelaimant had failed to prove invalidity. On appeal, the court affirmed the noninfringement holding, and vacated the judgment on the counterclaim as moot. In his opinion for the panel, Chief Judge Markey explained:
“There being no infringement by J & J of any asserted claim, there remains no case or controversy between the parties. We need not pass on the validity or enforceability of claims 1 and 2.... [C]f. Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U. S. 359, 363-65... (1943) ('To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case/ but a counterclaim for invalidity is not mooted where counterclaim deals with additional patent claims and devices not involved in the complaint and with license issues.).
“The judgment that J & J has not proven claims 1 and 2 invalid or unenforceable is vacated and the appeal from that judgment is dismissed as moot." Id., at 634.
A footnote emphasized that there was no longer any dispute between the parties beyond the specific charge of infringement that had been resolved by the finding of non-infringement.
The three opinions in Vieau and Fonar indicate that the Federal Circuit’s practice of vacating declaratory judgments of patent validity (or invalidity) is limited to cases in which the court is convinced that the finding of noninfringement has.entirely resolved the controversy between the litigants by resolving the initial complaint brought by the patentee. The Federal Circuit has concluded that in such cases the declaratory judgment is “moot” in a jurisdictional sense, a conclusion that it considers dictated by two of our earlier opinions, Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U. S. 241 (1939), and Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U. S. 359 (1943). We therefore begin with a comment on those two cases.
II
In Electrical Fittings, the District Court held one claim of a patent valid but not infringed. The patentee was content with that judgment, but the successful defendant appealed, seeking a reversal of the finding of validity. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal based on the rule that a prevailing party may not appeal from a judgment in its favor. We reversed, and held that although the defendant could not compel the appellate court to revisit the finding of validity (which had become immaterial to the disposition of the case), it could demand that the finding of validity be vacated. That finding, we explained, “stands as an adjudication of one of the issues litigated. We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, as we have held this Court has, to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree.” Electrical Fittings, 307 U. S., at 242 (footnotes omitted).
Our command that the validity decision be eliminated was similar to the Federal Circuit’s mandate in the Fonar case (both eases suggest that an appellate court should vacate unnecessary decisions regarding patent validity), but the two cases are critically different. The issue of invalidity in Electrical Fittings was raised only as an affirmative defense to the charge that a presumptively valid patent had been infringed, not (as in Fonar, and as here) as a basis for a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity. An unnecessary ruling on an affirmative defense is not the same as the necessary resolution of a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment.
In Altvater, as here, the defendant did file a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid. The District Court found no infringement, but also granted the declaratory judgment requested by the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the noninfringement holding but, reasoning that the validity issue was therefore moot, vacated the declaratory judgment. We reversed. Distinguishing our holding in Electrical Fittings, we wrote:
“To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical ease. But the situation in the present case is quite different. We have here not only bill and answer but a counterclaim. Though the decision of non-infringement disposes of the bill and answer, it does not dispose of the counterclaim which raises the question of validity.... [Tjhe issue of validity may be raised by a counterclaim in an infringement suit. The requirements of case or controversy are of course no less strict under the Declaratory Judgments Act (48 Stat. 955, 28 U. S. C. §400) than in case of other suits. But we are of the view that the issues raised by the present counterclaim were justiciable and that the controversy between the parties did not come to an end on the dismissal of the bill for non-infringement, since their dispute went beyond the single claim and the particular accused devices involved in that suit.” 319 U. S., at 363-364 (footnotes omitted; citations omitted).
Presumably because we emphasized, in the last clause quoted, the ongoing nature of the Altvater parties’ dispute, the Federal Circuit has assumed that a defendant’s counterclaim under the Declaratory Judgment Act should always be vacated unless the parties’ dispute extends beyond the terms of the patentee’s charge of infringement.
While both of our earlier eases are consistent with the Federal Circuit practice established in Vieau and Fonar, neither one required it. Electrical Fittings did not involve a declaratory judgment, and Altvater does not necessarily answer the question whether, in the absence of an ongoing dispute between the parties over infringement, an adjudication of invalidity would be moot. We now turn to that question.
Ill
Under its current practice, the Federal Circuit uniformly declares that the issue of patent validity is “moot” if it affirms the District Court’s finding of noninfringement and if, as in the usual case, the dispute between the parties does not extend beyond the patentee’s particular claim of infringement. That practice, and the issue before us, therefore concern the jurisdiction of an intermediate appellate court — not the jurisdiction of either a trial court or this Court. In the trial court, of course, a party seeking a declaratory judgment has the burden of establishing the existence of an actual case or controversy. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937).
In patent litigation, a party may satisfy that burden, and seek a declaratory judgment, even if the patentee has not filed an infringement action. Judge Markey has described
“the sad and saddening scenario that led to enactment of the Declaratory Judgment Act (Act), 28 U. S. C. § 2201. In the patent version of that scenario, a patent owner engages in a danse macabre, brandishing a Damoclean threat with a sheathed sword.... Before the Act, competitors victimized by that tactic were rendered helpless and immobile so long as the patent owner refused to grasp the nettle and sue. After the Act, those competitors were no longer restricted to an in terrorem choice between the incurrence of a growing potential liability for patent infringement and abandonment of their enterprises; they could clear the air by suing for a judgment that would settle the conflict of interests. The sole requirement for jurisdiction under the Act is that the conflict be real and immediate, i. e., that there be a true, actual ‘controversy’ required by the Act.” Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc., 846 F. 2d 731, 734-735 (CA Fed. 1988) (citations omitted).
Merely the desire to avoid the threat of a “scarecrow” patent, in Learned Hand’s phrase, may therefore be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. If, in addition to that desire, a party has actually been charged with infringement of the patent, there is, necessarily, a case or controversy adequate to support jurisdiction of a complaint, or a counterclaim, under the Act. In this case, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain Cardinal’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity.
It is equally clear that the Federal Circuit, even after affirming the finding of noninfringement, had jurisdiction to consider Morton’s appeal from the declaratory judgment of invalidity. A party seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity presents a claim independent of the patentee’s charge of infringement. If the District Court has jurisdiction (established independently from its jurisdiction over the patentee’s charge of infringement) to consider that claim, so does (barring any intervening events) the Federal Circuit.
There are two independent bases for this conclusion. First, the Federal Circuit is not a court of last resort. If that court had jurisdiction while the case was pending before it, the case remains alive (barring other changes) when it comes to us. The Federal Circuit’s determination that the patents were not infringed is subject to review in this Court, and if we reverse that determination, we are not prevented from considering the question of validity merely because a lower court thought it superfluous. As a matter of practice, the possibility that we would grant certiorari simply to review that court’s resolution of an infringement issue is extremely remote, but as a matter of law we could do so, and if we did, we could also reach the declaratory judgment, as long as the parties continued to dispute the issue of validity, as they do here. As this case demonstrates, nothing prevents us, as a jurisdictional matter, from reviewing the Federal Circuit’s disposition (even its vacatur) of the District Court’s resolution of the declaratory judgment counterclaim.
Second, while the initial burden of establishing the trial court’s jurisdiction rests on the party invoking that jurisdiction, once that burden has been met courts are entitled to presume, absent further information, that jurisdiction continues. If a party to an appeal suggests that the controversy has, since the rendering of judgment below, become moot, that party bears the burden of coming forward with the subsequent events that have produced that alleged result. See United States v.W.T Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953). In this case Cardinal properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the District Court, and Morton properly invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit. That court unquestionably had the power to decide all the issues raised on Morton’s appeal. If, before the court had decided the case, either party had advised it of a material change in circumstances that entirely terminated the party’s controversy, it would have been proper either to dismiss the appeal or to vacate the entire judgment of the District Court. Cf. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39 (1950). In fact, however, there was no such change in this case. The Federal Circuit’s decision to rely on one of two possible alternative grounds (noninfringement rather than invalidity) did not strip it of power to decide the second question, particularly when its decree was subject to review by this Court. Even if it may be good practice to decide no more than is necessary to determine an appeal, it is clear that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the declaratory judgment of invalidity. The case did not become moot when that court affirmed the finding of noninfringement.
IV
The Federal Circuit’s practice is therefore neither compelled by our cases nor supported by the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III. Of course, its practice might nevertheless be supported on other grounds. The courts of appeals have significant authority to fashion rules to govern their own procedures. See, e.g., Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U. S. 234, 244, 246, 249-250 (1993); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U. S. 140, 146-148 (1985). Just as we have adhered to a practice of deciding cases on statutory rather than constitutional grounds when both alternatives are available, see, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988), there might be a sufficient reason always to address the infringement issue before passing on the patent’s validity. If, for example, the validity issues were generally more difficult and time consuming to resolve, the interest in the efficient management of the court’s docket might support such a rule.
Although it is often more difficult to determine whether a patent is valid than whether it has been infringed, there are even more important countervailing concerns. Perhaps the most important is the interest of the successful litigant in preserving the value of a declaratory judgment that, as Chief Judge Nies noted, “it obtained on a valid counterclaim at great effort and expense.” A company once charged with infringement must remain concerned about the risk of similar charges if it develops and markets similar products in the future. Given that the burden of demonstrating that changed circumstances provide a basis for vacating the judgment of patent invalidity rests on the party that seeks such action, there is no reason why a successful litigant should have any duty to disclose its future plans to justify retention of the value of the judgment that it has obtained.
Moreover, our prior cases have identified a strong public interest in the finality of judgments in patent litigation. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U. S. 327 (1945), we approved of the District Court’s decision to consider the question of validity even though it had found that a patent had not been infringed. Criticizing the contrary approach taken by other courts, we stated that “of the two questions, validity has the greater public importance, Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F. 2d 541 [(CA2 1943)], and the District Court in this case followed what will usually be the better practice by inquiring fully into the validity of this patent.” Id., at 330.
We also emphasized the importance to the public at large of resolving questions of patent validity in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 (1971). In that ease we overruled Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U. S. 638 (1936), which had held that a determination of patent invalidity does not estop the patentee from relitigating the issue in a later case brought against another alleged infringer. We also commented at length on the wasteful consequences of relitigating the validity of a patent after it has once been held invalid in a fair trial, and we noted the danger that the opportunity to relitigate might, as a practical matter, grant monopoly privileges to the holders of invalid patents. As this case demonstrates, the Federal Circuit’s practice of routinely vacating judgments of validity after finding noninfringement creates a similar potential for relitigation and imposes ongoing burdens on competitors who are convinced that a patent has been correctly found invalid.
Indeed, as Morton’s current predicament illustrates, see supra, at 89, the Federal Circuit’s practice injures not only the alleged infringer and the public; it also may unfairly deprive the patentee itself of the appellate review that is a component of the one full and fair opportunity to have the validity issue adjudicated correctly. If, following a finding of noninfringement, a declaratory judgment on validity is routinely vacated, whether it invalidated the patent (as in Vieau) or upheld it (as in Fonar), the patentee may have lost the practical value of a patent that should be enforceable against different infringing devices. The Federal Circuit’s practice denies the patentee such appellate review, prolongs the life of invalid patents, encourages endless litigation (or at least uncertainty) over the validity of outstanding patents, and thereby vitiates the rule announced in Blonder-Tongue.
In rejecting the Federal Circuit’s practice we acknowledge that factors in an unusual case might justify that court’s refusal to reach the merits of a validity determination — a determination which it might therefore be appropriate to vacate. A finding of noninfringment alone, however, does not justify such a result. Nor does anything else in the record of this case. The two patents at issue here have been the subject of three separate lawsuits, and both parties have urged the Federal Circuit to resolve their ongoing dispute over the issue of validity; it would be an abuse of discretion not to decide that question in this ease. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for farther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
United States Patent No. 4,062,881, dated December 13, 1977, and No. 4,120,845, dated October 17,1978. The two patents are directed to organotin mereaptoalkyl carboxylic acid ester sulfides — basically, compounds of sulfur and tin that serve as heat stabilizers for PVC, protecting it from decomposition, discoloration, and loss of strength. See 959 F. 2d 948, 949, and n. 1 (CA Fed. 1992).
Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Witco Chemical Corp., No. 84-5685 (ED La., June 22, 1988), App. 10, 24-31, 36.
Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Argus Chemical Corp., 11 USPQ 2d 1152 (CA Fed. 1989), judgt. order reported at 873 F. 2d 1451 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential). The court explained its disposition of the judgment of invalidity as follows: “We hold that the finding of no literal infringement is not clearly erroneous and on that basis we affirm the portion of the judgment of the district court that determined that the patents are not infringed and dismissed the suit. We therefore find it unnecessary to reach the district court's determination that the patents are invalid, and vacate the portion of the judgment that so determined.” 11 USPQ 2d, at 1153, App. 39.
"The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that a person skilled in the art is unable to ascertain the claimed structures in order to avoid infringement.... Therefore, this court concludes that the language of the [claims] is too vague to satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 67a.
“Now, therefore,
“IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the defendants in this case, dismissing the plaintiff's action for infringement with prejudice and at its costs.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim of invalidity of the patents, as patents 4,062,881 and 4,120,845 are found to be invalid.” Id., at 70a.
See 959 F. 2d, at 950, n. 2 (referring to Morton International, Inc. v. Atochem North America, Inc., No. 87-60-CMW (Del., filed Feb. 9, 1987)). Atochem has also filed a brief amicus curiae in this Court, urging our reversal of the Federal Circuit practice.
Those petitions were denied. 1992 U. S. App. LEXIS 7580 (CA Fed. 1992), App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a, 72a.
1992 U. S. App. LEXIS 10067 (CA Fed. 1992), App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a, 74a.
Because both parties agree that we should reject the Federal Circuit’s practice, it might be thought that they lack the adversarial posture required by Article III. Although both Morton and Cardinal do agree on the correct answer to the question presented, they do so only so that they can reach their true dispute: the validity of Morton’s two patents, a subject on which they are in absolute disagreement. Further, it is clear that no collusion between the parties has brought them here; if anything has dulled the adverseness between them, it is the Federal Circuit practice that is the subject of this case. Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 939 (1983) (finding Art. Ill adverseness even though the two parties agreed on the unconstitutionality of the one-House veto that was the subject of that case; the parties remained in disagreement over the underlying issue of whether Chadha should be deported). The Federal Circuit’s improper finding of mootness cannot itself moot this case.
Vieau, 823 F. 2d, at 1520. He added: “It is the burden of the party seeking the declaratory judgment to illustrate, either in its briefs or at oral argument, the continued existence of a case or controversy should a decision of noninfringement be made by this court in deciding the appeal. See International Medical Prosthetics, 787 F. 2d at 575, 229 USPQ at 281 (burden is on declaratory plaintiff to establish that jurisdiction existed at, and has continued since, the time the complaint was filed). This requirement avoids having this court unnecessarily address what might turn out to be a hypothetical situation.” Ibid.
“The record contains no assertion that J & J infringes the ’832 patent by any methods other than those found not to infringe, or that-J & J’s machines infringe the nonasserted apparatus claims. J & J’s counterclaim merely repeated the affirmative defenses of invalidity and unenforceability and the verdict form, with no objection by J & J, dealt only with the asserted claims. J & J’s motion for JNOV dealt only with claims 1 and 2.” Fonar, 821 F. 2d, at 634, n. 2.
That the holdings of Vieau v. Japex, Inc., 823 F. 2d 1510 (CA Fed. 1987), and Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 821 F. 2d 627 (CA Fed. 1987), can be said to have developed into a uniform practice or rule is made clear by the regularity with which they have been applied. See Shat-R-Shield, Inc. v. Trojan, Inc., 1992 U. S. App. LEXIS 9860, *7, judgt. order reported at 968 F. 2d 1226 (CA Fed.) (nonprecedential), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870 (1992); Winner Int’l Corp. v. Wolo Mfg. Corp., 905 F. 2d 375, 377 (CA Fed. 1990); Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates, 904 F. 2d 677, 686 (CA Fed. 1990); Neville Chemical Co. v. Resinall Corp., 1990 U. S. App. LEXIS 16549, judgt. order reported at 915 F. 2d 1584 (CA Fed. 1990) (nonprecedential); Freeman v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co., 13 USPQ 2d 1250, judgt. order reported at 884 F. 2d 1398 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential), cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1070 (1990); Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Medical Industries, Inc., 888 F. 2d 815, 817 (CA Fed. 1989); Environmental Instruments, Inc. v. Sutron Corp., 877 F. 2d 1561, 1566 (CA Fed. 1989); Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F. 2d 1569, 1571 (CA Fed. 1989); Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Argus Chemical Corp., 11 USPQ 2d 1152, judgt. order reported at 873 F. 2d 1451 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential); Pfaff v. Wells Electronic, Inc., 12 USPQ 2d 1158, judgt. order reported at 884 F. 2d 1399 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential); Specialized Electronics Corp. v. Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc., 12 USPQ 2d 1918, judgt. order reported at 884 F. 2d 1397 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential); Sun-Tek Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy Sky Lites, Inc., 848 F. 2d 179, 183 (CA Fed. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 1009 (1989); Advance Transformer Co. v. Levinson, 837 F. 2d 1081, 1084 (CA Fed. 1988); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F. 2d 931, 939 (CA Fed. 1987) (en banc); Perini America, Inc. v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 832 F. 2d 581, 584, n. 1 (CA Fed. 1987). In only one published opinion after 1987, Dana Corp. v. IPC Ltd. Partnership, 860 F. 2d 415 (CA Fed. 1988), did the court address the District Court’s validity determination without reaching the issue of infringement, but it did so without referring to Vieau or Fonar.
See Vieau, 823 F. 2d, at 1518-1519 (Bennett, J., concurring); Fonar, 821 F. 2d, at 634.
“Instead of dismissing the bill without more, it entered a decree adjudicating claim 1 valid but dismissing the bill for failure to prove infringement.” 307 U. S., at 242.
Under 35 U. S.C. §282, all patents are presumed valid. Although that presumption is obviously resurrected after the Federal Circuit vacates a finding of invalidity, Morton’s current situation makes clear that the revived presumption lacks some of its earlier strength.
See Vieau, 823 F. 2d, at 1518-1521 (Bennett, J., concurring); Fonar, 821 F. 2d, at 634, and n. 2.
As we have noted, the Declaratory Judgment Act affords the district court some discretion in determining whether or not to exercise that jurisdiction, even when it has been established. See Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U. S. 491, 494-496 (1942).
Bresnick v. United States Vitamin Corp., 139 F. 2d 239, 242 (CA2 1943).
Commenting on Electrical Fittings, in Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U. S. 326, 335 (1980), we wrote: “Although the Court limited the appellate function to reformation of the decree, the holding relevant to the instant case was that the federal courts retained jurisdiction over the controversy notwithstanding the District Court’s entry of judgment in favor of petitioners. This Court had the question of mootness before it, yet because policy considerations permitted an appeal from the District Court’s final judgment and because petitioners alleged a stake in the outcome, the case was still live and dismissal was not required by Art. III. The Court perceived the distinction between the definitive mootness of a case or controversy, which ousts the jurisdiction of the federal courts and requires dismissal of the case, and a judgment in favor of a parly at an intermediate stage of litigation, which does not in all cases terminate the right to appeal.” See also 959 F. 2d, at 953 (Lourie, J., concurring) (“[B]e-cause this court is not a court of last resort, a holding of either invalidity or noninfringement by our court does not render the case moot because it is not over. Therefore, when both infringement and validity issues are presented on appeal, we can base our affirmance on both grounds, thereby leaving a complete judgment available for review by the Supreme Court”).
To the extent that the Federal Circuit, relying on Judge Bennett’s concurrence in Vie
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A schedule of reduced rates proposed by the respondent rail carriers was suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the maximum statutory period of seven months pending a determination whether the reduction was lawful. The statute expressly provides that “the proposed change of rate . . . shall go into effect,” if the Commission’s proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of suspension. The Commission did not reach a decision within seven months, or within the following five months during which the respondents voluntarily postponed the change, and the respondents announced that the reduced rates would be put in effect. Thereupon the petitioners brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to enjoin the respondents from making the change effective pending the Commission’s decision. The District Court concluded after examination of the pleadings and a brief hearing that “there is grave danger that irreparable injury, loss or damage may be inflicted on ... [petitioners] if the proposed rates go into effect... for which . . . [petitioners] will have no adequate remedy at law.” The court held, however, that § 15 (7) vested exclusive power in the Commission to suspend a change of rate for a limited time and thereby precluded District Court jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief extending the statutory period. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, stating, “Congress, in its wisdom, has fixed seven months as the maximum period of suspension. It seems clear to us that if the courts extend that period, they are in effect amending the statute and that is a matter beyond their power.” 308 F. 2d 181, 186. We granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 859. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was granted no power to suspend proposed rate changes in the original Act of 1887. That power first appeared among the 1910 amendments introduced by the Mann-Elkins Act. The problem as to whether the application of new rates might be stayed pending decision as to their lawfulness first emerged after the Commission was empowered by the Hepburn Act of 1906 to determine the validity of proposed rates. In the absence of any suspension power in the Commission, shippers turned to the courts for injunc-tive relief. The results were not satisfactory. The lower federal courts evinced grave doubt whether they possessed any equity jurisdiction to grant such injunctions, and the availability of relief depended on the view of a particular court on this much controverted issue. The Interstate Commerce Commission was more concerned, however, with certain practical consequences of leaving the question with the courts. In its Annual Reports for the three years before 1910 the Commission had directed attention to the fact that such courts as entertained jurisdiction were reaching diverse results, which engendered confusion and produced competitive inequities. The large expense entailed in prosecuting an action and financing a substantial bond proved prohibitive for many small shippers of modest means. Even when a large shipper secured an injunction, the scope of its relief often protected only that particular shipper, leaving his weaker competitors at the mercy of the new rate. Therefore, the Commission reported to Congress, . . as a practical matter the small shipper who can not file the bond can not and does not continue in business under the higher rate.” I. C. C. Annual Report, 1908, p. 12. As an equally serious consequence, the regulatory goal of uniformity was jeopardized by the diverse conclusions reached by different District Courts — even, it appears, as to the reasonableness of a particular rate change. This resulted in disparity of treatment as between different shippers, carriers, and sections of the country, causing in turn “discrimination and hardship to the general public.” I. C. C. Annual Report, 1907, p. 10.
It cannot be said that the legislative history of the grant of the suspension power to the Commission includes unambiguous evidence of a design to extinguish whatever judicial power may have existed prior to 1910 to suspend proposed rates. However, we cannot suppose that Congress, by vesting the new suspension power in the Commission, intended to give backhanded approval to the exercise of a judicial power which had brought the whole problem to a head.
Moreover, Congress engaged in a protracted controversy concerning the period for which the Commission might suspend a change of rates. Such a controversy would have been a futile exercise unless the Congress also meant to foreclose judicial power to extend that period. This controversy spanned nearly two decades. At the outset in 1910, the proposal for conferring any such power on the Commission was strenuously opposed. The carriers contended that any postponement of rate changes would result in loss of revenue or competitive advantages fairly due them in the interim if the rates were finally determined to be lawful. But this opposition eventually took the form of efforts to limit the time for which suspension might be ordered by the Commission. The Mann-Elkins Act authorized a suspension for an initial period not to exceed 120 days with a discretionary power in the Commission to extend the period for a maximum additional six months. Ten years later the Esch-Cum-mins Act of 1920 cut the authorized period of extension from six months to 30 days, thus reducing from 10 to five months the overall period for which the Commission might order a suspension. Congress was aware throughout the consideration of these measures that some shippers might for a time have to pay unlawful rates because a proceeding might not be concluded and an order made within the reduced time. To mitigate that hardship, the 1920 amendments authorized the Commission in such cases to require the carriers to keep detailed accounts of charges collected and to order refunds of excess charges if the Commission ultimately found the rates to be unlawful. The suspension provisions took their present form, vesting authority in the Commission to suspend for a maximum period of seven months, in the Act of 1927. The accounting and refund provisions of the 1920 law remained. Thus, as we have observed before, the present limitation was “formed after much experimentation with the period of suspension . . . Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Inland Waterways Corp., 319 U. S. 671, 689.
We cannot believe that Congress would have given such detailed consideration to the period of suspension unless it meant thereby to vest in the Commission the sole and exclusive power to suspend and to withdraw from the judiciary any pre-existing power to grant injunctive relief. This Court has previously indicated its view that the present section had that effect. In Board of Railroad Comm’rs v. Great Northern R. Co., 281 U. S. 412, 429, Chief Justice Hughes said for the Court: “This power of suspension was entrusted to the Commission only.” The lower federal courts have also said as much. And the commentators on the matter have consistently supported the soundness of that view.
There is, of course, a close nexus between the suspension power and the Commission’s primary jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness and reasonableness of rates, a jurisdiction to which this Court had, even in 1910, already given the fullest recognition. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426. This relationship suggests it would be anomalous if a Congress which created a power of suspension in the Commission because of the dissonance engendered by recourse to the injunction nevertheless meant the judicial remedy to survive. The more plausible inference is that Congress meant to foreclose a judicial power to interfere with the timing of rate changes which would be out of harmony with the uniformity of rate levels fostered by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
It must be admitted that Congress dealt with the problem as it affected the relations between shippers and carriers, making no express reference to the interests of competing carriers and their customers such as are involved in the instant case. We see no warrant in that omission, however, for a difference in result. Conflicts over rates between competing carriers were familiar to the Commission long before 1910; indeed, the struggle between competing barge and rail carriers has been going on almost since railroads came onto the national scene. Indeed, in another provision of the very same statute Congress in 1910 dealt explicitly with the reduction of rates by railroads competing with water carriers: Section 4 (2) of the Act forbids a rail carrier competing with a water carrier to increase rates once reduced on a competitive service, unless “after hearing by the Commission it shall be found that such proposed increase rests upon changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition.” 49 U. S. C. § 4 (2). In addition § 8 of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 8, creates a private right of action for damages — based upon conduct violative of the Act — which might be available, though we have no occasion here to decide the question, to a competitor claiming that a proposed rate reduction had been grossly discriminatory. Our holding today therefore means only that the injunction remedy is not available to these petitioners, just as it is unavailable to shippers.
II.
Our conclusion from the history of the suspension power is buttressed by a consideration of the undesirable consequences which would necessarily attend the survival of the injunction remedy. A court’s disposition of an application for injunctive relief would seem to require at least some consideration of the applicant’s claim that the carrier’s proposed rates are unreasonable. But such consideration would create the hazard of forbidden judicial intrusion into the administrative domain. Judicial cognizance of reasonableness of rates has been limited to carefully defined statutory avenues of review. These considerations explain why courts consistently decline to suspend rates when the Commission has refused to do so, or to set aside an interim suspension order of the Commission. If an independent appraisal of the reasonableness of rates might be made for the purpose of deciding applications for injunctive relief, Congress would have failed to correct the situation so hazardous to uniformity which prompted its decision to vest the suspension power in the Commission. Moreover, such a procedure would permit a single judge to pass before final Commission action upon the question of reasonableness of a rate, which the statute expressly entrusts only to a court of three judges reviewing the Commission’s completed task.
Nor is the situation different in this case if it be suggested that a court of equity might rely upon the Commission’s finding of unreasonableness which preceded the Commission’s suspension ordfer. The Commission’s consideration of the question, through its Suspension Board, involves only a brief and informal hearing. Automatic judicial acceptance of a finding reached in that way would delegate greater effect to such an administrative process than the process itself warrants. As the basis for a judicial decree of a single district judge, such a procedure would be inconsistent with § 15 (1) of the Act, which provides that effective rates may be struck down as unlawful after a “full hearing” by the Commission.
III.
The petitioners contend that in any event injunctive relief is authorized in this case to enforce the National Transportation Policy. They argue that when the rail carriers’ rates go into effect the barge line will inevitably and immediately be driven out of business, contrary to the paramount concern of the policy for the protection of water carriers threatened by rail competition. Apart from the absence of any decisive showing that the barge line would suffer this misfortune, it is clear that nothing in the National Transportation Policy, enacted many years after the 1927 revision of § 15 (7), indicates that Congress intended to revive a judicial power which we have found was extinguished when the suspension power was vested in the Commission. Cf. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 198-199. Indeed, if anything, the policy reinforces our conclusion. The mandate to achieve a balance between competing forms of transportation is directed not to the courts but to the Commission. It is reasonable to suppose that had Congress felt that balance to be in danger of distortion, it would have addressed itself to our problem directly by enhancing the powers granted the Commission to enforce the policy. Surely Congress would not have meant its silence alone to imply the revival of a judicial remedy the exercise of which might well defeat rather than promote the objectives of the National Transportation Policy.
Affirmed.
49 U. S. C. §15 (7):
“Whenever there shall be filed with the Commission any schedule stating a new . . . rate . . . the Commission shall have . . . authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once ... to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate . . . and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the Commission, upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may from time to time suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate . . . but not for a longer period than seven months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate . . . goes into effect, the Commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective. If the proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of suspension, the proposed change of rate . . . shall go into effect at the end of such period . . . .”
The petitioners are a barge line, Arrow Transportation Co., a competitor of the respondent railroads for grain carriage; a municipality, Guntersville, Alabama, served by Arrow; a grain merchant, O. J. Walls, located in that municipality; and a grain consumer, John D. Bagwell Farms & Hatchery, Inc., which receives its grain by truck from Guntersville. The rate reductions which respondents have filed cover the shipment of grain to various points in the Southeastern United States, but apply only to multiple-car shipments from certain Mississippi and Ohio River ports. The Commission, following a complaint by competing barge lines and other parties, and on the basis of a recommendation of its Suspension Board, made a tentative finding that the proposed rates would be “unjust and unreasonable, in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act,” and would “constitute unfair and destructive competitive practices in contravention of the National Transportation Policy.” After the full hearing, however, Division 2 of the Commission, on January 21, 1963, concluded that Southern’s rates at least were compensatory and reasonable, Grain in Multiple-Car Shipments — River Crossings to the South, I. & S. Docket No. 7656. That decision is now awaiting reconsideration by the full Commission.
The four petitioners have contended throughout this litigation that the application of the proposed new rail rates will irreparably injure their respective economic interests, particularly because they threaten to force Arrow out of business. Petitioners further contend that the proposed rates, being substantially lower than the competitive barge rates in effect at the time of filing, unlawfully discriminate against a competing form of transportation. The reductions, in petitioners’ view, will benefit only those users of grain who are equipped to receive very large rail shipments, to the detriment of all receivers off the rail routes, and the smaller rail-side purchasers who lack facilities for receipt and storage of multiple-car shipments. Southern responds that its reductions, at least, were made possible by technological innovations and efficiencies culminating in the inauguration of new aluminum freight cars designed especially for carriage of large grain shipments. Southern also maintains that the proposed rates are both nondiscriminatory and compensatory, and have been necessitated by vigorous competition- against the railroads by unregulated motor carriers on certain routes which the barge lines do not serve.
In the course of the hearings before the Commission, the proposed rates were supported by representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Southern Governors’ Conference, the Southeastern Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, and by various receivers and users of grain throughout the Southeast. On the other hand, the rates were protested by certain barge lines besides Arrow, several receivers of grain by barge, the Tennessee Valley Authority, flour milling interests and certain boards of trade outside the Southeast.
The District Court concluded in its memorandum following an oral argument:
“. . . I have convinced myself that should this Court have jurisdiction of this matter, it should consider all of these matters most carefully and deliberately before denying injunctive relief to plaintiffs. At this time I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be best served by granting temporary injunctive relief for a limited period of time, not to urge the Commission to greater speed in determining this issue but to be sure that the parties conclude the hearings as speedily as possible. However, lacking jurisdiction, I find myself powerless to grant the relief sought; therefore, at this time it is the judgment of the Court that the motion for preliminary injunction be, and the same is hereby denied. At the same time I am denying defendants’ motion to dismiss this ease.”
The District Court’s formal order, entered the following day, denied both the petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the respondents’ motion to dismiss.
One judge of the Court of Appeals granted petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order on August 3, 1962, the day on which the order of the District Court issued. On August 8, however, a panel of the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ application for a restraining order pending decision of the appeal. Thereafter, but before oral argument in the Court of Appeals, MR. Justice BlacK issued an order extending the Court of Appeals’ restraining order pending the presentation and disposition by this Court of a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals rendered its opinion on September 7, 1962, and we granted certiorari on October 15. We invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States, and he filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. Southern was the only railroad which opposed certiorari or argued the merits of the case before this Court.
36 Stat. 552.
The cases decided between 1906 and 1910 disclose the judicial uncertainty about the availability of any equitable relief. Compare, e. g., Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs. Assn., 165 F. 1 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1908); Jewett Bros. & Jewett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 156 F. 160 (C. C. D. S. D. 1907) with, e. g., Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., 166 F. 206 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1909), aff'd on other grounds, 215 U. S. 501; and Wickwire Steel Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 181 F. 316 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1910). See for a contemporary view that courts lacked such injunctive powers over proposed rates, 1 Drinker, The Interstate Commerce Act (1909), §243.
See In re Advances in Bates — Western Case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 313-314; Dixon, The Mann-Elkins Act, 24 Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1910, p. 593, at 603; Crook, The Interstate Commerce Commission, 194 North American Review, December 1911, p. 858, at 867.
The Administration originally recommended a period of 60 days; congressional proponents of suspension urged in response an unlimited suspension power, see 45 Cong. Rec. 6409. The Commission itself originally proposed a period of 120 days; the Senate Committee which reported on the Senate version of the bill recommended 90 days, S. Rep. No. 355, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. 9. For other stages of the legislative give-and-take which finally produced a period of 10 months as the maximum suspension term, see 45 Cong. Rec. 3373-3374, 3472, 4109-4110, 6500-6501, 6503, 6509, 6510-6511, 6783-6784, 6787-6788, 6900-6901, 6915-6921, 8239, 8473.
36 Stat. 552.
41 Stat. 486-487. Section 418 of the Esch-Cummins Act also added an express provision that if the hearing had not been concluded at the expiration of the 30-day extension period, “the proposed change of rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice shall go into effect at the end of such period . . . .”
See, e. g., Statement of Commissioner Clark, Hearings on H. R. 4378 before House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 91, 2944; H. R. Rep. No. 456, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 20-21. President Taft’s 1910 message expressly adverted to the possibility that the hearings might outlast the suspension period. 45 Cong. Ree. 380.
A recent summary indicates that only about three-fifths of the investigation and suspension proceedings are completed within the seven-month period, but only four percent of such cases require more than a year. Remarks of Commissioner Charles A. Webb, in Expedition of Commission Proceedings, A Panel Discussion, 27 I. C. C. Prac. J. 15, 16 (1959). Professor Sharfman is authority that at the time he wrote it was invariably the practice of carriers voluntarily to extend the period at least with respect to proposed increases. 1 Sharfman, The Interstate Commerce Commission (1931), 203.
Section 418 of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 484, 486-487, amending § 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act.
44 Stat. 1447-1448. See S. Rep. No. 1508, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. 4. Since the enactment of §15 (7), similar suspension provisions have been included in numerous other regulatory statutes. See 49 U. S. C. §§316 (g), 318 (c) (Motor Carrier Act); 49 U. S. C. § 907 (g), (i) (Water Carrier Act); 49 U. S. C. § 1006 (e) (Freight Forwarders Act); 47 U. S. C. § 204 (Federal Communications Act); 16 U. S. C. § 824d (e) (Federal Power Act); 15 U. S. C. § 717c (e) (Natural Gas Act); and 49 U. S. C. § 1482 (g) (Federal Aviation Act). The terms of these later statutes are virtually identical to those of § 15 (7), although the length of the prescribed suspension period varies. However, it should be apparent that nothing we hold with respect to § 15 (7) necessarily governs the construction and application of these other suspension provisions.
Great Northern held only that the District Court lacked power to enjoin intrastate rates which had been duly prescribed by a state regulatory agency and which the railroads were protesting before the Interstate Commerce Commission as discriminatory against interstate commerce. Although, unlike this case, the situation there involved a danger of direct conflict between federal and state regulation, see 281 U. S., at 426-430, the reasoning there does suggest the Court was of the view that even in the absence of such a direct conflict, the federal courts might not enjoin proposed rates when the Commission lacked either the inclination or the power to do so.
E. g., M. C. Kiser Co. v. Central of Ca. R. Co., 236 F. 573 (D. C. S. D. Ga.), aff’d, 239 F. 718 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Freeport Sulphur Co. v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 913, 916 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605, 609-610 (D. C. D. Del.), vacated in part as moot, 364 U. S. 280; cf. Manhattan Transit Co. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 174, 177 (D. C. D. Mass.). See also Director General v. Viscose Co., 254 U. S. 498, 502, recognizing on similar grounds that under the Transportation Act of 1920 the District Courts lacked power to enjoin the action of the Director General of Railroads in instituting changes of commodity classifications and similar terms: “[T]here was ample and specific provision made therein for dealing with the situation through the Commission, — for suspending the supplement or rule . . . .” 254 U. S., at 502. Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc., v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 72 (D. C. S. D. Calif.), upon which petitioners rely, is not contrary. There the District Court found no need to enjoin or suspend the proposed rates because, pendente lite, the carriers had voluntarily restored the previous schedule. But the court said: “The Congressional intent [underlying § 15 (7)] plainly is that the courts not interfere to suspend carrier-made rates ‘prior to an appropriate finding by the Interstate Commerce Commission.’ ” 115 F. Supp., at 83.
See, e. g., Professor Sharfman’s view that “[u]pon failure of the Commission to issue an order within this prescribed period, the proposed changes in rates were automatically to become effective, although the Commission might continue its investigation and bring it to decision.” 1 Sharfman, The Interstate Commerce Commission (1931), 202. A contemporary commentator’s view of the operation of the new statute was as follows: “In other words, the Commission may suspend rates for ten months beyond their effective date but no longer, and if the investigation is not then complete, the rates automatically go into effect.” Dixon, The Mann-Elkins Act, 24 Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1910, p. 593, at 604. For a current view, see Brooks and Daily, The Commission’s Power of Suspension and Judicial Review Thereof, 27 I. C. C. Prac. J. 589, 599 (1960).
See also Board of Railroad Comm’rs v. Great Northern R. Co., supra, at 429-430; Director General v. Viscose Co., 254 U. S. 498, 504; In re Advances in Rates — Western Case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 313-314; Brooks and Daily, supra, note 16, at 605.
See Commissioner Eastman’s description of the evolution of this competition, Petroleum Products from New Orleans, La., Group, 194 I. C. C. 31, 44.
See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., supra, at 440-441; Director General v. Viscose Co., 254 U. S. 498; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481, 493-495. It has been pointed out that “the agencies, through their power to suspend or deny suspension, often make final determinations of what the rates shall be during the suspension period . . . .” 1 Davis, Administrative Law (1958), 442.
28 U. S. C. § 2325 requires the convening of a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284 to enjoin even temporarily the operation or execution “of any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission
The Court of Appeals also suggested — though the suggestion has not been challenged before this Court — that § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26, might independently bar the injunctive relief sought here. 308 F. 2d, at 185. That section restricts to the United States, in suits for violations of the antitrust laws, the right to seek injunctive relief against any common carrier “in respect of any matter subject to the regulation, supervision, or other jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.” Its applicability would, of course, depend upon whether or not the petitioners’ action rests upon claimed violations of the antitrust laws. Cf. Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal Bailroad Assn., 288 U. S. 469.
See, e. g., Carlsen v. United States, 107 F. Supp. 398 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); Bison S. S. Corp. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 63 (D. C. N. D. Ohio); Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605 (D. C. D. Del.). But cf. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 411 (D. C. N. D. Tex.), vacated as moot, 352 U. S. 1028; Seatrain Lines, Inc., v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 819 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). Compare generally Goodman, The History and Scope of Federal Power to Delay Changes in Transportation Rates, 27 I. C. C. Prac. J. 245 (1959), with Brooks and Daily, The Commission’s Power of Suspension and Judicial Review Thereof, id., 589 (1960).
Thus we do not reflect in any way upon decisions which have recognized a limited judicial power to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s action through the prescribed statutory channels. Cf., e. g., Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc., v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 316 U. S. 4; West India Fruit & S. S. Co. v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 170 F. 2d 775; Board of Governors v. Transamerica Corp., 184 F. 2d 311. Such power has been deemed merely incidental to the courts’ jurisdiction to review final agency action, and has never been recognized in derogation of such a clear congressional purpose to oust judicial power as that manifested in the Interstate Commerce Act.
It has also been suggested that a judicial power of this sort may have survived by reason of the “saving clause” of the statute, 49 U. S. C. §22 (1). That conclusion would, of course, follow only if prior to the adoption of the Act there had been a clearly recognized equitable power to enjoin proposed rate changes. This, as we have already indicated, was not the case. Moreover, we have generally rejected such constructions of this and similar saving clauses, see, e. g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., supra; T. I. M. E., Inc., v. United States, 359 U. S. 464, 472-474.
See North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United States, 200 F. Supp. 745, 750 (D. C. D. Del.). The Commission’s regulations and rules contemplate only an informal hearing before the Suspension Board upon a protest, of which no transcript is to be made, although reconsideration may be requested. She 49 CFR §§ 1.42,1.200; see also 1 Davis, Administrative Law (1958), 441: “Although a hearing cannot be held on the question whether to suspend pending hearing, in many cases hurried conferences are held, which provide substantial safeguard against arbitrary action.” The practice of the Civil Aeronautics Board under a virtually identical suspension statute appears to be more formal, 14 CFR § 302.505; see Air Freight Forwarder Assn., 8 C. A. B. 469; 474.
We suggest no lack of congressional power to grant either administrative or judicial authority to extend a suspension period prior to completion of the administrative proceeding. Under other statutes Congress has evinced a clear intention to vest the courts with such power. The National Labor Relations Board, for example, has expressly been authorized to apply to the courts for “appropriate temporary relief or restraining order” pending the Board’s decision of an unfair labor practice case. 29 U. S. C. §160 (j). Cf. Transpacific Freight Conference v. Federal Maritime Board, 112 U. S. App. D. C. 290, 295, 302 F. 2d 875, 880.
54 Stat. 899, which has been inserted before .Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act.
Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States, 355 U. S. 83, 87-88; Arrow Transportation Co. v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 411, 416 (D. C. N. D. Ala.), aff’d per curiam sub nom. State Corporation Comm’n v. Arrow Transportation Co., 361 U. S. 353.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action to recover treble damages for alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. The only question presented is whether the action is barred, in the circumstances of the case, under the doctrine of res judicata.
Petitioners are engaged in the business of leasing advertising posters to motion picture exhibitors in the Philadelphia area. Such posters, known in the trade as standard accessories, embody copyrighted matter from the motion pictures being advertised. Until recent years, standard accessories could be purchased directly from the motion picture companies themselves. Beginning with Paramount in 1939, however, the eight major producers granted to National Screen Service Corporation the exclusive right to manufacture and distribute various advertising materials, including standard accessories as well as specialty accessories and film trailers, for their motion pictures. RKO followed in 1940, Loew’s in 1942, Universal in 1944, Columbia in 1945, United Artists and Warner Brothers in 1946, and 20th Century Pox in 1947.
In 1942, together with a number of others in similar businesses, petitioners commenced a treble-damage antitrust action against National Screen and the three producers who had already granted exclusive licenses to National Screen. The complaint alleged that the defendants had conspired to establish a monopoly in the distribution of standard accessories by means of the exclusive licenses and that the plaintiffs’ businesses had been injured as a consequence. The complaint also alleged that National Screen was then negotiating with the other major producers to procure similar licenses. In addition to damages, an injunction was sought against the defendants’ “illegal acts and practices.”
In 1943, prior to any trial, the suit was settled. The basis of the settlement was an agreement by National Screen to furnish the plaintiffs with all standard accessories distributed by National Screen pursuant to its exclusive license agreements with producers, including exclusive license agreements which might be executed in the future. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that they would withdraw the suit and that they would pay National Screen for the materials at specified prices. Pursuant to the settlement, the suit was dismissed “with prejudice” by court order. No findings of fact or law were made.
The sublicense was to run three years. In 1946 it was renewed for another five-year term. In 1949, while the sublicense was still in force, petitioners brought the instant action, again seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. Named as defendants — respondents here — were National Screen, the three producers who were parties to the 1942 suit, and the five producers who licensed National Screen subsequent to the dismissal of the 1942 suit.
In their present complaint, petitioners allege that the settlement of the 1942 suit was merely a device used by the defendants in that case to perpetuate their conspiracy and monopoly. They also allege: that five other producers have joined the conspiracy since 1943; that National Screen has deliberately made slow and erratic deliveries of advertising materials under the sublicense in an effort to destroy petitioners’ business; and that for the same purpose National Screen has used tie-in sales and other means of exploiting its monopoly power. Petitioners seek damages for resulting injuries suffered from August 16, 1943 — in other words, for a period beginning several months after the dismissal of the 1942 complaint.
In 1951, on petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that petitioners were entitled to injunctive relief against National Screen because the undisputed facts supported petitioners’ claim of unlawful monopoly. As to the producers, however, the District Court held that conflicting evidence on the issue of conspiracy made a trial necessary. But in 1953, before any trial was held and before a decree against National Screen, could be framed, the defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the 1943 judgment was res judicata. The District Court, another judge then sitting, granted the motion and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question thus presented in the enforcement of the federal antitrust laws.
The basic distinction between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as those terms are used in this case, has frequently been emphasized. Thus, under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment “on the merits” in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, on the other hand, such a judgment precludes relitigation of issues actually litigated and determined in the prior suit, regardless of whether it was based on the same cause of action as the second suit. Recognizing this distinction, the court below concluded that “No question of collateral estoppel by the former judgment is involved because the case was never tried and there was not, therefore, such finding of fact which will preclude the parties to that litigation from questioning the finding thereafter.” Turning then to the doctrine of res judicata, the court correctly stated the question before it as “whether the plaintiffs in the present suit are suing upon the 'same cause of action’ as that upon which they sued in 1942 and lost.” The court answered the question in the affirmative on the ground that the two suits were based on “essentially the same course of wrongful conduct.” The court acknowledged that there are some additional allegations, some new acts which the plaintiffs say the defendants have done since the earlier suit” and that “Additional defendants were joined in the 1949 suit,” but concluded that “in substance the complaint is the same. . . .” '
It is of course true that the 1943 judgment dismissing the previous suit “with prejudice” bars a later suit on the same cause of action. It is likewise true that the judgment was unaccompanied by findings and hence did not bind the parties on any issue — such as the legality of the exclusive license agreements or their effect on petitioners’ business — which might arise in connection with another cause of action. To this extent we are in accord with the decision below. We believe, however, that the court erred in concluding that the 1942 and 1949 suits were based on the same cause of action.
That both suits involved “essentially the same course of wrongful conduct” is not decisive. Such a course of conduct — for example, an abatable nuisance — may frequently give rise to more than a single cause of action. And so it is here. The conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to the 1943 judgment. In addition, there are new antitrust violations alleged here — deliberately slow deliveries and tie-in sales, among others — not present in the former action. While the 1943 judgment precludes recovery on claims arising prior to its entry, it cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case. In the interim, moreover, there was a substantial change in the scope of the defendants’ alleged monopoly; five other producers had granted exclusive licenses to National Screen, with the result that the defendants’ control over the market for standard accessories had increased to nearly 100%. Under these circumstances, whether the defendants’ conduct be regarded as a series of individual torts or as one continuing tort, the 1943 judgment does not constitute a bar to the instant suit.
This conclusion is unaffected by the circumstance that the 1942 complaint sought, in addition to treble damages, injunctive relief which, if granted, would have prevented the illegal acts now complained of. A combination of facts constituting two or more causes of action on the law side of a court does not congeal into a single cause of action merely because equitable relief is also sought. And, as already noted, a prior judgment is res judicata only as to suits involving the same cause of action. There is no merit, therefore, in the respondents’ contention that petitioners are precluded by their failure in the 1942 suit to press their demand for injunctive relief. Particularly is this so in view of the public interest in vigilant enforcement of the antitrust laws through the instrumentality of the private treble-damage action. Acceptance of the respondents’ novel contention would in effect confer on them a partial immunity from civil liability for future violations. Such a result is consistent with neither the antitrust laws nor the doctrine of res judicata.
With respect to the five defendants who were not parties to the 1942 suit, there is yet a second ground for our decision. The court below held that their relationship to the other defendants was “close enough to bring them all within the scope of the doctrine of res judicata.” With this conclusion, we cannot agree. We need not stop to consider the outer bounds of the rule of privity and allied concepts. It is sufficient here to point out that the five defendants do not fall within the orthodox categories of privies; that they could not have been joined in the 1942 case since they did not even enter the alleged conspiracy until after the judgment on which they now rely; that in any event there was no obligation to join them in the 1942 case since as joint tortfeasors they were not indispensable parties; and that their liability was not “altogether dependent upon the culpability” of the defendants in the 1942 suit.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Defendant NATIONAL, illegally and with intent to destroy plaintiff's business, deliberately reduces the rental price of said motion picture talking trailers to exhibitors if said exhibitors, including plaintiff’s customers, agree beforehand to purchase or lease for the exploitation of all of their films exhibited, standard accessories and advertising materials directly from the defendant NATIONAL.”
99 F. Supp. 180,188.
Ibid.
211 F. 2d 934.
348 U. S. 810.
E. g., Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 352-353; United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236, 241. See also Restatement, Judgments, §§ 47, 48, 68. The term res judicata is used broadly in the Restatement to cover merger, bar, collateral estoppel, and direct estoppel. Id., c. 3, Introductory Note.
211 F. 2d 934, 935.
Ibid.
Id., at 936.
Id., at 936-937.
United States v. Parker, 120 U. S. 89, 95; United States v. International Building Co., 345 U. S. 502, 506.
See United States v. International Building Co., supra, at 505:
“We conclude that the decisions entered by the Tax Court for the years 1933, 1938, and 1939 were only a pro jorma acceptance by the Tax Court of an agreement between the parties to settle their controversy for reasons undisclosed. There is no showing either in the record or by extrinsic evidence (see Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606, 608) that the issues raised by the pleadings were submitted to the Tax Court for determination or determined by that court. They may or may not have been agreed upon by the parties. Perhaps, as the Court of Appeals inferred, the parties did agree on the basis for depreciation. Perhaps the settlement was made for a different reason, for some exigency arising out of the bankruptcy proceeding. As the case reaches us, we are unable to tell whether the agreement of the parties was based on the merits or on some collateral consideration.”
Restatement, Judgments, § 62, Comment g. Antitrust violations are expressly made abatable. 15 U. S. C. § 26.
Restatement, Judgments, § 62, Comment g. Compare Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 316 U. S. 149, 150-151.
99 F. Supp. 180, 183-184. The complaint in the 1942 suit alleged that 40% of National Screen’s business in standard accessories consisted of standard accessories for the motion pictures of two (Paramount and RKO) of the three defendant producers. The complaint also alleged that 20% to 33% of the plaintiffs’ business consisted of standard accessories for the motion pictures of the third defendant producer (Loew’s). As to the pertinence of “the percentage of business controlled,” see United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, 527-528.
That the same rule is applicable in equity, see Restatement, Judgments, §46, Comment b; id., §53, Comment c.
211 F. 2d 934, 937.
See Restatement, Judgments, c. 4.
Restatement, Judgments, § 83, Comment a:
“those who control an action although not parties to it . . . ; those whose interests are represented by a party to the action . . . ; successors in interest . . . .”
Compare Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F. 2d 419 (C. A. 3d Cir.), on which both courts below relied. It should also be noted that the Bruszewski decision was an application of collateral estoppel and not res judicata as that term is used here.
Restatement, Judgments, § 94. See Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Co., 225 U. S. 111, 132.
Id., at 127.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits limited to the following questions: 1) Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? 2) Does Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit?
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The issue in this case is whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer may legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant. Concluding that a search warrant must be obtained absent exigent circumstances or consent, we reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming petitioner’s conviction.
I
In early January 1978, an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was contacted in Detroit, Mich., by a confidential informant who suggested that he might be able to locate Ricky Lyons, a federal fugitive wanted on drug charges. On January 14, 1978, the informant called the agent again, and gave him a telephone number in the Atlanta, Ga., area where, according to the informant, Ricky Lyons could be reached during the next 24 hours. On January 16, 1978, the agent called fellow DEA Agent Kelly Goodowens in Atlanta and relayed the information he had obtained from the informant. Goodowens contacted Southern Bell Telephone Co., and secured the address corresponding to the telephone number obtained by the informant. Good-owens also discovered that Lyons was the subject of a 6-month-old arrest warrant.
Two days later, Goodowens and 11 other officers drove to the address supplied by the telephone company to search for Lyons. The officers observed two men standing outside the house to be searched. These men were Hoyt Gaultney and petitioner Gary Steagald. The officers approached with guns drawn, frisked both men, and, after demanding identification, determined that neither man was Lyons. Several agents proceeded to the house. Gaultney’s wife answered the door, and informed the agents that she was alone in the house. She was told to place her hands against the wall and was guarded in that position while one agent searched the house. Ricky Lyons was not found, but during the search of the house the agent observed what he believed to be cocaine. Upon being informed of this discovery, Agent Goodowens sent an officer to obtain a search warrant and in the meantime conducted a second search of the house, which uncovered additional incriminating evidence. During a third search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, the agents uncovered 43 pounds of cocaine. Petitioner was arrested and indicted on- federal drug charges.
Prior to trial, petitioner moved to suppress all evidence uncovered during the various searches on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to secure a search warrant before entering the house. Agent Goodowens testified at the suppression hearing that there had been no “physical hinderance” preventing him from obtaining a search warrant and that he did not do so because he believed that the arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons was sufficient to justify the entry and search. The District Court agreed with this view, and denied the suppression motion. Petitioner was convicted, and renewed his challenge to the search in his appeal. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s suppression motion. United States v. Gaultney, 606 F. 2d 540 (1979). Because the issue presented by this case is an important one that has divided the Circuits, we granted certiorari. 449 U. S. 819.
II
The Government initially seeks to avert our consideration of the Fifth Circuit’s decision by suggesting that petitioner may, regardless of the merits of that decision, lack an expectation of privacy in the house sufficient to prevail on his Fourth Amendment claim. This argument was never raised by the Government in the courts below. Moreover, in its brief in opposition to certiorari the Government represented to this Court that the house in question was “petitioner’s residence” and was “occupied by petitioner, Gaultney, and Gaultney’s wife.” Brief in Opposition 1, 3. However, the Government now contends that the record does not clearly show that petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house, and hence urges us to remand the case to the District Court for re-examination of this factual question.
We decline to follow the suggested disposition. Aside from arguing that a search warrant was not constitutionally required, the Government was initially entitled to defend against petitioner’s charge of an unlawful search by asserting that petitioner lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched home, or that he consented to the search, or that exigent circumstances justified the entry. The Government, however, may lose its right to raise factual issues of this sort before this Court when it has made contrary assertions in the courts below, when it has acquiesced in contrary findings by those courts, or when it has failed to raise such questions in a timely fashion during the litigation.
We conclude that this is such a case. The Magistrate’s report on petitioner’s suppression motion, which was adopted by the District Court, characterized the issue as whether an arrest warrant was sufficient to justify the search of “the home of a third person” for the subject of the warrant. App. 12. The Government never sought to correct this characterization on appeal, and instead acquiesced in the District Court’s view of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim. Moreover, during both the trial and the appeal in this case the Government argued successfully that petitioner’s connection with the searched home was sufficient to establish his constructive possession of the cocaine found in a suitcase in the closet of the house. Moreover, the Court of Appeals concluded, as had the Magistrate and the District Court, that petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim involved the type of warrant necessary to search “premises belonging to a third party.” 606 F. 2d, at 544. Again, the Government declined to disturb this characterization. When petitioner sought review in this Court, the Government could have filed a cross-petition for certiorari suggesting, as it does now, that the case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Instead, the Government argued that further review was unnecessary. Finally, the Government in its opposition to certiorari expressly represented that the searched home was petitioner’s residence.
Thus, during the course of these proceedings the Government has directly sought to connect petitioner with the house, has acquiesced in statements by the courts below characterizing the search as one of petitioner’s residence, and has made similar concessions of its own. Now, two years after petitioner’s trial, the Government seeks to return the case to the District Court for a re-examination of this factual issue. The tactical advantages to the Government of this disposition are obvious, for if the Government prevailed on this claim upon a remand, it would be relieved of the task of defending the judgment of the Court of Appeals before this Court. We conclude, however, that the Government, through its assertions, concessions, and acquiescence, has lost its right to challenge petitioner’s assertion that he possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched home. We therefore turn to the merits of petitioner’s claim.
Ill
The question before us is a narrow one. The search at issue here took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Except in such special situations, we have consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant. See Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13-15 (1948). Thus, as we recently observed: “[I]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance 'to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Payton v. New York, supra, at 590. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 474-475, 477-478 (1971); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 497-498 (1958); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 32-33 (1925). Here, of course, the agents had a warrant — one authorizing the arrest of Ricky Lyons. However, the Fourth Amendment claim here is not being raised by Ricky Lyons. Instead, the challenge to the search is asserted by a person not named in the warrant who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky Lyons. Thus, the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant — as opposed to a search warrant — is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant, when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.
The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to' assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an “officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,” Johnson v. United States, supra, at 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual’s interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 449-451; McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 455-456 (1948). However, while an arrest warrant and a search warrant both serve to subject the probable-cause determination of the police to judicial review, the interests protected by the two warrants differ. An arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon a showing that probable cause exists to believe that the subject of the warrant has committed an offense and thus the warrant primarily serves to protect an individual from an unreasonable seizure. A search warrant, in contrast, is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place, and therefore safeguards an individual’s interest in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police.
Thus, whether the arrest warrant issued in this case adequately safeguarded the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment depends upon what the warrant authorized the agents to do. To be sure, the warrant embodied a judicial finding that there was probable cause to believe that Ricky Lyons had committed a felony, and the warrant therefore authorized the officers to seize Lyons. However, the agents sought to do more than use the warrant to arrest Lyons in a public place or in his home; instead, they relied on the warrant as legal authority to enter the home of a third person based on their belief that Ricky Lyons might be a guest there. Regardless of how reasonable this belief might have been, it was never subjected to the detached scrutiny of a judicial officer. Thus, while the warrant in this case may have protected Lyons from an unreasonable seizure, it' did absolutely nothing to protect petitioner’s privacy interest in being free from an unreasonable invasion and search of his home. Instead, petitioner’s only protection from an illegal entry and search was the agent’s personal determination of probable cause. In the absence of exigent circumstances, we have consistently held that such judicially untested determinations are not reliable enough to justify an entry into a person’s home to arrest him without a warrant, or a search of a home for objects in the absence of a search warrant. Payton v. New York, supra; Johnson v. United States, supra. We see no reason to depart from this settled course when the search of a home is for a person rather than an object.
A contrary conclusion — that the police, acting alone and in the absence of exigent circumstances, may decide when there is sufficient justification for searching the home of a third party for the subject of an arrest warrant — would create a significant potential for abuse. Armed solely with an arrest warrant for a single person, the police could search all the homes of that individual’s friends and acquaintances. See, e. g., Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F. 2d 197 (CA4 1966) (enjoining police practice under which 300 homes were searched pursuant to arrest warrants for two fugitives). Moreover, an arrest warrant may serve as the pretext for entering a home in which the police have a suspicion, but not probable cause to believe, that illegal activity is taking place. Cf. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 767 (1969). The Government recognizes the potential for such abuses, but contends that existing remedies — such as motions to suppress illegally procured evidence and damages actions for Fourth Amendment violations — provide adequate means of redress. We do not agree. As we observed on a previous occasion, “[t]he [Fourth] Amendment is designed to prevent, not simply to redress, unlawful police action.” Chimel v. California, supra, at 766, n. 12. Indeed, if suppression motions and damages actions were sufficient to implement the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, there would be no need for the constitutional requirement that in the absence of exigent circumstances a warrant must be obtained for a home arrest or a search of a home for objects. We have instead concluded that in such cases the participation of a detached magistrate in the probable-cause determination is an essential element of a reasonable search or seizure, and we believe that the same conclusion should apply here.
In sum, two distinct interests were implicated by the search at issue here — Ricky Lyons’ interest in being free from an unreasonable seizure and petitioner’s interest in being free from an unreasonable search of his home. Because the arrest warrant for Lyons addressed only the former interest, the search of petitioner’s home was no more reasonable from petitioner’s perspective than it would have been if conducted in the absence of any warrant. Since warrantless searches of a home are impermissible absent consent or exigent circumstances, we conclude that the instant search violated the Fourth Amendment.
IV
The Government concedes that this view is “apparently logical,” that it furthers the general policies underlying the Fourth Amendment, and that it “has the virtue of producing symmetry between the law of entry to conduct a search for things to be seized and the law of entry to conduct a search for persons to be seized.” Brief for United States 36. Yet we are informed that this conclusion is “not without its flaws” in that it is contrary to common-law precedent and creates some practical problems of law enforcement. We treat these contentions in turn.
A
The common law may, within limits, be instructive in determining what sorts of searches the Framers of the Fourth Amendment regarded as reasonable. See, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 591. The Government contends that at common law an officer could forcibly enter the home of a third party to execute an arrest warrant. To be sure, several commentators do suggest that a constable could “break open doors” to effect such an arrest. See 1 J. Chitty, Criminal Law *57 (Chitty); M. Foster, Crown Law 320 (1762) (Foster); 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 116-117 (1st Am. ed. 1847) (Hale). But see 4 E. Coke, Institutes *177. As support for this proposition, these commentators all rely on a single decision, Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 92b-93a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 198 (K. B. 1603). See 1 Chitty *57; Foster 320; 2 Hale 116. Although that case involved only the authority of a sheriff to effect civil service on a person within his own home, the court noted in dictum that a person could not “escape the ordinary process of law” by seeking refuge in the home of a third party. 5 Co. Rep., at 93a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 198. However, the language of the decision, while not free from ambiguity, suggests that forcible entry into a third party’s house was permissible only when the person to be arrested was pursued to the house. The decision refers to a person who “flies” to another’s home, ibid., and the annotation notes that “in order to justify the breaking of the outer door; after denial on request to take a person... in the house of a stranger, it must be understood... that the person upon a pursuit taketh refuge in the house of another.” Id., at 93a, n. (I), 77 Eng. Rep., at 198, n. (I) (emphasis in original). The common-law commentators appear to have adopted this limitation. See 1 Chitty *57 (sheriff may enter third parties’ home “if the offender fly to it for refuge”); Foster 320 (“For if a Stranger whose ordinary Residence is elsewhere, upon a Pursuit taketh Refuge in the House of another, this is not his Castle, He cannot claim the Benefit of Sanctuary in it”); 2 Hale 116, n. 20 (forcible entry permissible “only upon strong necessity”). We have long recognized that such “hot pursuit” cases fall within the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, see Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967), and therefore are distinguishable from the routine search situation presented here.
More important, the general question addressed by the common-law commentators was very different from the issue presented by this case. The authorities on which the Government relies were concerned with whether the subject of the arrest warrant could claim sanctuary from arrest by hiding in the home of a third party. See 1 Chitty *57; Foster 320; 2 Hale 116-117. Thus, in Semayne’s Case it was observed:
“[T]he house of any one is not a castle or privilege but for himself, and shall not extend to protect any person who flies to his house, or the goods of any other which are brought and conveyed into his house, to prevent a lawful execution, and to escape the ordinary process of law; for the privilege of his house extends only to him and his family, and to his own proper goods.” 5 Co. Rep., at 93a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 128.
The common law thus recognized, as have our recent decisions, that rights such as those conferred by the Fourth Amendment are personal in nature, and cannot bestow vicarious protection on those who do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place to be searched. See United States v. Salvucci, 448 U. S. 83 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978). The issue here, however, is not whether the subject of an arrest warrant can object to the absence of a search warrant when he is apprehended in another person’s home, but rather whether the residents of that home can complain of the search. Because the authorities relied on by the Government focus on the former question without addressing the latter, we find their usefulness limited. Indeed, if anything, the little guidance that can be gleaned from common-law authorities undercuts the Government’s position. The language of Semayne’s Case quoted above, for example, suggests that although the subject of an arrest warrant could not find sanctuary in the home of the third party, the home remained a “castle or privilege” for its residents. Similarly, several commentators suggested that a search warrant, rather than an arrest warrant, was necessary to fully insulate a constable from an action for trespass brought by a party whose home was searched. See, e. g., 1 Chitty *57; 2 Hale 116-117, 151.
While the common law thus sheds relatively little light on the narrow question before us, the history of the Fourth Amendment strongly suggests that its Framers would not have sanctioned the instant search. The Fourth Amendment was intended partly to protect against the abuses of the general warrants that had occurred in England and of the writs of assistance used in the Colonies. See Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 608-609 (White, J., dissenting); Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624-629 (1886); N. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 13-78 (1937). The general warrant specified only an offense — typically seditious libel— and left to the discretion of the executing officials the decision as to which persons should be arrested and which places should be searched. Similarly, the writs of assistance used in the Colonies noted only the object of the search — any uncus-tomed goods — and thus left customs officials completely free to search any place where they believed such goods might be. The central objectionable feature of both warrants was that they provided no judicial check on the determination of the executing officials that the evidence available justified an intrusion into any particular home. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 481 — 485 (1965). An arrest warrant, to the extent that it is invoked as authority to enter the homes of third parties, suffers from the same infirmity. Like a writ of assistance, it specifies only the object of a search — in this case, Ricky Lyons — and leaves to the unfettered discretion of the police the decision as to which particular homes should be searched. We do not believe that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have condoned such a result.
B
The Government also suggests that practical problems might arise if law enforcement officers are required to obtain a search warrant before entering the home of a third party to make an arrest. The basis of this concern is that persons, as opposed to objects, are inherently mobile, and thus officers seeking to effect an arrest may be forced to return to the magistrate several times as the subject of the arrest warrant moves from place to place. We are convinced, however, that a search warrant requirement will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts.
First, the situations in which a search warrant will be necessary are few. As noted in Payton v. New York, supra, at 602-603, an arrest warrant alone will suffice to enter a suspect’s own residence to effect his arrest. Furthermore, if probable cause exists, no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 (1976). Thus, the subject of an arrest warrant can be readily seized before entering or after leaving the home of a third party. Finally, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant would be needed. For example, a warrant-less entry of a home would be justified if the police were in “hot pursuit” of a fugitive. See United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42-43 (1976); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967). Thus, to the extent that searches for persons pose special problems, we believe that the exigent-circumstances doctrine is adequate to accommodate legitimate law enforcement needs.
Moreover, in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is simply not that significant. First, if the police know of the location of the felon when they obtain an arrest warrant, the additional burden of obtaining a search warrant at the same time is miniscule. The inconvenience of obtaining such a warrant does not increase significantly when an outstanding arrest warrant already exists. In this case, for example, Agent Goodowens knew the address of the house to be searched two days in advance, and planned the raid from the federal courthouse in Atlanta where, we are informed, three full-time magistrates were on duty. In routine search cases such as this, the short time required to obtain a search warrant from a magistrate will seldom hinder efforts to apprehend a felon. Finally, if a magistrate is not nearby, a telephonic search warrant can usually be obtained. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (c)(1), (2).
Whatever practical problems remain, however, cannot outweigh the constitutional interests at stake. Any warrant requirement impedes to some extent the vigor with which the Government can. seek to enforce its laws, yet the Fourth Amendment recognizes that this restraint is necessary in some cases to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. We conclude that this is such a case. The additional burden imposed on the police by a warrant requirement is minimal. In contrast, the right protected — that of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the Government — is weighty. Thus, in order to render the instant search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant was required.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
The court relied on a previous decision in the Circuit that held that “when an officer holds a valid arrest warrant and reasonably believes that its subject is within premises belonging to a third party, he need not obtain a search warrant to enter for the purpose of arresting the subject.” United States v. Cravero, 545 E. 2d 406, 421 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 983 (1977). Circuit Judge Kraviteh dissented on the ground that the information known to the agents was insufficient to establish a reasonable belief that Lyons could be found in the house to be searched. 606 F. 2d at 548. On the petition for rehearing, Judge Kraviteh, again in dissent, contended that the majority’s decision announced a “rule of questionable validity and wisdom” and represented a “disturbing erosion of the Fourth Amendment rights of third parties.” United States v. Gaultney, 615 F. 2d 642, 644 (1980).
Last Term we noted that this question remained unresolved. See Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 583 (1980).
Three Circuits have held that in,the absence of exigent circumstances a search warrant is required before law officers may enter the home of a third party to execute an arrest warrant. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F. 2d 914, 928 (CA3 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 909 (1975); Wallace v. King, 626 F. 2d 1157, 1158-1159 (CA4 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-503; United States v. Prescott, 581 F. 2d 1343, 1347-1350 (CA9 1978). Two Circuits have joined the Court of Appeals in this case in adopting the contrary view that a search warrant is not required in such situations if the police have an arrest warrant an'd reason to believe that the person to be arrested is within the home to be searched. See United States v. McKinney, 379 F. 2d 259, 262-263 (CA6 1967); United States v. Harper, 550 F. 2d 610, 612-614 (CA10), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 837 (1977). The Second Circuit has suggested in dictum that it subscribes to this latter view, see United States v. Manley, 632 F. 2d 978, 983 (1980), while the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recently indicated that it would require a search warrant in such cases. See United States v. Ford, 180 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 14, n. 45, 553 F. 2d 146, 159, n. 45 (1977). Two other Courts of Appeals have left the issue open. See United States v. Adams, 621 F. 2d 41, 44, n. 7 (CA1 1980); Rice v. Wolff, 513 F. 2d-1280, 1291-1292, and n. 7 (CA8 1975), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976). The Seventh Circuit has not considered the question.
While the courts are in conflict, most modem commentators agree that a search warrant is necessary to fully protect the privacy interests of third parties when their home is searched for the subject of an arrest warrant. See 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment 374, 38A-385 (1978); Rotenberg & Tanzer, Searching for the Person to Be Seized, 35 Ohio St. L. J. 56, 67-71 (1974); Groot, Arrests in Private Dwellings, 67 Va. L. Rev. 275 (1981); Note, The Neglected Fourth Amendment Problem in Arrest Entries, 23 Stan. L. Rev. 995, 997-999 (1971); Comment, Arresting a Suspect in a Third Party’s Home: What is Reasonable?, 72 J. Crim. L. & C. 293 (1981). But see Mascolo, Arrest Warrants and Search Warrants: The Seizure of A Suspect in the Home of a Third Party, 54 Conn. Bar J. 299 (1980).
The Court of Appeals, in accepting this contention, cited the Government’s own evidence that several checks and papers bearing petitioner’s name were found in the house and that “Steagald, when taken into custody, was wearing only slacks and a long-sleeve shirt, clothing inconsistent with the coldness of the January afternoon, and that once taken inside the... house, told a DEA agent that he was cold and requested that she get a sweater or coat for him from the kitchen area.” 606 F. 2d, at 546-547.
The Government asserts that it was unable to raise this issue in the courts below because both courts had acted before this Court decided United States v. Salvucci, 448 U. S. 83 (1980). We do not find this justification to be compelling. Under the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U. S.-257 (1960), any person charged with a possessory offense could challenge the search in which the incriminating evidence was obtained. Salvucci overruled Jones and instead limited such Fourth Amendment claims to those persons who had a reasonable expecta^tion of privacy in the area or object of the search. Although Salvucci thus altered Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to some extent, the rationale of that decision was in large part simply an extension of this Court’s earlier reasoning in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978). The Rakas decision held that an illegal search violated the Fourth Amendment rights only of those persons who had a “legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Id., at 143. While that decision did not directly address the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, it was clearly an ill omen for the continued vitality of that decision. Since Rakas was decided well before this case was briefed and argued in the Court of Appeals, the Government could easily have raised before that court the question of whether petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were even implicated by the search at issue here. Indeed, the Government in Salvucci clearly recognized the significance of Rakas, for in that case, despite the contrary authority of Jones v. United States, it argued from the outset that the defendant lacked a sufficient expectation of privacy to challenge the legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment. We are given no explanation why the Government failed to regard Rakas as of equal significance to this case. In any event, Salvucci was decided before certiorari was sought in this case, but rather than oppose certiorari on the ground that petitioner lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched home, the Government made explicit concessions to the contrary.
Initially, we assume without deciding that the information relayed to Agent Goodowens concerning the whereabouts of Ricky Lyons would have been sufficient to establish probable Cause to believe that Lyons was at the house searched by the agents.
Indeed, the plain wording of the Fourth Amendment admits of no exemption from the warrant requirement when the search of a home is for a person rather than for a thing. As previously noted, absent exigent circumstances or consent, an entry into a private dwelling to conduct a search or effect an arrest is unreasonable without a warrant. The second clause of the Fourth Amendment, which governs the issuance of such warrants, provides that “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This language plainly suggests that the same sort of judicial determination must be made when the search of a person’s home is for another person as is necessary when the search is for an object. Specifically, absent exigent circumstances the magistrate, rather than the police officer, must make the decision that probable cause exists- to believe that the person or object to be seized is within a particular place.
In Payton, of course, we recognized that an arrest warrant alone was sufficient to authorize the entry into a person’s home to effect his arrest. We reasoned:
“If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen’s participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” 445 U. S., at 602-603.
Because an arrest warrant authorizes the police to deprive a person of his liberty, it necessarily also authorizes a limited invasion of that person’s privacy interest when it is necessary to arrest him in his home. This analysis, however, is plainly inapplicable when the police seek to use an arrest warrant as legal authority to enter the home of a third party to conduct a search. Such a warrant embodies no judicial determination whatsoever regarding the person whose home is to be searched. Because it does not authorize the police to deprive the third person of his liberty, it cannot embody any derivative authority to deprive this person of his interest in the privacy of his home. Such a deprivation must instead be based on an independent showing that a legitimate object of a search is located in the third party’s home. We have consistently held, however, that such a determination is the province of the magistrate, and not that of the police officer.
The Government concedes that "an arrest warrant may be thought to have some of the undesirable attributes of a general warrant if it authorizes entry into third party premises.” Brief for United States 42. Similarly, the Government agrees that “the potential for abuse is much less if the implicit entry authorization of an arrest warrant is confined to the suspect’s own residence and is not held to make the police free to search for the suspect in anyone else’s house without obtaining a particularized judicial determination that the suspect is present.” Ibid.
Moreover, the remedies suggested by the Government are not without their pitfalls and limitations. For example, absent a search warrant requirement, a person seeking to recover civil damages for the unjustified search of his home may possibly be thwarted if a good-faith defense to such unlawful conduct is recognized. See, e. g., Wallace v. King, 626 F. 2d, at 1161.
The significance accorded to such authority, however, must be kept in perspective, for our decisions in this area have not "simply frozen into constitutional law those enforcement practices that existed at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s passage.” Payton v. New York, 445 U. S., at 591, n. 33. The common-law rules governing searches and arrests evolved in a society far simpler than ours is today. Crime has changed, as have the means of law enforcement, and it would therefore be naive to assume
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether an unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of the federal bank robbery statute.
At about 9:30 a.m. on July 26, 1984, petitioner and a companion, both wearing stocking masks and gloves, entered a bank in Baltimore. Petitioner thereupon displayed a dark handgun and ordered everyone in the bank to put his hands up and not to move. While petitioner remained in the lobby area holding the gun, his companion vaulted the counter and placed about $3,400 in a brown paper bag. The two robbers were apprehended by a police officer as they left the bank. Petitioner’s gun was not loaded.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges of bank robbery and bank larceny and, on the basis of stipulated evidence, was found guilty of assault during a bank robbery “by the use of a dangerous weapon.” The latter conviction depends on the validity of the District Court’s conclusion that petitioner’s unloaded gun was a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 2113(d). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court, and so do we.
Three reasons, each independently sufficient, support the conclusion that an unloaded gun is a “dangerous weapon.” First, a gun is an article that is typically and characteristically dangerous; the use for which it is manufactured and sold is a dangerous one, and the law reasonably may presume that such an article is always dangerous even though it may not be armed at a particular time or place. In addition, the display of a gun instills fear in the average citizen; as a consequence, it creates an immediate danger that a violent response will ensue. Finally, a gun can cause harm when used as a bludgeon.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The federal bank robbery statute, 18 U. S. C. § 2113, provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association . . .
“Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
“(b) Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value exceeding $100 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;. . .
“(d) Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.”
We granted certiorari, 474 U. S. 944 (1985), to resolve an apparent conflict. See, e. g., United States v. Wardy, 777 F. 2d 101, 105-106 (CA2 1985); United States v. Terry, 760 F. 2d 939, 942 (CA9 1985).
The floor debate on the provision that became § 2113(d) indicates that Congress regarded incitement of fear as sufficient to characterize an apparently dangerous article (such as a wooden gun) as “dangerous” within the meaning of the statute. See 78 Cong. Rec. 8132 (1934) (colloquy among Reps. Sumners, Blanton, and Dockweiler).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises questions concerning the relative rights of war veteran and nonveteran employees to retention in government service when a program of reduction in the number of government civilian employees makes it necessary for some to be chosen for discharge. The acute point of controversy is this: In the treatment of permanent tenure civil service employees, should qualified honorably discharged war veterans, merely because they are such, be retained in preference to nonveterans, even though those nonveterans have served the Government a substantially longer time than the veterans. The questions depend upon whether certain regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission are valid under a proper interpretation of controlling statutes.
The petitioner was for twelve years, from 1934 to 1946, a duly appointed permanent status civil service employee working in the Charleston Navy Yard. His work was of such high quality as to earn him an efficiency rating of “Excellent.” By successive promotions, he arrived at the responsible position of Leadingman Shipfitter at a basic wage of $12.08 per day. January 7, 1946, shortly after the post-hostility reduction of governmental employees began, petitioner was demoted to a position paying $10.08 per day as part of a reduction in force. This demotion apparently was due in part to the fact that he did not have a veteran's preference. October 7, 1946, petitioner was notified that due to curtailment of work and funds it was necessary to eliminate certain positions in his competitive level and that in accordance with civil service regulations his name had been reached for action. He was told that, if he approved, he was then to be placed in a one-year “furlough status” rather than absolutely separated from service because it was hoped that conditions might justify his recall to duty within the year. He was also informed that his “active service” had already been terminated and that unless sooner recalled to duty he would be separated for reduction in force at the end of his one-year furlough period.
The civil service regulations said to require termination of petitioner’s active service divide government employees into three main groups — A, B, and C. Group A, which has the highest priority for retention, is composed of “permanent employees”; groups B and C are composed of employees with limited tenures of employment. Group A is divided into five subgroups, the first three of which are of particular importance here. These three subgroups are:
Subgroup A-l Plus, (Veterans of World War II) for a one-year period after return to duty;
Subgroup A-l, Veterans’ preference employees with “good” (or higher) efficiency ratings;
Subgroup A-2, Employees without veterans’ preference with “good” (or higher) efficiency ratings.
The result of these Commission groupings is that A-l Plus veterans have the highest retention priority; A-l the second; and A-2, in which, not having a veteran’s preference, petitioner is classified, has the third. Thus if these regulations are valid, every member of both Subgroup A-l Plus and Subgroup A-l must be retained in preference to petitioner.
After receiving notice of his one-year furlough, petitioner filed this complaint in district court for declaratory judgment, mandamus, and other relief. The defendants were the Secretary of the Navy and the members of the Civil Service Commission. The complaint charged that petitioner’s demotion and furlough were the result of the Commission’s regulations which prescribed retention priorities for veterans’ preference employees in A-l Plus and A-l over all nonveteran employees without regard to the longer periods of service of some of the nonveteran employees, including petitioner. The failure of the Commission to consider relative length of service in establishing these retention priorities was charged to be “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, without statutory warrant, and contrary to the express provisions” of applicable statutes. The petitioner’s prayer was that the Commission’s A-l Plus and A-l classifications be declared void, that the Secretary of the Navy be compelled to restore him to his original position as Leadingman Shipfitter, that the Commission be required to rescind the regulations and promulgate new ones in accordance with law, and that “such other and further relief as is just” be granted him. After answer and certain stipulations of fact, both parties moved for summary judgment and the government’s motion was granted. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed. 83 U. S. App. D. C. —, 165 F. 2d 251. Importance of the questions raised prompted us to grant certiorari. 333 U. S. 841.
First. While admitting petitioner’s right to challenge the validity of Subgroup A-l in this action, the Government contends that he cannot challenge A-l Plus. The premise of this argument is that, even if A-l Plus were invalid, the veterans grouped in it would fall within Subgroup A-l. We find no adequate support for this premise in the record. Veterans in Subgroup A-l Plus could not qualify for A-l unless they had efficiency ratings of “good” or better. But the language defining A-l Plus includes veterans of all ratings, even below “good.” And when the summary judgment in this case was rendered, 61 of the 118 veterans comprising A-l Plus had not been rated at all. True, the Government asserts that 60 of these veterans have now been rated “good” and the sixty-first member has resigned. But the potential membership of Subgroup A-l Plus is not limited to those veterans who were in it when the case was tried. The classification provides for a continuing status of preference of one year for all returning veterans who left government employment for war duty. There is no indication that additional war veterans qualified for classification under A-l Plus will not return to Charleston Navy Yard and reclaim shipfitter jobs in preference to otherwise qualified nonveteran employees. And the Government does not claim that this classification has been repealed or altered so that in the future it can include only those veterans who have an efficiency rating of “good” or higher. Under these circumstances we are unable to say that all members of A-l Plus could qualify or will be able to qualify as members of A-l. Therefore we cannot accept the government's contention that petitioner’s likelihood of injury from A-l Plus is too remote to justify his attack on it. If invalid, there is as much reason for his right to challenge this subgroup as for his right to challenge Subgroup A-l.
Second. The Government finds support for Subgroup A-l Plus in § 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 890, 50 U. S. C. § 308. That section provides reemployment rights to any person who under that Act left a position other than a temporary one in order to perform training and service in the armed forces and who satisfactorily completed his training. It further requires that upon appropriate application after release from training, such person, if still qualified to perform the duties of his old job and “if such position was in the employ of the United States Government, . . . shall be restored to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay.” Section 8 (c) also provides that a person so restored to his old position “shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration.”
There appears to be little room for contention that there is ambiguity in the language that Congress selected to express its purpose to require the restoration of a former government employee who entered the armed forces to his old position and to give him the right to retention for a year. The language is that such an employee “shall be restored” to his position or to one like it, supplemented by language that he “shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration.” We have examined the legislative history of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and find nothing whatever which faintly suggests that Congress intended its language to be less mandatory than implied by the words it used. The command in § 8 (b) (A) that the Federal Government rehire its returning veteran employees contrasted sharply with the requirement in § 8 (b) (B) that a private employer need not reemploy such a veteran when “the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so.” This difference was noted by the congressional sponsors of the 1940 Act, who thought that the Federal Government should set an example to private industry by providing jobs for all returning veteran employees. Congress, having thus provided that the veteran who left a government job must be reemployed, also required his retention by declaring that he should not be discharged within a year without cause.
Petitioner contends, however, that this Court’s interpretations of § 8 (b) (B) and § 8 (c) in Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U. S. 40, and in Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, require a holding that the regulations establishing A-l Plus are invalid. The Trailmobile case dealt only with the obligations of a private employer to veterans after the first year of their return to his employment, and our holding there is of no relevance here. In the other case, Fishgold, following his discharge from the armed forces, had been restored to his old position by his former private employer. Within one year thereafter temporary layoffs became necessary on each of nine days. Fishgold was laid off while nonvet-erans with longer service were continuously kept at work in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement which required that “decreases” in the working force be based primarily upon “length of service.” This Court held that since Fishgold’s layoffs were temporary, he still retained an employment relationship, and thus had not been “discharged” within the meaning of § 8 (c). The statute was held not to require that when slack work compelled a private employer to lay off some workers temporarily a veteran restored to his job be given continuous work for one year after his reinstatement in preference to other nonveteran employees who under the terms of company employer-employee contract were entitled to such work by reason of their greater “length of service.”
There are several reasons why we cannot accept petitioner’s argument that the Fishgold case requires the invalidation of the A-l Plus classification. In the first place, we are here concerned with the one-year retention rights of veterans restored under § 8 (b) (A) to their old jobs with the Federal Government, not, as in the Fish-gold case, with the rights of veterans restored to jobs in private industry under § 8 (b) (B). We have previously pointed out that Congress in § 8 (b) (A) imposed a mandatory and unconditional reemployment obligation upon the Federal Government; in other words the section guaranteed that a returning veteran would get back his job with the Government. But § 8 (b) (B) imposed no such unconditional guarantee that a returning veteran would be reemployed by his former private employer. For that subsection does not require restoration of returning veterans to their former private jobs “if the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it unreasonable or impossible” to rehire him.
Thus Congress, evidently considering that there were significant differences in industrial and governmental employment practices and potentialities, imposed obligations to rehire returning veterans of a markedly different nature upon government and private employers. It did not define the “unreasonable or impossible” circumstances that might relieve a private employer of the duty to rehire veterans, nor need we attempt to do so now. But it is plain that such circumstances might conceivably be such as seriously to affect, not only the reasonableness and possibility of rehiring, but also the reasonableness and possibility of retaining him for a full year’s continuous work. For this reason, among others, interpretation of § 8 (c)’s prohibition against discharge of a returning veteran must be made in light of whether he returns to a government-guaranteed or to a private non-guaranteed job. Therefore § 8 (c)’s prohibition against “discharge” by a private employer cannot be accepted as determinative of the scope of the congressional prohibition against “discharge” by the Government.
The foregoing distinction is illustrated by the fact that civil service workers, unlike the private employees in the Fishgold case, are not confronted by a situation in which their employer, the Government, has an outstanding contract with them providing that they shall be retained in service in proportion to their “length of service” as reductions in force become necessary. Whatever seniority rights government employees have when discharges or reductions in force are made depend entirely upon congressional acts and regulations issued in harmony with them. See 37 Stat. 555, 5 U. S. C. § 652. We have discovered no acts or regulations which can be construed to recognize a nonveteran’s length of government service as a factor sufficient to override the requirement of § 8 (b) (A) and § 8 (c) that a veteran must be restored to his old job with the Federal Government and cannot be discharged therefrom without cause for one year. Thus, unlike the employees in the Fish-gold case whose private-employment contract-derived seniority prevented their being laid off, petitioner has no comparable statutorily derived seniority rights to his job with the Government. Petitioner argues, however, that § 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 390, 5 U. S. C. § 861, in effect amended § 8 and conferred retention rights upon him based upon his length of service. For the reasons we give below in discussing the validity of Subgroup A-l, we think this contention is without merit.
Finally, the Fishgold decision held only that a temporary layoff did not violate a veteran’s right under § 8 (c) not to be discharged without cause for one year after he had been restored to his old job. Here the petitioner asserts that the statutory one-year prohibition against discharge confers upon a reemployed veteran no security from a furlough for one year without pay, that such a furlough is not a “discharge” within the meaning of §8 (c). The Commission has here treated a furlough of more than thirty days as the equivalent of a discharge. This is in accordance with prior governmental practice which has considered that the furlough of a veteran with military preference violates regulations providing that he shall not be "discharged or dropped” when “reductions in force are being made.” Moreover, § 14 of the Veterans’ Preference Act, which safeguards preference eli-gibles against administrative denial of their preference rights, specifically places furloughs and suspensions for more than thirty days without pay on the same basis as discharges. Thus, the common meaning of furlough in governmental practice is not the same as that which the Court in the Fishgold case found to be the meaning of “layoffs” and “furloughs” in “industrial parlance.” To give this one-year “furlough” any less meaning than the statutory word “discharge” would result in depriving government employee veterans of the entire congressional guarantee of a year’s retention in their old jobs. We hold that the furlough, if applied to veterans, would be a “discharge” within the meaning of § 8 (c). Consequently, the Commission acted within its statutory duty by providing veterans a preference against such removals by establishing Subgroup A-l Plus.
Third. Petitioner strongly urges invalidity of Subgroup A-l, which gives all permanent employee “Veterans with 'good’ or higher efficiency ratings” retention preferences over all nonveterans, even over nonveterans with higher efficiency ratings and longer government service. While conceding that under some limited circumstances veterans with “good or higher ratings” are granted preference by § 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, petitioner argues that the section does not require but actually prohibits any preference for veterans over nonveterans which fails to give substantial weight to a nonveteran’s longer government service. The Government urges that the section requires an absolute retention preference for veterans who have the required efficiency ratings without regard to the fact that nonveterans may have had longer government service. An alternative argument is that, whether absolutely required or not, the Commission’s sub-grouping is well within the power to promulgate “rules and regulations” specifically authorized by § 12. The question presented is therefore one of interpretation of the relevant language of § 12.
The part of the section on which petitioner particularly relies reads:
“In any reduction in personnel in any civilian service of any Federal agency, competing employees shall be released in accordance with Civil Service Commission regulations which shall give due effect to tenure of employment, military preference, length of service, and efficiency ratings: Provided, That the length of time spent in active service in the armed forces of the United States of each such employee shall be credited in computing length of total service . .
Petitioner interprets this portion of § 12 as a congressional command that the Commission must invariably give “due effect” to length of service in determining what employees, whether veterans or nonveterans, shall first be discharged in a reduction-of-force program. In effect he argues that the above language provides no other “military preference” in civil service for a veteran employee over a non veteran with greater “length of service” than that defined in the above proviso, namely, that the length of a veteran’s army service shall be credited in computing the length of his total government service.
The part of § 12 on which the Government supports the Commission’s recognition of a veteran’s absolute retention preference without regard to comparative length of service of veterans and nonveterans follows immediately after that section’s language on which petitioner relies, and reads:
“. . . Provided further, That preference employees whose efficiency ratings are 'good’ or better shall be retained in preference to all other competing employees and that preference employees whose efficiency ratings are below ‘good’ shall be retained in preference to competing nonpreference employees who have equal or lower efficiency ratings . . . .”
The Government interprets this proviso as a special withdrawal of the proviso-defined classes of veterans from the general terms of the first clause of § 12 relating to “length of service.” It views this proviso as the congressional creation of classes of veterans’ “preference employees” who “shall,” if they have the defined efficiency ratings, “be retained in preference to all other competing employees” without regard to length of service as between veterans and nonveterans. Thus, under the government’s interpretation, length of service would be given the “due effect” required by the first clause of § 12 by its consideration in the determination of retention preferences as between veteran and veteran and as between non veter an and non veter an. This interpretation of the proviso and the section, it is argued, would give meaning to all the language used in them, is plainly called for by the language, and harmonizes this portion of the Act with all its other parts and with the Act’s broad purposes. The interpretation is compelled, so the Government argues, by the Act’s legislative history, particularly when the proviso and preceding clauses in the section are viewed in the light of a long series of prior congressional enactments and authorized executive orders granting preferences in government employment to veterans and their close relatives. We agree with the Government that in the light of the foregoing factors no other interpretation of the pertinent parts of the section can fairly be reached.
In 1876, seventy-two years ago, Congress passed a law which required any executive department when making “any reduction of force” to “retain those persons who may be equally qualified who have been honorably discharged from the military or naval service of the United States, and the widows an.d orphans of deceased soldiers and sailors.” 19 Stat. 143, 169; 5 U. S. C. § 37. In 1912 Congress greatly strengthened the old 1876 policy by providing that “in the event of reductions being made in the force in any of the executive departments no honorably discharged soldier or sailor whose record in said department is rated good shall be discharged or dropped, or reduced in rank or salary.” 37 Stat. 360, 413. There is nothing ambiguous about this 1912 provision. It was an absolute command that no governmental department should discharge, drop, or reduce in rank any honorably discharged veteran government employee with a rating of “good.” Length of service in no way qualified the preference given the veteran. And subsequent executive orders not only recognized this provision as giving veterans an absolute preference, but also extended the preference to veterans in the field service and to positions not under civil service.
Executive Order 4240 of June 4, 1925, as amended by Executive Order 5068 of March 2, 1929, provided, as does Subgroup A-l here, an absolute retention preference for veterans over nonveterans where the veterans’ efficiency ratings were “good,” and a similar absolute preference over nonveterans whose ratings were less than good if the veterans’ ratings were equal to those of the non-veterans. And at the time of passage of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, there were 1943 Civil Service Regulations outstanding which granted veterans with permanent tenure and with a rating of “good” or higher, precisely the same absolute retention preference over nonveterans which is now afforded by Subgroup A-l, here attacked as invalid. Consequently, a holding that veterans with a rating of “good” no longer have a retention preference over nonveterans with longer service, would mean that passage of the Veterans’ Preference Act in 1944 narrowed the long-existing scope of veterans’ preferences in case of reduction in force of government personnel. The purpose of that Act’s sponsors and of Congress in passing it appears to have been precisely the opposite — to broaden rather than narrow the preference.
The Senate Civil Service Committee was told by the congressional sponsor of the measure that “this bill takes away no existing veterans’ preference, either by statute or Executive order, but it does strengthen, broaden, and implements the veterans’ preference policy heretofore in effect,” and that it would “give legislative sanction to existing veterans’ preference, to the rules and regulations in the executive branch of the Government . A member of the Civil Service Commission in explaining the bill to the Senate Committee called the proviso here involved the “heart of the section,” and stated that it was “substantially the same” as the 1912 Act, which, as before pointed out, provided for an absolute veterans’ retention preference without regard to length of service. And in explaining the Bill on the floor of the House, the sponsor and active proponents of the measure explained it as strengthening and broadening veterans’ preferences then embodied in statutes and executive orders.
Not only did the friends of the Veterans’ Preference Act explain to the Senate Committee on Civil Service and to the Congress the broad preferences the Act would grant. Hostile witnesses graphically pointed out to the Senate Committee what they deemed would be the unfairness of the Act’s effect if passed as written. One such witness representing the Civil Service Reform League said: “I think you ought to give consideration to . . . retention of veterans in civil service regardless of length of service. I do not think it is fair, a veteran be retained in service who has been in the service 6 months as against a person who has been in the service 25 years. I believe some distinction might be made, otherwise you would do a grave injustice to those people who have long years of service in civil service.” And another witness against the Bill pointed out that under it nonveterans would “be the first to be laid off and the last to be taken on.”
Thus Congress passed the bill with full knowledge that the long standing absolute retention preferences of veterans would be embodied in the Act. Petitioner makes an appealing argument against this policy. But it is a policy adopted by Congress, and our responsibility is to interpret the Act, not to overrule the congressional policy.
Affirmed.
The remaining two subgroups of A, not involved here, are:
Subgroup A-3, Veterans with efficiency ratings lower than "good.”
Subgroup A-4, Non veterans with efficiency ratings lower than “good.” 5 Code Fed. Reg. (Supp. 1945) § 12.303, now found in 5 Code Fed. Reg. (Supp. 1947) §20.3 (a).
Hearings before House Committee on Military Affairs on H. R. 10132, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 80-82, 118, 235; 86 Cong. Rec. 11697.
See 40 Ops. Atty. Gen., No. 115 (Sept. 20, 1946), p. 7, referring to Opinion, Attorney General Mitchell in 1929, interpreting Executive Order 5068, March 2, 1929. The substance of that Order is set out in this opinion at p. 337.
The Act not only provides preferences for veterans but under certain circumstances grants preferences to veterans’ wives, widows and mothers. § 2, 5 U. S. C. § 851, as amended by 62 Stat. 3. See H. R. Rep. No. 1289,78th Cong., 2d Sess. 3.
Disabled veterans had been granted employment preferences in 1S65. 13 Stat. 571. This statutory policy was expressly preserved by § 7 of the Civil Service Act of 1883, 22 Stat. 403, 406, 5 U. S. C. § 638, was carried forward in other Acts, and has been repeated in a most comprehensive manner in § 2 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944.
It is of interest that this legislative expression, like the one before us, was a proviso in a section, and that the section as a whole had to do with the manner in which the Civil Service Commission should provide for efficiency ratings in relation to promotions, demotions and dismissals of civil service employees.
§ 7, Executive Order 3567, October 24,1921.
Executive Order 3801, March 3,1923.
Departmental Circular 146, U. S. Civil Service Comm’n, October 22,1936.
5 Code Fed. Reg. (Supp. 1943) §§ 12.301-12.313. These regulations, like those attacked here, separated all civil service employees into different categories according to their tenure, with permanent mployees having the highest retention status. Thus all permanent employees, regardless of veterans’ preference and of efficiency rating, enjoyed priority over all employees with limited tenures.
Hearings before Senate Committee on Civil Service on S. 1762 and H. R. 4115,78th Cong., 2d Sess. 8-9.
Id. at 29.
Id. at 27,29.
Three veterans’ organizations collaborated with the legislative sponsors in drafting the Act. Hearings before Senate Committee on Civil Service on S. 1762 and H. R. 4115, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 8. A representative of one of these organizations stated to the Committee: “This measure gives to honorably discharged veterans of World War I and World War II, their widows, and the wives of disabled veterans who themselves are not qualified, preference in employment where Federal funds are disbursed. It provides, by law, a definite preference both in appointment and retention in Federal positions. While such a preference in many instances now exists by virtue of Executive orders and Civil Service Commission regulations, this bill gives such preference a permanent standing that cannot be changed except by congressional action. The bill, likewise, does not take away from the veteran any rights previously granted under any existing law, Executive order, civil-service rule, or regulation of any department of the Government, but prescribes by law additional preferences and confirms many now existing by regulation.” Id. at 41-42.
90 Cong. Rec. 3502,3503, 3505.
Hearings before Senate Committee on Civil Service on S. 1762 and H. R. 4115,78th Cong., 2d Sess. 33-34.
Id. at 63, 65.
It is worthy of note, however, that Congress, in recognition of hardships resulting from replacement of older government employees by veterans, has passed Acts which grant special pensions to employees over 55 years of age who have worked for the Government for 25 years or more and who have been involuntarily separated from the service in reductions in force. 60 Stat. 939, 5 U. S. C. § 69 le; 62 Stat. 48. See 92 Cong. Rec. 9201-9202, H. R. Rep. No. 2443, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 1; S. Rep. No. 1678, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2.
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. Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An Arizona trial judge granted the prosecutor’s motion for a mistrial predicated on improper and prejudicial comment during defense counsel’s opening statement. In a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding, a Federal District Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protected the defendant from another trial. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The questions presented are whether the record reflects the kind of “necessity” for the mistrial ruling that will avoid a valid plea of double jeopardy, and if so, whether the plea must nevertheless be allowed because the Arizona trial judge did not fully explain the reasons for his mistrial ruling.
I
In 1971 respondent was found guilty of murdering a hotel night clerk. In 1973, the Superior Court of Pima County, Ariz., ordered a new trial because the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the new trial order in an unpublished opinion.
Respondent’s second trial began in January 1975. During the voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the prosecutor made reference to the fact that some of the witnesses whose testimony the jurors would hear had testified in proceedings four years earlier. Defense counsel told the prospective jurors “that there was evidence hidden from [respondent] at the last trial.” In his opening statement, he made this point more forcefully:
“You will hear testimony that notwithstanding the fact that we had a trial in May of 1971 in this matter, that the prosecutor hid those statements and didn’t give those to the lawyer for George saying the man was Spanish speaking, didn’t give those statements at all, hid them.
“You will hear that that evidence was suppressed and hidden by the prosecutor in that case. You will hear that that evidence was purposely withheld. You will hear that because of the misconduct of the County Attorney at that time and because he withheld evidence, that the Supreme Court of Arizona granted a new trial in this case.” App. 180-181, 184.
After opening statements were completed, the prosecutor moved for a mistrial. In colloquy during argument of the motion, the trial judge expressed the opinion that evidence concerning the reasons for the new trial, and specifically the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court, was irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence and therefore inadmissible. Defense counsel asked for an opportunity “to find some law” that would support his belief that the Supreme Court opinion would be admissible. After further argument, the judge stated that he would withhold ruling on the admissibility of the evidence and denied the motion for mistrial. Two witnesses then testified.
The following morning the prosecutor renewed his mistrial motion. Fortified by an evening’s research, he argued that there was no theory on which the basis for the new trial ruling could be brought to the attention of the jury, that the prejudice to the jury could not be repaired by any cautionary instructions, and that a mistrial was a “manifest necessity.” Defense counsel stated that he still was not prepared with authority supporting his belief that the Supreme Court opinion was admissible. He argued that his comment was invited by the prosecutor’s reference to the witnesses’ earlier testimony and that any prejudice could be avoided by curative instructions. During the extended argument, the trial judge expressed his concern about the possibility that an erroneous mistrial ruling would preclude another trial.
Ultimately the trial judge granted the motion, stating that his ruling was based upon defense counsel’s remarks in his opening statement concerning the Arizona Supreme Court opinion. The trial judge did not expressly find that there was “manifest necessity” for a mistrial; nor did he expressly state that he had considered alternative solutions and concluded that none would be adequate. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the mistrial ruling.
Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that another trial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. After reviewing the transcript of the state proceeding, and hearing the arguments of counsel, the Federal District Judge noted that the Arizona trial judge had not canvassed on the record the possibility of alternatives to a mistrial and expressed the view that before granting a mistrial motion the judge was required “to find that manifest necessity exists for the granting of it.” Because the record contained no such finding, and because the federal judge was not prepared to make such a finding himself, he granted the writ. He agreed with the State, however, that defense counsel’s opening statement had been improper.
The Ninth Circuit also characterized the opening statement as improper, but affirmed because, absent a finding of manifest necessity or an explicit consideration of alternatives, the court was unwilling to infer that the jury was prevented from arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. In a concurring opinion, two judges noted that, while the question of manifest necessity had been argued, most of the argument on the mistrial motion had concerned the question whether the opening statement was improper. They concluded that, “absent findings that manifest necessity existed, it... '[was] quite possible that the grant of mistrial was based on the fact that the impropriety of counsel’s conduct had been established without reaching the question whether there could, nevertheless, be a fair trial.” 546 F. 2d, at 833.
We are persuaded that the Court of Appeals applied an inappropriate standard of review to mistrial rulings of this kind, and attached undue significance to the form of the ruling. We therefore reverse.
II
A State may not put a defendant in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal. The public interest in the finality of criminal judgments is so strong that an acquitted defendant may not be retried even though “the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.” See Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143. If the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair.
Because jeopardy attaches before the judgment becomes final, the constitutional protection also embraces the defendant’s “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” The reasons why this “valued right” merits constitutional protection are worthy of repetition. Even if the first trial is not completed, a second prosecution may be grossly unfair. It increases the financial and emotional burden on the accused, prolongs the period in which he is stigmatized by an unresolved accusation of wrongdoing, and may even enhance the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted. The danger of such unfairness to the defendant exists whenever a trial is aborted before it is completed. Consequently, as a general rule, the prosecutor is entitled to one, and only one, opportunity to require an accused to stand trial.
Unlike the situation in which the trial has ended in an acquittal or conviction, retrial is not automatically barred when a criminal proceeding is terminated without finally resolving the merits of the charges against the accused. Because of the variety of circumstances that may make it necessary to discharge a jury before a trial is concluded, and because those circumstances do not invariably create unfairness to the accused, his valued right to have the trial concluded by a particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to the public interest in affording the prosecutor one full and fair opportunity to present his evidence to an impartial jury. Yet in view of the importance of the right, and the fact that it is frustrated by any mistrial, the prosecutor must shoulder the burden of justifying the mistrial if he is to avoid the double jeopardy bar. His burden is a heavy one. The prosecutor must demonstrate “manifest necessity” for any mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant.
The words “manifest necessity” appropriately characterize the magnitude of the prosecutor’s burden. For that reason Mr. Justice Story’s classic formulation of the test has been quoted over and over again to provide guidance in the decision of a wide variety of cases. Nevertheless, those words do not describe a standard that can be applied mechanically or without attention to the particular problem confronting the trial judge. Indeed, it is manifest that the key word “necessity” cannot be interpreted literally; instead, contrary to the teaching of Webster, we assume that there are degrees of necessity and we require a “high degree” before concluding that a mistrial is appropriate.
The question whether that “high degree” has been reached is answered more easily in some kinds of cases than in others. At one extreme are cases in which a prosecutor requests a mistrial in order to buttress weaknesses in his evidence. Although there was a time when English judges served the Stuart monarchs by exercising a power to discharge a jury whenever it appeared that the Crown’s evidence would be insufficient to convict, the prohibition against double jeopardy as it evolved in this country was plainly intended to condemn this “abhorrent” practice. As this Court noted in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600, 611:
“The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions. It bars retrials where ‘bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor’... threatens the ‘[hjarassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict’ the defendant.”
Thus, the strictest scrutiny is appropriate when the basis for the mistrial is the unavailability of critical prosecution evidence, or when there is reason to believe that the prosecutor is using the superior resources of the State to harass or to achieve a tactical advantage over the accused.
At the other extreme is the mistrial premised upon the trial judge's belief that the jury is unable to peach a verdict, long considered the classic basis for a proper mistrial. The argument that a jury’s inability to agree establishes reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, and therefore requires acquittal, has been uniformly rejected in this country. Instead, without exception, the courts have held that the trial judge may discharge a genuinely deadlocked jury and require the defendant to submit to a second trial. This rule accords recognition to society’s interest in giving the prosecution one complete opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.
Moreover, in this situation there are especially compelling reasons for allowing the trial judge to exercise broad discretion in deciding whether or not “manifest necessity” justifies a discharge of the jury. On the one hand, if he discharges the jury when further deliberations may produce a fair verdict, the defendant is deprived of his “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” But if he fails to discharge a jury which is unable to reach a verdict after protracted and exhausting deliberations, there exists a significant risk that a verdict may result from pressures inherent in the situation rather than the considered judgment of all the jurors. If retrial of the defendant were barred whenever an appellate court views the “necessity” for a mistrial differently from the trial judge, there would be a danger that the latter, cognizant of the serious societal consequences of air erroneous ruling, would employ coercive means to break the apparent deadlock. Such a rule would frustrate the public interest in just judgments. The trial judge’s decision to declare a mistrial when he considers the jury deadlocked is therefore accorded great deference by a reviewing court.
We are persuaded that, along the spectrum of trial problems which may warrant a mistrial and which vary in their amenability to appellate scrutiny, the difficulty which led to the mistrial in this case also falls in an area where the trial judge’s determination is entitled to special respect.
In this case the trial judge ordered a mistrial because the defendant’s lawyer made improper and prejudicial remarks during his opening statement to the jury. Although respondent insists that evidence of prosecutorial misconduct was admissible as a matter of Arizona law, and therefore that the opening statement was proper, we regard this issue as foreclosed by respondent’s failure to proffer any Arizona precedent supportive of his contention and by the state court’s interpretation of its own law, buttressed by the consistent opinion of the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals. Cf. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346-347. We therefore start from the premise that defense counsel’s comment was improper and may have affected the impartiality of the jury.
We recognize that the extent of the possible bias cannot be measured, and that the District Court was quite correct in believing that some trial judges might have proceeded with the trial after giving the jury appropriate cautionary instructions. In a strict, literal sense, the mistrial was not “necessary.” Nevertheless, the overriding interest in the evenhanded administration of justice requires that we accord the highest degree of respect to the trial judge’s evaluation of the likelihood that the impartiality of one or more jurors may have been affected by the improper comment.
The consistent course of decision in this Court in cases involving possible juror bias supports this conclusion. Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148, involved the possibility of bias caused by a newspaper story describing a letter written by defense counsel denying a charge by a third party that one of the jurors was acquainted with the defendant. Without determining the truth or falsity of the charge, and without examining the jurors to ascertain what influence the story had upon them, the trial judge declared a mistrial because he considered it “ ‘impossible that in the future consideration of this case by the jury there can be that true independence and freedom of action on the part of each juror which is necessary to a fair trial of the accused.’ ” Id., at 150. This Court affirmed, holding that the judge was justified in concluding that the publication of the letter had made it impossible for the jury “to act with the independence and freedom on the part of each juror requisite to a fair trial of the issue between the parties.” Id., at 155.
In Thompson v. United States, 155 U. S. 271, 279, the Court concluded that a mistrial was required when it was revealed that one of the trial jurors had served on the grand jury that indicted the defendant. Since it is possible that the grand jury had heard no more evidence — and perhaps even less— than was presented at the trial, and since the juror in question may have had no actual bias against the defendant, the record did not demonstrate that the mistrial was strictly “necessary.” There can be no doubt, however, about the validity of the conclusion that the possibility of bias justified the mistrial.
An improper opening statement unquestionably tends to frustrate the public interest in having a just judgment reached by an impartial tribunal. Indeed, such statements create a risk, often not present in the individual juror bias situation, that the entire panel may be tainted. The trial judge, of course, may instruct the jury to disregard the improper comment. In extreme cases, he may discipline counsel, or even remove him from the trial as he did in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600. Those actions, however, will not necessarily remove the risk of bias that may be created by improper argument. Unless unscrupulous defense counsel are to be allowed an unfair advantage, the trial judge must have the power to declare a mistrial in appropriate cases. The interest in orderly, impartial procedure would be impaired if he were deterred from exercising that power by a concern that any time a reviewing court disagreed with his assessment of the trial situation a retrial would automatically be barred. The adoption of a stringent standard of appellate review in this area, therefore, would seriously impede the trial judge in the proper performance of his “duty, in order to protect the integrity of the trial, to take prompt and affirmative action to stop... professional misconduct.” Id., at 612.
There are compelling institutional considerations militating in favor of appellate deference to the trial judge’s evaluation of the significance of possible juror bias. He has seen and heard the jurors during their voir dire examination. He is the judge most familiar with the evidence and the background of the case on trial. He has listened to the tone of the argument as it was delivered and has observed the apparent reaction of the jurors. In short, he is far more “conversant with the factors relevant to the determination” than any reviewing court can possibly be. See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 687.
Ill
Our conclusion that a trial judge’s decision to declare a mistrial based on his assessment of the prejudicial impact of improper argument is entitled to great deference does not, of course, end the inquiry. As noted earlier, a constitutionally protected interest is inevitably affected by any mistrial decision. The trial judge, therefore, “must always temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he might believe to be favorably disposed to his fate.” United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S., at 486 (Harlan, J.). In order to ensure that this interest is adequately protected, reviewing courts have an obligation to satisfy themselves that, in the words of Mr. Justice Story, the trial judge exercised “sound discretion” in declaring a mistrial.
Thus, if a trial judge acts irrationally or irresponsibly, cf. United States v. Jorn, supra; see Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S., at 469, his action cannot be condoned. But our review of this record indicates that this was not such a case. Defense counsel aired improper and highly prejudicial evidence before the jury, the possible impact of which the trial judge was in the best position to assess. The trial judge did not act precipitately in response to the prosecutor's request for a mistrial. On the contrary, evincing a concern for the possible double jeopardy consequences of an erroneous ruling, he gave both defense counsel and the prosecutor full opportunity to explain their positions on the propriety of a mistrial. We are therefore persuaded by the record that the trial judge acted responsibly and deliberately, and accorded careful consideration to respondent’s interest in having the trial concluded in a single proceeding. Since he exercised “sound discretion” in handling the sensitive problem of possible juror bias created by the improper comment of defense counsel, the mistrial order is supported by the “high degree” of necessity which is required in a case of this kind. Neither party has a right to have his case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias; in these circumstances, “the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgements” must prevail over the defendant’s “valued right” to have his trial concluded before the first jury impaneled.
IY
One final matter requires consideration. The absence of an explicit finding of “manifest necessity” appears to have been determinative for the District Court and may have been so for the Court of Appeals. If those courts regarded that omission as critical, they required too much. Since the record provides sufficient justification for the state-court ruling, the failure to explain that ruling more completely does not render it constitutionally defective.
Review of any trial court decision is, of course, facilitated by findings and by an explanation of the reasons supporting the decision. No matter how desirable such procedural assistance may be, it is not constitutionally mandated in a case such as this. Cf. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146. The basis for the trial judge’s mistrial order is adequately disclosed by the record, which includes the extensive argument of counsel prior to the judge’s ruling. The state trial judge’s mistrial declaration is not subject to collateral attack in a federal court simply because he failed to find “manifest necessity” in those words or to articulate on the record all the factors which informed the deliberate exercise of his discretion.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun concurs in the result.
546 F. 2d 829 (1977). The order discharging respondent from custody has been stayed pending completion of appellate review.
The prosecutor’s reference was in the context of asking the venire whether they would be able to credit the testimony of a witness if there were inconsistencies between his present testimony and that given in earlier proceedings.
“THE COURT: I cannot conceive how the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in this case would be admissible on any basis whatsoever.
“MR. BOLDING: I’ll really try to do some additional work, then your Honor, to try to find some law for it. I believe it would be admissible. It’s corroborative of the testimony that the jury will hear.
“THE COURT: I’m afraid, and I don’t know how we stop it, we’re getting to the point where we’re trying the County Attorney’s office and the County Attorney's office, conduct, whatever it was in the last case, and I simply, I am not going to allow it if this trial goes on and I'm very sorely tempted to grant the State’s motion at this time.
“MR. BOLDING: Well your Honor, that’s — I will be — sorry if that happens and if the Court tells me now that I cannot examine any witness about that Supreme Court decision until I furnish you some law that says yes, that can come in, then I will abide by that decision, your Honor. I will be working on it and I would like to reserve my right to present that to the Court outside the hearing of the jury at another time. I just, I believe that it is, it’s credible evidence. It’s, thinking, you know, off the top of my head here, it’s opinion evidence from experts. It’s evidence that I believe is truly corroborative of the evidence that the jury will hear and I would certainly like to reserve my right to present some, if I can find you some written law, which would allow this type of testimony, your Honor, as evidence.” App. 209-210.
Later, the trial judge expressed disagreement with defense counsel’s argument that evidence of prosecutorial misconduct could be admitted on an impeachment theory: “I don’t think you’re entitled to prove all this misconduct if such is the case, to impeach every witness, and I think that’s what you’re saying to me.” Id,., at 217-218.
“I have not worked on that because I’m not at that stage yet where I think it’s necessary to bring that into evidence.” Id., at 243. Apparently when counsel made his opening statement, he was not prepared to support the admissibility of the testimony with legal authority.
“[Prosecutor:] The only cure, your Honor, is a mistrial. The State is well aware that if the position I’m taking is wrong, if a mistrial is not proper, that man walks, I know that.
“THE COURT: And I expressed my concern about that, Mr. Butler.” Id,., at 253.
Respondent filed both a “special action” — a proceeding in the nature of a common-law writ of mandamus or prohibition, see 17A Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, Rule 1 (1973) — and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent also moved in the trial court to dismiss or quash the information. Petitioner does not raise any question about the adequacy of respondent’s exhaustion of available state remedies.
App. 129.
The District Court indicated that a simple statement by the trial judge to the effect that there was “manifest necessity” for the mistrial would have sufficed to defeat the double jeopardy claim. Id., at 130-140.
In his opinion for the Court of Appeals, Judge Kilkenny stated:
“In the absence of clear abuse, we are normally inclined to uphold discretionary orders of this nature. In the usual case, the trial judge has observed the complained-of event, heard counsel, and made specific findings. Under such circumstances, a mistrial declaration accompanied by a finding that the jury could no longer render an impartial verdict would not be lightly set aside.” 546 F. 2d, at 832.
The importance of the absence of express findings or reasons to the decision below seems apparent. The Arizona trial judge “observed the complained-of event” and patiently "heard counsel.” Had he taken the additional step of making an express finding of “manifest necessity,” it appears that Judge Kilkenny would have reviewed the mistrial ruling under a less exacting abuse-of-discretion standard.
In its opinion as originally released, the court stated: “[W]e decline to imply from this impropriety that the jury was completely prevented from arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.” App. 29-30. The court subsequently amended its opinion to delete the word “completely” from that sentence. As originally written, the opinion implied that the probability of jury prejudice would not be a sufficient ground for mistrial; only the certainty of prejudice would suffice.
This description of the right, which was quoted by Mr. Justice Harlan in his plurality opinion in United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 484, and by the Court in Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S. 458, 466, was formulated by Mr. Justice Black in his opinion for the Court in Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 689. His complete sentence identifies that right as sometimes subordinate to a larger interest in having the trial end in a just judgment:
“What has been said is enough to show that a defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.” Ibid.
"Reprosecution after a mistrial has unnecessarily been declared by the trial court obviously subjects the defendant to the same personal strain and insecurity regardless of the motivation underlying the trial judge’s action.” United States v. Jorn, supra, at 483.
As Mr. Justice Black stated in Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188:
“The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” (Emphasis added.)
In Carsey v. United States, 129 U. S. App. D. C. 205, 208-209, 392 F. 2d 810, 813-814 (1967), Judge Leventhal described how subtle changes in the State’s testimony, initially favorable to the defendant, may occur during the course of successive prosecutions:
"[T]he Government witnesses came to drop from their testimony impressions favorable to defendant. Thus a key prosecution witness, the last person to see appellant and the deceased together, who began by testifying that they had acted that evening like newlyweds on a honeymoon, without an unfriendly word spoken, ended up by saying for the first time in four trials that the words between them had been ‘firm,’ and possibly harsh and ‘cross.’
“We also' note that the police officer who readily acquiesced in the two ‘hung jury’ trials that appellant was ‘hysterical,’ later withheld that characterization. This shift, though less dramatic, was by no means inconsequential in view of the significance of appellant’s condition at the time he made a statement inconsistent with what he later told another officer.”
See also n. 13, supra.
As the Court stated in Illinois v. Somerville, supra, at 471:
“The determination by the trial court to abort a criminal proceeding where jeopardy has attached is not one to be lightly undertaken, since the interest of the defendant in having his fate determined by the jury first impaneled is itself a weighty one.... Nor will the lack of demonstrable additional prejudice preclude the defendant’s invocation of the double jeopardy bar in the absence of some important countervailing interest of proper judicial administration.”
In his opinion announcing the Court’s judgment in United States v. Jorn, supra, at 479-480, Mr. Justice Harlan explained why a rigid application of the “particular tribunal” principle is unacceptable:
“[A] criminal trial is, even in the best of circumstances, a complicated affair to manage.... [It is] readily apparent that a mechanical rule prohibiting retrial whenever circumstances compel the discharge of a jury without the defendant’s consent would be too high a price to pay for the added assurance of personal security and freedom from governmental harassment which such a mechanical rule would provide.”
Whether the phrase “manifest necessity,” “evident necessity,” see Winsor v. The Queen, L. R. 1 Q. B. 289, 305 (1866) (Cockbum, C. J.), or “imperious necessity,” see Downum, v. United States, 372 U. S. 734, 736, is used, the meaning is apparently the same.
“We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.... But, after all, they have the right to order the discharge; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the Judges, under their oaths of office.” United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580.
See, e. g., Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684 (court-martial proceeding terminated because of military necessity); Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148 (possible juror bias); United States v. Perez, supra (hung jury).
As the Court noted in Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S., at 462, the Perez “formulation, consistently adhered to... in subsequent decisions, abjures the application of any mechanical formula by which to judge the propriety of declaring a mistrial in the varying and often unique situations arising during the course of a criminal trial.”
The English courts have long recognized the truth of this proposition in the “hung jury” context:
“This rule if taken literally seems to command the confinement of the jury till death if they do not agree, and to avoid any such consequence an exception was introduced in practice which Blackstone has described by the words 'except in case of evident necessity.'
“But the exception so expressed has given rise to further doubts, because necessity is an equivocal word, meaning either irresistible compulsion or a high degree of need. Those who have been interested in objecting to a discharge of a jury before verdict, have disputed whether the discharge was necessary in the stricter sense of the word. The same dispute about the meaning of the word necessity in the exception to this rule is the source of the main questions raised upon this writ of error, and they are in substance answered when we decide on the meaning of that word in the exception to this rule, and apply that meaning to the facts appearing on this record. We assume it to be clear that the discharge of the jury before verdict may be lawful at some time and under some circumstances. Then with reference to the facts on this record, we hold that the judge at the first trial had by law power to discharge the jury before verdict, when a high degree of need for such discharge was made evident to his mind from the facts which he had ascertained. We cannot define the degree of need without some standard for comparison; we cannot approach nearer to precision than by describing the degree as a high degree such as in the wider sense of the word might be denoted by necessity.” Winsor v. The Queen, supra, at 390, 394.
E. g., Whitebread, 7 How. St. Tr. 311 (1679). See also The Queen v. Charlesworth, 1 B. & S. 460, 500, 121 Eng. Rep. 786, 801 (Q. B. 1861); Friedland, Double Jeopardy 13-14, 21-25 (1969); Sigler, Double Jeopardy 87 (1969); Douglas, An Almanac of Liberty 143 (1954). In reaction, the rule developed in England that the judge should not discharge the jury prior to verdict except in cases of “evident necessity.” Winsor v. The Queen, supra, at 304-305. However, if, for example, the judge discharged the jury because a key witness for the Crown refused to testify, see The Queen v. Charlesworth, supra, the accused could nevertheless be retried because jeopardy had not attached under the English rule. Winsor v. The Queen, supra, at 390; The Queen v. Charlesworth, supra; Friedland, supra, at 22-23.
“[I]n the reigns of the latter sovereigns of the Stuart family, a different rule prevailed, that a jury in such case might be discharged for the purpose of having better evidence against him at a future day; and this power was exercised for the benefit of the crown only; but it is a doctrine so abhorrent to every principle of safety and security that it ought not to receive the least countenance in the courts of this country. In the time of James II, and since the Revolution, this doctrine came under examination, and the rule as laid down by my Lord Coke was revived State v. Garrigues, 2 N. C. 188, 189 (1795).
If, for example, a prosecutor proceeds to trial aware that key witnesses are not available to give testimony and a mistrial is later granted for that reason, a second prosecution is barred. Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734. The prohibition against double jeopardy unquestionably “forbids the prosecutor to use the first proceeding as a trial run of his case.” Note, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L. J. 262, 287-288 (1965).
As Mr. Justice Douglas noted in Downum v. United States, supra, at 736:
“Harassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict are examples when jeopardy attaches.”
Yet, as Mr. Justice Douglas further noted, “those extreme cases do not mark the limits of the guarantee.” Ibid. The “particular tribunal” principle is implicated whenever a mistrial is declared over the defendant's objection and without regard to the presence or absence of governmental overreaching. If the “right to’ go to a particular tribunal is valued, it is because, independent of the threat of bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor, the defendant has a significant interest in the decision whether or not to take the case from the jury.” United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S., at 485. See discussion in Part III, infra.
Downum v. United States, supra, at 735-736.
This public interest in fair judgments is not of recent origin:
“We do take upon ourselves, without the consent of the parties..., to discharge the jury when we are satisfied that they have fully considered the case and cannot agree; and I hope no Judge will shrink from taking that course; for, if a jury cannot agree, we ought not to coerce them by personal suffering, nor ought we to expose parties to the danger of a verdict which is not the result of conviction in the minds of the jury, but produced by suffering of mind or body." The Queen v. Charlesworth, 1 B. & S., at 503-504, 121 Eng. Rep., at 802.
United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263; Moss v. Glenn, 189 U. S. 506; Keerl v.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider a question arising under the federal venue statutes. Petitioner, a resident and citizen of the State of Mississippi, brought a negligence action based on diversity of citizenship in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The defendants in that suit were the respondents Reich Bros. Construction Company, a partnership, and its individual members, residents of the Western District of Louisiana, and Highway Insurance Underwriters, a Texas corporation which had qualified to do business in Louisiana pursuant to a statute of that State.
Section 51 of the Judicial Code provides that . . where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” This general provision is qualified by § 52 of the Judicial Code, which states that “. . . if there are two or more defendants, residing in different districts of the State, . . . [suit] may be brought in either district, . . .”
It is conceded by the parties that the Texas corporation, Highway Insurance, having qualified to do business in Louisiana is amenable to suit in the federal courts for either the Eastern or Western District of that State. The critical issue of the case is whether Highway Insurance may be regarded as a “resident” of the Eastern District of Louisiana within the meaning of § 52 of the Judicial Code, so that respondents Reich Bros. Construction Company and its individual members may properly be sued as co-defendants of the corporation in the Eastern District of Louisiana, despite the fact that respondents are residents of the Western District of that State.
The respondents moved to dismiss the action on the ground of improper venue. The District Court granted the motion, and the suit was dismissed as to respondents, leaving the action pending against the corporation. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The issue we are called upon to resolve is a narrow one. We are not confronted with the abstract question whether, under any circumstances or for any purposes, a foreign corporation may properly be regarded as acquiring “residence” in a State other than that in which it was incorporated. Nor is our problem that of discovering whether, under state law, a qualified foreign corporation is treated as a “resident” of the State in which it is doing business. The sole issue of this case relates to the construction of the term “residence,” appearing in the particular federal venue statutes under consideration, as it applies to a foreign corporation.
The “residence” of a corporation, within the meaning of these statutes has frequently been the subject of consideration by this Court for a period of over half a century. Shortly after Congress had enacted § 61 of the Judicial Code in substantially its present form, this Court declared that the “residence” of a corporation, within the meaning of the venue statutes, is only in “the State and district in which it has been incorporated.” Thus, in Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 450 (1892), it was said: “This statement has been often reaffirmed by this court, with some change of phrase, but always retaining the idea that the legal existence, the home, the domicil, the habitat, the residence, the citizenship of the corporation can only be in the State by which it was created, although it may do business in other States whose laws permit it.”
For almost sixty years, in an unbroken line of decisions, this Court has applied the same construction. That view was reaffirmed as recently as 1946 in the opinion of the Court in Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 441.
Congress has revealed a similar understanding of the term “residence” when enacting special venue statutes in situations in which it was intended that, at the election of the plaintiff, a corporation should become amenable to suit either in the State of incorporation or in States in which it is carrying on corporate activities. In those statutes, Congress has provided that the venue of such suits should be located not only in the district in which the corporation is a “resident” or an “inhabitant,” but also in districts in which it may be “found,” “transacts business,” or has an agent to receive service of process.
Nor does the decision of this Court in Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165 (1939), require that the term “residence” be construed differently. In that case, the plaintiffs, citizens and residents of New Jersey, brought suit based on diversity of citizenship against the defendant, a Delaware corporation, in the Southern District of New York. This Court held that the venue requirements in the federal courts may be waived and that the defendant, since it had appointed an agent to receive service of process in New York pursuant to a statute of that State, might not insist upon suit being brought in Delaware, the State of its incorporation, or in New Jersey, the State in which plaintiffs resided. But this Court did not hold that in losing the privilege of insisting upon suit in districts specified in § 61 of the Judicial Code, the defendant corporation thereby acquired “residence” in New York, within the meaning of the venue statutes. Indeed, the Court specifically stated that the suit “was not brought ‘in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.’ ”
For the reasons stated, we hold that the Highway Insurance Underwriters, a Texas corporation and respondents’ co-defendant, is not a resident of the Eastern District of Louisiana in which suit was brought, within the meaning of § 52 of the Judicial Code. While, concededly, the Texas corporation has made itself amenable to suit in the federal courts of either district in Louisiana by qualifying to do business in that State, such action on the part of the corporation may in no way be regarded as a waiver by respondents of the privileges conferred upon them by the venue statutes. Section 51 in general terms provides that a diversity suit of the sort involved here must be brought either in the district in which the plaintiff resides or in which the defendant resides. This suit, brought in the Eastern District of Louisiana, satisfies neither requirement. Respondents’ privilege conferred by § 51 can be defeated either by waiver on the part of respondents or, as provided in § 52, by petitioner bringing suit against respondents and others in a district in Louisiana in which one of the co-defendants has acquired residence but in which respondents do not reside. Neither circumstance is present here. Re-, spondents made timely assertion of their privilege and may not be deemed to have waived their venue objections. As we have held, their co-defendant, Highway Insurance Underwriters, may not be regarded as a resident of the Eastern District of Louisiana in which suit was brought. It follows, therefore, that respondents’ objections to venue were well taken, and that, in sustaining those objections, the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals reached a result in accord with the requirements of the federal venue statutes as consistently construed by this Court. If those requirements are to be altered, it is a task which must be undertaken by Congress.
Affirmed.
Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 28 U. S. C. § 112.
R. S. §740, 36 Stat. 1101, 28 U. S. C. § 113. The section in its entirety follows: “When a State contains more than one district, every suit not of a local nature, in the district court thereof, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the district where he resides; but if there are two or more defendants, residing in different districts of the State, it may be brought in either district, and a duplicate writ may be issued against the defendants, directed to the marshal of any other district in which any defendant resides. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ shall endorse thereon that it is a true copy of a writ sued out of the court of the proper district; and such original and duplicate writs, when executed and returned into the office from which they issue, shall constitute and be proceeded on as one suit; and upon any judgment or decree
rendered therein, execution may be issued, directed to the marshal of any district in the same State.”
See Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165 (1939); Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 309 U. S. 4 (1940).
161 F. 2d 289 (1947).
See Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 443-444 (1946); Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165, 175 (1939); Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 377 (1878).
Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 449 (1892).
Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 205 (1892); In re Keasbey and Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 229 (1895); Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 215 U. S. 501, 509 (1910); Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 218 U. S. 357, 367 (1910); Male v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 240 U. S. 97, 102 (1916); General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co., 260 U. S. 261, 274-279 (1922); Seaboard Rice Milling Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 270 U. S. 363, 366 (1926); Duckett v. Delpark, Inc., 270 U. S. 496, 499 (1926); Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. Riggs, 274 U. S. 208, 211 (1927). And see In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 662 (1893); Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio R. Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496, 503-504, 506 (1894).
Section 52 of the Judicial Code qualifies or provides an exception to the general provisions of § 51. There would be no basis for the suggestion that Congress intended to attribute a meaning to the term “residence” in § 51 different from that in § 52.
See, e. g., § 12 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 736, 15 U. S. C. § 22: “Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found.” See also § 48 of the Judicial Code, 29 Stat. 695, 28 U. S. C. §109; §4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15; 36 Stat. 291, 45 U. S. C. § 56.
Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165, 167 (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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide in this case whether a 36-day delay by the United States Customs Service in responding to a remission petition filed by respondent in response to the seizure of his car by customs agents deprived respondent of property without due process of law.
I
Title 19 U. S. C. § 1497 provides that any article not declared upon entry into the United States which by law must be declared is subject to forfeiture or to a penalty equaling the value of the article. After seizure of an article by the United States Customs Service, a claimant to it has essentially two options. He may pursue an administrative remedy under 19 U. S. C. §1618 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill), which vests in the Secretary of the Treasury the discretionary authority to mitigate or remit the penalty or forfeiture, or he may challenge the seizure in a judicial forfeiture action initiated by the Government. 19 U. S. C. §§ 1602-1604.
In 1974, respondent John Von Neumann shipped to Vancouver, Canada, a 1974 Jaguar Panther automobile he purchased in Switzerland. On January 20, 1975, he and a friend picked up the car in Vancouver, obtained a release from Canadian Customs to take possession of the vehicle and also obtained a form that Von Neumann was to deliver to the Canadian Customs station at the border. Von Neumann failed to deliver the form to Canadian Customs officials. He claimed that he inadvertently drove past the Canadian Customs station because of poor visibility and inadequate directions. Instead, Von Neumann and his friend arrived at the United States border checkpoint at Blaine, Washington, where they were questioned by United States Immigration Officer Harry Perkins, a designated customs officer. Canadian Customs officials had earlier alerted United States Customs that Von Neumann’s car would be crossing the border, and Perkins specifically asked Von Neumann whether he had anything to declare. When Von Neumann failed to declare the automobile, Perkins asked him into the checkpoint station and referred the matter to Customs Inspector Donald E. Morrison. Upon being asked why he had not declared the car, Von Neumann explained that he did not think a declaration was required. Morrison then seized the car pursuant to 19 U. S. C. § 1497.
That same day, January 20, Von Neumann prepared a “Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred,” pursuant to 19 U. S. C. § 1618, explaining that he had not intended to violate United States Customs laws when he failed to declare the car. Two weeks later, on February 3, Von Neumann posted a bond for $24,500, the value of his car, and Customs released the vehicle pursuant to its authority under 19 U. S. C. § 1614. On February 12, counsel for Von Neumann filed a supplement to the original remission petition. On February 25 — 36 days after the petition was filed — the Seattle District Director of the Customs Service, pursuant to delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, acted on Von Neumann’s remission petition, and informed Von Neumann that the penalty for failure to declare the car was being reduced to $3,600. On administrative review of this determination, the Regional Commissioner of Customs in San Francisco, on April 14, 1975, upheld the $3,600 penalty.
Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Von Neu-mann filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He sought cancellation of the $3,600 penalty on the ground that he had not violated § 1497. He also requested an injunction prohibiting Customs from placing his name on a computer list of violators, and a declaration that this seizure and penalty were unlawful. The District Court found that Von Neumann had violated 19 U. S. C. § 1497, and that seizure of the car therefore was proper. The court also upheld the validity of the remission and mitigation procedures. Accordingly, it entered judgment for the Government. Von Neumann appealed this de-cisión, challenging both the procedures followed by Customs in imposing the penalty and also the penalty itself.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth. Circuit agreed with the District Court that Von Neumann had violated § 1497. 660 F. 2d 1319, 1323 (1981). The court, however, also considered and sustained Von Neumann’s claim that the 36-day delay in acting on his remission petition denied Von Neu-mann due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court reasoned that speed in the handling of the remission petition, particularly where the seizure is of an automobile, is constitutionally required — that strict guidelines in responding to remission petitions are necessary “to ensure the due process rights of administrative claimants,” id., at 1326-1327, and concluded that Customs must “act on a petition for remission or mitigation within 24 hours of receipt,” id., at 1327. In addition, the court ruled, a claimant has a right to a personal appearance to present his or her claim. Ibid.
The Government petitioned for certiorari. We granted the petition, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. $8,850, 461 U. S. 665 (1983). 462 U. S. 1101 (1983). In $8,850, however, the issue presented did not involve the remission procedure; rather the question was whether the Government’s 18-month delay in bringing a forfeiture proceeding violated the claimant’s right to due process of law. The Court held that due process requires a postseizure determination within a reasonable time of the seizure. We concluded that the four-factor balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972), provides the relevant framework for determining whether a delay was reasonable. The Barker test involves a weighing of four factors: the length of any delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice suffered by the defendant. Applying this test to the 18-month delay before it, the Court in $8,850 found no unreasonable delay, in part because a substantial portion of the delay in question was attributable to pending administrative and criminal proceedings.
On remand in this case, the Court of Appeals recognized that $8,850 “presented a somewhat different issue from that arising in the instant case,” 729 F. 2d 657, 659 (1984), because $8,850 dealt with forfeiture rather than the remission procedure. Nevertheless, it concluded that this Court’s holding in $8,850 “reinforces our earlier view that due process rights attach to the processing of the petition for remission,” 729 F. 2d, at 660, and therefore reaffirmed its holding that “due process requires Customs to act promptly in ruling on petitions for remission or mitigation under 19 U. S. C. §1618.” Ibid. The court recognized that its earlier attempt to set specific time limits for the processing of remission petitions was “ill-advised,” ibid., and held instead that the Barker factors should also be applied to determine whether Customs has violated due process in delaying a response to a remission petition. The court accordingly remanded the case to the District Court to consider whether the 36-day delay violated due process. In addition, however, the court made clear its view that the circumstances of this case support a finding of a due process violation. Thus, the court noted that the propriety of the length of the delay may turn on the nature of the item that has been seized, and reemphasized the point made in its earlier opinion that “special hardships [are] imposed on persons deprived of the use of their automobiles . . . .” 729 F. 2d, at 661. With respect to the reason for the delay, the Court of Appeals observed that the “record here provides no obvious reason for the Government’s one-month delay in processing von Neumann’s petition, although we note that Customs processes a great number of petitions each year.” Ibid. In addition, the court pointed to the filing of the remission petition itself as the necessary assertion of the right to a speedy determination under Barker. Finally, the court noted that prejudice could be established by the inconvenience of being without a vehicle for any length of time.
Arguing that due process considerations do not govern the Secretary’s disposition of remission petitions, the Government petitioned for certiorari. We granted the Government’s petition. 471 U. S. 1064 (1984). We now reverse.
I — ! b — I
We understand respondent to argue that his property interest in his car gives him a constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his remission petition without awaiting a forfeiture proceeding. We disagree. Implicit in this Court’s discussion of timeliness in $8,850 was the view that the forfeiture proceeding, without more, provides the postseizure hearing required by due process to protect Von Neumann’s property interest in the car. Respondent argues, however, that “[t]he petition for remission procedure is just one step in which it is determined whether that property interest will be extinguished via a judicial foreclosure proceeding.” Brief for Respondent 8-9. We think respondent misunderstands the remission procedure’s role. It is true that, as a practical matter, most forfeitures are disposed of through the administrative remission procedures, but that is constitutionally irrelevant. We noted in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 234 (1972), that in the event an item is not declared at the border under § 1497 “[t]he Government need only prove that the property was brought into the United States without the required declaration; the Government bears no burden with respect to intent.” The remission statute simply grants the Secretary the discretion not to pursue a complete forfeiture despite the Government’s entitlement to one. Remission proceedings supply both the Government and the claimant a way to resolve a dispute informally rather than in judicial forfeiture proceedings. But remission proceedings are not necessary to a forfeiture determination, and therefore are not constitutionally required. Thus there is no constitutional basis for a claim that respondent’s interest in the car, or in the money put up to secure the bond, entitles him to a speedy answer to his remission petition.
Ill
While his interest in the car is the only basis on which respondent relies in his support of the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Government asks that the Court adjudge the case of a claimant who relies on the argument that § 1618 itself creates a property right which cannot be taken away without due process that includes a speedy answer to a remission petition. The Government argues that the statute creates no such right. We need not address the hypothetical, however. It is abundantly clear on, the record in this case that, even if respondent had such a property right, any due process requirement of timely disposition was more than adequately provided here. It is difficult, indeed impossible, to see what prejudice respondent suffered from the 36-day delay in the response. True, he was without his car for 14 days, and then, for another 22 days, without the money he had to put up to secure a bond, and Von Neumann urges the importance of automobiles to citizens in this society. But we have already noted that his right to a forfeiture proceeding meeting the Barker test satisfies any due process right with respect to the car and the money. In fact, it is not altogether certain that the delay dated from the filing on January 20 of the original remission petition. Respondent supplemented his remission petition and was given a final decision just 13 days later. Moreover, respondent gives no hint as to how or why even a 36-day delay in the disposition of his remission petition deprived him of the process he claims was his due in connection with that petition. He does not argue that the delay prejudiced his defense against the forfeiture, see $8,850, 461 U. S., at 569, and with respect to preparing his “case” for remission, that case was made at the time of filing and could not have been affected by the subsequent delay. On the record before us, the 36-day delay cannot be said to deprive respondent of due process of law.
Reversed.
Section 497, 46 Stat. 728, 19 U. S. C. § 1497, provides:
“Any article not included in the declaration and entry as made, and, before examination of the baggage was begun, not mentioned in writing by such person, if written declaration and entry was required, or orally if written declaration and entry was not required, shall be subject to forfeiture and such person shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of such article.”
Section 618, 46 Stat. 757, as amended and set forth in 19 U. S. C. § 1618 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill), provides in pertinent part:
“Whenever any person interested in any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of this chapter, or who has incurred, or is alleged to have incurred, any fine or penalty thereunder, files with the Secretary of the Treasury if under the customs laws ... before the sale of such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage a petition for the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, the Secretary of the Treasury ... if he finds that such fine, penalty, or forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue or to violate the law, or finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, may remit or mitigate the same upon such terms and conditions as he deems reasonable and just, or order discontinuance of any prosecution relating thereto.”
The claimant may trigger the Government’s initiation of forfeiture proceedings. In United States v. $8,850, 461 U. S. 555, 569 (1983), we noted:
“A claimant is able to trigger rapid filing of a forfeiture action if he desires it. First, the claimant can file an equitable action seeking an order compelling the filing of the forfeiture action or return of the seized property. See Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1, 10 (1817) (Marshall, C. J.). Less formally, the claimant could simply request that the Customs Service refer the matter to the United States Attorney. If the claimant believes the initial seizure was improper, he could file a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) for a return of the seized property.”
When the Jaguar was seized in this case, a customs officer could have instituted nonjudicial, summary forfeiture proceedings if the value of the car had been not more than $10,000. See 19 U. S. C. §§ 1607-1609. Congress has since raised this limit to $100,000. 19 U. S. C. § 1607 (1982 ed., Supp. III). Even for a seizure of property appraised at less than $100,000, the claimant has a right to a judicial determination upon posting a bond to cover costs in the sum of $2,500 or 10% of the value of the claimed property, whichever is smaller, but not less than $250. 19 U. S. C. § 1608 (1982 ed., Supp. III).
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by statute to act on petitions for remission. 19 U. S. C. § 1618. This authority has been delegated to District Directors of the Customs Service in some cases where the total value of the merchandise forfeited does not exceed $100,000, 19 CFR § 171.21 (1985). At the time of this seizure, the limit was $25,000. See 19 CFR § 171.21 (1974).
The Government filed a contingent counterclaim seeking recovery of the full $24,500 in accordance with 19 U. S. C. § 1497, in the event the District Court found the mitigation invalid. Because the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Government on the merits of Von Neumann’s complaint, it denied the contingent counterclaim. In its answer in the District Court the Government had also contended that the remission and mitigation sought and received by respondent was a settlement, accord, and satisfaction binding on Von Neumann. The District Court did not reach this issue; nor do we.
In $8,850 the claimant conceded that no preseizure hearing is required when Customs makes a seizure at the border. Respondent does not dispute that here, and we doubt that he could. In $8,850 we noted that while the general rule is that “absent an ‘extraordinary situation’ a party cannot invoke the power of the state to seize a person’s property without a prior judicial determination that the seizure is justified. . . . [D]ue process does not require federal customs officials to conduct a hearing before seizing items subject to forfeiture.” 461 U. S., at 562, n. 12. We reasoned that such a requirement would make customs processing entirely unworkable and also found that because “the seizure serves important governmental purposes[,] a preseizure notice might frustrate the statutory purpose ....” Ibid.
We noted in $8,850 that Customs processes over 50,000 noncontraband forfeitures per year, and that in 90% of all seizures, the claimant files a petition for remission or mitigation. We further noted that the Secretary in turn grants at least partial relief for an estimated 75% of the petitions. Typically, this mitigation process terminates the dispute without the necessity of filing a forfeiture action.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
announced the judgment of the Court.
This case presents a challenge to the special admissions program of the petitioner, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis, which is designed to assure the admission of a specified number of students from certain minority groups. The Superior Court of California sustained respondent’s challenge, holding that petitioner’s program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 200Ód et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court enjoined petitioner from considering respondent’s race or the race of any other applicant in making admissions decisions. It refused, however, to order respondent’s admission to the Medical School, holding that he had not carried his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the constitutional and statutory violations. The Supreme Court of California affirmed those portions of the trial court’s judgment declaring the special admissions program unlawful and enjoining petitioner from considering the race of any applicant. It modified that portion of the judgment denying respondent’s requested injunction and directed the trial court to order his admission.
For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner’s special admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate opinion, my Brothers The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens concur in this judgment.
I also conclude for the reasons stated in the following opinion that the portion of the court’s judgment enjoining petitioner from according any consideration to race in its admissions process must be reversed. For reasons expressed in separate opinions, my Brothers Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun concur in this judgment.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
I
The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971, the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains. No admissions program for disadvantaged or minority students existed when the school opened, and the first class contained three Asians but no blacks, no Mexican-Americans, and no American Indians. Over the next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of “disadvantaged” students in each Medical School class. The special program consisted of a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process.
Under the regular admissions procedure, a candidate could submit his application to the Medical School beginning in July of the year preceding the academic year for which admission was sought. Record 149. Because of the large number of applications, the admissions committee screened each one to select candidates for further consideration. Candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. Id., at 63. About one out of six applicants was invited for a personal interview. Ibid. Following the interviews, each candidate was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by his interviewers and four other members of the admissions committee. The rating embraced the interviewers’ summaries, the candidate’s overall grade point average, grade point average in science courses, scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data. Id., at 62. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate’s “benchmark” score. Since five committee members rated each candidate in 1973, a perfect score was 500; in 1974, six members rated each candidate, so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a “rolling” basis. The chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list. They were not placed in strict numerical order; instead, the chairman had discretion to include persons with “special skills.” Id., at 63-64.
The special admissions program operated with a separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups. Id., at 163. On the 1973 application form, candidates were asked to indicate whether they wished to be considered as “economically and/or educationally disadvantaged” applicants; on the 1974 form the question was whether they wished to be considered as members of a “minority group,” which the Medical School apparently viewed as “Blacks,” “Chícanos,” “Asians,” and “American Indians.” Id., at 65-66, 146, 197, 203-205, 216-218. If these questions were answered affirmatively, the application was forwarded to the special admissions committee. No formal definition of “disadvantaged” was ever produced, id., at 163-164, but the chairman of the special committee screened each application to see whether it reflected economic or educational deprivation. Having passed this initial hurdle, the applications then were rated by the special committee in a fashion similar to that used by the general admissions committee, except that special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cutoff applied to regular applicants. About one-fifth of the total number of special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974. Following each interview, the special committee assigned each special applicant a benchmark score. The special committee then presented its top choices to the general admissions committee. The latter did not rate or compare the special candidates against the general applicants, id., at 388, but could reject recommended special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specific deficiencies. Id., at 171-172. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50, the prescribed number was 8; in 1973 and 1974, when the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled, to 16. Id., at 164,166.
From the year of the increase in class size — 1971 — through 1974, the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students, 30 Mexican-Americans, and 12 Asians, for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period, the regular admissions program produced 1 black, 6 Mexican-Americans, and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority students. Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers, see n. 5, supra, none received an offer of admission through that process. Indeed, in 1974, at least, the special committee explicitly considered only “disadvantaged” special applicants who were members of one of the designated minority groups. Record 171.
Allan Bakke is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School in both 1973 and 1974. In both years Bakke’s application was considered under the general admissions program, and he received an interview. His 1973 interview was with Dr. Theodore C. West, who considered Bakke “a very desirable applicant to [the] medical school.” Id., at 225. Despite a strong benchmark score of 468 out of 500, Bakke was rejected. His application had come late in the year, and no applicants in the general admissions process with scores below 470 were accepted after Bakke’s application was completed. Id., at 69. There were four special admissions slots unfilled at that time, however, for which Bakke was not considered. Id., at 70. After his 1973 rejection, Bakke wrote to Dr. George H. Lowrey, Associate Dean and Chairman of the Admissions Committee, protesting that the special admissions program operated as a racial and ethnic quota. Id., at 259.
Bakke’s 1974 application was completed early in the year. Id., at 70. His student interviewer gave him an overall rating of 94, finding him “friendly, well tempered, conscientious and delightful to speak with.” Id., at 229. His faculty interviewer was, by coincidence, the same Dr. Lowrey to whom he had written in protest of the special admissions program. Dr. Lowrey found Bakke “rather limited in his approach” to the problems of the medical profession and found disturbing Bakke’s “very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem.” Id., at 226. Dr. Lowrey gave Bakke the lowest of his six ratings, an 86; his total was 549 out of 600. Id., at 230. Again, Bakke’s application was rejected. In neither year did the chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. Lowrey, exercise his discretion to place Bakke on the waiting list. Id., at 64. In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke’s.
After the second rejection, Bakke filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of California, He sought mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. He alleged that the Medical School’s special admissions program operated to exclude him from the school on the basis of his race, in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Art. I, § 21, of the California Constitution, and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d. The University cross-complained for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another, Record 388, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Id., at 295-296. Declaring that the University could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the trial court held the challenged program violative of the Federal Constitution, the State Constitution, and Title VI. The court refused to order Bakke’s admission, however, holding that he had failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the existence of the special program.
Bakke appealed from the portion of the trial court judgment denying him admission, and the University appealed from the decision that its special admissions program was unlawful and the order enjoining it from considering race in the processing of applications. The Supreme Court of California transferred the case directly from the trial court, “because of the importance of the issues involved.” 18 Cal. 3d 34, 39, 553 P. 2d 1152, 1156 (1976). The California court accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the University's program. Because the special admissions program involved a.racial classification, the Supreme Court held itself bound to apply strict scrutiny. Id., at 49, 553 P. 2d, at 1162-1163. It then turned to the goals the University presented as justifying the special program. Although the court agreed that the goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve members of minority groups were compelling state interests, id., at 53, 553 P. 2d, at 1165, it concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving those goals. Without passing on the state constitutional or the federal statutory grounds cited in the trial court’s judgment, the California court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race.” Id., at 55, 553 P. 2d, at 1166.
Turning to Bakke’s appeal, the court ruled that since Bakke had established that the University had discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the burden of proof shifted to the University to demonstrate that he would not have been admitted even in the absence of the special admissions program. Id., at 63-64, 553 P. 2d,, at 1172. The court analogized Bakke’s situation to that of a. plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-17 (1970 ed., Supp. V), see, e. g., Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 772 (1976).. 18 Cal. 3d, at 63-64, 553 P. 2d, at 1172. On this basis, the court initially ordered a remand for the purpose of determining whether, under the newly allocated burden of proof, Bakke would have been admitted to either the 1973 or the 1974 entering class in the absence of the special admissions program. App. A to Application for Stay 48. In its petition for rehearing below, however, the University conceded its inability to carry that burden. App. B to Application for Stay A19-A20. The California court thereupon amended its opinion to direct that the trial court enter judgment ordering Bakke’s admission to the Medical School. 18 Cal. 3d, at 64, 553 P. 2d, at 1172. That order was stayed pending review in this Court. 429 U. S. 953 (1976). We granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional issue. 429 U. S. 1090 (1977).
II
In this Court the parties neither briefed nor argued the applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather, as had the California court, they focused exclusively upon the validity of the special admissions program under the Equal Protection Clause. Because it was possible, however, that a decision on Title VI might obviate resort to constitutional interpretation, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (concurring opinion), we requested supplementary briefing on the statutory issue. 434 U. S. 900 (1977).
A
At the outset we face the question whether a right of action for private parties exists under Title VI. Respondent argues that there is a private right of action, invoking the test set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975). He contends that the statute creates a federal right in his favor, that legislative history reveals an intent to permit private actions, that such actions would further the remedial purposes of the statute, and that enforcement of federal rights under the Civil Rights Act generally is not relegated to the States. In addition, he cites several lower court decisions which have recognized or assumed the existence of a private right of action. Petitioner denies the existence of a private right of action, arguing that the sole function of § 601, see n. 11, supra, was to establish a predicate for administrative action under § 602, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l. In its view, administrative curtailment of federal funds under that section was the only sanction to be imposed upon recipients that violated § 601. Petitioner also points out that Title VI contains no explicit grant of a private right of action, in contrast to Titles II, III, IV, and VII, of the same statute, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a-3 (a), 2000b-2, 2000c-8, and 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed. and Supp. V).
We find it unnecessary to resolve this question in the instant case. The question of respondent’s right to bring an action under Title VI was neither argued nor decided in either of the courts below, and this Court has been hesitant to review questions not addressed below. McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434-435 (1940). See also Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U. S. 322 (1977); Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 439 (1969). Cf. Singleton, v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 121 (1976). We therefore do not address this difficult issue. Similarly, we need not pass upon petitioner's claim that private plaintiffs under Title VI must exhaust administrative remedies. We assume, only for the purposes of this case, that respondent has a right of action under Title VI. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563, 571 n. 2 (1974) (Stewart, J., concurring in result).
B
The language of § 601, 78 Stat. 252, like that of the Equal Protection Clause, is majestic in its sweep :
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The concept of “discrimination,” like the phrase “equal protection of the laws,” is susceptible of varying interpretations, for as Mr. Justice Holmes declared, “[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 425 (1918). We must, therefore, seek whatever aid is available in determining the precise meaning of the statute before us. Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 10 (1976), quoting United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940). Examination of the voluminous legislative history of Title VI reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination similar to that of the Constitution. Although isolated statements of various legislators, taken out of context, can be marshaled in support of the proposition that § 601 enacted a purely colorblind scheme, without regard to the reach of the Equal Protection Clause, these comments must be read against the background of both the problem that Congress was addressing and the broader view of the statute that emerges from a full examination of the legislative debates.
The problem confronting Congress was discrimination against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal moneys. Indeed, the color blindness pronouncements cited in the margin at n. 19, generally occur in the midst of extended remarks dealing with the evils of segregation in federally funded programs. Over and over again, proponents of the bill detailed the plight of Negroes seeking equal treatment in such programs. There simply was no reason for Congress to consider the validity of hypothetical preferences that might be accorded minority citizens; the legislators were dealing with the real and pressing problem of how to guarantee those citizens equal treatment.
In addressing that problem, supporters of Title VI repeatedly declared that the bill enacted constitutional principles. Tor example, Representative Celler, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and floor manager of the legislation in the House, emphasized this in introducing the bill:
“The bill would offer assurance that hospitals financed by Federal money would not deny adequate care to Negroes. It would prevent abuse of food distribution programs whereby Negroes have been known to be denied food surplus supplies when white persons were given such food. It would assure Negroes the benefits now accorded only-white students in programs of high[er] education financed by Federal funds. It would, in short, assure the existing right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of Federal funds. It would not destroy any rights of private property or freedom of association.” 110 Cong. Rec. 1519 (1964) (emphasis added).
Other sponsors shared Representative Celler’s view that Title VI embodied constitutional principles.
In the Senate, Senator Humphrey declared that the purpose of Title VI was “to insure that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution and the moral sense of the Nation.” Id., at 6544. Senator Ribicoff agreed that Title VI embraced the constitutional standard: “Basically, there is a constitutional restriction against discrimination in the use of federal funds; and title VI simply spells out the procedure to be used in enforcing that restriction.” Id., at 13333. Other Senators expressed similar views.
Further evidence of the incorporation of a constitutional standard into Title VI appears in the repeated refusals of the legislation’s supporters precisely to define the term “discrimination.” Opponents sharply criticized this failure, but proponents of the bill merely replied that the meaning of “discrimination” would be made clear by reference to the Constitution or other existing law. For example, Senator Humphrey noted the relevance of the Constitution:
“As I have said, the bill has a simple purpose. That purpose is to give fellow citizens — Negroes — the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. This is no more than what was preached by the prophets, and by Christ Himself. It is no more than what our Constitution guarantees.” Id., at 6553.
In view of the clear legislative intent, Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment.
Ill
A
Petitioner does not deny that decisions based on race or ethnic origin by faculties and administrations of state universities are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 (1950). For his part, respondent does not argue that all racial or ethnic classifications are per se invalid. See, e. g., Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81 (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944); Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333, 334 (1968) (Black, Harlan, and Stewart, JJ., concurring); United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U. S. 144 (1977). The parties do disagree as to the level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to the special admissions program. Petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny, as this inexact term has been applied in our cases. That level of review, petitioner asserts, should be reserved for classifications that disadvantage “dis.-crete and insular minorities.” See United States v. Carotene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152 n. 4 (1938). Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the California court correctly rejected the notion that the degree of judicial scrutiny accorded a particular racial or ethnic classification hinges upon membership in a discrete and insular minority and duly recognized that the “rights established [by the Fourteenth Amendment] are personal rights.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948).
En route to this crucial battle over the scope of judicial review, the parties fight a sharp preliminary action over the proper characterization of the special admissions program. Petitioner prefers to view it as establishing a “goal” of minority representation in the Medical School. Respondent, echoing the courts below, labels it a racial quota.
This semantic distinction is beside the point: The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. To the extent that there existed a pool of at least minimally, qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status.
The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons. Its language is explicit: “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is settled beyond question that the “rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights,” Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, at 22. Accord, Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra, at 351; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 161-162 (1914). The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.
Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying'strict scrutiny to the special admissions program because white males, such as respondent, are not a “discrete and insular minority” requiring extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. Carolene Products Co., supra, at 152-153, n. 4. This rationale, however, has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny. Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding that a particular classification is invidious. See, e. g., Skinner v. Oklahoma ex ret. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 94-97 (1965). These characteristics may be relevant in deciding whether or not to add new types of classifications to the list of “suspect” categories or whether a particular classification survives close examination. See, e. g., Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 313 (1976) (age); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 28 (1973) (wealth); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 372 (1971) (aliens). Racial and ethnic classifications, however, are subject to stringent examination without regard to these additional characteristics. We declared as much in the first cases explicitly to recognize racial distinctions as suspect:
“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi, 320 U. S., at 100.
“[A] 11 legal restrictions'which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.” Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 216.
The Court has never questioned the validity of those pronouncements. Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination.
B
This perception of racial and ethnic distinctions is rooted in our Nation’s constitutional and demographic history. The Court’s initial view of the Fourteenth Amendment was that its “one pervading purpose” was “the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised dominion over him.” Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873). The Equal Protection Clause, however, was “[virtually strangled in infancy by post-civil-war judicial reaction-ism.” It was relegated to decades of relative desuetude while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, after a short germinal period, flourished as a cornerstone in the Court’s defense of property and liberty of contract. See, e. g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661 (1887); Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 (1897); Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). In that cause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one pervading purpose” was displaced. See, e. g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896). It was only as the era of substantive due process came to a close, see, e. g., Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502 (1934); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (1937), that the Equal Protection Clause began to attain a genuine measure of vitality, see, e. g., United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U. S. 144 (1938); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra.
By that time it was no longer possible to peg the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority. During the dormancy of the Equal Protection Clause, the United States had become a Nation of minorities. Each had to struggle — and to some extent struggles still — to overcome the prejudices not of a monolithic majority, but of a “majority” composed of various minority groups of whom it was said — perhaps unfairly in many cases— that a shared characteristic was a willingness to disadvantage other groups. As the Nation filled with the stock of many lands, the reach of the Clause was gradually extended to all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 308 (1880) (Celtic Irishmen) (dictum); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886) (Chinese); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 41 (1915) (Austrian resident aliens); Korematsu, supra (Japanese); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954) (Mexican-Americans). The guarantees of equal protection, said the Court in Yick Wo, “are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” 118 U. S., at 369.
Although many of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment conceived of its primary function as bridging the vast distance between members of the Negro race and the white “majority,” Slaughter-House Cases, supra, the Amendment itself was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. As this Court recently remarked in interpreting the 1866 Civil Rights Act to extend to claims of racial discrimination against white persons, “the 39th Congress was intent upon establishing in the federal law a broader principle than would have been necessary simply to meet the particular and immediate plight of the newly freed Negro slaves.” McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273, 296 (1976). And that legislation was specifically broadened in 1870 to ensure that “all persons,” not merely “citizens,” would enjoy equal rights under the law. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 192-202 (1976) (White, J., dissenting). Indeed, it is not unlikely that among the Framers were many who would have applauded a reading of the Equal Protection Clause that states a principle of universal application and is responsive to the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the Nation. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1056 (1866) (remarks of Rep. Niblack); id., at 2891-2892 (remarks of Sen. Conness) ; id., 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 883 (1868) (remarks of Sen. Howe) (Fourteenth Amendment “protect [s] classes from class legislation”). See also Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 60-63 (1955).
Over the past 30 years, this Court has embarked upon the crucial mission of interpreting the Equal Protection Clause with the view of assuring to all persons “the protection of equal laws,” Yick Wo, supra, at 369, in a Nation confronting a legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. See, e. g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U. S. 284 (1976). Because the landmark decisions in this area arose in response to the continued exclusion of Negroes from the mainstream of American society, they could be characterized as involving discrimination by the “majority” white race against the Negro minority. But they need not be read as depending upon that characterization for their results. It suffices to say that “ [o] ver the years, this Court has consistently repudiated ‘[distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry’ as being ‘odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’ ” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 11 (1967), quoting Hirabayashi, 320 U. S., at 100.
» Petitioner urges us to adopt for the first time a more restrictive view of the Equal Protection Clause and hold that discrimination against members of the white “majority” cannot be suspect if its purpose can be characterized as “benign.” The clock of our liberties, however, cannot be turned back to 1868. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, at 492; accord, Loving v. Virginia, supra, at 9. It is far too late to argue that the guarantee of equal protection to all persons permits the recognition of special wards entitled to a degree of protection greater than that accorded others. “The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a ‘two-class theory’ — that is, based upon differences between ‘white’ and Negro.” Hernandez, 347 U. S., at 478.
Once the artificial line of a “two-class theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment is put aside, the difficulties entailed in varying the level of judicial review according to a perceived “preferred” status of a particular racial or ethnic minority are intractable. The concepts of “majority” and “minority” necessarily reflect temporary arrangements and political judgments. As observed above, the white “majority” itself is composed of various minority groups, most of which can lay claim to a history of prior discrimination at the hands of the State and private individuals. Not all of these groups can receive preferential treatment and corresponding judicial toler-anee of distinctions drawn in terms of race and nationality, for then the only “majority” left would be a new minority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. There is no principled basis for deciding which groups would merit “heightened judicial solicitude” and which would not. Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent harm suffered by various minority groups. Those whose societal injury is thought to exceed some arbitrary level of toler-ability then would be entitled to preferential classifications at the expense of individuals belonging to other groups. Those classifications would be free from exacting judicial scrutiny. As these preferences began to have their desired effect, and the consequences of past'discrimination were undone, new judicial rankings would be necessary. The kind of variable sociological and political analysis necessary to produce such rankings simply does not lie within the judicial competence — even if they otherwise were politically feasible and socially desirable. —Moreover, there are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself. First, it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is in fact benign. Courts may
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a sum received by respondent from the United States as compensation for the temporary taking by the Government of its business facilities during World War II represented ordinary income or a capital gain. The issue involves the construction and application of § 117 (j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
In 1944, respondent was a common carrier of commodities by motor vehicle. On August 4, 1944, respondent’s drivers struck, and it completely ceased to operate. Shortly thereafter, because of the need for respondent’s facilities in the transportation of war materiel, the President ordered the Director of the Office of Defense Transportation to “take possession and assume control of” them. The Director assumed possession and control as of August 12, and appointed a Federal Manager, who ordered respondent to resume normal operations. The Federal Manager also announced his intention to leave title to the properties in respondent and to interfere as little as possible in the management of them. Subject to certain orders given by the Federal Manager from time to time, respondent resumed normal operations and continued so to function until the termination of all possession and control by the Government on June 16, 1945.
Pursuant to an Act of Congress creating a Motor Carrier Claims Commission, 62 Stat. 1222, respondent presented its claim for just compensation. The Government contended that there had been no “taking” of respondent’s property but only a regulation of it. The Commission, however, determined that by assuming actual possession and control of respondent’s facilities, the United States had deprived respondent of the valuable right to determine freely what use was to be made of them. In ascertaining the fair market value of that right, the Commission found that one use to which respondent’s facilities could have been put was to rent them out, and that therefore their rental value represented a fair measure of respondent’s pecuniary loss. The Commission noted that in other cases of temporary takings, it has typically been held that the market value of what is taken is the sum which would be arrived at by a willing lessor and a willing lessee. Accordingly, it awarded, and the respondent received in 1952, the sum of $122,926.21, representing the fair rental value of its facilities from August 12, 1944, until June 16, 1945, plus $34,917.78, representing interest on the former sum, or a total of $157,843.99.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted that the total compensation award represented ordinary income to respondent in 1952. Respondent contended that it constituted an amount received upon an “involuntary conversion” of property used in its trade or business and was therefore taxable as long-term capital gain pursuant to § 117 (j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Tax Court, adopting its opinion in Midwest Motor Express, Inc., 27 T. C. 167, aff’d, 251 F. 2d 405 (C. A. 8th Cir.), which involved substantially identical facts, held that the award represented ordinary income. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, in this instance reversed. 265 F. 2d 648. We granted certiorari because of the conflict between the decisions of the two Circuits. 361 U. S. 881.
Respondent stresses that the Motor Carrier Claims Commission, rejecting the Government’s contention that only a regulation, rather than a 'taking, of its facilities had occurred, found that respondent had been deprived of property, and awarded compensation therefor. That is indeed true. But the fact that something taken by the Government is property compensable under the Fifth Amendment does not answer the entirely different question whether that thing comes within the capital-gains provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, it is necessary to determine the precise nature of the property taken. Here the Commission determined that what respondent had been deprived of, and what the Government was obligated to pay for, was the right to determine freely what use to make of its transportation facilities. The measure of compensation adopted reflected the nature of that property right. Given these facts, we turn to the statute.
Section 117 (j), under which respondent claims, is an integral part of the statute’s comprehensive treatment of capital gains and losses. Long-established principles govern the application of the more favorable tax rates to long-term capital gains: (1) There must be first, a “capital asset,” and second, a “sale or exchange” of that asset (§117 (a)); (2) “capital asset” is defined as “property held by the taxpayer,” with certain exceptions not here relevant (§ 117 (a) (1)); and (3) for purposes of calculating gain, the cost or other basis of the property (§113 (b)) must be subtracted from the amount realized on the sale or exchange (§ 111 (a)).
Section 117 (j), added by the Revenue Act of 1942, effects no change in the nature of a capital asset. It accomplishes only two main objectives. First, it extends capital-gains treatment to real and depreciable personal property used in the trade or business, the type of property involved in this case. Second, it accords such treatment to involuntary conversions of both capital assets, strictly defined, and property used in the trade or business. Since the net effect of the first change is merely to remove one of the exclusions made to the definition of capital assets in § 117 (a)(1), it seems evident that "property used in the trade or business,” to be eligible for capital-gains treatment, must satisfy the same general criteria as govern the definition of capital assets. The second change was apparently required by the fact that this Court had given a narrow construction to the term “sale or exchange.” See Helvering v. Flaccus Leather Co., 313 U. S. 247. But that change similarly had no effect on the basic notion of what constitutes a capital asset.
While a capital asset is defined in §117 (a)(1) as “property held by the taxpayer,” it is evident that not everything which can be called property in the ordinary sense and which is outside the statutory exclusions qualifies as a capital asset. This Court has long held that the term “capital asset” is to be construed narrowly in accordance with the purpose of Congress to afford capital-gains treatment only in situations typically involving the realization of appreciation in value accrued over a substantial period of time, and thus to ameliorate the hardship of taxation of the entire gain in one year. Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U. S. 103, 106. Thus the Court has held that an unexpired lease, Hort v. Commissioner, 313 U. S. 28, corn futures, Corn Products Co. v. Commissioner, 350 U. S. 46, and oil payment rights, Commissioner v. P. G. Lake, Inc., 356 U. S. 260, are not capital assets even though they are concededly “property” interests in the ordinary sense. And see Surrey, Definitional Problems in Capital Gains Taxation, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 985, 987-989 and Note 7.
In the present case, respondent’s right to use its transportation facilities was held to be a valuable property right compensable under the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. However, that right was not a capital asset within the meaning of §§ 117 (a)(1) and 117 (j). To be sure, respondent’s facilities were themselves property embraceable as capital assets under § 117 (j). Had the Government taken a fee in those facilities, or damaged them physically beyond the ordinary wear and tear incident to normal use, the resulting compensation would no doubt have been treated as gain from the involuntary conversion of capital assets. See, e. g., Waggoner, 15 T. C. 496; Henshaw, 23 T. C. 176. But here the Government took only the right to determine the use to which those facilities were to be put.
That right is not something in which respondent had any investment, separate and apart from its investment in the physical assets themselves. Respondent suggests no method by which a cost basis could be assigned to the right; yet it is necessary, in determining the amount of gain realized for purposes of § 117, to deduct the basis of the property sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted from the amount received. § 111 (a). Further, the right is manifestly not of the type which gives rise to the hardship of the realization in one year of an advance in value over cost built up in several years, which is what Congress sought to ameliorate by the capital-gains provisions. See cases cited, ante, p. 134. In short, the right to use is not a capital asset, but is simply an incident of the underlying physical property, the recompense for which is commonly regarded as rent. That is precisely the situation here, and the fact that- the transaction was involuntary on respondent’s part does not change the nature of the case.
Respondent lays stress on the use of the terms “seizure” and “requisition” in § 117 (j). More specifically, the section refers to the “involuntary conversion (as a result of destruction in whole or in part, theft or seizure, or an exercise of the power of requisition or condemnation or the threat or imminence thereof) of property used in the trade or business <md capital assets . . . .” (Emphasis added.) It is contended that the Government’s action in the present case is perhaps the most typical example of a seizure or requisition, and that, therefore, Congress must have intended to treat it as a capital transaction. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the seizure or requisition must be “of property used in the trade or business [or] capital assets.” We have already shown that § 117 (j) does not change the long-standing meaning of those terms and that the property taken by the Government in the present case does not come within them. The words “seizure” and “requisition” are not thereby deprived of effect, since they equally cover instances in which the Government takes a fee or damages or otherwise impairs the value of physical property.
We conclude that the amount paid to respondent as the fair rental value of its facilities from August 12, 1944, to June 16, 1945, represented ordinary income to it. A fortiori, the interest on that sum is ordinary income. Kieselbach v. Commissioner, 317 U. S. 399.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Section 117 (j) provides as follows:
“Gains and losses from involuntary conversion and from the sale or exchange of certain property used in the trade or business— (1) Definition of property used in the trade or business.
“For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'property used in the trade or business’ means property used in the trade or business, of a character which is subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 23 (l), held for more than 6 months, and real property used in the trade or business, held for more than 6 months, which is not (A) property of a kind which would properly be includible in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or (B) property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business ....
“(2) General rule.
“If, during the taxable year, the recognized gains upon sales or exchanges of property used in the trade or business, plus the recognized gains from the compulsory or involuntary conversion (as a result of destruction in whole or in part, theft or seizure, or an exercise of the power of requisition or condemnation or the threat or imminence thereof) of property used in the trade or business and capital assets held for more than 6 months into other property or money, exceed the recognized losses from such sales, exchanges, and conversions, such gains and losses shall be considered as gains and losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets held for more than 6 months. . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.
We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled.
I
A
Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA), employees of the State and its political subdivisions are permitted to unionize. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, § 315/6(a) (West 2016). If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees. §§ 315/3(s)(1), 315/6(c), 315/9. Employees in the unit are not obligated to join the union selected by their co-workers, but whether they join or not, that union is deemed to be their sole permitted representative. See §§ 315/6(a), (c).
Once a union is so designated, it is vested with broad authority. Only the union may negotiate with the employer on matters relating to "pay, wages, hours [,] and other conditions of employment." § 315/6(c). And this authority extends to the negotiation of what the IPLRA calls "policy matters," such as merit pay, the size of the work force, layoffs, privatization, promotion methods, and non-discrimination policies. § 315/4; see § 315/6(c); see generally, e.g., Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S-CB-16-17 etc., 33 PERI ¶ 67 (ILRB Dec. 13, 2016) (Board Decision).
Designating a union as the employees' exclusive representative substantially restricts the rights of individual employees. Among other things, this designation means that individual employees may not be represented by any agent other than the designated union; nor may individual employees negotiate directly with their employer. §§ 315/6(c)-(d), 315/10(a)(4); see Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 IL 117638, 402 Ill.Dec. 1, 51 N.E.3d 753, 782 ; accord, Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683-684, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944). Protection of the employees' interests is placed in the hands of the union, and therefore the union is required by law to provide fair representation for all employees in the unit, members and nonmembers alike. § 315/6(d).
Employees who decline to join the union are not assessed full union dues but must instead pay what is generally called an "agency fee," which amounts to a percentage of the union dues. Under Abood, nonmembers may be charged for the portion of union dues attributable to activities that are "germane to [the union's] duties as collective-bargaining representative," but nonmembers may not be required to fund the union's political and ideological projects. 431 U.S., at 235, 97 S.Ct. 1782 ; see id., at 235-236, 97 S.Ct. 1782. In labor-law parlance, the outlays in the first category are known as "chargeable" expenditures, while those in the latter are labeled "nonchargeable."
Illinois law does not specify in detail which expenditures are chargeable and which are not. The IPLRA provides that an agency fee may compensate a union for the costs incurred in "the collective bargaining process, contract administration[,] and pursuing matters affecting wages, hours [,] and conditions of employment." § 315/6(e); see also § 315/3(g). Excluded from the agency-fee calculation are union expenditures "related to the election or support of any candidate for political office." § 315/3(g); see § 315/6(e).
Applying this standard, a union categorizes its expenditures as chargeable or nonchargeable and thus determines a nonmember's "proportionate share," § 315/6(e); this determination is then audited; the amount of the "proportionate share" is certified to the employer; and the employer automatically deducts that amount from the nonmembers' wages. See ibid. ; App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a; see also Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct. 2618, 2633-2634, 189 L.Ed.2d 620 (2014) (describing this process). Nonmembers need not be asked, and they are not required to consent before the fees are deducted.
After the amount of the agency fee is fixed each year, the union must send nonmembers what is known as a Hudson notice. See Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 106 S.Ct. 1066, 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986). This notice is supposed to provide nonmembers with "an adequate explanation of the basis for the [agency] fee." Id., at 310, 106 S.Ct. 1066. If nonmembers "suspect that a union has improperly put certain expenses in the [chargeable] category," they may challenge that determination. Harris, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2633.
As illustrated by the record in this case, unions charge nonmembers, not just for the cost of collective bargaining per se, but also for many other supposedly connected activities. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a-39a. Here, the nonmembers were told that they had to pay for "[l]obbying," "[s]ocial and recreational activities," "advertising," "[m]embership meetings and conventions," and "litigation," as well as other unspecified "[s]ervices" that "may ultimately inure to the benefit of the members of the local bargaining unit." Id., at 28a-32a. The total chargeable amount for nonmembers was 78.06% of full union dues. Id., at 34a.
B
Petitioner Mark Janus is employed by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services as a child support specialist. Id., at 10a. The employees in his unit are among the 35,000 public employees in Illinois who are represented by respondent American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Union). Ibid. Janus refused to join the Union because he opposes "many of the public policy positions that [it] advocates," including the positions it takes in collective bargaining. Id., at 10a, 18a. Janus believes that the Union's "behavior in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises in Illinois and does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens." Id., at 18a. Therefore, if he had the choice, he "would not pay any fees or otherwise subsidize [the Union]." Ibid. Under his unit's collective-bargaining agreement, however, he was required to pay an agency fee of $44.58 per month, id., at 14a-which would amount to about $535 per year.
Janus's concern about Illinois' current financial situation is shared by the Governor of the State, and it was the Governor who initially challenged the statute authorizing the imposition of agency fees. The Governor commenced an action in federal court, asking that the law be declared unconstitutional, and the Illinois attorney general (a respondent here) intervened to defend the law. App. 41. Janus and two other state employees also moved to intervene-but on the Governor's side. Id., at 60.
Respondents moved to dismiss the Governor's challenge for lack of standing, contending that the agency fees did not cause him any personal injury. E.g., id., at 48-49. The District Court agreed that the Governor could not maintain the lawsuit, but it held that petitioner and the other individuals who had moved to intervene had standing because the agency fees unquestionably injured them. Accordingly, "in the interest of judicial economy," the court dismissed the Governor as a plaintiff, while simultaneously allowing petitioner and the other employees to file their own complaint. Id., at 112. They did so, and the case proceeded on the basis of this new complaint.
The amended complaint claims that all "nonmember fee deductions are coerced political speech" and that "the First Amendment forbids coercing any money from the nonmembers." App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. Respondents moved to dismiss the amended complaint, correctly recognizing that the claim it asserted was foreclosed by Abood. The District Court granted the motion, id., at 7a, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 851 F.3d 746 (2017).
Janus then sought review in this Court, asking us to overrule Abood and hold that public-sector agency-fee arrangements are unconstitutional. We granted certiorari to consider this important question. 582 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 54, 198 L.Ed.2d 780 (2017).
II
Before reaching this question, however, we must consider a threshold issue. Respondents contend that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution because petitioner "moved to intervene in [the Governor's] jurisdictionally defective lawsuit." Union Brief in Opposition 11; see also id., at 13-17; State Brief in Opposition 6; Brief for Union Respondent i, 16-17; Brief for State Respondents 14, n. 1. This argument is clearly wrong.
It rests on the faulty premise that petitioner intervened in the action brought by the Governor, but that is not what happened. The District Court did not grant petitioner's motion to intervene in that lawsuit. Instead, the court essentially treated petitioner's amended complaint as the operative complaint in a new lawsuit. App. 110-112. And when the case is viewed in that way, any Article III issue vanishes. As the District Court recognized-and as respondents concede-petitioner was injured in fact by Illinois' agency-fee scheme, and his injuries can be redressed by a favorable court decision. Ibid. ; see Record 2312-2313, 2322-2323. Therefore, he clearly has Article III standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). It is true that the District Court docketed petitioner's complaint under the number originally assigned to the Governor's complaint, instead of giving it a new number of its own. But Article III jurisdiction does not turn on such trivialities.
The sole decision on which respondents rely, United States ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, 233 U.S. 157, 34 S.Ct. 550, 58 L.Ed. 893 (1914), actually works against them. That case concerned a statute permitting creditors of a government contractor to bring suit on a bond between 6 and 12 months after the completion of the work. Id., at 162, 34 S.Ct. 550. One creditor filed suit before the 6-month starting date, but another intervened within the 6-to-12-month window. The Court held that the "[t]he intervention [did] not cure th[e] vice in the original [prematurely filed] suit," but the Court also contemplated treating "intervention... as an original suit" in a case in which the intervenor met the requirements that a plaintiff must satisfy-e.g., filing a separate complaint and properly serving the defendants. Id., at 163-164, 34 S.Ct. 550. Because that is what petitioner did here, we may reach the merits of the question presented.
III
In Abood, the Court upheld the constitutionality of an agency-shop arrangement like the one now before us, 431 U.S., at 232, 97 S.Ct. 1782, but in more recent cases we have recognized that this holding is "something of an anomaly," Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. 298, 311, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012), and that Abood's "analysis is questionable on several grounds," Harris, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2632 ; see id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2632-2634 (discussing flaws in Abood's reasoning). We have therefore refused to extend Abood to situations where it does not squarely control, see Harris, supra, at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2638-2639, while leaving for another day the question whether Abood should be overruled, Harris, supra, at ----, n. 19, 134 S.Ct., at 2638, n. 19 ; see Knox, supra, at 310-311, 132 S.Ct. 2277.
We now address that question. We first consider whether Abood's holding is consistent with standard First Amendment principles.
A
The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the freedom of speech. We have held time and again that freedom of speech "includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) ; see Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-797, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988) ; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 559, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) ; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256-257, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974) ; accord, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 9, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion). The right to eschew association for expressive purposes is likewise protected. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) ("Freedom of association... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate"); see Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 12, 106 S.Ct. 903 ("[F]orced associations that burden protected speech are impermissible"). As Justice Jackson memorably put it: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (emphasis added).
Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document expressing support for a particular set of positions on controversial public issues-say, the platform of one of the major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.
Free speech serves many ends. It is essential to our democratic form of government, see, e.g., Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964), and it furthers the search for truth, see, e.g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). Whenever the Federal Government or a State prevents individuals from saying what they think on important matters or compels them to voice ideas with which they disagree, it undermines these ends.
When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding "involuntary affirmation" of objected-to beliefs would require "even more immediate and urgent grounds" than a law demanding silence. Barnette, supra, at 633, 63 S.Ct. 1178 ; see also Riley, supra, at 796-797, 108 S.Ct. 2667 (rejecting "deferential test" for compelled speech claims).
Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns. Knox, supra, at 309, 132 S.Ct. 2277 ; United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 410, 121 S.Ct. 2334, 150 L.Ed.2d 438 (2001) ; Abood, supra, at 222, 234-235, 97 S.Ct. 1782. As Jefferson famously put it, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical." A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, in 2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545 (J. Boyd ed. 1950) (emphasis deleted and footnote omitted); see also Hudson, 475 U.S., at 305, n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 1066. We have therefore recognized that a "'significant impingement on First Amendment rights' " occurs when public employees are required to provide financial support for a union that "takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences." Knox, supra, at 310-311, 132 S.Ct. 2277 (quoting Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 455, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984) ).
Because the compelled subsidization of private speech seriously impinges on First Amendment rights, it cannot be casually allowed. Our free speech cases have identified "levels of scrutiny" to be applied in different contexts, and in three recent cases, we have considered the standard that should be used in judging the constitutionality of agency fees. See Knox, supra ; Harris, supra ; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn., 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1083, 194 L.Ed.2d 255 (2016) (per curiam ) (affirming decision below by equally divided Court).
In Knox, the first of these cases, we found it sufficient to hold that the conduct in question was unconstitutional under even the test used for the compulsory subsidization of commercial speech. 567 U.S., at 309-310, 321-322, 132 S.Ct. 2277. Even though commercial speech has been thought to enjoy a lesser degree of protection, see, e.g., Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 557, 562-563, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), prior precedent in that area, specifically United Foods, supra, had applied what we characterized as "exacting" scrutiny, Knox, 567 U.S., at 310, 132 S.Ct. 2277, a less demanding test than the "strict" scrutiny that might be thought to apply outside the commercial sphere. Under "exacting" scrutiny, we noted, a compelled subsidy must "serve a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
In Harris, the second of these cases, we again found that an agency-fee requirement failed "exacting scrutiny." 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2641. But we questioned whether that test provides sufficient protection for free speech rights, since "it is apparent that the speech compelled" in agency-fee cases "is not commercial speech." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2639.
Picking up that cue, petitioner in the present case contends that the Illinois law at issue should be subjected to "strict scrutiny." Brief for Petitioner 36. The dissent, on the other hand, proposes that we apply what amounts to rational-basis review, that is, that we ask only whether a government employer could reasonably believe that the exaction of agency fees serves its interests. See post, at 2489 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) ("A government entity could reasonably conclude that such a clause was needed"). This form of minimal scrutiny is foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence, and we reject it here. At the same time, we again find it unnecessary to decide the issue of strict scrutiny because the Illinois scheme cannot survive under even the more permissive standard applied in Knox and Harris.
In the remainder of this part of our opinion (Parts III-B and III-C), we will apply this standard to the justifications for agency fees adopted by the Court in Abood. Then, in Parts IV and V, we will turn to alternative rationales proffered by respondents and their amici.
B
In Abood, the main defense of the agency-fee arrangement was that it served the State's interest in "labor peace," 431 U.S., at 224, 97 S.Ct. 1782. By "labor peace," the Abood Court meant avoidance of the conflict and disruption that it envisioned would occur if the employees in a unit were represented by more than one union. In such a situation, the Court predicted, "inter-union rivalries" would foster "dissension within the work force," and the employer could face "conflicting demands from different unions." Id., at 220-221, 97 S.Ct. 1782. Confusion would ensue if the employer entered into and attempted to "enforce two or more agreements specifying different terms and conditions of employment." Id., at 220, 97 S.Ct. 1782. And a settlement with one union would be "subject to attack from [a] rival labor organizatio [n]." Id., at 221, 97 S.Ct. 1782.
We assume that "labor peace," in this sense of the term, is a compelling state interest, but Abood cited no evidence that the pandemonium it imagined would result if agency fees were not allowed, and it is now clear that Abood's fears were unfounded. The Abood Court assumed that designation of a union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are inextricably linked, but that is simply not true. Harris, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2640.
The federal employment experience is illustrative. Under federal law, a union chosen by majority vote is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, but federal law does not permit agency fees. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7102, 7111(a), 7114(a). Nevertheless, nearly a million federal employees-about 27% of the federal work force-are union members. The situation in the Postal Service is similar. Although permitted to choose an exclusive representative, Postal Service employees are not required to pay an agency fee, 39 U.S.C. §§ 1203(a), 1209(c), and about 400,000 are union members. Likewise, millions of public employees in the 28 States that have laws generally prohibiting agency fees are represented by unions that serve as the exclusive representatives of all the employees. Whatever may have been the case 41 years ago when Abood was handed down, it is now undeniable that "labor peace" can readily be achieved "through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms" than the assessment of agency fees. Harris, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2639 (internal quotation marks omitted).
C
In addition to the promotion of "labor peace," Abood cited "the risk of 'free riders' " as justification for agency fees, 431 U.S., at 224, 97 S.Ct. 1782. Respondents and some of their amici endorse this reasoning, contending that agency fees are needed to prevent nonmembers from enjoying the benefits of union representation without shouldering the costs. Brief for Union Respondent 34-36; Brief for State Respondents 41-45; see, e.g., Brief for International Brotherhood of Teamsters as Amicus Curiae 3-5.
Petitioner strenuously objects to this free-rider label. He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage.
Whichever description fits the majority of public employees who would not subsidize a union if given the option, avoiding free riders is not a compelling interest. As we have noted, "free-rider arguments... are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections." Knox, 567 U.S., at 311, 132 S.Ct. 2277. To hold otherwise across the board would have startling consequences. Many private groups speak out with the objective of obtaining government action that will have the effect of benefiting nonmembers. May all those who are thought to benefit from such efforts be compelled to subsidize this speech?
Suppose that a particular group lobbies or speaks out on behalf of what it thinks are the needs of senior citizens or veterans or physicians, to take just a few examples. Could the government require that all seniors, veterans, or doctors pay for that service even if they object? It has never been thought that this is permissible. "[P]rivate speech often furthers the interests of nonspeakers," but "that does not alone empower the state to compel the speech to be paid for." Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U.S. 507, 556, 111 S.Ct. 1950, 114 L.Ed.2d 572 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). In simple terms, the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party's speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.
Those supporting agency fees contend that the situation here is different because unions are statutorily required to "represen[t] the interests of all public employees in the unit," whether or not they are union members. § 315/6(d); see, e.g., Brief for State Respondents 40-41, 45; post, at 2490 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). Why might this matter?
We can think of two possible arguments. It might be argued that a State has a compelling interest in requiring the payment of agency fees because (1) unions would otherwise be unwilling to represent nonmembers or (2) it would be fundamentally unfair to require unions to provide fair representation for nonmembers if nonmembers were not required to pay. Neither of these arguments is sound.
First, it is simply not true that unions will refuse to serve as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit if they are not given agency fees. As noted, unions represent millions of public employees in jurisdictions that do not permit agency fees. No union is ever compelled to seek that designation. On the contrary, designation as exclusive representative is avidly sought. Why is this so?
Even without agency fees, designation as the exclusive representative confers many benefits. As noted, that status gives the union a privileged place in negotiations over wages, benefits, and working conditions. See § 315/6(c). Not only is the union given the exclusive right to speak for all the employees in collective bargaining, but the employer is required by state law to listen to and to bargain in good faith with only that union. § 315/7. Designation as exclusive representative thus "results in a tremendous increase in the power" of the union. American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 401, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925 (1950).
In addition, a union designated as exclusive representative is often granted special privileges, such as obtaining information about employees, see § 315/6(c), and having dues and fees deducted directly from employee wages, §§ 315/6(e)-(f). The collective-bargaining agreement in this case guarantees a long list of additional privileges. See App. 138-143.
These benefits greatly outweigh any extra burden imposed by the duty of providing fair representation for nonmembers. What this duty entails, in simple terms, is an obligation not to "act solely in the interests of [the union's] own members."
Brief for State Respondents 41; see Cintron v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S-CB-16-032, p. 1, 34 PERI ¶ 105 (ILRB Dec. 13, 2017) (union may not intentionally direct "animosity" toward nonmembers based on their "dissident union practices"); accord, 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 271, 129 S.Ct. 1456, 173 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) ; Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967).
What does this mean when it comes to the negotiation of a contract? The union may not negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmembers, see Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 202-203, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944), but the union's bargaining latitude would be little different if state law simply prohibited public employers from entering into agreements that discriminate in that way. And for that matter, it is questionable whether the Constitution would permit a public-sector employer to adopt a collective-bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmembers. See id., at 198-199, 202, 65 S.Ct. 226 (analogizing a private-sector union's fair-representation duty to the duty "the Constitution imposes upon a legislature to give equal protection to the interests of those for whom it legislates"); cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 69, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (recognizing that government may not "impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group" where doing so "ma [kes] group membership less attractive"). To the extent that an employer would be barred from acceding to a discriminatory agreement anyway, the union's duty not to ask for one is superfluous. It is noteworthy that neither respondents nor any of the 39 amicus briefs supporting them-nor the dissent-has explained why the duty of fair representation causes public-sector unions to incur significantly greater expenses than they would otherwise bear in negotiating collective-bargaining agreements.
What about the representation of nonmembers in grievance proceedings? Unions do not undertake this activity solely for the benefit of nonmembers-which is why Illinois law gives a public-sector union the right to send a representative to such proceedings even if the employee declines union representation. § 315/6(b). Representation of nonmembers furthers the union's interest in keeping control of the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement, since the resolution of one employee's grievance can affect others. And when a union controls the grievance process, it may, as a practical matter, effectively subordinate "the interests of [an] individual employee... to the collective interests of all employees in the bargaining unit." Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 58, n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) ; see Stahulak v. Chicago, 184 Ill.2d 176, 180-181, 234 Ill.Dec. 432, 703 N.E.2d 44, 46-47 (1998) ; Mahoney v. Chicago, 293 Ill.App.3d 69, 73-74, 227 Ill.Dec. 209, 687 N.E.2d 132, 135-137 (1997) (union has " 'discretion to refuse to process' " a grievance, provided it does not act "arbitrar[ily]" or "in bad faith" (emphasis deleted) ).
In any event, whatever unwanted burden is imposed by the representation of nonmembers in disciplinary matters can be eliminated "through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms" than the imposition of agency fees. Harris, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2639 (internal quotation marks omitted). Individual nonmembers could be required to pay for that service or could be denied union representation altogether. Thus, agency fees cannot be sustained on the ground that unions would otherwise be unwilling to represent nonmembers.
Nor can such fees be justified on the ground that it would otherwise be unfair to require a union to bear the duty of fair representation. That duty is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to serve as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit. As explained, designating a union as the exclusive representative of nonmembers substantially restricts the nonmembers' rights. Supra, at 2460 - 2461. Protection of their interests is placed in the hands of the union
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve natural gas covered by overlapping provisions of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 — one setting a price ceiling, the other declaring prices deregulated. Petitioners contend that under § 101(b)(5) of the Act such gas should be classified as deregulated gas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that under § 101(b)(5) such gas falls under whichever classification affords producers the highest price under their contracts and current market conditions. The Court of Appeals also held invalid a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling that certain “new tight formation gas” under §107 (c)(5) of the Act is automatically “new” gas qualified for deregulated treatment under § 102(c) or § 103 of the Act. We reverse on both issues.
I
From 1938 to 1978, the Federal Government regulated only the interstate natural gas market. By the 1970’s, however, shortages in the interstate market developed because gas producers could get higher prices in unregulated intrastate markets. Two conflicting legislative solutions were developed: the Senate passed a bill deregulating interstate gas, S. 2104, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); the House passed a bill extending federal regulation to intrastate gas, H. R. 8444, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977). The Conference Committee struck a compromise. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752 (1978). The result was the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (Act), Pub. L. 95-621, 92 Stat. 3351, 15 U. S. C. §3301 et seq.
The Act defines various categories of gas spanning both interstate and intrastate gas, and creates a two-part system of phased deregulation. First, the Act establishes price ceilings for wellhead first sales of gas that vary with the applicable category of gas and that gradually increase over time. §§101-110, 15 U. S. C. §§3311-3320. Second, the Act establishes a three-stage elimination of price ceilings for certain categories: the price ceilings for certain “high-cost” gas were eliminated in 1979, for certain “old” intrastate gas and “new” gas in 1985, and for certain other “new” gas in 1987. See §121, 15 U. S. C. §3331.
Many of these categories overlap. Recognizing the overlap, Congress provided in § 101(b)(5) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 3311(b):
“If any natural gas qualifies under more than one provision of this title providing for any maximum lawful price or for any exemption from such a price with respect to any first sale of such natural gas, the provision which could result in the highest price shall be applicable.”
In anticipation of the 1985 deregulation, FERC promulgated a regulation interpreting §§ 121 and 101(b)(5) to mean that any gas that was qualified for both deregulated and regulated treatment would be treated as deregulated. 18 CFR §270.208 (1987).
This preference for deregulatory treatment adversely affected many gas producers who had entered into certain types of long-term contracts. Typically, these contracts had one clause setting the price if the gas were regulated and another clause setting the price if it were deregulated. The contract price for regulated gas was typically close to the price ceiling; the contract price for deregulated gas was typically based on market prices or left open to renegotiation. Because by 1984 the market price of natural gas had plunged below the regulated price ceilings, these producers stood to reap higher contractual prices if their gas was regulated than if it were deregulated.
Dissatisfied with FERC’s regulation, numerous producers petitioned for review to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Court of Appeals rejected FERC’s interpretation of §§ 121 and 101(b)(5), adopting the producers’ position that § 101(b)(5) unambiguously requires the applicable category to be that which, at any particular moment, gamers the producer the highest contract price for its gas. 813 F. 2d 1059 (1987). In explaining this holding, the Court of Appeals also rejected FERC’s ruling that certain “new tight formation gas” subject to regulation under § 107(c)(5), 15 U. S. C. § 3317(c)(5), is automatically qualified for deregulation as new gas under § 102(c) or §103, 15 U. S. C. §§3312, 3313. See 813 F. 2d, at 1069-1070. We granted certiorari. 484 U. S. 962 (1987).
II
“The plain meaning of the statute decides the issue presented.” Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U. S. 399, 403 (1988). The Act states that “the provision which could result in the highest price shall be applicable.” § 101(b)(5) (emphasis added). It does not state that the applicable provision is that which will (depending on actual contracts and daily market prices) result in the highest price for each producer. We think these words call for a simple comparison between the highest price permitted by one provision and the highest price permitted by another: the higher the price ceiling, the higher the price that “could result” under the provision. The provision with the highest price ceiling thus applies uniformly to all producers selling gas that falls within both provisions. When one of the provisions sets no price ceiling at all — i. e., it deregulates — that provision governs.
The Court of Appeals rejected this straightforward interpretation on the ground that, although the price of deregulated gas “could” in theory rise without limit, “the price of regulated gas ‘could’ be higher than the price of deregulated gas.” 813 F. 2d, at 1068. The court reasoned that “[s]uch an understanding of ‘could’ — one that considers only the theoretical possibilities — renders § 101(b)(5) meaningless.” Ibid. Rather, the court concluded: “‘Could’ makes sense in § 101(b)(5) only in the context of how gas sales actually occur.” Ibid. Under this reading of § 101(b)(5), the statute requires a determination of which provision would actually result in a higher price under current market prices for that gas and the contractual arrangement each producer had for the sale of that gas. Ibid. The provision that actually results in the highest price at any particular moment establishes the applicable category for that producer’s gas.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that reading the word “could” in § 101(b)(5) with its ordinary conditional meaning makes so little sense that the word “could” must be converted to the word “will.” The conditional meaning of “could” makes perfect sense if the statute does not mean to refer to particular contracts but rather to the generic situation of parties in a precontract state: the provision that allows the parties to contract to the highest conceivable price applies. Congress must have had in mind the fact that prior to entering into a contract the parties could always contract to a higher price — i. e., a higher price could result— without a price ceiling than with one. After all, no party has any reason to contract to a higher price simply because a price ceiling has been imposed; the price ceiling can only impose a direct legal restraint if the market price would be above the price ceiling. Cf. § 101(b)(9), 15 U. S. C. § 3311(b)(9) (declaring contract prices enforceable if they do not exceed an applicable price ceiling or if a deregulatory provision applies). The Court of Appeals’ difficulty with the statutory language is caused by its focus on the postcontract situation, where many of the contracts contain clauses that have the perverse effect of increasing the price when a price ceiling is imposed. We doubt seriously that Congress enacted § 101(b)(5) with such contracts in mind or that it would have wished to make sure that the Act interacted with such contracts to mandate the maximum price possible. Certainly nothing in the legislative history suggests Congress had such a system in mind.
Indeed, the Court of Appeals’ reading is contrary to the whole thrust of the Act, for it has the effect of turning a statutory scheme of price ceilings and deregulation into a system of price supports for producers. There is no evidence that Congress had any intent to create such a producer-assistance program. The Act was a compromise: those supporting deregulation were opposed only by those who thought deregulation would allow producers to charge excessive prices. Not one participant in the legislative process suggested that producers should receive higher prices than deregulation would afford them. The operating assumption of Congress was that deregulation was the most favorable regime for gas producers under consideration. See, e. g., 124 Cong. Rec. 28633 (1978) (statement of Sen. Jackson) (describing deregulation as “the maximum economic incentive”).
We are moreover reluctant to read § 101(b)(5) as making the applicable provision for a particular type of gas vary not only from producer to producer and from contract to contract, but from day to day as the actual market price of that gas changes. The statute is phrased in a general way that implies that all gas fitting the same overlapping provisions will be treated the same, and one would normally expect that a regulatory regime would apply uniformly rather than varying in such a chaotic fashion. The statute calls for a comparison of statutory provisions, not contractual ones, and nothing in the statute or legislative history suggests that Congress wanted the classification of gas to turn on contractual terms. Indeed, if the logic of the Court of Appeals’ position were pursued, then, even for gas that fell into two regulated categories, § 101(b)(5) would require a comparison of each producer’s contract prices for each category rather than a comparison of the ceiling prices for each category. We see no reason for inferring that Congress intended such a regulatory regime or the disuniformity and administrative difficulties it would entail.
1 — 1 I — I
We also disagree with the Court of Appeals’ decision to overturn FERC’s ruling that certain gas qualified as “new tight formation” gas under § 107(c)(5), 15 U. S. C. § 3317(c) (5), is automatically also qualified as deregulated “new” gas under § 102(c) or § 103, 15 U. S. C. §§ 3312(c), 3313. Section 107(c)(5) gives FERC authority to make eligible for special high-cost gas pricing natural gas “produced under such . . . conditions as [FERC] determines to present extraordinary risks or costs.” Pursuant to § 107(c)(5), FERC has defined “new tight formation gas” as gas
“(i) Which is new natural gas, (as defined in section 102(c)), certain OCS gas qualifying for the new natural gas ceiling price, (as defined in section 102(d)), or gas produced through a new onshore production well (as defined in section 103(c); and
“(ii) Which is produced from a designated tight formation through a well the surface drilling of which began on or after July 16, 1979.” 18 CFR § 271.703(b)(2) (1987).
In the proceeding below, which did not address certain Outer Continental Shelf gas under § 102(d), 15 U. S. C. §3312(d), FERC has simply ruled that, because “[i]n order to qualify as new tight-formation gas under section 107(c)(5), a producer must file the same information, in addition to other information, that would be filed to qualify as a section 102 or 103 determination , a determination that gas qualifies as new tight-formation gas is implicitly a determination that the gas meets the qualifications for either section 102(c) or 103 . . . , regardless of whether that was explicit at the time that the determination was made.” 49 Fed. Reg. 46874, 46880 (1984).
We see nothing objectionable about this ruling, which merely recognizes that, as defined, the types of “new tight formation gas” that were under consideration by FERC are a subset of deregulated “new” gas under § 102(c) or § 103. The Court of Appeals’ objections to the ruling were based on its conclusion that allowing one qualification to result automatically in a second qualification would interfere with what it inferred was Congress’ intent to give producers the right to select the categories they desired. 813 F. 2d, at 1069. The court had two bases for inferring this intent. One was its reading of § 101(b)(5), which we reject above. The other was its reading of certain portions of the legislative history, which state that governmental agencies have no affirmative obligation to identify the applicable classification and that it is up to producers to apply for the designations they want. 813 F. 2d, at 1070 (quoting 124 Cong. Rec. 29109, 38363-38364 (1978)). But the fact that Congress declined to impose affirmative investigative duties on agencies hardly means that it did not want FERC to adopt rules for classifying gas based on the evidence presented by producers at determination hearings.
The producer respondents also argue that FERC’s rule intrudes on the jurisdiction other state and federal agencies have to make category determinations under §503, 15 U. S. C. §3413. FERC, however, has made no category determinations. It has merely promulgated a definitional rule applicable in determination proceedings. This FERC has ample authority to do. Not only does § 107(c)(5) give FERC broad authority to define the gas eligible for § 107(c) (5) treatment, but § 503 gives FERC authority to review the category determinations of other agencies and to prescribe the manner and substantiation with which such category determinations must be presented for its review. And under §501, 15 U. S. C. §3411, FERC has general authority to define terms under the Act and to prescribe “such rules and orders as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out its functions.”
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice White 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1959 respondent Robinson was convicted of the murder of his common-law wife, Flossie May Ward, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Being an indigent he was defended by court-appointed counsel. It was conceded at trial that Robinson shot and killed Flossie May, but his counsel claimed that he was insane at the time of the shooting and raised the issue of his incompetence to stand trial. On writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois it was asserted that the trial court's rejection of these contentions deprived Robinson of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. His conviction was affirmed, the court finding that no hearing on mental capacity to stand trial had been requested, that the evidence failed to raise sufficient doubt as to his competence to require the trial court to conduct a hearing on its own motion, and further that the evidence did not raise a “reasonable doubt” as to his sanity at the time of the offense. 22 Ill. 2d 162, 174 N. E. 2d 820 (1961). We denied certiorari. 368 U. S. 995 (1962). Thereupon, Robinson filed this petition for habeas corpus, which was denied without a hearing by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court of Appeals reversed, 345 F. 2d 691 (1965), on the ground that Robinson was convicted in an unduly hurried trial without a fair opportunity to obtain expert psychiatric testimony, and without sufficient development of the facts on the issues of Robinson’s insanity when he committed the homicide and his present incompetence. It remanded the case to the District Court with directions to appoint counsel for Robinson; to hold a hearing as to his sanity when he committed the alleged offense; and, if it found him to have been insane at that time, to order his release, subject to an examination into his present mental condition. The Court of Appeals directed that the District Court should also determine upon the hearing whether Robinson was denied due process by the state court’s failure to conduct a hearing upon his competence to stand trial; and, if it were found his rights had been violated in this respect, that Robinson “should be ordered released, but such release may be delayed for a reasonable time ... to permit the State of Illinois to grant Robinson a new trial.” 345 F. 2d, at 698. We granted certiorari to resolve the difficult questions of state-federal relations posed by these rulings. 382 U. S. 890 (1965). We have concluded that Robinson was constitutionally entitled to a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial. Since we do not think there could be a meaningful hearing on that issue at this late date, we direct that the District Court, after affording the State another opportunity to put Robinson to trial on its charges within a reasonable time, order him discharged. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals in this respect, except insofar as it contemplated a hearing in the District Court on Robinson’s competence. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to reach the other reasons given by the Court of Appeals for reversal.
I.
The State concedes that the conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process, Bishop v. United States, 350 U. S. 961 (1956), and that state procedures must be adequate to protect this right. It insists, however, that Robinson intelligently waived this issue by his failure to request a hearing on his competence at the trial; and, further, that on the basis of the evidence before the trial judge no duty rested upon him to order a hearing sua sponte. A determination of these claims necessitates a detailed discussion of the conduct of the trial and the evidence touching upon the question of Robinson’s competence at that time.
The uncontradicted testimony of four witnesses called by the defense revealed that Robinson had a long history of disturbed behavior. His mother testified that when he was between seven and eight years of age a brick dropped from a third floor hit Robinson on the head. “He blacked out and the blood run from his head like a faucet.” Thereafter “he acted a little peculiar.” The blow knocked him “cockeyed” and his mother took him to a specialist “to correct the crossness of his eyes.” He also suffered headaches during his childhood, apparently stemming from the same event. His conduct became noticeably erratic about 1946 or 1947 when he was visiting his mother on a furlough from the Army. While Robinson was sitting and talking with a guest, “he jumped up and run to a bar and kicked a hole in the bar and he run up in the front.” His mother asked “what on earth was wrong with him and he just stared at [her], and paced the floor with both hands in his pockets.” On other occasions he appeared in a daze, with a “glare in his eyes,” and would not speak or respond to questions. In 1951, a few years after his discharge from the service, he “lost his mind and was pacing the floor saying something was after him.” This incident occurred at the home of his aunt, Helen Calhoun. Disturbed by Robinson’s conduct, Mrs. Calhoun called his mother about six o’clock in the morning, and she “went to see about him.” Robinson tried to prevent Mrs. Calhoun from opening the door, saying “that someone was going to shoot him or someone was going to come in after him.” His mother testified that, after gaining admittance, “I went to him and hugged him to ask him what was wrong and he went to pushing me back, telling me to get back, somebody was going to shoot him, somebody was going to shoot him.” Upon being questioned as to Robinson’s facial expression at the time, the mother stated that he “had that starey look and seemed to be just a little foamy at the mouth.” A policeman was finally called. He put Robinson, his mother and aunt in a cab which drove them to Hines Hospital. On the way Robinson tried to jump from the cab, and upon arrival at the hospital he was so violent that he had to be strapped in a wheel chair. He then was taken in an ambulance to the County Psychopathic Hospital, from which he was transferred to the Kankakee State Hospital. The medical records there recited:
“The reason for admission: The patient was admitted to this hospital on the 5th day of June, 1952, from the Hines Hospital. Patient began presenting symptoms of mental illness about a year ago at which time he came to his mother’s house. He requested money and when it was refused, he suddenly kicked a hole in her bar.
“Was drinking and went to the Psychopathic Hospital. He imagined he heard voices, voices of men and women and he also saw things. He saw a little bit of everything. He saw animals, snakes and elephants and this lasted for about two days. He went to Hines. They sent him to the Psychopathic Hospital. The voices threatened him. He imagined someone was outside with a pistol aimed at him. He was very, very scared and he tried to call the police and his aunt then called the police. He thought he was going to be harmed. And he says this all seems very foolish to him now. Patient is friendly and tries to cooperate.
“He went through an acute toxic episode from which he has some insight. He had been drinking heavily. I am wondering possibly he isn’t schizophrenic. I think he has recovered from this condition. I have seen the wife and she is in a pathetic state. I have no objection to giving him a try.”
After his release from the state hospital Robinson’s irrational episodes became more serious. His grandfather testified that while Robinson was working with him as a painter’s assistant, “all at once, he would come down [from the ladder] and walk on out and never say where he is going and whatnot and he would be out two or three hours, and at times he would be in a daze and when he comes out, he comes back just as fresh. He just says he didn’t do anything. I noticed that he wasn’t at all himself.” The grandfather also related that one night when Robinson was staying at his house Robinson and his wife had a “ruckus,” which caused his wife to flee to the grandfather’s bedroom. Robinson first tried to kick down the door. He then grabbed all of his wife’s clothes from their room and threw them out in the yard, intending to set them on fire. Robinson got so unruly that the grandfather called the police to lock him up.
In 1953 Robinson, then separated from his wife, brought their 18-month-old son to Mrs. Calhoun’s home and asked permission to stay there for a couple of days. She observed that he was highly nervous, prancing about and staring wildly. While she was at work the next day Robinson shot and killed his son and attempted suicide by shooting himself in the head. It appeared that after Robinson shot his son, he went to a nearby park and tried to take his life again by jumping into a lagoon. By his mother’s description, he “was wandering around” the park, and walked up to a policeman and “asked him for a cigarette.” It was stipulated that he went to the South Park Station on March 10, 1953, and said that he wanted to confess to a crime. When he removed his hat the police saw that he had shot himself in the head. They took him to the hospital for treatment of his wound.
Robinson served almost four years in prison for killing his son, being released in September 1956. A few months thereafter he began to live with Flossie May Ward at her home. In the summer of 1957 or 1958 Robinson “jumped on” his mother’s brother-in-law and “beat him up terrible.” She went to the police station and swore out a warrant for his arrest. She described his abnormalities and told the officers that Robinson “seemed to have a disturbed mind.” She asked the police “to pick him up so I can have him put away.” Later she went back to see why they had not taken him into custody because of “the way he was fighting around in the streets, people were beating him up.” She made another complaint a month or so before Robinson killed Flossie May Ward. However, no warrant was ever served on him.
The killing occurred about 10:30 p. m. at a small barbecue house where Flossie May Ward worked. At that time there were 10 customers in the restaurant, six of them sitting at the counter. It appears from the record that Robinson entered the restaurant with a gun in his hand. As he approached the counter, Flossie May said, “Don’t start nothing tonight.” After staring at her for about a minute, he walked to the rear of the room and, with the use of his hand, leaped over the counter. He then rushed back toward the front of the restaurant, past two other employees working behind the counter, and fired once or twice at Flossie May. She jumped over the counter and ran out the front door with Robinson in pursuit. She was found dead on the sidewalk. Robinson never spoke a word during the three-to-four-minute episode.
Subsequently Robinson went to the apartment of a friend, Mr. Moore, who summoned the police. When three officers, two in uniform, arrived, Robinson was standing in the hall approximately half way between the elevator and the apartment. Unaware of his identity, the officers walked past him and went to the door of the apartment. Mrs. Moore answered the door and told them that Robinson had left a short time earlier. As the officers turned around they saw Robinson still standing where they had first observed him. Robinson made no attempt to avoid being arrested. When asked his address he gave several evasive answers. He also denied knowing anything about the killing.
Four defense witnesses expressed the opinion that Robinson was insane. In rebuttal the State introduced only a stipulation that Dr. William H. Haines, Director of the Behavior Clinic of the Criminal Court of Cook County would, if present, testify that in his opinion Robinson knew the nature of the charges against him and was able to cooperate with counsel when he examined him two or three months before trial. However, since the stipulation did not include a finding of sanity the prosecutor advised the court that “we should have Dr. Haines’ testimony as to his opinion whether this man is sane or insane. It is possible that the man might be insane and know the nature of the charge or be able to cooperate with his counsel. I think it should be in evidence, your Honor, that Dr. Haines’ opinion is that this defendant was sane when he was examined.” However, the court told the prosecutor, “You have enough in the record now. I don’t think you need Dr. Haines.” In his summation defense counsel emphasized “our defense is clear .... It is as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime and also as to the present time.” The court, after closing argument by the defense, found Robinson guilty and sentenced him to prison for his natural life.
II.
The State insists that Robinson deliberately waived the defense of his competence to stand trial by failing to demand a sanity hearing as provided by Illinois law. But it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently “waive” his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial. See Taylor v. United States, 282 F. 2d 16, 23 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1960). In any event, the record shows that counsel throughout the proceedings insisted that Robinson’s present sanity was very much in issue. He made a point to elicit Mrs. Robinson’s opinion of Robinson’s “present sanity.” And in his argument to the .judge, he asserted that Robinson “should be found not guilty and presently insane on the basis of the testimony that we have heard.” Moreover, the prosecutor himself suggested at trial that “we should have Dr. Haines’ testimony as to his opinion whether this man is sane or insane.” With this record we cannot say that Robinson waived the defense of incompetence to stand trial.
We believe that the evidence introduced on Robinson’s behalf entitled him to a hearing on this issue. The court’s failure to make such inquiry thus deprived Robinson of his constitutional right to a fair trial. See Thomas v. Cunningham, 313 F. 2d 934 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1963). Illinois jealously guards this right. Where the evidence raises a “bona fide doubt” as to a defendant’s competence to stand trial, the judge on his own motion must impanel a jury and conduct a sanity hearing pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 104-2 (1963). People v. Shrake, 25 Ill. 2d 141, 182 N. E. 2d 754 (1962). The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the evidence here was not sufficient to require a hearing in light of the mental alertness and understanding displayed in Robinson’s “colloquies” with the trial judge. 22 Ill. 2d, at 168, 174 N. E. 2d, at 823. But this reasoning offers no justification for ignoring the uncontradicted testimony of Robinson’s history of pronounced irrational behavior. While Robinson’s demeanor at trial might be relevant to the ultimate decision as to his sanity, it cannot be relied upon to dispense with a hearing on that very issue. Cf. Bishop v. United States, 350 U. S. 961 (1956), reversing 96 U. S. App. D. C. 117, 120, 223 F. 2d 582, 585 (1955), Likewise, the stipulation of Dr. Haines’ testimony was some evidence of Robinson’s ability to assist in his defense. But, as the state prosecutor seemingly admitted, on the facts presented to the trial court it could not properly have been deemed dispositive on the issue of Robinson’s competence.
III.
Having determined that Robinson’s constitutional rights were abridged by his failure to receive an adequate hearing on his competence to stand trial, we direct that the writ of habeas corpus must issue and Robinson be discharged, unless the State gives him a new trial within a reasonable time. This disposition accords with the procedure adopted in Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534 (1961). We there determined that since the state court had applied an erroneous standard to judge the admissibility of a confession, the “defendant should have the opportunity to have all issues which may be determinative of his guilt tried by a state judge or a state jury under appropriate state procedures which conform to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.” At 547-548. It has been pressed upon us that it would be sufficient for the state court to hold a limited hearing as to Robinson’s mental competence at the time he was tried in 1959. If he were found competent, the judgment against him would stand. But we have previously emphasized the difficulty of retrospectively determining an accused’s competence to stand trial. Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960). The jury would not be able to observe the subject of their inquiry, and expert witnesses would have to testify solely from information contained in the printed record. That Robinson’s hearing would be held six years after the fact aggravates these difficulties. This need for concurrent determination distinguishes the present case from Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964), where we held that on remand the State could discharge its constitutional obligation by giving the accused a separate hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.
If the State elects to retry Robinson, it will of course be open to him to raise the question of his competence to' stand trial at that time and to request a special hearing thereon. In the event a sufficient doubt exists as to his present competence such a hearing must be held. If found competent to stand trial, Robinson would have the usual defenses available to an accused.
The case is remanded to the District Court for action consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Nor do we pass on the contention that Robinson was denied his Sixth Amendment rights by the trial judge’s refusal to issue summonses for material witnesses.
These witnesses were Miss Willie Ceola Peterson, Robinson’s mother; Mr. William H. Langham, his grandfather; Mrs. Helen Calhoun, his aunt; and Mrs. Alice Moore, a family friend.
The Reverend Elmer Clemons was also shot and killed in the fracas. The indictment covering that offense was dismissed at the close of the trial in question.
According to the testimony of an arresting officer the following exchange took place:
“I asked him what his name was and he said, ‘My name is Ted.’ I said, ‘What is your real name?’ And he said, ‘Theodore Robinson.’ Then I asked him — I told him he was under arrest and he said, ‘For what?’ I said, ‘Well, you are supposed to be wanted for killing two people on the south side.’ I asked him did he know anything about it. He said, ‘No, I don’t know what you are talking about.’ So then I asked him where he lived and he said, T don’t live no place.’
“I said, ‘What do you mean you don’t live no place?’ He said, ‘That’s what I said.’
“So then pretty soon asked him again and he said, ‘Sometimes I stay with my mother.’ And I said, ‘Where does she live?’ He said, ‘Some address on East 44th Street.’
"So then we took him on to the 27th District and while we were making the arrest slip, asked him again his address and he said he lived at 7320 South Parkway. That’s about all he said. He didn’t know anything about any killing or anything.”
His mother stated: “I think he is insane.” Mrs. Calhoun testified as follows:
“Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not presently he is sane or insane?
“A. He is sick. He is insane.
“Q. First of all, do you have an opinion?
“A. Yes.
“Q. What is your opinion as to his present sanity? . . .
“A. He is mentally sick.”
Although defense counsel phrased his questions and argument in terms of Robinson's present insanity, we interpret his language as necessarily placing in issue the question of Robinson’s mental competence to stand trial. Counsel was simply borrowing the terminology of the relevant Illinois statutes and decisions. The state law in effect at the time of Robinson’s trial differentiated between lack of criminal responsibility and competence to stand trial, but used “insanity” to describe both concepts. Ill. Rev. Stat., e. 38, §§ 592, 593 (1963). The judges likewise phrased their decisions only in terms of sanity and insanity. See, e. g., People v. Baker, 26 Ill. 2d 484, 187 N. E. 2d 227 (1962). The statutory provisions and terminology in this field have now been clarified by the enactment of an article dealing with the “competency of accused.” Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §§ 104-1 to 104-3 (1963), as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Even if counsel may also have meant to refer to the statutory provisions dealing with commitment for present insanity, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, §592 (1963), this fact would not affect the determination that counsel’s words raised a question as to competence that the trial judge should have considered.
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals stressed, the trial judge did not give Robinson an opportunity to introduce expert testimony on the question of his sanity. The judge denied counsel’s request for a continuance of several hours in order to secure the appearance of a psychiatrist from the Illinois Psychiatric Institute.
As defense counsel insisted in his closing argument :
“In this case, which is a very serious case, the defendant has been able to cooperate with counsel with some reservations. . . . However, I do not feel that this present . . . lucidity bears on the issue of his sanity at the time of the crime and his sanity at the present time. I think the words sanity and insanity, the words are legal terms. I think that presently Mr. Theodore Robinson is in a lucid interval. I believe that from the witness stand you have heard testimony to indicate and prove that Mr. Theodore Robinson is presently insane. . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented involves an important construction and application of § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 18. Consolidated Foods Corp. — which owns food processing plants and a network of wholesale and retail food stores — acquired Gentry, Inc., in 1951. Gentry manufactures principally dehydrated onion and garlic. The Federal Trade Commission held that the acquisition violated § 7 because it gave respondent the advantage of a mixed threat and lure of reciprocal buying in its competition for business and “the power to foreclose competition from a substantial share of the markets for dehydrated onion and garlic.” It concluded, in other words, that the effect of the acquisition “may be substantially to lessen competition” within the meaning of § 7, and it ordered divestiture and gave other relief. -F. T. C.-,-. The Court of Appeals, relying mainly on 10 years of post-acquisition experience, held that the Commission had failed to show a probability that the acquisition would substantially lessen competition, 329 F. 2d 623. The case is here on cer-tiorari. 379 U. S. 912.
We hold at the outset that the “reciprocity” made possible by such an acquisition is one of the congeries of anticompetitive practices at which the antitrust laws are aimed. The practice results in “an irrelevant and alien factor,” - F. T; C., p. -, intruding into the choice among competing products, creating at the least “a priority on the business at equal prices.” International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 396-397; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 3, 6, 12. Reciprocal trading may ensue not from bludgeoning or coercion but from more subtle arrangements. A threatened withdrawal of orders if products of an affiliate cease being bought, as well as a conditioning of future purchases on the receipt of orders for products of that affiliate, is an anticompetitive practice. Section 7 of the Clayton Act is concerned “with probabilities, not certainties.” Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 323; United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 362. Reciprocity in trading as a result of an acquisition violates § 7, if the probability of a lessening of competition is shown. We turn then to that, the principal, aspect of the present case.
Consolidated is a substantial purchaser of the products of food processors who in turn purchase dehydrated onion and garlic for use in preparing and packaging their food. Gentry, which as noted is principally engaged in the manufacture of dehydrated onion and garlic, had in 1950, immediately prior to its acquisition by Consolidated, about 32% of the total sales of the dehydrated garlic and onion industry and, together with its principal competitor, Basic Vegetable Products, Inc., accounted for almost 90% of the total industry sales. The remaining 10% was divided between two other firms. By 1958 the total industry output of both products had doubled, Gentry’s share rising to 35% and the combined share of Gentry and Basic remaining at about 90%.
After the acquisition Consolidated (though later disclaiming adherence to any policy of reciprocity) did undertake to assist Gentry in selling. An official of Consolidated wrote as follows to its distributing divisions :
“Oftentimes, it is a great advantage to know when you are calling on a prospect, whether or not that prospect is a supplier of someone within your own organization. Everyone believes in reciprocity providing all things are equal.
“Attached is a list of prospects for our Gentry products. We would like to have you indicate on the list whether or not you are purchasing any of your supplies from them. If so, indicate whether your purchases are relatively large, small or insignificant. . . .
“Will you please refer the list to the proper party in your organization. ... If you have any special suggestions, as to how you could be helpful in properly presenting Gentry to any of those listed, it will be appreciated.”
Food processors who sold to Consolidated stated they would give their onion and garlic business to Gentry for reciprocity reasons if it could meet the price and quality of its competitors’ products. Typical is a letter from Armour and Co.:
“I can assure you that it is the desire of our people to reciprocate and cooperate with you in any way we can in line with good business practices, and I am sure that if our quality obstacles can be overcome, your quotations will receive favorable consideration. We value our relationship with you very highly and are disappointed that we have been unable lately to reciprocate for your fine cooperation on Armour Pantry Shelf Meats.”
Some suppliers responded and gave reciprocal orders. Some who first gave generous orders later reduced them or abandoned the practice. It is impossible to recreate the precise anatomy of the market arrangements following the acquisition, though respondent offers a factual brief seeking to prove that “reciprocity” either failed or was not a major factor in the post-acquisition history.
The Commission found, however, that “merely as a result of its connection with Consolidated, and without any action on the latter’s part, Gentry would have an unfair advantage over competitors enabling it to make sales that otherwise might not have been made.”
And the Commission concluded:
“With two firms accounting for better than 85% of both product lines for eleven successive years, maximum concentration short of monopoly has already been achieved. If it is desirable to prevent a trend toward oligopoly it is a fortiori desirable to remove, so far as possible, obstacles to the creation of genuinely competitive conditions in an oligopolistic industry. Respondent’s reciprocal buying power, obtained through acquisition of Gentry, is just such an anticompetitive obstacle.
“This conclusion is buttressed by the peculiar nature of the dehydrated onion and garlic industry. In the first place, the record shows that Gentry’s leading competitor, Basic Vegetable Products, Inc., has been the innovator and leader in the field. Gentry has recently made technical strides narrowing, although probably not closing, the gap between them. There is also evidence that the third firm, Puccinelli Packing Co., is not only much smaller — commanding only about 10% of each product market — but is considered by many buyers to offer an inferior product and inferior service.” -F. T. C., p.-.
The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, gave post-acquisition evidence almost conclusive weight. It pointed out that, while Gentry’s share of the dehydrated onion market increased by some 7%, its share of the dehydrated garlic market decreased 12%. 329 F. 2d, p. 626. It also relied on apparently unsuccessful attempts at reciprocal buying. Ibid. The Court of Appeals concluded that “Probability can best be gauged by what the past has taught.” Id., p. 627.
The Court of Appeals was not in error in considering the post-acquisition evidence in this case. See United States v. du Pont Co., 353 U. S. 586, 597 et seq., 602 et seq. But we think it gave too much weight to it. Cf. United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U. S. 441, 463. No group acquiring a company with reciprocal buying opportunities is entitled to a “free trial” period. To give it such would be to distort the scheme of § 7. The “mere possibility” of the prohibited restraint is not enough. (United States v. du Pont & Co., supra, p. 598.) Probability of the proscribed evil is required, as we have noted. If the post-acquisition evidence were given conclusive weight or allowed to override all probabilities, then acquisitions would go forward willy-nilly, the parties biding their time until reciprocity was allowed fully to bloom. It is, of course, true that post-acquisition conduct may amount to a violation of § 7 even though there is no evidence to establish probability in limine. See United States v. du Pont & Co., supra, pp. 597-598. But the force of § 7 is still in probabilities, not in what later transpired. That must necessarily be the case, for once the two companies are united no one knows what the fate of the acquired company and its competitors would have been but for the merger.
Moreover, the post-acquisition evidence here tends to confirm, rather than cast doubt upon, the probable anti-competitive effect which the Commission found the merger would have. The Commission found that Basic’s product was superior to Gentry’s — as Gentry’s president freely and repeatedly admitted. Yet Gentry, in a rapidly expanding market, was able to increase its share of onion sales by 7% and to hold its losses in garlic to a 12% decrease. Thus the Commission was surely on safe ground in reaching the following conclusion:
“If reciprocal buying creates for Gentry a protected market, which others cannot penetrate despite superiority of price, quality, or service, competition is lessened whether or not Gentry can expand its market share. It is for this reason that we reject respondent’s argument that the decline in its share of the garlic market proves the ineffectiveness of reciprocity. We do not know that its share would not have fallen still farther, had it not been for the influence of reciprocal buying. This loss of sales fails to refute the likelihood that Consolidated’s reciprocity power, which it has shown a willingness to exploit to the full, will not immunize a substantial segment of the garlic market from normal quality, price, and service competition.” -F. T. C., p.-,
But the Court of Appeals ignored the Commission’s findings as to the inferiority of Gentry’s product; indeed at one point it even supplanted those findings with its own conclusion that Gentry’s onions were superior:
“Consolidated’s Gentry division in the years following the acquisition, during which time it improved its onion processing equipment to eliminate a problem arising from the presence of wood splinters and achieved a product of higher quality than that of its competitors, increased its share of the rapidly expanding market by only some 7% with respect to dehydrated onion . . . .” 329 F. 2d, p. 626. (Emphasis supplied.)
But the Commission’s contrary conclusion was unquestionably based on substantial evidence, as the following excerpt from the testimony of Gentry’s president particularly indicates:
“Q. You mentioned the fact, Dr. Prater, that Gentry had a reputation of being second to Basic in quality. Was one of the factors involved in the quality competition the wood splinter problem?
“A. Yes, the wood splinter problem has been a problem in the dehydration industry for many years. Basic exploited this extensively, and solved it by improvements in production techniques in the use, or by the use of better methods, and by using, instead of wood trays, trays of aluminum plastic glass fibers. We met this competition partially by the improvement of our production techniques and installation of continuous conveyor dehydrators.”
We do not go so far as to say that any acquisition, no matter how small, violates § 7 if there is a probability of reciprocal buying. Some situations may amount only to de minimis. But where, as here, the acquisition is of a company that commands a substantial share of a market, a finding of probability of reciprocal buying by the Commission, whose expertise the Congress trusts, should be honored, if there is substantial evidence to support it.
The evidence is in our view plainly substantial. Reciprocity was tried over and again and it sometimes worked. The industry structure was peculiar, Basic being the leader with Gentry closing the gap. Moreover there is evidence, as the Commission found, “that many buyers have determined that their source of supply may best be protected by a policy of buying from two suppliers.” When reciprocal buying — or the inducement of it — is added, the Commission observed:
“Buyers are likely to lean toward Basic on the ground of quality, but, in seeking a second, protective supply channel, to purchase from Gentry in the belief that this will further their sales to Consolidated. Not only does Gentry thus obtain sales that might otherwise go to Basic or Puccinelli, but the two-firm oligopoly structure of the industry is strengthened and solidified and new entry by others is discouraged.” -F. T. C., p.-.
We conclude that there is substantial evidence to sustain that conclusion and that the order of the Commission should not have been denied enforcement. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Section 7 reads in pertinent part as follows:
“No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” 15 U. S. C. § 18.
Edwards, Conglomerate Bigness as a Source of Power, in 'Nat. Bur. Eco. Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy (1955), 331, p. 342:
“Where large and powerful concerns encounter each other as seller and buyer, there is sometimes a reciprocal exchange of favors, by which each of the great enterprises strengthens the other.
“The most common form of such a relationship is probably reciprocal buying. A reciprocal buying arrangement may arise either through formal contract or through an informal understanding that may be scarcely distinguishable from a mere policy of cultivating the good will of a large customer. The essence of the arrangement is the willingness of each company to buy from the other, conditioned upon the expectation that the other company will make reciprocal purchases. The goods bought are typicalfy dissimilar in kind, and in the usual case could be obtained from other sources on terms which, aside from the reciprocal purchases, would be no less advantageous. Where such a relationship is well established, it prevents' the competitors of each company from selling to the other company, and affords to each company whatever increase of size and strength can be derived from an assured place as supplier to the other.”
And see Stocking and Mueller, Business Reciprocity and the Size of Firms, 30 J. Bus. U. Chi. 73, 75-77 (1957); Ammer, Realistic Reciprocity, 40 Harv. Bus. Rev. No. 1,116 (1962); Hausman, Reciprocal Dealing and the Antitrust Laws, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 873 (1964).
For a discussion of the conglomerate acquisition (the type involved in the present case) see Report, Federal Trade Commission on The Merger Movement (A Summary Report, 1948), p. 59 et seq.
As stated by the Court of Appeals:
“Immediately prior to the Consolidated-Gentry merger, Basic accounted for 60% and Gentry 28% of dehydrated onion sales. By 1958, these figures were 57% and 35%, respectively. In dehydrated garlic sales, Basic had 36% of the market in 1950 and 50% in 1958, while Gentry’s shares were 51% and 39% for the same years.” 329 F. 2d, p. 625.
The last three sentences were a footnote to the first sentence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the right of a defendant in a capital case to inform the jury that, under the governing state law, he would not be eligible for parole in the event that the jury sentences him to life imprisonment. In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), this Court held that where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant “to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel.” Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U. S. 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion) (describing Simmons’ premise and plurality opinion). The case we now confront involves a death sentence returned by a jury instructed both that “life imprisonment means until death of the offender,” and that “[p]arole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration.” 340 S. C. 291, 297, 531 S. E. 2d 524, 527 (2000). It presents the question whether the South Carolina Supreme Court misread our precedent when it declared Simmons inapplicable to South Carolina’s current sentencing scheme. We hold that South Carolina’s Supreme Court incorrectly limited Simmons and therefore reverse that court’s judgment.
I
In April 1997, in the course of an attempted robbery in Union County, South Carolina, then-18-year-old Wesley Aaron Shafer, Jr., shot and killed a convenience store cashier. A grand jury indicted Shafer on charges of murder, attempted armed robbery, and criminal conspiracy. App. 2-4. Prior to trial, the prosecutor notified Shafer that the State would seek the death penalty for the murder. App. 4-5. In that pursuit, the prosecutor further informed Shafer, the State would present evidence of Shafer’s “prior bad acts,” as well as his “propensity for [future] violence and unlawful conduct.” App. 6, 8.
Under South Carolina law, juries in capital cases consider guilt and sentencing in separate proceedings. S. C. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-20(A), (B) (2000 Cum. Supp.). In the initial (guilt phase) proceeding, the jury found Shafer guilty on all three charges. Governing the sentencing proceeding, South Carolina law instructs: “[T]he jury ... shall hear additional evidence in extenuation, mitigation, or aggravation of the punishment. . . . The State, the defendant, and his counsel are permitted to present arguments for or against the sentence to be imposed.” § 16-3-20(B).
Under amendments effective January 1,1996, South Carolina capital jurors face two questions at sentencing. They decide first whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any statutory aggravating circumstance. If the jury fails to agree unanimously on the presence of a statutory aggravator, “it shall not make a sentencing recommendation.” § 16-3-20(C). “|T]he trial judge,” in that event, “shall sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment or a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years.” Ibid.; see § 16-3-20(B). If, on the other hand, the jury unanimously finds a statutory aggra-vator, it then recommends one of two potential sentences— death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. §§ 16-3-20(A), (B). No sentencing option other than death or life without parole is available to the jury.
During the sentencing proceeding in Shafer’s ease, the State introduced evidence of his criminal record, past aggressive conduct, probation violations, and misbehavior in prison. The State urged the statutory aggravating circumstance that Shafer had committed the murder in the course of an attempted robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. See § 16-3-20(C)(a)(l)(d). The defense presented evidence of Shafer’s abusive childhood and mental problems.
Near the completion of the parties’ sentencing presentations, the trial judge conducted an in camera hearing on jury instructions. Shafer’s counsel maintained that due process, and our decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), required the judge to instruct that under South Carolina law a life sentence carries no possibility of parole. The prosecutor, in opposition, urged that Shafer was not entitled to a Simmons instruction because “the State has not argued at any point . . . that he would be a danger to anybody in the future, nor will we argue [that] in our closing argument....” App. 161. Shafer’s counsel replied: “The State cannot introduce evidence of future dangerousness, and then say we are not going to argue it and [thereby avoid] a charge on the law.. .. They have introduced [evidence of a] post arrest assault, [and] post arrest violations of the rules of the jail.... If you put a jailer on to say that [Shafer] is charged with assault... on [the jailer], that is future dangerousness.” App. 162. Ruling that “the matter of parole ineligibility will not be charged,” the trial judge stated: “I find that future dangerousness [was] not arguedfc] if it’s argued [in the prosecutor’s closing], it may become different.” App. 164.
Unsuccessful in his effort to gain a court instruction on parole ineligibility, Shafer’s counsel sought permission to impart the information to the jury himself. He sought leave to read in his closing argument lines from the controlling statute, § 16-3-20(A), stating plainly that a life sentence in South Carolina carries no possibility of parole. App. 164-165. In accord with the State’s motion “to prevent the defense from arguing in their closing argument anything to the effect that [Shafer] will never get out of prison,” App. 161, the judge denied the defense permission to read the statute’s text to the jury. App. 165.
After the prosecution’s closing argument, and out of the presence of the jury, Shafer’s counsel renewed his plea for “a life without parole charge.” App. 188. He referred to his earlier submissions and urged, in addition, that the State had placed future dangerousness at issue during closing argument by repeating the-words of an alarmed witness at the crime scene: "[TJhey [Shafer and his two accomplices] might come back, they might come back.” App. 188. The trial judge denied the request. The judge "admit[ted he] had some concern [as to whether the State’s] argument.. . had crossed the line,” but in the end he found “that it comes close, but did not.” App. 191-192.
Instructing the jury, the judge explained:
“If you do not unanimously find the existence of the aggravating circumstance as set forth on the form [murder during the commission of an attempted armed robbery], you do not need to go any further.
"If you find unanimously the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance . . . you will go further and continue your deliberations.
“Once you have unanimously found and signed as to the presence of an aggravated circumstance, you then further deliberate, and determine whether or not Wesley Aaron Shafer should be sentenced] to life imprisonment or death.” App. 202.
The judge twice told the jury, quoting words from § 16 — 3— 20(A), that "life imprisonment means until the death of the defendant.” App. 201; see App. 209. In line with his prior rulings, the judge did not instruct that a life sentence, if recommended by the jury, would be without parole. In the concluding portion of his charge, he told the jury that “the sentence you send to me by way of a recommendation will in fact be the sentence that the court imposes on the defendant.” App. 215. After the judge instructed the jury, the defense once more renewed its “objection to the statutory language [on parole ineligibility] not being charged,” App. 221, and the judge again overruled the objection, App. 222.
Three hours and twenty-five minutes into its sentencing deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge containing two questions:
“1) Is there any remote chance for someone convicted of murder to become eligible for parole?
“2) Under what conditions would someone convicted for murder be elig[i]ble.” App. 253.
Shafer’s counsel urged the court to read to the jury the following portion of § 16-3-20(A):
“If the State seeks the death penalty and a statutory aggravating circumstance is found beyond a reasonable doubt.. . and a recommendation of death is not made, the trial judge must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, ‘life imprisonment’ means until death of the offender. No person sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to this section is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by this section.” App. 226 (emphasis added).
He argued that the court’s charge, which partially quoted from § 16-3-20 (above in italics), but omitted the provision’s concluding sentence (above in boldface), had left the jurors confused about Shafer’s parole eligibility. App. 226. The State adhered to its position that “the jury should not be informed as to any parole eligibility.” App. 223. South Carolina law, the prosecutor insisted, required the judge to “instruct the jury that it shall not consider parole eligibility in reaching its decision, and that the term life imprisonment and a death sentence should be understood in their ordinary and plain meaning.” App. 223-224.
The trial judge decided “not... to charge the jury about parole ineligibility,” App. 229, and informed counsel that he would instruct:
‘Tour consideration is restricted to what sentence to recommend. I will, as trial judge, impose the sentence you recommend. Section 16-3-20 of the South Carolina Code of Laws provides that for the purpose of this section life imprisonment means until the death of the offender. Parole eligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 236.
Shafer’s counsel asked the judge “to take off the language of parole eligibility.” App. 236. The statement that “parole eligibility is not to be considered by [the jury],” counsel argued, “impl[ies] that it is available.” App. 236; see App. 239 (Shafer’s counsel reiterated: “[I]f you tell them they can’t consider parole eligibility ... that certainly implies that he may be eligible.”).
Following counsels’ arguments, and nearly an hour after the jury tendered its questions, the trial judge instructed:
“Section 16-3-20 of our Code of Laws as applies to this case in the process we’re in, states that, quote, for the purposes of this section life imprisonment means until the death of the offender, end quote.
“Parole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 240.
The jury returned some 80 minutes later. It unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factor of murder while attempting armed robbery, and recommended the death penalty. App. 242-243. The jury was polled, and each member indicated his or her assent to the aggravated circumstance finding and to the death penalty recommendation. App. 243-248. Defense counsel asked that the jury be polled on “the specific question as to whether parole eligibility, their belief therein, gave rise to the verdict,” and “whether juror number 233 who works for probation and parole, expressed personal knowledge in the jury’s deliberation outside of the evidence and the law given.” App. 248. The judge denied both requests and imposed the death sentence. App. 248,251.
Shafer appealed his death sentence to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Noting our decision in Simmons, the South Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that “[w]hen the State places the defendant’s future dangerousness at issue and the only available alternative sentence to the death penalty is life imprisonment without parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the jury he is parole ineligible.” 340 S. C., at 297-298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Without considering whether the prosecutor’s evidentiary submissions or closing argument in fact placed Shafer’s future dangerousness at issue, the court held Simmons generally inapplicable to South Carolina’s “new sentencing scheme.” Under that scheme, life without the possibility of parole and death are not the only authorized sentences, the court said, for there is a third potential sentence, “a mandatory minimum thirty year sentence.” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528 (citing State v. Starnes, 340 S. C. 312, 531 S. E. 2d 907 (2000) (decided the same day as Shafer)).
Shafer had urged that a Simmons instruction was warranted under the new sentencing scheme, for when the jury serves as sentencer, i. e., when it finds a statutory aggravating circumstance, sentencing discretion is limited to death or life without the possibility of parole. See 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. The South Carolina Supreme Court read Simmons differently. In its view, “Simmons requires the trial judge instruct the jury the defendant is parole ineligible only if no other sentence than death, other than life without the possibility of parole, is legally available to the defendant.” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528 (emphasis in original) (citing Simmons, 512 U. S., at 178 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)). “At the time [Shafer’s] jury began its deliberations,” the court observed, “three alternative sentences were available”; “[s]inee one of these alternatives to death was not life without the possibility of parole,” the court concluded, “Simmons was inapplicable.” 340 S. C., at 299, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528.
Chief Justice Finney dissented. “[T]he overriding principle to be drawn from [Simmons]*’ he stated, “is that due process is violated when a jury’s speculative misunderstanding about a capital defendant’s parole eligibility is allowed to go uneorreeted.” Id., at 310,531S. E. 2d, at 534. Due process mandates reversal here, he concluded, because “the jury’s inquiry prompted a misleading response which suggested parole was a possibility.” Ibid. Moreover, Chief Justice Fin-ney added, when “a capital jury inquires about parole,” id., at 310, n. 2, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534, n. 2, even if the question “is simply one of policy, as the majority suggests [it is], then why not adopt a policy which gives the jurors the simpl[e] truth: no parole.” Id., at 311, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534.
We granted certiorari, 530 U. S. 1306 (2000), to determine whether the South Carolina Supreme Court properly held Simmons inapplicable to the State’s current sentencing regime. We conclude that South Carolina’s Supreme Court misinterpreted Simmons, and we therefore reverse that court’s judgment.
II
South Carolina has consistently refused to inform the jury of a capital defendant’s parole eligibility status. We first confronted this practice in Simmons. The South Carolina sentencing scheme then in effect, S. C. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-20(A) and 24-21-610 (Supp. 1993), did not categorically preclude parole for capital defendants sentenced to life imprisonment, see supra, at 46-47, n. 3. Simmons, however, was parole ineligible under that scheme because of prior convictions for crimes of violence. See § 24-21-640; Simmons, 512 U. S., at 156 (plurality opinion); id., at 176 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Simmons’ jury, in a note to the judge during the penalty phase deliberations, asked: “Does the imposition of a life sentence carry with it the possibility of parole?” Id., at 160 (plurality opinion). Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial judge in Simmons instructed: “Do not consider parole or parole eligibility [in reaching your verdict]. That is not a proper issue for your consideration.” Ibid. After receiving this response from the court, Simmons’ jury returned a sentence of death, which Simmons unsuccessfully sought to overturn on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Id., at 160-161.
Mindful of the “longstanding practice of parole availability,” id., at 177 (O’Connor, J.), we recognized that Simmons’ jury, charged to chose between death and life imprisonment, may have been misled. Given no clear definition of “life imprisonment” and told not to consider parole eligibility, that jury “reasonably may have believed that [Simmons] could be released on parole if he were not executed.” Id., at 161 (plurality opinion); see id., at 177-178 (O’Connor, J.). It did not eomport with due process, we held, for the State to “secur[e] a death sentence on the ground, at least in part, of [defendant’s] future dangerousness, while at the same time concealing from the sentencing jury the true meaning of its [only] noncapital sentencing alternative, namely, that life imprisonment meant life without parole.” Id., at 162 (plurality opinion); see id., at 178 (O’Connor, J.) (“Where the State puts the defendant’s future dangerousness in issue, and the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the capital sentencing jury — by either argument or instruction — that he is parole ineligible.”).
As earlier stated, see supra, at 46-47, the South Carolina Supreme Corut held Simmons “inapplicable under the [State’s] new sentencing scheme,” 840 S. C., at 298,531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Simmons is not triggered, the South Carolina court said, unless life without parole is “the only legally available- sentence alternative to death.” 340 S. C., at 298, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528. Currently, the court observed, when a capital case jury begins its sentencing deliberations, three alternative sentences are available: “1) death, 2) life without the possibility of parole, or 3) a mandatory minimum thirty year sentence.” Ibid. “Since one of these alternatives to death [is] not life without the possibility of parole,” the court concluded, Simmons no longer constrains capital sentencing in South Carolina. 840 S. C., at 299, 531 S. E. 2d, at 528.
This reasoning might be persuasive if the jury’s sentencing discretion encompassed the three choices the South Carolina court identified. But, that is not how the State’s new scheme works. See supra, at 40-41. Under the law now governing, in any case in which the jury does not unanimously find a statutory aggravator, death is not a permissible sentence and Simmons has no relevance. In such a ease, the judge alone becomes the sentences S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(0 (2000 Cum. Supp.). Only if the jury finds an aggravating circumstance does it decide on the sentence. Ibid. And when it makes that decision, as was the case in Simmons, only two sentences are legally available under South Carolina law: death or life without the possibility of parole. § 16-3-20(C).
The South Carolina Supreme Court was no doubt correct to this extent: At the time the trial judge instructed the jury in Shafer’s case, it was indeed possible that Shafer would receive a sentence other than death or life without the possibility of parole. That is so because South Carolina, in line with other States, gives capital juries, at the penalty phase, discrete and sequential functions. Initially, capital juries serve as factfinders in determining whether an alleged aggravating circumstance exists. Once that factual threshold is passed, the jurors exercise discretion in determining the punishment that ought to be imposed. The trial judge in Shafer’s ease recognized the critical difference in the two functions. He charged that “[a] statutory aggravating circumstance is a fact, an incident, a detail or an occurrence,” the existence of which must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. App. 203. Turning to the sentencing choice, he referred to considerations of ‘fairness and mercy,” and the defendant’s “moral culpability.” App. 204. He also instructed that the jury was free to decide “whether ... for any reason or no reason at all Mr. Shafer should he sentenced to life imprisonment rather than to death.” App. 203.
In sum, when the jury determines the existence of a statutory aggravator, a tightly circumscribed factual inquiry, none of Simmons’ due process concerns arise. There are no “misunderstanding^]” to avoid, no “false ehoice[s]” to guard against. See Simmons, 512 U. S., at 161 (plurality opinion). The jury, as aggravating circumstance factfinder, exercises no sentencing discretion itself. If no aggravator is found, the judge takes over and has sole authority to impose the mandatory minimum so heavily relied upon by the South Carolina Supreme Court. See supra, at 46-47,49-50. It is only when the jury endeavors the moral judgment whether to impose the death penalty that parole eligibility may become critical. Correspondingly, it is only at that stage that Simmons comes into play, a stage at which South Carolina law provides no third choice, no 30-year mandatory minimum, just death or life without parole. See Ramdass, 530 IX S., at 169 CSimmons applies where “as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison.” (emphasis added)). We therefore hold that whenever future dangerousness is at issue in a capital sentencing proceeding under South Carolina’s new scheme, due process requires that the jury be informed that a life sentence carries no possibility of parole.
III
South Carolina offers two other grounds in support of the trial judge’s refusal to give Shafer’s requested parole ineligibility instruction. First, the State argues that the jury was properly informed of the law on parole ineligibility by the trial court’s instructions and by defense counsel’s own argument. Second, the State contends that no parole ineligibility instruction was required under Simmons because the State never argued Shafer would pose a future danger to society. We now turn to those arguments.
A
“Even if this Court finds Simmons was triggered,” the State urges, “the defense’s closing argument and the judge’s charge fulfilled the requirements of Simmons.” Brief for ^Respondent 88. To support that contention, the State sets out defense counsel’s closing pleas that, if Shafer’s life is spared, he will “die in prison” after “spending] his natural life there.” Id., at 39. Next, the State recites passages from the trial judge’s instructions reiterating that “life imprisonment means until the death of the defendant.” Id., at 40.
The South Carolina Supreme Court, we note, never suggested that counsel’s arguments or the trial judge’s instructions satisfied Simmons. That court simply held Simmons inapplicable under the State’s new sentencing scheme. 340 S. C., at 298,531 S. E. 2d, at 528. We do not find the State’s position persuasive. Displacement of “the longstanding practice of parole availability” remains a relatively recent development, and “common sense tells us that many jurors might not know whether a life sentence carries with it the possibility of parole.” Simmons, 512 U. S., at 177-178 (O’Connor, J.). South Carolina’s situation is illustrative. Until two years before Shafer’s trial, as we earlier noted, the State’s law did not categorically preclude parole for capital defendants sentenced to life imprisonment. See supra, at 46-47, n. 3, and 48.
Most plainly contradicting the State’s contention, Shafer’s jury left no doubt about its failure to gain from defense counsel’s closing argument or the judge’s instructions any clear understanding of what a life sentence means. The jurors sought further instruction, asking: “Is there any remote chance for someone convicted of murder to become eligible for parole?” App. 253; ef. Simmons, 512 U.S., at 178 (O’Connor, J.) (“that the jury in this case felt compelled to ask whether parole was available shows that the jurors did not know whether or not a life-sentenced defendant will be released from prison”).
The jury’s comprehension was hardly aided by the court’s final instruction: “Parole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration.” App. 240. That instruction did nothing to ensure that the jury was not misled and may well have been taken to mean “that parole was available but that the jury, for some unstated reason, should be blind to this fact.” Simmons, 512 U. S., at 170 (plurality opinion); see 340 S. C., at 310, 531 S. E. 2d, at 534 (Finney, C. J., dissenting) (“[T]he jury’s inquiry prompted a misleading response which suggested parole was a possibility.”); State v. Kelly, 343 S. C. 342, 375, 540 S. E. 2d 851, 863-864 (2001) (Pleicones, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part) (“Without the knowledge that, if aggravators are found, a life sentence is not subject to being reduced by parole, or any other method of early release, the jury is likely to speculate unnecessarily on the possibility of early release, and impose a sentence of death based upon ‘fear rather than reason.’” (quoting Yarbrough v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 347, 369, 519 S. E. 2d 602, 613 (1999))).
In sum, a life sentence for Shafer would permit no “parole, community supervision, . . . early release program, ... or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment,” S. C. Code Ann. §16-3-20(A) (2000 Cum. Supp.) (set out supra, at 42, n. 1); this reality was not conveyed to Shafer’s jury by the court’s instructions or by the arguments defense counsel was allowed to make.
B
Ultimately, the State maintains that “[t]he prosecution did not argue future dangerousness,” so the predicate for a Simmons charge is not present here. Brief for Respondent 42. That issue is not ripe for our resolution.
In the trial court, the prosecutor and defense counsel differed on what it takes to place future dangerousness “at issue.” The prosecutor suggested that the State must formally argue future dangerousness. App. 161. Defense counsel urged that once the prosecutor introduces evidence showing future dangerousness, the State cannot avoid a Simmons charge by saying the point was not argued or calling the evidence by another name. See App. 161-162.
As earlier recounted, the trial judge determined that future dangerousness was not at issue, but acknowledged, at one point, that the prosecutor had come close to crossing the line. See supra, at 41-42,43. The South Carolina Supreme Court, in order to rule broadly that Simmons no longer governs capital sentencing in the State, apparently assumed, arguendo, that future dangerousness had been shown at Shafer’s sentencing proceeding. See supra, at 46-47; cf. Kelly, 343 S. C., at 363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857 (recognizing that future dangerousness is an issue when it is “a logical inference from the evidence” or was “injected into the case through the State’s closing argument”). Because the South Carolina Supreme Court did not home in on the question whether the prosecutor’s evidentiary submissions or closing argument in fact placed Shafer’s foture dangerousness at issue, we leave that question open for the state court’s attention and disposition.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 16-3-20(A) reads: “A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to murder must be punished by death, by imprisonment for life, or by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years. If the State seeks the death penalty and a statutory aggravating circumstance is found beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to subsections (B) and (C), and a recommendation of death is not made, the trial judge must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, 'life imprisonment’ means until death of the offender. No person sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to this section is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by this section. No person sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years pursuant to this section is eligible for parole or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years required by this section.... When the Governor commutes a sentence of death to life imprisonment under the provisions of Section 14 of Article IV of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the commutee is not eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, good conduct credits, education credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory imprisonment required by this subsection.”
The judge also sentenced Shafer to consecutive terms of 20 years in prison for the attempted armed robbery and 5 years in prison for the criminal conspiracy. App. 251-252.
South Carolina’s "new” sentencing scheme changed the punishments available for a capital murder conviction that did not result in a death sentence. The capital sentencing law in effect at the time we decided Simmons read: “A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to murder must he punished by death or by imprisonment for life and is not eligible for parole until the service of twenty years; provided, however, that when the State seeks the death penalty and an aggravating circumstance is specifically found beyond a reasonable doubt..., and a recommendation of death is not made, the court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until the service of thirty years.” S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(A) (Supp. 1993). What made Simmons parole ineligible was the provision stating: “The hoard must not grant parole nor is parole authorized to any prisoner serving a sentence for a second or subsequent conviction, following a separate sentencing for a prior conviction, for violent crimes . . . .” §24-21-640. This latter provision has not been amended; however, it did not apply to Shafer. Here, we consider whether South Carolina’s wholesale elimination of parole for capital defendants sentenced to life in prison, see S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (2000 Cum. Supp.), described supra, at 40-41, requires a Simmons instruction in all South Carolina capital cases in which future dangerousness is "at issue.”
At the time we decided Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), South Carolina was one of only three States — Pennsylvania and Virginia were the others — that “ha[d] a life-without-parole sentencing alternative to capital punishment for some or all convicted murderers but refuse[d] to inform sentencing juries of thjat] fact.” Id., at 168, n. 8. Since Simmons, Virginia has abandoned this practice. Yarbrough v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 347, 374, 519 S. E. 2d 602, 616 (1999) (“[W]e hold that in the penalty-determination phase of a trial where the defendant has been convi’cted of capital minder, in response to a proffer of a proper instruction from the defendant prior to submitting the issue of penalty-determination to the jury or where the defendant asks for such an instruction following an inquiry from the jury during deliberations, the trial court shall instruct the jury that the words 'imprisonment for life’ mean Imprisonment for life without possibility of parole.’”).
Tellingly, the State acknowledged at oral argument that if future dangerousness was a factor, and the jury first reported finding an aggravator before going on to its sentencing recommendation, a Simmons charge would at that point be required. Tr. of Oral Arg. 32. We see no significant difference between that situation and the one presented here. Nor does Justice Thomas’ dissent in this case plausibly urge any such distinction. See post, at 56-58. If the jurors should be told life means no parole in the hypothesized bifurcated sentencing proceeding, they should be equally well informed in the actual uninterrupted proceeding.
Animating Justice Thomas’ dissent is the conviction that the limited information defense counsel was allowed to convey and the judge’s charge “left no room for speculation by the jury.” Post, at 57. The full record scarcely supports, and we do not share, that conviction. Cf. 340 S. C. 291, 310-311,531 S. E. 2d 524, 534 (2000) (Finney, C. J., dissenting) (“the jury’s inquiry prompted a misleading response” that did not reveal the “simpl[e] truth”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the validity of an exclusive contract between a hospital and a firm of anesthesiologists. We must decide whether the contract gives rise to a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act because every patient undergoing surgery at the hospital must use the services of one firm of anesthesiologists, and, if not, whether the contract is nevertheless illegal because it unreasonably restrains competition among anesthesiologists.
In July 1977, respondent Edwin G. Hyde, a board-certified anesthesiologist, applied for admission to the medical staff of East Jefferson Hospital. The credentials committee and the medical staff executive committee recommended approval, but the hospital board denied the application because the hospital was a party to a contract providing that all anesthesio-logical services required by the hospital’s patients would be performed by Roux & Associates, a professional medical corporation. Respondent then commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the contract is unlawful and an injunction ordering petitioners to appoint him to the hospital staff. After trial, the District Court denied relief, finding that the anticompetitive consequences of the Roux contract were minimal and outweighed by benefits in the form of improved patient care. 513 F. Supp. 532 (ED La. 1981). The Court of Appeals reversed because it was persuaded that the contract was illegal “per se. ” 686 F. 2d 286 (CA5 1982). We granted certiorari, 460 U. S. 1021 (1983), and now reverse.
I
In February 1971, shortly before East Jefferson Hospital opened, it entered into an “Anesthesiology Agreement” with Roux & Associates (Roux), a firm that had recently been organized by Dr. Kermit Roux. The contract provided that any anesthesiologist designated by Roux would be admitted to the hospital’s medical staff. The hospital agreed to provide the space, equipment, maintenance, and other supporting services necessary to operate the anesthesiology department. It also agreed to purchase all necessary drugs and other supplies. All nursing personnel required by the anesthesia department were to be supplied by the hospital, but Roux had the right to approve their selection and retention. The hospital agreed to “restrict the use of its anesthesia department to Roux & Associates and [that] no other persons, parties or entities shall perform such services within the Hospital for the ter[m] of this contract.” App. 19.
The 1971 contract provided for a 1-year term automatically renewable for successive 1-year periods unless either party elected to terminate. In 1976, a second written contract was executed containing most of the provisions of the 1971 agreement. Its term was five years and the clause excluding other anesthesiologists from the hospital was deleted; the hospital nevertheless continued to regard itself as committed to a closed anesthesiology department. Only Roux was permitted to practice anesthesiology at the hospital. At the time of trial the department included four anesthesiologists. The hospital usually employed 13 or 14 certified registered nurse anesthetists.
The exclusive contract had an impact on two different segments of the economy: consumers of medical services, and providers of anesthesiological services. Any consumer of medical services who elects to have an operation performed at East Jefferson Hospital may not employ any anesthesiologist not associated with Roux. No anesthesiologists except those employed by Roux may practice at East Jefferson.
There are at least 20 hospitals in the New Orleans metropolitan area and about 70 percent of the patients living in Jefferson Parish go to hospitals other than East Jefferson. Because it regarded the entire New Orleans metropolitan area as the relevant geographic market in which hospitals compete, this evidence convinced the District Court that East Jefferson does not possess any significant “market power”; therefore it concluded that petitioners could not use the Roux contract to anticompetitive ends. The same evidence led the Court of Appeals to draw a different conclusion. Noting that 30 percent of the residents of the parish go to East Jefferson Hospital, and that in fact “patients tend to choose hospitals by location rather than price or quality,” the Court of Appeals concluded that the relevant geographic market was the East Bank of Jefferson Parish. 686 F. 2d, at 290. The conclusion that East Jefferson Hospital possessed market power in that area was buttressed by the facts that the prevalence of health insurance eliminates a patient’s incentive to compare costs, that the patient is not sufficiently informed to compare quality, and that family convenience tends to magnify the importance of location.
The Court of Appeals held that the case involves a “tying arrangement” because the “users of the hospital’s operating rooms (the tying product) are also compelled to purchase the hospital’s chosen anesthesia service (the tied product).” Id., at 289. Having defined the relevant geographic market for the tying product as the East Bank of Jefferson Parish, the court held that the hospital possessed “sufficient market power in the tying market to coerce purchasers of the tied product.” Id., at 291. Since the purchase of the tied product constituted a “not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce,” under the Court of Appeals’ reading of our decision in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 11 (1958), the tying arrangement was therefore illegal “per se.”
i — H 1 — 4
Certain types of contractual arrangements are deemed unreasonable as a matter of law. The character of the restraint produced by such an arrangement is considered a sufficient basis for presuming unreasonableness without the necessity of any analysis of the market context in which the arrangement may be found. A price-fixing agreement between competitors is the classic example of such an arrangement. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U. S. 332, 343-348 (1982). It is far too late in the history of our antitrust jurisprudence to question the proposition that certain tying arrangements pose an unacceptable risk of stifling competition and therefore are unreasonable “per se.” The rule was first enunciated in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 396 (1947), and has been endorsed by this Court many times since. The rule also reflects congressional policies underlying the antitrust laws. In enacting § 3 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 14, Congress expressed great concern about the anti-competitive character of tying arrangements. See H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 10-13 (1914); S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 6-9 (1914). While this case does not arise under the Clayton Act, the congressional finding made therein concerning the competitive consequences of tying is illuminating, and must be respected.
It is clear, however, that not every refusal to sell two products separately can be said to restrain competition. If each of the products may be purchased separately in a competitive market, one seller’s decision to sell the two in a single package imposes no unreasonable restraint on either market, particularly if competing suppliers are free to sell either the entire package or its several parts. For example, we have written that “if one of a dozen food stores in a community were to refuse to sell flour unless the buyer also took sugar it would hardly tend to restrain competition in sugar if its competitors were ready and able to sell flour by itself.” Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S., at 7. Buyers often find package sales attractive; a seller’s decision to offer such packages can merely be an attempt to compete effectively — conduct that is entirely consistent with the Sherman Act. See Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 517-518 (1969) (Fortner I) (White, J., dissenting); id., at 524-525 (Fortas, J., dissenting).
Our cases have concluded that the essential characteristic of an invalid tying arrangement lies in the seller’s exploitation of its control over the tying product to force the buyer into the purchase of a tied product that the buyer either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different terms. When such “forcing” is present, competition on the merits in the market for the tied item is restrained and the Sherman Act is violated.
“Basic to the faith that a free economy best promotes the public weal is that goods must stand the cold test of competition; that the public, acting through the market’s impersonal judgment, shall allocate the Nation’s resources and thus direct the course its economic development will take.... By conditioning his sale of one commodity on the purchase of another, a seller coerces the abdication of buyers’ independent judgment as to the ‘tied’ product’s merits and insulates it from the competitive stresses of the open market. But any intrinsic superiority of the ‘tied’ product would convince freely choosing buyers to select it over others anyway.” Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 605 (1953).
Accordingly, we have condemned tying arrangements when the seller has some special ability — usually called “market power” — to force a purchaser to do something that he would not do in a competitive market. See United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, 429 U. S. 610, 620 (1977) (Fortner II); Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 503-504; United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S. 38, 45, 48, n. 5 (1962); Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S., at 6-7. When “forcing” occurs, our cases have found the tying arrangement to be unlawful.
Thus, the law draws a distinction between the exploitation of market power by merely enhancing the price of the tying product, on the one hand, and by attempting to impose restraints on competition in the market for a tied product, on the other. When the seller’s power is just used to maximize its return in the tying product market, where presumably its product enjoys some justifiable advantage over its competitors, the competitive ideal of the Sherman Act is not necessarily compromised. But if that power is used to impair competition on the merits in another market, a potentially inferior product may be insulated from competitive pressures. This impairment could either harm existing competitors or create barriers to entry of new competitors in the market for the tied product, Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 509, and can increase the social costs of market power by facilitating price discrimination, thereby increasing monopoly profits over what they would be absent the tie, Fortner II, 429 U. S., at 617. And from the standpoint of the consumer — whose interests the statute was especially intended to serve — the freedom to select the best bargain in the second market is impaired by his need to purchase the tying product, and perhaps by an inability to evaluate the true cost of either product when they are available only as a package. In sum, to permit restraint of competition on the merits through tying arrangements would be, as we observed in Fortner II, to condone “the existence of power that a free market would not tolerate.” 429 U. S., at 617 (footnote omitted).
Per se condemnation — condemnation without inquiry into actual market conditions — is only appropriate if the existence of forcing is probable. Thus, application of the per se rule focuses on the probability of anticompetitive consequences. Of course, as a threshold matter there must be a substantial potential for impact on competition in order to justify per se condemnation. If only a single purchaser were “forced” with respect to the purchase of a tied item, the resultant impact on competition would not be sufficient to warrant the concern of antitrust law. It is for this reason that we have refused to condemn tying arrangements unless a substantial volume of commerce is foreclosed thereby. See Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 501-502; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S., at 6-7; Times-Picayune, 345 U. S., at 608-610; International Salt, 332 U. S., at 396. Similarly, when a purchaser is “forced” to buy a product he would not have otherwise bought even from another seller in the tied-product market, there can be no adverse impact on competition because no portion of the market which would otherwise have been available to other sellers has been foreclosed.
Once this threshold is surmounted, per se prohibition is appropriate if anticompetitive forcing is likely. For example, if the Government has granted the seller a patent or similar monopoly over a product, it is fair to presume that the inability to buy the product elsewhere gives the seller market power. United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S., at 45-47. Any effort to enlarge the scope of the patent monopoly by using the market power it confers to restrain competition in the market for a second product will undermine competition on the merits in that second market. Thus, the sale or lease of a patented item on condition that the buyer make all his purchases of a separate tied product from the patentee is unlawful. See United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 156-159 (1948); International Salt, 332 U. S., at 395-396; International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131 (1936).
The same strict rule is appropriate in other situations in which the existence of market power is probable. When the seller’s share of the market is high, see Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S., at 611-613, or when the seller offers a unique product that competitors are not able to offer, see Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 504-506, and n. 2, the Court has held that the likelihood that market power exists and is being used to restrain competition in a separate market is sufficient to make per se condemnation appropriate. Thus, in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1 (1958), we held that the railroad’s control over vast tracts of western real estate, although not itself unlawful, gave the railroad a unique kind of bargaining power that enabled it to tie the sales of that land to exclusive, long-term commitments that fenced out competition in the transportation market over a protracted period. When, however, the seller does not have either the degree or the kind of market power that enables him to force customers to purchase a second, unwanted product in order to obtain the tying product, an antitrust violation can be established only by evidence of an unreasonable restraint on competition in the relevant market. See Fortner I, 394 U. S., at 499-500; Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S., at 614-615.
In sum, any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact. Thus, in this case our analysis of the tying issue must focus on the hospital’s sale of services to its patients, rather than its contractual arrangements with the providers of anesthesiological services. In making that analysis, we must consider whether petitioners are selling two separate products that may be tied together, and, if so, whether they have used their market power to force their patients to accept the tying arrangement.
III
The hospital has provided its patients with a package that includes the range of facilities and services required for a variety of surgical operations. At East Jefferson Hospital the package includes the services of the anesthesiologist. Petitioners argue that the package does not involve a tying arrangement at all — that they are merely providing a functionally integrated package of services. Therefore, petitioners contend that it is inappropriate to apply principles concerning tying arrangements to this case.
Our cases indicate, however, that the answer to the question whether one or two products are involved turns not on the functional relation between them, but rather on the character of the demand for the two items. In Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594 (1953), the Court held that a tying arrangement was not present because the arrangement did not link two distinct markets for products that were distinguishable in the eyes of buyers. In Fortner I, the Court concluded that a sale involving two independent transactions, separately priced and purchased from the buyer’s perspective, was a tying arrangement. These cases make it clear that a tying arrangement cannot exist unless two separate product markets have been linked.
The requirement that two distinguishable product markets be involved follows from the underlying rationale of the rule against tying. The definitional question depends on whether the arrangement may have the type of competitive consequences addressed by the rule. The answer to the question whether petitioners have utilized a tying arrangement must be based on whether there is a possibility that the economic effect of the arrangement is that condemned by the rule against tying — that petitioners have foreclosed competition on the merits in a product market distinct from the market for the tying item. Thus, in this case no tying arrangement can exist unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital services.
Unquestionably, the anesthesiological component of the package offered by the hospital could be provided separately and could be selected either by the individual patient or by one of the patient’s doctors if the hospital did not insist on including anesthesiological services in the package it offers to its customers. As a matter of actual practice, anesthesiological services are billed separately from the hospital services petitioners provide. There was ample and uncontroverted testimony that patients or surgeons often request specific anesthesiologists to come to a hospital and provide anesthesia, and that the choice of an individual anesthesiologist separate from the choice of a hospital is particularly frequent in respondent’s specialty, obstetric anesthesiology. The District Court found that “[t]he provision of anesthesia services is a medical service separate from the other services provided by the hospital.” 513 F. Supp., at 540. The Court of Appeals agreed with this finding, and went on to observe: “[A]n anesthesiologist is normally selected by the surgeon, rather than the patient, based on familiarity gained through a working relationship. Obviously, the surgeons who practice at East Jefferson Hospital do not gain familiarity with any anesthesiologists other than Roux and Associates.” 686 F. 2d, at 291. The record amply supports the conclusion that consumers differentiate between anesthesiological services and the other hospital services provided by petitioners.
Thus, the hospital’s requirement that its patients obtain necessary anesthesiological services from Roux combined the purchase of two distinguishable services in a single transaction. Nevertheless, the fact that this case involves a required purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the Roux contract illegal. As noted above, there is nothing inherently anticompetitive about packaged sales. Only if patients are forced to purchase Roux’s services as a result of the hospital’s market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use another anesthesiologist instead of Roux. The fact that petitioners’ patients are required to purchase two separate items is only the beginning of the appropriate inquiry.
I — < <
The question remains whether this arrangement involves the use of market power to force patients to buy services they would not otherwise purchase. Respondent’s only basis for invoking the per se rule against tying and thereby avoiding analysis of actual market conditions is by relying on the preference of persons residing in Jefferson Parish to go to East Jefferson, the closest hospital. A preference of this kind, however, is not necessarily probative of significant market power.
Seventy percent of the patients residing in Jefferson Parish enter hospitals other than East Jefferson. 513 F. Supp., at 539. Thus East Jefferson’s “dominance” over persons residing in Jefferson Parish is far from overwhelming. The fact that a substantial majority of the parish’s residents elect not to enter East Jefferson means that the geographic data do not establish the kind of dominant market position that obviates the need for further inquiry into actual competitive conditions. The Court of Appeals acknowledged as much; it recognized that East Jefferson’s market share alone was insufficient as a basis to infer market power, and buttressed its conclusion by relying on “market imperfections” that permit petitioners to charge noncompetitive prices for hospital services: the prevalence of third-party payment for health care costs reduces price competition, and a lack of adequate information renders consumers unable to evaluate the quality of the medical care provided by competing hospitals. 686 F. 2d, at 290. While these factors may generate “market power” in some abstract sense, they do not generáte the kind of market power that justifies condemnation of tying.
Tying arrangements need only be condemned if they restrain competition on the merits by forcing purchases that would not otherwise be made. A lack of price or quality competition does not create this type of forcing. If consumers lack price consciousness, that fact will not force them to take an anesthesiologist whose services they do not want— their indifference to price will have no impact on their willingness or ability to go to another hospital where they can utilize the services of the anesthesiologist of their choice. Similarly, if consumers cannot evaluate the quality of an-esthesiological services, it follows that they are indifferent between certified anesthesiologists even in the absence of a tying arrangement — such an arrangement cannot be said to have foreclosed a choice that would have otherwise been made “on the merits.”
Thus, neither of the “market imperfections” relied upon by the Court of Appeals forces consumers to take anesthesiological services they would not select in the absence of a tie. It is safe to assume that every patient undergoing a surgical operation needs the services of an anesthesiologist; at least this record contains no evidence that the hospital “forced” any such services on unwilling patients. The record therefore does not provide a basis for applying the per se rule against tying to this arrangement.
V
In order to prevail in the absence of per se liability, respondent has the burden of proving that the Roux contract violated the Sherman Act because it unreasonably restrained competition. That burden necessarily involves an inquiry into the actual effect of the exclusive contract on competition among anesthesiologists. This competition takes place in a market that has not been defined. The market is not necessarily the same as the market in which hospitals compete in offering services to patients; it may encompass competition among anesthesiologists for exclusive contracts such as the Roux contract and might be statewide or merely local. There is, however, insufficient evidence in this record to provide a basis for finding that the Roux contract, as it actually operates in the market, has unreasonably restrained competition. The record sheds little light on how this arrangement affected consumer demand for separate arrangements with a specific anesthesiologist. The evidence indicates that some surgeons and patients preferred respondent’s services to those of Roux, but there is no evidence that any patient who was sophisticated enough to know the difference between two anesthesiologists was not also able to go to a hospital that would provide him with the anesthesiologist of his choice.
In sum, all that the record establishes is that the choice of anesthesiologists at East Jefferson has been limited to one of the four doctors who are associated with Roux and therefore have staff privileges. Even if Roux did not have an exclusive contract, the range of alternatives open to the patient would be severely limited by the nature of the transaction and the hospital’s unquestioned right to exercise some control over the identity and the number of doctors to whom it accords staff privileges. If respondent is admitted to the staff of East Jefferson, the range of choice will be enlarged from four to five doctors, but the most significant restraints on the patient’s freedom to select a specific anesthesiologist will nevertheless remain. Without a showing of actual adverse effect on competition, respondent cannot make out a case under the antitrust laws, and no such showing has been made.
VI
Petitioners’ closed policy may raise questions of medical ethics, and may have inconvenienced some patients who would prefer to have their anesthesia administered by someone other than a member of Roux & Associates, but it does not have the obviously unreasonable impact on purchasers that has characterized the tying arrangements that this Court has branded unlawful. There is no evidence that the price, the quality, or the supply or demand for either the “tying product” or the “tied product” involved in this case has been adversely affected by the exclusive contract between Roux and the hospital. It may well be true that the contract made it necessary for Dr. Hyde and others to practice elsewhere, rather than at East Jefferson. But there has been no showing that the market as a whole has been affected at all by the contract. Indeed, as we previously noted, the record tells us very little about the market for the services of anesthesiologists. Yet that is the market in which the exclusive contract has had its principal impact. There is simply no showing here of the kind of restraint on competition that is prohibited by the Sherman Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act states: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal....” 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. Respondent has standing to enforce § 1 by virtue of § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15.
In addition to seeking relief under the Sherman Act, respondent’s complaint alleged violations of 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and state law. The District Court rejected these claims. The Court of Appeals passed only on the Sherman Act claim.
The contract required all of the physicians employed by Roux to confine their practice of anesthesiology to East Jefferson.
Originally Roux agreed to provide at least two full-time anesthesiologists acceptable to the hospital's credentials committee. Roux agreed to furnish additional anesthesiologists as necessary. The contract also provided that Roux would designate one of its qualified anesthesiologists to serve as the head of the hospital’s department of anesthesia.
The fees for anesthesiological services are billed separately to the patients by the hospital. They cover the hospital’s costs and the professional services provided by Roux. After a deduction of eight percent to provide a reserve for uncollectible accounts, the fees are divided equally between Roux and the hospital.
“Roux testified that he requested the omission of the exclusive language in his 1976 contract because he believes a surgeon or patient is entitled to the services of the anesthesiologist of his choice. He admitted that he and others in his group did work outside East Jefferson following the 1976 contract but felt he was not in violation of the contract in light of the changes made in it.” 513 F. Supp. 532, 537 (ED La. 1981).
Approximately 875 operations are performed at the hospital each month; as many as 12 or 13 operating rooms may be in use at one time.
The District Court found:
“The impact on commerce resulting from the East Jefferson contract is minimal. The contract is restricted in effect to one hospital in an area containing at least twenty others providing the same surgical services. It would be a different situation if Dr. Roux had exclusive contracts in several hospitals in the relevant market. As pointed out by plaintiff, the majority of surgeons have privileges at more than one hospital in the area. They have the option of admitting their patients to another hospital where they can select the anesthesiologist of their choice. Similarly a patient can go to another hospital if he is not satisfied with the physicians available at East Jefferson.” Id., at 541.
While the Court of Appeals did discuss the impact of the contract upon patients, it did not discuss its impact upon anesthesiologists. The District Court had referred to evidence that in the entire State of Louisiana there are 156 anesthesiologists and 345 hospitals with operating rooms. The record does not tell us how many of the hospitals in the New Orleans metropolitan area have “open” anesthesiology departments and how many have closed departments. Respondent, for example, practices with two other anesthesiologists at a hospital which has an open department; he previously practiced for several years in a different New Orleans hospital and, prior to that, had practiced in Florida. The record does not tell us whether there is a shortage or a surplus of anesthesiologists in any part of the country, or whether they are thriving or starving.
The Court of Appeals rejected as “clearly erroneous” the District Court's finding that the exclusive contract was justified by quality considerations. See 686 F. 2d, at 292.
“For example, where a complaint charges that the defendants have engaged in price fixing, or have concertedly refused to deal with nonmembers of an association, or have licensed a patented device on condition that unpatented materials be employed in conjunction with the patented device, then the amount of commerce involved is immaterial because such restraints are illegal per se.” United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495, 522-523 (1948) (footnotes omitted).
See, e. g., Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 49-50 (1977).
The District Court intimated that the principles of per se liability might not apply to cases involving the medical profession. 513 F. Supp., at 543-544. The Court of Appeals rejected this approach. 686 F. 2d, at 292-294. In this Court, petitioners “assume” that the same principles apply to the provision of professional services as apply to other trades or businesses. Brief for Petitioners 4, n. 2. See generally National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679 (1978).
The roots of the doctrine date at least to Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U. S. 502 (1917), a case holding that the sale of a patented film projector could not be conditioned on its use only with the patentee’s films, since this would have the effect of extending the scope of the patent monopoly. See also Henry v. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 70-73 (1912) (White, C. J., dissenting).
See United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, 429 U. S. 610, 619-621 (1977); Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 498-499 (1969); White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 262 (1963); Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 330 (1962); United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U. S. 38 (1962); Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958); Black v. Magnolia Liquor Co., 355 U. S. 24, 25 (1957); Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 608-609 (1953); Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 305-306 (1949).
See also 51 Cong. Rec. 9072 (1914) (remarks of Rep. Webb); id., at 9084 (remarks of Rep. Madden); id., at 9090 (remarks of Rep. Mitchell); id., at 9160-9164 (remarks of Rep. Floyd); id., at 9184-9185 (remarks of Rep. Helvering); id., at 9409 (remarks of Rep. Gardner); id., at 9410 (remarks of Rep. Mitchell); id., at 9553-9554 (remarks of Rep. Barkley); id., at 14091-14097 (remarks of Sen. Reed); id., at 14094 (remarks of Sen. Walsh); id., at 14209 (remarks of Sen. Shields); id., at 14226 (remarks of Sen. Reed); id., at 14268 (remarks of Sen. Reed); id., at 14599 (remarks of Sen. White); id., at 15991 (remarks of Sen. Martine); id., at 16146 (remarks of Sen. Walsh); Spivaek, The Chicago School Approach to Single Firm Exercises of Monopoly Power: A Response, 52 Antitrust L. J. 651, 664-665 (1983). For example, the House Report on the Clayton Act stated:
“The public is compelled to pay a higher price and local customers are put to the inconvenience of securing many commodities in other communities or through mail-order houses that can not be procured at their local stores. The price is raised as an inducement. This is the local effect. Where the concern making these contracts is already great and powerful, such as the United Shoe Machinery Co., the American Tobacco Co., and the General Film Co., the exclusive or ‘tying’ contract made with local dealers becomes one of the greatest agencies and instrumentalities of monopoly ever devised by the brain of man. It completely shuts out competitors, not only from trade in which they are already engaged, but from the opportunities to build up trade in any community where these great and powerful combinations are operating under this system and practice. By this method and practice the Shoe Machinery Co. has built up a monopoly that owns and controls the entire machinery now being used by all great shoe-manufacturing houses of the United States. No independent manufacturer of shoe machines has the slightest opportunity to build up any considerable trade in this country while this condition obtains. If a manufacturer who is using machines of the Shoe Machinery Co. were to purchase and place a machine manufaeturered by any independent company in his establishment, the Shoe Machinery Co. could under its contracts withdraw all their machinery from the establishment of the shoe manufacturer and thereby wreck the business of the manufacturer. The General Film Co., by the same method practiced by the Shoe Machinery Co. under the lease system, has practically destroyed all competition and acquired a virtual monopoly of all films manufactured and sold in the United States. When we consider contracts of sales made under this system, the result to the consumer, the general public, and the local dealer and his business is even worse than under the lease system.” H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 12-13 (1914).
Similarly, Representative Mitchell said: “[Monopoly has been built up by these ‘tying’ contracts so that in order to get one machine one must take all of the essential machines, or practically all. Independent companies who have sought to enter the field have found that the markets have been preempted.... The manufacturers do not want to break their contracts with these giant monopolies, because, if they should attempt to install machinery, their business might be jeopardized and all of the machinery now leased by these giant monopolies would be removed from their places of business. No situation cries more urgently for relief than does this situation, and this bill seeks to prevent exclusive ‘tying’ contracts that have brought about a monopoly, alike injurious to the small dealers, to the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., subjects all providers of “telecommunications servicie]” to mandatory common-carrier regulation, § 153(44). In the order under review, the Federal Communications Commission concluded that cable companies that sell broadband Internet service do not provide “telecommunications servic[ej” as the Communications Act defines that term, and hence are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II. We must decide whether that conclusion is a lawful construction of the Communications Act under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq. We hold that it is.
I
The traditional means by which consumers in the United States access the network of interconnected computers that make up the Internet is through “dial-up” connections provided over local telephone facilities. See 345 F. 3d 1120, 1123-1124 (CA9 2003) (cases below); In re Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 FCC Red. 4798, 4802-4803, ¶ 9 (2002) (hereinafter Declaratory Ruling). Using these connections, consumers access the Internet by making calls with computer modems through the telephone wires owned by local phone companies. See Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 535 U. S. 467, 489-490 (2002) (describing the physical structure of a local telephone exchange). Internet service providers (ISPs), in turn, link those calls to the Internet network, not only by providing a physical connection, but also by offering consumers the ability to translate raw Internet data into information they may both view on their personal computers and transmit to other computers connected to the Internet. See In re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 13 FCC Red. 11501, 11531, ¶63 (1998) (hereinafter Universal Service Report or Report); P. Huber, M. Kellogg, & J. Thorne, Federal Telecommunications Law 988 (2d ed. 1999) (hereinafter Huber); 345 F. 3d, at 1123-1124. Technological limitations of local telephone wires, however, retard the speed at which data from the Internet may be transmitted through end users’ dial-up connections. Dial-up connections are therefore known as “narrowband,” or slower speed, connections.
“Broadband” Internet service, by contrast, transmits data at much higher speeds. There are two principal kinds of broadband Internet service: cable modem service and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service. Cable modem service transmits data between the Internet and users’ computers via the network of television cable lines owned by cable companies. See id., at 1124. DSL service provides high-speed access using the local telephone wires owned by local telephone companies. See WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 246 F. 3d 690, 692 (CADC 2001) (describing DSL technology). Cable companies and telephone companies can either provide Internet access directly to consumers, thus acting as ISPs themselves, or can lease their transmission facilities to independent ISPs that then use the facilities to provide consumers with Internet access. Other ways of transmitting high-speed Internet data into homes, including terrestrial- and satellite-based wireless networks, are also emerging. Declaratory Ruling 4802, ¶ 6.
II
At issue in these cases is the proper regulatory classification under the Communications Act of broadband cable Internet service. The Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 56, defines two categories of regulated entities relevant to these cases: telecommunications carriers and information-service providers. The Act regulates telecommunications carriers, but not information-service providers, as common carriers. Telecommunications carriers, for example, must charge just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates to their customers, 47 U. S. C. §§201-209, design their systems so that other carriers can interconnect with their communications networks, § 251(a)(1), and contribute to the federal “universal service” fund, § 254(d). These provisions are mandatory, but the Commission must forbear from applying them if it determines that the public interest requires it. §§ 160(a), (b). Information-service providers, by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II, though the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications, see §§ 151-161.
These two statutory classifications originated in the late 1970’s, as the Commission developed rules to regulate data-processing services offered over telephone wires. That regime, the “Computer II” rules, distinguished between “basic” service (like telephone service) and “enhanced” service (computer-processing service offered over telephone lines). In re Amendment of Section 64-702 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), 77 F.C.C. 2d 384, 417-423, ¶¶86-101 (1980) (hereinafter. Computer II Order). The Computer II rules defined both basic and enhanced services by reference to how the consumer perceives the service being offered.
In particular, the Commission defined “basic service” as “a pure transmission capability over a communications path that is virtually transparent in terms of its interaction with customer supplied information.” Id., at 420, ¶96. By “pure” or “transparent” transmission, the Commission meant a communications path that enabled the consumer to transmit an ordinary-language message to another point, with no computer processing or storage of the information, other than the processing or storage needed to convert the message into electronic form and then back into ordinary language for purposes of transmitting it over the network— such as via a telephone or a facsimile. Id., at 419-420, ¶¶ 94-95. Basic service was subject to common-carrier regulation. Id., at 428, ¶ 114.
“[Ejnhanced service,” however, was service in which “computer processing applications [were] used to act on the content, code, protocol, and other aspects of the subscriber’s information,” such as voice and data storage services, id., at 420-421, ¶ 97, as well as “protocol conversion” (i. e., ability to communicate between networks that employ different data-transmission formats), id., at 421-422, ¶99. By contrast to basic service, the Commission decided not to subject providers of enhanced service, even enhanced service offered via transmission wires, to Title II common-carrier regulation. Id., at 428-432, ¶¶ 115-123. The Commission explained that it was unwise to subject enhanced service to common-carrier regulation given the “fast-moving, competitive market” in which they were offered. Id., at 434, ¶ 129.
The definitions of the terms “telecommunications service” and “information service” established by the 1996 Act are similar to the Computer II basic- and enhanced-service classifications. “Telecommunications service” — the analog to basic service — is “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public... regardless of the facilities used.” 47 U. S. C. § 153(46). “Telecommunications” is “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” § 153(43). “Telecommunications carrier[s]” — those subjected to mandatory Title II common-carrier regulation — are defined as “provider^] of telecommunications services.” §153(44). And “information service” — the analog to enhanced service — is “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications....” § 153(20).
In September 2000, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to, among other things, apply these classifications to cable companies that offer broadband Internet service directly to consumers. In March 2002, that rulemaking culminated in the Declaratory Ruling under review in these cases. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission con-eluded that broadband Internet service provided by cable companies is an “information service” but not a “telecommunications service” under the Act, and therefore not subject to mandatory Title II common-carrier regulation. In support of this conclusion, the Commission relied heavily on its Universal Service Report See Declaratory Ruling 4821-4822, ¶¶ 36-37 (citing Universal Service Report). The Universal Service Report classified “non-facilities-based” ISPs— those that do not own the transmission facilities they use to connect the end user to the Internet — solely as information-service providers. See Universal Service Report 11533, ¶67. Unlike those ISPs, cable companies own the cable lines they use to provide Internet access. Nevertheless, in the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found no basis in the statutory definitions for treating cable companies differently from non-facilities-based ISPs: Both offer “a single, integrated service that enables the subscriber to utilize Internet access service... and to realize the benefits of a comprehensive service offering.” Declaratory Ruling 4823, ¶38. Because Internet access provides a capability for manipulating and storing information, the Commission concluded that it was an information service. Ibid.
The integrated nature of Internet access and the high-speed wire used to provide Internet access led the Commission to conclude that cable companies providing Internet access are not telecommunications providers. This conclusion, the Commission reasoned, followed from the logic of the Universal.Service Report. The Report had concluded that, though Internet service “involves data transport elements” because “an Internet access provider must enable the movement of information between customers’ own computers and distant computers with which those customers seek to interact,” it also “offers end users information-service capabilities inextricably intertwined with data transport.” Universal Service Report 11539-11540, ¶ 80. ISPs, therefore, were not “offering... telecommunications... directly to the public,” § 153(46), and so were not properly classified as telecommunications carriers, see id., at 11540, ¶ 81. In other words, the Commission reasoned that consumers use their cable modems not to transmit information “transparently,” such as by using a telephone, but instead to obtain Internet access.
The Commission applied this same reasoning to cable companies offering broadband Internet access. Its logic was that, like non-facilities-based ISPs, cable companies do not “offe[r] telecommunications service to the end user, but rather... merely us[e] telecommunications to provide end users with cable modem service.” Declaratory Ruling 4824, ¶ 41. Though the Commission declined to apply mandatory Title II common-carrier regulation to cable companies, it invited comment on whether under its Title I jurisdiction it should require cable companies to offer other ISPs access to their facilities on common-carrier terms. Id., at 4839, ¶ 72. Numerous parties petitioned for judicial review, challenging the Commission’s conclusion that cable modem service was not telecommunications service. By judicial lottery, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was selected as the venue for the challenge.
The Court of Appeals granted the petitions in part, vacated the Declaratory Ruling in part, and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. In particular, the Court of Appeals vacated the ruling to the extent it concluded that cable modem service was not “telecommunications service” under the Communications Act. It held that the Commission could not permissibly construe the Communications Act to exempt cable companies providing Internet service from Title II regulation. See 345 F. 3d, at 1132. Rather than analyzing the permissibility of that construction under the deferential framework of Chevron, 467 U. S. 837, however, the Court of Appeals grounded its holding in the stare decisis effect of AT&T Corp. v. Portland, 216 F. 3d 871 (CA9 2000). See 345 F. 3d, at 1128-1132. Portland held that cable modem service was a “telecommunications service,” though the court in that case was not reviewing an administrative proceeding and the Commission was not a party to the case. See 216 F. 3d, at 877-880. Nevertheless, Portland’s holding, the Court of Appeals reasoned, overrode the contrary interpretation reached by the Commission in the Declaratory Ruling. See 345 F. 3d, at 1130-1131.
We granted certiorari to settle the important questions of federal law that these cases present. 543 U. S. 1018 (2004).
Ill
We first consider whether we should apply Chevron’s framework to the Commission’s interpretation of the term “telecommunications service.” We conclude that we should. We also conclude that the Court of Appeals should have done the same, instead of following the contrary construction it adopted in Portland.
A
In Chevron, this Court held that 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, the Court explained, involves difficult policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts. 467 U. S., at 865-866. If a statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency’s construction is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency’s construction of the statute, even if the agency’s reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation. Id., at 843-844, and n. 11.
The Chevron framework governs our review of the Commission’s construction. Congress has delegated to the Commission the authority to “execute and enforce” the Communications Act, §151, and to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions” of the Act, § 201(b); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 377-378 (1999). These provisions give the Commission the authority to promulgate binding legal rules; the Commission issued the order under review in the exercise of that authority; and no one questions that the order is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. See Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, 541 U. S. 232, 238-239 (2004); United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 231-234 (2001); Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 586-588 (2000). Hence, as we have in the past, we apply the Chevron framework to the Commission’s interpretation of the Communications Act. See National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U. S. 327, 333-339 (2002); Verizon, 535 U. S., at 501-502.
Some of the respondents dispute this conclusion, on the ground that the Commission’s interpretation is inconsistent with its past practice. We reject this argument. Agency inconsistency is not a basis for declining to analyze the agency’s interpretation under the Chevron framework. Unexplained inconsistency is, at most, a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 46-57 (1983). For if the agency adequately explains the reasons for a reversal of policy, “change is not invalidating, since the whole point of Chevron is to leave the discretion provided by the ambiguities of a statute with the implementing agency.” Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742 (1996); see also Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 186-187 (1991); Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U. S. 212, 226 (2002) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). “An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency... must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis,” Chevron, supra, at 863-864, for example, in response to changed factual circumstances, or a change in administrations, see State Farm, supra, at 59 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). That is no doubt why in Chevron itself, this Court deferred to an agency interpretation that was a recent reversal of agency policy. See 467 U. S., at 857-858. We therefore have no difficulty concluding that Chevron applies.
B
The Court of Appeals declined to apply Chevron because it thought the Commission’s interpretation of the Communications Act foreclosed by the conflicting construction of the Act it had adopted in Portland. See 345 F. 3d, at 1127-1132. It based that holding on the assumption that Portland’s construction overrode the Commission’s, regardless of whether Portland had held the statute to be unambiguous. 345 F. 3d, at 1131. That reasoning was incorrect.
A court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion. This principle follows from Chevron itself. Chevron established a “presumption that Congress, when it left ambiguity in a statute meant for implementation by an agency, understood that the ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency (rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows.” Smiley, supra, at 740-741. Yet allowing a judicial precedent to foreclose an agency from interpreting an ambiguous statute, as the Court of Appeals assumed it could, would allow a court’s interpretation to override an agency’s. Chevron’s premise is that it is for agencies, not courts, to fill statutory gaps. See 467 U. S., at 843-844, and n. 11. The better rule is to hold judicial interpretations contained in precedents to the same demanding Chevron step one standard that applies if the court is reviewing the agency’s construction on a blank slate: Only a judicial precedent holding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the agency’s interpretation, and therefore contains no gap for the agency to fill, displaces a conflicting agency construction.
A contrary rule would produce anomalous results. It would mean that whether an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is entitled to Chevron deference would turn on the order in which the interpretations issue: If the court’s construction came first, its construction would prevail, whereas if the agency’s came first, the agency’s construction would command Chevron deference. Yet whether Congress has delegated to an agency the authority to interpret a statute does not depend on the order in which the judicial and administrative constructions occur. The Court of Appeals’ rule, moreover, would “lead to the ossification of large portions of our statutory law,” Mead, 533 U. S., at 247 (Scalia, J., dissenting), by precluding agencies from revising unwise judicial constructions of ambiguous statutes. Neither Chevron nor the doctrine of stare decisis requires these haphazard results.
The dissent answers that allowing an agency to override what a court believes to be the best interpretation of a statute makes “judicial decisions subject to reversal by executive officers.” Post, at 1016 (opinion of Scalia, J.). It does not. Since Chevron teaches that a court’s opinion as to the best reading of an ambiguous statute an agency is charged with administering is not authoritative, the agency’s decision to construe that statute differently from a court does not say that the court’s holding was legally wrong. Instead, the agency may, consistent with the court’s holding, choose a different construction, since the agency remains the authoritative interpreter (within the limits of reason) of such statutes. In all other respects, the court’s prior ruling remains binding law (for example, as to agency interpretations to which Chevron is inapplicable). The precedent has not been “reversed” by the agency, any more than a federal court’s interpretation of a State’s law can be said to have been “reversed” by a state court that adopts a conflicting (yet authoritative) interpretation of state law.
The Court of Appeals derived a contrary rule from a mistaken reading of this Court’s decisions. It read Neal v. United States, 516 U. S. 284 (1996), to establish that a prior judicial construction of a statute categorically controls an agency’s contrary construction. 345 F. 3d, at 1131-1132; see also post, at 1016, n. 11 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Neal established no such proposition. Neal declined to defer to a construction adopted by the United States Sentencing Commission that conflicted with one the Court previously had adopted in Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453 (1991). Neal, supra, at 290-295. Chapman, however, had held the relevant statute to be unambiguous. See 500 U. S., at 463 (declining to apply the rule of lenity given the statute’s clear language). Thus, Neal established only that a precedent holding a statute to be unambiguous forecloses a contrary agency construction. That limited holding accorded with this Court’s prior decisions, which had held that a court’s interpretation of a statute trumps an agency’s under the doctrine of stare decisis only if the prior court holding “determined a statute’s clear meaning.” Maislin Industries, U S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 131 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U. S. 527, 536-537 (1992). Those decisions allow a court’s prior interpretation of a statute to override an agency’s interpretation only if the relevant court decision held the statute unambiguous.
Against this background, the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply Chevron to the Commission’s interpretation of the definition of “telecommunications service,” 47 U. S. C. § 153(46). Its prior decision in Portland held only that the best reading of § 153(46) was that cable modem service was a “telecommunications service,” not that it was the only permissible reading of the statute. See 216 F. 3d, at 877-880. Nothing in Portland held that the Communications Act unambiguously required treating cable Internet providers as telecommunications carriers. Instead, the court noted that it was “not presented with a case involving potential deference to an administrative agency’s statutory construction pursuant to the Chevron doctrine,” id., at 876; and the court invoked no other rule of construction (such as the rule of lenity) requiring it to conclude that the statute was unambiguous to reach its judgment. Before a judicial construction of a statute, whether contained in a precedent or not, may trump an agency’s, the court must hold that the statute unambiguously requires the court’s construction. Portland did not do so.
As the dissent points out, it is not logically necessary for us to reach the question whether the Court of Appeals misapplied Chevron for us to decide whether the Commission acted lawfully. See post, at 1019-1020 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Nevertheless, it is no “great mystery” why we are reaching the point here. Post, at 1019. There is genuine confusion in the lower courts over the interaction between the Chevron doctrine and stare decisis principles, as the petitioners informed us at the certiorari stage of this litigation. See Pet. for Cert, of Federal Communications Commission et al. in No. 04-281, pp. 19-23; Pet. for Cert. of National Cable & Telecomm. Assn, et al. in No. 04-277, pp. 22-29. The point has been briefed. See Brief for Federal Petitioners 38-44; Brief for Cable-Industry Petitioners 30-36. And not reaching the point could undermine the purpose of our grant of certiorari: to settle authoritatively whether the Commission’s Declaratory Ruling is lawful. Were we to uphold the Declaratory Ruling without reaching the Chevron point, the Court of Appeals could once again strike down the Commission’s rule based on its Portland decision. Portland (at least arguably) could compel the Court of Appeals once again to reverse the Commission despite our decision, since our conclusion that it is reasonable to read the Communications Act to classify cable modem service solely as an “information service” leaves untouched Portland's holding that the Commission’s interpretation is not the best reading of the statute. We have before decided similar questions that were not, strictly speaking, necessary to our disposition. See, e. g., Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 237 (1997) (requiring the Courts of Appeals to adhere to our directly controlling precedents, even those that rest on reasons rejected in other decisions); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 628-629 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (criticizing this Court for not reaching the question whether the Missouri Supreme Court erred by failing to follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent, though that conclusion was not necessary to the Court’s decision). It is prudent for us to do so once again today.
IV
We next address whether the Commission’s construction of the definition of “telecommunications service,” 47 U. S. C. §153(46), is a permissible reading of the Communications Act under the Chevron framework. Chevron established a familiar two-step procedure for evaluating whether an agency’s interpretation of a statute is lawful. At the first step, we ask whether the statute’s plain terms “directly ad-dres[s] the precise question at issue.” 467 U. S., at 843. If the statute is ambiguous on the point, we defer at step two to the agency’s interpretation so long as the construction is “a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make.” Id., at 845. The Commission’s interpretation is permissible at both steps.
A
We first set forth our understanding of the interpretation of the Communications Act that the Commission embraced. The issue before the Commission was whether cable companies providing cable modem service are providing a “telecommunications service” in addition to an “information service.”
The Commission first concluded that cable modem service is an “information service,” a conclusion unchallenged here. The Act defines “information service” as “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications____” § 158(20). Cable modem service is an information service, the Commission reasoned, because it provides consumers with a comprehensive capability for manipulating information using the Internet via high-speed telecommunications. That service enables users, for example, to browse the World Wide Web, to transfer files from file archives available on the Internet via the “File Transfer Protocol,” and to access e-mail and Usenet newsgroups. Declaratory Ruling 4821, ¶ 37; Universal Service Report 11537, ¶ 76. Like other forms of Internet service, cable modem service also gives users access to the Domain Name System (DNS). DNS, among other things, matches the Web page addresses that end users type into their browsers (or “click” on) with the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of the servers containing the Web pages the users wish to aecess. Declaratory Ruling 4821-4822, ¶ 37. All of these features, the Commission concluded, were part of the information service that cable companies provide consumers. Id., at 4821-4823, ¶¶ 36-38; see also Universal Service Report 11536-11539, ¶¶ 75-79.
At the same time, the Commission concluded that cable modem service was not “telecommunications service.” “Telecommunications service” is “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public.” 47 U. S. C. § 153(46). “Telecommunications,” in turn, is defined as “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” § 153(48). The Commission conceded that, like all information-service providers, cable companies use “telecommunications” to provide consumers with Internet service; cable companies provide such service via the high-speed wire that transmits signals to and from an end user’s computer. Declaratory Ruling 4823, ¶ 40. For the Commission, however, the question whether cable broadband Internet providers “offer” telecommunications involved more than whether telecommunications was one necessary component of cable modem service. Instead, whether that service also includes a telecommunications “offering” “turn[ed] on the nature of the functions the end user is offered,” id., at 4822, ¶ 38 (emphasis added), for the statutory definition of “telecommunications service” does not “res[t] on the particular types of facilities used,” id., at 4821, ¶ 35; see § 153(46) (definition of “telecommunications service” applies “regardless of the facilities used”).
Seen from the consumer’s point of view, the Commission concluded, cable modem service is not a telecommunications offering because the consumer uses the high-speed wire always in connection with the information-processing capabilities provided by Internet access, and because the transmission is a necessary component of Internet access: “As provided to the end user the telecommunications is part and parcel of cable modem service and is integral to its other capabilities.” Declaratory Ruling 4823, ¶ 39. The wire is used, in other words, to access the World Wide Web, newsgroups, and so forth, rather than “transparently” to transmit and receive ordinary-language messages without computer processing or storage of the message. See supra, at 976 (noting the Computer II notion of “transparent” transmission). The integrated character of this offering led the Commission to conclude that cable modem service is not a “stand-alone,” transparent offering of telecommunications. Declaratory Ruling 4823-4825, ¶¶ 41-43.
B
This construction passes Chevron's first step. Respondents argue that it does not, on the ground that cable companies providing Internet service necessarily “offe[r]” the underlying telecommunications used to transmit that service. The word “offering” as used in § 153(46), however, does not unambiguously require that result. Instead, “offering” can reasonably be read to mean a “stand-alone” offering of telecommunications, i. e., an offered service that, from the user’s perspective, transmits messages unadulterated by computer processing. That conclusion follows not only from the ordinary meaning of the word “offering,” but also from the regulatory history of the Communications Act.
1
Cable companies in the broadband Internet service business “offe[r]” consumers an information service in the form of Internet access and they do so “via telecommunications,” § 153(20), but it does not inexorably follow as a matter of ordinary language that they also “offe[r]” consumers the high-speed data transmission (telecommunications) that is an input used to provide this service, § 153(46). We have held that where a statute’s plain terms admit of two or more reasonable ordinary usages, the Commission’s choice of one of them is entitled to deference. See Verizon, 535 U. S., at 498 (deferring to the Commission’s interpretation of the term “cost” by reference to an alternative linguistic usage defined by what “[a] merchant who is asked about ‘the cost of providing the goods’ ” might “reasonably” say); National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 418 (1992) (agency construction entitled to deference where there were “alternative dictionary definitions of the word” at issue). The term “offe[r]” as used in the definition of telecommunications service, §153(46), is ambiguous in this way.
It is common usage to describe what a company “offers” to a consumer as what the consumer perceives to be the integrated finished product, even to the exclusion of discrete components that compose the product, as the dissent concedes. See post, at 1006-1007 (opinion of Scalia, J.). One might well say that a car dealership “offers” cars, but does not “offer” the integrated major inputs that make purchasing the ear valuable, such as the engine or the chassis. It would, in fact, be odd to describe a car dealership as “offering” consumers the car’s components in addition to the car itself. Even if it is linguistically permissible to say that the car dealership “offers” engines when it offers cars, that shows, at most, that the term “offer,” when applied to a commercial transaction, is ambiguous about whether it describes only the offered finished product, or the product’s discrete components as well. It does not show that no other usage is permitted.
The question, then, is whether the transmission component of cable modem service is sufficiently integrated with the finished service to make it reasonable to describe the two as a single, integrated offering. See ibid. We think that they are sufficiently integrated, because “[a] consumer uses the high-speed wire always in connection with the information-processing capabilities provided by Internet access, and because the transmission is a necessary component of Internet access.” Supra, at 988. In the telecommunications context, it is at least reasonable to describe companies as not “offering” to consumers each discrete input that is necessary to providing, and is always used in connection with, a finished service. We think it no misuse of language, for example, to say that cable companies providing Internet service do not “offer” consumers DNS, even though DNS is essential to providing Internet access. Declaratory Ruling 4810, n. 74, 4822-4823, ¶38. Likewise, a telephone company “offers” consumers a transparent transmission path that conveys an ordinary-language message, not necessarily the data-transmission facilities that also “transmit]... information of the user’s choosing,” § 153(43), or other physical elements of the facilities used to provide telephone service, like the trunks and switches, or the copper in the wires. What cable companies providing cable modem service and telephone companies providing telephone service “offer” is Internet service and telephone service respectively — the finished services, though they do so using (or “via”) the discrete components composing the end product, including data transmission. Such functionally integrated components need not be described as distinct “offerings.”
In response, the dissent argues that the high-speed transmission component necessary to providing cable modem service is necessarily “offered” with Internet service because cable modem service is like the offering of pizza delivery service together with pizza, and the offering of puppies together with dog leashes. Post, at 1007-1008 (opinion of Scalia, J.). The dissent’s appeal to these analogies only underscores that the term “offer” is ambiguous in the way that we have described. The entire question is whether the products here are functionally integrated (like the components of a car) or functionally separate (like pets and leashes). That question turns not on the language of the Act, but on the factual particulars of how Internet technology works and how it is provided, questions Chevron leaves to the Commission to resolve in the first instance. As the Commission has candidly recognized, “the question may not always be straightforward whether, on the one hand, an entity is providing a single
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of one year. Wis. Stat. Ann. §947.15 (1958). In lieu of sentence, he was committed to the “sex deviate facility/’ located in the state prison, for a potentially indefinite period of time, pursuant to the Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 959.15 (1958), as amended, Wis. Stat. Ann., c. 975 (1971). In this petition for federal habeas corpus, he seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the statutory procedures for commitment and the conditions of his confinement. The District Court dismissed his petition without an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that (1) his claims were for the most part lacking in merit as a matter of law, and (2) his claims had been waived by his failure to present them adequately to the state courts. The Court of Appeals refused to certify probable cause for an appeal, 28 U. S. C. § 2253, relying not on the ground of waiver but solely on the ground that the claims lacked merit. We granted cer-tiorari to consider the constitutional challenge to the statute. 401 U. S. 973 (1971). We have concluded that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve petitioner’s constitutional claims, and also to resolve the question of waiver; consequently we remand the case to the District Court for a hearing.
I
The Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act provides that after a person is convicted of any crime, the court may consider whether the crime was “probably directly motivated by a desire for sexual excitement.” If the court finds such motivation, it may commit the defendant to the Department of Public Welfare (now the Department of Health and Social Services) for a social, physical, and mental examination. If the Department recommends specialized treatment for the defendant’s “mental and physical aberrations,” the court must hold a hearing on the need for such treatment. If the State establishes the need for treatment by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must commit the defendant to the Department for treatment in lieu of sentence, for a period equal to the maximum sentence authorized for the defendant’s crime. At the end of that period, the Department may petition for an order renewing the commitment for five years. After notice and hearing, the court may renew the commitment if it finds that the defendant’s discharge would be “dangerous to the public because of [his] mental or physical deficiency, disorder or abnormality.” Further five-year renewals may be similarly obtained without limitation.
Petitioner is presently subject to a five-year renewal order, obtained at the expiration-of his one-year maximum sentence. His principal claims relate to the procedure that resulted in the order renewing his commitment. In addition, he challenges the original commitment procedures, and the conditions of his confinement.
A review of petitioner’s claims compels us to conclude that they are at least substantial enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing, in light of this Court’s decisions in Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966), and Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967). Thus we reject the contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals, implicit in its decision to deny leave to appeal.
A. One of petitioner’s principal arguments is that commitment for compulsory treatment under the Sex Crimes Act, at least after the expiration of the initial commitment in lieu of sentence, is essentially equivalent to commitment for compulsory treatment under Wisconsin’s Mental Health Act, Wis. Stat. Ann., c. 51 (1957); that a person committed under the Mental Health Act has a statutory right to have a jury determine whether he meets the standards for commitment, Wis. Stat. Ann. §51.03; and that petitioner’s commitment under the Sex Crimes Act without such a jury determination deprived him of equal protection of the laws.
In Baxstrom, substantially the same argument was advanced by a convicted prisoner who was committed under New York law for compulsory treatment, without a jury trial, at the expiration of his penal sentence. This Court held that the State, having made a jury determination generally available to persons subject to commitment for compulsory treatment, could not, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, arbitrarily withhold it from a few. 383 U. S., at 110-112. The Court recognized that the prisoner’s criminal record might be a relevant factor in evaluating his mental condition, and in determining the type of care and treatment appropriate for his condition; it could not, however, justify depriving him of a jury determination on the basic question whether he was mentally ill and an appropriate subject for some kind of compulsory treatment.
Since 1880, Wisconsin has relied on a jury to decide whether to confine a person for compulsory psychiatric treatment. Like most, if not all, other States with similar legislation, Wisconsin conditions such confinement not solely on the medical judgment that the defendant is mentally ill and treatable, but also on the social and legal judgment that his potential for doing harm, to himself or to others, is great enough to justify such a massive curtailment of liberty. In making this determination, the jury serves the critical function of introducing into the process a lay judgment, reflecting values generally held in the community, concerning the kinds of potential harm that justify the State in confining a person for compulsory treatment.
Commitment for compulsory treatment under the Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act appears to require precisely the same kind of determination, involving a mixture of medical and social or legal judgments. If that is so (and that is properly a subject for inquiry on remand), then it is proper to inquire what justification exists for depriving persons committed under the Sex Crimes Act of the jury determination afforded to persons committed under the Mental Health Act.
Respondent seeks to justify the discrimination on the ground that commitment under the Sex Crimes Act is triggered by a criminal conviction; that such commitment is merely an alternative to penal sentencing; and consequently that it does not require the same procedural safeguards afforded in a civil commitment proceeding. That argument arguably has force with respect to an initial commitment under the Sex Crimes Act, which is imposed in lieu of sentence, and is limited in duration to the maximum permissible sentence. The argument can carry little weight, however, with respect to the subsequent renewal proceedings, which result in five-year commitment orders based on new findings of fact, and are in no way limited by the nature of the defendant’s crime or the maximum sentence authorized for that crime. The renewal orders bear substantial resemblance to the post-sentence commitment that was at issue in Baxstrom. Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has expressly held that even the initial commitment under the Sex Crimes Act is not simply a sentencing alternative, but rather an independent commitment for treatment, comparable to commitment under the Mental Health Act. The Wisconsin court held, anticipating this Court’s decision in Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967), that a hearing was required even for the initial commitment under the Sex Crimes Act. Huebner v. State, 33 Wis. 2d 505, 521-530, 147 N. W. 2d 646, 654-658 (1967). While the Huebner decision was grounded in considerations of procedural due process, the Wisconsin court also noted carefully the relevance of Baxstrom and the Equal Protection Clause to its decision.
An alternative justification for the discrimination might be sought in some special characteristic of sex offenders, which may render a jury determination uniquely inappropriate or unnecessary. It appears, however, that the Mental Health Act and the Sex Crimes Act are not mutually exclusive; that “aberrations” warranting commitment undqr the latter might also amount to “mental illness” warranting commitment under the former. The equal protection claim would seem to be especially persuasive if it develops on remand that petitioner was deprived of a jury determination, or of other procedural protections, merely by the arbitrary decision of the State to seek his commitment under one statute rather than the other.
B. The remand hearing will also provide an opportunity for the District Court to consider factual questions relevant to petitioner’s other claims. In addition to the lack of a jury trial, petitioner challenges several other aspects of the hearing that led to the renewal of his commitment. He claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and he was denied the opportunity to be present and to confront the State’s witnesses. These claims are tied inextricably to the question of possible waiver of rights at that hearing, a question that clearly requires further exploration on remand, see infra, at 514-517.
Petitioner also challenges the adequacy of the hearing that led to his initial commitment. The record shows that petitioner was not represented by counsel at that initial commitment, App. 11-12, and thus the question arises whether the state court ever in fact held the hearing required by Huebner and Specht, and now by statute as well. Moreover, petitioner claims that, even if there was such a hearing, it provided at most an opportunity to challenge the finding that he needed treatment, and not an opportunity to challenge the .initial determination that his crime was sexually motivated, a determination that was a necessary prerequisite to the invocation of the whole commitment process. Respondent argues that any defect in the initial commitment has been rendered moot by the intervening renewal hearing. It may be, however, that the initial commitment has continuing effects that cannot be remedied by a mere attack on the subsequent renewal order. On remand, the District Court should resolve this threshold question of mootness, and if the Court determines that the merits of these claims are properly before it, then it should proceed to resolve the relevant factual and legal questions.
Finally, petitioner challenges the place and character of his confinement under the Sex Crimes Act. He objects to the fact that he was committed to the state prison, rather than to a mental hospital, as he would have been under the Mental Health Act; and he contends that no treatment was provided at the prison, notwithstanding the fact that he was in a prison unit labeled “Sex Deviate Facility.” These matters, in his view, deprived him of equal protection and due process. Respondent argues that this aspect of petitioner’s claim has become moot, because (1) petitioner has been released on parole, see n. 2, supra, and (2) the State has established a new treatment facility at the state mental hospital, to which petitioner might be committed if his parole were revoked. On remand, the parties will have ample opportunity to develop the facts relevant to the question of mootness, as well as to petitioner’s substantial constitutional claims.
II
Plainly, then, we cannot accept as a ground for decision the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that petitioner’s claims are too frivolous to require a hearing. An alternative ground was relied on by the District Court, however, and respondent presses that argument here. The District Court held that petitioner had waived his constitutional claims by failing to present them properly to the state courts. In order to consider this argument, it will be necessary to review the somewhat complicated procedural history of this case.
Petitioner first sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Sex Crimes Act at the hearing on the State’s petition to renew his commitment beyond the initial one-year period. His appointed counsel argued that a new commitment order would constitute a prohibited second punishment for a single offense, and indicated that she was making a broad constitutional challenge to the Sex Crimes Act. The state trial judge adjourned the matter to permit the parties to brief the constitutional issues. When petitioner’s counsel failed to submit a brief, or to take any further action on behalf of petitioner, the state court concluded that the bare petition of the Department of Public Welfare was sufficient to support an order continuing petitioner’s confinement. No appeal was taken from that order.
Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus, without the assistance of counsel, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which at that time was the only state court authorized to grant habeas corpus relief to state prisoners. The petition was summarily dismissed without a response from the State or an opinion by the court. While the petition is not in the record before us, both parties represent that it was substantially identical to the subsequent petition for federal habeas corpus that initiated the present proceedings.
The federal petition, also prepared without the assistance of counsel, alleges, in addition to the claim of double jeopardy, a claim that petitioner was denied equal protection and due process, referring specifically to, inter alia, the lack of a jury trial, and confinement in the state prison.
The District Court held that the failure of petitioner’s trial counsel to file a brief in the state trial court amounted to a deliberate strategic decision to abandon petitioner’s constitutional claims; it justified the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s denial of post-conviction relief; and it operated as a bar to federal relief as well. We cannot agree with respondent or the District Court that the present record shows the deliberate bypass of state remedies that might bar federal consideration of petitioner’s claims. We conclude, however, that respondent should be given an opportunity to develop the relevant facts. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this point, as well as on the merits of such claims as may be ripe for federal determination.
This Court has repeatedly made it plain that not every state procedural default bars federal habeas corpus relief.' Title 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254 (b), (c), which require a state prisoner to exhaust available state remedies, are limited in their application to those state remedies still open to the habeas applicant at the time he files his application in federal court. Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 434-435 (1963); see Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 272 n. 3 (1971). In this case it appears that petitioner has met the requirements of the exhaustion rule, inasmuch as no direct appeal is presently available to him, and he has taken his claim for post-conviction relief to the highest state court.
This Court has also held, however, that a federal habeas judge may in his discretion deny relief to an applicant who has deliberately bypassed the orderly procedure of the state courts, on the ground that in so doing he has forfeited his state court remedies. Fay v. Noia, supra, at 438-439. But such a waiver must be the product of an understanding and knowing decision by the petitioner himself, who is not necessarily bound by the decision or default of his counsel. An evidentiary hearing will ordinarily be required before the District Court can determine whether petitioner made a deliberate strategic waiver of his claim in state court. In this case, a hearing is necessary to determine (1) the reason for counsel’s failure to file a brief or to take further action in the state courts, and (2) the extent of petitioner’s knowledge and participation in that decision. If the District Court cannot find persuasive evidence of a knowing and intelligent waiver on the part of petitioner himself, then the Court should proceed to consider petitioner’s constitutional claims.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Court of Appeals said in pertinent part:
“Plaintiff also claims various procedural rights to which he would be entitled in the course of a separate proceeding for conviction of an offense, but the continuation of commitment is not such [a] proceeding.” App. 58.
After the petition for certiorari had been filed, it appears that petitioner was released on parole to the custody of the Secretary of the State Department of Health and Social Services. That change in his custody does not necessarily moot his claims; it simply requires the substitution of the Secretary for the prison warden as respondent, which can be accomplished by motion under Rule 49 of this Court, or by the District Court on remand.
The jury-trial provision first appeared in c. 266, Wis. Laws 1880, pp. 299, 301; compare. Wis. Rev. Stat. § 593, p. 208 (1878), with Wis. Rev. Stat. §593, p. 114 (1883 Supp.).
The Mental Health Act authorizes commitment of a person for compulsory treatment if the court or jury finds that he is (1) mentally ill, and (2) a “proper subject for custody and treatment.” Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 51.02 (5), 51.03 (1957). The social and legal aspects of the determination are implicit not only in the determination of who is a “proper subject for custody and treatment,” but also in the definition of mental illness itself, contained in the Interstate Compact on Mental Health, and recently adopted by Wisconsin, as well as by many other States:
“ 'Mental illness’ means mental disease to such extent that a person so afflicted requires care and treatment for his own welfare, or the welfare of others, or of the community.” (Emphasis added.) Wis. Stat. Ann. § 51.75, Art. II (f) (Supp. 1971).
In 1926 the Wisconsin Legislature voted to eliminate the jury-trial provision from the Mental Health Act, at the request of the state medical society, but the Governor vetoed the bill. Again in 1947 an attempt was made to eliminate the jury trial. A legislative committee reported that juries too often refused to order commitment when the medical experts thought it appropriate. Wis. Stat. 1947, c. 51, general comment of interim committee, at 802. This time the state legislature refused to do away with jury trials, however, and indeed when the legislature enacted in that same year a new statute for the compulsory treatment of “sex psychopaths,” the new statute contained a provision for jury trial paralleling the provision in the Mental Health Act. Wis. Stat. 1947, § 51.37 (4). Not until 1951, with the passage of a new Sex Crimes Act, did the provision for jury trial disappear from the legislation governing the compulsory treatment of sex offenders. Wis. Stat. 1951, § 340.485 (14)(a).
The Sex Crimes Act authorizes an initial commitment of an otherwise eligible person for compulsory treatment if the court finds that he is in need of “specialized treatment for his mental or physical aberrations,” Wis. Stat. Ann. § 975.06 (1) — (2) (1971), which restated Wis. Stat. Ann. §959.15 (5)-(6), adding a provision for a judicial hearing, as required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Huebner v. State, 33 Wis. 2d 505, 147 N. W. 2d 646 (1967). The statute authorizes renewal of the commitment order if the court finds that discharge would be “dangerous to the public because of the person’s mental or physical deficiency, disorder or abnormality.” Wis. Stat. Ann. §975.14 (1971), formerly Wis. Stat. Ann. §959.15 (14) (b) (1958).
Two courts of appeals have implied the contrary, see Matthews v. Hardy, 137 U. S. App. D. C. 39, 420 F. 2d 607 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1010 (1970), and United States ex rel. Schuster v. Herold, 410 F. 2d 1071 (CA2), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 847 (1969). This case does not present the claim of right to a jury trial at the initial commitment, however, and we intimate no view on that question here. Petitioner’s only objections to the initial commitment are discussed infra, at 513.
Following Huebner, petitioner rests his claim alternatively on Specht and the Due Process Clause, or on Baxstrom and the Equal Protection Clause. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has, however, rejected the argument that either Baxstrom or Huebner requires the State to extend to sex offenders the right to a jury trial at the hearing on the petition for renewal of commitment. Buchanan v. State, 41 Wis. 2d 460, 164 N. W. 2d 253 (1969). In rejecting the equal protection claim, the court relied on distinctions so elusive that, if they can support the discrimination at all, they will require further factual development at the remand hearing in this case. The jury question was also raised, but not decided, in Hill v. Burke, 289 F. Supp. 921 (WD Wis. 1968), aff’d, 422 F. 2d 1195 (CA7 1970).
Tr. of Oral Arg. 22; Respondent’s Supplemental Memorandum, filed Feb. 25, 1971, pp. 3-4. Compare the criteria for commitment in n. 4 with the criteria in n. 6, supra.
Baxstrom v. Herold, supra, at 111; Cross v. Harris, 135 U. S. App. D. C. 259, 262, 418 F. 2d 1095, 1098 (1969); Millard v. Harris, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 146, 152, 406 F. 2d 964, 970 (1968).
See State ex rel. Stroetz v. Burke, 28 Wis. 2d 195, 136 N. W. 2d 829 (1965).
For example, if petitioner can successfully challenge the initial finding that his crime was sexually motivated, then his commitment under the Sex Crimes Act would be improper even if he meets the statutory standards for continued commitment, i. e., even if his discharge would be “dangerous to the public because of . . . mental or physical . . . abnormality.” In that case, he could properly be committed only under the Mental Health Act, in accordance with its procedures and criteria for commitment, and its conditions of confinement.
See Brief for Respondent 28-30, and Appendix to Brief 140-156.
The state court relied largely on petitioner’s failure to introduce any evidence in his behalf. In this connection it is noteworthy that the record does not show any evidence introduced by the State, either; moreover, under Wisconsin law, the State has the burden of proof in such proceedings. Goetsch v. State, 45 Wis. 2d 285, 172 N. W. 2d 688 (1969) (decided after the commitment hearing in this case).
An appeal is authorized by Wis. Stat. Ann. §975.16, formerly Wis. Stat. Ann. § 959.15 (16).
Wis. Stat. Ann., c. 292 (1958), which has been replaced by a comprehensive post-conviction review statute, Wis. Stat. Ann. § 974.06 (1971).
On remand, the District Court will have the opportunity to ascertain precisely what claims were presented in the state habeas petition.
There is, of course, no requirement that petitioner file repetitious applications in the state courts. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249 (1971); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 448 n. 3 (1953). The question on remand is whether any of petitioner’s claims is so clearly distinct from the claims he has already presented to the state courts that it may fairly be said that the state courts have had no opportunity to pass on the claim; and if so, whether there is presently available a state forum in which he can effectively present the claim.
Moreover, some or all of petitioner’s claims may be entitled to be treated as claims for relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in which case no exhaustion is required. Wilwording v. Swenson, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A law of the State of New York requires local public school authorities to lend textbooks free of charge to all students in grades seven through 12; students attending private schools are included. This case presents the question whether this statute is a “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and so in conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, because it authorizes the loan of textbooks to students attending parochial schools. We hold that the law is not in violation of the Constitution.
Until 1965, § 701 of the Education Law of the State of New York authorized public school boards to designate textbooks for use in the public schools, to purchase such books with public funds, and to rent or sell the books to public school students. In 1965 the Legislature amended § 701, basing the amendments on findings that the “public welfare and safety require that the state and local communities give assistance to educational programs which are important to our national defense and the general welfare of the state.” Beginning with the 1966-1967 school year, local school boards were required to purchase textbooks and lend them without charge “to all children residing in such district who are enrolled in grades seven to twelve of a public or private school which complies with the compulsory education law.” The books now loaned are “text-books which are designated for use in any public, elementary or secondary schools of the state or are approved by any boards of education,” and which — according to a 1966 amendment — “a pupil is required to use as a text for a semester or more in a particular class in the school he legally attends.”
Appellant Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 in Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, brought suit in the New York courts against appellee James Allen. The complaint alleged that § 701 violated both the State and Federal Constitutions; that if appellants, in reliance on their interpretation of the Constitution, failed to lend books to parochial school students within their counties appellee Allen would remove appellants from office; and that to prevent this, appellants were complying with the law and submitting to their constituents a school budget including funds for books to be lent to parochial school pupils. Appellants therefore sought a declaration that § 701 was invalid, an order barring appellee Allen from removing appellants from office for failing to comply with it, and another order restraining him from apportioning state funds to school districts for the purchase of textbooks to be lent to parochial students. After answer, and upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held the law unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and entered judgment for appellants. 51 Misc. 2d 297, 273 N. Y. S. 2d 239 (1966). The Appellate Division reversed, ordering the complaint dismissed on the ground that appellant school boards had no standing to attack the validity of a state statute. 27 App. Div. 2d 69, 276 N. Y. S. 2d 234 (1966). On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals concluded by a 4-3 vote that appellants did have standing but by a different 4r-3 vote held that § 701 was not in violation of either the State or the Federal Constitution. 20 N. Y. 2d 109, 228 N. E. 2d 791, 281 N. Y. S. 2d 799 (1967). The Court of Appeals said that the law’s purpose was to benefit all school children, regardless of the type of school they attended, and that only textbooks approved by public school authorities could be loaned. It therefore considered § 701 “completely neutral with respect to religion, merely making available secular textbooks at the request of the individual student and asking no question about what school he attends.” Section 701, the Court of Appeals concluded, is not a law which “establishes a religion or constitutes the use of public funds to aid religious schools.” 20 N. Y. 2d, at 117; 228 N. E. 2d, at 794, 795; 281 N. Y. S. 2d, at 805. We noted probable jurisdiction. 389 U. S. 1031 (1968).
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), is the case decided by this Court that is most nearly in point for today’s problem. New Jersey reimbursed parents for expenses incurred in busing their children to parochial schools. The Court stated that the Establishment Clause bars a State from passing “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another,” and bars too any “tax in any amount, large or small . . . levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” 330 U. S., at 15-16. Nevertheless, said the Court, the Establishment Clause does not prevent a State from extending the benefits of state laws to all citizens without regard for their religious affiliation and does not prohibit “New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools.” The statute was held to be valid even though one of its results was that “children are helped to get to church schools” and “some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children’s bus fares out of their own pockets.” 330 U. S., at 17. As with public provision of police and fire protection, sewage facilities, and streets and sidewalks, payment of bus fares was of some value to the religious school, but was nevertheless not such support of a religious institution as to be a prohibited establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
Everson and later cases have shown that the line between state neutrality to religion and state support of religion is not easy to locate. “The constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State. The problem, like many problems in constitutional law, is one of degree.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952). See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961). Based on Everson, Zorach, McGowan, and other cases, Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), fashioned a test subscribed to by eight Justices for distinguishing between forbidden involvements of the State with religion and those contacts which the Establishment Clause permits:
"The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Everson v. Board of Education. . ." 374 U. S., at 222.
This test is not easy to apply, but the citation of Ever-son by the Schempp Court to support its general standard made clear how the Schempp rule would be applied to the facts of Everson. The statute upheld in Everson would be considered a law having “a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” We reach the same result with respect to the New York law requiring school books to be loaned free of charge to all students in specified grades. The express purpose of § 701 was stated by the New York Legislature to be furtherance of the educational opportunities available to the young. Appellants have shown us nothing about the necessary effects of the statute that is contrary to its stated purpose. The law merely makes available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend school books free of charge. Books are furnished at the request of the pupil and ownership remains, at least technically, in the State. Thus no funds or books are furnished to parochial schools, and the financial benefit is to parents and children, not to schools. Perhaps free books make it more likely that some children choose to attend a sectarian school, but that was true of the state-paid bus fares in Everson and does not alone demonstrate an unconstitutional degree of support for a religious institution.
Of course books are different from buses. Most bus rides have no inherent religious significance, while religious books are common. However, the language of § 701 does not authorize the loan of religious books, and the State claims no right to distribute religious literature. Although the books loaned are those required by the parochial school for use in specific courses, each book loaned must be approved by the public school authorities ; only secular books may receive approval. The law was construed by the Court of Appeals of New York as “merely making available secular textbooks at the request of the individual student/’ supra, and the record contains no suggestion that religious books have been loaned. Absent evidence, we cannot assume that school authorities, who constantly face the same problem in selecting textbooks for use in the public schools, are unable to distinguish between secular and religious books or that they will not honestly discharge their duties under the law. In judging the validity of the statute on this record we must proceed on the assumption that books loaned to students are books that are not unsuitable for use in the public schools because of religious content.
The major reason offered by appellants for distinguishing free textbooks from free bus fares is that books, but not buses, are critical to the teaching process, and in a sectarian school that process is employed to teach religion. However this Court has long recognized that religious schools pursue two goals, religious instruction and secular education. In the leading case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), the Court held that although it would not question Oregon’s power to compel school attendance or require that the attendance be at an institution meeting State-imposed requirements as to quality and nature of curriculum, Oregon had not shown that its interest in secular education required that all children attend publicly operated schools. A premise of this holding was the view that the State’s interest in education would be served sufficiently by reliance on the secular teaching that accompanied religious training in the schools maintained by the Society of Sisters. Since Pierce, a substantial body of case law has confirmed the power of the States to insist that attendance at private schools, if it is to satisfy state compulsory-attendance laws, be at institutions which provide minimum hours of instruction, employ teachers of specified training, and cover prescribed subjects of instruction. Indeed, the State's interest in assuring that these standards are being met has been considered a sufficient reason for refusing to accept instruction at home as compliance with compulsory education statutes. These cases were a sensible corollary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters: if the State must satisfy its interest in secular education through the instrument of private schools, it has a proper interest in the manner in which those schools perform their secular educational function. Another corollary was Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U. S. 370 (1930), where appellants said that a statute requiring school books to be furnished without charge to all students, whether they attended public or private schools, did not serve a “public purpose,” and so offended the Fourteenth Amendment. Speaking through Chief Justice Hughes, the Court summarized as follows its conclusion that Louisiana’s interest in the secular education being provided by private schools made provision of textbooks to students in those schools a properly public concern: “[The State’s] interest is education, broadly; its method, comprehensive. Individual interests are aided only as the common interest is safeguarded.” 281 U. S., at 375.
Underlying these cases, and underlying also the legislative judgments that have preceded the court decisions, has been a recognition that private education has played and is playing a significant and valuable role in raising national levels of knowledge, competence, and experience. Americans care about the quality of the secular education available to their children. They have considered high quality education to be an indispensable ingredient for achieving the kind of nation, and the kind of citizenry, that they have desired to create. Considering this attitude, the continued willingness to rely on private school systems, including parochial systems, strongly suggests that a wide segment of informed opinion, legislative and otherwise, has found that those schools do an acceptable job of providing secular education to their students. This judgment is further evidence that parochial schools are performing, in addition to their sectarian function, the task of secular education.
Against this background of judgment and experience, unchallenged in the meager record before us in this case, we cannot agree with appellants either that all teaching in a sectarian school is religious or that the processes of secular and religious training are so intertwined that secular textbooks furnished to students by the public are in fact instrumental in the teaching of religion. This case comes to us after summary judgment entered on the pleadings. Nothing in this record supports the proposition that all textbooks, whether they deal with mathematics, physics, foreign languages, history, or literature, are used by the parochial schools to teach religion. No evidence has been offered about particular schools, particular courses, particular teachers, or particular books. We are unable to hold, based solely on judicial notice, that this statute results in unconstitutional involvement of the State with religious instruction or that § 701, for this or the other reasons urged, is a law respecting the establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
Appellants also contend that § 701 offends the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. However, “it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion,” Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 223 (1963), and appellants have not contended that the New York law in anyway coerces them as individuals in the practice of their religion.
The judgment is affirmed.
New York Sess. Laws 1950, c. 239, §1. New York Education Law § 703, New York Sess. Laws 1950, c. 239, § 3, permitted the qualified voters of any school district to authorize a special tax for the purpose of making available free textbooks. The 1965 amendments that required free textbooks to be provided for grades seven through 12 amended § 703 so that it now permits local voters to approve free books for grades one through six.
New York Sess. Laws 1965, c. 320, § 1.
New York Education Law § 701 (1967 Supp.) :
“1. In the several cities and school districts of the state, boards of education, trustees or such body or officer as perform the functions of such boards, shall designate text-books to be used in the schools under their charge.
“2. A text-book, for the purposes of this section shall mean a book which a pupil is required to use as a text for a semester or more in a particular class in the school he legally attends.
“3. In the several cities and school districts of the state, boards of education, trustees or such body or officers as perform the function of such boards shall have the power and duty to purchase and to loan upon individual request, to all children residing in such district who are enrolled in grades seven to twelve of a public or private school which complies with the compulsory education law, text-books. Text-books loaned to children enrolled in grades seven to twelve of said private schools shall be text-books which are designated for use in any public, elementary or secondary schools of the state or are approved by any boards of education, trustees or other school authorities. Such text-books are to be loaned free to such children subject to such rules and regulations as are or may be prescribed by the board of regents and such boards of education, trustees or other school authorities.”
The present subdivision 2 was added by amendment in 1966, New York Sess. Laws 1966, c. 795. This suit was filed, and the trial court opinion was rendered, prior to the 1966 amendment.
Intervention was permitted on plaintiffs’ side by the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3 in Nassau County, which appears here as co-appellant, and on defendants' side by parents of certain students attending private schools, who appear here as co-appellees.
Appellees do not challenge the standing of appellants to press their claim in this Court. Appellants have taken an oath to support the United States Constitution. Believing § 701 to be unconstitutional, they are in the position of having to choose between violating their oath and taking a step — refusal to comply with § 701— that would be likely to bring their expulsion from office and also a reduction in state funds for their school districts. There can be no doubt that appellants thus have a “personal stake in the outcome” of this litigation. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962).
While the record and the state court opinions in this case contained no information about how the books are in fact transferred from the Boards of Education to individual students, both parties suggested in their briefs and on oral argument before this Court that New York permits private schools to submit to boards of education summaries of the requests for textbooks filed by individual students, and also permits private schools to store on their premises the textbooks being loaned by the Board of Education to the students. This interpretation of the State’s administrative procedure is supported by an “Opinion of Counsel” made available by the Board of Regents and the State Department of Education to local school superintendents. Eor purposes of this case we consider the New York statute to permit these procedures. So construing the statute, we find it in conformity with the Constitution, for the books are furnished for the use of individual students and at their request.
It should be noted that the record contains no evidence that any of the private schools in appellants’ districts previously provided textbooks for their students. There is some evidence that at least some of the schools did not: intervenor defendants asserted that they had previously purchased all their children’s textbooks. And see statement of then Commissioner of Education Keppel: “Nonpublic schools rarely provide free textbooks.” Hearings on Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 before General Subcommittee on Education of House Committee on Education and Labor, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Pt. 1, 93 (1965).
This Court has twice suggested the constitutionality of these state regulations. "[T]he State may ‘require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty, which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country.’ ” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 631 (1943), quoting Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 604 (1940) (Stone, J., dissenting). “This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 18 (1947) (citing Pierce v. Society of Sisters). A great many state cases have upheld a wide range of private school regulation. E. g., Meyerkorth v. State, 173 Neb. 889, 115 N. W. 2d 585 (1962), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 372 U. S. 705 (1963); State v. Hoyt, 84 N. H. 38, 146 A. 170 (1929); People v. Donner, 199 Misc. 643, 99 N. Y. S. 2d 830 (Dom. Rel. Ct. 1950), aff’d mem., 278 App. Div. 705, 103 N. Y. S. 2d 757, aff’d mem., 302 N. Y. 857, 100 N. E. 2d 48, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 342 U. S. 884 (1951).
New York State regulates private schools extensively, especially as to attendance and curriculum. New York Education Law §§3201-3229 (1953). Regents examinations are given to private school students. Id., §209. The basic requirement is that the instruction given in private schools satisfying the compulsory attendance law be "at least substantially equivalent to the instruction given to minors of like age and attainments at the public schools of the city or district where the minor resides.” Id., § 3204 subd. 2.
New York requires school attendance of “each minor from seven to sixteen years of age” unless he has completed high school. Id., § 3205.
E. g., People v. Turner, 121 Cal. App. 2d 861, 263 P. 2d 685 (1953), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 347 U. S. 972 (1954).
In 1965-1966 in New York State, over 900,000 students, or 22.2% of total state enrollment, attended nonpublic schools. University of State of New York, Education Statistics Estimates 1966-67, Table I (1966). The comparable statistic for the Nation was at least 10%. United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1967, at 111 (1967).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This school desegregation action comes to us after five years and two round trips through the lower federal courts. Those protracted proceedings have been devoted to the formulation of a remedy for actions of the Dayton Board of Education found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision now under review, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit finally approved a plan involving districtwide racial-distribution requirements, after rejecting two previous, less sweeping orders by the District Court. The plan required, beginning with the 1976-1977 school year, that the racial distribution of each school in the district be brought within 15% of the 48%-52% black-white population ratio of Dayton. As finally formulated, the plan employed a variety of desegregation techniques, including the “pairing” of schools, the redefinition of attendance zones, and a variety of centralized special programs and “magnet schools.” We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 1060 (1977), to consider the propriety of this court-ordered remedy in light of the constitutional violations which were found by the courts below.
Whatever public notice this case has received as it wended its way from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to this Court has been due to the fact that it represented an effort by minority plaintiffs to obtain relief from alleged unconstitutional segregation of the Dayton public schools said to have resulted from actions by the petitioner School Board. While we would by no means discount the importance of this aspect of the case, we think that the case is every bit as important for the issues it raises as to the proper allocation of functions between the district courts and the courts of appeals within the federal judicial system.
Indeed, the importance of the judicial administration aspects of the case are heightened by the presence of the substantive issues on which it turns. The proper observance of the division of functions between the federal trial courts and the federal appellate courts is important in every case. It is especially important in a case such as this where the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio was not simply asked to render judgment in accordance with the law of Ohio in favor of one private party against another; it was asked by the plaintiffs, parents of students in the public school system of a large city, to restructure the administration of that system.
There is no doubt that federal courts have authority to grant appropriate relief of this sort when constitutional violations on the part of school officials are proved. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189 (1973); Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U. S. 451 (1972); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). But our cases have just as firmly recognized that local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717, 741-742 (1974); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 50 (1973); Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, supra, at 469. It is for this reason that the case for displacement of the local authorities by a federal court in a school desegregation case must be satisfactorily established by factual proof and justified by a reasoned statement of legal principles. Cf. Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424 (1976).
The lawsuit was begun in April 1972, and the District Court filed its original decision on February 7, 1973. The District Court first surveyed the past conduct of affairs by the Dayton School Board, and found “isolated but repeated instances of failure by the Dayton School Board to meet the standards of the Ohio law mandating an integrated school system.” It cited instances of physical segregation in the schools during the early decades of this century, but concluded that “[b]oth by reason of the substantial time that [had] elapsed and because these practices have ceased, . . . the foregoing will not necessarily be deemed to be evidence of a continuing segrega-tive policy.”
The District Court also found that as recently as the 1950’s, faculty hiring had not been on a racially neutral basis, but that “[b]y 1963, under a policy designated as one of 'dynamic gradualism,’ at least one black teacher had been assigned to all eleven high schools and to 35 of the 66 schools in the entire system.” It further found that by 1969 each school in the Dayton system had an integrated teaching staff consisting of at least one black faculty member. The court’s conclusion with respect to faculty hiring was that pursuant to a 1971 agreement with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, “the teaching staff of the Dayton public schools became and still remains substantially intégrated.”
The District Court noted that Dunbar High School had been established in 1933 as a black high school, taught by black teachers and attended by black pupils. At the time of its creation there were no attendance zones in Dayton and students were permitted liberal transfers, so that attendance at Dunbar was voluntary. The court found that Dunbar continued to exist as a citywide all-black high school until it closed in 1962.
Turning to more recent operations of the Dayton public schools, the District Court found that the “great majority” of the 66 schools were imbalanced and that, with one exception, the Dayton School Board had made no affirmative effort to achieve racial balance within those schools. But the court stated that there was no evidence of racial discrimination in the establishment or alteration of attendance boundaries or in the site selection and construction of new schools and school additions. It considered the use of optional attendance zones within the district, and concluded that in the majority of cases the “optional zones had no racial significance at the time of their creation.” It made a somewhat ambiguous finding as to the effect of some of the zones in the past, and concluded that although none of the optional elementary school attendance zones today “have any significant potential effects in terms of increased racial separation,” the same cannot be said of the optional high school zones. Two zones in particular, “those between Roosevelt and Colonel White and between Kiser and Colonel White, are by far the largest in the system and have had the most demonstrable racial effects in the past.”
The court found no evidence that the district’s “freedom of enrollment” policy had “been unfairly operated or that black students [had] been denied transfers because of their race.” Finally the court considered action by a newly elected Board on January 3, 1972, rescinding resolutions, passed by the previous Board, which had acknowledged a role played by the Board in the creation of segregative racial patterns and had called for various types of remedial measures. The District Court’s ultimate conclusion was that the “racially imbalanced schools, optional attendance zones, and recent Board action ... are cumulatively in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
The District Court’s use of the phrase “cumulative violation” is unfortunately not free from ambiguity. Treated most favorably to the respondents, it may be said to represent the District Court’s opinion that there were three separate although relatively isolated instances of unconstitutional action on the part of petitioners. Treated most favorably to the petitioners, however, they must be viewed in quite a different light. The finding that the pupil population in the various Dayton schools is not homogeneous, standing by itself, is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the absence of a showing that this condition resulted from intentionally segregative actions on the part of the Board. Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 239 (1976). The District Court’s finding as to the effect of the optional attendance zones for the three Dayton high schools, assuming that it was a violation under the standards of Washington v. Davis, supra, appears to be so only with respect to high school districting. Swann, 402 U. S., at 15. The District Court’s conclusion that the Board’s rescission of previously adopted School Board resolutions was itself a constitutional violation is also of questionable validity.
The Board had not acted to undo operative regulations affecting the assignment of pupils or other aspects of the management of school affairs, cf. Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967), but simply repudiated a resolution of a predecessor Board stating that it recognized its own fault in not taking affirmative action at an earlier date. We agree with the Court of Appeals’ treatment of this action, wherein that court said:
“The question of whether a rescission of previous Board action is in and of itself a violation of appellants’ constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took. Cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 . . . (1969); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 . . . (1960). If the Board was not under such a duty, then the rescission of the initial action in and of itself cannot be a constitutional violation. If the Board was under such a duty, then the rescission becomes a part of the cumulative violation, and it is not necessary to ascertain whether the rescission ipso facto is an independent violation of the Constitution.” Brinkman v. Gilligan, 503 F. 2d 684, 697 (1974).
Judged most favorably to the petitioners, then, the District Court’s findings of constitutional violations did not, under our cases, suffice to justify the remedy imposed. Nor is light cast upon the District Court’s finding by its repeated use of the phrase “cumulative violation.” We realize, of course, that the task of factfinding in a case such as this is a good deal more difficult than is typically the case in a more orthodox lawsuit. Findings as to the motivations of multimembered public bodies are of necessity difficult, cf. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977), and the question of whether demographic changes resulting in racial concentration occurred from purely neutral public actions or were instead the intended result of actions which appeared neutral on their face but were in fact invidiously discriminatory is not an easy one to resolve.
We think it accurate to say that the District Court’s formulation of a remedy on the basis of the three-part “cumulative violation” was certainly not based on an unduly cautious understanding of its authority in such a situation. The remedy which it originally propounded in light of these findings of fact included requirements that optional attendance zones be eliminated, and that faculty assignment practices and hiring policies with respect to classified personnel be tailored to achieve representative racial distribution in all schools. The one portion of the remedial plan submitted by the School Board which the District Court refused to accept without change was that which dealt with so-called “freedom of enrollment priorities.” The court ordered that, as applied to high schools, new students at each school be chosen at random from those wishing to attend. The Board was required to furnish transportation for all students who chose to attend a high school outside the attendance area of their residence.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant School Board appealed the order of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Brinkman v. Gilligan, supra. That court considered at somewhat greater length than had the District Court both the historical instances of alleged racial discrimination by the Dayton School Board and the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Board’s resolutions and the subsequent rescission of those resolutions. This consideration was in a purely descriptive vein: no findings of fact made by the District Court were reversed as having been clearly erroneous, and the Court of Appeals engaged in no factfinding of its own based on evidence adduced before the District Court. The Court of Appeals then focused on the District Court’s finding of a three-part “cumulative” constitutional violation consisting of racially imbalanced schools, optional attendance zones, and the rescission of the Board resolutions. It found these to be “amply supported by the evidence.”
Plaintiffs in the District Court, respondents here, had cross-appealed from the order of the District Court, contending that the District Court had erred in failing to make further findings tending to show segregative actions on the part of the Dayton School Board, but the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to pass on these contentions. The Court of Appeals also stated that it was unnecessary to “pass on the question of whether the rescission [of the Board resolutions] by itself was a violation of” constitutional rights. It did discuss at length what it described as “serious questions” as to whether Board conduct relating to staff assignment, school construction, grade structure and reorganization, and transfers and transportation, should have been included within the “cumulative violation” found by the District Court. But it did no more than discuss these questions; it neither upset the factual findings of the District Court nor reversed the District Court’s conclusions of law.
Thus, the Court of Appeals, over and above its historical discussion of the Dayton school situation, dealt with and upheld only the three-part “cumulative violation” found by the District Court. But it nonetheless reversed the District Court’s approval of the School Board plan as modified by the District Court, because the Court of Appeals concluded that “the remedy ordered ... is inadequate, considering the scope of the cumulative violations.” While it did not discuss the specifics of any plan to be adopted on remand, it repeated the admonition that the court’s duty is to eliminate “all vestiges of state-imposed school segregation.” Keyes, 413 U. S., at 202; Swann, 402 U. S., at 15.
Viewing the findings of the District Court as to the three-part “cumulative violation” in the strongest light for the respondents, the Court of Appeals simply had no warrant in our cases for imposing the systemwide remedy which it apparently did. There had been no showing that such a remedy was necessary to “eliminate all vestiges of the state-imposed school segregation.” It is clear from the findings of the District Court that Dayton is a racially mixed community, and that many of its schools are either predominantly white or predominantly black. This fact without more, of course, does not offend the Constitution. Spencer v. Kugler, 404 U. S. 1027 (1972); Swann, supra, at 24. The Court of Appeals seems to have viewed the present structure of the Dayton school system as a sort of “fruit of the poisonous tree,” since some of the racial imbalance that presently obtains may have resulted in some part from the three instances of seg-regative action found by the District Court. But instead of tailoring a remedy commensurate to the three specific violations, the Court of Appeals imposed a systemwide remedy going beyond their scope.
On appeal, the task of a court of appeals is defined with relative clarity; it is confined by law and precedent, just as are those of the district courts and of this Court. If it concludes that the findings of the district court are clearly erroneous, it may set them aside under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52 (a). If it decides that the district court has misapprehended the law, it may accept that court’s findings of fact but reverse its judgment because of legal errors. Here, however, as we conceive the situation, the Court of Appeals did neither. It was vaguely dissatisfied with the limited character of the remedy which the District Court had afforded plaintiffs, and proceeded to institute a far more sweeping one of its own, without in any way upsetting the District Court’s findings of fact or reversing its conclusions of law.
The Court of Appeals did not actually specify a remedy, but did, in increasingly strong language in subsequent opinions, require that any plan eliminate systemwide patterns of one-race schools predominant in the district. Brinkman v. Gilligan, 518 F. 2d 853, 855 (1975). In the face of this commandment, the District Court, after twice being reversed, observed:
“This court now reaches the reluctant conclusion that there exists no feasible method of complying with the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit without the transportation of a substantial number of students in the Dayton school system. Based upon the plans of both the plaintiff and defendant the assumption must be that the transportation of approximately 15,000 students on a regular and permanent basis will be required.”
We think that the District Court would have been insensitive indeed to the nuances of the repeated reversals of its orders by the Court of Appeals had it not reached this conclusion. In effect, the Court of Appeals imposed a remedy which we think is entirely out of proportion to the constitutional violations found by the District Court, taking those findings of violations in the light most favorable to respondents.
This is not to say that the last word has been spoken as to the correctness of the District Court’s findings as to unconstitutionally segregative actions on the part of the petitioners. As we have noted, respondents appealed from the initial decision and order of the District Court, asserting that additional violations should have been found by that court. The Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to pass upon the respondents’ contentions in its first decision, and respondents have not cross-petitioned for certiorari in this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, they are entitled under our precedents to urge any grounds which would lend support to the judgment below, and we think that their contentions of unconstitutionally segregative actions, in addition to those found as fact by the District Court, fall into this category. In view of the confusion at various stages in this case, evident from the opinions both of the Court of Appeals and the District Court, as to the applicable principles and appropriate relief, the case must be remanded to the District Court for the making of more specific findings and, if necessary, the taking of additional evidence.
If the only deficiency in the record before us were the failure of the Court of Appeals to pass on respondents’ assignments of error respecting the initial rulings of the District Court, it would be appropriate to remand the case. But we think it evident that supplementation of the record will be necessary. Apart from what has been said above with respect to the use of the ambiguous phrase “cumulative violation” by both courts, the disparity between the evidence of constitutional violations and the sweeping remedy finally decreed requires supplementation of the record and additional findings addressed specifically to the scope of the remedy. It is clear that the presently mandated remedy cannot stand upon the basis of the violations found by the District Court.
The District Court, in the first instance, subject to review by the Court of Appeals, must make new findings and conclusions as to violations in the light of this opinion, Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977). It must then fashion a remedy in the light of the rule laid down in Swann, and elaborated upon in Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U. S. 284 (1976). The power of the federal courts to restructure the operation of local and state governmental entities “is not plenary. It ‘may be exercised “only on the basis of a constitutional violation.” ’ [Milliken v. Bradley], 418 U. S., at 738, quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 16. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362, 377. Once a constitutional violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor ‘the scope of the remedy’ to fit ‘the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.’ 418 U. S., at 744; Swann, supra, at 16.” Id., at 293-294. See also Austin Independent School Dist. v. United States, 429 U. S. 990, 991 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring).
The duty of both the District Court and the Court of Appeals in a case such as this, where mandatory segregation by law of the races in the schools has long since' ceased, is to first determine whether there was any action in the conduct of the business of the School Board which are intended to, and did in fact, discriminate against minority pupils, teachers, or staff. Washington v. Davis, supra. All parties should be free to introduce such additional testimony and other evidence as the District Court may deem appropriate. If such violations are found, the District Court in the first instance, subject to review by the Court of Appeals, must determine how much incremental segregative effect these violations had on the racial distribution of the Dayton school population as presently constituted, when that distribution is compared to what it would have been in the absence of such constitutional violations. The remedy must be designed to redress that difference, and only if there has been a systemwide impact may there be a systemwide remedy. Keyes, 413 U. S., at 213.
We realize that this is a difficult task, and that it is much easier for a reviewing court to fault ambiguous phrases such as “cumulative violation” than it is for the finder of fact to make the complex factual determinations in the first instance. Nonetheless, that is what the Constitution and our cases call for, and that is what must be done in this case.
While we have found that the plan implicitly, if not explicitly, imposed by the Court of Appeals was erroneous on the present state of the record, it is undisputed that it has been in effect in the Dayton school system during the present year without creating serious problems. While a school board and a school constituency which attempt to comply with a plan to the best of their ability should not be penalized, we think that the plan finally adopted by the District Court should remain in effect for the coming school year subject to such further orders of the District Court as it may find warranted following the hearings mandated by this opinion.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
This action was filed on April 17, 1972, by parents of black children attending schools operated by the defendant Dayton Board of Education. After an expedited hearing between November 13 and December 1, 1972, the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on February 7, 1973, rendered findings of fact and conclusions of law directing the formulation of a desegregation plan. App. 1. On July 13, 1973, that court approved, with certain modifications, a plan proposed by the School Board. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that court affirmed the findings of fact but reversed and remanded as to the proposed remedial plan. Brinkman v. Gilligan, 503 F. 2d 684 (CA6 1974).
The District Court then ordered the submission of new plans by the Board and by any other interested parties. App. 70. On March 10, 1975, it rejected a plan proposed by the plaintiffs, and, with some modifications, approved the Board's plan as modified and expanded in an effort to comply with the Court of Appeals mandate. Id., at 73. On appeal, the Court of Appeals again reversed as to remedy and directed that the District Court “adopt a system-wide plan for the 1976-1977 school year . . . .” Brinkman v. Gilligan, 518 F. 2d 853 (1975).
Upon this second remand, the District Court, on December 29, 1975, ordered formulation of the plan whose terms are developed below. App. 99. On March 25, 1976, the details of the plan were approved by the District Court. Id., at 114. In the decision now under review, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Brinkman v. Gilligan, 539 F. 2d 1084 (1976).
The District Court said that it would deal on a case-by-case basis with failures to bring individual schools into compliance with this requirement. It also ordered that students already enrolled in the 10th and 11th grades be allowed to finish in their present high schools, and announced the following “guidelines” to be followed “whenever possible” in the case of elementary school students:
“1. Students may attend neighborhood walk-in schools in those neighborhoods where the schools already have the approved ratio ;
“2. Students should be transported to the nearest available school;
“3. No student should be transported for a period of time exceeding twenty (20) minutes, or two (2) miles, whichever is shorter.” App. 104.
“Pairing” is the designation of two Or more schools with contrasting racial composition for an exchange program where a large proportion of the students in each school attend the paired school for some period. In the plan adopted, by the District Court, it was the primary remedy used in the ease of elementary schools.
The court pointed out that since 1888 Ohio law as construed by the Ohio Supreme Court has forbidden separate public schools for black and white children. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.48 (1972); Board of Education v. State, 45 Ohio St. 555, 16 N. E. 373 (1888).
“Such instances include a physical segregation into separate buddings of pupils and teachers by race at the Garfield School in the early 1920’s, a denial to blacks of access to swimming pools in high schools in the 1930’s and 1940’s and the exclusion, between 1938 and 1948, of black high school teams from the city athletic conference.” App. 2-3 (footnote omitted).
The court also considered employment of nonteaching personnel, and observed that blacks made up a proportion of the nonteaching, nonadministrative personnel equal to the proportion of black students in the district, though in certain occupations they were represented at a substantially lower rate.
The court noted that a concerted effort had been made in the past few years to enroll more black students at the Patterson Co-op High School.
An optional zone is an area between two attendance zones, the student residents of which are free to choose which of the two schools they wish to attend.
The District Court found that three optional high school zones “may have” had racial significance at the time of their creation.
The following information about those zones is contained in an appendix to the District Court opinion:
% black population High Schools Date of creation At date of creation 1972-73
Roosevelt/ . 1951 31.5 100.0
Colonel White (extended 1958) 0.0 54.6
Kiser/ . 1962 2.7 9.8
Colonel White 1-1 54.6
The District Court’s first plan also contained the following provisions:
(V) Establishment of four citywide elementary science centers the enrollment of which would approximate the existing black-white ratio of students in the system;
(VI) Combination of two high schools into a unified cooperative school with districtwide attendance areas;
(VII) Formation of elementary and high, school all-city bands, orchestras, and choruses;
(VIII) Provisions for scheduling of integrated athletics;
(IX) Establishment of a minority language program for education of staff;
(X) Utilization of the Living Arts Center for inter-racial experiences in art, creative writing, dance, and drama;
(XI) Creation of centers for rumor control, school guidance, and area learning. See App. 35-36.
The court thus eliminated a provision within the Board plan which gave first priority to students residing within the school’s attendance zone.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Harris Truck Lines, Inc., v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U. S. 215; Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U. S. 384.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Qualified lawyers admitted to practice in other States may be admitted to the Virginia Bar “on motion,” that is, without taking the bar examination which Virginia otherwise requires. The State conditions such admission on a showing, among other matters, that the applicant is a permanent resident of Virginia. The question for decision is whether this residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. We hold that it does.
I
Myrna E. Friedman was admitted to the Illinois Bar by examination in 1977 and to the District of Columbia Bar by reciprocity in 1980. From 1977 to 1981, she was employed by the Department of the Navy in Arlington, Virginia, as a civilian attorney, and from 1982 until 1986, she was an attorr ney in private practice in Washington, D. C. In January 1986, she became associate general counsel for ERC International, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Friedman practices and maintains her offices at the company’s principal place of business in Vienna, Virginia. Her duties at ERC International include drafting contracts and advising her employer and its subsidiaries on matters of Virginia law.
From 1977 to early 1986, Friedman lived in Virginia. In February 1986, however, she married and moved to her husband’s home in Cheverly, Maryland. In June 1986, Friedman applied for admission to the Virginia Bar on motion.
The applicable rule, promulgated by the Supreme Court of Virginia pursuant to statute, is Rule 1A:1. The Rule permits admission on motion of attorneys who are licensed to practice in another jurisdiction, provided the other jurisdiction admits Virginia attorneys without examination. The applicant must have been licensed for at least five years and the Virginia Supreme Court must determine that the applicant:
“(a) Is a proper person to practice law.
“(b) Has made such progress in the practice of law that it would be unreasonable to require him to take an examination.
“(c) Has become a permanent resident of the Commonwealth.
“(d) Intends to practice full time as a member of the Virginia bar.”
In a letter accompanying her application, Friedman alerted the Clerk of the Virginia Supreme Court to her change of residence, but argued that her application should nevertheless be granted. Friedman gave assurance that she would be engaged full-time in the practice of law in Virginia, that she would be available for service of process and court appearances, and that she would keep informed of local rules. She also asserted that “there appears to be no reason to discriminate against my petition as a nonresident for admission to the Bar on motion,” that her circumstances fit within the purview of this Court’s decision in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U. S. 274 (1985), and that accordingly she was entitled to admission under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, §2, cl. 1. See App. 34-35.
The Clerk wrote Friedman that her request had been denied. He explained that because Friedman was no longer a permanent resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, she was not eligible for admission to the Virginia Bar pursuant to Rule 1A:1. He added that the court had concluded that our decision in Piper, which invalidated a residency requirement imposed on lawyers who had passed a State’s bar examination, was “not applicable” to the “discretionary requirement in Rule 1A:1 of residence as a condition of admission by reciprocity.” App. 51-52.
Friedman then commenced this action, against the Supreme Court of Virginia and its Clerk, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. She alleged that the residency requirement of Rule 1A:1 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The District Court entered summary judgment in Friedman’s favor, holding that the requirement of residency for admission without examination violates the Clause.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed. 822 F. 2d 423 (1987). The court first rejected appellants’ threshold contention that the Privileges and Immunities Clause was not implicated by the residency requirement of Rule 1A:1 because the Rule did not absolutely prohibit the practice of law in Virginia by nonresidents. Id., at 427-428. Turning to the justifications offered for the Rule, the court rejected, as foreclosed by Piper, the theory that the different treatment accorded to nonresidents could be justified by the State’s interest in enhancing the quality of legal practitioners. The court was also unpersuaded by appellant’s contention that the residency requirement promoted compliance with the Rule’s full-time practice requirement, an argument the court characterized as an unsupported assertion that “residents are more likely to honor their commitments to practice full-time in Virginia than are nonresidents.” Id., at 429. Thus, the court concluded that there was no substantial reason for the Rule’s discrimination against nonresidents, and that the discrimination did not bear a substantial relation to the objectives proffered by appellants.
The Supreme Court of Virginia and its Clerk filed a timely notice of appeal. We noted probable jurisdiction, 484 U. S. 923 (1987), and we now affirm.
I — I 1 — 4
Article IV, §2, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides that the “Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The provision was designed “to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned.” Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869). See also Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 395 (1948) (the Privileges and Immunities Clause “was designed to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy”). The Clause “thus establishes a norm of comity without specifying the particular subjects as to which citizens of one State coming within the jurisdiction of another are guaranteed equality of treatment.” Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S. 656, 660 (1975).
While the Privileges and Immunities Clause cites the term “Citizens,” for analytic purposes citizenship and residency are essentially interchangeable. See United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U. S. 208, 216 (1984). When examining claims that a citizenship or residency classification offends privileges and immunities protections, we undertake a two-step inquiry. First, the activity in question must be “ ‘sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation’ ... as to fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause . . . .” Id., at 221-222, quoting Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U. S. 371, 388 (1978). For it is “‘[ojnly with respect to those “privileges” and “immunities” bearing on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity’ that a State must accord residents and nonresidents equal treatment.” Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U. S., at 279, quoting Baldwin, supra, at 383. Second, if the challenged restriction deprives nonresidents of a protected privilege, we will invalidate it only if we conclude that the restriction is not closely related to the advancement of a substantial state interest. Piper, supra, at 284. Appellants assert that the residency requirement offends neither part of this test. We disagree.
A
Appellants concede, as they must, that our decision in Piper establishes that a nonresident who takes and passes an examination prescribed by the State, and who otherwise is qualified for the practice of law, has an interest in practicing law that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Appellants contend, however, that the discretionary admission provided for by Rule 1A:1 is not a privilege protected by the Clause for two reasons. First, appellants argue that the bar examination “serves as an adequate, alternative means of gaining admission to the bar. ” Brief for Appellants 20. In appellants’ view, “[s]o long as any applicant may gain admission to a State’s bar, without regard to residence, by passing the bar examination,” id., at 21, the State cannot be said to have discriminated against nonresidents “as a matter of fundamental concern.” Id., at 19. Second, appellants argue that the right to admission on motion is not within the purview of the Clause because, without offense to the Constitution, the State could require all bar applicants to pass an examination. Neither argument is persuasive.
We cannot accept appellants’ first theory because it is quite inconsistent with our precedents. We reaffirmed in Piper the well-settled principle that “‘one of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State.’” Piper, supra, at 280, quoting Toomer v. Witsell, supra, at 396. See also United Building & Construction Trades Council, supra, at 219 (“Certainly, the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the Clause”). After reviewing our precedents, we explicitly held that the practice of law, like other occupations considered in those cases, is sufficiently basic to the national economy to be deemed a privilege protected by the Clause. See Piper, supra, at 280-281. The clear import of Piper is that the Clause is implicated whenever, as is the case here, a State does not permit qualified nonresidents to practice law within its borders on terms of substantial equality with its own residents.
Nothing in our precedents, moreover, supports the contention that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not reach a State’s discrimination against nonresidents when such discrimination does not result in their total exclusion from the State. In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (1871), for example, the Court invalidated a statute under which residents paid an annual fee of $12 to $150 for a license to trade foreign goods, while nonresidents were required to pay $300. Similarly, in Toomer, supra, the Court held that nonresident fishermen could not be required to pay a license fee 100 times the fee charged to residents. In Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U. S. 518 (1978), the Court invalidated a statute requiring that residents be hired in preference to nonresidents for all positions related to the development of the State’s oil and gas resources. Indeed, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, the New Hampshire rule struck down in Piper did not result in the total exclusion of nonresidents from the practice of law in that State. 822 F. 2d, at 427 (citing Piper, supra, at 277, n. 2).
Further, we find appellants’ second theory — that Virginia could constitutionally require that all applicants to its bar take and pass an examination — quite irrelevant to the question whether the Clause is applicable in the circumstances of this case. A State’s abstract authority to require from resident and nonresident alike that which it has chosen to demand from the nonresident alone has never been held to shield the discriminatory distinction from the reach of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Thus, the applicability of the Clause to the present case no more turns on the legality vel non of an examination requirement than it turned on the inherent reasonableness of the fees charged to nonresidents in Toomer and Ward. The issue instead is whether the State has burdened the right to practice law, a privilege protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, by discriminating among otherwise equally qualified applicants solely on the basis of citizenship or residency. We conclude it has.
B
Our conclusion that the residence requirement burdens a privilege protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not conclude the matter, of course; for we repeatedly have recognized that the Clause, like other constitutional provisions, is not an absolute. See, e. g., Piper, supra, at 284; United Building & Construction Trades Council, 465 U. S., at 222; Toomer, 334 U. S., at 396. The Clause does not preclude disparity in treatment where substantial reasons exist for the discrimination and the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to such reasons. See United Building & Construction Trades Council, supra, at 222. In deciding whether the degree of discrimination bears a sufficiently close relation to the reasons proffered by the State, the Court has considered whether, within the full panoply of legislative choices otherwise available to the State, there exist alternative means of furthering the State’s purpose without implicating constitutional concerns. See Piper, supra, at 284.
Appellants offer two principal justifications for the Rule’s requirement that applicants seeking admission on motion reside within the Commonwealth of Virginia. First, they contend that the residence requirement assures, in tandem with the full-time practice requirement, that attorneys admitted on motion will have the same commitment to service and familiarity with Virginia law that is possessed by applicants securing admission upon examination. Attorneys admitted on motion, appellants argue, have “no personal investment” in the jurisdiction; consequently, they “are entitled to no presumption that they will willingly and actively participate in bar activities and obligations, or fulfill their public service responsibilities to the State’s client community.” Brief for Appellants 26-27. Second, appellants argue that the residency requirement facilitates enforcement of the full-time practice requirement of Rule 1A:1. We find each of these justifications insufficient to meet the State’s burden of showing that the discrimination is warranted by a substantial state objective and closely drawn to its achievement.
We acknowledge that a bar examination is one method of assuring that the admitted attorney has a stake in his or her professional licensure and a concomitant interest in the integrity and standards of the bar. A bar examination, as we know judicially and from our own experience, is not a casual or lighthearted exercise. The question, however, is whether lawyers who are admitted in other States and seek admission in Virginia are less likely to respect the bar and further its interests solely because they are nonresidents. We cannot say this is the case. While Pvper relied on an examination requirement as an indicium of the nonresident’s commitment to the bar and to the State’s legal profession, see Piper, 470 U. S., at 285, it does not follow that when the State waives the examination it may make a distinction between residents and nonresidents.
Friedman’s case proves the point. She earns her living working as an attorney in Virginia, and it is of scant relevance that her residence is located in the neighboring State of Maryland. It is indisputable that she has a substantial stake in the practice of law in Virginia. Indeed, despite appellants’ suggestion at oral argument that Friedman’s case is “atypical,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 51, the same will likely be true of all nonresident attorneys who are admitted on motion to the Virginia Bar, in light of the State’s requirement that attorneys so admitted show their intention to maintain an office and a regular practice in the State. See Application of Brown, 213 Va. 282, 286, n. 3, 191 S. E. 2d 812, 815, n. 3 (1972) (interpreting full-time practice requirement of Rule 1A:1). This requirement goes a long way toward ensuring that such attorneys will have an interest in the practice of law in Virginia that is at least comparable to the interest we ascribed in Piper to applicants admitted upon examination. Accordingly, we see no reason to assume that nonresident attorneys who, like Friedman, seek admission to the Virginia bar on motion will lack adequate incentives to remain abreast of changes in the law or to fulfill their civic duties.
Further, to the extent that the State is justifiably concerned with ensuring that its attorneys keep abreast of legal developments, it can protect these interests through other equally or more effective means that do not themselves infringe constitutional protections. While this Court is not well positioned to dictate specific legislative choices to the State, it is sufficient to note that such alternatives exist and that the State, in the exercise of its legislative prerogatives, is free to implement them. The Supreme Court of Virginia could, for example, require mandatory attendance at periodic continuing legal education courses. See Piper, supra, at 285, n. 19. The same is true with respect to the State’s interest that the nonresident bar member does his or her share of volunteer and pro bono work. A “nonresident bar member, like the resident member, could be required to represent indigents and perhaps to participate in formal legal-aid work.” Piper, supra, at 287 (footnote omitted).
We also reject appellants’ attempt to justify the residency restriction as a necessary aid to the enforcement of the full-time practice requirement of Rule 1A:1. Virginia already requires, pursuant to the full-time practice restriction of Rule 1A:1, that attorneys admitted on motion maintain an office for the practice of law in Virginia. As the Court of Appeals noted, the requirement that applicants maintain an office in Virginia facilitates compliance with the full-time practice requirement in nearly the identical manner that the residency restriction does, rendering the latter restriction largely redundant. 822 F. 2d, at 429. The office requirement furnishes an alternative to the residency requirement that is not only less restrictive, but also is fully adequate to protect whatever interest the State might have in the full-time practice restriction.
Ill
We hold that Virginia’s residency requirement for admission to the State’s bar without examination violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The nonresident’s interest in practicing law on terms of substantial equality with those enjoyed by residents is a privilege protected by the Clause. A State may not discriminate against nonresidents unless it shows that such discrimination bears a close relation to the achievement of substantial state objectives. Virginia has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The District Court did not address Friedman’s claims that the residency requirement of Rule 1A:1 also violates the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals did not pass on these contentions either, and our resolution of Friedman’s claim that the residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause makes it unnecessary for us to reach them.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue is whether excluding a geographically defined class of oil from the coverage of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act violates the Uniformity Clause.
h — H
During the 1970’s the Executive Branch regulated the price of domestic crude oil. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, pp. 4-5 (1979). Depending on its vintage and type, oil was divided into differing classes or tiers and assigned a corresponding ceiling price. Initially, there were only two tiers, a lower tier for “old oil” and an upper tier for new production. As the regulatory framework developed, new classes of oil were recognized.
In 1979, President Carter announced a program to remove price controls from domestic oil by September 30, 1981. See id., at 5. By eliminating price controls, the President sought to encourage exploration for new oil and to increase production of old oil' from marginally economic operations. See H. R. Doc. No. 96-107, p. 2 (1979). He recognized, however, that deregulating oil prices would produce substantial gains (referred to as “windfalls”) for some producers. The price of oil on the world market had risen markedly, and it was anticipated that deregulating the price of oil already in production would allow domestic producers to receive prices far in excess of their initial estimates. See ibid. Accordingly, the President proposed that Congress place an excise tax on the additional revenue resulting from decontrol.
Congress responded by enacting the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 229, 26 U. S. C. § 4986 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V). The Act divides domestic crude oil into three tiers and establishes an adjusted base price and a tax rate for each tier. See §§4986, 4989, and 4991. The base prices generally reflect the selling price of particular categories of oil under price controls, and the tax rates vary according to the vintages and types of oil included within each tier. See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, 96th Cong., 26-36 (Comm. Print 1981). The House Report explained that the Act is “designed to impose relatively high tax rates where production cannot be expected to respond very much to further increases in price and relatively low tax rates on oil whose production is likely to be responsive to price.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, at 7; see S. Rep. No. 96-394, p. 6 (1979).
The Act exempts certain classes of oil from the tax, 26 U. S. C. § 4991(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V), one of which is “exempt Alaskan oil,” § 4991(b)(3). It is defined as:
“any crude oil (other than Sadlerochit oil) which is produced—
“(1) from a reservoir from which oil has been produced in commercial quantities through a well located north of the Arctic Circle, or
“(2) from a well located on the northerly side of the divide of the Alaska-Aleutian Range and at least 75 miles from the nearest point on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.” § 4994(e).
Although the Act refers to this class of oil as “exempt Alaskan oil,” the reference is not entirely accurate. The Act exempts only certain oil produced in Alaska from the windfall profit tax. Indeed, less than 20% of current Alaskan production is exempt. Nor is the exemption limited to the State of Alaska. Oil produced in certain offshore territorial waters — beyond the limits of any State — is included within the exemption.
The exemption thus is not drawn on state political lines. Rather it reflects Congress’ considered judgment that unique climatic and geographic conditions require that oil produced from this exempt area be treated as a separate class of oil. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-817, p. 103 (1980). As Senator Gravel explained, the development and production of oil in arctic and subarctic regions is hampered by “severe weather conditions, remoteness, sensitive environmental and geological characteristics, and a lack of normal social and industrial infrastructure.” 125 Cong. Rec. 31733 (1979). These factors combine to make the average cost of drilling a well in Alaska as much as 15 times greater than that of drilling a well elsewhere in the United States. See 126 Cong. Rec. 5846 (1980) (remarks of Sen. Gravel). Accordingly, Congress chose to exempt oil produced in the defined region from the windfall profit tax. It determined that imposing such a tax “would discourage exploration and development of reservoirs in areas of extreme climatic conditions.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-817, at 103.
Six months after the Act was passed, independent oil producers and royalty owners filed suit in the District Court for the District of Wyoming, seeking a refund for taxes paid under the Act. On motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the Act violated the Uniformity Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. I. 550 F. Supp. 549, 553 (1982). It recognized that Congress’ power to tax is virtually without limitation, but noted that the Clause in question places one specific limit on Congress’ power to impose indirect taxes. Such taxes must be uniform throughout the United States, and uniformity is achieved only when the tax “ ‘operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.’” Ibid, (quoting Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 594 (1884)).
Because the Act exempts oil from certain areas within one State, the court found that the Act does not apply uniformly throughout the United States. It recognized that Congress could have “a rational justification for the exemption,” but concluded that “[distinctions based on geography are simply not allowed.” 550 F. Supp., at 553. The court then found that the unconstitutional provision exempting Alaskan oil could not be severed from the remainder of the Act. Id., at 554. It therefore held the entire windfall profit tax invalid. Id., at 555.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 459 U. S. 1199 (1983), and now reverse.
II
Appellees advance two arguments in support of the District Court’s judgment. First, they contend that the constitutional requirement that taxes be “uniform throughout the United States” prohibits Congress from exempting a specific geographic region from taxation. They concede that Congress may take geographic considerations into account in deciding what oil to tax. Brief for Taxpayer Appellees 6-7. But they argue that the Uniformity Clause prevents Congress from framing, as it did here, the resulting tax in terms of geographic boundaries. Second, they argue that the Alaskan oil exemption was an integral part of a compromise struck by Congress. Thus, it would be inappropriate to invalidate the exemption but leave the remainder of the tax in effect. Because we find the Alaskan exemption constitutional, we do not consider whether it is severable.
A
The Uniformity Clause conditions Congress’ power to impose indirect taxes. It provides that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. The debates in the Constitutional Convention provide little evidence of the Framers’ intent, but the concerns giving rise to the Clause identify its purpose more clearly. The Committee of Detail proposed as a remedy for interstate trade barriers that the power to regulate commerce among the States be vested in the National Government, and the Convention agreed. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 308 (1911); C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 567-570 (1928). Some States, however, remained apprehensive that the regionalism that had marked the Confederation would persist. Id., at 586-588. There was concern that the National Government would use its power over commerce to the disadvantage of particular States. The Uniformity Clause was proposed as one of several measures designed to limit the exercise of that power. See 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 417-418; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). As Justice Story explained:
“[The purpose of the Clause] was to cut off all undue preferences of one State over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different States, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one State might be built up on the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few States in Congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favored neighbors.” 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 957 (T. Cooley ed. 1873).
See also 3 Annals of Cong. 378-379 (1792) (remarks of Hugh Williamson); Address of Luther Martin to the Maryland Legislature (Nov. 29, 1787), reprinted in 3 M. Farrand, supra, at 205.
This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., at 594, a “tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.”
Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained, “the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and. immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation. ” Id., at 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that “there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.” Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress’ ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 106; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521-522 (1899).
The question that remains, however, is whether the Uniformity Clause prohibits Congress from defining the class of objects to be taxed in geographic terms. The Court has not addressed this issue squarely. We recently held, however, that the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause did not require invalidation of a geographically defined class of debtors. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 161 (1974). In that litigation, creditors of bankrupt railroads challenged a statute that was passed to reorganize eight major railroads in the northeast and midwest regions of the country. They argued that the statute violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause because it operated only in a single statutorily defined region. The Court found that “[t]he uniformity provision does not deny Congress power to take into account differences that exist between different parts of the country, and to fashion legislation to resolve geographically isolated problems.” Id., at 159. The fact that the Act applied to a geographically defined class did not render it unconstitutional. We noted that the Act in fact had operated uniformly throughout the United States. During the period in which the Act was effective, no railroad reorganization proceeding had been pending outside the statutorily defined region. Id., at 160.
In concluding that the uniformity provision had not been violated, we relied in large part on the Head Money Cases, supra, where the effect of the statute had been to distinguish between geographic regions. We rejected the argument that “the Rail Act differs from the head tax statute because by its own terms the Rail Act applies only to one designated region .... The definition of the region does not obscure the reality that the legislation applies to all railroads under reorganization pursuant to § 77 during the time the Act applies.” 419 U. S., at 161 (emphasis added).
B
With these principles in mind, we now consider whether Congress’ decision to treat Alaskan oil as a separate class of oil violates the Uniformity Clause. We do not think that the language of the Clause or this Court’s decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. As construed in the Head Money Cases, the Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. Where Congress defines the subject of a tax in nongeographic terms, the Uniformity Clause is satisfied. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., at 106. We cannot say that when Congress uses geographic terms to identify the same subject, the classification is invalidated. The Uniformity Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems. See Head Money Cases, supra, at 595. This is the substance of our decision in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S., at 156-161. But where Congress does choose to frame a tax in geographic terms, we will examine the classification closely to see if there is actual geographic discrimination. See id., at 160-161.
In this case, we hold that the classification is constitutional. As discussed above, Congress considered the windfall profit tax a necessary component of its program to encourage the exploration for and production of oil. It perceived that the decontrol legislation would result — in certain circumstances — in profits essentially unrelated to the objective of the program, and concluded that these profits should be taxed. Accordingly, Congress divided oil into various classes and gave more favorable treatment to those classes that would be responsive to increased prices.
Congress clearly viewed “exempt Alaskan oil” as a unique class of oil that, consistent with the scheme of the Act, merited favorable treatment. It had before it ample evidence of the disproportionate costs and difficulties — the fragile ecology, the harsh environment, and the remote location — associated with extracting oil from this region. We cannot fault its determination, based on neutral factors, that this oil required separate treatment. Nor is there any indication that Congress sought to benefit Alaska for reasons that would offend the purpose of the Clause. Nothing in the Act’s legislative history suggests that Congress intended to grant Alaska an undue preference at the expense of other oil-producing States. This is especially clear because the windfall profit tax itself falls heavily on the State of Alaska. See n. 5, supra.
H hH
Had Congress described this class of oil m nongeographic terms, there would be no question as to the Act’s constitutionality. We cannot say that identifying the class in terms of its geographic boundaries renders the exemption invalid. Where, as here, Congress has exercised its considered judgment with respect to an enormously complex problem, we are reluctant to disturb its determination. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
In addition to lower- and upper-tier oil, the Federal Energy Administration recognized essentially four other classes of crude oil: stripper oil, Alaska North Slope oil, oil produced on the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and incremental tertiary oil. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-304, p. 12 (1979). Alaska North Slope oil was considered a separate class of oil because its disproportionately high transportation costs forced producers to keep the wellhead price well below the ceiling price. See 42 Fed. Reg. 41566-41568 (1977).
These tiers incorporate to a large extent the categories of oil developed under the Federal Energy Administration’s crude-oil pricing regulations. Tier two, for example, includes stripper-well oil and oil from a national petroleum reserve held by the United States. See 26 U. S. C. § 4991(d) (1976 ed., Supp. V).
Generally, the windfall profit is the difference between the current wellhead price of the oil and the sum of the adjusted base price. See 26 U. S. C. § 4988(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V). The amount of the tax is calculated by multiplying the resulting difference by the applicable rate. § 4987(a). The tax on each barrel of oil thus varies according to the adjusted base price and rate, both of which are established by the tier into which the oil is placed.
These classes are defined both by the identity of the producer and the nature of the oil. Section 4991(b)(1), for example, exempts oil produced “from a qualified governmental interest or a qualified charitable interest.” Congress determined that because the revenues from this oil would be used by nonprofit entities, it was appropriate to exempt them from the tax. See S. Rep. No. 96-894, pp. 60-61 (1979). The Act also exempts types of oil, such as front-end oil. § 4991(b)(4). Subject to certain conditions, front-end oil is oil that is sold to finance tertiary recovery projects. See § 4994(c).
Of the total amount of oil currently produced in Alaska, 82.6% is subject to the windfall profit tax, 12.4% is exempt from the tax because it is produced from a “qualified governmental interest,” see n. 4, supra, and 5.1% is exempt because it is “exempt Alaskan oil.” Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 7.
A particular problem results from the presence of permafrost, which exists throughout the exempt area. Permafrost is ground that remains frozen continuously, but which will thaw and subside if the surface vegetation insulating it is disturbed. See University of Alaska, Alaska Regional Profiles, Yukon Region 98-100. To protect the surface vegetation, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources limits the use of vehicles and machinery to those months when the surface is frozen and covered with snow. Thus, construction and seismic activities are restricted primarily to periods when the climate is at its harshest. Temperatures of - 40 to - 50 degrees Fahrenheit are not uncommon, see id., at 15-16, and what normally might be accomplished with relative ease becomes a demanding task.
The American Petroleum Institute reported comparative costs for drilling wells in Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Texas. The average cost of an onshore Alaskan well was $3,181,000. See American Petroleum Institute, 1976 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs 12 (1977). The next highest cost was $292,000 in Louisiana. See id., at 28-29. See also Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, Oil-Gas Drilling and Services, Vol. 150, No. 40, Sec. 1 (Oct. 7, 1982). Although not identical to Senator Gravel’s figures, these sources indicate that the cost of developing oil in Alaska far exceeds that in other parts of the country. Moreover, because these figures represent the cost of an average Alaskan well, they reflect the lower expenses incurred in developing oil in nonexempt areas. They thus understate the costs of drilling in the exempt region.
Article I, §8, cl. 1, provides:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Article I, §9, cl. 4, provides that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States by population. Indirect taxes, however, are subject to the rule of uniformity. See Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 176 (1796) (opinion of Paterson, J.).
The Clause was proposed on August 25 and adopted on August 31 without discussion. See 2 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 417-418, 481 (1911). When the Committee of Style reported the final draft of the Constitution on September 12, it failed to include the Clause. Id., at 594 (Clause interlined by James Madison). This omission was corrected two days later by appending the Clause to Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Id., at 614.
The origins of the Uniformity Clause are linked to those of the Port Preference Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 6. The two were proposed together, id., at 417-418, and reported out of a special committee as an interrelated limitation on the National Government’s commerce power, see id., at 437; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 103-106 (1900). They were separated without explanation on September 14 when the Convention remedied their omission from the September 12 draft.
Knowlton v. Moore represents the Court’s most detailed consideration of the Uniformity Clause. See 178 U. S., at 83-106. The issue in Knowlton, however, only presented a variation on the question addressed in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 (1884). Rather than distinguishing between port and inland cities, the statute at issue in Knowlton imposed a progressive tax on legacies and varied the rate of the tax among classes of legatees. The argument was that Congress could not distinguish among legacies or people receiving them; it was required to tax all legacies at the same rate or none. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., at 83-84. In rejecting this argument, the Court reaffirmed its conclusion in the Head Money Cases that Congress may distinguish between similar classes in selecting the subject of a tax. 178 U. S., at 106.
Since Knowlton, the Court has not had occasion to consider the Uniformity Clause in any detail. See, e. g., Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 17 (1927); LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 392 (1921).
In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901), the Court considered whether Congress could place a duty on merchandise imported from Puerto Rico. The Court assumed that if Puerto Rico were part of the United States, the duty would be unconstitutional under the Uniformity Clause or the Port Preference Clause. Id., at 249. It upheld the duty because it found that Puerto Rico was not part of the country for the purposes of either Clause. Id., at 287.
Article I, § 8, cl. 4, provides that Congress shall have power “To establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Although the purposes giving rise to the Bankruptcy Clause are not identical to those underlying the Uniformity Clause, we have looked to the interpretation of one Clause in determining the meaning of the other. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 160-161 (1974).
Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. v. Gibbons, 455 U. S. 457 (1982), is not to the contrary. There we held that a statute designed to aid one bankrupt railroad violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause. We stated: “The conclusion is . . . inevitable that [the statute] is not a response either to the particular problems of major railroad bankruptcies or to any geographically isolated problem: it is a response to the problems caused by the bankruptcy of one railroad.” Id., at 470 (emphasis in original). It is clear that in this case Congress sought to deal with a geographically isolated problem.
Congress’ view that oil from this area of Alaska merits separate treatment is consistent with the actions of both the Federal Energy Administration, see n. 1, supra, and the President, see H. R. Doc. No. 96-107, p. 3 (1979). See also Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, The Design of a Windfall Profit Tax 20-23 (Comm. Print 1979).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether an employer necessarily violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k), when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only prior to the PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy leave than for medical leave generally. We hold there is no necessary violation; and the benefit calculation rule in this case is part of a bona fide seniority system under § 703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2QQ0e-2(h), which insulates it from challenge.
I
Since 1914, AT&T Corporation (then American Telephone & Telegraph Company) and its Bell System Operating Companies, including Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter, collectively, AT&T), have provided pensions and other benefits based on a seniority system that relies upon an employee’s term of employment, understood as the period of service at the company minus uncredited leave time.
In the 1960s and early to mid-1970s, AT&T employees on “disability” leave got full service credit for the entire periods of absence, but those who took “personal” leaves of absence received maximum service credit of 30 days. Leave for pregnancy was treated as personal, not disability. AT&T altered this practice in 1977 by adopting its Maternity Payment Plan (MPP), entitling pregnant employees to disability benefits and service credit for up to six weeks of leave. If the absence went beyond six weeks, however, it was treated as personal leave, with no further benefits or credit, whereas employees out on disability unrelated to pregnancy continued to receive full service credit for the duration of absence. This differential treatment of pregnancy leave, under both the pre-1977 plan and the MPP, was lawful: in General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), this Court concluded that a disability-benefits plan excluding disabilities related to pregnancy was not sex-based discrimination within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.
In 1978, Congress amended Title VII by passing the PDA, 92 Stat. 2076, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k), which superseded Gilbert so as to make it “clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions.” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 684 (1983). On April 29, 1979, the effective date of the PDA, AT&T adopted its Anticipated Disability Plan which replaced the MPP and provided service credit for pregnancy leave on the same basis as leave taken for other temporary disabilities. AT&T did not, however, make any retroactive adjustments to the service credit calculations of women who had been subject to the pre-PDA personnel policies.
Pour of those women are named respondents in this case. Each of them received less service credit for pregnancy leave than she would have accrued on the same leave for disability: seven months less for Noreen Hulteen; about six months for Eleanora Collet; and about two for Elizabeth Snyder and Linda Porter. Respondents Hulteen, Collet, and Snyder have retired from AT&T; respondent Porter has yet to. If her total term of employment had not been decreased due to her pregnancy leave, each would be entitled to a greater pension benefit.
Eventually, each of the individual respondents and respondent Communications Workers of America (CWA), the collective-bargaining representative for the majority of AT&T’s nonmanagement employees, filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII. In 1998, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that AT&T had discriminated against respondent Hulteen and “a class of other similarly-situated female employees whose adjusted [commencement of service] date has been used to determine eligibility for a service or disability pension, the amount of pension benefits, and eligibility for certain other benefits and programs, including early retirement offerings.” App. 54-55. The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to each named respondent and the CWA (collectively, Hulteen), and Hulteen filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On dueling motions for summary judgment, the District Court held itself bound by a prior Ninth Circuit decision, Pallas v. Pacific Bell, 940 F. 2d 1324 (1991), which found a Title VII violation where post-PDA retirement eligibility calculations incorporated pre-PDA accrual rules that differentiated on the basis of pregnancy. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a-122a. The Circuit, en bane, affirmed and held that Pallas’s conclusion that “calculation of service credit excluding time spent on pregnancy leave violates Title VII was, and is, correct.” 498 F. 3d 1001, 1003 (2007).
The Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with the holdings of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits that reliance on a pre-PDA differential accrual rule to determine pension benefits does not constitute a current violation of Title VII. See Ameritech Benefit Plan Comm. v. Communication Workers of Am., 220 F. 3d 814 (CA7 2000) (finding no actionable Title VII violation given the existence of a bona fide seniority system); Leffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F. 3d 428 (CA6 2007) (characterizing claim as challenging the continuing effects of past discrimination rather than alleging a current Title VII violation). We granted certiorari in order to resolve this split, 554 U. S. 916 (2008), and now reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
II
Title VII makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(l). Generally, a claim under Title VII must be filed “within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” §2000e-5(e)(1). In this case, Hulteen has identified the challenged practice as applying the terms of AT&T’s seniority system to calculate and pay pension benefits to women who took pregnancy leaves before April 29, 1979. She says the claim is timely because the old service credit differential for pregnancy leave was carried forward through the system’s calculations so as to produce an effect in the amount of the benefit when payments began.
There is no question that the payment of pension benefits in this case is a function of a seniority system, given the fact that calculating benefits under the pension plan depends in part on an employee’s term of employment. As we have said, “[a] ‘seniority system’ is a scheme that, alone or in tandem with non-‘seniority’ criteria, allots to employees ever improving employment rights and benefits as their relative lengths of pertinent employment increase.” California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant, 444 U. S. 598, 605-606 (1980) (footnote omitted). Hulteen is also undoubtedly correct that AT&T’s personnel policies affecting the calculation of any employee’s start date should be considered “ancillary rules” and elements of the system, necessary for it to operate at all, being rules that “define which passages of time will ‘count’ towards the accrual of seniority and which will not.” Id., at 607.
But contrary to Hulteen’s position, establishing the continuity of a seniority system whose results depend in part on obsolete rules entailing disadvantage to once-pregnant employees does not resolve this case. Although adopting a service credit rule unfavorable to those out on pregnancy leave would violate Title VII today, a seniority system does not necessarily violate the statute when it gives current effect to such rules that operated before the PDA. “[S]eniority systems are afforded special treatment under Title VII,” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 81 (1977), reflecting Congress’s understanding that their stability is valuable in its own right. Hence, § 703(h): Benefit differentials produced by a bona fide seniority-based pension plan are permitted unless they are “the result of an intention to discriminate.” Ibid.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . . system . . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(h).
In Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977), advantages of a seniority system flowed disproportionately to white, as against minority, employees, because of an employer’s prior discrimination in job assignments. We recognized that this “disproportionate distribution of advantages does in a very real sense operate to freeze the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices[, b]ut both the literal terms of § 703(h) and the legislative history of Title VII demonstrate that Congress considered this very effect of many seniority systems and extended a measure of immunity to them.” Id., at 350 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he unmistakable purpose of § 703(h) was to make clear that the routine application of a bona fide seniority system would not be unlawful under Title VII.” Id., at 352. The seniority system in Teamsters exemplified a bona fide system without any discriminatory terms (the discrimination having occurred in executive action hiring employees and assigning jobs), so that the Court could conclude that the system “did not have its genesis in ... discrimination, and ... has been maintained free from any illegal purpose.” Id., at 356.
AT&T’s system must also be viewed as bona fide, that is, as a system that has no discriminatory terms, with the consequence that subsection (h) controls the result here, just as in Teamsters. It is true that in this case the pre-April 29, 1979, rule of differential treatment was an element of the seniority system itself; but it did not taint the system under the terms of subsection (h), because this Court held in Gilbert that an accrual rule limiting the seniority credit for time taken for pregnancy leave did not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of sex. As a matter of law, at that time, “an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage [was] not a gender-based discrimination at all.” 429 U. S., at 136. Although the PDA would have made it discriminatory to continue the accrual policies of the old rule, AT&T amended that rule as of the effective date of the Act, April 29,1979; the new one, treating pregnancy and other temporary disabilities the same way, remains a part of AT&T’s seniority system today.
This account of litigation, legislation, and the evolution of the system’s terms is the answer to Hulteen’s argument that Teamsters supports her position. She correctly points out that a “seniority system that perpetuates the effects of preAct discrimination cannot be bona fide if an intent to discriminate entered into its very adoption,” 431 U. S., at 346, n. 28, and she would characterize AT&T’s seniority system as intentionally discriminatory, on the theory that the accrual rule for pregnancy leave was facially discriminatory from the start. She claims further support from Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187 (1991), in which we said that “explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination,” and that such facial discrimination is intentional discrimination even if not based on any underlying malevolence. Id., at 199. Hulteen accordingly claims that the superseded differential affecting current benefits was, and remains, “discriminatory in precisely the way the PDA prohibits,” Brief for Respondents 18.
But Automobile Workers is not on point. The policy in that case, prohibiting women from working in jobs with lead exposure unless they could show themselves incapable of childbearing, was put in place after the PDA became law and under its terms was facially discriminatory. In this case, however, AT&T’s intent when it adopted the pregnancy leave rule (before the PDA) was to give differential treatment that as a matter of law, as Gilbert held, was not gender-based discrimination. Because AT&T’s differential accrual rule was therefore a permissible differentiation given the law at the time, there was nothing in the seniority system at odds with the subsection (h) bona fide requirement. The consequence is that subsection (h) is as applicable here as it was in Teamsters, and the calculations of credited service that determine pensions are the results of a permissibly different standard under subsection (h) today.
The only way to conclude here that the subsection would not support the application of AT&T’s system would be to read the PDA as applying retroactively to recharacterize the acts as having been illegal when done, contra Gilbert. But this is not a serious possibility. As we have said:
“Because it accords with widely held intuitions about how statutes ordinarily operate, a presumption against retroactivity will generally coincide with legislative and public expectations. Requiring clear intent assures that Congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential unfairness of retroactive application and determined that it is an acceptable price to pay for the eountervailing benefits.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 272-273 (1994).
There is no such clear intent here, indeed, no indication at all that Congress had retroactive application in mind; the evidence points the other way. Congress provided for the PDA to take effect on the date of enactment, except in its application to certain benefit programs, as to which effectiveness was held back 180 days. Act of Oct. 31, 1978, §2(b), 92 Stat. 2076, note following 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k) (1976 ed., Supp. III). The House Report adverted to these benefit schemes:
“As the Gilbert decision permits employers to exclude pregnancy-related coverage from employee benefit plans, [the bill] provides for [a] transition period of 180 days to allow employees [sic] to comply with the explicit provisions of this amendment. It is the committee’s intention to provide for an orderly and equitable transition, with the least disruption for employers and employees, consistent with the purposes of the bill.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, p. 8 (1978).
This is the language of prospective intent, not retrospective revision.
Hulteen argues that she nonetheless has a challenge to AT&T’s current payment of pension benefits under § 706(e)(2) of Title VII, believing (again mistakenly) that this subsection affects the validity of any arrangement predating the PDA that would be facially discriminatory if instituted today. Brief for Respondents 27-29. Section 706(e)(2) provides that
“an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to a seniority system that has been adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this sub-chapter (whether or not that discriminatory purpose is apparent on the face of the seniority provision), when the seniority system is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the seniority system, or when a person aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system or provision of the system.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e)(2).
But, as the text makes clear, this subsection determines the moments at which a seniority system violates Title VII only if it is a system “adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this subchapter.” As discussed above, the Court has unquestionably held that the feature of AT&T’s seniority system at issue was not discriminatory when adopted, let alone intentionally so in violation of this subchapter. That leaves § 706(e)(2) without any application here.
It is equally unsound for Hulteen to argue that when she retired AT&T could have chosen to give post-PDA credit to pre-PDA pregnancy leave, making its failure to do so facially discriminatory at that time. If a choice to rely on a favorable statute turned every past differentiation into contemporary discrimination, subsection (h) would never apply.
Hulteen’s remaining argument (as of the time the case was submitted to us) is that our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986) (per curiam), is on her side. In Bazemore, black employees of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, who received less pay than comparable whites under a differential compensation plan extending back to pre-Title VII segregation, brought suit in 1971 claiming that pay disparities persisted. Id., at 389-391 (Brennan, J., concurring in part). We concluded that “[a] pattern or practice that would have constituted a violation of Title VII, but for the fact that the statute had not yet become effective, became a violation upon Title VIPs effective date, and to the extent an employer continued to engage in that act or practice, it is liable under that statute.” Id., at 395.
Bazemore has nothing to say here. To begin with, it did not involve a seniority system subject to subsection (h); rather, the employer in Bazemore had a racially based pay structure under which black employees were paid less than white employees. Further, after Title VII became law, the employer failed to eliminate the discriminatory practice, even though the new statute had turned what once was legally permissible into something unlawful. Bazemore would be on point only if, after the PDA, AT&T continued to apply an unfavorable credit differential for pregnancy leave simply because it had begun to do that before the PDA. AT&T’s system, by contrast, provides future benefits based on past, completed events, that were entirely lawful at the time they occurred.
Ill
We have accepted supplemental briefing after the argument on the possible effect on this case of the recent amendment to § 706(e) of Title VII, adopted in response to Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U. S. 618 (2007), and dealing specifically with discrimination in compensation: Hulteen argues that payment of the pension benefits at issue in this case marks the moment at which she “is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice,” and she reads the statute as providing that such a “decision or other practice” may not be applied to her disadvantage.
“For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.” Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-2, §3,123 Stat. 5-6.
But the answer to this claim is essentially the same as the answer to Hulteen’s argument that § 706(e)(2) helps her, supra, at 713-714. For the reasons already discussed, AT&T’s pre-PDA decision not to award Hulteen service credit for pregnancy leave was not discriminatory, with the consequence that Hulteen has not been “affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.” §3, 123 Stat. 6.
IV
Bona fide seniority systems allow, among other things, for predictable financial consequences, both for the employer who pays the bill and for the employee who gets the benefit. Cf. Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U. S. 739, 743 (2004) (noting that the central feature of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., is its “object of protecting employees’ justified expectations of receiving the benefits their employers promise them”). As § 703(h) demonstrates, Congress recognized the salience of these reliance interests and, where not based upon or resulting from an intention to discriminate, gave them protection. Because the seniority system run by AT&T is bona fide, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
In 1982, a consent decree and modified final judgment (MFJ) were entered to resolve the Government’s antitrust suit against American Telephone & Telegraph Company. The MFJ resulted in the breakup of American Telephone & Telegraph and the divestiture of the local Bell System Operating Companies, including Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (PT&T). Many employees of the former Bell System Operating Companies became employees of the new AT&T Corporation. The Plan of Reorganization, approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. 1057, aff’d sub nom. California v. United States, 464 U. S. 1013 (1983), provided that “all employees will carry with them all pre-divestiture Bell System service regardless of the organizational unit or corporation by which they are employed immediately after divestiture.” App. 54. Respondents in this case were employed at PT&T. After the divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies in 1984, these women became employees of AT&T Corporation and their service calculations, as computed by PT&T under its accrual rules, were carried over to AT&T Corporation.
AT&T’s calculation of a term of employment is a more complicated endeavor, requiring the creation and maintenance of an individual “start date” for each employee, which is adjusted based on the relevant leave policy.
Section 701(k) of Title VII provides that “women affected by pregnancy . . . shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section [703(h)] of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k). Hulteen contends that, in light of this language, § 703(h) does not apply at all to claims of fringe-benefit discrimination under the PDA. We cannot agree. Hulteen’s reading would result in the odd scenario that pregnancy discrimination, alone among all categories of discrimination (race, color, religion, other sex-based claims, and national origin), would receive dispensation from the general application of subsection (h).
A better explanation is that § 701(k) refers only to the final sentence of § 703(h), which reads that “[i]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subehapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206(d) of title 29.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(h). This final sentence of subsection (h), referred to as the Bennett Amendment, served to reconcile the Equal Pay Act of 1963,77 Stat. 56,29 U. S. C. § 206(d), with Title VII. See County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U. S. 161, 194 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). In General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), this Court had concluded that the amendment permitted wage discrimination based on pregnancy. Id., at 144-145. By adding the language, “nothing in section [703(h)] of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise,” to the PDA, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k), Congress wanted to ensure that, in addition to replacing Gilbert with a rule that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is sex discrimination, it foreclosed the possibility that this Court’s interpretation of the Bennett Amendment could be construed, going forward, to permit wage discrimination based on pregnancy.
Gilbert recognized that differential treatment could still represent intentionally discriminatory treatment if pretextual, 429 U. S., at 136, and that a forbidden discriminatory effect could result if a disability-benefits plan produced overall preferential treatment for one sex, id,., at 138. Neither theory is advanced here.
In Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U. S. 136 (1977), we reaffirmed our holding in Gilbert that Title VII “did not require that greater economic benefits be paid to one sex or the other ‘because of their differing roles in “the scheme of human existence.’”” Id., at 142 (quoting Gilbert, supra, at 139, n. 17). But we noted that Gilberts holding did not extend to “permit an employer to burden female employees in such a way as to deprive them of employment opportunities because of their different role.” Satty, supra, at 142. Cancellation of benefits previously accrued, therefore, was considered facially violative at the time, but such a situation is not presented here.
Although certain Courts of Appeals had previously concluded that treating pregnancy leave less favorably than other disability leave constituted sex discrimination under Title VII, this Court in Gilbert clearly rejected that conclusion, 429 U. S., at 147 (Brennan, J., dissenting); see also id., at 162 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Gilbert declared the meaning and scope of sex discrimination under Title VII and held that previous views to the contrary were wrong as a matter of law. And “[a] judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.” Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312-313 (1994); see also id., at 313, n. 12. It is therefore to no avail to argue that the pregnancy leave cap was unlawful before Gilbert and that the PDA returned the law to its prior state.
In so saying, we assume that § 701(k) has no application, as explained in footnote 3, supra. Cf. post, at 720-721 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
To the extent Hulteen means to claim, as a factual matter, that the accrual rule was merely advisory, requiring a fresh choice to apply it in the benefit context, she points to nothing in the record supporting such a proposition.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This was a libel in admiralty brought against respondent Union Carbide Corporation by petitioner, the adminis-tratrix of Marvin Paul Goett. Goett had been an em- * ployee of respondent Amherst Barge Company, which was engaged in repairing a river barge owned by Union. The decedent was working on the barge when he fell off into the waters of the Kanawha River, and, after- fruitless efforts at rescue, was drowned. The theory of the libel was that, alternatively, Union was negligent in turning over the barge to Amherst without its being equipped with rescue equipment, or that the vessel was unsea-worthy without such equipment; and that the lack of rescue equipment caused the decedent’s death. The accident had taken place in West Virginia waters and that State’s Wrongful Death Act was relied upon. The District Court found that the vessel was in fact unseaworthy and that Union was negligent in the respect charged, causing the death of decedent, and that the decedent was not shown to have been guilty of contributory negligence or to have assumed the risk. The District Court bottomed Union’s liability on negligence, and awarded petitioner . $20,000 in damages, the maximum allowable under the West Virginia Act, though finding that the actual damages were substantially higher; On Union’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was reversed. 256 F. 2d 449.
The Court of Appeals held that, as a- matter of law, Union owed no duty to the employees of Amherst once the vessel had been turned over to the latter. It accordingly reversed the District Court’s finding of negligence. It further held, contrary to the District Court, that the vessel was not unseaworthy at the time of the accident, and that in any event the decedent was not a person to whom the warranty of seaworthiness was owed. In the light of this determination, it did not pass on the question whether unseaworthiness would be in any event available as a groiind for recovery in a. West Virginia wrongful death action involving a maritime tort. We granted certiorari. 359 U. S. 923.
This case was decided in the lower courts before the decision of this Court in The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, where it was held that it .was a question of state law as to what is the proper substantive law to be applied to maritime torts within the territorial jurisdictions of the States in wrongful death cases. See Hess v. United States, ante, p. 314. Under this holding, in a maritime tort death case, the State might apply the substantive law generally applicable to wrongful death cases within its territory, or it might choose to incorporate the general maritime law’s concepts of unseaworthiness or negligence. Here the Court of Appeals did not decide which standard the West Virginia Act adopted. It did not articulate on .what basis it was applying federal law if in fact it- was; there is no intimation that it believed the West Virginia Act incorporated the maritime law’s negligence standard, and in fact it expressly left open the question whether that Act incorporated the-maritime standard of seaworthiness. It seems more likely to us to have passed on the negligence issue as a matter of federal maritime law; it cited only cases applying the general maritime law’s and the Jones Act’s concepts of negligence, and general treatises; no West Virginia authority was relied upon. The least that can be said is that it is highly doubtful which law the Court of Appeals applied; and so in the absence of any expression by it of which standard the West Virginia Act adopted, we do not believe we can permit its judgment to stand after our intervening decision in The Tungus.
. Accordingly, so that the Court of Appeals, which is closer than we to matters of local law, may pass upon the questions of West Virginia law involved in the light of this Court’s holding in The fungus, we vacate its judgment and remand the cause to it to determine: (a) Whether the West Virginia Wrongful Death Act, as to this maritime tort, employs the West Virginia or the-general maritime law concept of negligence; and, in the light of its determination, (b) whether the district judge’s finding as to negligence is correct finder the proper substantive law. To facilitate our discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ findings as to unseaworthiness, it should also determine whether the West Virginia Act incorporates this standard of the general maritime law in death actions involving maritime torts. Cf. Barr v. Matteo, 355 U. S. 171.
Vacated and remanded.
For examples of the general maritime law’s concept of negligence, see Kermarec v. Gompagnie Generate Transatlantique, 358 U. S. 625; Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 409; The Max Morris, 137 U. S. 1, 14-15.
The respondent here cites West Virginia precedents in an effort to sustain the Court of Appeals’ determination.
The vie;ws of the dissenting opinions here confirm us in our doubts. Some of the dissents take the view that the Court of Appeals should be affirmed because it undoubtedly decided the point as a matter of state law, while another is of the view that the Court of Appeals should be affirmed because it made sufficiently clear that it decided the point as a matter of federal law. Our views lie between these two.
While the Court of Appeals declared that “The right to maintain such a suit can be enforced in admiralty only in accordance with the substantive law of the state whose statute is being adopted,” 256 F. 2d, at 453, this discussion seems to us probably to have been in the context of the monetary limitation of the Act. Certainly there was no specific identification of this statement with the discussion of whether the negligence finding was justified. And if the statement is taken to mean that a State cannot adopt the maritime standard, it is not correct.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join this opinion, but solely under compulsion of the Court’s ruling in The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588. They believe that as long as the view of the law represented by that ruling prevails in the Court, it should be applied evenhandedly, despite the contrary views of some' of those originally joining it that state law is the measure of recovery when it helps the defendant, as in The Tungus, and is not the measure of recovery when it militates against the defendant, as in Hess v. United States, ante, p. 314. However, they note their continued disagreement with the ruling in The Tungus, and reserve their position as to whether it should be overruled, particularly in the light of the controversy application of it has engendered among its original subscribers. See the various separate opinions in this case and in Hess v. United States, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III-E.
Federal law prohibits the broadcasting of “any... indecent... language,” 18 U. S. C. § 1464, which includes expletives referring to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). This case concerns the adequacy of the Federal Communications Commission’s explanation of its decision that this sometimes forbids the broadcasting of indecent expletives even when the offensive words are not repeated.
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
The Communications Act of 1934,48 Stat. 1064,47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), established a system of limited-term broadcast licenses subject to various “conditions” designed “to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission,” § 301 (2000 ed.). Almost 28 years ago we said that “[a] licensed broadcaster is granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain; when he accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public obligations.” CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U. S. 367, 395 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted).
One of the burdens that licensees shoulder is the indecency ban — the statutory proscription against “utter[ingj any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication,” 18 U. S. C. § 1464 — which Congress has instructed the Commission to enforce between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, § 16(a), 106 Stat. 954, note following 47 U. S. C. § 303. Congress has given the Commission various means of enforcing the indecency ban, including civil fines, see § 503(b)(1), and license revocations or the denial of license renewals, see §§ 309(k), 312(a)(6).
The Commission first invoked the statutory ban on indecent broadcasts in 1975, declaring a daytime broadcast of George Carlin's “Filthy Words” monologue actionably indecent. In re Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Foundation Station WBAI (FM), 56 F. C. C. 2d 94. At that time, the Commission announced the definition of indecent speech that it uses to this day, prohibiting “language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” Id., at 98.
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, we upheld the Commission’s order against statutory and constitutional challenge. We rejected the broadcasters’ argument that the statutory proscription applied only to speech appealing to the prurient interest, noting that “the normal definition of ‘indecent’ merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.” Id., at 740. And we held that the First Amendment allowed Carlin’s monologue to be banned in light of the “uniquely pervasive presence” of the medium and the fact that broadcast programming is “uniquely accessible to children.” Id., at 748-749.
In the ensuing years, the Commission took a cautious, but gradually expanding, approach to enforcing the statutory prohibition against indecent broadcasts. Shortly after Pacifica, 438 U. S. 726, the Commission expressed its “intension] strictly to observe the narrowness of the Pacifica holding,” which “relied in part on the repetitive occurrence of the ‘indecent’ words” contained in Carlin’s monologue. In re Application of WGBH Educ. Foundation, 69 F. C. C. 2d 1250, 1254, ¶ 10 (1978). When the full Commission next considered its indecency standard, however, it repudiated the view that its enforcement power was limited to “deliberate, repetitive use of the seven words actually contained in the George Carlin monologue.” In re Pacifica Foundation, Inc., 2 FCC Red. 2698, 2699, ¶ 12 (1987). The Commission determined that such a “highly restricted enforcement standard... was unduly narrow as a matter of law and inconsistent with [the Commission’s] enforcement responsibilities under Section 1464.” In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Pa., 3 FCC Red. 930, ¶ 5 (1987). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this expanded enforcement standard against constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act challenge. See Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F. 2d 1332 (1988) (R. Ginsburg, J.), superseded in part by Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F. 3d 654 (1995) (en banc).
Although the Commission had expanded its enforcement beyond the “repetitive use of specific words or phrases,” it preserved a distinction between literal and nonliteral (or “expletive”) uses of evocative language. In re Pacifica Foundation, Inc., 2 FCC Red., at 2699, ¶13. The Commission explained that each literal “description or depiction of sexual or excretory functions must be examined in context to determine whether it is patently offensive,” but that “deliberate and repetitive use... is a requisite to a finding of indecency” when a complaint focuses solely on the use of nonliteral expletives. Ibid.
Over a decade later, the Commission emphasized that the “full context” in which particular materials appear is “critically important,” but that a few “principal” factors guide the inquiry, such as the “explicitness or graphic nature” of the material, the extent to which the material “dwells on or repeats” the offensive material, and the extent to which the material was presented to “pander,” to “titillate,” or to “shock.” In re Industry Guidance on Commission’s Case Law Interpreting 18 U. S. C. §1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd. 7999, 8002, ¶ 9, 8003, ¶ 10 (2001) (emphasis deleted). “No single factor,” the Commission said, “generally provides the basis for an indecency finding,” but “where sexual or excretory references have been made once or have been passing or fleeting in nature, this characteristic has tended to weigh against a finding of indecency.” Id., at 8003, ¶ 10,8008, ¶ 17.
In 2004, the Commission took one step further by declaring for the first time that a nonliteral (expletive) use of the F- and S-Words could be actionably indecent, even when the word is used only once. The first order to this effect dealt with an NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards, in which the performer Bono commented, “ ‘[T]his is really, really, f***ing brilliant.’ ” In re Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of “Golden Globe Awards” Program, 19 FCC Red. 4975, 4976, n. 4 (2004) (Golden Globes Order). Although the Commission had received numerous complaints directed at the broadcast, its enforcement bureau had concluded that the material was not indecent because “Bono did not describe, in context, sexual or excretory organs or activities and... the utterance was fleeting and isolated.” Id., at 4975-4976, ¶ 3. The full Commission reviewed and reversed the staff ruling.
The Commission first declared that Bono’s use of the F-Word fell within its indecency definition, even though the word was used as an intensifier rather than a literal descriptor. “[G]iven the core meaning of the ‘F-Word,’” it said, “any use of that word... inherently has a sexual connotation.” Id., at 4978, ¶8. The Commission determined, moreover, that the broadcast was “patently offensive” because the F-Word “is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language,” because “[i]ts use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image,” and because Bono’s use of the word was entirely “shocking and gratuitous.” Id., at 4979, ¶ 9.
The Commission observed that categorically exempting such language from enforcement actions would “likely lead to more widespread use.” Ibid. Commission action was necessary to “safeguard the well-being of the nation’s children from the most objectionable, most offensive language.” Ibid. The order noted that technological advances have made it far easier to delete (“bleep out”) a “single and gratuitous use of a vulgar expletive,” without adulterating the content of a broadcast. Id., at 4980, ¶ 11.
The order acknowledged that “prior Commission and staff action [has] indicated that isolated or fleeting broadcasts of the ‘F-Word’... are not indecent or would not be acted upon.” It explicitly ruled that “any such interpretation is no longer good law.” Ibid., ¶ 12. It “clarified]... that the mere fact that specific words or phrases are not sustained or repeated does not mandate a finding that material that is otherwise patently offensive to the broadcast medium is not indecent.” Ibid. Because, however, “existing precedent would have permitted this broadcast,” the Commission determined that “NBC and its affiliates necessarily did not have the requisite notice to justify a penalty.” Id., at 4981-4982, ¶ 15.
II. The Present Case
This case concerns utterances in two live broadcasts aired by Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its affiliates prior to the Commission’s Golden Globes Order. The first occurred during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, when the singer Cher exclaimed, “I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** 'em.” Brief for Petitioners 9. The second involved a segment of the 2008 Billboard Music Awards, during the presentation of an award by Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton, principals in a Fox television series called “The Simple Life.” Ms. Hilton began their interchange by reminding Ms. Richie to “watch the bad language,” but Ms. Richie proceeded to ask the audience, “Why do they even call it ‘The Simple Life?’ Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple.” Id., at 9-10. Following each of these broadcasts, the Commission received numerous complaints from parents whose children were exposed to the language.
On March 15, 2006, the Commission released “Notices of Apparent Liability” for a number of broadcasts that the Commission deemed actionably indecent, including the two described above. In re Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between Feb. 2,2002 and Mar. 8,2005, 21 FCC Red. 2664 (2006). Multiple parties petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for judicial review of the order, asserting a variety of constitutional and statutory challenges. Since the order had declined to impose sanctions, the Commission had not previously given the broadcasters an opportunity to respond to the indecency charges. It therefore requested and obtained from the Court of Appeals a voluntary remand so that the parties could air their objections. 489 F. 3d 444, 453 (2007). The Commission’s order on remand upheld the indecency findings for the broadcasts described above. See In re Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between Feb. 2, 2002, and Mar. 8, 2005, 21 FCC Red. 13299 (2006) (Remand Order).
The order first explained that both broadcasts fell comfortably within the subject-matter scope of the Commission’s indecency test because the 2003 broadcast involved a literal description of excrement and both broadcasts invoked the “F-Word,” which inherently has a sexual connotation. Id., at 13304, ¶ 16,13323, ¶ 58. The order next determined that the broadcasts were patently offensive under community standards for the medium. Both broadcasts, it noted, involved entirely gratuitous uses of “one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit words for sexual activity in the English language.” Id., at 13305, ¶ 17, 13324, ¶ 59. It found Ms. Richie’s use of the “F-Word” and her “explicit description of the handling of excrement” to be “vulgar and shocking,” as well as to constitute “pandering,” after Ms. Hilton had playfully warned her to “‘watch the bad language.’” Id., at 13305, ¶ 17. And it found Cher’s statement patently offensive in part because she metaphorically suggested a sexual act as a means of expressing hostility to her critics. Id., at 13324, ¶60. The order relied upon the “‘critically important’ ” context of the utterances, id., at 13304, ¶ 15, noting that they were aired during prime-time awards shows “designed to draw a large nationwide audience that could be expected to include many children interested in seeing their favorite music stars,” id., at 13305, ¶ 18,13324, ¶ 59. Indeed, approximately 2.5 million minors witnessed each of the broadcasts. Id., at 13306, ¶ 18,13326, ¶ 65.
The order asserted that both broadcasts under review would have been actionably indecent under the staff rulings and Commission dicta in effect prior to the Golden Globes Order — the 2003 broadcast because it involved a literal description of excrement, rather than a mere expletive, because it used more than one offensive word, and because it was planned, 21 FCC Red., at 13307, ¶ 22; and the 2002 broadcast because Cher used the F-Word not as a mere intensifier, but as a description of the sexual act to express hostility to her critics, id., at 13324, ¶ 60. The order stated, however, that the pre-Golden Globes regime of immunity for isolated indecent expletives rested only upon staff rulings and Commission dicta, and that the Commission itself had never held “that the isolated use of an expletive... was not indecent or could not be indecent,” 21 FCC Red., at 13307, ¶ 21. In any event, the order made clear, the Golden Globes Order eliminated any doubt that fleeting expletives could be action-ably indecent, 21 FCC Red., at 13308, ¶ 23, 13325, ¶ 61, and the Commission disavowed the bureau-level decisions and its own dicta that had said otherwise, id., at 13306-13307, ¶¶ 20, 21. Under the new policy, a lack of repetition “weights] against a finding of indecency,” id., at 13325, ¶ 61, but is not a safe harbor.
The order explained that the Commission’s prior “strict dichotomy between ‘expletives’ and ‘descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory functions’ is artificial and does not make sense in light of the fact that an ‘expletive’s’ power to offend derives from its sexual or excretory meaning.” Id., at 13308, ¶ 23. In the Commission’s view, “granting an automatic exemption for ‘isolated or fleeting’ expletives unfairly forces viewers (including children)” to take “ ‘the first blow’ ” and would allow broadcasters “to air expletives at all hours of a day so long as they did so one at a time.” Id., at 13309, ¶ 25. Although the Commission determined that Fox encouraged the offensive language by using suggestive scripting in the 2003 broadcast, and unreasonably failed to take adequate precautions in both broadcasts, id., at 13311-13314, ¶¶ 31-37, the order again declined to impose any forfeiture or other sanction for either of the broadcasts, id., at 13321, ¶ 53, 13326, ¶66.
Fox returned to the Second Circuit for review of the Remand Order, and various intervenors including CBS, NBC, and ABC joined the action. The Court of Appeals reversed the agency’s orders, finding the Commission’s reasoning inadequate under the Administrative Procedure Act. 489 F. 3d 444. The majority was “skeptical that the Commission [could] provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” but it declined to reach the constitutional question. Id., at 462. Judge Leval dissented, id., at 467. We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1255 (2008).
III. Analysis
A. Governing Principles
The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq., which sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness, see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 545-549 (1978), permits (insofar as relevant here) the setting aside of agency action that is “arbitrary” or “capricious,” 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). Under what we have called this “narrow” standard of review, we insist that an agency “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983). We have made clear, however, that “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,” ibid., and should “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned,” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286 (1974).
In overturning the Commission’s judgment, the Court of Appeals here relied in part on Circuit precedent requiring a more substantial explanation for agency action that changes prior policy. The Second Circuit has interpreted the Administrative Procedure Act and our opinion in State Farm as requiring agencies to make clear “ ‘why the original reasons for adopting the [displaced] rule or policy are no longer dis-positive’ ” as well as “ ‘why the new rule effectuates the statute as well as or better than the old rule.’” 489 F. 3d, at 456-457 (quoting New York Council, Assn. of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 757 F. 2d 502, 508 (CA2 1985); emphasis deleted). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has similarly indicated that a court’s standard of review is “heightened somewhat” when an agency reverses course. NAACP v. FCC, 682 F. 2d 993, 998 (1982).
We find no basis in the Administrative Procedure Act or in our opinions for a requirement that all agency change be subjected to more searching review. The Act mentions no such heightened standard. And our opinion in State Farm neither held nor implied that every agency action representing a policy change must be justified by reasons more substantial than those required to adopt a policy in the first instance. That case, which involved the rescission of a prior regulation, said only that such action requires “a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.” 463 U. S., at 42 (emphasis added). Treating failures to act and rescissions of prior action differently for purposes of the standard of review makes good sense, and has basis in the text of the statute, which likewise treats the two separately. It instructs a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” 5 U. S. C. § 706(1), and to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be [among other things]... arbitrary [or] capricious,” § 706(2)(A). The statute makes no distinction, however, between initial agency action and subsequent agency action undoing or revising that action.
To be sure, the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 696 (1974). And of course the agency must show that there are good reasons for the new policy. But it need not demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately indicates. This means that the agency need not always provide a more detailed justification than what would suffice for a new policy created on a blank slate. Sometimes it must — when, for example, its new policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy; or when its prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742 (1996). It would be arbitrary or capricious to ignore such matters. In such cases it is not that farther justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.
In this appeal from the Second Circuit’s setting aside of Commission action for failure to comply with a procedural requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, the broadcasters’ arguments have repeatedly referred to the First Amendment. If they mean to invite us to apply a more stringent arbitrary-and-eapricious review to agency actions that implicate constitutional liberties, we reject the invitation. The so-called canon of constitutional avoidance is an interpretive tool, counseling that ambiguous statutory language be construed to avoid serious constitutional doubts. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988). We know of no precedent for applying it to limit the scope of authorized executive action. In the same section authorizing courts to set aside “arbitrary [or] capricious” agency action, the Administrative Procedure Act separately provides for setting aside agency action that is “unlawful,” 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A), which of course includes unconstitutional action. We think that is the only context in which constitutionality bears upon judicial review of authorized agency action. If the Commission’s action here was not arbitrary or capricious in the ordinary sense, it satisfies the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary [or] capricious” standard; its lawfulness under the Constitution is a separate question to be addressed in a constitutional challenge.
B. Application to This Case
Judged under the above described standards, the Commission’s new enforcement policy and its order finding the broadcasts actionably indecent were neither arbitrary nor capricious. First, the Commission forthrightly acknowledged that its recent actions have broken new ground, taking account of inconsistent “prior Commission and staff action” and explicitly disavowing them as “no longer good law.” Golden Globes Order, 19 FCC Red., at 4980, ¶ 12. To be sure, the (superfluous) explanation in its Remand Order of why the Cher broadcast would even have violated its earlier policy may not be entirely convincing. But that unnecessary detour is irrelevant. There is no doubt that the Commission knew it was making a change. That is why it declined to assess penalties; and it relied on the Golden Globes Order as removing any lingering doubt. Remand Order, 21 FCC Red., at 13308, ¶23, 13325, ¶ 61.
Moreover, the agency’s reasons for expanding the scope of its enforcement activity were entirely rational. It was certainly reasonable to determine that it made no sense to distinguish between literal and nonliteral uses of offensive words, requiring repetitive use to render only the latter indecent. As the Commission said with regard to expletive use of the F-Word, “the word’s power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning.” Id., at 13323, ¶ 58. And the Commission’s decision to look at the patent offensiveness of even isolated uses of sexual and excretory words fits with the context-based approach we sanctioned in Pacifica, 438 U. S., at 750. Even isolated utterances can be made in “pander[ing,]... vulgar and shocking” manners, Remand Order, 21 FCC Red., at 13305, ¶ 17, and can constitute harmful '“first blow[s]’” to children, id., at 13309, ¶25. It is surely rational (if not inescapable) to believe that a safe harbor for single words would “likely lead to more widespread use of the offensive language,” Golden Globes Order, supra, at 4979, ¶ 9.
When confronting other requests for per se rules governing its enforcement of the indecency prohibition, the Commission has declined to create safe harbors for particular types of broadcasts. See In re Pacifica Foundation, Inc., 2 FCC Red., at 2699, ¶ 12 (repudiating the view that the Commission’s enforcement power was limited to “deliberate, repetitive use of the seven words actually contained in the George Carlin monologue”); In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Pa., 3 FCC Red., at 932, ¶ 17 (“rejecting] an approach that would hold that if a work has merit, it is per se not indecent”). The Commission could rationally decide it needed to step away from its old regime where nonrepetitive use of an expletive was per se nonactionable because that was “at odds with the Commission’s overall enforcement policy.” Remand Order, supra, at 13308, ¶ 23.
The fact that technological advances have made it easier for broadcasters to bleep out offending words further supports the Commission’s stepped-up enforcement policy. Golden Globes Order, supra, at 4980, ¶ 11. And the agency’s decision not to impose any forfeiture or other sanction precludes any argument that it is arbitrarily punishing parties without notice of the potential consequences of their action.
C. The Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found the Commission’s action arbitrary and capricious on three grounds. First, the court criticized the Commission for failing to explain why it had not previously banned fleeting expletives as “harmful 'first blow[s].’ ” 489 F. 3d, at 458. In the majority’s view, without “evidence that suggests a fleeting expletive is harmful [and]... serious enough to warrant government regulation,” the agency could not regulate more broadly. Id., at 461. As explained above, the fact that an agency had a prior stance does not alone prevent it from changing its view or create a higher hurdle for doing so. And it is not the Commission, but Congress that has proscribed “any... indecent... language.” 18 U. S. C. § 1464.
There are some propositions for which scant empirical evidence can be marshaled, and the harmful effect of broadcast profanity on children is one of them. One cannot demand a multiyear controlled study, in which some children are intentionally exposed to indecent broadcasts (and insulated from all other indecency), and others are shielded from all indecency. It is one thing to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act because of failure to adduce empirical data that can readily be obtained. See, e. g., State Farm, 463 U. S., at 46-56 (addressing the costs and benefits of mandatory passive restraints for automobiles). It is something else to insist upon obtaining the unobtainable. Here it suffices to know that children mimic the behavior they observe — or at least the behavior that is presented to them as normal and appropriate. Programming replete with one-word indecent expletives will tend to produce children who use (at least) one-word indecent expletives. Congress has made the determination that indecent material is harmful to children, and has left enforcement of the ban to the Commission. If enforcement had to be supported by empirical data, the ban would effectively be a nullity.
The Commission had adduced no quantifiable measure of the harm caused by the language in Pacifica, and we nonetheless held that the “government’s interest in the ‘well-being of its youth’... justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression.” 438 U. S., at 749 (quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 640, 639 (1968)). If the Constitution itself demands of agencies no more scientifically certain criteria to comply with the First Amendment, neither does the Administrative Procedure Act to comply with the requirement of reasoned decisionmaking.
The court’s second objection is that fidelity to the agency’s “first blow” theory of harm would require a categorical ban on all broadcasts of expletives; the Commission’s failure to go to this extreme thus undermined the coherence of its rationale. 489 F. 3d, at 458-459. This objection, however, is not responsive to the Commission’s actual policy under review — the decision to include patently offensive fleeting expletives within the definition of indecency. The Commission’s prior enforcement practice, unchallenged here, already drew distinctions between the offensiveness of particular words based upon the context in which they appeared. Any complaint about the Commission’s failure to ban only some fleeting expletives is better directed at the agency’s context-based system generally rather than its inclusion of isolated expletives.
More fundamentally, however, the agency’s decision to consider the patent offensiveness of isolated expletives on a case-by-case basis is not arbitrary or capricious. “Even a prime-time recitation of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale,” we have explained, “would not be likely to command the attention of many children who are both old enough to understand and young enough to be adversely affected.” Pacifica, supra, at 750, n. 29. The same rationale could support the Commission’s finding that a broadcast of the film Saving Private Ryan was not indecent — a finding to which the broadcasters point as supposed evidence of the Commission’s inconsistency. The frightening suspense and the graphic violence in the movie could well dissuade the most vulnerable from watching and would put parents on notice of potentially objectionable material. See In re Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast on Nov. 11, 2001 of ABC Television Network's Presentation of Film “Saving Private Ryan,” 20 FCC Red. 4507, 4513, ¶ 15 (2005) (noting that the broadcast was not “intended as family entertainment”). The agency’s decision to retain some discretion does not render arbitrary or capricious its regulation of the deliberate and shocking uses of offensive language at the award shows under review — shows that were expected to (and did) draw the attention of millions of children.
Finally, the Court of Appeals found unconvincing the agency’s prediction (without any evidence) that a per se exemption for fleeting expletives would lead to increased use of expletives one at a time. 489 F. 3d, at 460. But even in the absence of evidence, the agency’s predictive judgment (which merits deference) makes entire sense. To predict that complete immunity for fleeting expletives, ardently desired by broadcasters, will lead to a substantial increase in fleeting expletives seems to us an exercise in logic rather than clairvoyance. The Court of Appeals was perhaps correct that the Commission’s prior policy had not yet caused broadcasters to “barrag[e] the airwaves with expletives,” ibid. That may have been because its prior permissive policy had been confirmed (save in dicta) only at the staff level. In any event, as the Golden Globes order demonstrated, it did produce more expletives than the Commission (which has the first call in this matter) deemed in conformity with the statute.
D. Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents press some arguments that the court did not adopt. They claim that the Commission failed to acknowledge its change in enforcement policy. That contention is not tenable in light of the Golden Globes Order’s specific declaration that its prior rulings were no longer good law, 19 FCC Red., at 4980, ¶ 12, and the Remand Order’s disavowal of those staff rulings and Commission dicta as “seriously flawed,” 21 FCC Red., at 13308, ¶ 23. The broadcasters also try to recharacterize the nature of the Commission’s shift, contending that the old policy was not actually a per se rule against liability for isolated expletives and that the new policy is a presumption of indecency for certain words. This description of the prior agency policy conflicts with the broadcasters’ own prior position in this case. See, e.g., Brief in Opposition for Respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al. 4 (“For almost 30 years following Pacifica, the FCC did not consider fleeting, isolated or inadvertent expletives to be indecent”). And we find no basis for the contention that the Commission has now adopted a presumption of indecency; its repeated reliance on context refutes this claim.
The broadcasters also make much of the fact that the Commission has gone beyond the scope of authority approved in Pacifica, which it once regarded as the farthest extent of its power. But we have never held that Pacifica represented the outer limits of permissible regulation, so that fleeting expletives may not be forbidden. To the contrary, we explicitly left for another day whether “an occasional expletive” in “a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy” could be prohibited. 438 U. S., at 748-750. By using the narrowness of Pacifica!s holding to require empirical evidence of harm before the Commission regulates more broadly, the broadcasters attempt to turn the sword of Pacifica, which allowed some regulation of broadcast indecency, into an administrative-law shield preventing any regulation beyond what Pacifica sanctioned. Nothing prohibits federal agencies from moving in an incremental manner. Cf. National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 1002 (2005).
Finally, the broadcasters claim that the Commission’s repeated appeal to “context” is simply a smokescreen for a standardless regime of unbridled discretion. But we have previously approved Commission regulation based “on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important,” Pacifica, supra, at 750, and we find no basis in the Administrative Procedure Act for mandating anything different.
E. The Dissents’ Arguments
Justice Breyer purports to “begin with applicable law,” post, at 547, but in fact begins by stacking the deck. He claims that the FCC’s status as an “independent” agency sheltered from political oversight requires courts to be “all the more” vigilant in ensuring “that major policy decisions be based upon articulable reasons.” Ibid. Not so. The independent agencies are sheltered not from politics but from the President, and it has often been observed that their freedom
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Special Master has submitted a proposed supplemental decree in this case to carry the parties’ accords into effect. The proposed decree was reproduced as an appendix to the Court’s opinion dated June 19, 2000 (530 U. S. 392, 420), and any objections were called for. No objections were filed with the Clerk. Accordingly, the proposed supplemental decree with respect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Reservations is approved and entered.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
A. Paragraph (4) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 344-345) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(4) The Colorado River Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 719,248 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of maim stream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 107,903 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of March 3,1865, for lands reserved by the Act of March 3,1865 (13 Stat. 541, 559); November 22,1873, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 16, 1874, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date, except as later modified; May 15, 1876, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 22, 1915, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date.
B. Paragraph (5) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 345) and supplemented on April 16, 1984 (466 U. S. 144, 145) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 132,789 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,544 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 19, 1890, for lands transferred by the Executive Order of said date; February 2, 1911, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date.
C. Paragraph (5) of the introductory conditions to the Supplemental Decree in this case entered on January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 421-423), is hereby amended by adding the following exception at the end of the concluding proviso in the first sentence of that paragraph: “except for the western boundaries of the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations in California.”
D. Paragraph II(A)(24) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is hereby amended to read as follows:
(24)
Colorado River Indian Reservation 10,745 1,612 Nov. 22,1873
40,241 6,037 Nov. 16,1874
5,860 879 May 15,1876
E. Paragraph II(A)(25) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is hereby amended to read as follows:
(25)
Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 16,720 2,587 Sept. 18,1890
F. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Decree entered on March 9, 1964, and the Supplemental Decrees entered on January 9, 1979, and April 16, 1984, shall remain in full force and effect. •
G. The Court shall retain jurisdiction herein to order such further proceedings and enter such supplemental decree as may be deemed appropriate.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mk. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This proceeding brings here the question of the right of a subordinate official of the Department of Justice of the United States to refuse to obey a subpoena duces tecum ordering production of papers of the Department in. his possession. The refusal was based upon a regulation issued by the Attorney General under 5 U. S. C. § 22.
Petitioner, Roger Touhy, an inmate of the Illinois State penitentiary, instituted a habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the warden, alleging he was restrained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. In the course of that proceeding a subpoena duces tecum was issued and served upon George R. McSwain, the agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Chicago, requiring the production of certain records which, petitioner Toühy claims, contained evidence establishing that his conviction was brought about by fraud. At the hearing that considered the duty of submission of the subpoenaed papers, the U. S. Attorney made representations to the court and to opposing counsel as to how far the Attorney General was willing for his subordinates to go in the production of the subpoenaed papers. The suggestions were not accepted. Mr. McSwain was then placed upon the witness stand and ordered to bring in the papers. He personally declined to produce the records in these words:
“I must respectfully advise the Court that under instructions to me by the Attorney General that I must respectfully decline to produce them, in accordance with Department Rule No. 3229.”
Thereupon, the judge found Mr. McSwain guilty of contempt of court in refusing to produce the records referred to in the subpoena and sentenced him to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative until he obeyed the order of the court or was discharged by due process of law.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Department of Justice Order No. 3229 was authorized by the statute and
“confers upon the Department of Justice the privilege of refusing to produce unless there has been a waiver of such privilege.” 180 F. 2d 321 at 327.
The court then considered whether or not the privilege of nondisclosure was waived. It quoted from Supplement No. 2 to Order No. 3229 this language:
“If questioned, the officer or employee should state that the material is at hand and can be submitted to the court for determination as to its materiality to the case and whether in the best public interests the information should be disclosed. The records should be kept in the United States Attorney’s office or some similar place of safekeeping near the court room. Under no circumstances should the name of any confidential informant be divulged.” 180 F. 2d at 328.
The Court of Appeals said that “this language contemplates some circumstances when the material called for must be submitted 'to the court for determination as to its materiality to the case and whether in the best public interests the information should be disclosed.’ ” The court found, however, that no such limited disclosure was requested but that Mr. McSwain was called upon “to produce all documents and material called for in the subpoena without limitation and that at no time was he questioned” as to his willingness to submit the papers for determination as to materiality and best public interests. Consequently, he was not guilty of contempt unless the law required the witness to make unlimited production. The court thought that, since this last would mean there was no privilege in the Department to refuse production, such a holding should not be made. It said:
“Submission could only have been required to the extent the privilege had been waived by the Attorney General and for the purpose and in the specific manner designated.” 180 F. 2d at 328.
We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 806, to determine the validity of the Department of Justice Order No. 3229. Among the questions duly presented by the petition for certiorari was whether it is permissible for the Attorney General to make a conclusive determination not to produce records and whether his subordinates in accordance with the order may lawfully decline to produce them in response to a subpoena duces tecum.
We find it unnecessary, however, to consider the ultimate reach of the authority of the Attorney General to refuse to produce at a court’s order the government papers in his possession, for the case as we understand it raises no question as to the power of the Attorney General himself to make such a refusal. The Attorney General was not before the trial court. It is true that his subordinate, Mr. McSwain, acted in accordance with the Attorney General’s instructions and a department order. But we limit our examination to what this record shows, to wit, a refusal by a subordinate of the Department of Justice to submit papers to the court in response to its subpoena duces tecum on the ground that the subordinate is prohibited from making such submission by his superior through Order No. 3229. The validity of the superior’s action is in issue only insofar as we must determine whether the Attorney General can validly withdraw from his subordinates the power to release department papers. Nor are we here concerned with the effect of a refusal to produce in a prosecution by the United States or with the right of a custodian of government papers to refuse to produce them on the ground that they are state secrets or that they would disclose the names of informants.
We think that Order No. 3229 is valid and that Mr. McSwain in this case properly refused to produce these papers. We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that since Mr. McSwain was not questioned on his willingness to submit the material “to the court for determination as to its materiality to the case” and whether it should be disclosed, the issue of how far the Attorney General could or did waive any claimed privilege against disclosure is not material in this case.
Department of Justice Order No. 3229, note 1, supra, was promulgated under the authority of 5 U. S. C. § 22. That statute appears in its present form in Revised Statutes § 161, and consolidates several older statutes relating to individual departments. See, e. g., 16 Stat. 163. When one considers the variety of information contained in the files of any government department and the possibilities of harm.from unrestricted disclosure in court, the usefulness, indeed the necessity, of centralizing determination as to whether subpoenas duces tecum will be willingly obeyed or challenged is obvious. Hence, it was appropriate for the Attorney General, pursuant to the authority given him by 5 U. S. C. § 22, to prescribe regulations not inconsistent with law for “the custody, use, and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to” the Department of Justice, to promulgate Order 3229.
Petitioner challenges the validity of the issue of the order under a legal doctrine which makes the head of a department rather than a court the determinator of the admissibility of evidence. In support of his argument that the Executive should not invade the Judicial sphere, petitioner cites Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 2379, and Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137. But under this record we are concerned only with the validity of Order No. 3229. The constitutionality of the Attorney General’s exercise of a determinative power as to whether or on what conditions or subject to what disadvantages to the Government he may refuse to produce government papers under his charge must await a factual situation that requires a ruling. We think Order No. 3229 is consistent with law. This case is ruled by Boske v. Comingore, 177 U. S. 459.
That case concerned a collector of internal revenue adjudged in contempt for failing to file with his deposition copies of a distiller’s reports in his possession as a subordinate officer of the Treasury. The information was needed in litigation in a state court to collect a state tax. The regulation upon which the collector relied for his refusal was of the same general character as Order No. 3229. After referring to the constitutional authority for the enactment of R. S. § 161, the basis, as 5 U. S. C. § 22, for the regulation now under consideration, this Court reached the question of whether the regulation centralizing in the Secretary of the Treasury the discretion to submit records voluntarily to the courts was inconsistent with law, p. 469. It concluded that the Secretary’s reservation for his own determination of all matters of that character was lawful.
We see no material distinction between that case and this.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Department of Justice Order No. 3229, filed May 2,1946, 11 Fed. Reg. 4920, reads:
“Pursuant to authority vested in me by R.S. 161 TJ.S. Code, Title 5, Section 22), It is hereby ordered:
“All official files, documents, records and information in the offices of the Department of Justice, including the several offices of United States Attorneys, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshals, and Federal penal and correctional institutions, of in. the custody or control of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, are to be regarded as confidential. No officer or employee may permit the disclosure or use of the same for any purpose other than for the performance of his official duties, except in the discretion of the Attorney General, The Assistant to the Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General acting for him.
“Whenever a subpoena duces tecum is served to produce any of such files, documents, records or information, the officer or employee on whom such subpoena is served, unless otherwise expressly directed by the Attorney General, will appear in court in answer thereto and respectfully decline to produce the records specified there in, on the ground that the disclosure of such records is prohibited by this regulation.”
Supplement No. 2 to that order, dated June 6, 1947, provides in part:
“TO ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
“procedure to be followed upon receiving a subpoena DUCES TECUM
“Whenever an officer or employee of the Department is served with a subpoena duces tecum to produce any official files, documents, records or information he should at once inform his superior officer of the requirement of the subpoena and ask for instructions from the Attorney General. If, in the opinion of the Attorney General, circumstances or conditions make it necessary to decline in the interest of public policy to furnish the information, the officer or employee on whom the subpoena is served will appear in court in answer thereto and- courteously state to the court that he has consulted the Department of Justice and is. acting in accordance with instructions of the Attorney General in refusing to produce the records. . . .
. . It is not necessary to bring the required documents into the court room and on the witness stand when it is the intention of the officer or employee to comply with the subpoena by submitting the regulation of the Department (Order No. 3229) and explaining that he is not permitted to show the files. If questioned, the officer or employee should state that the material is at hand and can be submitted to the court for determination as to its materiality to the case and whether in the best public interests the information should be disclosed. The records should be kept in the United States Attorney’s office or some similar place of safe-keeping near the court room. Under no circumstances should the name of any confidential informant be divulged.”
“The head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the government of his department, the conduct of its officers and clerks, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to it.”
The subpoena was also addressed to the Attorney General. There is no contention, however, that the Attorney General was personally served with the subpoena; nor did he appear. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proe., 45.
We take this answer to refer to both the original Department of Justice Order No. 3229 and the supplement.
Although in this record there are indications that the U. S. Attorney was willing to submit the papers to the judge alone for his determination as to their materiality, the judge refused to accept the papers for examination on that basis. There is also in the record indication that the U. S. Attorney thought of submitting the papers to the court and opposing counsel in chambers but changed his mind. For our conclusion none of these facts are material, as the final order adjudging Mr. McSwain guilty of contempt was based, as above indicated, on a refusal by Mr. McSwain to produce, as instructed by the Attorney General in accordance with Department Order No. 3229.
Cf. United States v. Andolschek, 142 F. 2d 503.
See Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 2378.
See Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), §2374.
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 331 U. S. 549. For relatively recent consideration of the problem underlying governmental privilege against producing evidence, compare Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A. C. 624, with Robinson v. State of South Australia, [1931] A. C. 704.
That case has been generally followed. See, e. g., Ex parte Sackett, 74 F. 2d 922; In re Valecia Condensed Milk Co., 240 F. 310; Harwood v. McMurtry, 22 F. Supp. 572; Stegall v. Thurman, 175 F. 813; Walling v. Comet Carriers, Inc., 3 F. R. D. 442, 443.
The following excerpts will show the similarity:
“ 'Whenever such subpoenas shall have been served upon them, they will appear in court in answer thereto and respectfully decline to produce the records called for, on the ground of being prohibited therefrom by the regulations of this department. ... In all cases where copies of documents or records are desired by or on behalf of parties to a suit, whether in a court of the United States or any other, such copies shall be furnished to the court only and on a rule of the court upon the Secretary of the Treasury requesting the same. Whenever such rule of the court shall have been obtained collectors are directed to carefully prepare a copy of the record or document containing the information called for and send it to this office, whereupon it will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury with a request for its authentication, under the seal of the department, and transmission to the judge of the court calling for it, unless it should be found that circumstances or conditions exist which makes it necessary to decline, in the interest of the public service, to furnish such a copy.’ ” 177 U. S. 461.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Alito
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer join.
In this case, we decide whether Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 50 (2004), precludes an expert witness from testifying in a manner that has long been allowed under the law of evidence. Specifically, does Crawford bar an expert from expressing an opinion based on facts about a case that have been made known to the expert but about which the expert is not competent to testify? We also decide whether Crawford substantially impedes the ability of prosecutors to introduce DNA evidence and thus may effectively relegate the prosecution in some cases to reliance on older, less reliable forms of proof.
In petitioner’s bench trial for rape, the prosecution called an expert who testified that a DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory, Cellmark, matched a profile produced by the state police lab using a sample of petitioner’s blood. On direct examination, the expert testified that Cellmark was an accredited laboratory and that Cellmark provided the police with a DNA profile. The expert also explained the notations on documents admitted as business records, stating that, according to the records, vaginal swabs taken from the victim were sent to and received back from Cellmark. The expert made no other statement that was offered for the purpose of identifying the sample of biological material used in deriving the profile or for the purpose of establishing how Cellmark handled or tested the sample. Nor did the expert vouch for the accuracy of the profile that Cellmark produced. Nevertheless, petitioner contends that the expert’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause as interpreted in Crawford.
Petitioner’s main argument is that the expert went astray when she referred to the DNA profile provided by Cellmark as having been produced from semen found on the victim’s vaginal swabs. But both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court found that this statement was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and it is settled that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the admission of such statements. See id., at 59-60, n. 9 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U. S. 409 (1985)). For more than 200 years, the law of evidence has permitted the sort of testimony that was given by the expert in this case. Under settled evidence law, an expert may express an opinion that is based on facts that the expert assumes, but does not know, to be true. It is then up to the party who calls the expert to introduce other evidence establishing the facts assumed by the expert. While it was once the practice for an expert who based an opinion on assumed facts to testify in the form of an answer to a hypothetical question, modern practice does not demand this formality and, in appropriate cases, permits an expert to explain the facts on which his or her opinion is based without testifying to the truth of those facts. See Fed. Rule Evid. 703. That is precisely what occurred in this case, and we should not lightly “swee[p] away an accepted rule governing the admission of scientific evidence.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305, 330 (2009) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
We now conclude that this form of expert testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause because that provision has no application to out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. When an expert testifies for the prosecution in a criminal case, the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the expert about any statements that are offered for their truth. Out-of-court statements that are related by the expert solely for the purpose of explaining the assumptions on which that opinion rests are not offered for their truth and thus fall outside the scope of the Confrontation Clause. Applying this rule to the present case, we conclude that the expert’s testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
As a second, independent basis for our decision, we also conclude that even if the report produced by Cellmark had been admitted into evidence, there would have been no Confrontation Clause violation. The Cellmark report is very different from the sort of extrajudicial statements, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, and confessions, that the Confrontation Clause was originally understood to reach. The report was produced before any suspect was identified. The report was sought not for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against petitioner, who was not even under suspicion at the time, but for the purpose of finding a rapist who was on the loose. And the profile that Cellmark provided was not inherently inculpatory. On the contrary, a DNA profile is evidence that tends to exculpate all but one of the more than 7 billion people in the world today. The use of DNA evidence to exonerate persons who have been wrongfully accused or convicted is well known. If DNA profiles could not be introduced without calling the technicians who participated in the preparation of the profile, economic pressures would encourage prosecutors to forgo DNA testing and rely instead on older forms of evidence, such as eyewitness identification, that are less reliable. See Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U. S. 228 (2012). The Confrontation Clause does not mandate such an undesirable development. This conclusion will not prejudice any defendant who really wishes to probe the reliability of the DNA testing done in a particular case because those who participated in the testing may always be subpoenaed by the defense and questioned at trial.
i—i
¡3>
On February 10, 2000, in Chicago, Illinois, a young woman, L. J., was abducted while she was walking home from work. The perpetrator forced her into his car and raped her, then robbed her of her money and other personal items and pushed her out into the street. L. J. ran home and reported the attack to her mother, who called the police. An ambulance took L. J. to the hospital, where doctors treated her wounds and took a blood sample and vaginal swabs for a sexual-assault kit. A Chicago Police detective collected the kit, labeled it with an inventory number, and sent it under seal to the Illinois State Police (ISP) lab.
At the ISP lab, a forensic scientist received the sealed kit. He conducted a chemical test that confirmed the presence of semen on the vaginal swabs, and he then resealed the kit and placed it in a secure evidence freezer.
During the period in question, the ISP lab often sent biological samples to Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Ger-mantown, Maryland, for DNA testing. There was evidence that the ISP lab sent L. J.’s vaginal swabs to Cellmark for testing and that Cellmark sent back a report containing a male DNA profile produced from semen taken from those swabs. At this time, petitioner was not under suspicion for L. J.’s rape.
Sandra Lambatos, a forensic specialist at the ISP lab, conducted a computer search to see if the Cellmark profile matched any of the entries in the state DNA database. The computer showed a match to a profile produced by the lab from a sample of petitioner’s blood that had been taken after he was arrested on unrelated charges on August 3, 2000.
On April 17, 2001, the police conducted a lineup at which L. J. identified petitioner as her assailant. Petitioner was then indicted for aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnaping, and aggravated robbery. In lieu of a jury trial, petitioner chose to be tried before a state judge.
B
Petitioner’s bench trial began in April 2006. In open court, L. J. again identified petitioner as her attacker. The State also offered three expert forensic witnesses to link petitioner to the crime through his DNA. First, Brian Ha-pack, an ISP forensic scientist, testified that he had confirmed the presence of semen on the vaginal swabs taken from L. J. by performing an acid phosphatase test. After performing this test, he testified, he resealed the evidence and left it in a secure freezer at the ISP lab.
Second, Karen Abbinanti, a state forensic analyst, testified that she had used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and short tandem repeat (STR) techniques to develop a DNA profile from a blood sample that had been drawn from petitioner after he was arrested in August 2000. She also stated that she had entered petitioner’s DNA profile into the state forensic database.
Third, the State offered Sandra Lambatos as an expert witness in forensic biology and forensic DNA analysis. On direct examination, Lambatos testified about the general process of using the PCR and STR techniques to generate DNA profiles from forensic samples such as blood and semen. She then described how these DNA profiles could be matched to an individual based on the individual’s unique genetic code. In making a comparison between two DNA profiles, Lambatos stated, it is a “commonly accepted” practice within the scientific community for “one DNA expert to rely on the records of another DNA expert.” App. 51. Lambatos also testified that Cellmark was an “accredited crime lab” and that, in her experience, the ISP lab routinely sent evidence samples via Federal Express to Cellmark for DNA testing in order to expedite the testing process and to “reduce [the lab’s] backlog.” Id., at 49-50. To keep track of evidence samples and preserve the chain of custody, Lam-batos stated, she and other analysts relied on sealed shipping containers and labeled shipping manifests, and she added that experts in her field regularly relied on such protocols. Id., at 50-51.
Lambatos was shown shipping manifests that were admitted into evidence as business records, and she explained what they indicated, namely, that the ISP lab had sent L. J.’s vaginal swabs to Cellmark, and that Cellmark had sent them back, along with a deduced male DNA profile. Id., at 52-55. The prosecutor asked Lambatos whether there was “a computer match” between “the male DNA profile found in semen from the vaginal swabs of [L. J.]” and “[the] male DNA profile that had been identified” from petitioner’s blood sample. Id., at 55.
The defense attorney objected to this question for “lack of foundation,” arguing that the prosecution had offered “no evidence with regard to any testing that’s been done to generate a DNA profile by another lab to be testified to by this witness.” Ibid.
The prosecutor responded: “Pm not getting at what another lab did.” Id., at 56. Rather, she said, she was simply asking Lambatos about “her own testing based on [DNA] information” that she had received from Cellmark. Ibid. The trial judge agreed, noting, “If she says she didn’t do her own testing and she relied on a test of another lab and she’s testifying to that, we will see what she’s going to say.” Ibid.
The prosecutor then proceeded, asking Lambatos, “Did you compare the semen that had been identified by Brian Hapack from the vaginal swabs of [L. J.] to the male DNA profile that had been identified by Karen [Abbinanti] from the blood of [petitioner]?” Ibid.
Lambatos answered “Yes.” Ibid. Defense counsel lodged an objection “to the form of the question,” but the trial judge overruled it. Ibid. Lambatos then testified that, based on her own comparison of the two DNA profiles, she “concluded that [petitioner] cannot be excluded as a possible source of the semen identified in the vaginal swabs,” and that the probability of the profile’s appearing in the general population was “1 in 8.7 quadrillion black, 1 in 390 quadrillion white, or 1 in 109 quadrillion Hispanic unrelated individuals.” Id., at 57. Asked whether she would “call this a match to [petitioner],” Lambatos answered yes, again over defense counsel’s objection. Id., at 58.
The Cellmark report itself was neither admitted into evidence nor shown to the factfinder. Lambatos did not quote or read from the report; nor did she identify it as the source of any of the opinions she expressed.
On cross-examination, Lambatos confirmed that she did not conduct or observe any of the testing on the vaginal swabs, and that her testimony relied on the DNA profile produced by Cellmark. Id., at 59. She stated that she trusted Cellmark to do reliable work because it was an accredited lab, but she admitted she had not seen any of the calibrations or work that Cellmark had done in deducing a male DNA profile from the vaginal swabs. Id., at 59-62.
Asked whether the DNA sample might have been degraded before Cellmark analyzed it, Lambatos answered that, while degradation was technically possible, she strongly doubted it had occurred in this case. She gave two reasons. First, the ISP lab likely would have noticed the degradation before sending the evidence off to Cellmark. Second, and more important, Lambatos also noted that the data making up the DNA profile would exhibit certain telltale signs if it had been deduced from a degraded sample: The visual representation of the DNA sequence would exhibit “specific patterns” of degradation, and she “didn’t see any evidence” of that from looking at the profile that Cellmark produced. Id., at 81-82.
When Lambatos finished testifying, the defense moved to exclude her testimony “with regards to testing done by [Cellmark]” based on the Confrontation Clause. Id., at 90. Defense counsel argued that there was “no evidence with regards to... any work done by [Cellmark] to justify testimony coming into this ease with regard to their analysis.” Ibid. (alteration in original). Thus, while defense counsel objected to and sought the exclusion of Lambatos’ testimony insofar as it implicated events at the Cellmark lab, defense counsel did not object to or move for the exclusion of any other portion of Lambatos’ testimony, including statements regarding the contents of the shipment sent to or received back from Cellmark. See id., at 55, 56, 90. See also 385 Ill. App. 3d 359, 367-368, 895 N. E. 2d 961, 968 (2008) (chain-of-custody argument based on shipping manifests waived).
The prosecution responded that petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights were satisfied because he had the opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had testified that there was a match between the DNA profiles produced by Cellmark and Abbinanti. App. 91. Invoking Illinois Rule of Evidence 703, the prosecutor argued that an expert is allowed to disclose the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based even if the expert is not competent to testify to those underlying facts. She farther argued that any deficiency in the foundation for the expert’s opinion “[d]oesn’t go to the admissibility of [that] testimony,” but instead “goes to the weight of the testimony.” App. 91.
The trial judge agreed with the prosecution and stated that “the issue is... what weight do you give the test, not do you exclude it.” Id., at 94. Accordingly, the judge stated that he would not exclude Lambatos’ testimony, which was “based on her own independent testing of the data received from [Cellmark].” Id., at 94-95 (alteration in original).
The trial court found petitioner guilty of the charges against him. The State Appellate Court affirmed in relevant part, concluding that Lambatos’ testimony did not violate petitioner’s confrontation rights because the Cellmark report was not offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter it asserted. See 385 Ill. App. 3d, at 369, 895 N. E. 2d, at 969-970 (“Cellmark’s report was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, it was offered to provide a basis for Lambatos’ opinion”). The Supreme Court of Illinois also affirmed. 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N. E. 2d 268 (2010). Under state law, the court noted, the Cellmark report could not be used as substantive evidence. When Lambatos referenced the report during her direct examination, she did so “for the limited purpose of explaining the basis for [her expert opinion],” not for the purpose of showing “the truth of the matter asserted” by the report. Id., at 150, 939 N. E. 2d, at 282. Thus, the report was not used to establish its truth, but only “to show the underlying facts and data Lambatos used before rendering an expert opinion.” Id., at 145, 939 N. E. 2d, at 279.
We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1052 (2011).
H-i HH
A
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Before Crawford, this Court took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, see Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 66 (1980), but in Crawford, the Court adopted a fundamentally new interpretation of the confrontation right, holding that “[testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial [can be] admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine,” 541 U. S., at 59. Crawford has resulted in a steady stream of new cases in this Court. See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U. S. 647 (2011); Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U. S. 344 (2011); Melendez-Diaz, 557 U. S. 305; Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353 (2008); Davis v. Washington, together with Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U. S. 813 (2006).
Two of these decisions involved scientific reports. In Melendez-Diaz, the defendant was arrested and charged with distributing and trafficking in cocaine. At trial, the prosecution introduced bags of a white powdery substance that had been found in the defendant’s possession. The trial court also admitted into evidence three “certificates of analysis” from the state forensic laboratory stating that the bags had been “examined with the following results: The substance was found to contain: Cocaine.” 557 U. S., at 308 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court held that the admission of these certificates, which were executed under oath before a notary, violated the Sixth Amendment. They were created for “the sole purpose of providing evidence against a defendant,” id., at 323, and were “‘quite plainly affidavits,’” id., at 330 (Thomas, J., concurring). The Court emphasized that the introduction of the report to prove the nature of the substance found in the defendant’s possession was tantamount to “live, in-court testimony” on that critical fact and that the certificates did “precisely what a witness does on direct examination.” Id., at 311 (internal quotation marks omitted). There was no doubt that the certificates were used to prove the truth of the matter they asserted. Under state law, “the sole purpose of the affidavits was to provide prima facie evidence of the composition, quality, and the net weight of the analyzed substance.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted). On these facts, the Court said, it was clear that the certificates were “testimonial statements” that could not be introduced unless their authors were subjected to the “‘crucible of cross-examination.’” Id., at 311, 317 (quoting Crawford, supra, at 61).
In Bullcoming, we held that another scientific report could not be used as substantive evidence against the defendant unless the analyst who prepared and certified the report was subject to confrontation. The defendant in that case had been convicted of driving while intoxicated. At trial, the court admitted into evidence a forensic report certifying that a sample of the defendant’s blood had an alcohol concentration of 0.21 grams per hundred milliliters, well above the legal limit. Instead of calling the analyst who signed and certified the forensic report, the prosecution called another analyst who had not performed or observed the actual analysis, but was only familiar with the general testing procedures of the laboratory. The Court declined to accept this surrogate testimony, despite the fact that the testifying analyst was a “knowledgeable representative of the laboratory” who could “explain the lab’s processes and the details of the report.” 564 U. S., at 674-675 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The Court stated simply: “The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification.” Id., at 657.
Just as in Melendez-Diaz, the forensic report that was “introduce[d]” in Bullcoming “contained] a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial.” 564 U. S., at 657. The report was signed by the nontestifying analyst who had authored it, stating, “I certify that I followed the procedures set out on the reverse of this report, and the statements in this block are correct. The concentration of alcohol in this sample is based on the grams of alcohol in one hundred milliliters of blood.” App. in Bullcoming, O. T. 2010, No. 09-10876, p. 62. Critically, the report was introduced at trial for the substantive purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted by its out-of-court author—namely, that the defendant had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21. This was the central fact in question at the defendant’s trial, and it was dispositive of his guilt.
In concurrence, Justice Sotomayor highlighted the importance of the fact that the forensic report had been admitted into evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter it asserted. She emphasized that “this [was] not a case in which an expert witness was asked for his independent opinion about underlying testimonial reports that were not themselves admitted into evidence.” 564 U. S., at 673 (opinion concurring in part) (citing Fed. Rule Evid. 703). “We would face a different question,” she observed, “if asked to determine the constitutionality of allowing an expert witness to discuss others’ testimonial statements if the testimonial statements were not themselves admitted as evidence.” 564 U. S., at 673.
We now confront that question.
B
It has long been accepted that an expert witness may voice an opinion based on facts concerning the events at issue in a particular case even if the expert lacks firsthand knowledge of those facts.
At common law, courts developed two ways to deal with this situation. An expert could rely on facts that had already been established in the record. But because it was not always possible to proceed in this manner, and because record evidence was often disputed, courts developed the alternative practice of allowing an expert to testify in the form of a “hypothetical question.” Under this approach, the expert would be asked to assume the truth of certain factual predicates, and was then asked to offer an opinion based on those assumptions. See 1 K. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 14, p. 87 (6th ed. 2006); 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 677, p. 1084 (2d ed. 1923) (“If the witness is skilled enough, his opinion may be adequately obtained upon hypothetical data alone; and it is immaterial whether he has ever seen the person, place or thing in question” (citation omitted)). The truth of the premises could then be established through independent evidence, and the factfinder would regard the expert’s testimony to be only as credible as the premises on which it was based.
An early example of this approach comes from the English case of Beckwith v. Sydebotham, 1 Camp. 116, 170 Eng. Rep. 897 (K. B. 1807), where a party sought to prove the seaworthiness of a ship, the Earl of Wycombe, by calling as witnesses “several eminent surveyors of ships who had never seen the ‘Earl of Wycombe.’ ” Ibid. The opposing party objected to the testimony because it relied on facts that were not known to be true, but the judge disagreed. Because the experts were “peculiarly acquainted” with “a matter of skill or science,” the judge said, the “jury might be assisted” by their hypothetical opinion based on certain assumed facts. Id., at 117, 170 Eng. Rep., at 897. The judge acknowledged the danger of the jury’s being unduly prejudiced by wrongly assuming the truth of the hypothetical facts, but the judge noted that the experts could be asked on cross-examination what their opinion of the ship’s seaworthiness would be if different hypothetical facts were assumed. If the party that had called the experts could not independently prove the truth of the premises they posited, then the experts’ “opinion might not go for much; but still it was admissible evidence.” Ibid.
There is a long tradition of the use of hypothetical questions in American courts. In 1887, for example, this Court indicated its approval of the following jury instruction:
“As to the questions, you must understand that they are not evidence; they are mere statements to these witnesses... and, upon the hypothesis or assumption of these questions the witnesses are asked to give their [opinion]. You must readily see that the value of the answers to these questions depends largely, if not wholly, upon the fact whether the statements made in these questions are sustained by the proof. If the statements in these questions are not supported by the proof, then the answers to the questions are entitled to no weight, because based upon false assumptions or statements of facts.” Forsyth v. Doolittle, 120 U. S. 73, 77 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Modern rules of evidence continue to permit experts to express opinions based on facts about which they lack personal knowledge, but these rules dispense with the need for hypothetical questions. Under both the Illinois and the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert may base an opinion on facts that are “made known to the expert at or before the hearing,” but such reliance does not constitute admissible evidence of this underlying information. Ill. Rule Evid. 703; Fed. Rule Evid. 703. Accordingly, in jury trials, both Illinois and federal law generally bar an expert from disclosing such inadmissible evidence. In bench trials, however, both the Illinois and the Federal Rules place no restriction on the revelation of such information to the factfinder. When the judge sits as the trier of fact, it is presumed that the judge will understand the limited reason for the disclosure of the underlying inadmissible information and will not rely on that information for any improper purpose. As we have noted, “[i]n bench trials, judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making decisions.” Harris v. Rivera, 454 U. S. 339, 346 (1981) (per curiam). There is a “well-established presumption” that “the judge [has] adhered to basic rules of procedure” when the judge is acting as a factfinder. Id., at 346-347 (emphasis added). See also Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U. S. 1030, 1078 (1991) (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting).
This feature of Illinois and federal law is important because Crawford, while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause “does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” 541 U. S., at 59-60, n. 9 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U. S. 409). In Street, the defendant claimed that the police had coerced him into adopting the confession of his alleged accomplice. The prosecution sought to rebut this claim by showing that the defendant’s confession differed significantly from the accomplice’s. Although the accomplice’s confession was clearly a testimonial statement, the Court held that the jurors could hear it as long as they were instructed to consider that confession not for its truth, but only for the “distinctive and limited purpose” of comparing it to the defendant’s confession, to see whether the two were identical. Id., at 417.
⅜—I i—i
A
In order to assess petitioner’s Confrontation Clause argument, it is helpful to inventory exactly what Lambatos said on the stand about Cellmark. She testified to the truth of the following matters: Cellmark was an accredited lab, App. 49; the ISP occasionally sent forensic samples to Cellmark for DNA testing, ibid.; according to shipping manifests admitted into evidence, the ISP lab sent vaginal swabs taken from the victim to Cellmark and later received those swabs back from Cellmark, id., at 52-55; and, finally, the Cellmark DNA profile matched a profile produced by the ISP lab from a sample of petitioner’s blood, id., at 55-56. Lambatos had personal knowledge of all of these matters, and therefore none of this testimony infringed petitioner’s confrontation right.
Lambatos did not testify to the truth of any other matter concerning Cellmark. She made no other reference to the Cellmark report, which was not admitted into evidence and was not seen by the trier of fact. Nor did she testify to anything that was done at the Cellmark lab, and she did not vouch for the quality of Cellmark’s work.
B
The principal argument advanced to show a Confrontation Clause violation concerns the phrase that Lambatos used when she referred to the DNA profile that the ISP lab received from Cellmark. This argument is developed most fully in the dissenting opinion, and therefore we refer to the dissent’s discussion of this issue.
In the view of the dissent, the following is the critical portion of Lambatos’ testimony, with the particular words that the dissent finds objectionable italicized:
“Q Was there a computer match generated of the male DNA profile found in semen from the vaginal swabs of [L. J] to a male DNA profile that had been identified as having originated from Sandy Williams?
“A Yes, there was.” Post, at 124 (opinion of Kagan, J.) (quoting App. 56; emphasis added).
According to the dissent, the italicized phrase violated petitioner’s confrontation right because Lambatos lacked personal knowledge that the profile produced by Cellmark was based on the vaginal swabs taken from the victim, L. J. As the dissent acknowledges, there would have been “nothing wrong with Lambatos’s testifying that two DNA profiles—the one shown in the Cellmark report and the one derived from Williams’s blood—matched each other; that was a straightforward application of Lambatos’s expertise.” Post, at 129. Thus, if Lambatos’ testimony had been slightly modified as follows, the dissent would see no problem:
“Q Was there a computer match generated of the male DNA profile produced by Cellmark found in-semerr from the-vaginal swabs of [L. J.] to a male DNA profile that had been identified as having originated from Sandy Williams?
“A Yes, there was.”
The defect in this argument is that under Illinois law (like federal law) it is clear that the putatively offending phrase in Lambatos’ testimony was not admissible for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted—i. e., that the matching DNA profile was “found in semen from the vaginal swabs.” Rather, that fact was a mere premise of the prosecutor’s question, and Lambatos simply assumed that premise to be true when she gave her answer indicating that there was a match between the two DNA profiles. There is no reason to think that the trier of fact took Lambatos’ answer as substantive evidence to establish where the DNA profiles came from.
The dissent’s argument would have force if petitioner had elected to have a jury trial. In that event, there would have been a danger of the jury’s taking Lambatos’ testimony as proof that the Cellmark profile was derived from the sample obtained from the victim’s vaginal swabs. Absent an evaluation of the risk of juror confusion and careful jury instructions, the testimony could not have gone to the jury.
This case, however, involves a bench trial, and we must assume that the trial judge understood that the portion of Lambatos’ testimony to which the dissent objects was not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The dissent, on the other hand, reaches the truly remarkable conclusion that the wording of Lambatos’ testimony confused the trial judge. Were it not for that wording, the argument goes, the judge might have found that the prosecution failed to introduce sufficient admissible evidence to show that the Cellmark profile was derived from the sample taken from the victim, and the judge might have disregarded the DNA evidence. This argument reflects a profound lack of respect for the acumen of the trial judge.
To begin, the dissent’s argument finds no support in the trial record. After defense counsel objected to Lambatos’ testimony, the prosecutor made clear that she was asking Lambatos only about “her own testing based on [DNA] information” that she had received from Cellmark. App. 56. Recognizing that Lambatos’ testimony would carry weight only if the underlying premises could be established, the judge noted that “the issue is... what weight do you give the test [performed by Lambatos], not do you exclude it.” Id., at 94. This echoes the old statement in Beckwith that an expert’s opinion based on disputed premises “might not go for much; but still it [is] admissible evidence.” 1 Camp., at 117, 170 Eng. Rep., at 897. Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court viewed the record in this way, and we see no ground for disagreement.
Second, it is extraordinarily unlikely that any trial judge would be confused in the way that the dissent posits. That Lambatos was not competent to testify to the chain of custody of the sample taken from the victim was a point that any trial judge or attorney would immediately understand. Lambatos, after all, had absolutely nothing to do with the collection of the sample from the victim, its subsequent handling or preservation by the police in Illinois, or its shipment to and receipt by Cellmark. No trial judge would take Lambatos’ testimony as furnishing “the missing link” in the State’s evidence regarding the identity of the sample that Cellmark tested. See post, at 123 (opinion of Kagan, J.).
Third, the admissible evidence left little room for argument that the sample tested by Cellmark came from any source other than the victim’s vaginal swabs. This is so because there is simply no plausible explanation for how Cellmark could have produced a DNA profile that matched Williams’ if Cellmark had tested any sample other than the one taken from the victim. If any other items that might have contained Williams’ DNA had been sent to Cellmark or were otherwise in Cellmark’s possession, there would have been a chance of a mixup or of cross-contamination. See District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. 52, 80 (2009) (Alito, J., concurring). But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Cellmark had any such items. Thus, the fact that the Cellmark profile matched Williams—the very man whom the victim identified in a lineup and at trial as her attacker—was itself striking confirmation that the sample that Cellmark tested was the sample taken from the victim’s vaginal swabs. For these reasons, it is fanciful to suggest that the trial judge took Lambatos’ testimony as providing critical chain-of-custody evidence.
C
Other than the phrase that Lambatos used in referring to the Cellmark profile, no specific passage in the trial record has been identified as violating the Confrontation Clause, but it is nevertheless suggested that the 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:
|
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.
Robert Alton Harris brought a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action claiming that execution by lethal gas is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This action is an obvious attempt to avoid the application of McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467 (1991), to bar this successive claim for relief. Harris has now filed four prior federal habeas petitions. He has made no convincing showing of cause for his failure to raise this claim in his prior petitions.
Even if we were to assume, however, that Harris could avoid the application of McCleskey to bar his claim, we would not consider it on the merits. Whether his claim is framed as a habeas petition or as a § 1983 action, Harris seeks an equitable remedy. Equity must take into consideration the State’s strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and Harris’ obvious attempt at manipulation. See In re Blodgett, 502 U. S. 236 (1992); Delo v. Stokes, 495 U. S. 320, 322 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring). This claim could have been brought more than a decade ago. There is no good reason for this abusive delay, which has been compounded by last-minute attempts to manipulate the judicial process. A court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.
The application to vacate the stay of execution of death is granted, and it is ordered that the orders staying the execution of Robert Alton Harris entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 92-70237 on April 20, 1992, are vacated.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined appellants, the Secretary of the Air Force and five Air Force officers, from proceeding with appellee DeChamplain’s court-martial (i) on charges based upon Art. 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 934, and (ii) on any charges whatever unless appellants allowed civilian defense counsel and certain other persons unlimited access to documents material to DeChamplain’s defense. 367 F. Supp. 1291 (1973). The military authorities appealed directly to this Court, averring jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252. We postponed the jurisdictional question to the hearing on the merits. 418 U. S. 904 (1974). We hold the case properly here under § 1252 and, finding its disposition controlled by our intervening decisions in Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 (1974), and Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738 (1975), vacate the preliminary injunction and remand with directions to dismiss the action.
I
Article 134 provides, inter alia, that “crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense ....”' This clause of the article is an assimilative crimes provision, conferring court-martial jurisdiction over service-connected, non-capital federal offenses not covered by specific provisions of the Code. In 1971, court-martial charges were preferred under this provision against appellee DeChamplain, an Air Force master sergeant. Specifically, DeChamplain was charged with having copied classified documents, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 793 (b), and with having attempted to deliver such copies to an unauthorized person, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 793 (d). DeChamplain was also charged, under Art. 81 of the Uniform Code, 10 U. S. C. § 881, with conspiracy to communicate classified information to an agent of a foreign government, in violation of Art. 134 and 50 U. S. C. § 783 (b), and, under Art. 92, 10 U. S. C. § 892, with failure to obey an Air Force regulation requiring that contacts with foreign agents be reported. All of these charges were premised on allegations that, while stationed in Thailand, DeChamplain twice had been in the company of a Soviet embassy official and subsequently was found in possession of 24 official Air Force documents, ranging in classification from “confidential” to “top secret.” The general court-martial convicted DeChamplain of all charges. On appeal, the Air Force Court of Military Review held that certain inculpatory statements made by DeChamplain should not have been admitted into evidence; the court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The Court of Military Appeals affirmed.
The military authorities then prepared to retry DeChamplain before a general court-martial on substantially the same charges. The charges were amended, however, to delete all allegations pertaining to three of the classified documents, the Air Force choosing to forgo prosecution as to these documents rather than compromise their confidentiality. The Air Force also decided not to introduce at the new trial 12 of the documents, assertedly because of their connection with DeChamplain’s inadmissible inculpatory statements. Copies of all of these documents are contained in the record of DeChamplain’s first court-martial, to which the Air Force has given DeChamplain’s military counsel full access. Civilian defense counsel, however, were allowed access only to unclassified portions of the record and thus were not permitted to inspect those documents that will not be in issue at the retrial. The Air^Force authorized DeChamplain, his military counsel, chief civilian counsel, one legal associate, and one secretary to have access to the nine remaining documents that the charges against DeChamplain now concerii. It imposed restrictions, however, on the use of the documents: they were to be examined only in the presence of persons with appropriate security clearances; no copies were to be made; written notes pertaining to classified information were to remain in Air Force custody; and the information was not to be discussed with anyone other than those who had been authorized access.
At a pretrial hearing conducted pursuant to 10 U. S. C. § 839, DeChamplain challenged these restrictions. The presiding military judge sustained the restrictions, but granted the civilian defense team access to portions of the original record pertaining to the nine documents still at issue, subject to the restrictions applicable to the documents themselves. DeChamplain also moved to dismiss -the charges on various grounds, claiming, inter alia, that Art. 134 was unconstitutional. The presiding judge denied the motion. DeChamplain made the same claims in three petitions to the Court of Military Appeals for extraordinary relief. That court denied the petitions, stating on the last occasion that “[a] petition for extraordinary relief is not a substitute for appeal.”
DeChamplain’s second court-martial was to begin on November 15, 1973. On October 3, he filed this action in the District Court seeking injunctive relief and asserting, among other claims, that Art. 134 was unconstitutionally vague and that the limitations on access to and use of the classified documents denied him due process and effective assistance of counsel. The defendant military "authorities moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief 'could be granted. The court denied the motion. It agreed with the military authorities that “generally a serviceman must first exhaust his military remedies before a federal court will interfere with court martial proceedings.” 367 F. Supp., at 1294. The court believed, however, that the circumstances of the case justified an exception to the rule. Because the issues presented in the case were “purely legal” and did “not necessitate determinations which the military forum is best equipped to make,” and because “Sergeant DeChamplain [would] be denied fundamental constitutional guarantees” unless the court intervened, the court concluded that there was no justification for deferring consideration of the issues until after DeChamplain’s court-martial and subsequent military appellate review. Ibid.
The District Court further concluded that DeChamplain had satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. It ruled that the unconstitutionality of Art. 134 was clear from the decisions of the Courts of Appeals in Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy, 155 U. S. App. D. C. 352, 477 F. 2d 1237 (1973), and Levy v. Parker, 478 F. 2d 772 (CA3 1973), both of which were then pending on certiorari in this Court. The District Court further held that the restrictions on access to the nine documents that the charges now concern and to the record of the previous court-martial were “clearly excessive” and abridged DeChamplain’s right to a fair trial.
Finally, the court concluded that DeChamplain adequately had demonstrated irreparable injury: he had been in confinement since before his original court-martial and, if again convicted, would remain confined pending review by the military appellate courts. The District Court therefore preliminarily enjoined the military authorities from proceeding with the Art. 134 charges. It further enjoined prosecution “on any and all charges” unless the Air Force granted “full and unlimited access to all documents relevant and material to the case” to DeChamplain’s civilian defense counsel “and such legal associates and assistants, subject to an appropriate protective order, as are necessary to said counsel’s adequate preparation for trial.”
II
The case comes to us in a most unusual posture. Insofar as the complaint sought an injunction against enforcement of Art. 134 on the ground of its asserted unconstitutionality, the case falls within the literal mandate of 28 U. S. C. § 2282. That section provides that “[a] n interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges....” Although neither of the parties to this suit applied to the District Court for convention of a three-judge court, the section’s requirement is jurisdictional, and if it applies a single district judge has no power to act. See, e. g., Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 606-607 (1960); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 153 (1963). A single judge, however, can dismiss the action for want of justiciability or general subject-matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 100 (1974). We also have held that general subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking when the claim of unconstitutionality is insubstantial, i. e., obviously without merit or clearly concluded by this Court’s previous decisions. Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 32 (1933); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 715 (1962); Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512, 518-519 (1973).
The District Court here, however, obviously did not consider DeChamplain’s constitutional claim insubstantial; on the contrary, the court denied the motion to dismiss and went on to grant a preliminary injunction. According to DeChamplain, a three-judge court was deemed unnecessary at the time the complaint was filed, not because his claim was insubstantial, but because the unconstitutionality of the statute appeared settled by the Court of Appeals decision in Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy, supra, a decision binding on the District Court. Hence, it is said, the case seemed to present a variant, however attenuated, of Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962), and the District Court thought itself empowered to act since the “decision could not possibly go in any manner save one.”
But the prediction proved to be ill-founded; subsequently, the Court of Appeals decision in Avrech was reversed by this Court. Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U. S. 676 (1974). In consequence of this, appellee DeChamplain argued in his motion to dismiss and brief to this Court that the question of Art. 134’s constitutionality was substantial and thus a three-judge court was required. Moreover, if this is so, appellee urges, this Court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Appellee bases this argument on our decisions concerning appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. That section allows a direct appeal to this Court “from an order granting or denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.” On its face, this provision would seem to allow a direct appeal to this Court if a single district judge grants or denies an injunction, when under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 or § 2282 the case was “required ... to be heard and determined” by a three-judge court. This Court has read the statute, however, as allowing direct appeals only from “orders actually entered by three-judge courts.” Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, supra, at 96 n. 14. See Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 15-16 (1930). And we have held that, when a single district judge fails to call for the convention of a three-judge court and goes on to dispose of the case, an appeal lies only to the court of appeals. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, supra; Hicks v. Pleasure House, Inc., 404 U. S. 1, 3 (1971).
Appellants here, howéver, premise this Court’s jurisdiction on 28 U. S. C. § 1252, rather than § 1253. Section 1252 provides in pertinent part:
“Any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory or final judgment, decree or order of any court of the United States . . . holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the United States or any of its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof, as such officer or employee, is a party.”
The requisites of this provision are met in this case. This is a civil action; the appellant military authorities are, of course, officers of the United States, acting in their official capacities; and Art. 134 is an “Act of Congress.” It might be argued that, in deciding to issue the preliminary injunction, the District Court made only an interlocutory determination of appellee’s probability of success on the merits and did not finally “hold” the article unconstitutional. By its terms, however, § 1252 applies to interlocutory as well as final judgments, decrees, and orders, and this Court previously has found the section properly invoked when the court below has made only an interlocutory determination of unconstitutionality, at least if, as here, that determination forms the necessary predicate to the grant or denial of preliminary equitable relief. Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100 (1947). In this case, as in United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20 (1960), it is clear that “the basis of the decision below in fact was that the Act of Congress was unconstitutional. . .
In his motion to dismiss, appellee argued that § 1252 should be subject to the limitations placed on direct appeals to this Court under § 1253. In other words, § 1252 should not be read as allowing a direct appeal from an injunctive order erroneously entered by a single district judge, and instead appeal should be allowed only when the district court acted within its jurisdiction. Such a gloss on § 1252 perhaps would be “consonant with the overriding policy, historically encouraged by Congress, of minimizing the mandatory docket of this Court . . . .” Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, supra, at 98. We think, however, that in § 1252 Congress unambiguously mandated an exception to this policy in the narrow circumstances that the section identifies. The language of the statute sufficiently demonstrates its purpose: to afford immediate review in this Court in civil actions to which the United States or its officers are parties and thus will be bound by a holding of' unconstitutionality. The purpose of § 1252 is too plain to allow circumvention, whatever doubts may be entertained about the wisdom of mandatory direct review in other circumstances. Our previous cases have recognized that this Court’s jurisdiction under § 1252 in no way depends on whether the district court had jurisdiction. On the contrary, an appeal under § 1252 brings before us, not only the constitutional question, but the whole case, e. g., United States v. Raines, supra, at 27 n. 7; see 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶[ 110.03 [5], p. 96 (2d ed. 1973), including threshold issues of subject-matter jurisdiction, United States v. American Friends Service Committee, 419 U. S. 7, 12 n. 7 (1974), and whether a three-judge court was required, Flemming Nestor, 363 U. S. 603 (I960). We follow these cases and hold that, whether the District Court did or did not have jurisdiction to act, this case is properly here under
Proper disposition of the case does not require extended discussion. Appellants argue that, in fact, DeChamplain’s constitutional claim was always insubstantial. The Courts of Appeals decisions in Levy v. Parker and Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy, which concluded that Art. 134 suffered from unconstitutional vagueness, concerned only the first two clauses of that article making punishable “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” DeChamplain, however, was charged under the assimilative crimes clause of the article, and was accused of having committed specific federal offenses. Thus, any possible vagueness in other parts of the article could not have affected DeChamplain. At this point, however, no purpose could be served by our deciding whether, when the complaint was filed, DeChamplain’s constitutional claim was or was not substantial. Under our. decisions in Levy and Avrech, DeChamplain’s claim is, as he concedes, clearly insubstantial now and must be dismissed.
We turn, finally, to the portion of the preliminary injunction requiring the military authorities to allow unlimited access to the original court-martial record and to documents that will be at issue at DeChamplain’s court-martial. Since this claim is independent of the Art. 134 question and unrelated to the validity and interpretation of that article or to any other Act of Congress, a three-judge court was not required to hear it. As to this claim, however, the only harm DeChamplain claimed in support of his prayer for equitable relief was that, if convicted, he might remain incarcerated pending review within the military system. Thus, according to . DeChamplain, intervention is justified now to ensure that he receives a trial free of constitutional error, and to avoid the possibility that he will be incarcerated, pending review, on the basis of a conviction that inevitably will be invalid. But if such harm were deemed sufficient to warrant equitable interference into pending court-martial proceedings, any constitutional ruling at the court-martial presumably would be subject to immediate relitigation in federal district courts, resulting in disruption to the court-martial and circumvention of the military appellate system provided by Congress.
We hold that relief as to the access claim is precluded squarely by our holding in Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S., at 758, that “when a serviceman charged with crimes by military authorities can show no harm other than that attendant to resolution of his case in the military court system, the federal district courts must refrain from intervention . . . .” The “unlimited access” aspect of DeChamplain’s suit therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Vacated and remanded.
The Chief of Staff, Department of the Air Force, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and the following officers stationed at Riehards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Mo.: Colonel Hewitt E. Lovelace, Jr., the convening authority; Major Forrest W. Thomas, Staff Judge- Advocate; and Colonel Russell A. Stanley, presiding military judge.
See United States v. Frantz, 2 U. S. C. M. A. 161, 7 C. M. R. 37 (1953). The full text of the article provides:
. “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
46 C. M. R. 784 (1972).
22 U. S. C. M. A. 150, 46 C. M. R. 150 (1973).
DeChamplain v. United States, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 211, 46 C. M. R. 211 (1973); DeChamplain v. United States, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 656, 46 C. M. R. 1329 (1973); DeChamplain v. McLucas, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 462, 47 C. M. R. 552 (1973).
Ibid.
The District Court also observed that in United States v. Unrue, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 654 (1973), the Court of Military Appeals declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Avrech v. Secretary of the Navy, 155 U. S. App. D. C. 352, 477 F. 2d 1237 (1973). The District Court stated that “[i]t simply offends basic notions of fairness to require plaintiff to endure a possible lengthy court martial and further expect that appellate relief be sought in a tribunal which has clearly and summarily rejected the claims asserted.” 367 F. Supp. 1291, 1295 (DC 1973).
Following the District Court’s decision, the Air Force authorized two consultants selected by DeChamplain’s counsel to have access to the classified materials that will be in issue at the court-martial, subject to the same restrictions imposed on civilian counsel.
Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vincent, 375 F. 2d 129, 131 n. 1 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 839 (1967). Our description of appellee’s argument, of course, does not intimate any approval of the radical expansion of Bailey that it appears to represent.
There is no question that our appellate jurisdiction as to the access issue depends entirely on whether an appeal properly lies as to the Art. 134 issue.
Appellee’s counsel vigorously argued this position in both his motion to dismiss and brief. At oral argument before this Court, howéver, counsel receded from this position and now agrees that the appeal properly was taken under § 1252. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17.
As Nestor makes clear, if we were to conclude that § 2282 required a three-judge court, the proper course would be to vacate the judgment below and remand with directions that a three-judge court be convened. 363 U. S., at 606-607.
Brief for Appellee 21.
Because of this disposition of the matter, there is no occasion here to decide whether, if the unconstitutionality of Art. 134 had been established conclusively, as the District Court apparently believed, that would have justified an exception to the rule generally barring federal-court intervention into pending court-martial proceedings. Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 53-54 (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.
Customs officials seized 37 kilograms — a little more than 81 pounds — of marijuana from respondent Manuel Flores-Montano’s gas tank at the international border. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, relying on an earlier decision by a divided panel of that court, United States v. Molina-Tarazon, 279 F. 3d 709 (2002), held that the Fourth Amendment forbade the fuel tank search absent reasonable suspicion. No. 02-50306, 2003 WL 22410705 (Mar. 14,2003). We hold that the search in question did not require reasonable suspicion.
Respondent, driving a 1987 Ford Taurus station wagon, attempted to enter the United States at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in southern California. A customs inspector conducted an inspection of the station wagon, and requested respondent to leave the vehicle. The vehicle was then taken to a secondary inspection station.
At the secondary station, a second customs inspector inspected the gas tank by tapping it, and noted that the tank sounded solid. Subsequently, the inspector requested a mechanic under contract with Customs to come to the border station to remove the tank. Within 20 to 30 minutes, the mechanic arrived. He raised the car on a hydraulic lift, loosened the straps and unscrewed the bolts holding the gas tank to the undercarriage of the vehicle, and then disconnected some hoses and electrical connections. After the gas tank was removed, the inspector hammered off bondo (a putty-like hardening substance that is used to seal openings) from the top of the gas tank. The inspector opened an access plate underneath the bondo and found 37 kilograms of marijuana bricks. The process took 15 to 25 minutes.
A grand jury for the Southern District of California indicted respondent on one count of unlawfully importing marijuana, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 952, and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of § 841(a)(1). Relying on Molina-Tarazon, respondent filed a motion to suppress the marijuana recovered from the gas tank. In Molina-Tarazon, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that removal of a gas tank requires reasonable suspicion in order to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 279 F. 3d, at 717.
The Government advised the District Court that it was not relying on reasonable suspicion as a basis for denying respondent’s suppression motion, but that it believed Molina-Tarazon was wrongly decided. The District Court, relying on Molina-Tarazon, held that reasonable suspicion was required to justify the search and, accordingly, granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals, citing Molina-Tarazon, summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgment. No. 02-50306, 2003 WL 22410705 (CA9, Mar. 14, 2003). We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 945 (2003), and now reverse.
In Molina-Tarazon, the Court of Appeals decided a case presenting similar facts to the one at bar. It asked “whether [the removal and dismantling of the defendant’s fuel tank] is a ‘routine’ border search for which no suspicion whatsoever is required.” 279 F. 3d, at 711. The Court of Appeals stated that “[i]n order to conduct a search that goes beyond the routine, an inspector must have reasonable suspicion,” and the “critical factor” in determining whether a search is “routine” is the “degree of intrusiveness.” Id., at 712-713.
The Court of Appeals seized on language from our opinion in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531 (1985), in which we used the word “routine” as a descriptive term in discussing border searches. Id., at 538 (“Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant”); id., at 541, n. 4 (“Because the issues are not presented today we suggest no view on what level of suspicion, if any, is required for nonroutine border searches such as strip, body-cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches”). The Court of Appeals took the term “routine,” fashioned a new balancing test, and extended it to searches of vehicles. But the reasons that might support a requirement of some level of suspicion in the case of highly intrusive searches of the person — dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched — simply do not carry over to vehicles. Complex balancing tests to determine what is a “routine” search of a vehicle, as opposed to a more “intrusive” search of a person, have no place in border searches of vehicles.
The Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. Time and again, we have stated that “searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 616 (1977). Congress, since the beginning of our Government, “has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.” Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 537 (citing Ramsey, supra, at 616-617 (citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29)). The modern statute that authorized the search in this case, 46 Stat. 747, 19 U. S. C. § 1581(a), derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, §31, 1 Stat. 164, see United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 584 (1983), and reflects the “impressive historical pedigree” of the Government’s power and interest, id., at 585. It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.
That interest in protecting the borders is illustrated in this case by the evidence that smugglers frequently attempt to penetrate our borders with contraband secreted in their automobiles’ fuel tank. Over the past 5lA fiscal years, there have been 18,788 vehicle drug seizures at the southern California ports of entry. App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a. Of those 18,788, gas tank drug seizures have accounted for 4,619 of the vehicle drug seizures, or approximately 25%. Ibid. In addition, instances of persons smuggled in and around gas tank compartments are discovered at the ports of entry of San Ysidro and Otay Mesa at a rate averaging 1 approximately every 10 days. Id., at 16a.
Respondent asserts two main arguments with respect to his Fourth Amendment interests. First, he urges that he has a privacy interest in his fuel tank, and that the suspicion-less disassembly of his tank is an invasion of his privacy. But on many occasions, we have noted that the expectation of privacy is less at the border than it is in the interior. Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 538. We have long recognized that automobiles seeking entry into this country may be searched. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925) (“Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary because of national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in”). It is difficult to imagine how the search of a gas tank, which should be solely a repository for fuel, could be more of an invasion of privacy than the search of the automobile’s passenger compartment.
Second, respondent argues that the Fourth Amendment “protects property as well as privacy,” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 62 (1992), and that the disassembly and reassembly of his gas tank is a significant deprivation of his property interest because it may damage the vehicle. He does not, and on the record cannot, truly contend that the procedure of removal, disassembly, and reassembly of the fuel tank in this case or any other has resulted in serious damage to, or destruction of, the property. According to the Government, for example, in fiscal year 2003, 348 gas tank searches conducted along the southern border were negative (1 e., no contraband was found), the gas tanks were reassembled, and the vehicles continued their entry into the United States without incident. Brief for United States 31.
Respondent cites not a single accident involving the vehicle or motorist in the many thousands of gas tank disassem-blies that have occurred at the border. A gas tank search involves a brief procedure that can be reversed without damaging the safety or operation of the vehicle. If damage to a vehicle were to. occur, the motorist might be entitled to recovery. See, e. g., 31 U. S. C. § 3723; 19 U. S. C. § 1630. While the interference with a motorist’s possessory interest is not insignificant when the Government removes, disassembles, and reassembles his gas tank, it nevertheless is justified by the Government’s paramount interest in protecting the border.
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government’s authority to conduct suspieionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank. While it may be true that some searches of property are so destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 1581(a) provides:
“Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act, or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance.”
Respondent's reliance on cases involving exploratory drilling searches is misplaced. See United States v. Rivas, 157 F. 3d 364 (CA5 1998) (drilling into body of trailer required reasonable suspicion); United States v. Robles, 45 F. 3d 1 (CA1 1995) (drilling into machine part required reasonable suspicion); United States v. Carreon, 872 F. 2d 1436 (CA10 1989) (drilling into camper required reasonable suspicion). We have no reason at this time to pass on the reasonableness of drilling, but simply note the obvious factual difference that this case involves the procedure of removal, disassembly, and reassembly of a fuel tank, rather than potentially destructive drilling. We again leave open the question “whether, and under what circumstances, a border search might be deemed ‘unreasonable’ because of the particularly offensive manner in which it is carried out.” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 618, n. 13 (1977).
Respondent also argued that he has some sort of Fourth Amendment right not to be subject to delay at the international border and that the need for the use of specialized labor, as well as the hour actual delay here and the potential for even greater delay for reassembly are an invasion of that right. Respondent points to no cases indicating the Fourth Amendment shields entrants from inconvenience or delay at the international border.
The procedure in this case took about an hour (including the wait for the mechanic). At oral argument, the Government advised us that, depending on the type of car, a search involving the disassembly and reassembly of a gas tank may take one to two hours. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. We think it clear that delays of one to two hours at international borders are to be expected.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, a State or subdivision thereof subject to the Act may not enforce any change in “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” unless such change has either been approved by the Attorney General or that officer has failed to act within 60 days after submission to him, or unless in a suit brought by such State or subdivision the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has issued its declaratory judgment that such 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 . . . .” Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), held that § 5 reaches the extension of a city’s boundaries through the process of annexation. Here, the city of Richmond annexed land formerly in Chesterfield County, and the issue is whether the city in its declaratory judgment action brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia has carried its burden of proof of demonstrating that the annexation had neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of the Richmond Negro community on account of its race or color.
I
The controlling Virginia statutes permit cities to annex only after obtaining a favorable judgment from a specially constituted three-judge annexation court. In 1962, the city sought judicial approval of two annexation ordinances, one seeking to annex approximately 150 square miles of Henrico County and the other approximately 51 square miles of Chesterfield County. The Henrico case, which was protracted, proceeded first. In 1965, the annexation court authorized the annexation of 16 square miles of Henrico County; but because of a $55 million financial obligation which, as it turned out, annexation would entail, the city council determined that the annexation was not in the city’s best interest. The Henrico case was accordingly dismissed.
The city then proceeded with the Chesterfield case. In May 1969, a compromise line was approved by the city and Chesterfield County and incorporated in a decree of July 12, 1969, which awarded the city approximately 23 square miles of land adjacent to the city in Chesterfield County. The preannexation population of the city as of 1970 was 202,359, of which 104,207 or 52% were black citizens. The annexation added to the city 47,262 people, of whom 1,557 were black and 45,705 were nonblack. The postannexation population of the city was therefore 249,621, of which 105,764 or 42% were Negroes. The annexation became effective on January 1, 1970, and the city has exercised jurisdiction over the area since that time.
Before and immediately after annexation, the city had a nine-man council, which was elected at large. In 1968, three candidates endorsed by the Crusade for Voters of Richmond, a black civic organization, were elected to the council. In the postannexation, at-large election in 1970, three of the nine members elected had also received the endorsement of the Crusade.
On January 14, 1971, a divided Court in Perkins v. Matthews, supra, held that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act applied to city annexations. On January 28, 1971, the city of Richmond sought the Attorney General’s approval of the Chesterfield annexation. On May 7, 1971, after requesting and receiving additional materials from the city, the Attorney General declined to approve the voting change, which he deemed the annexation to represent, saying that the annexation substantially increased the proportion of whites and decreased the proportion of blacks in the city and that the annexation “inevitably tends to dilute the voting strength of black voters.” 1 App. 24. The Attorney General suggested, however, that “[y]ou may, of course, wish to consider means of accomplishing annexation which would avoid producing an impermissible adverse racial impact on voting, including such techniques as single-member districts.” Ibid. Following reversal by this Court of the District Court’s judgment in Chavis v. Whitcomb, 305 F. Supp. 1364 (SD Ind. 1969), rev’d, 403 U. S. 124 (1971), a decision on which the Attorney General had relied in disapproving the Chesterfield annexation, the city’s request for reconsideration was denied by the Attorney General on September 30, 1971, again with the suggestion that “single-member, non-racially drawn councilmanic districts” would be “one means of minimizing the racial effect of the annexation . . . .” 1 App. 32.
Meanwhile on February 4, 1971, respondent Curtis Holt brought an action {Holt I) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting that the annexation denied Richmond Negroes their rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. In November 1971, the District Court ruled in that suit that the annexation had had an illegal racial purpose and ordered a new election of the city council, seven councilmen to be elected at large from the old city and two primarily from the annexed area. Holt v. City of Richmond, 334 F. Supp. 228. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed on May 3, 1972, 459 F. 2d 1093, cert. denied, 408 U. S. 931 (1972), holding that no Fifteenth Amendment rights were violated, that the city had valid reasons for seeking to annex in 1962, and that the record would support no finding that the 1969 annexation was not motivated by the same considerations.
On December 9, 1971, Holt began another suit (Holt II) in the Eastern District of Virginia, this time seeking to have the annexation declared invalid under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act for failure to have secured either the approval of the Attorney General or of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As the result of this litigation, which was stayed pending the outcome of the present suit, further city council elections have been enjoined and the council elected in 1970 has remained in office.
Upon denial of certiorari in Holt I, supra, the Attorney General was again asked to modify his disapproval of the annexation because of the Fourth Circuit’s decision that no impermissible purpose had accompanied the annexation and that Fifteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. Receiving no response from the Attorney General, the city filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on August 25, 1972, seeking approval of the annexation and relying on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Holt I. Respondent Holt and the Crusade for Voters intervened.
Shortly thereafter, City of Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (1972), was decided by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. There, the District Court held invalid an annexation by a Virginia city, where at-large council elections were the rule both before and after the annexation, but indicated that approval could be had “on the condition that modifications calculated to neutralize to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political participation of black voters are adopted, i. e., that the plaintiff shift from an at-large to a ward system of electing its city councilmen.” Id., at 1031. We affirmed that judgment. 410 U. S. 962 (1973).
Thereafter, Richmond developed and submitted to the Attorney General various plans for establishing council-manic districts in the city. With some modification, to which the city council agreed, the Attorney General indicated approval of one of these plans. This was a nine-ward proposal under which four of the wards would have substantial black majorities, four wards substantial white majorities, and the ninth a racial division of approximately 59% white and 41% black. The city and the Attorney General submitted this plan to the District Court for the District of Columbia in the form of a consent judgment. The intervenors opposed it, and the District Court referred the case to a Special Master for hearings and recommendations. The Special Master submitted recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based on the statements of various officials of the city and other events which he found to have taken place, the Master concluded that the city had not met its burden of proving that the annexation did not have the purpose of diluting the right of black persons to vote, and that the ward plan did not cure the discriminatory racial purpose accompanying the annexation. In addition, he concluded that in any event the diluting effect of the annexation had not been dissipated to the greatest extent reasonably possible, that the city had not demonstrated any acceptable counterbalancing economic and administrative benefits, and that deannexation was the only acceptable remedy for the violations of § 5 which had been found.
The District Court, 376 F. Supp. 1344 (1974), essentially accepted the findings and conclusions of the Special Master except for his recommendation with respect to deannexation. Based on the Special Master’s findings, the District Court concluded that the city’s “1970 changes in its election practices following upon the annexation were discriminatory in purpose and effect and thus violative of Section 5’s substantive standards as well as the section’s procedural command that prior approval be obtained from the Attorney General or this court.” Id., at 1352. The District Court went on to hold that the invidious racial purpose underlying the annexation had not been eliminated since no “objectively verifiable, legitimate purpose for annexation” had been shown and since the ward plan does not effectively eliminate or sufficiently compensate for the dilution of the black voting power resulting from the annexation. Id., at 1353-1354. Furthermore, in fashioning the ward system the city had not, the court held, minimized the. dilution of black voting power to the greatest possible extent, relying for this conclusion on another ward plan presented by intervenors which would have improved the chance that Negroes would control five out of the nine wards. The annexation could not be approved, therefore, because it also had the forbidden effect of denying the right to vote of the Negro community in Richmond.
The District Court, however, declined to order deannexation, and left the matter of the remedy to be fashioned in Holt II, still pending in the Eastern District of Virginia. We noted probable jurisdiction, 419 U. S. 1067 (1974).
II
We deal first with whether the annexation involved here had the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote within the contemplation of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Perkins v. Matthews, supra, held that changes in city boundaries by annexation have sufficient potential for denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color that prior to becoming effective they must have the administrative or judicial approval required by § 5. But it would be difficult to conceive of any annexation that would not change a city’s racial composition at least to some extent; and we did not hold in Perkins that every annexation effecting a reduction in the percentage of Negroes in the city’s population is prohibited by § 5. We did not hold, as the District Court asserted, that “[i]f the proportion of blacks in the new citizenry from the annexed area is appreciably less than the proportion of blacks living within the city’s old boundaries, and particularly if there is a history of racial bloc voting in the city, the voting power of black citizens as a class is diluted and thus abridged,” 376 F. Supp., at 1348 (footnote omitted), and that the annexation thus violates § 5 and cannot be approved.
In City of Petersburg v. United States, supra, the city sought a declaratory judgment that a proposed annexation satisfied the standards of § 5. Councilmen were elected at large; Negroes made up more than half the population, but less than half the voters; and the area to be annexed contained a heavy white majority. A three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia, although finding no evidence of a racially discriminatory purpose, held that in the context of at-large elections, the annexation would have the effect of denying the right to vote because it would create or perpetuate a white majority in the city and, positing racial voting which was found to be prevalent, it would enhance the power of the white majority totally to exclude Negroes from the city council. The court held, however, that a reduction of a racial group’s relative political strength in the community does not always deny or abridge the right to vote within the meaning of § 5:
“If the view of the Diamond intervenors concerning what constitutes a denial or abridgment in annexation cases were to prevail, no court could ever approve any annexation in areas covered by the Voting Rights Act if there were a history of racial bloc-voting in local elections for any office and if the racial balance were to shift in even the smallest degree as a result of the annexation. It would not matter that the annexation was essential for the continued economic health of a municipality or that it was favored by citizens of all races; because if the demographic makeup of the surrounding areas were such that any annexation would produce a shift of majority strength from one race to another, a court would be required to disapprove it without even considering any other evidence, and the municipality would be effectively locked into’ its original boundaries. This Court cannot agree that this was the intent of Congress when it enacted the Voting Rights Act.” 354 F. Supp., at 1030 (footnote omitted).
The court went on to hold that the effect on the- right to vote forbidden by § 5, which had been found to exist in the case, could be cured by a ward plan for electing councilmen in the enlarged city:
“The Court concludes then, that this annexation, insofar as it is a mere boundary change and not an expansion of an at-large system, is not the kind of discriminatory change which Congress sought to prevent; but it also concludes, in accordance with the .Attorney General’s findings, that this annexation can be approved only on the condition that modifications calculated to neutralize to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political participation of black voters are adopted, i. e., that the plaintiff shift from an at-large to a ward system of electing its city councilmen.” Id,., at 1031.
The judgment entered by the District Court in the Petersburg case, although refusing the declaratory judgment in the context of at-large elections, retained jurisdiction and directed that “plaintiff prepare a plan for conducting its city council elections in accordance with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by this Court . . . .” Jurisdictional Statement in City of Petersburg v. United States, No. 72-865, O. T. 1972, p. 25a. In its appeal, the city presented the question, among others, whether the District Court was correct in conditioning approval of the annexation upon the adoption of the plan to elect councilmen by wards. We affirmed the judgment without opinion. 410 U. S. 962 (1973).
Petersburg was correctly decided. On the facts there presented, the annexation of an area with a white majority, combined with at-large councilmanic elections and racial voting, created or enhanced the power of the white majority to exclude Negroes totally from participation in the governing of the city through membership on the city council. We agreed, however, that that consequence would be satisfactorily obviated if at-large elections were replaced by a ward system of choosing councilmen. It is our view that a fairly designed ward plan in such circumstances would not only prevent the total exclusion of Negroes from membership on the council but would afford them representation reasonably equivalent to their political strength in the enlarged community.
We cannot accept the position that such a single-member ward system would nevertheless have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote because Negroes would constitute a lesser proportion of the population after the annexation than before and, given racial bloc voting, would have fewer seats on the city council. If a city having a ward system for the election of a nine-man council annexes a largely white area, the wards are fairly redrawn, and as a result Negroes have only two rather than the four seats they had before, these facts alone do not demonstrate that the annexation has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote. As long as the ward system fairly reflects the strength of the Negro community as it exists after the annexation, we cannot hold, without more specific legislative directions, that such an annexation is nevertheless barred by § 5. It is true that the black community, if there is racial bloc voting, will command fewer seats on the city council; and the annexation will have effected a decline in the Negroes' relative influence in the city. But a different city council and an enlarged city are involved after the annexation. Furthermore, Negro power in the new city is not undervalued, and Negroes will not be underrepresented on the council.
As long as this is true, we cannot hold that the effect of the annexation is to deny or abridge the right to vote. To hold otherwise would be either to forbid all such annexations or to require, as the price for'approval of the annexation, that the black community be assigned the same proportion of council seats as before, hence perhaps permanently overrepresenting them and underrepresenting other elements in the community, including the nonblack citizens in the annexed area. We are unwilling to hold that Congress intended either consequence in enacting § 5.
We are also convinced that the annexation now before us, in the context of the ward system of election finally proposed by the city and then agreed to by the United States, does not have the effect prohibited by § 5. The findings on which this case was decided and is presented to us were that the postannexation population of the city was 42% Negro as compared with 52% prior to annexation. The nine-ward system finally submitted by the city included four wards each of which had a greater than a 64%. black majority. Four wards were heavily white. The ninth had a black population of 40.9%. In our view, such a plan does not undervalue the black strength in the community after annexation; and we hold that the annexation in this context does not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote within the meaning of § 5. To the extent that the District Court rested on a different view, its judgment cannot stand.
Ill
The foregoing principles should govern the application of § 5 insofar as it forbids changes in voting procedures having the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the grounds of race or color. But the section also proscribes changes that are made with the purpose of denying the right to vote on such grounds. The District Court concluded that when the annexation eventually approved in 1969 took place, it was adopted by the city with a discriminatory racial purpose, the precise purpose prohibited by § 5, and that to purge itself of that purpose the city was required to prove two factors, neither of which had been successfully or satisfactorily shown: (1) that the city had some objectively verifiable, legitimate purpose for the annexation at the time of adopting the ward system of electing councilmen in 1973; and (2) that “the ward plan not only reduced, but also effectively eliminated, the dilution of black voting power caused by the annexation . . . .” 376 F. Supp., at 1353 (footnote omitted). The Master’s findings were accepted to the effect that there were no current, legitimate economic or administrative reasons warranting the annexation. As for the second requirement, the ward plan failed to afford Negroes the political potential comparable to that which they would have enjoyed without the annexation, because they would soon have had a majority of the voting population in the old city and would have controlled the council, and because, in any event, it was doubtful that their political power under the proposed ward system in the enlarged community was equivalent to their influence in the old city under an at-large election system.
The requirement that the city allocate to the Negro community in the larger city the voting power or the seats on the city council in excess of its proportion in the new community and thus permanently to under-represent other elements in the community is fundamentally at odds with the position we have expressed earlier in this opinion, and we cannot approve treating the failure to satisfy it as evidence of any purpose proscribed by § 5.
Accepting the findings of the Master in the District Court that the annexation, as it went forward in 1969, was infected by the impermissible purpose of denying the right to vote based on race through perpetuating white majority power to exclude Negroes from office through at-large elections, we are nevertheless persuaded that if verifiable reasons are now demonstrable in support of the annexation, and the ward plan proposed is fairly designed, the city need do no more to satisfy the requirements of § 5. We are also convinced that if the annexation cannot be sustained on sound, nondiscriminatory grounds, it would be only in the most extraordinary circumstances that the annexation should be permitted on condition that the Negro community be permanently overrepresented in the governing councils of the enlarged city. We are very doubtful that those circumstances exist in this case; for, as far as this record is concerned, Chesterfield County was and still is quite ready to receive back the annexed area, to compensate the city for its capital improvements, and to resume governance of the area. It would also seem obvious that if there are no verifiable economic or administrative benefits from the annexation that would accrue to the city, its financial or other prospects would not be worsened by deannexation.
We need not determine this matter now, however; for if, as we have made clear, the controlling factor in this case is whether there are now objectively verifiable, legitimate reasons for the annexation, we agree with the United States that further proceedings are necessary to bring up to date and reassess the evidence bearing on the issue. We are not satisfied that the Special Master and the District Court gave adequate consideration to the evidence in this case in deciding whether there are now justifiable reasons for the annexation which took place on January 1, 1970. The special, three-judge court of the State of Virginia made the annexation award, giving great weight to the compromise agreement, but nevertheless finding that “Richmond is entitled to some annexation in this case. . . . Obviously cities must in some manner be permitted to grow in territory and population or they will face disastrous economic and social problems.” 1 App. 42. The court went on to find that the annexation met all of the “requirements of necessity and, most important of all, expediency,” id., at 47, expediency in the sense that it is “ ‘advantageous’ and in furtherance of the policy of the State that ‘urban areas should be under urban government and rural areas under county government.’ ” Id., at 44.
In Holt I, where the annexation was attacked under the Fifteenth Amendment as being a purposeful plan to deprive black citizens of their constitutional right to vote without discrimination on grounds of race, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc, concluded that the plaintiffs had not proved a purposeful design to annex in order to deprive Negro citizens of their political rights. The majority expressly held that there were legitimate grounds for annexing part of Chesterfield County in 1962 and that the proof was inadequate to show that these grounds had been replaced by impermissible racial purposes in 1969. The District Court had come to a contrary conclusion with respect to the 1969 annexation but, according to the Court of Appeals, had itself “found that annexation rested upon such firm non-racial grounds that it was necessary, expedient and inevitable.” The two dissenting judges both were of the view that, absent an impermissible racial purpose, the annexation would have been legally acceptable even though the Negro proportion in the community was thereby diminished. One of the dissenters said: “Since there is no reason to question that some annexation, at least as great in geographical scope, would have been decreed had the proceedings run their course and since, from my reading of the. record, there could not have been an annexation of territory without an annexation of people and consequent dilution of the black vote, I approve of the district judge’s fashioning relief solely by ordering a new election of council members under conditions where the black vote could not be diluted.” 459 F. 2d, at 1111 (Winter, J., dissenting).
In the present case the District Court stated that it had no doubt that “Richmond’s leadership was motivated in 1962 by nondiscriminatory goals in filing its 1962 annexation suit,” 376 F. Supp., at 1354 n. 52, but went on to accept the Master’s findings that the annexed area was a financial burden to the city and that there were no administrative or other advantages justifying the annexation. As for the contrary evidence in the record, the District Court asserted that “[t]hese evidentiary references to Holt were, of course, considered by the Master in making his findings,” and summarily concluded, without discussion, that the contrary evidence did not “persuade us that the Master’s findings are wrong, nor do they dissipate the evidence of illegal purpose which permeates this record.” Id., at 1354 (footnote omitted).
In making his findings, however, it appears to us that the Special Master may have relied solely on the testimony of the county administrator of Chesterfield County who had opposed any annexation and was an obviously interested witness. At least there is no indication from the Special Master’s findings or conclusions that he gave any attention to the contrary evidence in the record. The city now claims that the issues before the Special Master did not encompass the possible economic and administrative advantages of the annexation agreed upon in 1969. Given our responsibilities under § 5, we should be confident of the evidentiary record and the adequacy of the lower court’s consideration of it. In this case, for the various reasons stated above, we have sufficient doubt that the record is complete and up to date with respect to whether there are now justifiable reasons for the city to retain the annexed area that we believe further proceedings with respect to this question are desirable.
IV
We have held that an annexation reducing the relative political strength of the minority race in the enlarged city as compared with what it was before the annexation is not a statutory violation as long as the post-annexation electoral system fairly recognizes the minority’s political potential. If this is so, it may be asked how it could be forbidden by § 5 to have the purpose and intent of achieving only what is a perfectly legal result under that section and why we need remand for further proceedings with respect to purpose alone. The answer is plain, and we need not labor it. An official action, whether an annexation or otherwise, taken for the purpose of discriminating against Negroes on account of their race has no legitimacy at all under our Constitution or under the statute. Section 5 forbids voting changes taken with the purpose of denying the vote on the grounds of race or color. Congress surely has the power to prevent such gross racial slurs, the only point of which is “to despoil colored citizens, and only colored citizens, of their theretofore enjoyed voting rights.” Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 347 (1960). Annexations animated by such a purpose have no credentials whatsoever; for “[a]cts generally lawful may become unlawful when done to accomplish an unlawful end . . . Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U. S. 105, 114 (1918); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, supra, at 347. An annexation proved to be of this kind and not proved to have a justifiable basis is forbidden by § 5, whatever its actual effect may have been or may be.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 5, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, provides:
“Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b (a) based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b (b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b (a) of this title based upon determinations made under the second sentence of section 1973b (b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shah lie to the Supreme Court.”
Va. Code Aim. § 15.1-1032 et seq. (1973 and Supp. 1975).
A writ of error was refused by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Deerbourne Civic & Recreation Assn. v. City of Richmond, 210 Va. li-lii (1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1038 (1970).
A motion to stay the effective date of the annexation was denied separately by individual Justices of this Court.
The parties stipulated to the record in Holt /, and the Special Master referred in his decision to that record and to the three days of testimony which he heard. See 376 F. Supp. 1344, 1349 (DC 1974).
The city contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals in Holt I should be given estoppel effect in this case on the question of the purpose behind the annexation. In its view, the earlier decision as to purpose is binding on all the parties participating in the Holt I litigation, and although the United States and the Attorney General did not participate in that litigation, the city asserts that they are in agreement with the city’s position in this case. The District Court rejected the city’s argument by pointing to the fact that the burden of proof was not on the city in the Holt I proceedings although that burden is on Richmond in this ease, and to the different legal bases of the two cases, with different authorities applicable in each. 376 F. Supp., at 1362 n. 43. Whatever the merits of the District Court’s position on this, collateral-estoppel issue, we find controlling the nonparticipation of the United States and the Attorney General in the Holt I case. The federal parties explicitly reject the estoppel argument of the city, Brief for the Federal Parties 16-17, n. 4, and, whatever support the United States presently gives to the city’s annexation, it now recommends that the case be remanded to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and the making of further findings on the question of the city’s purpose:
“We believe that the evidence in the record would support a finding that the City has objectively verifiable, legitimate reasons for retaining the annexed area. However, the parties at trial did not directly litigate that question. The parties, including the federal parties, concentrated on the extent to which the City’s ward plan minimized the dilutive effects of the annexation, i. e., on the permissibility of the effect of the voting change under City of Petersburg, and not on the nondiscriminatory purposes that might justify retention of the annexed area. Thus the City did not develop and present all its evidence relating to such purposes, and the intervening defendants have not had a full opportunity to rebut such evidence.” Id., at 3A-35.
Given this position of the United States, we conclude that Holt I should not be given estoppel effect in this case.
The Court of Appeals said in this respect, 459 F. 2d 1093, 1097 (1972):
“In 1961 there were compelling reasons for annexation of portions of Chesterfield County. Negroes were then a minority in Richmond and no one was then thinking in terms of a possible cleavage between black and white voters. Race was not a factor in the decision to seek annexation. Indeed, the finding was that, without the settle-, ment agreement, the annexation court would have awarded more territory, and a larger preponderance of white voters, to Richmond.
“The District Court recognized, however, that there was no racial motivation in the institution of the annexation proceeding or in its prosecution. If some members of Richmond's governing body had developed a sense of urgency because of the growing number of black voters and their supposed opposition to any annexation and the election of 'Richmond Forward’ candidates, no such thoughts were believed to have infected the minds of the judges of the annexation court. In fact, the District Court found that annexation rested upon such firm non-racial grounds that it was necessary, expedient and inevitable.”
A study by the Urban Institute showing a 1971 fiscal year surplus from the annexed area was not part of the record, the District Court said, and “could not in any ease remove the doubts created by testimony at the hearing.” 376 F. Supp., at 1354 n. 51.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the years 1940, 1941 and 1942 the petitioner produced on his farms and sold more cotton than the quota allotted him under authority of Part IV of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended. 52 Stat. 31, 55-60; 55 Stat. 203; 7 U. S. C. §§ 1281 et seq. The United States filed this suit against petitioner to recover money “penalties” to which § 348 of the Act makes non-cooperating farmers “subject” who market cotton from their farms in excess of their quota. The District Court rendered judgment for $7,039.52 in penalties plus interest at 6% from the various dates the penalties became due to the date of judgment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 158 F. 2d 835. The Fifth Circuit had previously decided that no interest is allowable on such penalties prior to judgment. United States v. West Texas Cottonoil Co., 155 F. 2d 463. We therefore granted certiorari limited to this single question. 331 U. S. 799.
Since penalties under the Agricultural Adjustment Act are imposed under an Act of Congress, they bear interest only if and to the extent such interest is required by federal law. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U. S. 697, 714-716; Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 289, 295-297. There is no language in the Agricultural Adjustment Act or in any other act of Congress which specifically allows or forbids interest on penalties such as these prior to judgment. But the failure to mention interest in statutes which create obligations has not been interpreted by this Court as manifesting an unequivocal congressional purpose that the obligation shall not bear interest. Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 284-288. For in the absence of an unequivocal prohibition of interest on such obligations, this Court has fashioned rules which granted or denied interest on particular statutory obligations by an appraisal of the congressional purpose in imposing them and in the light of general principles deemed relevant by the Court. See, e. g., Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, supra; Board of Comm’rs v. United States, 308 U. S. 343.
As our prior cases show, a persuasive consideration in determining whether such obligations shall bear interest is the relative equities between the beneficiaries of the obligation and those upon whom it has been imposed. And this Court has generally weighed these relative equities in accordance with the historic judicial principle that one for whose financial advantage an obligation was assumed or imposed, and who has suffered actual money damages by another’s breach of that obligation, should be fairly compensated for the loss thereby sustained. See, e. g., Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, supra; United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211, 216; Funkhouser v. J. B. Preston Co., 290 U. S. 163, 168.
The contention is hardly supportable that the Federal Government suffers money damages or loss, in the common law sense, to be compensated for by interest, when one convicted of a crime fails promptly to pay a money fine assessed against him. The underlying theory of that penalty is that it is a punishment or deterrent and not a revenue-raising device; unlike a tax, it does not rest on the basic necessity of the Government to collect a carefully estimated sum of money by a particular date in order to meet its anticipated expenditures. For the foregoing reasons this Court’s holding that a criminal penalty does not bear interest, Pierce v. United States, 255 U. S. 398, 405-406, is consistent with its holding that the Government does suffer recoverable damages if a taxpayer fails to pay taxes when due and is therefore equitably entitled to interest. Billings v. United States, supra. Furthermore, denial of interest on criminal penalties might well be rested on judicial unwillingness to expand punishment fixed for a criminal act beyond that which the plain language of the statute authorizes.
Viewed in light of these principles, we think that the question of interest on the penalties provided in the Agricultural Adjustment Act on non-cooperators should be governed by the rule previously applied by this Court to criminal fines. Although Congress neither wholly prohibited nor made it a crime for a farmer to market cotton in excess of his quota, still it imposed sanctions upon non-cooperators analogous to those of the criminal law. The purpose of Congress in requiring payment of penalties into the Federal Treasury for marketing above the allotted amount was not to raise revenue for the Government’s financial advantage but to deter farmers from planting and marketing more than their quotas. In fact, the whole philosophy of the Agricultural Adjustment Act is based on the theory that the public will be benefited, not damaged, if farmers produce and market within these quotas, thereby avoiding the payment of penalties. The framework of the Act itself, both as originally passed and as amended, and the reports of the congressional committees that drafted it, show a prime purpose to limit national and individual farm production and marketing to the quotas allotted, and show that the penalties were solely intended to deter farmers from exceeding those quotas. After careful consideration the original 1938 Act was amended in 1941 for the express purpose of making the farmers’ penalties higher, because the prior penalties had not in practice proved a severe enough sanction to reduce production the desired amount. The House committee said in its report on the 1941 amendment:
“As in the case of corn and wheat, it appears that the present rate of penalty [for cotton] is too low to result in the desired adjustment of the amount to be marketed during the marketing year.”
And with reference to wheat and corn, the committee had reported:
“With the higher penalties, it is expected that growers generally will store the farm marketing excesses rather than pay the penalty and place the commodity on the market at the time when it is not needed.”
In addition to these high penalties, the Act, as originally passed and as amended, wholly deprived non-cooperators like petitioner of substantial benefits authorized by the Soil Conservation Act and of a large part of the loah value provided by the Government for cotton farmers who did not exceed their quota. We are unable to say that it would be consistent with the congressional purpose for the courts to add interest to these very substantial penalties already imposed upon non-cooperating farmers.
Reversed.
Section 348 of the 1938 Act reads as follows:
“Any farmer who, while farm marketing quotas are in effect, markets cotton in excess of the farm marketing quota for the marketing year for the farm on which such cotton was produced, shall be subject to the following penalties with respect to the excess so marketed: 2 cents per pound if marketed during the first marketing year when farm marketing quotas are in effect; and 3 cents per pound if marketed during any subsequent year, except that the penalty shall be 2 cents per pound if cotton of the crop subject to penalty in the first year is marketed subject to penalty in any subsequent year.” 52 Stat. 59; 7 U. S. C. § 1348.
The 1941 amendment required computation of the penalty on the following basis:
“That notwithstanding the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act)—
“(9) The marketing penalty for cotton and rice produced in the calendar year in which any marketing year begins (if beginning with or after the 1941-1942 marketing year) shall be at a rate equal to 50 per centum of the basic rate of the loan for cooperators for such marketing year under section 302 of the Act and this resolution.” 55 Stat. 203, 205; 7 ü. S. C. (Supp. V, 1946), § 1330 (9).
28 U. S. C. 811 does allow interest on district court judgments in all civil cases where interest would be allowed by the law of the state in which the court is held.
Sen. Rep. No. 1295, 75th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1937); H. R. Rep. No. 1645, 75th Cong., 2d Sess., 1, 36 (1937); H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 90 (1938); H. R. Rep. No. 364, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1941).
H. R. Rep. No. 364,77th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1941).
Id. at 2.
§§302 (c), 349 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938; 52 Stat. 43, 59; 7 U. S. C. § 1302 (c), 1349.
See as to penalties in general, Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605; United States v. Chouteau, 102 U. S. 603; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 401; Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391; United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304; Rodgers v. United States, 138 F. 2d 992. For decisions of state courts which grant interest on statutory obligations but disallow interest on statutory penalties, see cases collected in Note, 27 Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 853, 855-856; Note, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1, 74-75 (1910); 1 Sutherland, Damages, § 330 (1916).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These are direct appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, 194 F. Supp. 31 (S. D. Ill.), which upheld an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 79 M. C. C. 599, granting a motor common carrier application. This Court noted probable jurisdiction because of important questions raised as to the relationship and interplay between remedies available under the Interstate Commerce Act and under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act. 368 U. S. 951.
Appellee Nebraska Short Line Carriers, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation, organized in June 1956. All of its stock is owned by 12 motor carriers serving eastern and central Nebraska and interchanging interstate traffic at Omaha and other gateway points with over 20 larger trunk-line carriers, among whom are the appellant carriers, with whom through-route, joint-rate, interline arrangements have been established. Some of the stockholder carriers serve Nebraska communities without other motor carrier or rail service.
For some time prior to May 1956, the stockholder carriers had resisted efforts by the Teamsters Union to unionize their operations. Eventually, the union sought to bring economic pressure to bear upon the stockholder carriers by a secondary boycott against their traffic through the larger, unionized, trunk-line carriers upon whom the stockholder carriers were dependent for interchanging traffic to and from points beyond Nebraska. The collective bargaining contract between the trunk-line carriers and the union contained protection of rights or so-called “hot cargo” clauses which reserved to the union and its members “the right to refuse to handle goods from or to any firm or truck” involved in any controversy with the union and provided that it should not be a cause for discharge if an employee of the carrier refused to handle “unfair” goods.
In May 1956, some of the stockholder carriers began experiencing difficulties in receiving and delivering freight from and to many of their normal and logical connections at Omaha and, to some extent, at Sioux City, Lincoln, and Grand Island. The difficulty consisted primarily of the refusal on the part of many of the larger carriers to accept interline traffic tendered to them by the stockholder carriers and the refusal to turn over to them inbound traffic routed over their lines or normally turned over to them for delivery to ultimate destinations in Nebraska. The stockholder carriers, shippers, and consignees thus experienced considerable delay, inconvenience, and unforeseen expense in the movement of traffic to and from interior Nebraska points. At the same time, however, some of the larger interlining carriers, particularly appellants Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., and Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, generally maintained normal interline relationships with the stockholder carriers.
The stockholder carriers thereupon organized Short Line and on June 22, 1956, Short Line filed an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission for common carrier authority to transport commodities on a regularly scheduled basis between certain Nebraska and Iowa points and points in other States. A further application for operating authority over irregular routes between Omaha and points in 32 different States was filed six months later. The applications were assigned to two different examiners, each of whom recommended that the application before him be denied. The Commission stated that “the pertinent facts are accurately and adequately stated” in the examiners’ reports and adopted the statements as its own (79 M. C. C., at 605, 608), but it concluded that the first application should be granted in part. The Commission found that although service in the area was satisfactory before May 1956, after that date the union-induced boycott of the stockholder carriers caused “a substantial disruption” and “serious inadequacies in the service available.” 79 M. C. C., at 612, 613. Accordingly, it found that grant of Short Line’s application was required by “the present and future public convenience and necessity.” Id., at 613. The Commission declared that it was not attempting to adjudicate a labor dispute or trench upon the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and it conceded its lack of jurisdiction to look beyond the duties of carriers to the public under the terms of the Interstate Commerce Act. Id., at 611. It strongly criticized the carrier appellants for yielding to union secondary boycott demands, however, and it declared that the carriers’ failure to fulfill their duties as common carriers was particularly inexcusable since there had been no violence or imminent threats of danger to property or person. The Commission expressed the opinion that alleged “apprehensions of certain of the organized carriers that any opposition to the demands of the union would have resulted in reprisals against them” were “greatly exaggerated,” and it noted that some of the interlining carriers had successfully continued to deal with the stockholder carriers, with at least one of them encountering no difficulties with its employees when it changed its policy and carried out its statutory duties as a common carrier and interlined with the Short Line carriers. Id., at 612.
Finally, the Commission considered the remedy appropriate to the situation. Short Line had applied for operating authority under § 207 (certificates of public convenience and necessity). As the Commission noted, the Act provides other means of correcting deficiencies of service. Section 204 (c) empowers the Commission to order carriers to comply with the transportation laws, and the Commission may act upon complaint or upon its own motion without complaint, in each case after notice and hearing, and sanctions are available to enforce its orders; § 212 (a) empowers the Commission to suspend certificates for failure to comply with duties under the Act. The Commission proceeded to dispose of the remedy problem in the following manner:
“We do not agree with those of the parties who insist that the procedure here adopted; namely, the filing of the instant applications under the provisions of section 207 of the act, is in any manner inappropriate. Regardless of the injection of the labor situation into the matter, the instant applications are based upon claimed deficiencies in the motor service available to the shipping public of Nebraska. Where, as here, the existing carriers are shown to have so conducted their operations as to result in serious inadequacies in the service available to a large section of the public, one effective method of correcting the situation is by the granting of authority for sufficient additional service, and, in fact, we' are charged with the duty of procuring such additional facilities as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the national transportation policy. The fact that other remedies are available, such as the suggested filing of complaints by the aggrieved carriers and shippers does not alter the situation or deprive any carrier of the right to follow the course here chosen.” Id., at 613.
The Commission therefore granted the application.
The protesting carriers and the affected union sought judicial review before a three-judge District Court (28 U. S. C. §§ 1336, 1398, 2321-2325), which upheld the order as within the scope of the Commission’s statutory authority, based on adequate findings, and supported by substantial evidence. 194 F. Supp. 31. The court reviewed the evidence and concluded that although there was “no doubt that their [the protesting carriers’] ability to perform service prior to May 195 [6] was adequate,” the record showed that union pressure made it inadequate thereafter. 194 F. Supp., at 45. The court recognized that a cease-and-desist order might have been utilized, but stated that additional certification was also a permissible remedy which was not made unavailable merely because the reason for inadequacy of service was that “existing carriers [were] subordinating their public service obligations to their collective bargaining agreements.” Id., at 54.
In regard to the choice of remedy, the court rejected the contention that the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which added § 8 (e) to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 73 Stat. 543, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 158 (e), some four months after the entry of the order, mooted the case by making the union activities in inducing the organized carriers to boycott the Short Line stockholder carriers illegal and therefore unlikely to be resumed. The District Court expressed doubts as to whether § 8 (e) “effectively outlaws 'hot cargo’ clauses,” and maintained that, even if it did, the Commission’s order should still stand. Id., at 58. To the union’s contention that grant of a certificate here injected the Interstate Commerce Commission into the province of the National Labor Relations Board, or at least undercut to some extent the policies of § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, the court replied that the union’s failure to organize the employees of the Short Line carriers “effectively destroyed any jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board under the Act of its ereation.” Id., at 59. The case is now before us on direct appeals from this judgment.
We have concluded that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed and the Commission’s order set aside as an improvident exercise of its discretion. The Commission found from the facts of record that the refusals to handle interchange traffic and to accept freight from certain shippers caused a substantial disruption in motor service and serious inadequacies in the service available, despite the efforts of some of the larger trunk-line carriers to maintain normal interline relationships. There was ample evidence to support these findings and we do not disturb them.
The difficulty with the order arises in connection with the findings and' conclusions relevant to the choice of remedy. The assumption of the Commission was that the deficiencies of service made either of two remedies available — -additional certification' or entry of a cease-and-desist order — and that it had unlimited discretion to apply either remedy simply because either might be effective. It is unmistakably clear from the opinion of the Commission and from the fact-findings it made or adopted, that the disruption in service resulted solely from refusals to serve, which in turn arose from union pressure applied to obtain union objectives. It is equally clear that absent union pressure there would have been no refusals to serve and that in such normal circumstances the facilities and the services of the existing carriers were adequate. Moreover, the trunk-line carriers were operating below capacity, were in a position and anxious to transport additional traffic, and had been enjoying the previously interlined traffic which the grant would divert to Short Line. In this factual context we may put aside at the outset the authority which the appellees rely upon that holds that additional certification is the normal and permissible way to deal with generalized inadequacy in service. See, e. g., Davidson Transfer Co. v. United States, 42 F. Supp. 215, 219-220 (E. D. Pa.), aff’d, 317 U. S. 587. When, as here, the particular deviations from an otherwise completely adequate service (which has economic need for the traffic) consist solely of illegal and discriminatory refusals to accept or deliver traffic from or to particular carriers or shippers, the powers of the Commission under §§ 204, 212, and 216 bear heavily on the propriety of § 207 relief. And in such a case the choice of the certification remedy may not be automatic ; it must be rational and based upon conscious choice that in the circumstances the public interest in “adequate, economical, and efficient service” outbalances whatever public interest there is in protecting existing carriers’ revenues in order to “foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers” (National Transportation Policy, 49 U. S. C. preceding §§ 1, 301, 901, 1001), and the other opposing interests.
There are no findings and no analysis here to justify the choice made, no indication of the basis on which the Commission exercised its expert discretion. We are not prepared to and the Administrative Procedure Act will not permit us to accept such adjudicatory practice. See Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 327 U. S. 608, 613-614. Expert discretion is the lifeblood of the administrative process, but “unless we make the requirements for administrative action strict and demanding, expertise, the strength of modern government, can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion.” New York v. United States, 342 U. S. 882, 884 (dissenting opinion). “Congress did not purport to transfer its legislative power to the unbounded discretion of the regulatory body.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. RCA Communications, Inc., 346 U. S. 86, 90. The Commission must exercise its discretion under § 207 (a) within the bounds expressed by the standard of “public convenience and necessity.” Compare id., at 91. And for the courts to determine whether the agency has done so, it must “disclose the basis of its order” and “give clear indication that it has exercised the discretion with which Congress has empowered it.” Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 197. The agency must make findings that support its decision, and those findings must be supported by substantial evidence. Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. J-T Transport Co., 368 U. S. 81, 93; United States v. Carolina Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, 488-489 ; United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 511. Here the Commission made no findings specifically directed to the choice between two vastly different remedies with vastly different consequences to the carriers and the public. Nor did it articulate any rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The Commission addressed itself neither to the possible shortcomings of § 204 procedures, to the advantages of certification, nor to the serious objections to the latter. As we shall presently show, these objections are particularly important in the present context and they should have been taken into account.
Appellants’ position is and was that the refusals to serve could be terminated through complaint procedures and thus the need for additional service obviated. The Commission was, as indicated, unresponsive to these arguments in its order, deeming that the availability of the other remedy “[did] not alter the situation.” This was error. Commission counsel now attempt to justify the Commission’s “choice” of remedy on the ground that a cease-and-desist order would have been ineffective. The short answer to this attempted justification is that the Commission did not so find. Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 196. The courts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action; Chenery requires that an agency’s discretionary order be upheld, if at all, on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself:
“[A] simple but fundamental rule of administrative law . . . is . . . that a reviewing court, in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action . . . .” Ibid.
For the courts to substitute their or counsel’s discretion for that of the Commission is incompatible with the orderly functioning of the process of judicial review. This is not to deprecate, but to vindicate (see Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 197), the administrative process, for the purpose of the rule is to avoid “propel [ling] the court into the domain which Congress has set aside exclusively for the administrative agency.” 332 U. S., at 196.
The second and longer answer to the attempted justification is that there is not substantial evidence of record upon which to base a finding that a cease-and-desist order would have been ineffective. There was every indication at the time that a cease-and-desist order would render the deficiencies in service purely temporary phenomena and would thus be effective in promoting adequate, economical, and efficient service and in fostering sound economic conditions among the carriers affected.
It is said that attempted compliance by the unionized carriers might in some way “so aggravate their labor difficulties as to cause a complete cessation of operations.” But this ignores the Commission’s conclusion that carrier apprehensions of teamster reprisals were exaggerated and unwarranted. It further ignores the fact that, as the Commission was aware, the National Labor Relations Board had ordered the union to cease boycotting any of the stockholder carriers by appeals to the employees of any other carrier. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 554, N. L. R. B. 1891. To be sure, the Board had not ordered the union not to make appeals directly to the trunk-line carriers. The union was free to make such appeals, absent inducement of employees, and, as far as the labor laws and the collective agreement were concerned, the employer was free to reject or accede to such requests. But it was precisely at this point that the Sand Door case (Local 1976 v. Labor Board, 357 U. S. 93) recognized the power of the Commission to enter cease- and-desist orders against the carriers’ violating the transportation law and their tariffs. Thus, as the appellant union argues, there was no reason to have assumed that the ordinary processes of the law were incapable of remedying the situation.
But discussion of the effectiveness of cease-and-desist orders in terms of the June 1959 status of hot cargo arrangements is now largely academic: Congress added § 8 (e) to the Act four months after the Commission’s decision in this case and over a year before the District Court sustained the Commission. Under this section Congress declared it to “be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing .in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible and void. . . In the absence of authoritative judicial interpretation of § 8 (e), however, the District Court was unwilling to attach any significance to the new law in the present case. In this the District Court erred. The plain words of the statute at the very least raised serious questions about the legality of direct union-employer agreements to boycott another employer. Not only would the delinquent interlining carriers in this case be subject to the injunctive and other processes of the National Labor Relations Board if their conduct violated § 8 (e), but the unions themselves would be vulnerable and the pressures which generated the refusals to serve might well be effectively removed. These intervening facts so changed the complexion of the case that (even putting aside the considerations discussed above) the reviewing equity court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, should not have affirmed the order, as it did, but should have vacated it and remanded it to the Commission for further consideration in the light of the changed conditions. See Ford Motor Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U. S. 364, 373-374; Wabash R. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 273 U. S. 126, 130-131; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, 506-509.
Finally, although we do not wish to fetter the Commission’s expert, discretionary powers by specifically prescribing that cease-and-desist order relief be granted (if, indeed, any relief is still needed) rather than additional certification, nevertheless the Commission should be particularly careful in its choice of remedy, and should have been particularly careful, because of the possible effects of its decision on the functioning of the national labor relations policy. The Commission acts in a most delicate area here, because whatever it does affirmatively (whether it grants a certificate or enters a cease-and-desist order) may have important consequences upon the collective bargaining processes between the union and the employer. The policies of the Interstate Commerce Act and the labor act necessarily must be accommodated, one to the other. Writing before the 1959 amendments to the labor law, this Court said in the Sand Door case:
“But it is said that the Board is not enforcing the Interstate Commerce Act or interfering with the Commission’s administration of that statute, but simply interpreting the prohibitions of its own statute in a way consistent with the carrier’s obligations under the Interstate Commerce Act. Because of that Act a carrier cannot effectively consent not to handle the goods of a shipper. . . . But the fact that the carrier’s consent is not effective to relieve him from certain obligations under the Interstate Commerce Act does not necessarily mean that it is ineffective for all purposes, nor should a determination under one statute be mechanically carried over in the interpretation of another statute involving significantly different considerations and legislative purposes.” 357 U. S., at 110.
The Court concluded that although “common factors may emerge in the adjudication of these questions” under the two Acts by the two different agencies, nevertheless independent consideration and resolution were possible, the National Labor Relations Board directing itself to consideration of whether the employees violated their duties under § 8 (b) and the Interstate Commerce Commission directing its attention to whether the carrier “may have failed in his obligations under the Interstate Commerce Act.”
Implicit in this analysis is a recognition that if either agency is not careful it may trench upon the other’s jurisdiction, and, because of lack of expert competence, contravene the national policy as to transportation or labor relations. In such a context, choice of. the sweeping relief of certification rather than the more precise and narrowly drawn cease-and-desist order remedy was improvident, absent a compelling justification. And the fact that § 8 (e) of the Act now exposes the employer as well as the union to Labor Board injunctive processes only underlines the necessity for careful analysis in fashioning a remedy to terminate unlawful action by delinquent carriers. This is not to say that circumstances can never permit the Commission to authorize additional service to remedy refusals to serve, but the Commission must act with a discriminating awareness of the consequences of its action. It has not done so here.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The case is remanded to it with instructions to enter an order enjoining, annulling, and setting aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and remanding the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The hot cargo clause provided, in pertinent part:
“It shall not be a violation of this Agreement and it shall not be cause for discharge if any employee or employees refuse to go through the picket line of a Union or refuse to handle unfair goods. Nor shall the exercise of any rights permitted by law be a violation of this Agreement. The Union and its members, individually and collectively, reserve the right to refuse to handle goods from or to any firm or truck which is engaged or involved in any controversy with this or any other Union; and reserve the right to refuse to accept freight from or to make pickups from, or deliveries to establishments where picket lines, strikes, walk-outs or lockouts exist.
“The term ‘unfair goods’ as used in this Article includes, but is not limited to, any goods or equipment transported, interchanged, handled, or used by any carrier, whether party to this Agreement or not, at any of whose terminals or places of business there is a controversy between such carrier or its employees on the one hand, and a labor union on the other hand; and such goods or equipment shall continue to be ‘unfair’ while being transported, handled or used by interchanging or succeeding carriers, whether parties to this Agreement or not, until such controversy is settled.
“The insistence by any Employer that his employee [s] handle unfair goods or go through a picket line after they have elected not to, and if such refusal has been approved in writing by the responsible officials of the Central States Drivers Council, shall be sufficient cause for an immediate strike of all such Employer’s operations without any need of the Union to go through the grievance procedure herein.”
The grant was limited to an Omaha-Chicago and Omaha-Kansas City-St. Louis route, for traffic originating in or destined to Nebraska points. 79 M. C. C., at 606, 614. No appellate review has been sought for the denial of the second application.
Apparently, in some instances it was necessary to handle interlined traffic by officials or supervisory personnel when employees refused to touch it. See R. 82.
See §§212 (a) (revocation), 222 (a) (fine), 222 (b) (injunction). That the inadequacy in service involved here was first brought to the Commission’s attention by appellee’s application for a certificate in no way, of course, limited the agency’s power to invoke §§204 (c), 212, 222.
In this connection the Commission noted that it had refused a grant in a similar case decided concurrently with the present application (Galveston Truck Line Corporation Extension, 79 M. C. C. 619). The Commission stated that the circumstances there were different because the labor difficulties which had led to Commission issuance of a cease-and-desist order against carrier obedience to hot cargo clauses (Galveston Truck Line Corp. v. Ada Motor Lines, Inc., 73 M. C. C. 617; see note 17, infra) had “ceased to exist for some time prior to the hearing, whereas in the instant proceeding such difficulties were of more recent origin and were continuing to be experienced up to and including the time of the hearing.” 79 M. C. C., at 613. But approximately 21 months intervened between the examiner’s report and the Commission’s order, and over two years between hearings and order. During at least 18 months of this time the case appears to have been argued to the Commission, remaining on the docket pending decision. See 73 M. C. C., at 617, n. 1.
Compare Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 471-472. -But see National Labor Relations Act, §§ 2 (3), 9; NorrisLaGuardia Act, § 13 (c).
There were findings that secondary boycotts were imposed not only against the stockholder carriers but against certain shippers who were engaged in their own labor disputes.
The Commission adopted the statements of facts in both recommended reports. 79 M. C. C., at 605, 608.
R. 87-89, 95.
R. 54.
Ibid., R. 95.
R. 68-69.
And see Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Reddish, 368 U. S. 81, 91, where the Court rejected the argument that complaint proceedings must be resorted to before additional operating authority could be had to replace a common carrier service inadequate for the shippers’ particularized physical or economic needs. This case, like the many cases appellees cite in which the Commission granted through-route certification to overcome inadequacy of existing joint-line service (e. g., Penn Ohio New York Exp. Corp. Ext. — N. Y., 27 M. C. C. 269; Malone Freight Lines, Inc., Ext. — Textiles, 61 M. C. C. 501; Dallas & Mavis Fwdg. Co. Ext. — Mont., 64 M. C. C. 511; Braswell Ext. — Calif., 68 M. C. C. 664; Kenosha Corp. Ext. — Kenosha, 72 M. C. C. 289), is clearly inapposite here, where there is nothing inherently wrong with the appellant carriers’ service, either because of its particular nature or because of lack of capacity, infrequency of pickups, delays in delivery, or the like.
In this connection it should be noted that certification of Short Line would divert traffic both from delinquent trunk-line carriers and from carriers who did not violate their duties by acceding to the secondary boycott, e. g., Burlington and Santa Fe. See 79 M. C. C., at 603.
Section 8 (b), 5 II. S. C. § 1007 (b), provides that all decisions shall “include a statement of . . . findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.”
See note l,supresetting forth the relevant provisions,under which the employees reserved the right to refuse to handle hot cargo, but under which the employer was left to his own devices. Cf.note 3, supra.
The Court cited with approval the first Galveston case (Galveston Truck Line Corp. v. Ada Motor Lines, Inc., 73 M. C. C. 617), in which the Commission entered a cease-and-desist order against carrier obedience to hot cargo clauses. 357 U. S., at 109-110.
The union contends in its brief and we agree that the § 212 (a) complaint procedure, if followed by the stockholder carriers, “would have provided a more adequate remedy” at the time the case was before the Commission in 1956-1959.
It is further contended, but we need not consider it here, that the efficacy of a cease-and-desist order is severely limited by the agency’s self-imposed limitation against ordering carriers to cease from diseriminatorily refusing to interline at joint rates. But cf. Dixie Carriers, Inc., v. United States, 351 U. S. 56; Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Mechling, 330 U. S. 567. The Commission did not find, nor could it have found on this record, that the protesting carriers were likely to refuse to interline with the stockholder carriers except at diseriminatorily higher, combination rates.
We do not imply that service deficiencies of the kind found in this record could never justify the issuance of permanent operating authority. A totally different case might be presented if other remedial action by the Commission and the Board proved fruitless, hopelessly time-consuming, or otherwise inadequate to terminate the interruptions in service. Nor do we intend to pass upon the Commission’s discretion under § 210a to provide temporary authority, pending determination of an application for authority or cease-and-desist order, or as an alternative to permanent authority to remedy service deficiencies of the kind present here. See Pan-Atlantic S. S. Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 436.
For the view of the National Labor Relations Board, see Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Ind.), 130 N. L. R. B. 985; Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 130 N. L. R. B. 968, aff’d, 301 F. 2d 20 (C. A. 5th Cir.); American Feed Co., 129 N. L. R. B. 321.
This was, of course, the District Court’s, and not the Commission’s, error.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At its own expense, the State of Washington provides foster care to certain children removed from their parents’ custody, and it also receives and manages Social Security benefits for many of the children involved, as permitted under the Social Security Act and regulations. The question here is whether the State’s use of Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for some of its initial expenditures violates a provision of the Social Security Act protecting benefits from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” 42 U. S. C. § 407(a); see § 1383(d)(1). We hold that it does not.
I
A
The federal money in question comes under one or the other of two titles of the Social Security Act. Title II, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., is the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) plan of benefits for elderly and disabled workers, and their survivors and dependents. A child may get OASDI payments if, say, the minor is unmarried and was dependent on a wage earner entitled to OASDI benefits. § 402(d). Title XVI of the Act, §1381 et seq., is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) scheme of benefits for aged, blind, or disabled individuals, including children, whose income and assets fall below specified levels (the level for the latter currently being $2,000). §§1381-1382; 20 CFR § 416.1205(c) (2002).
Although the Social Security Administration generally pays OASDI and SSI benefits directly, it may distribute them “for [a beneficiary’s] use and benefit” to another individual or entity as the beneficiary’s “ ‘representative payee.’ ” 42 U.S.C. §§4G5(j)(1)(A), 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I); see 20 CFR §§404.2001, 404.2010, 416.601, 416.610. In the exercise of its rulemaking authority, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(a), (j)(2)(A)(ii), the Administration has given priority to a child’s parent, legal guardian, or relative when considering such an appointment. 20 CFR §§ 404.2021(b), 416.621(b). While the Act and regulations allow social service agencies and custodial institutions to serve in this capacity, such entities come last in order of preference. §§ 404.2021(b)(7), 416.621(b)(7); see also 42 U.S.C. §§405(j)(3)(F), 1383(a)(2)(D)(ii). Whoever the appointee may be, the Commissioner of Social Security must be satisfied that the particular appointment is “in the interest of” the beneficiary. §§405(j)(2)(A)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II).
Detailed regulations govern a representative payee’s use of benefits. Generally, a payee must expend funds “only for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” in a way the payee determines “to be in the [beneficiary’s] best interests.” 20 CFR §§ 404.2035(a), 416.635(a). The regulations get more specific in providing that payments made for “current maintenance” are deemed to be “for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” defining “current maintenance” to include “cost[s] incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal comfort items.” §§ 404.2040(a), 416.640(a). Although a representative payee “may not be required to use benefit payments to satisfy a debt of the beneficiary” that arose before the period the benefit payments are certified to cover, a payee may discharge such a debt “if the current and reasonably foreseeable needs of the beneficiary are met” and it is in the beneficiary’s interest to do so. §§ 404.2040(d), 416.640(d). Finally, if there are any funds left over after a representative payee has used benefits for current maintenance and other authorized purposes, the payee is required to conserve or invest the funds and to hold them in trust for the beneficiary. §§404.2046, 416.645.
The Act requires a representative payee to provide the Commissioner with an accounting at least annually, 42 U. S. C. §§405(j)(3)(A), 1383(a)(2)(C)(i), and some institutional representative payees are liable to triennial onsite reviews by the Commissioner’s staff, see Social Security Admin., Increased Monitoring of Fee-for-Service and Volume Representative Payees, Policy Instruction EM-00072 (June 1,2000). In any case, the Commissioner may order a report any time she “has reason to believe” that a payee is misusing a beneficiary’s funds, §§405(j)(3)(D), 1383(a)(2)(C)(iv), a criminal offense that calls for revocation of the payee’s appointment, §§405(j)(1)(A), 408(a)(5), 1383(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1383a(a)(4); see 20 CFR §§404.2050, 416.650.
B
The State of Washington, through petitioner Department of Social and Health Services, makes foster care available to abandoned, abused, neglected, or orphaned children who have no guardians or other custodians able to care for them adequately. See Wash. Rev. Code §§13.34.030(5), 13.34.130(1)(b) (2002). Although the department provides foster care without strings attached to any child who needs it, the State's policy is “to attempt to recover the costs of foster care from the parents of [the] children,” 145 Wash. 2d 1, 6, 32 P. 3d 267, 269 (2001) (citing Wash. Rev. Code § 74.20A.010 (2001)), and to use “moneys and other funds” of the foster child to offset “the amount of public assistance otherwise payable,” §74.13.060. The department accordingly adopted a regulation providing that public benefits for a child, including benefits under SSI or OASDI, “shall be used on behalf of the child to help pay for the cost of the foster care received.” Wash. Admin. Code §388-70-069(1) (2001), repealed by Wash. St. Reg. 01-08-047 (Mar. 30, 2001).
When the department receives Social Security benefits as representative payee for children in its care, it generally credits them to a special Foster Care Trust Fund Account kept by the state treasurer, which includes subsidiary accounts for each child beneficiary. When these accounts are debited, it is only rarely for a direct purchase by the State of a foster child’s food, clothing, and shelter. The usual purchaser is a foster care provider, who is then paid back by the department according to a fixed compensation schedule. Every month, the department compares its payments to the provider of a child’s care with the child’s subsidiary account balance, on which the department then draws to reimburse itself. Since the State’s outlay customarily exceeds a child’s monthly Social Security benefits, the reimbursement to the State usually leaves the account empty until the next federal benefit cheek arrives.
The department occasionally departs from this practice, in the exercise of its discretion, to use the Social Security funds “for extra items or special needs” ranging from orthodontics, educational expenses, and computers, through athletic equipment and holiday presents. 145 Wash. 2d, at 12, 32 P. 3d, at 272. And there have also been exceptional instances in which the department has forgone reimbursement for foster care to conserve a child’s resources for expenses anticipated on impending emancipation. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-57; App. 178.
C
As of September 1999, there were 10,578 foster children in the department’s care, some 1,500 of them receiving OASDI or SSI benefits. The Commissioner had appointed the department to serve as representative payee for almost all of the latter children, who are among respondents in this action brought on behalf of foster care children in the State of Washington who receive or have received OASDI or SSI benefits and for whom the department serves or has served as representative payee. In their 1995 class action filed in state court, they alleged, among other things, that the department’s use of their Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for the costs of foster care violated 42 U. S. C. §§ 407(a) and 1383(d)(1). Section 407(a), commonly called the Act’s “antiattachment” provision, provides that
“[t]he right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”
Section 1383(d)(1) incorporates this provision by reference and applies it to Title XVI of the Act.
Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with respondents. It enjoined the department from continuing to charge its costs of foster care against Social Security benefits, ordered restitution of previous reimbursement transfers, and awarded attorney’s fees to respondents. The department appealed to the State Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington.
After remanding for further factfinding, the State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the department’s practices violated the antiattachment provisions. Relying in part on Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U. S. 413 (1973), and Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U. S. 395 (1988) (per curiam), the state court reasoned that § 407(a) was intended to protect Social Security benefits from the claims of creditors, and consequently framed “the crucial question” as “[w]hether [the department] acts as a creditor when it reimburses itself for foster care costs out of the foster children’s [benefits].” 145 Wash. 2d, at 17, 32 P. 3d, at 275 (emphasis in original). Its answer was a slightly qualified yes, that the department’s “reimbursement scheme... involve[s] creditor-type acts,” performed by resort to the “ ‘other legal process’ ” barred by § 407(a). Id., at 18, 22, 25, 32 P. 3d, at 257, 277-278.
The state court’s analysis not only gave no deference to the Commissioner’s regulations, but omitted any mention of the law governing rulemaking and interpretation by an administrative agency. Nor did the state court think it significant that it was the Commissioner of Social Security who had appointed the department to serve as representative payee for respondents’ Social Security benefits. See id., at 25, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (calling the department’s representative payee status “at best immaterial to the analysis”). To the contrary, the court ultimately reasoned that the department’s capacity as representative payee “further undercuts the legality of its reimbursement process” because a representative payee is charged with acting “ ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary.’” Id., at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (emphasis in original) (quoting 20 CFR § 404.2035(a)). “We seriously doubt using [Social Security] benefits to reimburse the state for its public assistance expenditure is in all cases, or even some, ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary.’ ” 145 Wash. 2d, at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (quoting § 404.2035(a)).
Three justices concurred in part and dissented in part. They agreed with the majority that the department’s use of Social Security benefits for “past due foster care payments” violated the antiattachment provisions of the Act. Id., at 27, 32 P. 3d, at 279 (opinion of Bridge, J.) (emphasis in original). But they would have held that the department is entitled to use benefits to pay for “current maintenance costs, provided that any special needs of the children are satisfied first.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
After staying the State Supreme Court’s mandate, 535 U. S. 923 (2002), we granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1094 (2002), and now reverse.
II
A
Section 407(a) protects SSI and OASDI benefits from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” The Supreme Court of Washington approached respondents’ claim by generalizing from this text and concluding that § 407(a) prohibits “creditor-type acts,” on which reading it held that the department’s reimbursement scheme was prohibited. The analysis was flawed.
First, neither § 407(a) nor the Commissioner’s regulations interpreting that provision say anything about “creditors.” Cf. Philpott, supra, at 417 (“[Section] 407 does not refer to any ‘claim of creditors’; it imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits”). In fact, the Act and regulations to which we owe deference, see Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984), not only permit certain creditors to serve as representative payees, 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(C)(iii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(v), but allow a representative payee to satisfy even old debts of a beneficiary so long as current and reasonably foreseeable needs will be met and reimbursement is in the beneficiary’s interest, 20 CFR §§ 404.2040(d), 416.640(d). Finally, as the Supreme Court of Washington apparently recognized (in qualifying its characterization of “creditor relationship” by referring to the department’s acts as merely “creditor-type”), the department is simply not a creditor of the foster care children for whom it serves as representative payee. No law provides that they are liable to repay the department for the costs of their care, and the State of Washington makes no such claim.
The questions to be answered in resolving this case, then, do not go to the State’s character as a creditor. The questions, instead, are whether the department’s effort to become a representative payee, or its use of respondents’ Social Security benefits when it acts in that capacity, amounts to employing an “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process” within the meaning of § 407(a). For obvious reasons, respondents do not contend that the department’s activities involve any execution, levy, attachment, or garnishment. These legal terms of art refer to formal procedures by which one person gains a degree of control over property otherwise subject to the control of another, and generally involve some form of judicial authorization. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 123 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “provisional attachment” as a “prejudgment attachment in which the debtor’s property is seized so that if the creditor ultimately prevails, the creditor will be assured of recovering on the judgment.... Ordinarily, a hearing must be held before the attachment takes place”); id., at 689 (defining “garnishment” as “[a] judicial proceeding in which a creditor (or potential creditor) asks the court to order a third party who is indebted to or is bailee for the debtor to turn over to the creditor any of the debtor’s property”). The department’s efforts to become a representative payee and to use respondents’ benefits do not even arguably employ any of these traditional procedures.
Thus, the case boils down to whether the department’s manner of gaining control of the federal funds involves “other legal process,” as the statute uses that term. That restriction to the statutory usage of “other legal process” is important here, for in the abstract the department does use legal process as the avenue to reimbursement: by a federal legal process the Commissioner appoints the department a representative payee, and by a state legal process the department makes claims against the accounts kept by the state treasurer. The statute, however, uses the term “other legal process” far more restrictively, for under the established interpretative canons of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, “ ‘[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.’” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 114-115 (2001); see Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. 250, 255 (2000) (“[W]ords... are known by their companions”); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961) (“The maxim noscitur a sociis... is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress”)- Thus, “other legal process” should be understood to be process much like the processes of execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment, and at a minimum, would seem to require utilization of some judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, though not necessarily an elaborate one, by which control over property passes from one person to another in order to discharge or secure discharge of an allegedly existing or anticipated liability.
In this case, the product of these canons of construction is confirmed by legal guidance in the Commissioner’s own interpretation of “legal process.” The Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS), the publicly available operating instructions for processing Social Security claims, defines “legal process” as used in § 407(a) as “the means by which a court (or agency or official authorized by law) compels compliance with its demand; generally, it is a court order.” POMS GN 02410.001 (2002), available at http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/aboutpoms (as visited Jan. 23, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Elsewhere in the POMS, the Commissioner defines “legal process” similarly as “any writ, order, summons or other similar process in the nature of garnishment. It may include, but is not limited to, an attachment, writ of execution, income execution order or wage assignment that is issued by... [a] court of competent jurisdiction... [or a]n authorized official pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to State or local law... [a]nd is directed to a governmental entity.” POMS GN 02410.200 (emphasis added). While these administrative interpretations are not products of formal rulemaking, they nevertheless warrant respect in closing the door on any suggestion that the usual rules of statutory construction should get short shrift for the sake of reading “other legal process” in abstract breadth. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944); see also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 228, 234-235 (2001).
On this restrictive understanding of “other legal process,” it is apparent that the department’s efforts to become respondents’ representative payee and its use of respondents’ benefits in that capacity involve nothing of the sort. Whereas the object of the processes specifically named is to discharge, or secure discharge of, some enforceable obligation, the State has no enforceable claim against its foster children. And although execution, levy, attachment, and garnishment typically involve the exercise of some sort of judicial or-quasi-judicial authority to gain control over another’s property, the department’s reimbursement scheme operates on funds already in the department’s possession and control, held on terms that allow the reimbursement.
The regulations previously quoted specify that payments made for a beneficiary’s “current maintenance” are deemed to be “for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,” and define “current maintenance” to include “cost[s] incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal comfort items.” 20 CFR §§ 404.2040(a), 416.640(a). There is no question that the state funds to be reimbursed were spent for items of “current maintenance,” and although the State typically makes the accounting reimbursement two months after spending its own funds, this practice is consistent with the regulation’s definition of “current maintenance” as “costs incurred” for food and the like. That the State is dealing with the funds consistently with Social Security regulations is confirmed by the Commissioner’s own interpretation of those regulations as allowing reimbursement by a representative payee for maintenance costs, at least for costs incurred after the first benefit payment is made to the payee. Cf. POMS GN 00602.030 (defining a “past debt,” which may be satisfied only if a beneficiary’s current and reasonably foreseeable needs are met, as “a debt the beneficiary incurred before the date of the first benefit payment is made to the current payee”).
The Government has gone even further to support this as a reasonable interpretation, text aside, owing to significant advantages of the reimbursement method in providing accurate documentation and allowing for easy monitoring of representative payees in administering Social Security. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28-29. In fact, it would be hard not to see this type of slightly delayed reimbursement as the only way OASDI funds could be spent on a foster child’s current maintenance, since the Administration disburses those Social Security benefits with a time lag. See POMS GN 02401.001 (noting that OASDI benefits are dispensed within the month after they are due). In short, the Commissioner’s interpretation of her own regulations is eminently sensible and should have been given deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997).
The Supreme Court of Washington rested its contrary conclusion, in part, on our decisions in Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U. S. 413 (1973), and Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U. S. 395 (1988) (per curiam). But both Philpott and Bennett involved judicial actions in which a State sought to attach a beneficiary’s Social Security benefits as reimbursement for the costs of the beneficiary’s care and maintenance. See Philpott, supra, at 415 (“Respondent sued to reach the bank account”); Bennett, supra, at 396 (“The State filed separate actions in state court seeking to attach Social Security benefits”). In each case, we held that the plain language of § 407(a) barred the State’s legal action, and refused to find an implied exception to the antiattachment provision for a State simply because it provides for the care and maintenance of a beneficiary. See Philpott, supra, at 416; Bennett, supra, at 397. Unlike the present case, then, both Philpott and Bennett involved forms of legal process expressly prohibited by § 407(a). In neither case was the State acting as a representative payee in seeking to use the funds as reimbursement for the costs incurred in providing for the beneficiary’s care and maintenance.
B
The poor fit between § 407(a) and respondents’ argument points to the real basis of their objections to the reimbursement practice. At bottom, respondents’ position and the State Supreme Court’s holding reflect a view that allowing a state agency to reimburse itself for the costs of foster care is antithetical to the best interest of the beneficiary foster child. See 145 Wash. 2d, at 17, 32 P. 3d, at 275 (contending that a foster child “is better off with any payee other than the [department] because [the department] must provide foster care under state law regardless of whether it receives a reimbursement” (emphasis in original)); id., at 24, 32 P. 3d, at 278 (“We seriously doubt using [Social Security] benefits to reimburse the state for its public assistance expenditure is in all cases, or even some, ‘in the best interests of the beneficiary’ ” (quoting 20 CFR § 404.2035(a))).
Although it is true that the State could not directly compel the beneficiary or any other representative payee to pay Social Security benefits over to the State, that fact does not render the appointment of a self-reimbursing representative payee at odds with the Commissioner’s mandate to find that a beneficiary’s “interest... would be served” by the appointment. 42 U. S. C. §§405(j)(1)(A), 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(X). Respondents’ premise that promoting the “best interests” of a beneficiary requires maximizing resources from left-over benefit income ignores the settled principle of administrative law that an open-ended and potentially vague term is highly susceptible to administrative interpretation subject to judicial deference. See Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. Under her statutory authority, the Commissioner has read the “interest” of the beneficiary in light of the basic objectives of the Act: to provide a “minimum level of income” to children who would not “have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard of living at the established Federal minimum income level,” 20 CFR §416.110 (SSI); see also Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521, 524 (1990), and to provide workers and their families the “income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses,” § 404.508(a) (OASDI); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 50 (1977). The Commissioner, that is, has decided that a representative payee serves the beneficiary’s interest by seeing that basic needs are met, not by maximizing a trust fund attributable to fortuitously overlapping state and federal grants.
This judgment is not only obviously within the bounds of the reasonable, but one confirmed by the demonstrably antithetical character of respondents’ position to the best interest of many foster care children. SSI beneficiaries would be most obviously subject to threat, since eligibility for benefits of these child recipients is lost if their assets creep above a certain minimal level, currently $2,000. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1382(a)(1)(B), (3)(B); 20 CFR § 416.1205(c). Many foster children would lose SSI benefits altogether if respondents prevailed. See Brief for Children’s Defense Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 20; Brief for Counties of the State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 16-18. But foster children beneficiaries under both SSI and OASDI would suffer from a broader disadvantage. Respondents’ argument forgets the fact that public institutions like the department are last in the line of eligibility for appointment as representative payees; the Commissioner appoints them only when no one else will do. See 20 CFR §§ 404.2021(b), 416.621(b). If respondents had their way, however, public offices like the department might well not be there to serve as payees even as the last resort, for there is reason to believe that if state agencies could not use Social Security benefits to reimburse the State in funding current costs of foster care, many States would be discouraged from accepting appointment as representative payees by the administrative costs of acting in that capacity. See Brief for Children’s Defense Fund, supra, at 21; Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 7. And without such agencies to identify children eligible for federal benefits and to help them qualify, see Brief for Children’s Defense Fund, supra, at 20-24; Brief for State of Florida, supra, at 3-5; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17, many eligible children would either obtain no Social Security benefits or need some very good luck to get them. With a smaller total pool of money for their potential use, the chances of having funds for genuine needs beyond immediate support would obviously shrink, to the children’s loss. Respondents’ position, in sum, would tend to produce worse representative payees in these cases, with less money to spend.
III
The department’s reimbursement from respondents’ Social Security benefits does not violate § 407(a). The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Prior to making an appointment, the Commissioner must verify the potential representative payee’s identity, connection to the beneficiary, and lack of relevant criminal record or prior misuse of Social Security funds. §§405(j)(2)(B), 1383(a)(2)(B)(ii); see 20 CFR §§404.2025, 416.625. The Commissioner must also attempt to identify any other potential representative payee whose appointment may be preferred. 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(A)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(i)(II); see 20 CFR §§404.2020, 416.620.
In addition, the Commissioner is required to notify the beneficiary or the beneficiary's legal guardian of her intention to appoint a representative payee. 42 U.S.C. §§405(j)(2)(E)(ii), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xii); see 20 CFR §§404.2030,416.630. “Any individual who is dissatisfied... with the designation of a particular person to serve as representative payee shall be entitled to a hearing by the Commissioner,” with judicial review available thereafter. 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(E)(i), 1383(a)(2)(B)(xi).
In April 2001, the department repealed §388-70-069 and replaced it with a functionally similar provision. The new regulation provides that the department “must use income not exempted to cover the child’s cost of care.” Wash. Admin. Code § [ XXX-XX-XXXX ].
Of the 1,480 children in foster care as of September 1999 who were receiving Social Security benefits, 923 were receiving SSI benefits, 469 were receiving OASDI benefits, and 88 were receiving both, and the department acted as representative payee for 1,411.
In light of this holding, the State Supreme Court did not address respondents’ other arguments, including the contention, accepted in the alternative by the trial court, that the department violated procedural due process by failing to provide notice of the ‘“intended result’” of its appointment as representative payee. 145 Wash. 2d 1, 15, 32 P. 3d 267, 274 (2001) (quoting Memorandum Opinion, No. 96-2-00157-2 (Wash. Super. Ct., Okanogan Cty., Sept. 29, 1998), p. 8, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-130).
The State Supreme Court ultimately remanded for further consideration of the scope and basis for awarding attorney’s fees. Our jurisdiction, which is premised on a “[f]inal judgmen[t] or decre[e]” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a), is unaffected by this disposition. See Pierce County v. Guillen, ante, at 142-143.
Respondents have apparently never argued that the reimbursement violates the § 407(a) bar to “transfe[r]” of benefits; nor would such a claim seem to hold any promise on the facts here. Respondents do, however, contend that the department’s budgeting in anticipation of receiving Social Security benefits constitutes an “assign[ment]” prohibited by § 407(a). Congress could hardly have intended for this sort of budgeting, done by private and public representative payees alike, to run afoul of the antiat-tachment provisions of the Act, particularly since the Administration makes OASDI payments with a 1-month lag. See infra, at 387. To the extent that the text of § 407(a) is ambiguous on this score, the Commissioner’s interpretation of the provision to permit such budgeting requires deference. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944).
Quite apart from any consequence of the interpretive canons discussed in the succeeding text, the mere fact of the department’s appointment as representative payee could not reasonably be taken to contravene the antiattachment provision, contrary to respondents’ suggestion. As already noted, the department’s appointment is consistent with the sections of the Act governing appointment of representative payees, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(j)(2)(C), (3)(B) and (F), (4)(B), 1383(a)(2)(B)(v), (vii)(II), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), and with the Commissioner’s regulations interpreting that section to authorize appointment of custodial institutions as a last resort, see 20 CFR §§404.2021(b)(7), 416.621(b)(7). To suggest that the department’s appointment as representative payee, under the same statutory scheme that forbids the use of “other legal process,” is itself forbidden legal process disregards the “cardinal rule that a statute is to be read as a whole,” King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991), and ignores the Commissioner’s reasonable regulations implementing the Act. See King v. Schafer, 940 F. 2d 1182, 1185 (CA8 1991) (“We cannot believe Congress contemplated this result in enacting § 407(a), particularly when this result would be contrary to another provision of the Social Security Act: §405(j), providing for the appointment of representative payees”), cert. denied sub nom. Crytes v. Schafer, 502 U. S. 1095 (1992); 940 F. 2d, at 1185 (“Section 407(a) was not intended to outlaw a procedure expressly authorized by the Social Security Administration’s own regulations”).
In arguing that § 407(a) applies here, respondents rely in part on § 407(b), which provides that “[n]o other provision of law... may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section.” Given our conclusion that § 407(a), by its terms, does not apply, however, respondents’ reliance is misplaced.
There is one exception to this rule, although it is not relevant for our present purposes. In October 1996, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 1383 to specify that when the Administration issues a retroactive lump sum payment of SSI benefits that exceeds six times the monthly benefit amount, that amount is to be deposited directly into a dedicated interest-bearing bank account to be used only for certain special needs. § 1383(a)(2)(F).
Moreover, as the Government notes, the position of the Supreme Court of Washington and respondents is ultimately “one of empty formalism” because a State could, indisputably, use a foster child’s Social Security benefits directly for the costs of care and then reduce the State’s own funding by the same amount. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28. The financial result would be the same as in the system currently
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.