instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners are the publishers of a small weekly-newspaper, the Greenbelt News Review, in the city of Greenbelt, Maryland. The respondent Bresler is a prominent local real estate developer and builder in Greenbelt, and was, during the period in question, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from a neighboring district. In the autumn of 1965 Bresler was engaged in negotiations with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain certain zoning variances that would allow the construction of high-density housing on land owned by him. At the same time the city was attempting to acquire another tract of land owned by Bresler for the construction of a new high school. Extensive litigation concerning compensation for the school site seemed imminent, unless there should be an agreement on its price between Bresler and the city authorities, and the concurrent negotiations obviously provided both parties considerable bargaining leverage.
These joint negotiations evoked substantial local controversy, and several tumultuous city council meetings were held at which many members of the community freely expressed their views. The meetings were reported at length in the news columns of the Greenbelt News Review. Two news articles in consecutive weekly editions of the paper stated that at the public meetings some people had characterized Bresler’s negotiating position as '’’blackmail.” The word appeared several times, both with and without quotation marks, and was used once as a subheading within a news story.
Bresler reacted to these news articles by filing the present lawsuit for libel, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The primary thrust of his complaint was that the articles, individually and along with other items published in the petitioners’ newspaper, imputed to him the crime of blackmail. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded Bresler $5,000 in compensatory damages and $12,500 in punitive damages. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 253 Md. 324, 252 A. 2d 755. We granted certiorari to consider the constitutional issues presented. 396 U. S. 874.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, we held that the Constitution permits a “public official” to recover money damages for libel only if he can show that the defamatory publication was not only false but was uttered with “ ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Id., at 280. In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, we dealt with the constitutional restrictions upon a libel suit brought by a “public figure.”
In the present case Bresler’s counsel conceded in his opening statement to the jury that Bresler was a public figure in the community. This concession was clearly correct. Bresler was deeply involved in the future development of the city of Greenbelt. He had entered into agreements with the city for zoning variances in the past, and was again seeking such favors to permit the construction of housing units of a type not contemplated in the original city plan. At the same time the city was trying to obtain a tract of land owned by-Bresler for the purpose of building a school. Negotiations of significant public concern were in progress, both with school officials and the city council. Bresler’s status thus clearly fell within even the most restrictive definition of a “public figure.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, at 154-155 (opinion of Hablan, J.). See also Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F. 2d 188, 195-196, cert. denied, 388 U. S. 909.
Whether as a state legislator representing another county, or for some other reason, Bresler was a “public official” within the meaning of the New York Times rule is a question we need not determine. Cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 390; Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 86 n. 12. For the instructions to the jury in this case permitted a finding of liability under an impermissible constitutional standard, whichever status Bresler might be considered to occupy. In his charge to the members of the jury, the trial judge repeatedly instructed them that Bresler could recover if the petitioners’ publications had been made with malice or with a reckless disregard of whether they were true or false. This instruction was given in one form or another half a dozen times during the course of the judge’s charge. The judge then defined “malice” to include “spite, hostility or deliberate intention to harm.” Moreover, he instructed the jury that “malice” could be found from the “language” of the publication itself. Thus the jury was permitted to find liability merely on the basis of a combination of falsehood and general hostility.
This was error of constitutional magnitude, as our decisions have made clear. “This definition of malice is constitutionally insufficient where discussion of public affairs is concerned; ‘[w]e held in New York Times that a public official might be allowed the civil remedy only if he establishes that the utterance was false and that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true.’ ” Rosenblatt v. Baer, supra, at 84. “[E]ven where the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression in this area preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood. Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred . . . .” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 73. See also Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U. S. 81, 82. And the constitutional prohibition in this respect is no different whether the plaintiff be considered a “public official” or a “public figure.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra.
The erroneous instructions to the jury would, therefore, alone be enough to require the reversal of the judgment before us. For when “it is impossible to know, in view of the general verdict returned” whether the jury imposed liability on a permissible or an impermissible ground, “the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 284. See Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, at 394-397; Rosenblatt v. Baer, supra, at 82; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 367-368.
This, however, does not end the inquiry. As we noted in New York Times, “[t]his Court’s duty is not limited to the elaboration of constitutional principles; we must also in proper cases review the evidence to make certain that those principles have been constitutionally applied. ... We must 'make an independent examination of the whole record,’... so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.” 376 U. S., at 285.
This case involves newspaper reports of public meetings of the citizens of a community concerned with matters of local governmental interest and importance. The very subject matter of the news reports, therefore, is one of particular First Amendment concern. “The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means ... is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Stromberg v. Cali- jornia, supra, at 369. “Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102. Because the threat or actual imposition of pecuniary liability for alleged defamation may impair the unfettered exercise of these First Amendment freedoms, the Constitution imposes stringent limitations upon the permissible scope of such liability.
It is not disputed that the articles published in the petitioners’ newspaper were accurate and truthful reports of what had been said at the public hearings before the city council. In this sense, therefore, it cannot even be claimed that the petitioners were guilty of any “departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers,” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, at 155 (opinion of Harlan, J.), much less the knowing use of falsehood or a reckless disregard of whether the statements made were true or false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 280.
The contention is, rather, that the speakers at the meeting, in using the word “blackmail,” and the petitioners in reporting the use of that word in the newspaper articles, were charging Bresler with the crime of blackmail, and that since the petitioners knew that Bresler had committed no such crime, they could be held liable for the knowing use of falsehood. It was upon this theory that the case was submitted to the jury, and upon this theory that the judgment was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. 253 Md. 324, 360-364, 252 A. 2d 755, 775-778. Eor the reasons that follow, we hold that the imposition of liability on such a basis was constitutionally impermissible — that as a matter of constitutional law, the word “blackmail” in these circumstances was not slander when spoken, and not libel when reported in the Greenbelt News Review.
There can be no question that the public debates at the sessions of the city council regarding Bresler’s negotiations with the city were a subject of substantial concern to all who lived in the community. The debates themselves were heated, as debates about controversial issues usually are. During the course of the arguments Bresler’s opponents characterized the position he had taken in his negotiations with the city officials as “blackmail.” The Greenbelt News Review was performing its wholly legitimate function as a community newspaper when it published full reports of these public debates in its news columns. If the reports had been truncated or distorted in such a way as to extract the word “blackmail” from the context in which it was used at the public meetings, this would be a different case. But the reports were accurate and full. Their headlines, “School Site Stirs Up Council — Rezoning Deal Offer Debated” and “Council Rejects By 4-1 High School Site Deal,” made it clear to all readers that the paper was reporting the public debates on the pending land negotiations. Bresler’s proposal was accurately and fully described in each article, along with the accurate statement that some people at the meetings had referred to the proposal as blackmail, and others had indicated they thought Bres-ler’s position not unreasonable.
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: it was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. Indeed, the record is completely devoid of evidence that anyone in the city of Greenbelt or anywhere else thought Bresler had been charged with a crime.
To permit the infliction of financial liability upon the petitioners for publishing these two news articles would subvert the most fundamental meaning of a free press, protected by the. First and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
On October 14, 1965, the following story appeared in the Greenbelt News Review:
SCHOOL SITE STIRS UP COUNCIL REZONING DEAL OFFER DEBATED
By Dorothy Sucher
Delay in construction of a new Greenbelt high school is the lever by which a local developer is pressuring the city to endorse his bid for higher density rezoning of two large tracts of land; so citizens heard at a well-attended special meeting of the City Council on Monday night, Oct. 11.
For the past nine months, the Board of Education has been trying to acquire land owned by Consolidated Syndicates, Inc. (Charles Bresler-Theodore Lerner), for a high school site. The landowners, developers of Charlestowne Village, also own other tracts of undeveloped land in Greenbelt.
The developer has refused to accept the Board of Education’s price, and condemnation proceedings have already been delayed three times .... Originally, it was hoped the new school would open September 1966.
Some time ago, it became known that the developer would agree on the price, provided the city would help him obtain higher density rezoning for two of his tracts (Parcels 1 and 2, totaling 230 acres) near the center of Greenbelt. If the city refused, he threatened to delay the school site acquisition as long as possible through the courts.
This “deal” as it was termed by several citizens at Monday’s meeting, has been rumored for months, but only became public knowledge recently. It was categorically opposed by Nathan Shinderman, a Board member of Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), who read a lengthy statement by GHI president Charles Schwan ....
Blackmail
“It seems that this is a slight case of blackmail,” commented Mrs. Marjorie Bergemann on Monday night, and the word was echoed by many speakers from the audience.
Councilman David Champion, however, denied that it was “blackmail,” explaining that he would rather “refer to it (i. e., the negotiations — Ed.) as a two-way street.”
Speaking from the floor, Gerald Gough, commented: “Everyone knows there’s a need for a school — just walk through the halls of High Point. The developer knows there’s a need and says, 'we’ll meet your need if you meet our need.’ In my opinion, it’s highly unethical.”
Delay Probable
Mayor Edgar Smith remarked that it should be made clear that refusing the developer’s terms did not necessarily mean the loss of the school site; that it would, however, probably mean a two or three year delay in the construction of the school.
Among the parents who spoke was Mrs. Joseph Rosetti, who said: “I have several children going into high school, but I would rather adhere to the Greenbelt Master Plan than overcrowd the town with dense development. I would stand for my children’s discomfort, rather than give in to a blackmailing scheme.”
The following week, the News Review carried the sequel to its earlier story:
COUNCIL REJECTS BY 4-1 HIGH SCHOOL SITE DEAL
By Mary Lou Williamson
More than 150 citizens came to hear how the new City Council would respond to pressure by a local developer for higher density zoning on a large tract of land in exchange for uncontested consummation of the sale of a Greenbelt senior high school site to the Board of Education at the Council meeting Monday night.
Council sat quietly listening for more than an hour to citizen statements before voting to reject the proposal (4M) with Councilman Dave Champion dissenting.
Citizens Speak
A procession of citizens took the floor to make impassioned speeches — some from prepared texts, some extemporaneously. The mayor occasionally had to caution them to refrain from engaging in personalities.
. Albert Herling suggested skulduggery in the September court postponement. Although he praised most of the City Manager’s report, he criticized the section entitled “Risks and Conclusions,” saying they appeared negative in the extreme. He suggested a list of positive steps that council ought to take: 1) fight Bresler’s “blackmail”; 2) make clear to the Board of Education— no deals; 3) make clear to the District Council (zoning authority) unanimous opposition to the requested R-30 zoning; and 4) seek the swiftest possible court settlement. “For anything less,” charged Herling, “Would be other than what you believe. And when the chips are down, this is exactly what you’ll do.”
Pilski asked if anyone in the audience cared to speak in support of Bresler’s proposal.
Only James Martin took the floor. He suggested that Bresler’s action was not “blackmail” but the legitimate advance of his rights to develop his land. Martin suggested, by way of example, that GHI’s long-range planning committee had been doing much the same thing some months ago. He alleged that the density of the “frame homes (GHI) is far more atrocious than anything Bresler’s considering.”
The relevant portions of these news articles are printed as an appendix to this opinion.
The following excerpts from the trial judge’s charge are illustrative:
“Accordingly . . . you must find for the defendant on the issue of fair comment, unless you determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the comment or criticism . . . was published with malice or a reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
“. . . And such statements repeated and/or published, unless with actual malice, or knowledge that they are false, reckless disregard for whether they are true or false, is not libel.
“The law recognizes the importance of free discussion and criticism and matters of public interest to the extent that it grants immunity even with respect to the publication of foolish and prejudicial criticism if they are not published with malice, knowledge of their not being true, it is knowledge they are false, or reckless disregard of whether they are true or false. . . .
“[Y] our verdict should be for the defendant unless you find that the publication was made with actual malice, knowledge of its falsity, or reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
“[Y]our verdict should be for the defendant unless you find again the publication was with actual malice, knowledge of its being false or reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.”
The trial judge said:
“With respect to your consideration of presence of actual malice on the part of defendant, you may infer its presence from the language or circumstances of the publication, but this may be done only if the character of the publication is so excessive,, intemperate, unreasonable and abusive as to defy any other reasonable conclusion than that the defendant was moved by actual malice toward the plaintiff.”
See also Note, The Scope of First Amendment Protection for Good-Faith Defamatory Error, 75 Yale L. J. 642, 644-645; Pedrick, Freedom of the Press and the Law of Libel: The Modern Revised Translation, 49 Cornell L. Q. 581, 592-593.
Cf. Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F. 2d 188, cert. denied, 388 U. S. 909; Kalven, The New York Times Case: A Note on “The Central Meaning of the First Amendment,” 1964 Sup. Ct. Rev. 191, 221.
The mayor of the city testified, “Certainly nothing in here that reports the meeting any different from the way it happened. This is pretty much the way it happened. If I would say anything, it is rather conservative in presenting some of the comments.”
The reporter who wrote one of the articles testified: “[T]he people were really mad and that word 'blackmail’ was used not once or twice like in my story, but over and over and over again.
“Q. By who?
“A. By people at the meeting. And I felt if I left that out I really wouldn’t be writing a truthful article.”
Under the law of Maryland the crime of blackmail consists in threatening to accuse any person of an indictable crime or of anything which, if true, would bring the person into contempt or disrepute, with a view to extorting money, goods, or things of value. See Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §§ 561-563 (1967 Repl. Vol.). There is, of course, no indication in any of the articles that Bresler had engaged in anything approaching such conduct.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 349 (a) (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides:
“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by—
“(10) departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph failure to comply with any provision of any compulsory service laws of the United States shall raise the presumption that the departure from or absence from the United States was for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States.”
The appellee, Joseph Cort, is a physician and research physiologist. He was born in Massachusetts in 1927. In May of 1951 he registered with his Selective Service Board under the so-called “Doctors’ Draft Act.” A few days later he left the United States for Cambridge, England. In 1953, while still in England, he was repeatedly notified by his draft board to report for a physical examination either in the United States or at an examining facility in Europe. He disregarded these communications, and in September of 1953 his draft board ordered him to report to Brookline, Massachusetts, for induction into the Armed Forces. He failed to report as directed and remained in England. In 1954 an indictment charging him with draft evasion was returned in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Earlier that year, after the British Home Office had refused to renew his residence permit, Cort had gone to Prague, Czechoslovakia. He has been there ever since.
In 1959 Cort applied to our Embassy in Prague for a United States passport, his original passport having long since expired. His application was denied by the Passport Office of the Department of State on the ground that he had lost his citizenship under §349 (a) (10) of the 1952 Act by remaining outside the United States for the purpose of avoiding military service. Subsequently, the State Department’s Board of Review on Loss of Nationality affirmed the decision of the Passport Office, on the same ground.
Cort then instituted the present action against the Secretary of State in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. His complaint alleged that he had not remained abroad to evade his military obligations, and that §349 (a) (10) was in any event unconstitutional. A three-judge court was convened. The Secretary of State moved to dismiss the action upon the ground that § 360 (b) and (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provide the exclusive procedure under which Cort could attack the administrative determination that he was not a citizen. The District Court rejected this contention, holding that it had jurisdiction of the action for a declaratory judgment and an injunction. On motions for summary judgment, the court determined that the appellee had remained abroad to avoid service in the Armed Forces. Relying upon Trop v. Dulles, the court held, however, that § 349 (a) (10) was unconstitutional, and that consequently the appellee’s citizenship had not been divested. The court accordingly entered a judgment declaring the appellee to be a citizen of the United States and enjoining the Secretary of State from denying him a passport on the ground that he is not a citizen. Cort v. Herter, 187 F. Supp. 683. This is a direct appeal from that judgment.
The only question we decide today is whether the District Court was correct in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain this action for declaratory and injunctive relief. If not, we must vacate the judgment and direct the District Court to dismiss the complaint.
In support of its jurisdiction the District Court relied upon the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 187 F. Supp., at 685. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 48 Stat. 955, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 2201, provides:
“In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.”
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides:
“Except so far as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) agency action is by law committed to agency discretion—
“(a) Right of review. — Any person suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.
“(b) Form and venue of action. — The form of proceeding for judicial review shall be any special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in any 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 any court of competent jurisdiction. Agency action shall be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for such review is provided by law.” 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009.
Section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides in part:
“No subsequent legislation shall be held to supersede or modify the provisions of this Act except to the extent that such legislation shall do so expressly.” 60 Stat. 244, 5 U. S. C. § 1011.
On their face the provisions of these statutes appear clearly to permit an action such as was brought here to review the final administrative determination of the Secretary of State. This view is confirmed by our decisions establishing that an action for a declaratory judgment is available as a remedy to secure a determination of citizenship — decisions rendered both before and after the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325; McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162. Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff is not within the United States has never been thought to bar an action for a declaratory judgment of this nature. Stewart v. Dulles, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 280, 248 F. 2d 602; Bauer v. Acheson, 106 F. Supp. 445; see Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603.
It is the appellant’s position, however, that despite these broad provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, Cort could not litigate his claim to citizenship in an action such as the one he brought in the District Court, but is confined instead to the procedures set out in subsections (b) and (c) of § 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 360 establishes procedures for determining claims to American citizenship by those within and without the country. Subsection (a) covers claimants “within the United States” and authorizes an action for a declaratory judgment against the head of the agency denying the claimant a right or privilege of citizenship — • except that such an action cannot be instituted if the issue of citizenship arises in connection with an exclusion proceeding. Subsections '(b) and (c) deal with citizenship claimants “not within the United States.” The former provides, with limitations, for the issuance abroad of certificates of identity “for the purpose of traveling to a port of entry in the United States and applying for admission.” The latter subsection declares that a person issued such a certificate “may apply for admission to the United States at any port of entry, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to the conduct of proceedings involving aliens seeking admission to the United States.” Judicial review of those proceedings is to be by habeas corpus and not otherwise.
Thus, the question posed is whether the procedures specified in § 360 (b) and (c) provide the only method of reviewing the Secretary of State’s determination that Cort has forfeited his citizenship. More precisely stated, the question in this case is whether, despite the liberal provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended that a native of this country living abroad must travel thousands of miles, be arrested, and go to jail in order to attack an administrative finding that he is not a citizen of the United States. We find nothing in the statutory language, in the legislative history, or in our prior decisions which leads us to believe that Congress had any such purpose.
The Administrative Procedure Act confers the right to judicial review of “any agency action.” The procedures of § 360 (b) and (c) would culminate in litigation not against the Secretary of State whose determination is here being attacked, but against the Attorney General. Whether such litigation could properly be considered review of the Secretary of State’s determination presents a not insubstantial question. Putting to one side this conceptual difficulty, it is to be noted that subsections (b) and (c) by their very terms simply provide that a person outside of the United States who wishes to assert his citizenship “may” apply for a certificate of identity and that a holder of a certificate of identity “may” apply for admission to the United States. As the District Court said, “The language of the section shows no intention to provide an exclusive remedy, or any remedy, for persons outside the United States who have not adopted the procedures outlined in subsections (b) and (c). Neither does the section indicate that such persons are to be denied existing remedies.” 187 F. Supp., at 685.
The predecessor of § 360 of the 1952 Act was § 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137. That section provided that a claimant whose citizenship was denied by administrative authorities could institute a declaratory judgment suit in the federal courts to determine his right to citizenship, whether he was in the United States or abroad. In addition, the section broadened the venue of such an action by permitting suit to be brought in the “district in which such person claims a permanent residence.” Finally, the section provided a method by which a claimant could enter the United States and prosecute his claim personally.
The legislative history of § 503 indicates that Congress understood the provision for a declaratory judgment action to be merely a confirmation of existing law, or at most a clarification of it. What was concededly novel about § 503 was the provision designed to permit a citizenship claimant outside the United States to be admitted to this country upon a certificate of identity in order personally to prosecute his claim to citizenship, subject to the condition of deportation in the event of an adverse decision. At the time of the enactment of this provision some misgivings were expressed that it might be utilized by aliens to gain physical entry into the United States and then to disappear into the general populace.
In the ensuing years the abuses which some had anticipated did, indeed, develop, and the legislative history of § 360 of the 1952 Act shows that the predominate concern of Congress was to limit the easy-entry provision of § 503 of the 1940 Act, under which these abuses had occurred. Thus the report of the Senate Committee which studied immigration and nationality problems for two and a half years found that § 503 “has been used, in a considerable number of cases, to gain entry into the United States where no such right existed.” S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 777; see also Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary on S. 716, H. R. 2379 and H. R. 2816, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 108-110, 443-445. In describing the purpose of the legislation which became § 360 of the 1952 Act the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that “[t]he bill modifies section 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940,” explained that it provides:
“that any person who has previously been physically present in the United States but who is not within the United States who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any government agency may be issued a certificate of identity for the purpose of traveling to the United States and applying for admission to the United States. The net effect of this provision is to require that the determination of the nationality of such person shall be made in accordance with the normal immigration procedures. These procedures include review by habeas corpus proceedings where the issue of the nationality status of the person can be properly adjudicated.” S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 50.
As a matter simply of grammatical construction, it seems obvious that the “such person” referred to in the Committee Report is a person who has chosen to obtain a certificate of identity and to seek admission to the United States in order to prosecute his claim. The appellee in the present case is, of course, not such a person.
This legislative history is sufficient, we think, to show that the purpose of § 360 (b) and (c) was to cut off the opportunity which aliens had abused under § 503 of the 1940 Act to gain fraudulent entry to the United States by prosecuting spurious citizenship claims. We are satisfied that Congress did not intend to foreclose lawsuits by claimants, such as Cort, who do not try to gain entry to the United States before prevailing in their claims to citizenship.
For these reasons, we hold that a person outside the United States who has been denied a right of citizenship is not confined to the procedures prescribed by § 360 (b) and (c), and that the remedy pursued in the present case was an appropriate one. This view is in accord with previous decisions of this Court concerning the relationship of §§ 10 and 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act to the subsequently enacted Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. See Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48; Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U. S. 180. The teaching of those cases is that the Court will not hold that the broadly remedial provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are unavailable to review administrative decisions under the 1952 Act in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Congress so intended.
With respect to the other issues presented by this appeal, the case is set for reargument during the October Term, 1962, to follow No. 19.
It is so ordered.
66 Stat. 163, 267-268, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a) (10).
50 U. S. C. App. § 454 et seq. Appellee had previously registered as a regular registrant under the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948.
356 U. S. 86.
We postponed consideration of the question of our jurisdiction of this appeal until the hearing of the case on the merits. 365 U. S. 808. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, a direct appeal may be taken from a District Court decision holding unconstitutional an Act of Congress in a civil action in which an officer of the United States is a party. Since the District Court held § 349 (a) (10) unconstitutional, this appeal is properly before us under § 1252.
An alternative basis for our jurisdiction over this appeal might be found in 28 U. S. C. § 1253, providing for direct appeals from the decisions of three-judge courts convened under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284. But since jurisdiction is clearly authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1252, we need not inquire further into the applicability of 28 U. S. C. § 2282 to this case. In view of the unanimous decision below, the fact that three judges heard the case originally would not affect an otherwise final and reviewable decision of the District Court. See Thompson v. Whittier, 365 U. S. 465; compare Garment Workers v. Donnelly Co., 304 U. S. 243, 251-252.
Section 360 (a), 66 Stat. 163, 273, 8 U. S. C. § 1503 (a):
“(a) If any person who is within the United States claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person may institute an action under the provisions of section 2201 of title 28, United States Code, against the head of such department or independent agency for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States, except that no such action may be instituted in any ease if the issue of such person’s status as a national of the United States (1) arose by reason of, or in connection with any exclusion proceeding under the provisions of this or any other act, or (2) is in issue in any such exclusion proceeding. An action under this subsection may be instituted only within five years after the final administrative denial of such right or privilege and shall be filed in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or claims a residence, and jurisdiction over such officials in such cases is hereby conferred upon those courts.”
Section 360 (b) and (c), 66 Stat. 163, 273-274, 8 U. S. C. § 1503 (b) and (c):
“(b) If any person who is not within the United States claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person may make application to a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the foreign country in which he is residing for a certificate of identity for the purpose of traveling to a port of entry in the United States and applying for admission. Upon proof to the satisfaction of such diplomatic or consular officer that such application is made in good faith and has a substantial basis, he shall issue to such person a certificate of identity. From any denial of an application for such certificate the applicant shall be entitled to an appeal to the Secretary of State, who, if he approves the denial, shall state in writing his reasons for his decision. The Secretary of State shall prescribe rules and regulations for the issuance of certificates of identity as above provided. The provisions of this subsection shall be applicable only to a person who at some time prior to his application for the certificate of identity has been physically present in the United States, or to a person under sixteen years of age who was born abroad of a United States citizen parent.
“(c) A person who has been issued a certificate of identity under the provisions of subsection (b), and while in possession thereof, may apply for admission to the United States at any port of entry, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to the conduct of proceedings involving aliens seeking admission to the United States. A final determination by the Attorney General that any such person is not entitled to admission to the United States shall be subject to review by any court of competent jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings and not otherwise. Any person described in this section who is finally excluded from admission to the United States shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to aliens seeking admission to the United States.”
Section 603 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 64 Stat. 1137, 1171— 1172, provided:
“If any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States is denied such right or privilege by any Department or agency, or executive official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person, regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad, may institute an action against the head of such Department or agency in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person claims a permanent residence for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States. If such person is outside the United States and shall have instituted such an action in court, he may, upon submission of a sworn application showing that the claim of nationality presented in such action is made in good faith and has a substantial basis, obtain from a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the foreign country in which he is residing a certificate of identity stating that his nationality status is pending before the court, and may be admitted to the United States with such certificate upon the condition that he shall be subject to deportation in case it shall be decided by the court that he is not a national of the United States. Such certificate of identity shall not be denied solely on the ground that such person has lost a status previously had or acquired as a national of the United States; and from any denial of an application for such certificate the applicant shall be entitled to an appeal to the Secretary of State, who, if he approves the denial, shall state in writing the reasons for his decision. The Secretary of State, with approval of the Attorney General, shall prescribe rules and regulations for the issuance of certificates of identity as above provided.”
For example, one of the managers of the bill in the House explained the declaratory judgment provisions as follows:
“We have a rather new situation here, and that is we are cutting off the claim to citizenship of these thousands of persons under this provision in the bill who do not comply with its terms and therefore it was deemed advisable that some chance be given them to have what might be called their day in court. We have safeguarded the situation extremely carefully and feel that so far as possible we have prevented any abuse of it. It was my contention when this measure was up for consideration in the committee that such people did have the right to go into court either on a declaratory judgment or under a writ of habeas corpus, but there was a feeling on the part of others that they may not have that right.” 86 Cong. Rec. 13247.
A similar understanding of the measure was indicated during the House Committee Hearings on the bill.
“Mr. Flournoy. . . . The question remains, whether while still abroad he would not be able to resort to a petition for declaratory judgment or for a writ of mandamus.
“The Chairman. I should think, gentlemen, that we ought to go a little step further ... to say that such person may, upon application, be permitted under certain conditions ... to enter the United States for a short period of time as a temporary person only.” Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 291-292.
For instance, a representative of the Immigration and Naturalization Service testified at the House Committee hearings that after a citizen claimant had been permitted to enter the United States, “ [I] t would be open to question, in my mind, whether you would ever get him out again.” Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 292; see also, id., at 294, 296.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether an assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Because history and precedent make clear that such an assignee has long been permitted to bring suit, we conclude that the assignee does have standing.
I
When a payphone customer makes a long-distance call with an access code or 1-800 number issued by a long-distance communications carrier, the customer pays the carrier (which completes that call), but not the payphone operator (which connects that call to the carrier in the first place). In these circumstances, the long-distance carrier is required to compensate the payphone operator for the customer’s call. See 47 U. S. C. § 226; 47 CFR § 64.1300 (2007). The payphone operator can sue the long-distance carrier in court for any compensation that the carrier fails to pay for these “dial-around” calls. And many have done so. See Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U. S. 45 (2007) (finding that the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes such suits).
Because litigation is expensive, because the evidentiary demands of a single suit are often great, and because the resulting monetary recovery is often small, many payphone operators assign their dial-around claims to billing and collection firms called “aggregators” so that, in effect, these aggregators can bring suit on their behalf. See Brief for Respondents 3. Typically, an individual aggregator collects claims from different payphone operators; the aggregator promises to remit to the relevant payphone operator (i. e., the assignor of the claim) any dial-around compensation that is recovered; the aggregator then pursues the claims in court or through settlement negotiations; and the aggregator is paid a fee for this service.
The present litigation involves a group of aggregators who have taken claim assignments from approximately 1,400 payphone operators. Each payphone operator signed an Assignment and Power of Attorney Agreement (Agreement) in which the payphone operator “assigns, transfers and sets over to [the aggregator] for purposes of collection all rights, title and interest of the [payphone operator] in the [payphone operator’s] claims, demands or causes of action for ‘Dial-Around Compensation’... due the [payphone operator] for periods since October 1, 1997.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 114. The Agreement also “appoints” the aggregator as the payphone operator’s “true and lawful attorney-in-fact.” Ibid. The Agreement provides that the aggregator will litigate “in the [payphone operator’s] interest.” Id., at 115. And the Agreement further stipulates that the assignment of the claims “may not be revoked without the written consent of the [aggregator].” Ibid. The aggregator and payphone operator then separately agreed that the aggregator would remit all proceeds to the payphone operator and that the payphone operator would pay the aggregator for its services (typically via a quarterly charge).
After signing the agreements, the aggregators (respondents here) filed lawsuits in federal court seeking dial-around compensation from Sprint, AT&T, and other long-distance carriers (petitioners here). AT&T moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the aggregators lack standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution. The District Court initially agreed to dismiss, APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140-141 (DC 2003), but changed its mind in light of a “long line of cases and legal treatises that recognize a well-established principle that assignees for collection purposes are entitled to bring suit where [as here] the assignments transfer absolute title to the claims.” APCC Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 41, 45 (DC 2003). After consolidating similar cases, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that the aggregators have standing to sue, but held that the relevant statutes do not create a private right of action. APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., 418 F. 3d 1238 (2005) (per curiam). This Court granted the aggregators’ petition for certiorari on the latter statutory question, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Global Crossing, supra. APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., 550 U. S. 901 (2007). On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the District Court allowing the litigation to go forward. 489 F. 3d 1249, 1250 (2007) (per curiam). The long-distance carriers then asked us to consider the standing question. We granted certiorari, and we now affirm.
II
We begin with the most basic doctrinal principles: Article III, §2, of the Constitution restricts the federal “judicial Power” to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” That case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing. See, e. g., Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332 (2006). And in order to have Article III standing, a plaintiff must adequately establish: (1) an injury in fact (i. e., a “concrete and particularized” invasion of a “legally protected interest”); (2) causation (i e., a “ ‘fairly... trace[able]’” connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant); and (3) redress-ability (i. e., it is “ ‘likely’ ” and not “merely ‘speculative’ ” that the plaintiff’s injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit). Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 (1992) (calling these the “irreducible constitutional minimum” requirements).
In some sense, the aggregators clearly meet these requirements. They base their suit upon a concrete and particularized “injury in fact,” namely, the carriers’ failure to pay dial-around compensation. The carriers “caused” that injury. And the litigation will “redress” that injury — if the suits are successful, the long-distance carriers will pay what they owe. The long-distance carriers argue, however, that the aggregators lack standing because it was the payphone operators (who are not plaintiffs), not the aggregators (who are plaintiffs), who were “injured in fact” and that it is the payphone operators, not the aggregators, whose injuries a legal victory will truly “redress”: The aggregators, after all, will remit all litigation proceeds to the payphone operators. Brief for Petitioners 18. Thus, the question before us is whether, under these circumstances, an assignee has standing to pursue the assignor’s claims for money owed.
We have often said that history and tradition offer a meaningful guide to the types of cases that Article III empowers federal courts to consider. See, e. g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 102 (1998) (“We have always taken [the case-or-controversy requirement] to mean cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process” (emphasis added)); GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 445 U. S. 375, 382 (1980) (“The purpose of the case-or-controversy requirement is to limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 460 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.) (in crafting Article III, “the framers... gave merely the outlines of what were to them the familiar operations of the English judicial system and its manifestations on this side of the ocean before the Union”). Consequently, we here have carefully examined how courts have historically treated suits by assignors and assignees. And we have discovered that history and precedent are clear on the question before us: Assignees of a claim, including assignees for collection, have long been permitted to bring suit. A clear historical answer at least demands reasons for change. We can find no such reasons here, and accordingly we conclude that the aggregators have standing.
A
We must begin with a minor concession. Prior to the 17th century, English law would not have authorized a suit like this one. But that is because, with only limited exceptions, English courts refused to recognize assignments at all. See, e. g., Lampet’s Case, 10 Co. Rep. 46b, 48a, 77 Eng. Rep. 994, 997 (K. B. 1612) (stating that “no possibility, right, title, nor thing in action, shall be granted or assigned to strangers” (footnote omitted)); Penson & Higbed’s Case, 4 Leo. 99, 74 Eng. Rep. 756 (K. B. 1590) (refusing to recognize the right of an assignee of a right in contract); see also 9 J. Murray, Corbin on Contracts § 47.3, p. 134 (rev. ed. 2007) (noting that the King was excepted from the basic rule and could, as a result, always receive assignments).
Courts then strictly adhered to the rule that a “chose in action”—an interest in property not immediately reducible to possession (which, over time, came to include a financial interest such as a debt, a legal claim for money, or a contractual right)—simply “could not be transferred to another person by the strict rules of the ancient common law.” See 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *442. To permit transfer, the courts feared, would lead to the “multiplying of contentions and suits,” Lampet’s Case, supra, at 48a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 997, and would also promote “maintenance,” i. e., officious intermeddling with litigation, see Holdsworth, History of the Treatment of Choses in Action by the Common Law, 33 Harv. L. Rev. 997, 1006-1009 (1920).
As the 17th century began, however, strict anti-assignment rules seemed inconsistent with growing commercial needs. And as English commerce and trade expanded, courts began to liberalize the rules that prevented assignments of choses in action. See 9 Corbin, supra, § 47.3, at 134 (suggesting that the “pragmatic necessities of trade” induced “evolution of the common law”); Holdsworth, supra, at 1021-1022 (the “common law” was “induced” to change because of “considerations of mercantile convenience or necessity”); J. Ames, Lectures on Legal History 214 (1913) (noting that the “objection of maintenance” yielded to “the modern commercial spirit”). By the beginning of the 18th century, courts routinely recognized assignments of equitable (but not legal) interests in a chose in action: Courts of equity permitted suits by an assignee who had equitable (but not legal) title. And courts of law effectively allowed suits either by the assignee (who had equitable, but not legal title) or the assignor (who had legal, but not equitable title).
To be more specific, courts of equity would simply permit an assignee with a beneficial interest in a chose in action to sue in his own name. They might, however, require the assignee to bring in the assignor as a party to the action so as to bind him to whatever judgment was reached. See, e. g., Warmstrey v. Tanfield, 1 Ch. Rep. 29, 21 Eng. Rep. 498 (1628-1629); Fashion v. Atwood, 2 Ch. Cas. 36, 22 Eng. Rep. 835 (1688); Peters v. Soame, 2 Vern. 428, 428-429, 23 Eng. Rep. 874 (Ch. 1701); Squib v. Wyn, 1 P. Wms. 378, 381, 24 Eng. Rep. 432, 433 (Ch. 1717); Lord Carteret v. Paschal, 3 P. Wms. 197, 199, 24 Eng. Rep. 1028, 1029 (Ch. 1733); Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. sen. 331, 332-333, 27 Eng. Rep. 1064, 1064-1065 (Ch. 1749). See also M. Smith, Law of Assignment: The Creation and Transfer of Choses in Action 131 (2007) (by the beginning of the 18th century, “it became settled that equity would recognize the validity of the assignment of both debts and of other things regarded by the common law as choses in action”).
Courts of law, meanwhile, would permit the assignee with an equitable interest to bring suit, but nonetheless required the assignee to obtain a “power of attorney” from the holder of the legal title, namely, the assignor, and further required the assignee to bring suit in the name of that assignor. See, e. g., Cook, Alienability of Choses in Action, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 816, 822 (1916) (“[C]ommon law lawyers were able, through the device of the ‘power of attorney’... to enable the assignee to obtain relief in common law proceedings by suing in the name of the assignor”); 29 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 74:2, pp. 214-215 (4th ed. 2003). Compare, e. g., Barrow v. Gray, Cro. Eliz. 551, 78 Eng. Rep. 797 (K. B. 1653), and South & Marsh’s Case, 3 Leo. 234, 74 Eng. Rep. 654 (Exch. 1686) (limiting the use of a power of attorney to cases in which the assignor owed the assignee a debt), with Holdsworth, supra, at 1021 (noting that English courts abandoned that limitation by the end of the 18th century). At the same time, courts of law would permit an assignor to sue even when he had transferred away his beneficial interest. And they permitted the assignor to sue in such circumstances precisely because the assignor retained legal title. See, e. g., Winch v. Keeley, 1 T. R. 619, 99 Eng. Rep. 1284 (K. B. 1787) (allowing the bankrupt assignor of a chose in action to sue a debtor for the benefit of the assignee because the assignor possessed legal, though not equitable, title).
The upshot is that by the time Blackstone published volume II of his Commentaries in 1766, he could dismiss the “ancient common law” prohibition on assigning choses in action as a “nicety... now disregarded.” 2 Blackstone, supra, at *442.
B
Legal practice in the United States largely mirrored that in England. In the latter half of the 18th century and throughout the 19th century, American courts regularly “exercised their powers in favor of the assignee,” both at law and in equity. 9 Corbin on Contracts §47.3, at 137. See, e. g., McCullum v. Coxe, 1 Dall. 139 (Pa. 1785) (protecting assignee of a debt against a collusive settlement by the assignor); Dennie v. Chapman, 1 Root 113, 115 (Conn. Super. 1789) (assignee of a nonnegotiable note can bring suit “in the name of the original promisee or his administrator”); Andrews v. Beecker, 1 Johns. Cas. 411, 411-412, n. (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1800) (per curiam) (“Courts of law... are, in justice, bound to protect the rights of the assignees, as much as a court of equity, though they may still require the action to be brought in the name of the assignor”); Riddle & Co. v. Mandeville, 5 Cranch 322 (1809) (assignees of promissory notes entitled to bring suit in equity). Indeed, § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 specifically authorized federal courts to take “cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favour of an assignee” so long as federal jurisdiction would lie if the assignor himself had brought suit. 1 Stat. 79.
Thus, in 1816, Justice Story, writing for a unanimous Court, summarized the practice in American courts as follows: “Courts of law, following in this respect the rules of equity, now take notice of assignments of choses in action, and exert themselves to afford them every support and protection.” Welch v. Mandeville, 1 Wheat. 233, 236. He added that courts of equity have “disregarded the rigid strictness of the common law, and protected the rights of the assignee of choses in action,” and noted that courts of common law “now consider an assignment of a chose in action as substantially valid, only preserving, in certain cases, the form of an action commenced in the name of the assignor.” Id., at 237, n.
It bears noting, however, that at the time of the founding (and in some States well before then) the law did permit the assignment of legal title to at least some choses in action. In such cases, the assignee could bring suit on the assigned claim in his own name, in a court of law. See, e. g., Act of Oct. 1705, Ch. XXXIV, 3 Va. Stat. 378 (W. Hening ed. 1823) (reprinted 1969) (permitting any person to “assign or transfer any bond or bill for debt over to any other person” and providing that “the assignee or assignees, his and their executors and administrators by virtue of such assignment shall and may have lawfull power to commence and prosecute any suit at law in his or their own name or names”); Act of May 28, 1715, Ch. XXVIII, Gen. Laws of Penn. 60 (J. Dunlop comp. 2d ed. 1849) (permitting the assignment of “bonds, specialties, and notes” and authorizing “the person or persons, to whom the said bonds, specialties or notes, are... assigned” to “commence and prosecute his, her or their actions at law”); Patent Act of 1793, ch. 11, § 4, 1 Stat. 322 (“[I]t shall be lawful for any inventor, his executor or administrator to assign the title and interest in the said invention, at anytime, and the assignee... shall thereafter stand in the place of the original inventor, both as to right and responsibility”).
C
By the 19th century, courts began to consider the specific question presented here: whether an assignee of a legal claim for money could sue when that assignee had promised to give all litigation proceeds back to the assignor. During that century American law at the state level became less formalistic through the merger of law and equity, through statutes more generously permitting an assignor to pass legal title to an assignee, and through the adoption of rules that permitted any “real party in interest” to bring suit. See 6A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1541, pp. 320-321 (2d ed. 1990) (hereinafter Wright & Miller); see also 9 Corbin, supra, § 47.3, at 137. The courts recognized that pre-existing law permitted an assignor to bring suit on a claim even though the assignor retained nothing more than naked legal title. Since the law increasingly permitted the transfer of legal title to an assignee, courts agreed that assignor and assignee should be treated alike in this respect. And rather than abolish the assignor’s well-established right to sue on the basis of naked legal title alone, many courts instead extended the same right to an assignee. See, e. g., Clark & Hutchins, The Real Party in Interest, 34 Yale L. J. 259, 264-265 (1925) (noting that the changes in the law permitted both the assignee with “naked legal title” and the assignee with an equitable interest in a claim to bring suit).
Thus, during the 19th century, most state courts entertained suits virtually identical to the litigation before us: suits by individuals who were assignees for collection only, i. e., assignees who brought suit to collect money owed to their assignors but who promised to turn over to those assignors the proceeds secured through litigation. See, e. g., Webb & Hepp v. Morgan, McClung & Co., 14 Mo. 428, 431 (1851) (holding that the assignees of a promissory note for collection only can bring suit, even though they lack a beneficial interest in the note, because the assignment “creates in them such legal interest, that they thereby become the persons to sue”); Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 N. Y. 349, 350, 353 (1871) (allowing suit by the assignee of a cause of action even though the assignors “‘expected to receive the amount recovered in the action,’” because the assignee, as “legal holder of the claim,” was “the real party in interest”); Searing v. Berry, 58 Iowa 20, 23, 24, 11 N. W. 708, 709 (1882) (where legal title to a judgment was assigned “merely for the purpose of enabling plaintiff to enforce its collection” and the assignor in fact retained the beneficial interest, the plaintiff-assignee could “prosecute this suit to enforce the collection of the judgment”); Grant v. Heverin, 77 Cal. 263, 265, 19 P. 493 (1888) (holding that the assignee of a bond could bring suit, even though he lacked a beneficial interest in the bond, and adopting the rule that an assignee with legal title to an assigned claim can bring suit even where the assignee must “account to the assignor” for “a part of the proceeds” or “is to account for the whole proceeds” (internal quotation marks omitted)); McDaniel v. Pressler, 3 Wash. 636, 638, 637, 29 P. 209, 210 (1892) (holding that the assignee of promissory notes was the real party in interest, even though the assignment was “for the purpose of collection” and the assignee had “no interest other than that of the legal holder of said notes”); Wines v. Rio Grande W. R. Co., 9 Utah 228, 235, 33 P. 1042, 1044, 1045 (1893) (holding that an assignee could bring suit based on causes of action assigned to him “simply to enable him to sue” and who “would turn over to the assignors all that was recovered in the action, after deducting [the assignors’] proportion of the expenses of the suit”); Gomer v. Stockdale, 5 Colo. App. 489, 492, 39 P. 355, 357, 356 (1895) (permitting suit by a party who was assigned legal title to contractual rights, where the assignor retained the beneficial interest, noting that the doctrine that “prevails in Colorado” is that the assignee may bring suit in his own name “although there may be annexed to the transfer the condition that when the sum is collected the whole or some part of it must be paid over to the assignor”). See also Appendix, infra (collecting cases from numerous other States approving of suits by assignees for collection).
Of course, the dissent rightly notes, some States during this period of time refused to recognize assignee-forcollection suits, or otherwise equivocated on the matter. See post, at 309 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.). But so many States allowed these suits that by 1876, the distinguished procedure and equity scholar John Norton Pomeroy declared it “settled by a great preponderance of authority, although there is some conflict” that an assignee is “entitled to sue in his own name” whenever the assignment vests “legal title” in the assignee, and notwithstanding “any contemporaneous, collateral agreement by virtue of which he is to receive a part only of the proceeds... or even is to thus account [to the assignor] for the whole proceeds.” Remedies and Remedial Rights § 132, p. 159 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). Other contemporary scholars reached the same basic conclusion. See, e. g., P. Bliss, A Treatise Upon the Law of Pleading § 51, p. 69 (2d ed. 1887) (stating that “[m]ost of the courts have held that where negotiable paper has been indorsed, or other choses in action have been assigned, it does not concern the defendant for what purpose the transfer has been made” and giving examples of States permitting assignees to bring suit even where they lacked a beneficial interest in the assigned claims (emphasis added)). See also Clark & Hutchins, supra, at 264 (“[MJany, probably most, American jurisdictions” have held that “an assignee who has no beneficial interest, like an assignee for collection only, may prosecute an action in his own name” (emphasis added)). Even Michael Ferguson’s California Law Review Comment—which the dissent cites as support for its argument about “the divergent practice” among the courts, post, at 310 —recognizes that “[a] majority of courts has held that an assignee for collection only is a real party in interest” entitled to bring suit. See Comment, The Real Party in Interest Rule Revitalized: Recognizing Defendant’s Interest in the Determination of Proper Parties Plaintiff, 55 Cal. L. Rev. 1452, 1475 (1967) (emphasis added); see also id., at 1476, n. 118 (noting that even “[t]he few courts that have waivered on the question have always ended up in the camp of the majority” (emphasis added)).
During this period, a number of federal courts similarly indicated approval of suits by assignees for collection only. See, e. g., Bradford v. Jenks, 3 F. Cas. 1132, 1134 (No. 1,769) (CC Ill. 1840) (stating that the plaintiff, the receiver of a bank, could bring suit in federal court to collect on a note owed to that bank if he sued as the bank’s assignee, not its receiver, but ultimately holding that the plaintiff could not sue as an assignee because there was no diversity jurisdiction); Orr v. Lacy, 18 F. Cas. 834 (No. 10,589) (CC Mich. 1847) (affirming judgment for the plaintiff, the endorsee of a bill of exchange, on the ground that, as endorsee, he had the “legal right” to bring suit notwithstanding the fact that the proceeds of the litigation would be turned over to the endorser); Murdock v. The Emma Graham, 17 F. Cas. 1012, 1013 (No. 9,940) (SD Ohio 1878) (permitting the assignee of a claim for injury to a “float or barge” to bring suit when, “under the assignment,” the assignor’s creditors would benefit from the litigation); The Rupert City, 213 F. 263, 266-267 (WD Wash. 1914) (assignees of claims for collection only could bring suit in maritime law because “an assignment for collection... vest[s] such an interest in [an] assignee as to entitle him to sue”).
Even this Court long ago indicated that assignees for collection only can properly bring suit. For example, in Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U. S. 302 (1902), the plaintiff sued to collect on a number of municipal bonds and coupons whose “legal title” had been vested in him but which were transferred to him “for collection only.” Id., at 324. The Court, in a unanimous decision, ultimately held that the federal courts could not hear his suit because the amount-in-controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction would not have been satisfied if the bondholders and coupon holders had sued individually. See id., at 328-329. However, before reaching this holding, the Court expressly stated that the suit could properly be brought in federal court “if the only objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is that the plaintiff was invested with the legal title to the bonds and coupons simply for purposes of collection.” Id., at 325.
Next, in Spiller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 253 U. S. 117 (1920), a large number of cattle shippers assigned to Spiller (the secretary of a Cattle Raiser’s Association) their individual reparation claims against railroads they said had charged them excessive rates. The Federal Court of Appeals held that Spiller could not bring suit because, in effect, he was an assignee for collection only and would be passing back to the cattle shippers any money he recovered from the litigation. In a unanimous decision, this Court reversed. The Court wrote that the cattle shippers’ “assignments were absolute in form” and “plainly” “vest[ed] the legal title in Spiller.” Id., at 134. The Court conceded that the assignments did not pass “beneficial or equitable title” to Spiller. Ibid. But the Court then said that “this was not necessary to support the right of the assignee to claim an award of reparation and enable him to recover it by action at law brought in his own name but for the benefit of the equitable owners of the claims.” Ibid. The Court thereby held that Spiller’s legal title alone was sufficient to allow him to bring suit in federal court on the aggregated claims of his assignors.
Similarly, in Titus v. Wallick, 306 U. S. 282 (1939), this Court unanimously held that (under New York law) a plaintiff, an assignee for collection, had “dominion over the claim for purposes of suit” because the assignment purported to “ ‘sell, assign, transfer and set over’ the chose in action” to the assignee. Id., at 289. More importantly for present purposes, the Court said that the assignment’s “legal effect was not curtailed by the recital that the assignment was for purposes of suit and that its proceeds were to be turned over or accounted for to another.” Ibid.
To be clear, we do not suggest that the Court’s decisions in Waite, Spiller, and Titus conclusively resolve the standing question before us. We cite them because they offer additional and powerful support for the proposition that suits by assignees for collection have long been seen as “amenable” to resolution by the judicial process. Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 102.
Finally, we note that there is also considerable, more recent authority showing that an assignee for collection may properly sue on the assigned claim in federal court. See, e. g., 6A Wright & Miller § 1545, at 346-348 (noting that an assignee with legal title is considered to be a real party in interest and that as a result “federal courts have held that an assignee for purposes of collection who holds legal title to the debt according to the governing substantive law is the real party in interest even though the assignee must account to the assignor for whatever is recovered in the action”); 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Assignments § 184, pp. 262-263 (1999) (“An assignee for collection or security only is within the meaning of the real party in interest statutes and entitled to sue in his or her own name on an assigned account or chose in action, although he or she must account to the assignor for the proceeds of the action, even when the assignment is without consideration” (footnote omitted)). See also Rosenblum v. Dingfelder, 111 F. 2d 406, 407 (CA2 1940); Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co., 359 F. 2d 292, 294 (CA2 1966); Dixie Portland Flour Mills, Inc. v. Dixie Feed & Seed Co., 382 F. 2d 830, 833 (CA6 1967); Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Assn. v. Klamath Medical Serv. Bur., 701 F. 2d 1276, 1282 (CA9 1983).
D
The history and precedents that we have summarized make clear that courts have long found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; that where assignment is at issue, courts— both before and after the founding— have always permitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and that there is a strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. We find this history and precedent “well nigh conclusive” in respect to the issue before us: Lawsuits by assignees, including assignees for collection only, are “cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 777-778 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ill
Petitioners have not offered any convincing reason why we should depart from the historical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collection. In any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more modern decisions of this Court.
Petitioners argue, for example, that the aggregators have not themselves suffered any injury in fact and that the assignments for collection “do not suffice to transfer the payphone operators’ injuries.” Brief for Petitioners 18. It is, of course, true that the aggregators did not originally suffer any injury caused by the long-distance carriers; the payphone operators did. But the payphone operators assigned their claims to the aggregators lock, stock, and barrel. See APCC Servs., 418 F. 3d, at 1243 (there is “no reason to believe the assignment is anything less than a complete transfer to the aggregator” of the injury and resulting claim); see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 114 (Agreement provides that each payphone operator “assigns
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide today whether a civil rights plaintiff who receives a nominal damages award is a “prevailing party” eligible to receive attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed an award of attorney’s fees on the ground that a plaintiff receiving only nominal damages is not a prevailing party. Although we hold that such a plaintiff is a prevailing party, we affirm the denial of fees in this case.
I
Joseph Davis Farrar and Dale Lawson Farrar owned and operated Artesia Hall, a school in Liberty County, Texas, for delinquent, disabled, and disturbed teens. After an Artesia Hall student died in 1973, a Liberty County grand jury returned a murder indictment charging Joseph Farrar with willful failure to administer proper medical treatment and failure to provide timely hospitalization. The State of Texas also obtained a temporary injunction that closed Artesia Hall.
Respondent William P. Hobby, Jr., then Lieutenant Governor of Texas, participated in the events leading to the closing of Artesia Hall. After Joseph Farrar was indicted, Hobby issued a press release criticizing the Texas Department of Public Welfare and its licensing procedures. He urged the department’s director to investigate Artesia Hall and accompanied Governor Dolph Briscoe on an inspection of the school. Finally, he attended the temporary injunction hearing with Briscoe and spoke to reporters after the hearing.
Joseph Farrar sued Hobby, Judge Clarence D. Cain, County Attorney Arthur J. Hartell III, and the director and two employees of the Department of Public Welfare for monetary and injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The complaint alleged deprivation of liberty and property without due process by means of conspiracy and malicious prosecution aimed at closing Artesia Hall. Later amendments to the complaint added Dale Farrar as a plaintiff, dropped the claim for injunctive relief, and increased the request for damages to $17 million. After Joseph Farrar died on February 20,1983, petitioners Dale Farrar and Pat Smith, coadministrators of his estate, were substituted as plaintiffs.
The case was tried before a jury in the Southern District of Texas on August 15, 1983. Through special interrogatories, the jury found that all of the defendants except Hobby had conspired against the plaintiffs but that this conspiracy was not a proximate cause of any injury suffered by the plaintiffs. The jury also found that Hobby had “committed an act or acts under color of state law that deprived Plaintiff Joseph Davis Farrar of a civil right,” but it found that Hobby’s conduct was not “a proximate cause of any damages” suffered by Joseph Farrar. App. to Brief in Opposition A-3. The jury made no findings in favor of Dale Farrar. In accordance with the jury’s answers to the special interrogate-ries, the District Court ordered that “Plaintiffs take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the parties bear their own costs.” Id., at A-6.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Farrar v. Cain, 756 F. 2d 1148 (1985). The court affirmed the failure to award compensatory or nominal damages against the conspirators because the plaintiffs had not proved an actual deprivation of a constitutional right. Id., at 1151-1152. Because the jury found that Hobby had deprived Joseph Farrar of a civil right, however, the Fifth Circuit remanded for entry of judgment against Hobby for nominal damages. Id., at 1152.
The plaintiffs then sought attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. On January 80, 1987, the District Court entered an order awarding the plaintiffs $280,000 in fees, $27,932 in expenses, and $9,730 in prejudgment interest against Hobby. The court denied Hobby’s motion to reconsider the fee award on August 31,1990.
A divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed the fee award. Estate of Farrar v. Cain, 941 F. 2d 1311 (1991). After reviewing our decisions in Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755 (1987), Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U. S. 1 (1988) (per curiam), and Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U. S. 782 (1989), the majority held that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties and were therefore ineligible for fees under § 1988:
“The Farrars sued for $17 million in money damages; the jury gave them nothing. No money damages. No declaratory relief. No injunctive relief. Nothing. . . . [T]he Farrars did succeed in securing a jury-finding that Hobby violated their civil rights and a nominal award of one dollar. However, this finding did not in any meaningful sense ‘change the legal relationship’ between the Farrars and Hobby. Nor was the result a success for the Farrars on a ‘significant issue that achieve[d] some of the benefit the [Farrars] sought in bringing suit.’ When the sole relief sought is money damages, we fail to see how a party ‘prevails’ by winning one dollar out of the $17 million requested.” 941 F. 2d, at 1315 (citations omitted) (quoting Garland, supra, at 791-792).
The majority reasoned that even if an award of nominal damages represented some sort of victory, “surely [the Farrars’] was ‘a technical victory ... so insignificant and ... so near the situations addressed in Hewitt and Rhodes, as to be insufficient to support prevailing party status.’” 941 F. 2d, at 1315 (quoting Garland, supra, at 792).
The dissent argued that “Hewitt, Rhodes and Garland [do not] go so far” as to hold that “where plaintiff obtains only nominal damages for his constitutional deprivation, he cannot be considered the prevailing party.” 941 F. 2d, at 1317 (Reavley, J., dissenting).
We granted certiorari. 502 U. S. 1090 (1992).
I — I
The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, provides in relevant part:
“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981,1982,1983,1986, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 ... , or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .. ., the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
“Congress intended to permit the .. . award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits.” Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754, 758 (1980) (per curiam). Therefore, in order to qualify for attorney’s fees under § 1988, a plaintiff must be a “prevailing party.” Under our “generous formulation” of the term, “‘plaintiffs may be considered “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit/” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 433 (1983) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 278-279 (CA1 1978)). “[L]iability on the merits and responsibility for fees go hand in hand; where a defendant has not been prevailed against, either because of legal immunity or on the merits, § 1988 does not authorize a fee award against that defendant.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165 (1985).
We have elaborated on the definition of prevailing party in three recent cases. In Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755 (1987), we addressed “the peculiar-sounding question whether a party who litigates to judgment and loses on all of his claims can nonetheless be a ‘prevailing party.’ ” Id., at 757. In his §1983 action against state prison officials for alleged due process violations, respondent Helms obtained no relief. “The most that he obtained was an interlocutory ruling that his complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim.” Id., at 760. Observing that “[r]espect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail,” we held that Helms was not a prevailing party. Ibid. We required the plaintiff to prove “the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff.” Id., at 761 (emphasis omitted).
In Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U. S. 1 (1988) (per curiam), we reversed an award of attorney’s fees premised solely on a declaratory judgment that prison officials had violated the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. By the time the District Court entered judgment, “one of the plaintiffs had died and the other was no longer in custody.” Id., at 2. Under these circumstances, we held, neither plaintiff was a prevailing party. We explainéd that “nothing in [Hewitt] suggested that the entry of [a declaratory] judgment in a party’s favor automatically renders that party prevailing under § 1988.” Id., at 3. We reaffirmed that a judgment — declaratory or otherwise — “will constitute relief, for purposes of § 1988, if, and only if, it affects the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff.” Id., at 4. Whatever “modification of prison policies” the declaratory judgment might have effected “could not in any way have benefited either plaintiff, one of whom was dead and the other released.” Ibid.
Finally, in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U. S. 782 (1989), we synthesized the teachings of Hewitt and Rhodes. “[T]o be considered a prevailing party within the meaning of § 1988,” we held, “the plaintiff must be able to point to a resolution of the dispute which changes the legal relationship between itself and the defendant.” 489 U. S., at 792. We reemphasized that “[t]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.” Id., at 792-793. Under this test, the plaintiffs in Garland were prevailing parties because they “obtained a judgment vindicating [their] First Amendment rights [as] public employees” and “materially altered the [defendant] school district’s policy limiting the rights of teachers to communicate with each other concerning employee organizations and union activities.” Id., at 793.
Therefore, to qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. The plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought, Hewitt, supra, at 760, or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement, Maher v. Gagne, 448 U. S. 122, 129 (1980). Whatever relief the plaintiff secures must directly benefit him at the time of the judgment or settlement. See Hewitt, supra, at 764. Otherwise the judgment or settlement cannot be said to “affec[t] the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff.” Rhodes, supra, at 4. Only under these circumstances can civil rights litigation effect “the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” and thereby transform the plaintiff into a prevailing party. Garland, supra, at 792-793. In short, a plaintiff “prevails” when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.
Ill
A
Doubtless “the basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award should be to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 254 (1978). For this reason, no compensatory damages may be awarded in a § 1983 suit absent proof of actual injury. Id., at 264. Accord, Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S. 299, 307, 308, n. 11 (1986). We have also held, however, that “the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury.” Carey, supra, at 266. The awarding of nominal damages for the “absolute” right to procedural due process “recognizes the importance to organized society that [this] righ[t] be scrupulously observed” while “remaining] true to the principle that substantial damages should be awarded only to compensate actual injury.” 435 U. S., at 266. Thus, Carey obligates a court to award nominal damages when a plaintiff establishes the violation of his right to procedural due process but cannot prove actual injury.
We therefore hold that a plaintiff who wins nominal damages is a prevailing party under §1988. When a court awards nominal damages, it neither enters judgment for defendant on the merits nor declares the defendant’s legal immunity to suit. Cf. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S., at 165; Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U. S. 719, 738 (1980). To be sure, a judicial pronouncement that the defendant has violated the Constitution, unaccompanied by an enforceable judgment on the merits, does not render the plaintiff a prevailing party. Of itself, “the moral satisfaction [that] results from any favorable statement of law” cannot bestow prevailing party status. Hewitt, 482 U. S., at 762. No material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties occurs until the plaintiff becomes entitled to enforce a judgment, consent decree, or settlement against the defendant. A plaintiff may demand payment for nominal damages no less than he may demand payment for millions of dollars in compensatory damages. A judgment for damages in any amount, whether compensatory or nominal, modifies the defendant’s behavior for the plaintiff’s benefit by forcing the defendant to pay an amount of money he otherwise would not pay. As a result, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that petitioners’ nominal damages award failed to render them prevailing parties.
We have previously stated that “a technical victory may be so insignificant... as to be insufficient to support prevailing party status.” Garland, 489 U. S., at 792. The example chosen in Garland to illustrate this sort of “technical” victory, however, would fail to support prevailing party status under the test we adopt today. In that case, the District Court declared unconstitutionally vague a regulation requiring that “nonschool hour meetings be conducted Only with prior approval from the local school principal.” Ibid. We suggested that this finding alone would not sustain prevailing party status if there were “ ‘no evidence that the plaintiffs were ever refused permission to use school premises during non-school hours.’” Ibid. The deficiency in such a hypothetical “victory” is identical to the shortcoming in Rhodes. Despite winning a declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs could not alter the defendant school board’s behavior toward them for their benefit. Now that we are confronted with the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of “technical,” “insignificant” victory that cannot confer prevailing party status, we hold that the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained. We recognized as much in Garland when we noted that “the degree of the plaintiff’s success” does not affect “eligibility for a fee award.” 489 U. S., at 790 (emphasis in original). See also id., at 793.
B
Although the “technical” nature of a nominal damages award or any other judgment does not affect the prevailing party inquiry, it does bear on the propriety of fees awarded under § 1988. Once civil rights litigation materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, “the degree of the plaintiff’s overall success goes to the reasonableness” of a fee award under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (1983). Garland, supra, at 793. Indeed, “the most critical factor” in determining the reasonableness of a fee award “is the degree of success obtained.” Hensley, supra, at 436. Accord, Marek v. Chesny, 473 U. S. 1, 11 (1985). In this case, petitioners received nominal damages instead of the $17 million in compensatory damages that they sought. This litigation accomplished little beyond giving petitioners “the moral satisfaction of knowing that a federal court concluded that [their] rights had been violated” in some unspecified way. Hewitt, supra, at 762. We have already observed that if “a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.” Hensley, supra, at 436. Yet the District Court calculated petitioners’ fee award in precisely this fashion, without engaging in any measured exercise of discretion. “Where recovery of private damages is the purpose of . . . civil rights litigation, a district court, in fixing fees, is obligated to give primary consideration to the amount of damages awarded as compared to the amount sought.” Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U. S. 561, 585 (1986) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). Such a comparison promotes the court’s “central” responsibility to “make the assessment of what is a reasonable fee under the circumstances of the case.” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U. S. 87, 96 (1989). Having considered the amount and nature of damages awarded, the court may lawfully award low fees or no fees without reciting the 12 factors bearing on reasonableness, see Hensley, 461 U. S., at 480, n. 3, or multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended ... by a reasonable hourly rate,” id., at 433.
In some circumstances, even a plaintiff who formally “prevails” under §1988 should receive no attorney’s fees at all. A plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages but receives no more than nominal damages is often such a prevailing party. As we have held, a nominal damages award does render a plaintiff a prevailing party by allowing him to vindicate his “absolute” right to procedural due process through enforcement of a judgment against the defendant. Carey, 435 U. S., at 266. In a civil rights suit for damages, however, the awarding of nominal damages also highlights the plaintiff’s failure to prove actual, compensable injury. Id., at 254-264. Whatever the constitutional basis for substantive liability, damages awarded in a §1983 action “must always be designed ‘to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.’” Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S., at 309 (quoting Carey, supra, at 265) (emphasis and brackets in original). When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, see Carey, supra, at 256-257, 264, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. In an apparent failure to heed our admonition that fee awards under §1988 were never intended to “‘produce windfalls to attorneys,’” Riverside v. Rivera, supra, at 580 (plurality opinion) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)), the District Court awarded $280,000 in attorney’s fees without “consider[ing] the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award.” Hensley, supra, at 438.
Although the Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize that petitioners were prevailing parties, it correctly-reversed the District Court’s fee award. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
So ordered.
Although the Fifth Circuit’s original opinion on liability made clear that Joseph Farrar alone was to receive nominal damages for violation of his due process rights, Farrar v. Cain, 766 F. 2d 1148, 1152 (1986), the District Court on remand awarded attorney’s fees not only to petitioners as coadministrators of Joseph Farrar’s estate but also to Dale Farrar in his personal capacity, see App. to Pet. for Cert. A-12. The Fifth Circuit reversed Dale Farrar’s fee award on the apparent assumption that he too had received nominal damages. Dale Farrar has not petitioned from the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in his personal capacity, and the only issue before us is the award of attorney’s fees to Dale Farrar and Pat Smith as coad-ministrators of Joseph Farrar’s estate.
The majority acknowledged its conflict with the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. 941 F. 2d, at 1316-1317, and nn. 22 and 26. See Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F. 2d 558, 564 (CA2 1991); Coleman v. Turner, 838 F. 2d 1004, 1005 (CA8 1988); Scofield v. Hillsborough, 862 F. 2d 759, 766 (CA9 1988); Nephew v. Aurora, 830 F. 2d 1547, 1553, n. 2 (CA10 1987) (en banc) (Barrett, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 976 (1988); Garner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 807 F. 2d 1536, 1539 (CA11 1987). After the Fifth Circuit decided this case, the First and Ninth Circuits rejected the Fifth Circuit’s position and held that a nominal damages award does confer prevailing party status on a civil rights plaintiff. Domegan v. Ponte, 972 F. 2d 401, 410 (CA1 1992); Romberg v. Nichols, 970 F. 2d 512, 519-520 (CA9 1992), cert. pending, No. 92-402; 970 F. 2d, at 525-526 (Wallace, C. J., concurring). The Fourth Circuit has adopted a position consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s. Lawrence v. Hinton, 20 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 934, 936-937 (1991); Spencer v. General Elec. Co., 894 F. 2d 651, 662 (1990) (dicta).
Similarly, the plaintiff in Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755, 763 (1987), “had long since been released from prison” by the time his failed lawsuit putatively prompted beneficial changes in prison policy. We held that the “fortuity” of a subsequent return to prison, which presumably allowed the plaintiff to benefit from the new procedures, could “hardly render him, retroactively, a ‘prevailing party’..., even though he was not such when the final judgment was entered.” Id., at 764.
We did not consider whether the plaintiffs in Garland could be denied prevailing party status on this basis, because “[t]hey prevailed on a significant issue in the litigation and . . . obtained some of the relief they sought.” 489 U. S., at 793.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets forth standards governing judicial review of findings of fact made by federal administrative agencies. 5 U. S. C. §706. We must decide whether §706 applies when the Federal Circuit reviews findings of fact made by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). We conclude that it does apply, and the Federal Circuit must use the framework set forth in that section.
I
Section 706, originally enacted in 1946, sets forth standards that govern the “Scope” of court “review” of, e.g., agency factfinding (what we shall call court/agency review). It says that a
“reviewing court shall—
“(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency... findings... found to be—
“(A) arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion, or...
“(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a ease subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute;...
“In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) sets forth standards that govern appellate court review of findings of fact made by a district court judge (what we shall call court/court review). It says that the appellate court shall set aside those findings only if they are “clearly erroneous.” Traditionally, this eourt/court standard of review has been considered somewhat stricter (i. e., allowing somewhat closer judicial review) than the APA’s court/agency standards. 2 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise §11.2, p. 174 (3d ed. 1994) (hereinafter Davis & Pierce).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit believes that it should apply the “clearly erroneous” standard when it reviews findings of fact made by the PTO. In re Zurko, 142 F. 3d 1447, 1459 (1998) (ease below). The Commissioner of Patents, the PTO’s head, believes to the contrary that ordinary APA court/agency standards apply. See, e. g., In re Kemps, 97 F. 3d 1427, 1430-1431 (CA Fed. 1996); In re Napier, 55 F. 3d 610, 614 (CA Fed. 1995); In re Brana, 51 F. 3d 1560, 1568-1569 (CA Fed. 1995).
The case before us tests these two competing legal views. Respondents applied for a patent upon a method for increasing computer security. The PTO patent examiner concluded that respondents’ method was obvious in light of prior art, and so it denied the application. See 35 U. S. C. § 103 (1994 ed., Supp. III). The PTO’s review board (the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) upheld the examiner’s decision. Respondents sought review in the Federal Circuit, where a panel treated the question of what the prior art teaches as one of fact, and agreed with respondents that the PTO’s factual finding was “clearly erroneous.” In re Zurko, 111 F. 3d 887, 889, and n. 2 (1997).
The Federal Circuit, hoping definitively to resolve the review-standard controversy, then heard the matter en banc. After examining relevant precedents, the en bane court concluded that its use of the stricter court/court standard was legally proper. The Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Patents, sought certiorari. We granted the writ in order to decide whether the Federal Circuit’s review of PTO factfinding must take place within the framework set forth in the APA.
rH 1 — I
The parties agree that the PTO is an “agency subject to the APA’s constraints, that the PTO’s finding at issue in this case is one of fact, and that the finding constitutes “agency action.” See 5 U. S. C. §701 (defining “agency” as an “authority of the Government of the United States”); § 706 (applying APA “Scope of review” provisions to “agency action”). Hence a reviewing court must apply the APA’s court/agency review standards in the absence of an exception.
The Federal Circuit rests its claim for an exception upon §559. That section says that the APA does “not limit or repeal additional requirements... recognized by law.” In the Circuit’s view: (1) at the time of the APA’s adoption, in 1946, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), a Federal Circuit predecessor, applied a court/court “clearly erroneous” standard; (2) that standard was stricter than ordinary court/agency review standards; and (8) that special tradition of strict review consequently amounted to an “additional requirement” that under §559 trumps the requirements imposed by §706.
Recognizing the importance of maintaining a uniform approach to judicial review of administrative action, see, e. g., Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 489 (1951); 92 Cong. Rec. 5654 (1946) (statement of Rep. Walter), we have closely examined the Federal Circuit’s claim for an exception to that uniformity. In doing so, we believe that respondents must show more than a possibility of a heightened standard, and indeed more than even a bare preponderance of evidence in their favor. Existence of the additional requirement must be clear. This is suggested both by the phrase “recognized by law” and by the congressional specification in the APA that “[n]o subsequent legislation shall be held to supersede or modify the provisions of this Act except to the extent that such legislation shall do so expressly.” § 12, 60 Stat. 244, 5 U. S. C. §559. A statutory intent that legislative departure from the norm must be clear suggests a need for similar clarity in respect to grandfathered common-law variations. The APA was meant to bring uniformity to a field full of variation and diversity. It would frustrate that purpose to permit divergence on the basis of a requirement “recognized” only as ambiguous. In any event, we have examined the 89 cases which, according to respondents and supporting amici, embody the pre-APA standard of review. See App. to Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association as Amicus Curiae 1a-6a (collecting eases), and we conclude that those cases do not reflect a well-established stricter court/court standard of judicial review for PTO factfinding, which circumstance fatally undermines the Federal Circuit’s conclusion.
The 89 pre-APA eases all involve CCPA review of a PTO administrative decision, which either denied a patent or awarded priority to one of several competing applicants. See 35 U. S. C. § 59a (1934 ed.) (granting CCPA review authority over PTO decisions); 35 U. S. C. § 141 (current grant of review authority to the Federal Circuit). The major consideration that favors the Federal Circuit’s view consists of the fact that 23 of the cases use words such as “clear case of error” or “clearly wrong” to describe the CCPA’s review standard, while the remainder use words such as “manifest error,” which might be thought to mean the same thing. See App. to Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association as Amicus Curiae 1a-6a. When the CCPA decided many of these eases during the 1930’s and early 1940’s, legal authorities had begun with increasing regularity to use the term “clearly erroneous” to signal court/court review, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a) (adopted in 1987), and the term “substantial evidence” to signal less strict court/agency review. Stern, Review of Findings of Administrators, Judges and Juries: A Comparative Analysis, 58 Harv. L. Rev. 70, 88 (1944) (describing congressional debates in which members argued for and against applying the “clearly erroneous” standard to agency review “precisely because it would give administrative findings less finality than they enjoyed under the ‘substantial evidence* rule”).
Yet the presence of these phrases is not conclusive. The relevant linguistic conventions were less firmly established before adoption of the APA than they are today. At that time courts sometimes used words such as “clearly erroneous” to describe less strict court/agency review standards. See, e. g., Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 136 F. 2d 175, 181 (CA7 1943); New York Trust Co. v. SEC, 131 F. 2d 274, 275 (CA2 1942), cert. denied, 318 U. S. 786 (1943); Hall v. Commissioner, 128 F. 2d 180, 182 (CA7 1942); First National Bank of Memphis v. Commissioner, 125 F. 2d 157 (CA6 1942) (per curiam); NLRB v. Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co., 121 F. 2d 602, 606 (CA7 1941). Other times they used words such as “substantial evidence” to describe stricter court/ court review (including appeals in patent infringement cases challenging district court factfinding). See, e. g., Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., 142 F. 2d 157, 160 (CA2 1944); Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 139 F. 2d 473, 475 (CA6 1943), aff'd, 324 U. S. 320 (1945); Gordon Form Lathe Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 133 F. 2d 487, 496-497 (CA6), aff’d, 320 U. S. 714 (1943); Electro Mfg. Co. v. Yellin, 132 F. 2d 979, 981 (CA7 1943); Ajax Hand Brake Co. v. Superior Hand Brake Co., 132 F. 2d 606, 609 (CA7 1943); Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co. v. Beckwith Machinery Co., 105 F. 2d 941, 942 (CA3 1939). Indeed, this Court itself on at least one occasion used the words “substantial evidence” to explain why it would not disturb a trial court’s factual findings. Borden’s Farm Products Co. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U. S. 251, 261 (1986); see also Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U. S. 412, 420 (1937) (accepting trial court’s findings of fact because they have “substantial support in the record”).
Nor is the absence of the words “substantial evidence” in the CCPA’s eases especially significant. Before the APA, the use of that term to describe court/agency review proceeded by fits and starts, with the standardization of the term beginning to take hold only after Congress began using it (or the like) in various federal statutes. For example, this Court first used the phrase “substantial evidence” in the agency context to describe its approach to the Interstate Commerce Commission’s (ICC’s) factual findings, ICC v. Union Pacifijc R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 548 (1912), even though the underlying statute simply authorized a court of competent jurisdiction to suspend or set aside orders of the Commission, § 12, 36 Stat. 551. The Court did not immediately grant the Federal Trade Commission the same leeway it granted the ICC, see FTC v. Curtis Publishing Co., 260 U. S. 568, 580 (1923), even though the underlying Act used language to which the phrase “substantial evidence” might have applied, see §5,38 Stat. 720 (the “findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive”). As the words “substantial evidence” began to appear more often in statutes, the Court began to use those same words in describing review standards, sometimes supplying the modifier “substantial” when Congress had left it out. See, e. g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197, 229 (1938); see Stason, “Substantial Evidence” in Administrative Law, 89 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1026, 1026-1028 (1941) (collecting statutes); see also Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 489, 499 (1943) (speaking generally of the “theoretical and practical reasonfs] for... [crediting] administrative decisions”). The patent statutes, however, did not and do not use the term “substantial evidence” or any other term to describe the standard of court review. 35 U. S. C. §§ 61, 62 (1934 ed.). Indeed, it apparently remains disputed to this day (a dispute we need not settle today) precisely which APA standard — “substantial evidence” or “arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion” — would apply to court review of PTO factfinding. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(E) (applying the term “substantial evidence” where agency factfinding takes place “on the record”); see also Association of Data Processing Service Orgs., Inc. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 745 F 2d 677, 683-684 (CADC 1984) (Sealia, J.) (finding no difference between the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard and its “substantial evidence” standard as applied to court review of agency factfinding.)
Further, not one of the 89 opinions actually uses the precise words “clear error” or “clearly erroneous,” which are terms of art signaling court/court review. Most of the 89 opinions use words like “manifest error,” which is not now such a term of art.
At the same time, precedent from this Court undermines the Federal Circuit’s claim that the phrases “clearly wrong” or “manifest error” signal court/court review. The Federal Circuit traced its standard of review back to Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120 (1894), which it characterized as the foundation upon which the CCPA later built its review standards. 142 F. 3d, at 1453-1454. We shall describe that case in some detail.
Morgan arose out of a Patent Office interference proceeding — a proceeding to determine which of two claimants was the first inventor. The Patent Office decided the factual question of “priority” in favor of one claimant; the Circuit Court, deciding the ease “without any additional testimony,” 153 U. S., at 122, reversed the Patent Office’s factual finding and awarded the patent to the other claimant. This Court in turn reversed the Circuit Court, thereby restoring the Patent Office decision.
“What,” asked Justice Brewer for the Court, “is the rule which should control the [reviewing] court in the determination of this case?” Ibid. Is it that the Patent Office decision “should stand unless the testimony shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the plaintiff was the first inventor”? Id., at 123. The Court then cited two cases standing for such a “reasonable doubt” standard. Ibid, (citing Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 695 (1886), and Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 124 (1874)). The Court found the two cases “closely in point.” 153 U. S., at 123. Justice Brewer wrote that a person “challenging the priority awarded by the Patent Office... should... be held to as strict proof. ” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Court, pointing out that the Circuit Court had used language “not quite so strong” (namely, “a clear and undoubted preponderance of proof”), thought that the Circuit Court’s standard sounded more like the rule used by “an appellate court in reviewing findings of fact made by the trial court.” Ibid. The Court then wrote:
“But this is something more than a mere appeal. It is an application to the court to set aside the action of one of the executive departments of the government.... A new proceeding is instituted in the courts... to set aside the conclusions reached by the administrative department.... It is... not to be sustained by a mere preponderance of evidence.... It is a controversy between two individuals over a question of fact which has once been settled by a special tribunal, entrusted with full power in the premises. As such it might be well argued, were it not for the terms of this statute, that the decision of the patent office was a finality upon every matter of fact.” Id., at 124 (emphasis added).
The Court, in other words, reasoned strongly that a court/ court review standard is not proper; that standard is too strict; a somewhat weaker standard of review is appropriate.
We concede that the Court also used language that could be read as setting forth a court/court standard of review. It said, for example, that the
“Patent Office [decision] must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact... unless the contrary is established by testimony which... carries thorough conviction.... [I]f doubtful, the decision of the Patent Office must control.” Id., at 125 (emphasis added).
It added that the testimony was “not... sufficient to produce a clear conviction that the Patent Office made a mistake.” Id., at 129 (emphasis added). But the Court did not use the emphasized words today; it used those words more than 100 years ago. And its reasoning makes clear that it meant those words to stand for a court/agency review standard, a standard weaker than the standard used by “an appellate court in reviewing findings of fact made by the trial court.” Id., at 123.
The opinions in the 89 CCPA cases, cataloged in the Appendix to this opinion, reveal the same pattern. They use words such as “manifest error” or “clearly wrong.” But they use those words to explain why they give so much, not so little, deference to agency factfinding. And, their further explanations, when given, indicate that they had court/ agency, not court/court, review in mind.
In nearly half of the eases, the CCPA explains why it uses its “manifest error” standard by pointing out that the PTO is an expert body, or that the PTO can better deal with the technically complex subject matter, and that the PTO consequently deserves deference. In more than three-fourths of the eases the CCPA says that it should defer to PTO fact-finding because two (and sometimes more) PTO tribunals had reviewed the matter and agreed about the factual finding. These reasons are reasons that courts and commentators have long invoked to justify deference to agency factfinding. See Universal Camera, 340 U. S., at 496-497 (intraagency agreement); NLRB v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584, 597 (1941) (expertise); Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 145-146 (1939) (expertise); ICC v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 98 (1913) (expertise); Stern, 58 Harv. L. Rev., at 81-82 (expertise); 2 Davis & Pierce § 11.2, at 178-181 (intraageney agreement). They are net the reasons courts typically have given for deferring to factfinding made by a lower court judge. See, e. g., Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U. S. 602, 623 (1993); Stern, supra, at 82-83 (trial court advantages lie in, e. g., evaluation of witness, not comparative expertise). And we think it also worth noting, in light of the pre-APA movement toward standardization discussed above, supra, at 157, that the CCPA began to refer more frequently to technical complexity and agency expertise as time marched closer to 1946. Out of the 45 cases in our sample decided between 1929 and 1936, 40% (18 of 45) specifically referred to technical complexity. That percentage increased to 57% (25 of 44) for the years 1937 to 1946.
Given the CCPA’s explanations, the review standard’s origins, and the nondeterminative nature of the phrases, we cannot agree with the Federal Circuit that in 1946, when Congress enacted the APA, the CCPA “recognized” the use of a stricter court/court, rather than a less strict court/ agency, review standard for PTO decisions. Hence the Federal Circuit’s review of PTO findings of fact cannot amount to an “additional requirement]... recognized by law.” 5 U.S.C. §559.
III
The Federal Circuit also advanced several policy reasons which in its view militate against use of APA standards of review. First, it says that both bench and bar have now become used to the Circuit’s application of a “clearly erroneous” standard that implies somewhat stricter court/court review. It says that change may prove needlessly disruptive. 142 F. 3d, at 1457-1458. Supporting amici add that it is better that the matter remain “ ‘settled than that it be settled right.’ ” Brief for Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia as Amicus Curiae 23 (quoting Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 424 (1986)).
This Court, however, has not previously settled the matter. The Federal Circuit’s standard would require us to create §559 precedent that itself could prove disruptive by too readily permitting other agencies to depart from uniform APA requirements. And in any event we believe the Circuit overstates the difference that a change of standard will mean in practice.
This Court has described the APA eourt/agency “substantial evidence” standard as requiring a court to ask whether a “reasonable mind might aceept” a particular evidentiary record as “adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison, 305 U. S., at 229. It has described the court/eourt “clearly erroneous” standard in terms of whether a reviewing judge has a “definite and firm conviction” that an error has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948). And it has suggested that the former is somewhat less strict than the latter. Universal Camera, 340 U. S., at 477, 488 (analogizing “substantial evidence” test to review of jury findings and stating that appellate courts must respect agency expertise). At the same time the Court has stressed the importance of not simply rubber-stamping agency factfinding. Id., at 490. The APA requires meaningful review; and its enactment meant stricter judicial review of agency factfinding than Congress believed some courts had previously conducted. Ibid.
The upshot in terms of judicial review is some practical difference in outcome depending upon which standard is used. The court/agency standard, as we have said, is somewhat less strict than the court/court standard. But the difference is a subtle one — so fine that (apart from the present case) we have failed to uncover a single instance in which a reviewing court conceded that use of one standard rather than the other would in fact have produced a different outcome. Cf. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 448 F. 2d 1127, 1142 (CADC 1971) (Leventhal, J., dissenting) (wrongly believing — and correcting himself — that he had found the “case dreamed of by law school professors” where the agency’s findings, though “clearly erroneous,” were “nevertheless” supported by “substantial evidence”).
The difficulty of finding such a case may in part reflect the basic similarity of the reviewing task, which requires judges to apply logic and experience to an evidentiary record, whether that record was made in a court or by an agency. It may in part reflect the difficulty of attempting to capture in a form of words intangible factors such as judicial confidence in the fairness of the factfinding process. Universal Camera, supra, at 489; Jaffe, Judicial Review: “Substantial Evidence on the Whole Record,” 64 Harv. L. Rev. 1233, 1245 (1951). It may in part refleet the comparatively greater importance of case-specific factors, such as a finding’s dependence upon agency expertise or the presence of internal agency review, which factors will often prove more influential in respect to outcome than will the applicable standard of review.
These features of review underline the importance of the fact that, when a Federal Circuit judge reviews PTO fact-finding, he or she often will examine that finding through the lens of patent-related experience — and properly so, for the Federal Circuit is a specialized court. That comparative expertise, by enabling the Circuit better to understand the basis for the PTO’s finding of fact, may play a more important role in assuring proper review than would a theoretically somewhat stricter standard.
Moreover, if the Circuit means to suggest that a change of standard could somehow immunize the PTO’s fact-related "reasoning” from review, 142 F. 3d, at 1449-1450, we disagree. A reviewing court reviews an agency’s reasoning to determine whether it is “arbitrary” or “capricious,” or, if bound up with a record-based factual conclusion, to determine whether it is supported by “substantial evidence.” E. g., SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 89-93 (1943).
Second, the Circuit and its supporting amici believe that a change to APA review standards will create an anomaly. An applicant denied a patent can seek review either directly in the Federal Circuit, see 35 U. S. C. § 141, or indirectly by first obtaining direct review in federal district court, see § 145. The first path will now bring about Federal Circuit court/agency review; the second path might well lead to Federal Circuit court/court review, for the Circuit now reviews federal district court factfinding using a “clearly erroneous” standard. Gould v. Quigg, 822 F. 2d 1074, 1077 (1987). The result, the Circuit claims, is that the outcome may turn upon which path a disappointed applicant takes; and it fears that those applicants will often take the more complicated, time-consuming indirect path in order to obtain stricter judicial review of the PTO’s determination.
We are not convinced, however, that the presence of the two paths creates a significant anomaly. The second path permits the disappointed applicant to present to the court evidence that the applicant did not present to the PTO. Ibid. The presence of such new or different evidence makes a factfinder of the district judge. And nonexpert judicial factfinding calls for the court/court standard of review. We concede that an anomaly might exist insofar as the district judge does no more than review PTO factfinding, but nothing in this opinion prevents the Federal Circuit from adjusting related review standards where necessary. Cf. Fregeau v. Mossingkojf, 776 F. 2d 1034, 1038 (CA Fed. 1985) (harmonizing review standards).
Finally, the Circuit reasons that its stricter court/court review will produce better agency factfinding. It says that the standard encourages the creation of "administrative records that more fully describe the metes and bounds of the patent grant” and “help avoid situations where board fact finding on matters such as anticipation or the factual inquiries underlying obviousness become virtually unreviewable.” 142 F. 3d, at 1458. Neither the Circuit nor its supporting amici, however, have explained convincingly why direct review of the PTO’s patent denials demands a stricter fact-related review standard than is applicable to other agencies. Congress has set forth the appropriate standard in the APA. For the reasons stated, we have not found circumstances that justify an exception.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Federal Circuit is reversed. We remand the ease for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Review of 89 Pre-APA CCPA Patent Cases Reciting “Clear” or “Manifest” Error Standard
Cases Referring to both Technical Complexity/Ageney Expertise and the Agreement (Disagreement) Within the Agency
Stern v. Schroeder, 17 C. C. P. A. 670, 674, 36 F. 2d 515, 517 (1929)
In re Ford, 17 C. C. P. A. 893, 894, 38 F. 2d 525, 526 (1930) In re Demarest, 17 C. C. P. A. 904, 906, 38 F. 2d 895, 896 (1930)
In re Wietzel, 17 C. C. P. A. 1079, 1082, 39 F. 2d 669, 671 (1930)
In re Anhaltzer, 18 C. C. P. A. 1181, 1184, 48 F. 2d 657, 658 (1931)
Dover v. Moody, 18 C. C. P. A. 1188, 1190, 48 P. 2d 388, 389 (1931)
In re Hornsey, 18 C. C. P. A. 1222, 1224, 48 F. 2d 911, 912 (1931)
Rowe v. Holtz, 19 C. C. P. A. 970, 974, 55 F. 2d 468, 470-471 (1932)
In re Fessenden, 19 C. C. P. A. 1048, 1050-1051, 56 F. 2d 669, 670 (1932)
Martin v. Friendly, 19 C. C. P. A. 1181, 1182-1183, 58 F. 2d 421 422 (1932)
In re Dubilier, 20 C. C. P. A. 809, 815, 62 F. 2d 374, 377 (1933)
In re Alden, 20 C. C. P. A. 1083, 1084-1085, 65 F. 2d 136, 137 (1933)
Farmer v. Pritchard, 20 C. C. P. A. 1096, 1101, 65 F. 2d 165, 168 (1933)
In re Pierce, 20 C. C. P. A. 1170, 1175, 65 F. 2d 271, 274 (1933)
Angell v. Morin, 21 C. C. P. A. 1018, 1024, 69 F. 2d 646, 649 (1934)
Daley v. Trube, 24 C. C. P. A. 964, 971, 88 F. 2d 308, 312 (1937)
Coast v. Dubbs, 24 C. C. P. A. 1023, 1031-1032, 88 F. 2d 734, 739 (1937)
Bryson v. Clarke, 25 C. C. P. A. 719, 721, 92 F. 2d 720, 722 (1937)
Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. 1053, 1055, 96 F. 2d 301, 302 (1938)
Creed v. Potts, 25 C. C. P. A. 1084, 1089, 96 F. 2d 317, 321 (1938)
In re Cassidy, 25 C. C. P. A. 1282, 1285, 97 F. 2d 93, 95 (1938)
Krebs v. Melicharek, 25 C. C. P. A. 1362, 1365-1366, 97 F. 2d 477, 479 (1938)
Parker v. Ballantine, 26 C. C. P. A. 799, 804, 101 F. 2d 220, 223 (1939) (disagreement)
Reed v. Edwards, 26 C. C. P A. 901, 904, 101 F. 2d 550, 552 (1939)
Bill v. Casler, 26 C. C. P. A. 930, 932, 102 F. 2d 219, 221 (1939)
Tears v. Robinson, 26 C. C. P A. 1391, 1392, 104 F. 2d 813, 814 (1939)
In re Bertsch, 27 C. C. P. A. 760, 763-764, 107 F. 2d 828, 831 (1939)
In re Wuertz, 27 C. C. P. A. 1039, 1046, 110 F. 2d 854, 857 (1940)
In re Kaplan, 27 C. C. P A. 1072, 1075, 110 F. 2d 670, 672 (1940)
Prahl v. Redman, 28 C. C. P A. 937, 940, 117 F. 2d 1018, 1021 (1941)
In re Bertsch, 30 C. C. P A. 813, 815-816, 132 F. 2d 1014, 1016 (1942)
In re Stacy, 30 C. C. P A. 972, 974, 135 F. 2d 232, 233 (1943)
Poulsen v. McDowell, 31 C. C. P. A. 1006, 1011, 142 F. 2d 267, 270 (1944)
Pinkerton v. Stahly, 32 C. C. P A. 723, 728, 144 F. 2d 881, 885 (1944)
Cases Referring to Technical Complexity/Agency Expertise
In re Engelhardt, 17 C. C. P. A. 1244, 1251, 40 F. 2d 760, 764 (1930)
In re McDonald, 18 C. C. P
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In February 1971 respondent Thomas E. Maze moved to Louisville, Kentucky, and there shared an apartment with Charles L. Meredith. In the spring of that year respondent’s fancy lightly turned to thoughts of the sunny Southland, and he • thereupon took Meredith’s BankAmericard and his 1968 automobile and headed for Southern California. By presenting the BankAmericard and signing Meredith’s name, respondent obtained food and lodging at motels located in California, Florida, and Louisiana. Each of these establishments transmitted to the Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. in Louisville, which had issued the BankAmericard to Meredith, the invoices representing goods and services furnished to respondent. Meredith, meanwhile, on the day after respondent’s departure from Louisville, notified the Louisville bank that his credit card had been stolen.
Upon respondent’s return to Louisville he was indicted on four counts of violation of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341, and one count of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2312. The mail fraud counts of the indictment charged that respondent had devised a scheme to defraud the Louisville bank, Charles L. Meredith, and several merchants in different States by unlawfully obtaining possession of the BankAmericard issued by the Louisville bank to Meredith, and using the card to obtain goods and services. The indictment charged that respondent had obtained goods and services at four specified motels by presenting Meredith's Bank-Americard for payment and representing himself to be Meredith, and that respondent knew that each merchant would cause the sales slips of the purchases to be delivered by mail to the Louisville bank which would in turn mail them to Meredith for payment. The indictment also charged that the delay in this mailing would enable the respondent to continue purchasing goods and services for an appreciable period of time.
Respondent was tried by a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. At trial, representatives of the four motels identified the sales invoices from the transactions on Meredith’s Bank-Americard which were forwarded to the Louisville bank by their motels. An official of the Louisville bank testified that all of the sales invoices for those transactions were received by the bank in due course through the mail, and that this was the customary method by which invoices representing BankAmerieard purchases were transmitted to the Louisville bank. The jury found respondent guilty as charged on all counts, and he appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court reversed the judgment as to the mail fraud statute, but affirmed it as to the Dyer Act. 468 F. 2d 529 (1972). Because of an apparent conflict among the courts of appeals as to the circumstances under which the fraudulent use of a credit card may violate the mail fraud statute, we granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 411 U. S. 963 (1973). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The applicable parts of the mail fraud statute provide as follows:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do . . . knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any [matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service] shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. § 1341.
In Pereira v. United States, 347 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1954), the Court held that one “causes” the mails to be used where he “does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended . . . .” We assume, as did the Court of Appeals, that the evidence would support a finding by the jury that Maze “caused” the mailings of the invoices he signed from the out-of-state motels to the Louisville bank. But the more difficult question is whether these mailings were sufficiently closely related to respondent’s scheme to bring his conduct within the statute.
Under the statute, the mailing must be “for the purpose of executing the scheme, as the statute requires,” Kann v. United States, 323 U. S. 88, 94 (1944), but “[i]t is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element,” Pereira v. United States, supra, at 8. The Government relies on Pereira, supra, and United States v. Sampson, 371 U. S. 75 (1962), to support its position, while respondent relies on Kann v. United States, supra, and Parr v. United States, 363 U. S. 370 (1960).
In Kann, supra, corporate officers and directors were accused of having set up a dummy corporation through which to divert profits of their own corporation to their own use. As a part of the scheme, the defendants were accused of having fraudulently obtained checks payable to them which were cashed or deposited at a bank and then mailed for collection to the drawee bank. This Court held that the fraud was completed at the point at which defendants cashed the checks:
“The scheme in each case had reached fruition. The persons intended to receive the money had received it irrevocably. It was immaterial to them, or to any consummation of the scheme, how the bank which paid or credited the check would collect from the drawee bank. It cannot be said that the mailings in question were for the purpose of executing the scheme, as the statute requires.” 323 U. S., at 94.
In Parr, supra, the defendants were charged, inter .alia, with having obtained gasoline and other products and services for their own purposes by the unauthorized use of a gasoline credit card issued to the school district which employed them. The oil company which furnished products and services to the defendants would mail invoices to the school district for payment, and the school district's payment was made by check sent in the mail. Relying on Kann, the Court again found that there was not a sufficient connection between the mailing and the execution of the defendants’ scheme, because it was immaterial to the defendants how the oil company went about collecting its payment.
The defendant in Pereira, supra, was charged with having defrauded a wealthy widow of her property after marrying her. The Court describes the conduct of defendant in these words:
“Pereira asked his then wife if she would join him in the hotel venture and advance $35,000 toward the purchase price of $78,000. She agreed. It was then agreed, between her and Pereira, that she would sell some securities that she possessed in Los An-geles, and bank the money in a bank of his choosing in El Paso. On June 15, she received the check for $35,000 on the Citizens National Bank of Los An-geles from her brokers in Los Angeles, and gave it to Pereira, who endorsed it for collection to the State National Bank of El Paso. The check cleared, and on June 18, a cashier’s check for $35,000 was drawn in favor of Pereira.” 347 U. S., at 5.
Thus the mailings in Pereira played a significant part in enabling the defendant in that case to acquire dominion over the $35,000, with which he ultimately absconded. Unlike the mailings in Pereira, the mailings here were directed to the end of adjusting accounts between the motel proprietor, the Louisville bank, and Meredith, all of whom had to a greater or lesser degree been the victims of respondent's scheme. Respondent’s scheme reached fruition when he checked out of the motel, and there is no indication that the success of his scheme depended in any way on which of his victims ultimately bore the loss. Indeed, from his point of view, he probably would have preferred to have the invoices misplaced by the various motel personnel and never mailed at all.
The Government, however, relying on United States v. Sampson, supra, argues that essential to the success of any fraudulent credit-card scheme is the “delay” caused by use of the mails “which aids the perpetrator . . . in the continuation of a fraudulent credit card scheme and the postponement of its detection.” In Sampson, various employees of a nationwide corporation were charged with a scheme to defraud businessmen by obtaining advance fees on the promise that the defendants would either help the businessmen to obtain loans or to sell their businesses. Even after the checks representing the fees had been deposited to the accounts of the defendants, however, the plan called for the mailing of the accepted application together with a form letter assuring the victims that the services for which they had contracted would be performed. The Court found that Kann and Parr did not preclude the application of the mail fraud statute to “a deliberate, planned use of the mails after the victims' money had been obtained.” 371 U. S., at 80.
We do not believe that Sampson sustains the Government’s position. The subsequent mailings there were designed to lull the victims into a false sense of security, postpone their ultimate complaint to the authorities, and therefore make the apprehension of the defendants less likely than if no mailings had taken place. But the successful completion of the mailings from the motel owners here to the Louisville bank increased the probability that respondent would be detected and apprehended. There was undoubtedly delay in transmitting invoices to the Louisville bank, as there is in the physical transmission of any business correspondence between cities separated by large distances. Mail service as a means of transmitting such correspondence from one city to another is designed to overcome the effect of the distance which separates the places. But it is the distance, and not the mail service, which causes the time lag in the physical transmission of such correspondence.
Congress has only recently passed an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act which makes criminal the use of a fraudulently obtained credit card in a “transaction affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” 84 Stat. 1127, 15 U. S. C. § 1644. Congress could have drafted the mail fraud statute so as to require only that the mails be in fact used as a result of the fraudulent scheme. But it did not do this; instead, it required that the use of the mails be “for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice ...” Since the mailings in this case were not for that purpose, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Court of Appeals determined that even though it affirmed respondent’s Dyer Act conviction, for which he had received a concurrent five-year sentence, it should also consider the mail fraud convictions as well. There is no jurisdictional barrier to such a decision, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), and the court decided that “no considerations of judicial economy or efficiency have been urged to us that would outweigh the interest of appellant in the opportunity to clear his record of a conviction of a federal felony.” 468 F. 2d, at 536 n. 6. We agree that resolution of the mail fraud questions presented by this case is appropriate.
The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Lynn, 461 F. 2d 759 (1972), appears consistent with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in the instant case. Five other courts of appeals apparently take a contrary view. E. g., United States v. Kellerman, 431 F. 2d 319 (CA2), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 957 (1970); United States v. Chason, 451 F. 2d 301 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 1016 (1972); United States v. Madison, 458 F. 2d 974 (CA2), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 859 (1972); United States v. Ciotti, 469 F. 2d 1204 (CA3 1972), cert. pending, No. 72-6155; Adams v. United States, 312 F. 2d 137 (CA5 1963); Kloian v. United States, 349 F. 2d 291 (CA5 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 913 (1966); United States v. Reynolds, 421 F. 2d 178 (CA5 1970); United States v. Thomas, 429 F. 2d 407 (CA5 1970); United States v. Kelly, 467 F. 2d 262 (CA7 1972), cert. denied, 411 U. S. 933 (1973); United States v. Kelem, 416 F. 2d 346 (CA9 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 952 (1970).
The full text of the section reads as follows:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. § 1341.
The Government indicates that in 1969 it was estimated that more than 300 million consumer credit cards were in circulation, with annual charges between $40 billion and $60 billion. It was also estimated that, in 1969, 1.5 million cards were lost or stolen, and that losses due to fraud had risen from $20 million in 1966 to $100 million in 1969. Brief for United States 14 n. 2, citing 115 Cong. Rec. 38987 (1969). The mail fraud statute, first enacted in 1872, c. 335, § 301, 17 Stat. 323, while obviously not directed at credit card frauds as such, is sufficiently general in its language to include them if the requirements of the statute are otherwise met.
While it is clearly implied in this Court’s opinion in Pereira that the El Paso bank did not immediately credit the account of the defendant, but instead awaited advice from the Los Angeles bank to which it had mailed the check, the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Pereira makes that fact abundantly clear:
“The return of [the] check from Texas to California constitutes the mailing referred to in the First Count .... In mailing the check back to the bank in California on which it was drawn, the El Paso, Texas, bank sent 'instructions to wire fate,’ meaning to wire whether the item was paid or not. Upon receiving a telegram stating that the cheek had been paid, the bank in El Paso gave Pereira its cashier’s check for $35,286.01, which Pereira promptly cashed on June 19, 1951.” Pereira v. United States, 202 F. 2d 830, 836 (1953).
Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion indicates that respondent engaged in a “two-week, $2,000 transcontinental spending spree.” While we are not sure of the legal significance of the amounts fraudulently charged on the credit card by the respondent, we note that the four counts of mail fraud charged in the indictment were based on charges on Meredith’s credit card totaling $301.85. Brief for Respondent 4 n. 2; Brief for United States 4-5.
Since we are admonished that we may not as judges ignore what we know as men, we do not wish to be understood as suggesting that delays in mail service are solely attributable to the distance involved. If the Postal Service appears on occasion to be something less than a 20th century version of the wing-footed Mercury, the fact remains that the invoices were mailed to and were ultimately received by the Louisville bank.
Distance is not the only cause of delay. The Court of Appeals noted that BankAmericard had a billing system in which billing was aceomplished by collecting receipts over a one-month period and then billing the card holder. 468 F. 2d, at 535. It might reasonably be argued that respondent himself used facilities of interstate travel for the purpose of executing his scheme, since the large distances separating the defrauded motels from one another and from .the Louisville bank probably did make it more difficult to apprehend him than if he had simply defrauded local enterprises in Louisville. But the statute is cast, not in terms of use of the facilities of interstate travel, but in terms of use of the mails.
Volume 84 Stat. 1127, 15 U. S. C. § 1644 provides:
“Whoever, in a transaction affecting interstate or foreign commerce, uses any counterfeit, fictitious, altered, forged, lost, stolen, or fraudulently obtained credit card to obtain goods or services, or both, having a. retail value aggregating $5,000 or more, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The Court of Appeals felt that the enactment by Congress of the above amendment to the Truth in Lending Act manifested a legislative judgment that credit card fraud schemes- were to be excluded from the application of the mail fraud statute “unless the offender makes a purposeful use of the mails to accomplish his scheme.” 468 F. 2d, at 536.
Respondent contends that the passage of the amendment indicates that Congress believed in 1970 that credit card fraud was not a federal crime under 18 U. S. C. § 1341 or otherwise. Respondent also notes that the legislative history of the passage of the amendment indicates that the original bill, as enacted by the Senate, contained no jurisdictional amount limitation. The Senate-House conferees, at the request of the Department of Justice, later added the limitation of federal jurisdiction under the section to purchases exceeding $5,000. Brief for Respondent 16-21.
The Government contends that the Court of Appeals erred in attaching significance to the 1970 amendment, urging that there is no indication that Congress intended its provisions to be the sole vehicle for the federal prosecution of credit card frauds. Brief for United States 33-37, citing United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U. S. 43, 45 (1952).
We deem it unnecessary to determine the significance of the passage of the amendment, since we conclude without resort to that fact that the mail fraud statute does not cover the respondent’s conduct in this ease.
We are admonished by The Chibe Justice in dissent that the “mail fraud statute must remain strong to be able to cope with the new varieties of fraud” which threaten “the financial security of our citizenry” and which “the Federal Government must be ever alert to combat.” We believe that under our decision the mail fraud statute remains a strong and useful weapon to combat those evils which are within the broad reach of its language. If the Federal Government is to engage in combat against fraudulent schemes not covered by the statute, it must do so at the initiative of Congress and not of this 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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether the Federal Power Commission, in the course of determining just and reasonable rates for United Gas Pipé Line Company (United) under .§ 4 (e) of the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 822, 15 U. S. C. § 717c (e), made a proper allowance for federal income taxes in calculating the company’s cost of service. United claimed that in determining the cost of service its al-lowánce for federal income taxes should be at the full 52% rate, or $12,751,454, for the test year. The Commission disagreed because United w;as a member of an affiliated group which during the five-year period of 1957-1961 had elected to file consolidated returns for federal income tax purposes, a fact which in the Commission’s view required a reduced tax allowance in the company’s cost of service. Had consolidated returns not been filed during the .five-year period and had each company in the affiliated group instead filed separate returns, the total tax for the group would have been several million dollars more than was paid on a consolidated basis. This was so because on a consolidated basis consolidated losses serve to reduce consolidated income and because two members of the group, Union and Overseas, had net losses over the five-year period, thereby reducing taxes by $2,092,038 over those years.
To determine what the Commission considered the proper tax allowance for United’s rate base, it allocated the actual, consolidated taxes paid during the five-year period among the members of the group in accordance with a formula it had developed in Cities Service Gas Co., 30 F. P. C. 158, the order in which was set aside after issuance of the order in the instant case, 337 F. 2d 97. As so allocated, United’s annual share of the consolidated tax was 50.04% of its taxable income. Using this rate, the Commission allowed United $9,940,892 for federal income taxes instead of the $12,751,454 claimed by United. 31 F. P. C. 1180, 1191.
The Court of Appeals, relying on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. in Cities Service Gas Co. v. FPC, 337 F. 2d 97, held “the tax allocation as made by the Commission’s order was contrary to the requirements which Congress had imposed,” 357 F. 2d 230, 231, and hence vacated and set áside the order. We reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
I.
In the Cities Service case the affiliated group filing the consolidated return was composed of both regulated and unregulated companies. Some of the unregulated companies had taxable income, others had even larger losses, and, therefore, as a group the unregulated companies showed a net loss over the representative years used by the Commission to forecast the future federal'income tax element of cost of service. The regulated companies as a group, on the other hand, had taxable income in the same period. On an unconsolidated basis the individual members of the affiliated group would have paid a considerably larger total tax than was actually paid on the consolidated basis. The gas company whose tax allowance for rate purposes was being determined claimed that it was entitled to the full 52% of its own taxable income. Its position was that the Commission had no power at all to apply any of the losses of unregulated companies to reduce its tax allowance and hence its rates. The tax allowance was thus to be figured at 52% without regard to the taxes actually paid by the affiliated group on a consolidated basis, seemingly even if the group paid no tax at all.
For the Commission, however, the only real cost to the regulated company was related to the consolidated tax actually paid and incurred in connection'with the other companies in the group. In the. Commission’s view, it was unacceptable to determine the cost of service on a hypothetical figure — to -fix jurisdictional'rates “on the basis of converting a hypothetical tax payment into a prudent operating expense.” 30 F. P. C., at 162. It refused to accept the argument that “Gas Company ratepayers should make Cities Service stockholders whole for the tax losses of nonregulated enterprises even though this means an allowance for taxes over and beyond that which the consolidated system as a whole actually paid.” Ibid. The Commission’s function, it said, was to fix just and reasonable rates, not to insure that other affiliates would be made whole for their tax losses out of income from regulated enterprises. Thus the task was “to. determine the proportion of the consolidated tax which is reasonably attributable to the Gas Company vis-a-vis the other Cities Service affiliates.” Ibid.
To make this determination, the Commission devised a formula which in effect applied the losses of unregulated companies first to the gains of other unregulated companies. If a net taxable income remained in the unregulated group, the regulated companies would not share .in the savings from the consolidated return and would be deemed to have paid a tax at the full 52% rate. But if losses of the unregulated companies exceeded their net income and hence reduced the taxes of the regulated group below what they would have paid had they filed separate returns, the consolidated tax paid would be allocated among the regulated companies in proportion to their taxable incomes. As applied to the facts in the Cities Service case, the formula resulted in a tax allowance of $5,866,847 rather than the $7,055,981 claimed by the Cities Service Gas Company.
The Court of Appeals set aside the Commission’s order. In its view, the addition of the gas company’s income to the consolidated return cost the affiliated group exactly 52% of the taxable income of the gas company, either in taxes paid or in. a reduction of loss carry-forwards or carrybacks. The Commission’s, formula as applied was therefore held to appropriate losses of unregulated companies and to exceed the Commission’s “jurisdictional limits which require an effective separation of regulated and nonregulated activities for the determination of the ingredients of the rate base . . . mean[ingj a separation of profits and losses between regulated and nonregulated businesses in determining the tax allowance includible in the cost of service of the regulated company.” 337 F. 2d 97, 101. Hence the court, relying on Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 581, and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 635, set aside the Commission’s order.
i — i HH
In our view ^hat the Commission did here did not exceed the powers granted to it by Congress. One of its statutory duties is to determine just and reasonable rates which will be sufficient to permit the company to recover its costs of service and a reasonable return on its investment. Cost of service is therefore a major focus of inquiry. Normally included as a cost of service is a proper allowance for taxes, including federal income taxes. The determination of this allowance, as a general proposition, is obviously within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Ratemaking is, of course, subject to the. rule that the income and expense of unregulated and regulated activities should be segregated. But there is no suggestion in these cases that in arriving at the net taxable income of United the Commission violated this rule. Nor did it in our view in determining the tax allowance. United had not filed its own separate tax return. Instead it had joined with others in the filing of a consolidated return which resulted in the affiliated group’s paying a lower total tax than would have been due had the affiliates filed on a separate-return basis. The question for the Commission was what portion of the singlé consolidated tax liability belonged to United. Other members of the _group should not be required to pay any part of United’s tax, but neither should United pay the tax of others. A proper allocation had to be made by the Commission. Respondents insist that in making the allocation the Commission would violate the statute unless in every conceivable circumstance, including this one, United is' allowed an amount for taxes equal to what it would have paid had it filed a separate return. In their view United should never share in the tax savings inherent in a consolidated return, even if on a consolidated basis system losses exceed system gains and neither the affiliated group nor any member in it has any tax liability. This is an untenable position and we reject it. Rates fixed on this basis would give the pipeline company and its stockholders not only the fair return to which they are entitled but also the full amount of an expense never in fact incurred. In such circumstances, the Commission could properly disallow the hypothetical tax expense and hold that rates based on such an unreal cost of service would not be just and reasonable.
It is true that the avoidance of tax and the reduction of the tax alíbwance are accomplished only by applying losses of unregulated companies to the income of the regulated entity.. But the Commission is not responsible for the use of consolidated returns. It is the tax law which permits an election by an appropriate group to file on a consolidated basis. The members of a group, as in these cases, themselves chose not to file separate returns and hence, for tax purposes, to mingle profits and losses of both regulated and unregulated concerns, apparently deeming it more desirable to attempt to turn the losses óf some companies into immediate cash through tax savings rather than to count on the loss companies themselves having future profits against which prior losses could be applied,- Such a private decision made by the affiliates, including the regulated member, has the practical and.intended consequence of reducing the group’s federal income taxes, perhaps to zero, as was true of one of the years ¡involved in the Cities Service case. But when the out-of-pocket tax cost of the regulated affiliate is reduced, there is an immediate confrontation with the ratemaking principle that limits cost of service to expenses actually incurred. Nothing in Colorado Interstate or Panhandle forbids the Commission to recognize the actual tax saving impact of a private election to file consolidated returns. On the contrary, both cases support the power and the duty of the Commission to limit cost of service to real expenses.
We think that in the proper circumstances the Commission has the power to reduce cost of service, and hence rates, based on the application of non jurisdictional losses to jurisdictional income. Hence, the question becomes one of when and to what extent the tax savings flowing from the filing of a consolidated return are to be shared by the regulated'company. Or, to put it in the Commission's words the issue is one of determining “the proportion of the consolidated tax which is reasonably attributable to the gas company vis-a-vis [its] other . . . affiliates.” 30 F. P. C., at 162.
Viewing these cases in this light, we cannot say that the method the Commission chose to allocate the tax liability among the group members was erroneous or contrary to its statutory authority. Under its formula, the net losses and net income of unregulated companies are first set off one against the other, and the tax savings made possible by losses of unregulated enterprises are thus first allocated to the unregulated companies. Only if “unregulated” losses exceed “unregulated” income is the regulated company deemed to have enjoyed a reduction in its taxes as a result of the consolidated return. If there is more than one regulated company in the group, they will share the tax liability or tax saving in proportion to their taxable income.
It is true that the Commission includes in the regulated group companies which are regulated not by it but by state or local authorities and that under the Commission’s formula enterprises not subject to its jurisdiction may be required to share the tax saving with the federally regulated concern. But we know of nothing in the decisions or the statutes governing the ratemaking activities of the Commission which dictates priority for the state-regulated company or which provides that the jurisdictional company may share in the tax saving only if the saving exceeds the separate-return tax liability of the state-regulated company. One could as well argue-that for ratemaking purposes the company subject to federal regulation should have the first benefit of the tax saving. The Commission’s formula, of course, prefers neither concern but allocates the tax liability equitably between each regulated member, without regard to the source of the regulation. “When Congress, as here, fails to provide a formula for the Commission to follow, courts are not warranted in rejecting the one which the Commission employs unless it plainly contravenes the statutory scheme of regulation.” Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 581, 589. “If the total effect of -the rate order cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable, judicial inquiry under the Act is at an end. The fact that'the method employed to reach that result may contain infirmities is not then important.” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 602.
There is no frustration of the tax laws inherent in the Commission’s action. The affiliated group may continue to file consolidated returns and through this mechanism set off system losses against system income, including United’s fair return income. The tax law permits this, but it does not seek to control the amount of income which any affiliate will have. Nor does it attempt to set United’s rates. This is the function of the Commission, a function performed here by rejecting that part of the claimed tax expense which was no expense at all, by reducing cost of service and therefore rates, and by allowing United only a: fair return on its investment.
Nor did the Commission “appropriate” or extinguish the losses of any member of the affiliated group, regulated or unregulated. Those losses may still be applied to system gains and thereby be turned into instant cash. United may, of course, have less income than it did. If so, this will correspondingly reduce the opportunity of the affiliated group to use the losses of unregulated companies to appropriate United’s income for the benefit of non-jurisdictional activities because United’s income will no longer offset the same amount of losses which it once did. But the losses of unregulated companies are in no way destroyed. They remain with the system, readily available to reduce the taxes of the profitable affiliates to the maximum extent allowed by the tax law.
Another matter deserves some comment. It is said here that the Commission, in applying its tax allowance formula, erroneously failed to recognize and to take account of the fact that United has both jurisdictional and non jurisdictional activities and income. Although this is a matter which might affect the results achieved in application of the Commission’s formula, it is one to which the Court of Appeals has not addressed itself, and we think it appropriate for the issue to be raised there if the parties are so inclined.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The election was pursuant to the privilege granted in § 1501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 1501. The other members of the affiliated group are United Gas Corporation, which wholly owns United and which is a gas distribution company subject to state and local regulation, and-two other wholly owned subsidiaries of United Gas Corporation — Union Producing Company (Union), a domestic oil and gas producer whose interstate sales of gas are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission, and United Overseas Production Company (Overseas) which engaged in oil exploration in foreign countries.
“[T]he proper method to be applied in computing the Federal income taxes to be, included in the cost of service of a regulated company where that company has joined in a consolidated tax return with affiliates is (1) separate the companies into regulated and unregulated groups, (2) determine the net aggregate taxable income of each group, and (3) apportion the net total consolidated tax liability over a representative period of time between the two groups, and among the companies in the regulated group, on the'basis of their respective taxable incomes; provided that the allowance so computed for the regulated company shall not exceed what its tax liability would be for rate making purposes, if computed on a separate return basis.” 30 F. P. C. 158, 164.
As the Commission noted, id., at 162, it could draw little from the experience of state and local regulatory bodies dealing with the question whether the losses of affiliates should be taken into account in determining the tax allowance for regulated enterprises since the state and local solutions had not been consistent. It does not appear that the Commission drew on its own experience, although with a single exception the Commission seems to have accounted for consolidated tax' savings in past ratemaking proceedings. See Penn-York Natural Gas Corp., 5 F. P. C. 33, 39 (1946); Hope Natural Gas Co., 10 F. P. C. 583, 612, aff’d, 10 F. P. C. 625 (1951); Atlantic Seaboard Corp., 11 F. P. C. 486, 515, aff’d, 11 F. P. C. 43, remanded on other grounds, 200 F. 2d 108 (1952); United Fuel Gas Co., 12 F. P. C. 251 (1953); Hope Natural Gas Co., 12 F. P. C. 342, 347 (1953); Home Gas Co., 13 F. P. C. 241, 246 (1954); United Fuel Gas Co., 23 F. P. C. 127, 134 (1960). But see Olin Gas Transmission Corp., 17 F. P. C. 685 (1956).
See Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 581, 604-605; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 635, 648-649; El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. FPC, 281 F. 2d 567, 573, cert. denied sub nom. California v. FPC, 366 U. S. 912; Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. FPC, 359 F. 2d 318, 331, cert. denied, 385 U. S. 847.
That some sharing of the tax savings with nonfederally regulated companies was in order seems to have been recognized by the members of the affiliated group. Under the internal allocation formula employed by the group, the tax liability assigned to United represented an effective tax rate of 48.8%.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this civil action under § 4 of the Sherman Act charging appellants and others with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in concrete block-making machinery in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Act, and charging appellants with monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the same industry in violation of § 2 of the Act.
The defendants below were the Stearns Manufacturing Company, second largest producer in the country of concrete block-making machines, Besser Manufacturing Company, the country’s dominant producer of such machinery and substantial stockholder in the Stearns Company, Jesse H. Besser, long-time president and virtually sole stockholder of the Besser Company, and two individuals, Gelbman and Andrus, co-owners of certain important patents in the concrete block-making machine field.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found the Government’s charges clearly proved, and entered a judgment intended to correct the Sherman Act violations found to exist.
Only the Besser Company and Jesse H. Besser have appealed, bringing their case here directly.
Appellants assert that the factual conclusions of the trial court are erroneous. Only recently we reiterated the narrow scope of review here with respect to issues of fact in antitrust cases. United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326. In this case we think it enough to say that the conclusions of the trial judge that appellants conspired to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in concrete block-making machinery and that they monopolized and attempted to monopolize that industry are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Not the slightest ground appears for concluding that the trial judge’s findings were “clearly erroneous.” Rule 52 (a), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc.
We turn now to the provisions of the judgment entered below which are attacked by appellants. It is unnecessary for us to review appellants’ activities in detail, for they are adequately set out in the opinion below. Suffice it to say that appellants sought to eliminate competition through outright purchase of competitors and strict patent-licensing arrangements with the Stearns Company and the patent owners, Gelbman and Andrus.
Appellants contend that the provisions of the judgment requiring them to issue patent licenses on a fair royalty basis and requiring them to grant to existing lessees of their machines an option, on terms “mutually satisfactory to the parties concerned,” (1) to terminate their lease, (2) to continue their lease, or (3) to purchase leased machines, are punitive, confiscatory and inappropriate.
However, compulsory patent licensing is a well-recognized remedy where patent abuses are proved in antitrust actions and it is required for effective relief. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, 413, 417-418; United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319, 338; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 94.
The compulsory sale provision of the judgment, strenuously attacked, is likewise a recognized remedy. International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 398-399. That required by the judgment in this case must be considered in conjunction with the alternatives associated with it. Appellants are left free to lease rather than sell if they can make a lease sufficiently attractive.
Appellants further argue that the method adopted by the court below for fixing reasonable royalty rates under their patent licenses deprives them of their property without due process of law. The court directed Besser and the Government each to select two persons to serve as arbitrators on a committee to establish fair royalty rates and the form and contents of royalty contracts. It was also provided that in the event of a stalemate the four representatives should choose a fifth to vote and break the deadlock. If they could not agree on a fifth representative, the trial judge was to sit as the fifth or appoint another person to serve in his place. After some delay, and under protest, Besser appointed his representatives, the Government having appointed its shortly after the plan had been promulgated by the court. The representatives selected by the Government were taken from the industry, the Government noting to the court that they were serving on their own behalf and as agents of other prospective licensees, and not as agents of the Department of Justice.
When an impasse was reached with regard to royalty rates on certain Besser patents, the judge stepped in as the fifth arbitrator and voted for the rates proposed by the government-appointed representatives. Appellants assail this procedure with the contention that royalties set must be “made in judicial proceedings based on the hearing and evaluation of evidence in the light of appropriate criteria.’'
Appellants’ argument fails on two counts. First, it necessarily attacks the sufficiency of the evidentiary material considered in arriving at the royalties finally established. We do not pass on matters of that character in the absence of glaring error not shown here. Secondly, appellants appear to have misunderstood the true nature of what was done, for it was always within the power of the trial judge to establish the royalty rates, and, in voting as he did, he did just that. They contend that the judge should either have held a full hearing himself or referred the royalty matters to a master for such a hearing. We do not, however, think that in reducing the terms of a decree to concrete measures such procedures are mandatory. It is true that the procedure adopted below is an innovation in certain aspects, but novelty is not synonymous with error.
In framing relief in antitrust cases, a range of discretion rests with the trial judge. United States v. National Lead Co., supra, at 338; International Salt Co. v. United States, supra, at 400-401, 405; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 185. We can see no abuse of discretion here. Compulsory licensing and sale of patented devices are recognized remedies. They would seem particularly appropriate where, as here, a penchant for abuses of patent rights is demonstrated. With respect to the procedure for establishing royalty rates, the court below was likewise acting within the discretion vested in it. “[The District Court] should provide for its determination of a reasonable royalty either in each instance of failure to agree or by an approved form or by any other plan in its discretion.” (Italics added.) United States v. United States Gypsum Co., supra, at 94. The procedure here was entirely reasonable and fair. A competent committee considered relevant evidence and the judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced before the committee, resolved the deadlock into which the negotiations had fallen.
Although not condemning the royalty-setting procedure used here, the Government indicates faint enthusiasm for it, and suggests that this Court consider the procedure outlined by it below and direct that it be utilized hereafter in the proceedings remaining in this litigation. We would exceed our appellate functions were we to adopt that suggestion in this case. “The framing of decrees should take place in the District rather than in Appellate Courts.” International Salt Co. v. United States, supra, at 400; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, at 185.
We have examined appellants’ other contentions and concluded that they are without merit.
In accordance with the foregoing, the judgment below is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §4: “The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1-7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. . . .”
15 U. S. C. § 1: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States ... is declared to be illegal . . . .”
15 U. S. C. §2: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .”
96 F. Supp. 304.
Pursuant to § 2 of the Expediting Act of 1903, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an admiralty case in which the plaintiff’s loss was primarily attributable to its own negligence. The question presented is whether that fact, together with the existence of a genuine dispute over liability, justified the District Court’s departure from the general rule that prejudgment interest should be awarded in maritime collision cases.
f —
Respondents are the owner and the insurers of the E. M. Ford, a ship that sank in Milwaukee’s outer harbor on Christmas Eve 1979. At the time of this disaster, the Ford was berthed in a slip owned by the city of Milwaukee (City). In the course of a severe storm, she broke loose from her moorings, battered against the headwall of the slip, took on water, and sank. She was subsequently raised and repaired.
In 1980 the Ford’s owner, the Cement Division of National Gypsum Co. (National Gypsum), brought suit against the City, invoking the District Court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that the City had breached its duty as a wharfinger by assigning the vessel to a berthing slip known to be unsafe in heavy winds and by failing to give adequate warning of hidden dangers in the slip. The plaintiff sought damages of $4.5 million, later increased to $6.5 million. The City denied fault and filed a $250,000 counterclaim for damage to its dock. The City alleged that National Gypsum was negligent in leaving the ship virtually unmanned in winter, with no means aboard for monitoring weather conditions or summoning help.
In 1986 the District Court conducted a 3-week trial on the issue of liability. Finding that both National Gypsum and the City had been negligent, the court determined that the owner bore 96% of the responsibility for the disaster, while the City bore 4% of the fault. Given the disparity in the parties’ damages, a final judgment giving effect to that allocation (and awarding the damages sought in the pleadings) would have essentially left each party to bear its own losses.
Respondents took an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that both parties were at fault, and that the owner’s negligence was “more egregious” than the City’s, but it rejected the allocation of 96% of the responsibility to the owner as clearly erroneous. Cement Div., National Gypsum Co. v. Milwaukee, 915 F. 2d 1154, 1159 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U. S. 960 (1991). After making its own analysis of the record, the Court of Appeals apportioned liability two-thirds to National Gypsum and one-third to the City. 915 F. 2d, at 1160.
Thereafter the parties entered into a partial settlement fixing respondents’ damages, excluding prejudgment interest, at $1,677,541.86. The parties agreed that any claim for interest would be submitted to the District Court for decision. A partial judgment for the stipulated amount was entered and satisfied.
Respondents then sought an award of over $5.3 million in prejudgment interest. The District Court denied respondents’ request. It noted that “an award of pre judgment interest calculated from the date of the loss is the rule rather than the exception in cases brought under a district court’s admiralty jurisdiction,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a, but held that special circumstances justified a departure from that rule in this case. The court explained:
“In the instant case the record shows that from the outset there has been a genuine dispute over [respondents’] good faith claim that the City of Milwaukee was negligent for failing to warn the agents of [National Gypsum] (who were planning to leave the FORD unmanned during the Christmas holidays) that a winter storm could create conditions in the outer harbor at Milwaukee which could damage the ship. The trial court and the court of appeals both found mutual fault for the damage which ensued to the ship and to the [City’s] dock. The court of appeals ascribed two-thirds of the negligence to [National Gypsum]. Thus, in this situation the court concludes that [National Gypsum’s] contributory negligence was of such magnitude that an award of prejudgment interest would be inequitable.” Id., at 22a.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 31 F. 3d 581 (1994). It noted that prior to this Court’s announcement of the comparative fault rule in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397 (1975), some courts had denied prejudgment interest in order to mitigate the harsh effects of the earlier rule commanding an equal division of damages whenever a collision resulted from the fault of both parties, even though one party was only slightly negligent. In the court’s view, however, after the divided damages rule was “thrown overboard” and replaced with comparative fault, mutual fault could no longer provide a basis for denying prejudgment interest. 31 F. 3d, at 584-585. The Court of Appeals also read our decision in West Virginia v. United States, 479 U. S. 305, 311, n. 3 (1987), as disapproving of a “balancing of the equities” as a method of deciding whether to allow prejudgment interest. 31 F. 3d, at 585.
The Court of Appeals’ decision deepened an existing Circuit split regarding the criteria for denying prejudgment interest, in maritime collision cases. Compare, e.g., Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. Ark-White Towing Co., 696 F. 2d 321 (CA5 1983) (genuine dispute over good-faith claim in mutual fault setting justifies denial of prejudgment interest), with Alkmeon Naviera, S. A. v. M/V Marina L, 633 F. 2d 789 (CA9 1980) (contrary rule). We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1072 (1995), and now affirm.
II
Although Congress has enacted a statute governing the award of postjudgment interest in federal court litigation, see 28 U. S. C. § 1961, there is no comparable legislation regarding prejudgment interest. Far from indicating a legislative determination that prejudgment interest should not be awarded, however, the absence of a statute merely indicates that the question is governed by traditional judge-made principles. Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U. S. 330, 336-337 (1988); Rodgers v. United States, 332 U. S. 371, 373 (1947). Those principles are well developed in admiralty, where “the Judiciary has traditionally taken the lead in formulating flexible and fair remedies.” Reliable Transfer, 421 U. S., at 409.
Throughout our history, admiralty decrees have included provisions for prejudgment interest. In Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333, a prize case decided in 1796, we affirmed a decree awarding the libellant interest from “the day of capture.” Id., at 334. In The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546 (1818), we considered a similar decree. In augmenting the damages awarded by the lower court, we directed that the additional funds should bear prejudgment interest, as had the damages already awarded by the lower court. Id., at 562-563. The Amiable Nancy arose out of the “gross and wanton” seizure of a Haitian vessel near the island of Antigua by the Scourge, an American privateer. Id., at 546-547, 558. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Story explained that even though the “loss of the supposed profits” of the Amiable Nancy’s voyage was not recoverable, “the prime cost, or value of the property lost, at the time of the loss, and in ease of injury, the diminution in value, by reason of the injury, with interest upon such valuation, afforded the true measure for assessing damages.” Id., at 560 (emphasis added). We applied the same rule in The Umbria, 166 U. S. 404, 421 (1897), explaining that “in cases of total loss by collision damages are limited to the value of the vessel, with interest thereon, and the net freight pending at the time of the collision.” (Emphasis added.)
The Courts of Appeals have consistently and correctly construed decisions such as these as establishing a general rule that prejudgment interest should be awarded in maritime collision cases, subject to a limited exception for “peculiar” or “exceptional” circumstances. See, e. g., Inland Oil & Transport Co., 696 F. 2d, at 327; Central Rivers Towing, Inc. v. Beardstown, 750 F. 2d 565, 574 (CA7 1984); Ohio River Co. v. Peavey Co., 731 F. 2d 547, 549 (CA8 1984); Alkmeon Naviera, 633 F. 2d, at 797; Parker Towing Co. v. Yazoo River Towing, Inc., 794 F. 2d 591, 594 (CA11 1986).
The essential rationale for awarding prejudgment interest is to ensure that an injured party is fully compensated for its loss. Full compensation has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law, where “[rjestitutio in inte-grum is the leading maxim applied by admiralty courts to ascertain damages resulting from a collision.” Standard Oil Co. of N. J. v. Southern Pacific Co., 268 U. S. 146, 158 (1925) (citing The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377, 885 (1869)). By compensating “for the loss of use of money due as damages from the time the claim accrues until judgment is entered,” West Virginia, 479 U. S., at 310-311, n. 2, an award of prejudgment interest helps achieve the goal of restoring a party to the condition it enjoyed before the injury occurred, The President Madison, 91 F. 2d 835, 845-846 (CA9 1937).
Despite admiralty’s traditional hospitality to prejudgment interest, however, such an award has never been automatic. In The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 518-519 (1886), we stated that the “allowance of interest on damages is not an absolute right. Whether it ought or ought not to be allowed depends upon the circumstances of each case, and rests very much in the discretion of the tribunal which has to pass upon the subject, whether it be a court or a jury.” See also The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U. S. 349, 356 (1887). Although we have never attempted to exhaustively catalog the circumstances that will justify the denial of interest, and do not do so today, the most obvious example is the plaintiff’s responsibility for “undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit.” General Motors Corf. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 657 (1983). Other circumstances may appropriately be invoked as warranted by the facts of particular cases.
In this case, the City asks us to characterize two features of the instant litigation as sufficiently unusual to justify a departure from the general rule that prejudgment interest should be awarded to make the injured party whole. First, the City stresses the fact that there was a good-faith dispute over its liability for respondents’ loss. In our view, however, this fact carries little weight. If interest were awarded as a penalty for bad-faith conduct of the litigation, the City’s argument would be well taken. But prejudgment interest is not awarded as a penalty; it is merely an element of just compensation.
The City’s “good-faith” argument has some resonance with the venerable common-law rule that prejudgment interest is not awarded on unliquidated claims (those where the precise amount of damages at issue cannot be computed). If a party contests liability in good faith, it will usually be the case that the party’s ultimate exposure is uncertain. But the liquidated/unliquidated distinction has faced trenchant criticism for a number of years. Moreover, that distinction “has never become so firmly entrenched in admiralty as it has been at law.” Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson, 295 F. 2d 583, 592 (CA2 1961). Any fixed rule allowing prejudgment interest only on liquidated claims would be difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with admiralty’s traditional presumption. Yet unless we were willing to adopt such a rule — which we are not — uncertainty about the outcome of a case should not preclude an award of interest.
In sum, the existence of a legitimate difference of opinion on the issue of liability is merely a characteristic of most ordinary lawsuits. It is not an extraordinary circumstance that can justify denying prejudgment interest. See Alkmeon Naviera, 633 F. 2d, at 798.
The second purportedly “peculiar” feature of this case is the magnitude of the plaintiff’s fault. Leaving aside the empirical question whether such a division of fault is in fact an aberration, it is true in this case that the owner of the E. M. Ford was primarily responsible for the vessel’s loss. As a result, it might appear somewhat inequitable to award a large sum in prejudgment interest against a relatively innocent party. But any unfairness is illusory, because the relative fault of the parties has already been taken into consideration in calculating the amount of the loss for which the City is responsible.
In United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397 (1975), we “replaced the divided damages rule, which required an equal division of property damage whatever the relative degree of fault may have been, with a rule requiring that damages be assessed on the basis of proportionate fault when such an allocation can reasonably be made.” McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U. S. 202, 207 (1994). Thus, in this case, before prejudgment interest even entered the picture, the total amount of respondents’ recovery had already been reduced by two-thirds because of National Gypsum’s own negligence. The City’s responsibility for the remaining one-third is no different than if it had performed the same negligent acts and the owner, instead of also being negligent, had engaged in heroic maneuvers that avoided two-thirds of the damages. The City is merely required to compensate the owner for the loss for which the City is responsible.
In light of Reliable Transfer, we are unmoved by the City’s contention that an award of prejudgment interest is inequitable in a mutual fault situation. Indeed, the converse is true: a denial of prejudgment interest would be unfair. As Justice Kennedy noted while he was sitting on the Ninth Circuit, “under any rule allowing apportionment of liability, denying prejudgment interest on the basis of mutual fault would seem to penalize a party twice for the same mistake.” Alkmeon Naviera, 633 F. 2d, at 798, n. 12. Such a double penalty is commended neither by logic nor by fairness; the rule giving rise to it is a relic of history that has ceased to serve any purpose in the wake of Reliable Transfer.
Accordingly, we hold that neither a good-faith dispute over liability nor the existence of mutual fault justifies the denial of pre judgment interest in an admiralty collision case. Questions related to the calculation of the prejudgment interest award, including the rate to be applied, have not been raised in this Court and remain open for consideration, in the first instance, by the District Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1).
Such appeals are authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(3), which states:
“(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: ... (3) Interlocutory decrees of... district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.”
In arriving at this sum, the parties agreed that respondents’ damages were slightly more than $5.4 million, while the City’s damages were just over $192,000. The parties multiplied respondents’ damages by one-third, resulting in a subtotal of $1,805,829.98 for which the City was responsible. From this subtotal, the parties subtracted two-thirds of the City’s damages, or $128,288.12, as an offset because that was the amount of National Gypsum’s responsibility. The difference was the City’s obligation to respondents. App. 40-45.
This figure was based on respondents’ assertion that pre judgment interest should be compounded continuously, from the time of the sinking of the Ford, at the commercial prime rate of interest averaged over the period of assessment. Plaintiff’s Brief on Issue of Prejudgment Interest in No. 80-C-1001 (ED Wis.), pp. 24-26. The District Court did not express any view on the correctness of this analysis, nor do we. We merely note in passing that the discrepancy between the damages award and the interest sought by National Gypsum is in some measure attributable to the delays that have plagued this litigation — a factor that does not appear to be traceable to the fault of any party.
The District Court also relied on the City’s status as a municipality as an alternative ground for denying prejudgment interest. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a-23a. The Court of Appeals rejected this portion of the District Court’s analysis as inconsistent with Circuit precedent, and the City did not pursue the argument in this Court.
See also The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327, 335 (1817) (Marshall, C. J.) (remanding with instructions to ascertain damages suffered by the libel-lants, “in doing which, the value of the vessel, and the prime cost of the cargo, with all charges, and the premium of insurance, where it has been paid, with interest, are to be allowed”) (emphasis added); The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97, 101 (1887) (approving, in dicta, allowance of “interest on the damages from the date of the collision to the date of the decree”).
We have recognized the compensatory nature of prejudgment interest in a number of cases decided outside the admiralty context. E. g., West Virginia v. United States, 479 U. S. 305, 310-311, n. 2 (1987); Funkhouser v. J. B. Preston Co., 290 U. S. 163, 168 (1933); Miller v. Robertson, 266 U. S. 243, 257-258 (1924). But cf. Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403, 414 (1962) (“ ‘interest is not recovered according to a rigid theory of compensation for money withheld, but is given in response to considerations of fairness’ ”) (quoting Board of Comm’rs of Jackson Cty. v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 352 (1939)).
We do note that, as is always the case when an issue is committed to judicial discretion, the judge’s decision must be supported by a circumstance that has relevance to the issue at hand. See generally Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory L. J. 747 (1982).
“It has been recognized that a distinction, in this respect, simply as between cases of liquidated and unliquidated damages, is not a sound one.” Funkhouser, 290 U. S., at 168 (citing Bernhard v. Rochester German Ins. Co., 79 Conn. 388, 398, 65 A. 134, 137-138 (1906); 1 T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages § 315 (9th ed. 1912)). See also General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 665-656, n. 10 (1983); D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.6(3) (2d ed. 1993); C. McCormick, Law of Damages §§ 51, 54-56 (1935); Rothschild, Prejudgment Interest: Survey and Suggestion, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 192 (1982).
A number of Circuits have rejected its applicability, at least as an absolute bar. E. g., Borges v. Our Lady of the Sea Corp., 935 F. 2d 436, 444 (CA1 1991); Hillier v. Southern Towing Co., 740 F. 2d 683, 586 (CA7 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1190 (1985); Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. M/Y La Belle Simone, 537 F. 2d 1201, 1204-1206, and n. 1 (CA4 1976); Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson, 295 F 2d, at 594.
Indeed, although the amount is relatively small in this case, the City’s counterclaim was resolved under the same principle. Notwithstanding its contributory negligence, the City has been compensated for two-thirds of its cost of repairing the dock and headwall. See n. 3, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Government commenced this civil antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, contending that the appellee, American Building Maintenance Industries, had violated § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 18, by acquiring the stock of J. E. Benton Management Corp., and by merging Benton Maintenance Co. into one of the appellee’s wholly owned subsidiaries. Following discovery proceedings and the submission of memoranda and affidavits by both parties, the District Court granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there had been no violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act. The Government brought an appeal to this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 419 U. S. 1104.
I
The appellee, American Building Maintenance Industries, is one of the largest suppliers of janitorial services in the country, with 56 branches serving more than 500 communities in the United States and Canada. It is also the single largest supplier of janitorial services in southern California (the area comprising Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties), providing approximately 10% of the sales of such services in that area.
Both of the acquired companies, J. E. Benton Management Corp. and Benton Maintenance Co., also supplied janitorial services in Southern California. Together their sales constituted approximately 7% of the total janitorial sales in that area. Although both Benton companies serviced customers engaged in interstate operations, all of their janitorial and maintenance contracts with those customers were performed entirely within California. Neither of the Benton companies advertised nationally, and their use of interstate communications facilities to conduct business was negligible.
The major expense of providing janitorial services is the cost of the labor necessary to perform the work. The Benton companies recruited the unskilled workers needed to supply janitorial services entirely from the local labor market in Southern California. The incidental equipment and supplies utilized in providing those janitorial services, except in concededly insignificant amounts, were purchased from local distributors.
It is unquestioned that the appellee, American Building Maintenance Industries, was and is actively engaged in interstate commerce. But oh the basis of the above facts the District Court concluded that at the time of the challenged acquisition and merger neither Benton Management Corp. nor Benton Maintenance Co. was “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act. Accordingly, the District Court held that there had been no violation of that law.
The Government’s appeal raises two questions: First, does the phrase “engaged in commerce” as used in § 7 of the Clayton Act encompass corporations engaged in intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce? Second, if the language of § 7 requires proof of actual engagement in the flow of interstate commerce, were the Benton companies’ activities sufficient to satisfy that standard?
II
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 18, provides in pertinent part:
“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.”
Under the explicit reach of § 7, therefore, not only must the acquiring corporation be “engaged in commerce,” but the corporation or corporations whose stock or assets are acquired must be “engaged also in commerce.”
The distinct “in commerce” language of § 7, the Court observed earlier this Term, “appears to denote only persons or activities within the flow of interstate commerce — the practical, economic continuity in the generation of goods and services for interstate markets and their transport and distribution to the consumer. If this is so, the jurisdictional requirements of [§ 7] cannot be satisfied merely by showing that allegedly anticompetitive acquisitions and activities affect commerce.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 195. But even more unambiguous support for this construction of the narrow “in commerce” language enacted by Congress in § 7 of the Clayton Act is to be found in an earlier decision of this Court, FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349.
In Bunte Bros, the Court was required to determine the scope of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45, which authorized the Commission to proceed only against “unfair methods of competition in commerce.” The Court squarely held that the Commission's § 5 jurisdiction was limited to unfair methods of competition occurring in the flow of interstate commerce. The contention that “in commerce” should be read as if it meant “affecting interstate commerce” was emphatically rejected: “The construction of § 5 urged by the Commission would thus give a federal agency pervasive control over myriads of local businesses in matters heretofore traditionally left to local custom or local law. . . . An inroad upon local conditions and local standards of such far-reaching import as is involved here, ought to await a clearer mandate from Congress.” 312 U. S., at 354-355.
The phrase “in commerce” does not, of course, necessarily have a uniform meaning whenever used by Congress. See, e. g., Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517, 520-521. But the Bunte Bros, construction of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act is particularly relevant to a proper interpretation of the “in commerce” language in § 7 of the Clayton Act since both sections were enacted by the 63d Congress, and both were designed to deal with closely related aspects of the same problem — the protection of free and fair competition in the Nation’s marketplaces. See FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643, 647-648.
The Government argues, however, that despite its basic identity to § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the phrase “engaged in commerce” in § 7 of the Clayton Act should be interpreted to mean engaged in any activity that is subject to the constitutional power of Congress over interstate commerce. The legislative history of the Clayton Act, the Government contends, demonstrates that the “in commerce” language of § 7 was intended to be coextensive with the reach of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Moreover, the argument continues, § 7 was designed to supplement the Sherman Act and to arrest the creation of trusts or monopolies in their incipiency, United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 589, and it would be anomalous, in light of this history and purpose, to hold that the Clayton Act’s jurisdictional scope is more restricted than that of the Sherman Act.
It is certainly true that the Court has held that in the Sherman Act, “Congress wanted to go to the utmost extent of its Constitutional power in restraining trust and monopoly agreements United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 558. Accordingly, the Sherman Act has been applied to local activities which, although not themselves within the flow of interstate commerce, substantially affect interstate commerce. See, e. g., Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219; United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186. But the Government’s argument that § 7 should likewise be read to reach intrastate corporations affecting interstate commerce is not persuasive.
Unlike § 7, with its precise “in commerce” language, § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, prohibits every contract, combination, or conspiracy “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States . . . .” “The jurisdictional reach of § 1 thus is keyed directly to effects on interstate markets and the interstate flow of goods.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S., at 194. No similar concern for the impact of intrastate conduct on interstate commerce is evident in § 7’s “engaged in commerce” requirements.
The Government’s contention that it would be anomalous for Congress to have strengthened the antitrust laws by curing perceived deficiencies in the Sherman Act and at the same time to have limited the jurisdictional scope of those remedial provisions founders also on the express language of § 7. Thus, although the Sherman Act proscribes every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, whether entered into by a natural person, partnership, corporation, or other form of business organization, § 7 of the Clayton Act is explicitly limited to corporate acquisitions. Yet it surely could not be seriously argued that this “anomaly” must be ignored, and § 7 extended to reach an allegedly anticompetitive acquisition of partnership assets. There is no more justification for concluding that the equally explicit “in commerce” limitation on § 7’s reach should be disregarded.
More importantly, whether or not Congress in enacting the Clayton Act in 1914 intended to exercise fully its power to regulate commerce, and whatever the understanding of the 63d Congress may have been as to the extent of its Commerce Clause power, the fact is that when § 7 was re-enacted in 1950, the phrase “engaged in commerce” had long since become a term of art, indicating a limited assertion of federal jurisdiction. In Schechter Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, for example, the Court had drawn a sharp distinction between activities in the flow of interstate commerce and intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce. Id., at 542-544. Similarly, the Court’s opinion in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, two years later, had emphasized that congressional authority to regulate commerce was not limited to activities actually “in commerce,” but extended as well to conduct that substantially affected interstate commerce. And the Bunte Bros, decision in 1941 had stressed the distinction between unfair methods of competition “in commerce” and those that “affected commerce,” in limiting the scope of the Commission’s authority under the “in commerce” language of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Congress, as well, in the years prior to 1950 had repeatedly acknowledged its recognition of the distinction between legislation limited to activities “in commerce,” and an assertion of its full Commerce Clause power so as to cover all activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. Section 10 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 453, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (a), for example, empowered the National Labor Relations Board to prevent any person from engaging in an unfair labor practice “affecting commerce.” Section 2 (7) of the Act, 49 Stat. 450, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (7), in turn, defined “affecting commerce” to mean “in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce . . . .” Similarly, the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, c. 127, 50 Stat. 72, providing for the fixing of prices for bituminous coal, the proscription of unfair trade practices, and the establishment of marketing procedures, applied to sales and transactions “in or directly affecting interstate commerce in bituminous coal.” 50 Stat. 76.
In marked contrast to the broad “affecting commerce” jurisdictional language utilized in those statutes, however, Congress retained the narrower “in commerce” formulation when it amended and re-enacted § 7 of the Clayton Act in 1950. The 1950 amendments were designed in large part to “plug the loophole” that existed in § 7 as initially enacted in 1914, by expanding its coverage to include acquisitions of assets, as well as acquisitions of stock. In addition, other language in § 7 was amended to make plain the full reach of the section’s prohibitions. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 311-323. Yet, despite the sweeping changes made to effectuate those purposes, and despite decisions of this Court, such as Bunte Bros., that had limited the reach of the phrase “in commerce” in similar regulatory legislation, Congress preserved the requirement that both the acquiring and the acquired companies be “engaged in commerce.”
This congressional action cannot be disregarded, as the Government would have it, as simply a result of congressional inattention, for Congress was fully aware in enacting the 1950 amendments that both the original and the newly amended versions of § 7 were limited to corporations “engaged in commerce.” See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1191, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 5-6. Rather, the decision to re-enact § 7 with the same “in commerce” limitation can be rationally explained only in terms of a legislative intent, at least in 1950, not to apply the rather drastic prohibitions of § 7 of the Clayton Act to the full range of corporations potentially subject to the commerce power.
Finally, the Government’s contention that a limitation of the scope of § 7 to its plain meaning would undermine the section’s remedial purpose is belied by the past enforcement policy of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice — the two governmental agencies charged with enforcing the section’s prohibitions. Clayton Act §§ 11, 15, 15 U. S. C. §§21 (a), 25. The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly held that § 7 applies only to an acquisition in which both the acquired and the acquiring companies are engaged directly in interstate commerce. E. g., Foremost Dairies, Inc., 60 F. T. C. 944, 1068-1069; Beatrice Foods Co., 67 F. T. C. 473, 730-731; Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 75 F. T. C. 813, 918. And while the Government explains that it has never taken a formal position that § 7 does not apply to intrastate firms affecting interstate commerce, it does concede that previous § 7 cases brought by the Department of Justice have invariably involved firms clearly engaged in the flow of interstate commerce. In light of this consistent enforcement practice, it is difficult to credit the argument that § 7’s remedial purpose would be frustrated by construing literally § 7’s twice-enacted “in commerce” requirement.
In sum, neither the legislative history nor the remedial purpose of § 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended and reenacted in 1950, supports an expansion of the scope of § 7 beyond that defined by its express language. Accordingly, we hold that the phrase “engaged in commerce” as used in § 7 of the Clayton Act means engaged in the flow of interstate commerce, and was not intended to reach all corporations engaged in activities subject to the federal commerce power.
Ill
The Government alternatively argues that even if § 7 applies only to corporations engaged in the flow of interstate commerce, the Benton companies’ activities at the time of the acquisition and merger placed them in that flow. To support this contention the Government relies primarily on the fact that the Benton companies performed a substantial portion of their janitorial services for enterprises which were themselves clearly engaged in selling products in interstate and international markets and in providing interstate communication facilities. But simply supplying localized services to a corporation engaged in interstate commerce does not satisfy the “in commerce” requirement of § 7.
To be engaged “in commerce” within the meaning of § 7, a corporation must itself be directly engaged in the production, distribution, or acquisition of goods or services in interstate commerce. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S., at 195. At the time of the acquisition and merger, however, the Benton companies were completely insulated from any direct participation in interstate markets or the interstate flow of goods or services. The firms’ activities were limited to providing janitorial services within Southern California to corporations that made wholly independent pricing decisions concerning their own products. Consequently, whether or not their effect on interstate commerce was sufficiently substantial to come within the ambit of the constitutional power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, in providing janitorial services the Benton companies were not themselves “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of § 7. Cf. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S., at 227-235.
Similarly, although the Benton companies used janitorial equipment and supplies manufactured in large part outside of California, they did not purchase them directly from suppliers located in other States. Cf. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 60 F. T. C., at 1068-1069. Rather, those products were purchased in intrastate transactions from local distributors. Once again, therefore, the Benton companies were separated from direct participation in interstate commerce by the pricing and other marketing. decisions of independent intermediaries. By the time the Benton companies purchased their janitorial supplies, the flow of commerce had ceased. See Schechter Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S., at 542-543.
In short, since the Benton companies did not participate directly in the sale, purchase, or distribution of goods or services in interstate commerce, they were not "engaged in commerce” within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act. The District Court, therefore, properly concluded that the acquisition and merger in this case were not within the coverage of § 7 of the Clayton Act. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Government appealed directly to this Court pursuant to § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §29. The Government’s notice of appeal was filed on February 7, 1974, before the effective date of the recent amendments to the Act. See Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, Pub. L. 93-528, § 7, 88 Stat. 1710.
At the time of the acquisition and merger, Jess E. Benton, Jr., owned all the stock of J. E. Benton Management Corp., and 85% of the stock of Benton Maintenance Co. In addition to supplying janitorial services, Benton Management conducted some real estate business and provided building management services entirely within the Southern California area. Benton Maintenance was engaged exclusively in providing janitorial services. The Government has made no claim that the nonjanitorial activities of Benton Management Corp. have any bearing on the issues presented by this case.
The District Court found that the Benton companies made only 10 out-of-state telephone calls related to business activities during the 18-month period prior to the challenged acquisition and merger. The charges for those calls were $19.78. During the same period the Benton companies sent or received only some 200 interstate letters, a number of which were either directed to or received from governmental agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service.
Although many of the janitorial supplies were manufactured outside of California, the District Court found that Benton’s direct interstate purchases for the 16-month period prior to the challenged acquisition and merger amounted to a total of less than $140.
“Commerce,” as defined by § 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 12, means “trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations The phrase “engaged in commerce” is not defined by the Act.
Congress recently acted to provide such a “clearer mandate,” amending the Federal Trade Commission Act by replacing the phrase “in commerce” with “in or affecting commerce” in §§ 5, 6, and 12 of the Act. Magnuson-Moss Warranty — Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, § 201, 88 Stat. 2193, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (1970 ed., Supp. IY). The amendments were specifically designed to expand the Commission’s jurisdiction beyond the limits defined by Bunte Bros, and to make it coextensive with the constitutional power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. See H. R. Rep. No. 93-1107, pp. 29-31 (1974).
The Federal Trade Commission has held that such acquisitions may be challenged under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which forbids unfair methods of competition on the part of persons and partnerships, as well as corporations. Beatrice Foods Co., 67 F. T. C. 473, 724-727. It is, of course, well established that the Commission has broad power to apply § 5 to reach transactions which violate the standards of the Clayton Act, although technically not subject to the Act’s prohibitions. See, e. g., FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U. S. 316, 320-321; cf. FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U. S. 233. We have no occasion in the case now before us to decide whether application of § 5 to assets acquisitions by or from noncorporate business entities constitutes an appropriate exercise of that power; nor need we consider whether the acquisition of the stock or assets of an intrastate corporation that affected interstate commerce could be challenged by the Commission under the recent jurisdictional amendments to § 5. See n. 6, supra. See generally Oppenheim, Guides to Harmonizing Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act with the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 821; Reeves, Toward a Coherent Antitrust Policy: The Role of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act in Price Discrimination Regulation, 16 B. C. Ind. & Com. L. Rev. 151, 167-171.
Despite this concession, the Government somewhat inconsistently argues that the present case does not in fact involve a substantial departure from the previous § 7 enforcement pattern. In the past, the Government asserts, the United States has challenged acquisitions of “essentially local businesses that affected interstate commerce.” United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U. S. 270, is cited as an example of such a challenge. But the District Court in that case expressly found that both of the merging grocery chains directly participated in the flow of interstate commerce because each purchased more than 51% of its supplies from outside of California. See 233 F. Supp. 976, 978. And in United States v. County National Bank, 339 F. Supp. 85, the only other case cited by the Government to support its contention that the case now before us does not involve a departure from previous enforcement policy, the sole question was quite different from that here in issue — whether the “Bennington area” was a “section of the country” within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act.
The Benton companies derived 80% to 90% of their revenues from performance of janitorial service contracts for the Los Angeles facilities of interstate and international corporations such as Mobil Oil Corp., Rockwell International Corp., Teledyne, Inc., and Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
The Government notes that this Court has held that maintenance workers servicing buildings in which goods are produced for interstate markets are covered by Fair Labor Standards Act provisions applicable to employees engaged in the production of goods for commerce. See, e. g., Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517; Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U. S. 173. In Kirschbaum the Court reasoned: “Without light and heat and power the tenants could not engage, as they do, in the production of goods for interstate commerce. The maintenance of a safe, habitable building is indispensable to that activity.” 316 U. S., at 524. Similarly, the Government argues, in the present case the Benton janitorial services were so essential to the interstate operations of their customers that they, too, should be considered part of the flow of commerce.
The Fair Labor Standards Act, however, is not confined, as is § 7 of the Clayton Act, to activities that are actually “in commerce.” At the time of the decisions relied upon by the Government, the Act provided that “an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods [for interstate commerce] if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof ...” Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 3 (j), 52 Stat. 1061,'as amended, 29 U. S. C. §203 (j) (1946 ed.) (emphasis added). Congress thus expressly intended to reach not only those employees who directly participated in the production of goods for interstate markets, but also those employees outside the flow of commerce but nonetheless necessary to it. Although Congress in 1950 could constitutionally have extended § 7 of the Clayton Act to reach comparable activity, it chose not to do so. See supra, at 279-281.
The Government does not suggest that the purchase of janitorial equipment and supplies from local distributors placed the Benton companies in the flow of commerce, although it does argue that because of those purchases the firms had a substantial effect on interstate commerce — an issue not relevant in light of our construction of the reach of § 7 of the Clayton Act.
The Government contends that the sale of janitorial services “necessarily” involves interstate communications, solicitations, and negotiations, and that such interstate activity should be viewed as part of the flow of interstate commerce. The merits of that argument need not be considered, however, since the record before the District Court does not support a finding that any of the Benton janitorial service contracts were obtained through interstate solicitation or negotiation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit, under § 9 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, asks a decree that petitioners have an interest in vested property of Japanese nationals in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian, that he holds the property subject to petitioners’ attachment lien and must satisfy their judgment. The controlling facts are not in controversy. The Japanese nationals involved were indebted to petitioners, while a third party, Anderson, Clayton & Co., was indebted to those Japanese. On June 14, 1941, Executive Order No. 8389 became effective as to Japan, and it blocked all transfers of evidences of debt or interests in property of Japanese citizens. Thereafter, petitioners commenced suit against the Japanese debtors in a New York state court and, without obtaining a license therefor, attached the Anderson, Clayton & Co. credit on June 25, 1943. Judgment was obtained, whereupon petitioners applied for a federal license to permit Anderson, Clayton & Co. to pay it. The application was refused.
Meanwhile, on June 27,1947, the Custodian vested the Anderson, Clayton & Co. credit by a res vesting order and it was paid over to the Custodian. Petitioners filed notice of their present claim under § 9 (a) of the Act for return of an interest in vested property, which was treated as another application for a retroactive license. The claim was dismissed insofar as it was a claim under § 9 (a), based on interest in property, but was left and still is pending as a claim for payment of a debt under § 34 of the Act.
The difference between what was denied and what was left pending is important, for if the attachment and judgment create an interest in the property which can be retrieved from the Custodian under § 9 (a), the judgment will be paid in full. On the other hand, if it is only an allowable debt under § 34, unless granted a priority it apparently will be paid only in part, since it appears that claims against the Japanese nationals considerably exceed the funds in the Custodian’s hands.
Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. The District Court granted petitioners’ motion and denied that of the respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed. We granted certiorari.
The petitioning judgment creditors here are in the same position as were those in the declaratory judgment action of Zittman v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 446, in that they have judgments and attachment liens valid under New York law as against their enemy national debtors and as against those whose credits were attached. In the first Zittman case, we held that the executive freezing order did not prevent such an attachment from creating rights between the judgment creditor and the enemy debtor whom the Custodian had elected to succeed. In the second Zittman case, however, we held that where the Custodian elected to vest the res for administration purposes he was entitled to possession, even as against such an attaching creditor whose lien would have been valid under New York law. We are now called upon to decide a question not presented by these earlier cases: whether the freezing order prevented a creditor from thereafter acquiring by attachment an “interest, right, or title” in property such as will support a claim against the Custodian under § 9 (a) of the Act. We hold that the freezing order did have such an effect and that, while it recognized attachment liens insofar as they determined relationships between creditor and enemy debtor, it did not permit the transfer of a property interest in the blocked funds which could be asserted against the Custodian.
The order forbids “transfers of credit” and “transfers of any evidences of indebtedness or evidences of ownership of property,” and General Ruling No. 12 specifies that this prohibition extends to the creation of a lien. Admittedly, if the Japanese had made a voluntary unlicensed assignment, it could have created no property interest. Admittedly also, if Anderson, Clayton & Co., with or without the consent of its Japanese creditors but without federal license, had paid over the fund to these petitioners, they would obtain no such interest. We cannot doubt that these administrative interpretations apply to the present transaction and that the general assent by the Government to state attachment procedures which we recited in the Zittman opinion did not extend so far as to recognize them as effecting a transfer. To so interpret it would ignore the express conditions on which the consent was extended. Realistically, these reservations deprive the assent of much substance; but that should have been apparent on its face to those who chose to litigate. The opportunity to settle their accounts with the enemy debtor was all that the permission to attach granted.
Petitioners challenge the statutory authorization for such an order. It is argued that the sole purpose of the Trading with the Enemy Act was to prevent transfers under duress of funds credited to residents of occupied countries. Though this was one of the aims of the Act, its language extends the authorization much farther. The validity of the freezing order as an implementation of the Trading with the Enemy Act was sustained in Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, and we adhere to that holding. Petitioners also contend that the Custodian was not given power, similar to that of a bankruptcy court, to “annul” liens and attachments. But the question is not whether a lien, concededly valid because obtained prior to the freezing order, may be “annulled” by the Custodian, but rather whether the freezing order prevented the subsequent acquisition, by attachment, of such a property interest as the Custodian would have to recognize under § 9 of the Act. Because of the supremacy of the Federal Government on matters within its competence, the freezing order, while permitting an attachment for jurisdictional and other state law purposes, prevented the subsequent acquisition of a lien which would bind the Custodian under § 9.
Section 34 of the Act provides liquidation procedures by which debt claims may be allowed and priorities established. The petitioners’ claim is pending for that purpose. Judicial review is provided. It would be premature to decide how the Custodian must treat this claim in a general accounting and settlement of his trust, since this proceeding seeks only to forestall such settlement of this claim.
The parties are in disagreement as to the course pursued by the Custodian in allowing payment of attachment creditors. In view of the statutory mandate that the assets shall be “equitably applied by the Custodian in accordance with the provisions of this section,” each case, to some extent, may rest on its own facts. We do not find it either necessary or possible to inquire whether other similar claims have been allowed on the grounds mentioned in § 9, and, if so, whether they were properly allowed by the Custodian.
Petitioners by their unlicensed attachment could obtain no “interest, right, or title” in this fund recoverable against the Custodian. He may proceed to administer the vested assets according to § 34 of the Act and to consider petitioners’ claim and its status thereunder, subject to the review therein provided. The suit under § 9 (a), however, must fail.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
50 U. S. C. App. § 9 (a): “Any person not an enemy or ally of enemy claiming any interest, right, or title in any money or other property which may have been conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States . . . may file with the said custodian a notice of his claim under oath and in such form and containing such particulars as the said custodian shall require; and the President, if application is made therefor by the claimant, may order the payment ... or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property so held by the Alien Property Custodian ... or of the interest therein to which the President shall determine said claimant is entitled .... If the President shall not so order within sixty days after the filing of such application or if the claimant shall have filed the notice as above required and shall have made no application to the President, said claimant may institute a suit in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such claimant resides ... to establish the interest, right, title, or debt so claimed, and if so established the court shall order the payment ... or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property so held by the Alien Property Custodian . . . .”
198 F. 2d 708.
344 U. S. 902.
Executive Order No. 8389, April 10, 1940, 5 Fed. Reg. 1400, as amended by Executive Order No. 8785, June 14, 1941, 6 Fed. Reg. 2897: “. . . All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of . . . licenses, . . . if . . . such transactions involve property in which any foreign country designated in this Order, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this Order had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect: . . . E. All transfers, withdrawals or exportations of, or dealings in, any evidences of indebtedness or evidences of ownership of property by any person within the United States . . . .”
General Ruling No. 12, April 21, 1942, § 131.12 (e) (1), 7 Fed. Reg. 2991: “The term ‘transfer’ shall mean any actual or purported act or transaction, . . . and without limitation upon the foregoing shall include . . . the creation or transfer of any lien . . . .”
50 U. S. C. App. § 5 (b) (B): “. . . [T]he President may ... investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the petitioner, the chairman of that state’s Executive Committee of the Democratic Party, to certify respondent Edmund Blair, a member of that party, to the Secretary of State of Alabama as a candidate for Presidential Elector in the Democratic Primary to be held May 6,1952. Respondent Blair was admittedly qualified as a candidate except that he refused to include the following quoted words in the pledge required of party candidates — a pledge to aid and support “the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States.” The chairman’s refusal of certification was based on that omission.
The mandamus was approved on the sole ground that the above requirement restricted the freedom of a federal elector to vote in his Electoral College for his choice for President. 257 Ala. -, 57 So. 2d 395. The pledge was held void as unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Because the mandamus was based on this federal right specially-claimed by respondent, we granted certiorari. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3); 343 U. S. 901.
On account of the limited time before the primary election date, this Court ordered prompt argument on March 31, 1952, after granting certiorari and handed down a per curiam decision on April 3, 343 U. S. 154, stating summarily our conclusion on the federal constitutional issue that determined the Alabama judgment. This opinion is to supplement that statement. Our mandate issued forthwith.
The controversy arose under the Alabama laws permitting party primaries. Title 17 of the Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended, provides for regular optional primary elections in that state on the first Tuesday in May of even years by any political party, as defined in the chapter, at state cost. §§ 336, 337, 340, 343. They are subject to the same penalties and punishment provisions as regular state elections. § 339. Parties may select their own committee in such manner as the governing authority of the party may desire. § 341. Section 344 provides that the chairman of the state executive committee shall certify the candidates other than those who are candidates for county offices to the Secretary of State of Alabama. That official, within not less than 30 days prior to the time of holding the primary elections, shall certify these names to the probate judge of any county holding an election.
Every state executive committee is given the power to fix political or other qualifications of its own members. It may determine who shall be entitled and qualified to vote in the primary election or to be a candidate therein. The qualifications of voters and candidates may vary.
Section 348 requires a candidate to file his declaration of candidacy with the executive committee in the form prescribed by the governing body of the party. There is a provision, § 350, which reads as follows: “At the bottom of the ballot and after the name of the last candidate shall be printed the following, viz: ‘By casting this ballot I do pledge myself to abide by the result of this primary election and to aid and support all the nominees thereof in the ensuing general election/ ”
On consideration of these sections in other cases the Supreme Court of Alabama has reached conclusions generally conformable to the current of authority. Section 347 has been said by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ray v. Garner, 257 Ala. -, 57 So. 2d 824, 826, decided March 27, 1952, to give full power to the state executive committee to determine “who shall be entitled and qualified to vote in primary elections or be candidates or otherwise participate therein . . . just so such Committee action does not run afoul of some statutory or constitutional provision.”
The Garner case involved a pledge adopted by the State Democratic Executive Committee for printing on the primary ballot, reading as follows:
“By casting this ballot I do pledge myself to abide by the result of this Primary Election and to aid and support all the nominees thereof in the ensuing General Elections. I do further pledge myself to aid and support the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States.” 257 Ala., at -, 57 So. 2d, at 825.
This is substantially the same pledge that created the controversy in this present case. The court also called attention approvingly to Lett v. Dennis, 221 Ala. 432, 433, 129 So. 33, 34, a case that required a candidate in the primary to follow a party requirement and make a public oath as to his vote in the past general election, where it was declared “a test by a political organization of party affiliation and party fealty is reasonable and proper to be prescribed for those participating in its primary elections for nomination of candidates for office.” As to the power to prescribe tests for participation in primary elections, it was added in the Garner case that “in Alabama this prerogative is vested in the State Party Executive Committee, acting through its duly elected or chosen members. Smith v. McQueen, [232 Ala. 90, 166 So. 788].” 257 Ala., at -, 57 So. 2d, at 826. The McQueen case involved the selection of delegates to a national political convention. It was also said in Ray v. Garner concerning the voter’s pledge that:
“Primarily, the pledge must be germane to party membership and party elections and, while the last clause of the pledge pertains to the national party, the party in Alabama will be a part of it by sending delegates to participate in the national convention, the Executive Committee having ordered their election and the party thereby having signified its intention to become a member of the national party. Therefore, it was within the competency of the Committee to adopt the resolution so binding the voters in the primary.” 257 Ala., at —, 57 So. 2d, at 826.
As is well known, political parties in the modern sense were not born with the Republic. They were created by necessity, by the need to organize the rapidly increasing population, scattered over our Land, so as to coordinate efforts to secure needed legislation and oppose that deemed undesirable. Compare Bryce, Modern Democracies, p. 546. The party conventions of locally chosen delegates, from the county to the national level, succeeded the caucuses of self-appointed legislators or other interested individuals. Dissatisfaction with the manipulation of conventions caused that system to be largely superseded by the direct primary. This was particularly true in the South because, with the predominance of the Democratic Party in that section, the nomination was more important than the election. There primaries are generally, as in Alabama, optional. Various tests of party allegiance for candidates in direct primaries are found in a number of states. The requirement of a pledge from the candidate participating in primaries to support the nominee is not unusual. Such a provision protects a party from in-trusión by those with adverse political principles. It was under the authority of § 347 of the Alabama Code, note 2, supra, that the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama adopted a resolution on January 26, 1952, requiring candidates in its primary to pledge support to the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President. It is this provision in the qualifications required by the party under § 347 which the Supreme Court of Alabama held unconstitutional in this case.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama concluded that the Executive Committee requirement violated the Twelfth Amendment, note 1, supra. It said:
“We appreciate the argument that from time immemorial, the electors selected to vote in the college have voted in accordance with the wishes of the party to which they belong. But in doing so, the effective compulsion has been party loyalty. That theory has generally been taken for granted, so that the voting for a president and vice-president has been usually formal merely. But the Twelfth Amendment does not make it so. The nominees of the party for president and vice-president may have become disqualified, or peculiarly offensivé not only to the electors but their constituents also. They should be free to vote for another, as contemplated by the Twelfth Amendment.” 257 Ala., at -, 57 So. 2d, at 398.
In urging a contrary view the dissenting Alabama justices, in supporting the right of the Committee to require this candidate to pledge support to the party nominees, said:
“Any other view, it seems, would destroy effective party government and would privilege any candidate, regardless of his political persuasion, to enter a primary election as a candidate for elector and fix his own qualifications for such candidacy. This is contrary to the traditional American political system.” 257 Ala., at -, 57 So. 2d, at 403.
The applicable constitutional provisions on their face furnish no definite answer to the query whether a state may permit a party to require party regularity from its primary candidates for national electors. The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen. They act by authority of the state that in turn receives its authority from the Federal Constitution. Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party. Unless such a requirement is implicit, certainly neither provision of the Constitution requires a state political party, affiliated with a national party through acceptance of the national call to send state delegates to the national convention, to accept persons as candidates who refuse to agree to abide by the party’s requirement.
The argument against the party’s power to exclude as candidates in the primary those unwilling to agree to aid and support the national nominees runs as follows: The constitutional method for the selection of the President and Vice-President is for states to appoint electors who shall in turn vote for our chief executives. The intention of the Founders was that those electors should exercise their judgment in voting for President and Vice-President. Therefore this requirement of a pledge is a restriction in substance, if not in form, that interferes with the performance of this constitutional duty to select the proper persons to head the Nation, according to the best judgment of the elector. This interference with the elector’s freedom of balloting for President relates directly to the general election and is not confined to the primary, it is contended, because under United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, and Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, the Alabama primary is an integral part of the general election. See Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933. Although Alabama, it is pointed out, requires electors to be chosen at the general election by popular vote, Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 17, § 222, the real election takes place in the primary. Limitation as to entering a primary controls the results of the general election.
First we consider the impact of the Classic and All-wright cases on the present issues. In the former case, we dealt with the power of Congress to punish frauds in the primaries “[w]here the state law has made the primary an integral part of the procedure of choice.” We held that Congress had such power because the primary was a necessary step in the choice of candidates for election as federal representatives. Therefore the sanctions of § § 19 and 20 of the old Criminal Code, subsequently revised as 18 U. S. C. §§ 241 and 242, which forbade injury to constitutionally secured rights, applied to the right to vote in the primary. 313 U. S., at 317-321. In the latter, the problem was the constitutionality of the exclusion of citizens by a party as electors in a party primary because of race. We held, on consideration of state participation in the regulation of the primary, that the party exclusion was state action and such state action was unconstitutional because the primary and general election were a single instrumentality for choice of officers. The Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition of abridgment by a state of the right to vote on account of race made the exclusion unconstitutional. Consequently, under 8 U. S. C. §§ 31 and 43 an injured party might sue one injuring him. 321 U. S. 649, 660-664.
In Alabama, too, the primary and general elections are a part of the state-controlled elective process. The issue here, however, is quite different from the power of Congress to punish criminal conduct in a primary or to allow damages for wrongs to rights secured by the Constitution. A state’s or a political party’s exclusion of candidates from a party primary because they will not pledge to support the party’s nominees is a method of securing party candidates in the general election, pledged to the philosophy and leadership of that party. It is an exercise of the state’s right to appoint electors in such manner, subject to possible constitutional limitations, as it may choose. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. The fact that the primary is a part of the election machinery is immaterial unless the requirement of pledge violates some constitutional or statutory provision. It was the violation of a secured right that brought about the Classic and Allwright decisions. Here they do not apply unless there was a violation of the Twelfth Amendment by the requirement to support the nominees of the National Convention.
Secondly, we consider the argument that the Twelfth Amendment demands absolute freedom for the elector to vote his own choice, uninhibited by a pledge. It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors — contemporaries of the Founders — would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept. History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees. Experts in the history of government recognize the longstanding practice. Indeed, more than twenty states do not print the names of the candidates for electors on the general election ballot. Instead, in one form or another, they allow a vote for the presidential candidate of the national conventions to be counted as a vote for his party’s nominees for the electoral college. This long-continued practical interpretation of the constitutional propriety of an implied or oral pledge of his ballot by a ean-didate for elector as to his vote in the electoral college weighs heavily in considering the constitutionality of a pledge, such as the one here required, in the primary.
However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because vio-lative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional. A candidacy in the primary is a voluntary act of the applicant. He is not barred, discriminatorily, from participating but must comply with the rules of the party. Surely one may voluntarily assume obligations to vote for a certain candidate. The state offers him opportunity to become a candidate for elector on his own terms, although he must file his declaration before the primary. Ala. Code, Tit. 17, § 145. Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters. Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.
We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, not having heard the argument, owing to illness, took no part in the disposition of the case.
U. S. Const., Amend. XII:
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by-ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. . . .”
Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 17, § 347:
“All persons who are qualified electors under the general laws of the State of Alabama, and who are also members of a political party entitled to participate in such primary election, shall be entitled to vote therein and shall receive the official primary ballot of that political party, and no other; but every state executive committee of a party shall have the right, power and authority to fix and prescribe the political or other qualifications of its own members, and shall, in its own way, declare and determine who shall be entitled and qualified to vote in such primary election, or to be candidates therein, or to otherwise participate in such political parties and primaries; and the qualifications of electors entitled to vote in such primary election shall not necessarily be the same as the qualifications for electors entitled to become candidates therein;
See Merriam and Overacker, Primary Elections (1928), pp. 69-73, 124, 125. Cf. State ex rel. Curyea v. Wells, 92 Neb. 337, 138 N. W. 165; Francis v. Sturgill, 163 Ky. 650, 174 S. W. 753.
This was not a unique delegation. In 1928 Merriam and Over-acker cited ten other states which delegate to the party authorities the right to prescribe such qualifications, with or without a statutory statement of minimum qualifications; these ten were Delaware, Idaho, and the remainder of the “solid South,” except North Carolina. See Merriam and Overacker, supra, note 3, at pp. 72-73. In 1948 Penniman reports the continued existence of these delegations in all these states except Idaho, which now apparently requires only that the candidate “represent the principles” of the party and be duly registered in the appropriate precinct. 6 Idaho Code (Bobbs-Merrill, 1948) §§ 34-605, 34-606, 34-614. See Penniman, Sait’s American Parties and Elections (4th ed., 1948); p. 431. However, the situation has changed in several of those states: the South Carolina legislature apparently no longer regulates the conduct of primaries at all, see S. C. Acts 1944, No. 810, p. 2323; and Texas and Florida have repealed their election codes and enacted new ones which appear to lack any comparable provision, see The New Election Code, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Statutes Service (1951), effective January 1, 1952; Fla. Laws 1951, c. 26870. In both Texas and Florida, the primary is open to party “members”; the extent to which the party itself may prescribe membership qualifications is not explicitly set forth. But cf. §§ 103.111 (3) and 103.121, Fla. Laws 1951, c. 26870.
For provisions in the remaining states bearing'on this delegation, see 2 Ark. Stat. Ann. (Bobbs-Merrill, 1948) §3-205; 12 Ga. Code Ann. (Harrison, 1936) §34-3218.2; Va. Code, 1950 (Michie, 1949), §§ 24-367, 24-369; 3 Miss. Code Ann., 1942 (Harrison, 1943), § 3129; Del. Laws 1944-1945, c. 150, amending Del. Rev. Code, 1935, c. 58, 1782, § 14; La. Rev. Stat., 1950, Tit. 18, §§ 306, 309; La. Const. Ann. (Bobbs-Merrill, 1932), Art. 8, § 4.
Such a holding integrates the state and national party. See Cannon’s Democratic Manual (1948):
“The Democratic National Committee is the permanent agency authorized to act in behalf of the Party during intervals between Conventions. It is the creature of the National Convention and therefore subordinate to its control and direction. Between Conventions the Committee exercises such powers and authority as have been delegated specifically to it and is subject to the directions and instructions imposed by the Convention which created it.” P. 4.
“Duties and Powers of the Committee
“The duties and powers of the National Committee are derived from the Convention creating it, and while subject to variation as the Convention may provide, ordinarily include:
“8. Provision for the National Convention, involving:
“b. Authorization of call and determination within authority granted by last National Convention of representation from States, Territories and Districts; . . . Pp. 7-8.
See Penniman, supra, n. 4, cc. XIII, XVIII, especially at pp. 300, 416; Merriam and Overacker, supra, n. 3, at pp. 92-93.
Penniman, supra, pp. 425-426; Merriam and Overacker, supra, pp. 129-133.
E. g., § 4, c. 109, N. D. Laws 1907, pp. 151, 153, discussed in State ex rel. McCue v. Blaisdell, 18 N. D. 55, 118 N. W. 141. See 7 Fla. Stat. Ann. (Harrison, 1943) § 99.021 (pkt. pt.); Fla. Laws 1951, c. 26870, § 99.021, amending 7 Fla. Stat. Ann. (Harrison, 1943) § 102.29, discussed in Mairs v. Peters, 52 So. 2d 793. Cf. 3 Miss. Code Ann., 1942 (Harrison, 1943), § 3129; Ruhr v. Cowan, 146 Miss. 870, 112 So. 386. Cf. Va. Code, 1950 (Michie, 1949), §§ 24-367, 24-369. See Westerman v. Mims, 111 Tex. 29, 227 S. W. 178, discussing Art. 3096 of Tex. Rev. Stat. of 1911; cf. Love v. Wilcox, 119 Tex. 256, 28 S. W. 2d 515.
For an example of a pledge specifically directed toward primary candidates for the office of presidential elector, see the resolutions of the State Democratic Committee of Texas discussed in Carter v. Tomlinson, 149 Tex. 7, 227 S. W. 2d 795; see also Love v. Taylor, 8 S. W. 2d 795 (Tex. Civ. App.); McDonald v. Calhoun, 149 Tex. 232, 231 S. W. 2d 656; cf. Seay v. Latham, 143 Tex. 1, 182 S. W. 2d 251. See also the pledge required by the Democratic Party of Arkansas, discussed in Fisher v. Taylor, 210 Ark. 380, 196 S. W. 2d 217.
Similar pledges, of course, are frequently exacted of voters in the primaries. See, e. g., State ex rel. Adair v. Drexel, 74 Neb. 776, 105 N. W. 174; Morrow v. Wipf, 22 S. D. 146, 115 N. W. 1121; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167, 66 P. 714. See Penniman, supra, note 4, at p. 431; Merriam and Overacker, supra, note 4, at pp. 124-129.
See Seay v. Latham, 143 Tex. 1, 182 S. W. 2d 251. This was a Texas case that allowed the Democratic Party of Texas to withdraw its nomination of presidential electors when they announced their determination to vote against the nominees of the party as made by the National Convention. The names of others were substituted. The court said:
“A political party is a voluntary association, instituted for political purposes. It is organized for the purpose of effectuating the will of those who constitute its members, and it has the inherent power of determining its own policies.” 143 Tex., at p. 5, 182 S. W. 2d, at 253. See Carter v. Tomlinson, 149 Tex. 7, 13, 227 S. W. 2d 795, 798; 29 Tex. L. Rev. 378.
The court found support for its conclusion in the reasoning of an Opinion of the Justices in answer to questions propounded by the Governor of Alabama in 1948. 250 Ala. 399, 34 So. 2d 598. One question was “Would an elector chosen at the general election in November 1948 have a discretion as to the persons for whom he could cast his ballot for President and Vice President?” Alabama had amended § 226 of Title 17 of its Code, relating to the meeting and balloting of its electoral college, by adding “and shall cast their ballots for the nominee of the national convention of the party by which they were elected.” That opinion said:
“The language of the Federal Constitution clearly shows that it was the intention of the framers of the Federal Constitution that the electors chosen for the several states would exercise their judgment and discretion in the performance of their duty in the election of the president and vice-president and in determining the individuals for whom they would cast the electoral votes of the states. History supports this interpretation without controversy.” 250 Ala., at 400, 34 So. 2d, at 600. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 36. See also Willbern, Discretion of Presidential Electors, 1 Ala. L. Rev. 40.
On this review the right to a place on the primary ballot only is in contest.
As both constitutional provisions long antedated the party primary system, it is not to be expected that they or their legislative history would illumine this issue. They do not. Discussion in the Constitutional Convention as to the manner of election of the President resulted in the arrangement by which presidential electors were chosen by the state as its legislature might direct. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 28.
The Twelfth Amendment was brought about as the result of the difficulties caused by the procedure set up under Art. II, § 1. Under that procedure, the electors of each state did not vote separately for President and Vice-President; each elector voted for two persons, without designating which office he wanted each person to fill. If all the electors of the predominant party voted for the same two men, the election would result in a tie, and be thrown into the House, which might or might not be sympathetic to that party. During the John Adams administration, we had a President and Vice-President of different parties, a situation which could not commend itself either to the Nation or to most political theorists.
The situation was manifestly intolerable. Accordingly the Twelfth Amendment was adopted, permitting the electors to vote separately for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Under this procedure, the party electors could vote the regular party ticket without throwing the election into the House. Electors could be chosen to vote for the party candidates for both offices, and the electors could carry out the desires of the people, without confronting the obstacles which confounded the elections of 1796 and 1800. See 11 Annals of Congress 1289-1290, 7th Cong., 1st Sess. (1802).
U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1:
"... Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. . .
Twelfth Amendment, note 1, supra; In re Green, 134 U. S. 377, 379; Burroughs v. United States, 290 U. S. 534.
The Supreme Court of Alabama has just said that the Democratic Party of that state was thus affiliated with the national organization. See the excerpt from Ray v. Garner, in the text at note 5, supra.
There is also a suggestion that, since the Alabama primary is an integral part of the general election, the Fourteenth Amendment, which among other prohibitions forbids a state to exclude voters on account of their color, also forbids a state to exclude candidates because they refuse to pledge their votes. The answer to this suggestion is that the requirement of this pledge, unlike the requirement of color, is reasonably related to a legitimate legislative objective— namely, to protect the party system by protecting the party from a fraudulent invasion by candidates who will not support the party. See note 9, supra. In facilitating the effective operation of democratic government, a state might reasonably classify voters or candidates according to party affiliations, but a requirement of color, as we have pointed out before, is not reasonably related to any legitimate legislative objective. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536. This requirement of a pledge does not deny equal protection or due process.
Furthermore, the Fifteenth Amendment directly forbids abridgment on account of color of the right to vote.
11 Annals of Congress 1289-1290, 7th Cong., 1st Sess. (1802):
“Under the Constitution electors are to vote for two persons, one of whom does not reside in the State of the electors; but it does not require a designation of the persons voted for. Wise and virtuous as were the members of the Convention, experience has shown that the mode therein adopted cannot be carried into operation; for the people do not elect a person for an elector who, they know, does not intend to vote for a particular person as President. Therefore, practically, the very thing is adopted, intended by this amendment.”
S. Rep. No. 22, 19th Cong., 1st Sess. (1826), p. 4:
“In the first election held under the constitution, the people looked beyond these agents [electors], fixed upon their own candidates for President and Vice President, and took pledges from the electoral candidates to obey their will. In every subsequent election, the same thing has been done. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment; on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless, if he is faithful, and dangerous, if he is not.” See 2 Story on the Constitution (5th ed., 1891) § 1463.
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 36:
“Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the Chief Executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate.” ■
III Cyclopedia of American Government (Appleton, 1914), Presidential Elections, by Albert Bushnell Hart, p. 8:
“In the three elections of 1788-89, 1792 and 1796 there was a liberal scattering of votes, 13 persons receiving votes in 1796; but in 1800 there were only five names voted on. As early as 1792 an understanding was established between the electors in some of the different states that they should combine on the same man; and from 1796 on there were always, with the exception of the two elections of 1820 and 1824, regular party candidates. In practice most of the members of the electoral colleges belonged to a party, and expected to support it; and after 1824 it became a fixed principle that the electors offered themselves for the choice of the voters or legislatures upon a pledge to vote for a predesignated candidate.”
E. g., Massachusetts:
Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, c. 54:
“§ 43. Presidential Electors, Arrangement of Names of Candidates, etc. — The names of the candidates for presidential electors shall not be printed on the ballot, but in lieu thereof the surnames of the candidates of each party for president and vice president shall be printed thereon in one line under the designation ‘Electors of president and vice president’ and arranged in the alphabetical order of the surnames of the candidates for president, with the political designation of the party placed at the right of and in the same line with the surnames. A sufficient square in which each voter may designate by a cross (X) his choice for electors shall be left at the right of each political designation.”
See S. Doc. No. 243, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1944), containing a summary of the state laws relating to nominations and election of presidential electors.
See Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Proposed Reform of the Electoral College, 1950; Edward Stan wood, A History of the Presidency from 1788 to 1897 (1912), pp. 47, 48, 50, 51. The author shows the practice of an elector’s announcing his preference and gives an alleged instance of violation.
See the comments on instruction of electors in State Law on the Nomination, Election, and Instruction of Presidential Electors, by Ruth C. Silva, 42 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 523.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether respondents have a liberty interest in parole release that is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I — (
Respondents are George Allen and Dale Jacobsen, inmates of the Montana State Prison. In 1984, after their applications for parole were denied, they filed this action pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 on behalf of a class of all present and future inmates of the Montana State Prison who were or might become eligible for parole. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages, the complaint charged the State Board of Pardons (Board) and its Chair with violations of the inmates’ civil rights. Specifically, respondents alleged that the Board does not apply the statutorily mandated criteria in determining inmates’ eligibility for parole, Complaint ¶¶6-9, App. 5a-6a, and that the Board does not adequately explain its reasons for denial of parole, id., ¶¶9, 10, App. 6a.
The District Court first acknowledged that the case was controlled by the principles established in this Court’s decision in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1 (1979). In Greenholtz the Court held that, despite the necessarily subjective and predictive nature of the parole-release decision, see id., at 12, state statutes may create liberty interests in parole release that are entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court concluded that the mandatory language and the structure of the Nebraska statute at issue in Greenholtz created an “expectancy of release,” which is a liberty interest entitled to such protection. Ibid.
Although the District Court recognized that the Montana statute, like the Nebraska statute in Greenholtz, contained language mandating release under certain circumstances, it decided that respondents “were not entitled to due process protections in connection with the board’s denial of parole.” App. 17a. The court concluded that, because the Board is required to make determinations with respect to the best interest of the community and the prisoner, its discretion is too broad to provide a prisoner with a liberty interest in parole release.
The Court of Appeals reversed. It compared the provisions of the Montana statute to those of the Nebraska statute in Greenholtz and found their structure and language virtually indistinguishable:
“The Montana statute, like the Nebraska statute at issue in Greenholtz, uses mandatory language. It states that the Board ‘shall’ release a prisoner on parole when it determines release would not be harmful, unless specified conditions exist that would preclude parole. There is no doubt that it, like the Nebraska provision in Greenholtz, vests great discretion in the Board. Under both statutes the Board must make difficult and highly subjective decisions about risks of releasing inmates. However, the Board may not deny parole under either statute once it determines that harm is not probable.” 792 F. 2d 1404, 1406 (CA9 1986).
The court thus held that respondents had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of “the nature of the process which is due [respondents]” and “whether Montana’s present procedures accord that due process.” Id., at 1408.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 947 (1986), and now affirm.
I — I I — I
Greenholtz set forth two major holdings. The Court first held that the presence of a parole system by itself does not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole release. The Court also held, however, that the Nebraska statute did create an “expectation of parole” protected by the Due Process Clause. 442 U. S., at 11. To decide whether the Montana statute also gives rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest, we scrutinize it under the standards set forth in Greenholtz.
The Nebraska statute involved in Greenholtz provides as follows:
“Whenever the Board of Parole considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred because:
“(a) There is a substantial risk that he will not conform to the conditions of parole;
“(b) His release would depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law;
“(c) His release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline; or
“(d) His continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility will substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.” Neb. Rev. Stat. §83-1,114(1) (1981) (emphasis added).
The statute also sets forth a list of 14 factors (including one catchall factor permitting the Nebraska Board to consider other information it deems relevant) that the Board must consider in reaching a decision. §§ 83-1,114(2) (a)-(n).
In deciding that this statute created a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the Court found significant its mandatory language — the use of the word “shall” — and the presumption created — that parole release must be granted unless one of four designated justifications for deferral is found. See Greenholtz, 442 U. S., at 11-12.
The Court recognized — indeed highlighted — that parole-release decisions are inherently subjective and predictive, see id., at 12, but nonetheless found that Nebraska inmates possessed a liberty interest in release. The Court observed that parole release is an equity-type judgment involving “a synthesis of record facts and personal observation filtered through the experience of the decisionmaker and leading to a predictive judgment as to what is best both for the individual inmate and for the community,” id., at 8, and acknowledged that the Nebraska statute, like most parole statutes, “vest[ed] very broad discretion in the Board,” id., at 13. Nevertheless, the Court rejected the Board’s argument “that a presumption [of release] would be created only if the statutory conditions for deferral were essentially factual, . . . rather than predictive.” Id., at 12.
The Court thus held in Greenholtz that the presence of general or broad release criteria — delegating significant discretion to the decisionmaker — did not deprive the prisoner of the liberty interest in parole release created by the Nebraska statute. In essence, the Court made a distinction between two entirely distinct uses of the term discretion. In one sense of the word, an official has discretion when he or she “is simply not bound by standards set by the authority in question.” R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 32 (1977). In this sense, officials who have been told to parole whomever they wish have discretion. In Greenholtz, the Court determined that a scheme awarding officials this type of discretion does not create a liberty interest in parole release. But the term discretion may instead signify that “an official must use judgment in applying the standards set him [or her] by authority”; in other words, an official has discretion when the standards set by a statutory or regulatory scheme “cannot be applied mechanically.” Dworkin, supra, at 31, 32; see also id., at 69 (“[W]e say that a man has discretion if his duty is defined by standards that reasonable [people] can interpret in different ways”). The Court determined in Greenholtz that the presence of official discretion in this sense is not incompatible with the existence of a liberty interest in parole release when release is required after the Board determines (in its broad discretion) that the necessary prerequisites exist.
Throughout this litigation, the Board’s arguments have had a single theme: that the holding of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with our decision in Greenholtz. The Board is mistaken. The Montana statute, like the Nebraska statute, creates a liberty interest in parole release. It provides in pertinent part:
“Prisoners eligible for parole. (1) Subject to the following restrictions, the board shall release on parole . . . any person confined in the Montana state prison or the women’s correction center . . . when in its opinion there is reasonable probability that the prisoner can be released without detriment to the prisoner or to the community [.]
“(2) A parole shall be ordered only for the best interests of society and not as an award of clemency or a reduction of sentence or pardon. A prisoner shall be placed on parole only when the board believes that he is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen.” Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-201 (1985) (emphasis added).
Significantly, the Montana statute, like the Nebraska statute, uses mandatory language (“shall”) to “creat[e] a presumption that parole release will be granted” when the designated findings are made. Greenholtz, 442 U. S., at 12. See Statement of Assistant Attorney General of Montana, Tr. of Oral Arg. 6 (“under our statute once the Board of Pardons determines that the facts underlying a particular parole application are such that the release can occur consistently with the three criteria the statute specifies, then under our law the Board is required to order release”). We reject the argument that a statute that mandates release “unless” certain findings are made is different from a statute that mandates release “if,” “when,” or “subject to” such findings being made. Any such statute “creates a presumption that parole release will be granted.” Greenholtz, supra, at 12.
Moreover, the “substantive predicates,” see Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 472 (1983), of parole release in Montana are similar to those in Nebraska. In both States, the Parole Board must assess the impact of release on both the prisoner and the community. A central concern of each is the prisoner’s ability “to lead a law-abiding life.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83 — 1,114(l)(d) (1981); see § 83 — 1,114(l)(a) (prisoner may not be released if there is “a substantial risk that he will not conform to the conditions of parole”); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-201(2) (1985) (prisoner must be released when, inter alia, it will cause no detriment to him or her and must not be released unless the prisoner is “able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen”). An interrelated concern of both statutes is whether the release can be achieved without “detriment to . . . the community.” Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-201(1) (1985); see § 46-23-201(2) (prisoner must be released only “for the best interests of society”); see Neb. Rev. Stat. §83-l,114(l)(b) (1981) (prisoner must not be released if it “would depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law”). The discretion left with the parole boards is equivalent in Montana and Nebraska.
The legislative history further supports the conclusion that this statute places significant limits on the discretion of the Board. The statute was enacted in 1955, replacing a 1907 statute which had granted absolute discretion to the Board:
“Parole of prisoners in State Prison.— The Governor may recommend and the State Board of Prison Commissioners may parole any inmate of the State Prison, under such reasonable conditions and regulations as may be deemed expedient, and adopted by such state board.” Mont. Rev. Code §9573 (1907).
The new statute made release mandatory upon certain findings and specified its purpose in its title: “An Act Creating a Board of Pardons and Prescribing the Appointment and Composition Thereof, With Power and Duty to Grant Paroles, Within Restrictions . . . Act of Mar. 3, 1955, 1955 Mont. Laws, ch. 153 (emphasis added). The new statute also added a provision for judicial review of the Board’s parole-release decisions, see Mont. Code Ann. §46-23-107 (1985), thus providing a further indication of a legislative intent to cabin the discretion of the Board.
Here, as in Greenholtz, the release decision is “necessarily subjective . . . and predictive,” see 442 U. S., at 13; here, as in Greenholtz, the discretion of the Board is “very broad,” see ibid.; and here, as in Greenholtz, the Board shall release the inmate when the findings prerequisite to release are made. See supra, at 377-378 and 379-380. Thus, we find in the Montana statute, as in the Nebraska statute, a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Both respondents were released on parole after this suit was filed. 792 F. 2d 1404, 1408, n. 2 (1986). The action is not moot, however. In addition to requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, the complaint sought damages from Henry Burgess, Chair of the Board of Pardons, in both his official and personal capacities. Because “this Court has not decided whether state parole officials enjoy absolute immunity as a matter of federal law,” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U. S. 193, 200 (1985), “the validity of respondents’ claim for damages ... is not so insubstantial or so clearly foreclosed by prior decisions that this case may not proceed.” Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1978).
Of the 350 individuals released from prison in Montana in 1985, 276 were conditionally released, the vast majority of them on parole; only 74 persons released had served their full sentences. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions on December 31, 1985, Table 43 (1985). Only 69 of 363 released in 1984 had discharged their full sentences. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Standards, Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions on December 31, 1984, Table 13 (1984).
There is far more to liberty than interests conferred by language in state statutes. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 466 (1983); Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S. 458, 468 (1981) (White, J., concurring). Four Members of this Court are of the view that the existence of a liberty interest in parole release is not solely a function of the wording of the governing statute. See Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S., at 18 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I do not believe, however, that the application of the Due Process Clause to parole-release determinations depends upon the particular wording of the statute governing the deliberations of the parole board”); id., at 22 (MARSHALL, J., with Brennan and Stevens, JJ., dissenting in part) (“[A]ll prisoners potentially eligible for parole have a liberty interest of which they may not be deprived without due process, regardless of the particular statutory language that implements the parole system”). At stake in the parole-release decision is a return to freedom, albeit conditional freedom; liberty from bodily restraint is at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. Thus, inmates may have a liberty interest in parole release “derived solely from the existence of a system that permit[s] criminal offenders to serve their sentences on probation or parole.” Id., at 24-25 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting in part); see also id., at 19 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[W]hen a state adopts a parole system that applies general standards of eligibility, prisoners justifiably expect that parole will be granted fairly and according to law whenever those standards are met”).
We proceed, however, to apply the Court’s analysis in Greenholtz, because it too necessitates the conclusion that Montana inmates have a liberty interest in parole release.
Cf. Hewitt v. Helms, supra, at 471-472. In that ease the Court held that Pennsylvania’s administrative segregation statutes and regulations created a protected liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population. The Court relied on the State’s use of “language of an unmistakably mandatory character” and its specification of “substantive predicates” to confinement — “the need for control,” or “the threat of a serious disturbance.”
See also Greenholtz, supra, at 10 (quoting Kadish, The Advocate and the Expert — Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 803, 813 (1961)) (“The decision turns on a ‘discretionary assessment of a multiplicity of imponderables, entailing primarily what a man is and what he may become rather than simply what he has done’ ”).
See Pet. for Cert. 8 (“Reasons for Granting the Writ[:] The Court of Appeals’ Opinion Clearly Misconstrues Greenholtz”)', Brief for Petitioners 10 (The conclusion that respondents had no protected liberty interest under the Montana statute “is consistent with, and required by, Green-holtz”); id., at 11 (“The Court of Appeals’ opinion deviates from Greenholtz, as well as from related decisions, and must therefore be reversed”); Reply Brief for Petitioners 3, n. 1 (“The parties . . . have not urged abandonment of Greenholtz, but rather have contended that it is consonant with their respective positions”).
This section also provides that
“(a) No convict. . . may be paroled until he has served at least one-half of his full term, . . . except that a convict designated as a nondangerous offender . . . may be paroled after he has served one-quarter of his full term .... Any offender serving a time sentence may be paroled after he has served . . . ITh years.
“(b) No convict serving a life sentence may be paroled until he has served 30 years . . . .” Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-201 (1985).
Cf. Grifaldo v. State, 182 Mont. 287, 596 P. 2d 847 (1979) (Section 46-18-404(1) provides that the sentencing court “shall” designate a defendant a nondangerous offender if either of two conditions are met; this mandatory language entitled the defendants to the designation and the parole-eligibility status that accompanies it).
The Board argues that this Court is bound by statements of the Montana Supreme Court that parole is a privilege, a matter of grace, not of right. It is true that a State has no duty to establish a parole system or to provide for parole for all categories of convicted persons, see Greenholtz, 442 U. S., at 7, and that a State may place conditions on parole release; only in this sense is parole a privilege, not a right. None of the Montana cases cited by the Board decide whether parole release is mandatory for an eligible inmate upon a finding that the statutory prerequisites have been met. See Cavanaugh v. Crist, 189 Mont. 274, 615 P. 2d 890 (1980) (upholding the constitutionality of a statute authorizing a sentencing judge to forbid parole release of certain offenders); Lopez v. Crist, 176 Mont. 352, 578 P. 2d 312 (1978) (allowing the Board to keep a defendant whose parole had been wrongfully revoked in custody for up to 30 days to devise an acceptable new parole plan, because the Board has a statutory duty to impose and supervise conditions of parole); In re Frost, 146 Mont. 18, 403 P. 2d 612 (1965) (finding no blanket entitlement to parole after serving statutory minimum period); In re Hart, 145 Mont. 203, 399 P. 2d 984 (1965) (permitting the reineareeration of a defendant who ignored the conditions of his parole); State ex rel. Herman v. Powell, 139 Mont. 583, 367 P. 2d 553 (1961) (finding that the Board has no right to extinguish a sentence by paroling an individual on a subsequent sentence); Goff v. State, 139 Mont. 641, 367 P. 2d 557 (1961) (finding that the inmate was not denied equal protection because his codefendant was paroled before he was).
The District Court found significant that, while the statute at issue in Greenholtz lists 14 factors that the Nebraska Board is obligated to consider in making the designated findings, the Montana statute “lists no factors required to be considered by the parole board.” App. 17a. In Montana, however, the Board considers these same 14 factors, which are set forth in the Board’s regulations. See Administrative Rules of Montana § 20.25.505 (1980). This Court, and the Courts of Appeals, see n. 10, infra, have recognized the relevance of regulations to a determination of whether a certain scheme gives rise to a liberty interest. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S., at 470-471; see also Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S., at 467 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). In addition, the Montana statute does obligate the Board to consider certain information in making its parole-release decision. See Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-202(1) (1985) (“[T]he board shall consider. . . the circumstances of his offense, his previous social history and criminal record, his conduct, employment, and attitude in prison, and the reports of any physical and mental examinations which have been made”).
As Justice White has pointed out, the Circuits have split on the question whether the absence of mandatory language creating a presumption of release precludes a finding that a statute or regulation creates a liberty interest. See Anderson v. Winsett, 449 U. S. 1093 (1981) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). But, as the following analysis of the decisions of the Courts of Appeals demonstrates, even under the most “restrictive interpretation of Greenholtz,” Baumann v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 754 F. 2d 841, 844 (CA9 1985), courts have held that the presence of mandatory language in the statute gives rise to a liberty interest in parole release. The Montana statute, by its use of the word “shall” and the phrase “[sjubject to the following restrictions,” creates a liberty interest under this most restrictive interpretation.
Courts of Appeals’ decisions since Greenholtz fall into four categories. When statutes or regulatory provisions are phrased in mandatory terms or explicitly create a presumption of release, courts find a liberty interest. See Parker v. Corrothers, 750 F. 2d 653, 661 (CA8 1984) (Arkansas regulation); Mayes v. Trammell, 751 F. 2d 175, 178 (CA6 1984) (Tennessee Board of Parole Rule); Williams v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 661 F. 2d 697, 698 (CA8 1981) (Missouri statute), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 993 (1982). Conversely, statutes or regulations that provide that a parole board “may” release an inmate on parole do not give rise to a protected liberty interest. See Dace v. Mickelson, 797 F. 2d 574, 576 (CA8 1986) (South Dakota statute); Parker v. Corrothers, supra, at 657 (Arkansas statute); Gale v. Moore, 763 F. 2d 341, 343 (CA8 1985) (amended Missouri statute); Dock v. Latimer, 729 F. 2d 1287, 1288 (CA10 1984) (Utah statute); Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F. 2d 1215, 1216 (CA5 1984) (Mississippi statute); Candelaria v. Griffin, 641 F. 2d 868, 869 (CA10 1981) (New Mexico statute); Williams v. Briscoe, 641 F. 2d 274, 276 (CA5) (Texas statute), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 854 (1981); Schuemann v. Colorado State Board of Adult Parole, 624 F. 2d 172, 174 (CA10 1980) (Colorado statute); Shirley v. Chestnut, 603 F. 2d 805, 806-807 (CA10 1979) (Oklahoma statute); Wagner v. Gilligan, 609 F. 2d 866, 867 (CA6 1979) (Ohio statute). A third type of statute provides that an individual shall not be released unless or shall be released only when certain conditions are met; courts have divided on whether such statutes create a liberty interest. Most courts have found that such statutes set forth criteria that must be met before release, but that they do not require release if those findings are made. See Patten v. North Dakota Parole Board, 783 F. 2d 140, 142 (CA8 1986) (North Dakota statute); Huggins v. Isenbarger, 798 F. 2d 203, 204-205 (CA7 1986) (Indiana statute); Berard v. State of Vermont Parole Board, 730 F. 2d 71, 75 (CA2 1984) (Vermont statute); Thomas v. Sellers, 691 F. 2d 487, 488 (CA11 1982) (Alabama statute); Staton v. Wainwright, 665 F. 2d 686, 688 (CA5 1982) (Florida statute); Jackson v. Reese, 608 F. 2d 159, 160 (CA5 1979) (Georgia statute); Boothe v. Hammock, 605 F. 2d 661, 664 (CA2 1979) (New York statute); but see United States ex rel. Scott v. Illinois Parole and Pardon Board, 669 F. 2d 1185, 1188 (CA7 1982) (Illinois statute). Yet a fourth type of analysis finds a liberty interest when a statute or a regulatory parole-release scheme uses elaborate and explicit guidelines to structure the exercise of discretion. See Dace v. Mickelson, supra, at 577-578 (South Dakota regulations); Green v. Black, 755 F. 2d 687, 688 (CA8 1985) (Missouri policy statement); Winsett v. McGinnes, 617 F. 2d 996, 1007 (CA3 1980) (Delaware regulations), cert. denied 449 U. S. 1093 (1981).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, now codified as 42 U. S. C. § 1983, creates a remedy for violations of federal rights committed by persons acting under color of state law. State courts as well as federal courts have jurisdiction over § 1983 cases. The question in this case is whether a state-law defense of “sovereign immunity” is available to a school board otherwise subject to suit in a Florida court even though such a defense would not be available if the action had been brought in a federal forum.
Petitioner, a former high school student, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, naming the School Board of Pinellas County and three school officials as defendants. He alleged that an assistant principal made an illegal search of his car while it was parked on school premises and that he was wrongfully suspended from regular classes for five days. Contending that the search and subsequent suspension violated rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and under similar provisions of the State Constitution, he prayed for damages and an order expunging any reference to the suspension from the school records.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. The school board also contended that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the federal claims—but not the state claims—because the Florida waiver-of-sovereign-immunity statute did not extend to claims based on § 1983. App. 13-14. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing a state case requiring state-law challenges to be first presented to the District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court decision in Hill v. Department of Corrections, 513 So. 2d 129 (1987). App. 19.
The District Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s § 1983 claim against the school board. It held that the availability of sovereign immunity in a § 1983 action brought in state court is a matter of state law, and that Florida’s statutory waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply to § 1983 cases. The court rejected the argument that whether a State has maintained its sovereign immunity from a § 1983 suit in its state courts is a question of federal law. It wrote:
“[W]hen a section 1983 action is brought in state court, the sole question to be decided on the basis of state law is whether the state has waived its common law sovereign immunity to the extent necessary to allow a section 1983 action in state court. Hill holds that Florida has not so waived its sovereign immunity. We therefore do not reach appellant’s second issue in this case, i. e., whether under federal law a Florida school board is immune from a section 1983 law. There is no question under Florida law that agencies of the state, including school boards and municipalities, are the beneficiaries of sovereign immunity.” 537 So. 2d 706, 708 (1989) (emphasis in original).
The Court of Appeal acknowledged our holding in Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980), that a State cannot immunize an official from liability for injuries compensable under federal law. It held, however, that under Hill a State’s invocation of a “state common law immunity from the use of its courts for suits against the state in those state courts” raised “purely a question of state law.” 537 So. 2d, at 708. The Florida Supreme Court denied review. 545 So. 2d 1367 (1987). In view of the importance of the question decided by the Court of Appeal, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 963 (1989).
II
The question in this case stems from the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in the Hill case. In that case, the plaintiff sought damages for common-law negligence and false imprisonment and violations of his constitutional rights under § 1983 from the Florida Department of Corrections for the conduct of one of its probation supervisors. Hill argued that the department was a “person” under § 1983, that it was responsible for the actions of its supervisor, and that it was subject to suit in the Circuit Court pursuant to the Florida waiver of sovereign immunity. Fla. Stat. § 768.28 (1989). That statute provides that the State and its subdivisions, including municipalities and school boards, § 768.28(2), are subject to suit in circuit court for tort claims “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” § 768.28(5). Although the terms of the waiver could be read narrowly to restrict liability to claims against the State in its proprietary capacity, the Florida courts have rejected that interpretation. In 16 cases arising under Florida statutory and common law, the State Supreme Court has held that the State may be sued in respondeat superior for the violation of nondiscretionary duties in the exercise of governmental authority. The Florida courts thus have entertained suits against state agencies for the violation of nondiscretionary duties committed in the performance of various governmental activities, including the roadside stop and arrest of an individual driving with an expired inspection sticker, the negligent maintenance by city employees of a storm sewer system, the failure of a state caseworker to detect and prevent child abuse, the negligent maintenance of county swimming pools and failure to warn or correct known dangerous conditions, and the failure to protect a prison inmate from other inmates known to be dangerous. Hill argued that just as the State could be joined in an action for the violation of established state common-law or statutory duties, it was also subject to suit for violations of its nondiscretionary duty not to violate the Constitution. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 649-650 (1980).
The trial court dismissed Hill’s § 1983 claim but entered judgment on the jury’s verdict in his favor on the common-law claims. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim and reversed the judgment on the common-law claim. It also certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether Florida’s statutory waiver of sovereign immunity permitted suits against the State and its agencies under § 1983. Department of Corrections v. Hill, 490 So. 2d 118 (1986).
The State Supreme Court answered that question in the negative. Hill v. Department of Corrections, 513 So. 2d 129 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1064 (1988). Without citing any of its own sovereign immunity cases and relying solely on analogy to the Eleventh Amendment and decisions of the courts of other States, the State Supreme Court held that the Florida statute conferred a blanket immunity on governmental entities from federal civil rights actions under § 1983. 513 So. 2d, at 133. It stated: “While Florida is at liberty to waive its immunity from section 1983 actions, it has not done so. The recovery ceilings in section 768.28 were intended to waive sovereign immunity for state tort actions, not federal civil rights actions commenced under section 1983.” Ibid. The court thus affirmed the dismissal of the §1983 claim but reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the common-law claim and allowed the judgment for Hill on that claim to stand.
On its facts, the disposition of the Hill case would appear to be unexceptional. The defendant in Hill was a state agency protected from suit in a federal court by the Eleventh Amendment. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332, 341 (1979) (§ 1983 does not “override the traditional sovereign immunity of the States”). As we held last Term in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 (1989), an entity with Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. The anomaly identified by the State Supreme Court, and by the various state courts which it cited, that a State might be forced to entertain in its own courts suits from which it was immune in federal court, is thus fully met by our decision in Will. Will establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.
The language and reasoning of the State Supreme Court, if not its precise holding, however, went further. That further step was completed by the District Court of Appeal in this case. As that court construed the law, Florida has extended absolute immunity from suit not only to the State and its arms but also to municipalities, counties, and school districts that might otherwise be subject to suit under § 1983 in federal court. That holding raises the concern that the state court may be evading federal law and discriminating against federal causes of action. The adequacy of the state-law ground to support a judgment precluding litigation of the federal claim is itself a federal question which we review de novo. See Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U. S. 578, 587 (1988); James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S. 341, 348-349 (1984); Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U. S. 255, 263 (1982); Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 149 (1964); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 455 (1958); Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226, 230-231 (1904); Hill, The Inadequate State Ground, 65 Colum. L. Rev. 943, 954-957 (1965). Whether the constitutional rights asserted by petitioner were “‘given due recognition by the [Court of Appeal] is a question as to which the [petitioner is] entitled to invoke our judgment, and this [he has] done in the appropriate way. It therefore is within our province to inquire not only whether the right was denied in express terms, but also whether it was denied in substance and effect, as by putting forward nonfederal grounds of decision that were without any fair or substantial support.'” Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 318-319 (1958) (quoting Ward v. Love County Board of Comm’rs, 253 U. S. 17, 22 (1920)).
III
Federal law is enforceable in state courts not because Congress has determined that federal courts would otherwise be burdened or that state courts might provide a more convenient forum—although both might well be true—but because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state legislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws “the supreme Law of the Land,” and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that law according to their regular modes of procedure. “The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are.... The two together form one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as such, but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different and partly concurrent.” Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136-137 (1876); see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 222 (1916) (“[T]he governments and courts of both the Nation and the several States [are not] strange or foreign to each other in the broad sense of that word, but [are] all courts of a common country, all within the orbit of their lawful authority being charged with the duty to safeguard and enforce the right of every citizen without reference to the particular exercise of governmental power from which the right may have arisen, if only the authority to enforce such right comes generally within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred by the government creating them”); Hart, The Relations Between State and Federal Law, 54 Colum. L. Rev. 489 (1954) (“The law which governs daily living in the United States is a single system of law”); see also Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 469 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring). As Alexander Hamilton expressed the principle in a classic passage:
“[I]n every case in which they were not expressly excluded by the future acts of the national legislature, [state courts] will of course take cognizance of the causes to which those acts may give birth. This I infer from the nature of judiciary power, and from the general genius of the system. The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe. Those of Japan, not less than of New York, may furnish the objects of legal discussion to our courts. When in addition to this we consider the State governments and the national governments, as they truly are, in the light of kindred systems, and as parts of ONE WHOLE, the inference seems to be conclusive, that the State courts would have a concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of the Union, where it was not expressly prohibited.” The Federalist No. 82, p. 182 (E. Bourne ed. 1947) (emphasis added).
Three corollaries follow from the proposition that “federal” law is part of the “Law of the Land” in the State:
1. A state court may not deny a federal right, when the parties and controversy are properly before it, in the absence of “valid excuse.” Douglas v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 279 U. S. 377, 387-388 (1929) (Holmes, J.). “The existence of the jurisdiction creates an implication of duty to exercise it.” Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 58 (1912); see Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386 (1947); Missouri ex rel. St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U. S. 200, 208 (1924); Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637 (1884).
2. An excuse that is inconsistent with or violates federal law is not a valid excuse: The Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source. “The suggestion that the act of Congress is not in harmony with the policy of the State, and therefore that the courts of the State are free to decline jurisdiction, is quite inadmissible because it presupposes what in legal contemplation does not exist. When Congress, in the exertion of the power confided to it by the Constitution, adopted that act, it spoke for all the people and all the States, and thereby established a policy for all. That policy is as much the policy of [the State] as if the act had emanated from its own legislature, and should be respected accordingly in the courts of the State.” Mondou, 223 U. S., at 57; see Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., 315 U. S. 698, 703-704 (1942) (“By virtue of the Constitution, the courts of the several states must remain open to such litigants on the same basis that they are open to litigants with causes of action springing from a different source”); McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., 292 U. S. 230, 233-234 (1934); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211 (1916); cf. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 776, n. 1 (1982) (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (State may not discriminate against federal causes of action).
3. When a state court refuses jurisdiction because of a neutral state rule regarding the administration of the courts, we must act with utmost caution before deciding that it is obligated to entertain the claim. See Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U. S. 1 (1950); Georgia Rail Road & Banking Co. v. Musgrove, 335 U. S. 900 (1949) (per curiam); Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945); Douglas v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 279 U. S. 377 (1929). The requirement that a state court of competent jurisdiction treat federal law as the law of the land does not necessarily include within it a requirement that the State create a court competent to hear the case in which the federal claim is presented. The general rule, “bottomed deeply in belief in the importance of state control of state judicial procedure, is that federal law takes the state courts as it finds them.” Hart, 54 Colum. L. Rev., at 508; see also Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 33 (1984) (O’Connor, J., dissenting); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S., at 774 (opinion of Powell, J.). The States thus have great latitude to establish the structure and jurisdiction of their own courts. See Herb, supra; Bombolis, supra; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 30-31 (1880). In addition, States may apply their own neutral procedural rules to federal claims, unless those rules are pre-empted by federal law. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S. 131 (1988); James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S., at 348.
These principles are fundamental to a system of federalism in which the state courts share responsibility for the application and enforcement of federal law. In Mondou, for example, we held that rights under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) “may be enforced, as of right, in the courts of the States when their jurisdiction, as prescribed by local laws, is adequate to the occasion.” 223 U. S., at 59. The Connecticut courts had declined cognizance of FELA actions because the policy of the federal Act was “not in accord with the policy of the State,” and it was “inconvenient and confusing” to apply federal law. Id., at 55-56. We noted, as a matter of some significance, that Congress had not attempted “to enlarge or regulate the jurisdiction of state courts or to control or affect their modes of procedure,” id., at 56, and found from the fact that the state court was a court of general jurisdiction with cognizance over wrongful-death actions that the court’s jurisdiction was “appropriate to the occasion,” id., at 57. “The existence of the jurisdiction creat[ed] an implication of duty to exercise it,” id., at 58, which could not be overcome by disagreement with the policy of the federal Act, id., at 57.
In McKnett, the state court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a FELA cause of action against a foreign corporation for an injury suffered in another State. We held “[w]hile Congress has not attempted to compel states to provide courts for the enforcement of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the Federal Constitution prohibits state courts of general jurisdiction from refusing to do so solely because the suit is brought under a federal law.” 292 U. S., at 233-234 (citation omitted). Because the state court had “general jurisdiction of the class of actions to which that here brought belongs, in cases between litigants situated like those in the case at bar,” id., at 232, the refusal to hear the FELA action constituted discrimination against rights arising under federal laws, id., at 234, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
We unanimously reaffirmed these principles in Testa v. Katt. We held that the Rhode Island courts could not decline jurisdiction over treble damages claims under the federal Emergency Price Control Act when their jurisdiction was otherwise “adequate and appropriate under established local law.” 330 U. S., at 394. The Rhode Island court had distinguished our decisions in McKnett and Mondou on the grounds that the federal Act was a “penal statute,” which would not have been enforceable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause if passed by another State. We rejected that argument. We observed that the Rhode Island court enforced the “same type of claim” arising under state law and claims for double damages under federal law. 330 U. S., at 394. We therefore concluded that the court had “jurisdiction adequate and appropriate under established local law to adjudicate this action.” Ibid. The court could not decline to exercise this jurisdiction to enforce federal law by labeling it “penal.” The policy of the federal Act was to be considered “the prevailing policy in every state” which the state court could not refuse to enforce “‘because of conceptions of impolicy or want of wisdom on the part of Congress in having called into play its lawful powers.’” Id., at 393 (quoting Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S., at 222).
On only three occasions have we found a valid excuse for a state court’s refusal to entertain a federal cause of action. Each of them involved a neutral rule of judicial administration. In Douglas v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 279 U. S. 377 (1929), the state statute permitted discretionary dismissal of both federal and state claims where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a resident of the forum State. In Herb, the City Court denied jurisdiction over a FELA action on the grounds that the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction. Although the state court was not free to dismiss the federal claim “because it is a federal one,” we found no evidence that the state courts “construed the state jurisdiction and venue laws in a discriminatory fashion.” 324 U. S., at 123. Finally, in Mayfield, we held that a state court could apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to bar adjudication of a FELA case if the State “enforces its policy impartially so as not to involve a discrimination against Employers’ Liability Act suits.” 340 U. S., at 4 (citation omitted).
IV
The parties disagree as to the proper characterization of the District Court of Appeal’s decision. Petitioner argues that the court adopted a substantive rule of decision that state agencies are not subject to liability under § 1983. Respondents, stressing the court’s language that it had not “opened its own courts for federal actions against the state,” 537 So. 2d, at 708, argue that the case simply involves the court’s refusal to take cognizance of § 1983 actions against state defendants. We conclude that whether the question is framed in pre-emption terms, as petitioner would have it, or in the obligation to assume jurisdiction over a “federal” cause of action, as respondents would have it, the Florida court’s refusal to entertain one discrete category of § 1983 claims, when the court entertains similar state-law actions against state defendants, violates the Supremacy Clause.
If the District Court of Appeal meant to hold that governmental entities subject to § 1983 liability enjoy an immunity over and above those already provided in § 1983, that holding directly violates federal law. The elements of, and the defenses to, a federal cause of action are defined by federal law. See, e. g., Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U. S. 330, 335 (1988); Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Kuhn, 284 U. S. 44, 46-47 (1931). A State may not, by statute or common law, create a cause of action under § 1983 against an entity whom Congress has not subjected to liability. Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 698-710 (1973). Since this Court has construed the word “person” in § 1983 to exclude States, neither a federal court nor a state court may entertain a § 1983 action against such a defendant. Conversely, since the Court has held that municipal corporations and similar governmental entities are “persons,” see Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 663 (1978); cf. Will, 491 U. S., at 69, n. 9; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 280-281 (1977), a state court entertaining a § 1983 action must adhere to that interpretation. “Municipal defenses—including an assertion of sovereign immunity—to a federal right of action are, of course, controlled by federal law.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S., at 647, n. 30. “By including municipalities within the class of ‘persons’ subject to liability for violations of the Federal Constitution and laws, Congress—the supreme sovereign on matters of federal law—abolished whatever vestige of the State’s sovereign immunity the municipality possessed.” Id., at 647-648 (footnote omitted).
In Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980), we unanimously concluded that a California statute that purported to immunize public entities and public employees from any liability for parole release decisions was pre-empted by § 1983 “even though the federal cause of action [was] being asserted in the state courts.” Id., at 284. We explained:
“‘Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 or § 1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law. A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the Constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced. See McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F. 2d 287, 290 (7th Cir. 1968). The immunity claim raises a question of federal law.’ Hampton v. Chicago, 484 F. 2d 602, 607 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 917.” Id., at 284, n. 8.
In Felder v. Casey, we followed Martinez and held that a Wisconsin notice-of-claim statute that effectively shortened the statute of limitations and imposed an exhaustion requirement on claims against public agencies and employees was pre-empted insofar as it was applied to § 1983 actions. After observing that the lower federal courts, with one exception, had determined that notice-of-claim statutes were inapplicable to § 1983 actions brought in federal courts, we stated that such a consensus also demonstrated that “enforcement of the notice-of-claim statute in § 1983 actions brought in state court... interfered] with and frustrated] the substantive right Congress created.” 487 U. S., at 151. We concluded: “The decision to subject state subdivisions to liability for violations of federal rights... was a choice that Congress, not the Wisconsin Legislature, made, and it is a decision that the State has no authority to override.” Id., at 143.
While the Florida Supreme Court’s actual decision in Hill is consistent with the foregoing reasoning, the Court of Appeal’s extension of Hill to persons subject by § 1983 to liability is flatly inconsistent with that reasoning and the holdings in both Martinez and Felder. Federal law makes governmental defendants that are not arms of the State, such as municipalities, liable for their constitutional violations. See St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112, 121-122 (1988); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978). Florida law, as interpreted by the District Court of Appeal, would make all such defendants absolutely immune from liability under the federal statute. To the extent that the Florida law of sovereign immunity reflects a substantive disagreement with the extent to which governmental entities should be held liable for their constitutional violations, that disagreement cannot override the dictates of federal law. “Congress surely did not intend to assign to state courts and legislatures a conclusive role in the formative function of defining and characterizing the essential elements of a federal cause of action.” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 269 (1985).
If, on the other hand, the District Court of Appeal meant that § 1983 claims are excluded from the category of tort claims that the Circuit Court could hear against a school board, its holding was no less violative of federal law. Cf. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burnette, 239 U. S. 199, 201 (1915). This case does not present the questions whether Congress can require the States to create a forum with the capacity to enforce federal statutory rights or to authorize service of process on parties who would not otherwise be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. The State of Florida has constituted the Circuit Court for Pinellas County as a court of general jurisdiction. It exercises jurisdiction over tort claims by private citizens against state entities (including school boards), of the size and type of petitioner’s claim here, and it can enter judgment against them. That court also exercises jurisdiction over § 1983 actions against individual officers and is fully competent to provide the remedies the federal statute requires. Cf. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229, 238 (1969). Petitioner has complied with all the state-law procedures for invoking the jurisdiction of that court.
The mere facts, as argued by respondents’ amici, that state common law and statutory law do not make unlawful the precise conduct that § 1983 addresses and that § 1983 actions “are more likely to be frivolous than are other suits,” Brief for Washington Legal Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 17, clearly cannot provide sufficient justification for the State’s refusal to entertain such actions. These reasons have never been asserted by the State and are not asserted by the school board. More importantly, they are not the kind of neutral policy that could be a “valid excuse” for the state court’s refusal to entertain federal actions. To the extent that the Florida rule is based upon the judgment that parties who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the court should not be held liable for activity that would not subject them to liability under state law, we understand that to be only another way of saying that the court disagrees with the content of federal law. Sovereign immunity in Florida turns on the nature of the claim—whether the duty allegedly breached is discretionary—not on the subject matter of the dispute. There is no question that the Circuit Court, which entertains state common-law and statutory claims against state entities in a variety of their capacities, ranging from law enforcement to schooling to the protection of individuals using parking lots, has jurisdiction over the subject of this suit. That court cannot reject petitioner’s § 1983 claim because it has chosen, for substantive policy reasons, not to adjudicate other claims which might also render the school board liable. The federal law is law in the State as much as laws passed by the state legislature. A “state court cannot ‘refuse to enforce the right arising from the law of the United States because of conceptions of impolicy or want of wisdom on the part of Congress in having called into play its lawful powers.’” Testa, 330 U. S., at 393 (quoting Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S., at 222).
The argument by amici that suits predicated on federal law are more likely to be frivolous and have less of an entitlement to the State’s limited judicial resources warrants little response. A State may adopt neutral procedural rules to discourage frivolous litigation of all kinds, as long as those rules are not pre-empted by a valid federal law. A State may not, however, relieve congestion in its courts by declaring a whole category of federal claims to be frivolous. Until it has been proved that the claim has no merit, that judgment is not up to the States to make.
Respondents have offered no neutral or valid excuse for the Circuit Court’s refusal to hear § 1983 actions against state entities. The Circuit Court would have had jurisdiction if the defendant were an individual officer and the action were based on § 1983. It would also have had jurisdiction over the defendant school board if the action were based on established state common law or statutory law. A state policy that permits actions against state agencies for the failure of their officials to adequately police a parking lot and for the negligence of such officers in arresting a person on a roadside, but yet declines jurisdiction over federal actions for constitutional violations by the same persons can be based only on the rationale that such persons should not be held liable for § 1983 violations in the courts of the State. That reason, whether presented in terms of direct disagreement with substantive federal law or simple refusal to take cognizance of the federal cause of action, flatly violates the Supremacy Clause.
V
Respondents offer two final arguments in support of the judgment of the District Court of Appeal. First, at oral argument—but not in their brief—they argued that a federal court has no power to compel a state court to entertain a claim over which the state court has no jurisdiction as a matter of state law. Second, respondents argue that sovereign immunity is not a creature of state law, but of long-established legal principles which have not been set aside by § 1983. We find no merit in these contentions.
The fact that a rule is denominated jurisdictional does not provide a court an excuse to avoid the obligation to enforce federal law if the rule does not reflect the concerns of power over the person and competence over the subject matter that jurisdictional rules are designed to protect. It is settled that a court of otherwise competent jurisdiction may not avoid its parallel obligation under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to entertain another State’s cause of action by invocation of the term “jurisdiction.” See First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United Air Lines, Inc., 342 U. S. 396 (1952); Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U. S. 609, 611 (1951); Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629, 642-643 (1935); Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, Loyal Order of Moose, 252 U. S. 411 (1920). A State cannot “escape this constitutional obligation to enforce the rights and duties validly created under the laws of other states by the simple device of removing jurisdiction from courts otherwise competent.” Hughes, 341 U. S., at 611. Similarly, a State may not evade the strictures of the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying jurisdiction to a court otherwise competent. See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 188-189 (1947); Douglas v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 279 U. S. 377 (1929); cf. White v. Hart,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the use of prearrest silence to impeach a defendant’s credibility violates either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
I
On August 13, 1974, the petitioner stabbed and killed Doyle Redding. The petitioner was not apprehended until he turned himself in to governmental authorities about two weeks later. At his state trial for first-degree murder, the petitioner contended that the killing was in self-defense.
The petitioner testified that his sister and her boyfriend were robbed by Redding and another man during the evening of August 12, 1974. The petitioner, who was nearby when the robbery occurred, followed the thieves a short distance and reported their whereabouts to the police. According to the petitioner’s testimony, the next day he encountered Red-ding, who accused him of informing the police of the robbery. The petitioner stated that Redding attacked him with a knife, that the two men struggled briefly, and that the petitioner broke away. On cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that during the struggle he had tried “[t]o push that knife in [Redding] as far as [I] could,” App. 36, but maintained that he had acted solely in self-defense.
During the cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned the petitioner about his actions after the stabbing:
“Q. And I suppose you waited for the Police to tell them what happened?
“A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. You didn’t?
“A. No.
“Q. I see.
“And how long was it after this day that you were arrested, or that you were taken into custody?” Id., at 33.
After some discussion of the date on which petitioner surrendered, the prosecutor continued:
“Q. When was the first time that you reported the things that you have told us in Court today to anybody? “A. Two days after it happened.
“Q. And who did you report it to?
“A. To my probation officer.
“Q. Well, apart from him?
“A. No one.
“Q. Who?
“A. No one but my—
“Q. (Interposing) Did you ever go to a Police Officer or to anyone else?
“A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. As a matter of fact, it was two weeks later, wasn’t it?
“A. Yes.” Id., at 34.
In closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor again referred to the petitioner’s prearrest silence. The prosecutor noted that petitioner had “waited two weeks, according to the testimony — at least two weeks before he did anything about surrendering himself or reporting [the stabbing] to anybody.” Id., at 43. The prosecutor contended that the petitioner had committed murder in retaliation for the robbery the night before.
The petitioner was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment in state prison. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, contending that his constitutional rights were violated when the prosecutor questioned him concerning prearrest silence. A Federal Magistrate concluded that the petition for habeas corpus relief should be denied. The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 599 F. 2d 1055. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 444 U. S. 824 (1979). We now affirm.
II
At trial the prosecutor attempted to impeach the petitioner’s credibility by suggesting that the petitioner would have spoken out if he had killed in self-defense. The petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s actions violated thb Fifth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to remain silent during his criminal trial, and prevents the prosecution from commenting on the silence of a defendant who asserts the right. Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 614 (1965). In this case, of course, the petitioner did not remain silent throughout the criminal proceedings. Instead, he voluntarily took the witness stand in his own defense.
This Court’s decision in Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494 (1926), recognized that the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant who testifies in his own defense is impeached with his prior silence. The defendant in Raffel was tried twice. At the first trial, a Government agent testified that Raffel earlier had made an inculpatory statement. The defendant did not testify. After the first trial ended in deadlock the agent repeated his testimony at the second trial, and Raffel took the stand to deny making such a statement. Cross-examination revealed that Raffel had not testified at the first trial. Id., at 495, n. The Court held that inquiry into prior silence was proper because “[t]he immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness. . . . When he takes the stand in his own behalf, he does so as any other witness, and within the limits of the appropriate rules he may be cross-examined. . . .” Id., at 496-497. Thus, the Raffel Court concluded that the defendant was “subject to cross-examination impeaching his credibility just like any other witness.” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 420 (1957).
It can be argued that a person facing arrest will not remain silent if his failure to speak later can be used to impeach him. But the Constitution does not forbid “every government-imposed choice in the criminal process that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 30 (1973). See Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U. S. 212, 218, and n. 8 (1978). The “ 'threshold question is whether compelling the election impairs to an appreciable extent any of the policies behind the rights involved.’ ” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32, quoting Crampton v. Ohio, decided with McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 213 (1971). The Raff el Court explicitly rejected the contention that the possibility of impeachment by prior silence is an impermissible burden upon the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights. “We are unable to see that the rule that [an accused who] testifies . . . must testify fully, adds in any substantial manner to the inescapable embarrassment which the accused must experience in determining whether he shall testify or not.” 271 U. S., at 499.
This Court similarly defined the scope of the Fifth Amendment protection in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). There the Court held that a statement taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), may be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility. Rejecting the contention that such impeachment violates the Fifth Amendment, the Court said:
“Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. . . . Haying voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.” 401 U. S., at 225.
See also Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 721-723 (1975); Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62, 65 (1954).
In determining whether a constitutional right has been burdened impermissibly, it also is appropriate to consider the legitimacy of the challenged governmental practice. See Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32, and n. 20. Attempted impeachment on cross-examination of a defendant, the practice at issue here, may enhance the reliability of the criminal process. Use of such impeachment on cross-examination allows prosecutors to test the credibility of witnesses by asking them to explain prior inconsistent statements and acts. A defendant may decide not to take the witness stand because of the risk of cross-examination. But this is a choice of litigation tactics. Once a defendant decides to testify, “[t]he interests of the other party and regard for the function of courts of justice to ascertain the truth become relevant, and prevail in the balance of considerations determining the scope and limits of the privilege against self-incrimination.” Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148, 156 (1958).
Thus, impeachment follows the defendant’s own decision to cast aside his cloak of silence and advances the truth-finding function of the criminal trial. We conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not violated by the use of prearrest silence to impeach a criminal defendant’s credibility.
Ill
The petitioner also contends that use of prearrest silence to impeach his credibility denied him the fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not agree. Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042, p. 1056 (Chadboum rev. 1970). Each jurisdiction may formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative. For example, this Court has exercised its supervisory powers over federal courts to hold that prior silence cannot be used for impeachment where silence is not probative of a defendant’s credibility and where prejudice to the defendant might result. See United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171, 180-181 (1975); Stewart v. United States, 366 U. S. 1, 5 (1961); Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S., at 424.
Only in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), did we find that impeachment by silence violated the Constitution. In that case, a defendant received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 467-473, when he was arrested for selling marihuana. At that time, he made no statements to the police. During his subsequent trial, the defendant testified that he had been framed. The prosecutor impeached the defendant’s credibility on cross-examination by revealing that the defendant remained silent after his arrest. The State argued that the prosecutor’s actions were permissible, but we concluded that “the Miranda decision compels rejection of the State’s position.” 426 U. S., at 617. Miranda warnings inform a person that he has the right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his subsequent decision to remain silent cannot be used against him. Accordingly, “ ‘it does not comport with due process to permit the prosecution during the trial to call attention to his silence at the time of arrest and to insist that because he did not speak about the facts of the case at that time, as he was told he need not do, an unfavorable inference might be drawn as to the truth of his trial testimony.’ ” Id., at 619, quoting United States v. Hale, supra, at 182-183 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
In this case, no governmental action induced petitioner to remain silent before arrest. The failure to speak occurred before the petitioner was taken into custody and given Miranda warnings. Consequently, the fundamental unfairness present in Doyle is not present in this case. We hold that impeachment by use of prearrest silence does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
IV
Our decision today does not force any state court to allow impeachment through the use of prearrest silence. Each jurisdiction remains free to formulate evidentiary rules defining the situations in which silence is viewed as more probative than prejudicial. We merely conclude that the use of prearrest silence to impeach a defendant’s credibility does not violate the Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the judgment, agreeing with all but Part II of the opinion of the Court, and with Part I of the opinion of Mr. Justice Stevens concurring in the judgment.
The petitioner did not raise his constitutional claims during his state-court trial. Thus, the respondent argues that the rule of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), bars consideration of the petitioner’s habeas petition. But the respondent failed to raise the Sykes question in either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Ordinarily, we will not consider a claim that was not presented to the courts below. See Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 431, n. 7 (1974). Considerations of judicial efficiency demand that a Sykes claim be presented before a case reaches this Court. The applicability of the Sykes “cause”-and-“prejudice” test may turn on an interpretation of state law. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263, 267, n. 7 (1980). This Court’s resolution of such a state-law question would be aided significantly by the views of other federal courts that may possess greater familiarity with Michigan law. Furthermore, application of the “cause”-and-“prejudiee” standard may tum on factual findings that should be made by a district court. Accordingly, we do not consider the Sykes issue in this case.
In Raff el, the defendant’s decision not to testify at his first trial was an invocation of his right to remain silent protected by the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the petitioner remained silent before arrest, but chose to testify at his trial. Our decision today does not consider whether or under what circumstances prearrest silence may be protected by the Fifth Amendment. We simply do not reach that issue because the rule of Raff el clearly permits impeachment even if the prearrest silence were held to be an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
In Crampton v. Ohio, the Court considered a claim that a murder defendant’s right to remain silent was burdened unconstitutionally because he could not argue for mitigation of punishment without risking incrimination on the question of guilt. The Court recognized that a defendant who speaks in his own defense cannot avoid testifying fully.
“It has long been held that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination. See, e. g., Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 597-598 (1896); Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U. S. 304, 314-316 (1900); Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148 (1958). It is not thought overly harsh in such situations to require that the determination whether to waive the privilege take into account the matters which may be brought out on cross-examination. It is also generally recognized that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf may be impeached by proof of prior convictions or the like. See Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. [554, 561 (1967)]; cf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469 (1948); but cf. Luck v. United States, 121 U. S. App. D. C. 151, 348 F. 2d 763 (1965); United States v. Palumbo, 401 F. 2d 270 (CA2 1968).” 402 U. S., at 215.
The Court concluded that “the policies of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination are not offended when a defendant in a capital case yields to the pressure to testify on the issue of punishment at the risk of damaging his case on guilt.” Id., at 217. Subsequently, a petition for rehearing in Crampton was granted and the underlying state-court decision was vacated on Eighth Amendment grounds. 408 U. S. 941 (1972).
Both MR. Justice Stevens, post, at 241-242, n. 2, and Mr. Justice Marshall, post, at 252, suggest that the constitutional rule of Raffel was limited by later decisions of the Court. In fact, no Court opinion decided since Raffel has challenged its holding that the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant is impeached on the basis of his prior silence. In United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171, 175, n. 4 (1975), the Court expressly declined to consider the constitutional question. The decision in Stewart v. United States, 366 U. S. 1 (1961), was based on federal evidentiary grounds, not on the Fifth Amendment. The Court in Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957), stated that it was not required to re-examine Raffel. In all three cases, the Court merely considered the question whether, as a matter of federal evidentiary law, prior silence was sufficiently inconsistent with present statements as to be admissible. See also n. 5, infra.
Mr. Justice Marshall contends that the petitioner’s prearrest silence is not probative of his credibility. Post, at 248-250. In this case, that is a question of state evidentiary law. In a federal criminal proceeding the relevance of such silence, of course, would be a matter of federal law. See United States v. Hale, supra, at 181. Mr. Justice Marshall’s further conclusion that introduction of the evidence in this trial violated due process relies upon the Court’s reasoning in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), and United States v. Hale. Post, at 246-250. But the Court’s decision in Hale rested upon noneonstitutional grounds, see n. 4, supra, and Doyle is otherwise distinguishable, see infra, at 240.
The Court reached a similar result in Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189 (1943). A trial judge mistakenly told a defendant that he could claim the privilege against self-incrimination. After the defendant invoked the privilege, the prosecutor commented on the defendant’s refusal to speak. Under its supervisory power, this Court held that the prosecutor’s comments constituted error because the trial court had assured the defendant that he might claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment. The Court stated that “[e]lementary fairness requires that an accused should not be misled on that score.” Id., at 197; see Doyle v. Ohio, supra, at 618, n. 9. See also Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 437-438 (1959).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding, brought to test the validity of petitioner’s conviction of murder and sentence of death in the Circuit Court of Gibson County, Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in Irvin v. State, 236 Ind. 384, 139 N. E. 2d 898, and we denied direct review by certiorari “without prejudice to filing for federal habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies.” 353 U. S. 948. Petitioner- immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U. S. C. § 2241, in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, claiming that his conviction had been obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that he did not receive a fair trial. That court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies. 153 F. Supp. 531. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 251 F. 2d 548. We granted certiorari, 356 U. S. 948, and remanded to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits or remand to the District Court for reconsideration. 359 U. S. 394. The Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction and decided the claim adversely to petitioner. 271 F. 2d 552. We granted certiorari, 361 U. S. 959.
As stated in the former opinion, 359 U. S., at 396-397:
“The constitutional claim arises in this way. Six murders were committed in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana, two in December 1954, and four in March 1955. The crimes, extensively covered by news media in the locality, aroused great excitement and indignation throughout Vanderburgh County, where Evansville is located, and adjoining Gibson County, a rural county of approximately 30,000 inhabitants. The petitioner was arrested on April 8,1955. Shortly thereafter, the Prosecutor of Vanderburgh County and Evansville police officials issued press releases, which were intensively publicized, stating that the petitioner had confessed to the six murders. The Vanderburgh County Grand Jury soon indicted the petitioner for the murder which resulted in his conviction. This was the murder of Whitney Wesley Kerr allegedly committed in Vanderburgh County on December 23, 1954. Counsel appointed to defend petitioner immediately sought a change of venue from Vanderburgh County, which was granted, but to adjoining Gibson County. Alleging that the widespread and inflammatory publicity had also highly prejudiced the inhabitants of Gibson County against . the petitioner, counsel, on October 29, 1955, sought another change of venue, from Gibson County to a county sufficiently removed from the Evansville locality that a fair trial would not be prejudiced. The motion was denied, apparently because the pertinent Indiana statute allows only a single change of venue.”
During the course of the voir dire examination, which lasted some four weeks, petitioner filed two more motions for a change of venue and eight motions for continuances. All were denied.
At the outset we are met with the Indiana statute providing that only one change of venue shall be granted “from the county” wherein the offense was committed. Since petitioner had already been afforded one change of venue, and had been denied further changes solely on the basis of the statute, he attacked its constitutionality. The Court of Appeals upheld its validity. However, in the light of Gannon v. Porter Circuit Court, 239 Ind. 637, 159 N. E. 2d 713, we do not believe that argument poses a serious problem. There thé Indiana Supreme Court held that if it was “made to appear after attempt has actually been made to secure an impartial jury that such jury could not be obtained in the county of present venue ... it becomes the duty of the judiciary to provide to every accused a public trial by an impartial jury, even though to do so the court must grant a second change of venue and thus contravene [the statute] . . . 239 Ind., at 642, 159 N. E. 2d, at 715. The prosecution attempts to distinguish that case on the ground that the District Attorney there conceded that a fair trial could not be had in La Porte County and that the court, therefore, properly ordered a second change of venue despite the language of the statute. In-' asmuch as the statute says nothing of concessions, we do not believe that the Indiana Supreme Court conditions the duty of the judiciary to transfer a case to another county solely upon the representation by the prosecutor — regardless of the trial court’s own estimate of local conditions— that an impartial jury may not be impaneled. As we read Gannon, it stands for the proposition that the necessity for transfer will depend upon the totality of the surrounding facts. Under this construction the statute is not, on its face, subject to attack on due process grounds.
England, from whom the Western World has largely taken its concepts of individual liberty and of the dignity and worth of every man, has bequeathed to us safeguards for their preservation, the most priceless of which is that of trial by jury. This right has become as much American as it was once the most English. Although this Court has said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not demand the use of jury trials in a State’s criminal procedure, Fay v. New York, 332 U. S. 261; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, every State has constitutionally provided trial by jury. See Columbia University Legislative Drafting Research Fund, Index Digest of State Constitutions, 578-579 (1959). In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” Co. Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender, or the station in life which he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice Marshall in 1 Burr’s Trial 416 (1807). “The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 155.
It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245; Reynolds v. United States, supra.
The adoption of such a rule, however, “cannot foreclose inquiry as to whether, in a given case, the application of that rule works a deprivation of the prisoner’s life or liberty without due process of law.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 236. As stated in Reynolds, the test is “whether the nature and strength of the opinion formed are such as in law necessarily . . . raise the presumption of partiality. The question thus presented is one of mixed law and fact . . . .” At p. 156. “The affirmative of the issue is upon the challenger. Unless he shows the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality, the juror need not necessarily be set aside .... If a positive and decided opinion had been formed, he would have been incompetent even though it had not been expressed.” At p. 157. As was stated in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 507, the “so-called mixed questions or the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found leave the duty of adjudication with the federal judge.” It was, therefore, the duty of the Court of Appeals to independently evaluate the voir dire testimony of the impaneled jurors.
The rule was established in Reynolds that “[t]he finding of the trial court upon that issue [the force of a prospective juror’s opinion] ought not be set aside by a reviewing court, unless the error is manifest.” 98 U. S., at 156. In later cases this Court revisited Reynolds, citing it in each instance for the proposition that findings of impartiality should be set aside only where prejudice is “manifest.” Holt v. United States, supra; Spies v. Illinois, supra; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430. Indiana agrees that a trial by jurors having a fixed, preconceived opinion of the accused’s guilt would be a denial of due process, but points out that the voir dire examination discloses that each juror qualified under the applicable Indiana statute. It is true that the presiding judge personally examined those members of the jury panel whom petitioner, having no more peremptory challenges, insisted should be excused for cause, and that each indicated that notwithstanding his opinion he could render an impartial verdict. But as Chief Justice Hughes observed in United States v. Wood, 299 U. S. 123, 145-146: “Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind. For the ascertainment of this mental attitude of appropriate indifference, the Constitution lays down no particular tests and procedure is not chained to any ancient and artificial formula.”
Here the build-up of prejudice is clear and convincing. An examination of the then current community pattern of thought as indicated by the popular news media is singularly revealing. For example, petitioner’s first motion for a change of venue from Gibson County alleged that the awaited trial of petitioner had become the cause célebre of this small community— so much so that curbstone opinions, not only as to petitioner’s guilt but even as to what punishment he should receive, were solicited and recorded on the public streets by a roving reporter, and later were broadcast over the local stations. A reading of the 46 exhibits which petitioner attached to his motion indicates that a barrage of newspaper headlines, articles, cartoons and pictures was.unleashed against him during the six or seven months preceding his trial. The motion further alleged that the newspapers in which the stories appeared were delivered regularly to approximately 95% of the dwellings in Gibson County and that, in addition, the Evansville radio and TV stations, which likewise blanketed that county, also carried extensive newscasts covering the same incidents. These stories revealed the details of his background, including a reference to crimes committed when a juvenile, his convictions for arson almost 20 years previously, for burglary and by a court-martial on AWOL charges during the war. He was acóused of being a parole violator. The headlines announced his police line-up identification, that he faced a lie detector test, had be'en placed at the scene of the crime and that the six murders were solved but petitioner refused to confess. Finally, they announced his confession to the six murders and the fact of his indictment for four of them in Indiana. They reported petitioner’s offer to plead guilty if promised a 99-year sentence, but also the determination, on the other hand, of the prosecutor to secure the death penalty, and that petitioner had confessed to 24 burglaries (the modus operandi of these robberies was compared to that of the murders and the similarity noted). One story dramatically relayed the promise of a sheriff to devote his life to securing petitioner’s execution by the State of Kentucky, where petitioner is alleged to have committed one of the six murders, if Indiana failed to do so. Another characterized petitioner as remorseless and without conscience but also as having been found sane by a court-appointed panel of doctors. In many of' the stories petitioner was described as the “confessed slayer of six,” a parole violator and fraudulent-check artist. Petitioner’s court-appointed counsel was quoted as having received “much criticism over being Irvin’s counsel” and it was pointed out, by way of excusing the attorney, that he would be subject to disbarment should he refuse to represent Irvin. On the day before the trial the newspapers carried the story that Irvin had orally admitted the murder of Kerr (the victim in this case), as well as “the robbery-murder of Mrs. Mary Holland; the murder of Mrs. Wilhelmina Sailer in Posey County, and the slaughter of three members of the Duncan family in Henderson County, Ky.”
It cannot be gainsaid that the force of this continued adverse publicity caused a sustained excitement and fostered a strong prejudice among the people of Gibson County. In fact, on the second day devoted to the selection of the jury, the newspapers reported that “strong feelings, often bitter and angry, rumbled to the surface,” and that “the extent to which the multiple murders— three in one family — have aroused feelings throughout the area was emphasized Friday when 27 of the 35 prospective jurors questioned were excused for holding biased pretrial opinions. ...” A few days later the feeling was described as “a pattern of deep and bitter prejudice against the former pipe-fitter.” Spectator comments, as printed by the newspapers, were “my mind is made up” ; “I think he is guilty”; and “he should be hanged.”
Finally, and with remarkable understatement, the headlines reported that “impartial jurors are hard to find.” The panel consisted of 430 persons. The court itself excused 268 of those on challenges for cause as having fixed opinions as to the guilt of petitioner; 103 were excused because of conscientious objection to the imposition of the death penalty; 20, the maximum allowed, were peremptorily challenged by petitioner and 10 by the State; 12 persons and two alternates were selected as jurors and the rest were excused on personal grounds, e. g., deafness, doctor’s orders, etc. An examination of the 2,783-page voir dire record shows that 370 prospective jurors or almost 90% of those examined on the point (10 members of the panel were never asked whether or not they had any opinion) entertained some opinion as to guilt — ranging in intensity from mere suspicion to absolute certainty. A number admitted that, if they were in the accused’s place in the dock and he in theirs on the jury with their opinions, they would not want him on a jury.
Here the “pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” shown to be' present throughout the community, cf. Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181, was clearly reflected in the sum total of the voir dire examination of a majority of the jurors finally placed in the jury box. Eight out of the 12 thought petitioner was guilty. With such an opinion permeating their minds, it would be difficult to say that each could exclude this preconception of guilt from his deliberations. The influence that lurks in an opinion once formed is so persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes of the average man. See Delaney v. United States, 199 F. 2d 107. Where one’s life is at stake—and accounting for the frailties of human nature — we can only say that in the light of the circumstances here the finding of impartiality does not meet constitutional standards. Two-thirds of the jurors had an opinion that petitioner was guilty and were familiar with the material facts and circumstances involved, including the fact that other murders were attributed to him, some going so far as to say that it would take evidence to overcome their belief. One said that he “could not . . . give the defendant the benefit of the doubt that he is innocent.” Another stated that he had a “somewhat” certain fixed opinion as to petitioner’s guilt. No doubt each juror was sincere when he said that he would be fair and impartial to petitioner, but the psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one’s fellows is often its father. Where so many, so many times, admitted prejudice, such a statement of impartiality can be given little weight. As one of the jurors put it, “You can’t forget what you hear and see.” 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 and by a jury other than one in which two-thirds of the members admit, before hearing any testimony, to possessing a belief in his guilt. Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181; Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U. S. 50 (concurring opinion); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86.
Petitioner’s detention and sentence of death pursuant to the void judgment is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and he is therefore entitled to be freed therefrom. The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are vacated and the case remanded to the latter. However, petitioner is still subject to custody under the indictment filed by the State of Indiana in the Circuit Court of Gibson County charging him with murder in the first degree and may be tried on this or another indictment. The District Court has power, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28 U. S. C. § 2243. Under the predecessors of this section, “this Court has often delayed the discharge of the petitioner for such reasonable time as may be necessary to have him taken before the court where the judgment was rendered, that defects which render discharge necessary may be corrected.” Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 46. Therefore, on remand, the District Court should enter such orders as are appropriate and consistent with this opinion, cf. Grandsinger v. Bovey, 153 F. Supp. 201, 240, which allow the State a reasonable time in which to retry petitioner. Cf. Chessman v. Teets, 354 U. S. 156; Dowd v. Cook, 340 U. S. 206; Tod v. Waldman, 266 U. S. 113.
Vacated and remanded.
Section 2241 provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the . . . district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions. . . .
“(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not be extended to a prisoner unless ...
“(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States
Burns’ Ind. Stat. Ann., 1956 Replacement Vol., § 9-1305, provides in pertinent part: “When affidavits for a change of venue are founded upon excitement or prejudice in the county against the defendant, the court, in all cases not punishable by death, may, in its discretion, and in all cases punishable by death, shall grant a change of venue to the most convenient county. . . . Provided, however, That only one [1] change of venue from the judge and only one [1] change from the county shall be granted.”
“Might impressions which may fairly be supposed to yield to the testimony that may be offered; which may leave the mind open to a fair consideration of that testimony, constitute no sufficient objection to a juror; but that those strong and deep impressions, which will close the mind against the testimony that may be offered in opposition to them; which will combat that testimony and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient objection to him.”
“Challenges for cause. — The following shall be good causes for challenge to any person called as a juror in any criminal trial:
“Second. That he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. But if a person called as a juror states that he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the court or the parties shall thereupon proceed to examine such, juror on oath as to the ground of such opinion; and if it appears to have been founded upon reading newspaper statements, communications, comments or reports, or upon rumors or hearsay, and not upon conversation with witnesses of the transaction, or reading reports of their testimony, or hearing them testify, and the juror states on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and evidence, the court, if satisfied that he is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in its discretion, admit him as competent to serve in such case.” Burns’ Ind. Stat. Ann., 1956 Replacement Vol., § 9-1504.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners, the United States of America and Leslie M. Nishimura, Revenue Agent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service), commenced a proceeding to enforce two IRS summonses issued to Laddie F. Jose, as trustee for the Jose Business Trust and Jose Family Trust. The Service represented to the Magistrate that the documents sought “are for the purpose of a civil investigation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a. The Magistrate found the summonses valid and enforceable for the purpose stated. He did not address the question whether the summons enforcement requirements “would be satisfied in the event petitioners decide to pursue a criminal tax investigation.” Ibid. That question was not before him in view of the sole purpose — civil investigation — specified by the IRS. Ibid.
The Magistrate recommended that the District Court (1) enforce petitioners’ summonses, and (2) require the IRS to give respondent five days’ notice prior to any circulation or transfer of the summoned documents to any division of the IRS other than the Examination Division. Id., at 20a-21a.
Before the District Court, neither party objected to the finding that the alleged civil investigation was a legitimate purpose and that the summonses are valid and should be enforced. Id., at 16a. The single issue in controversy was “whether [the court] may restrict enforcement of petitioners’ summonses by requiring the IRS to notify respondent five days in advance before circulating, transferring, or copying the summoned] documents to any other division of the IRS, including its [Criminal Investigation Division.” Id., at 15a. The District Court determined that the restriction was lawful and proper and entered a final order to that effect. Id., at 19a.
The Service appealed, asserting that the District Court lacked authority to impose the restriction. The Ninth Circuit correctly recognized that it had jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291,” which authorizes appeals from “final decisions.” It nonetheless dismissed the appeal “as not ripe.” 71 F. 3d 1484, 1485 (1995). The majority stated:
“The record indicates that the IRS represented to the district court that the documents requested of Jose were for civil tax examination purposes only, not for a criminal investigation. The record does not indicate that the Examination Division has attempted to disclose the documents to any other IRS division, thereby triggering the five-day notice requirement. Thus, any detrimental impact the district court’s order may have on the IRS’s investigation is, at this time, purely speculative. Accordingly, the IRS’s appeal is not ripe for review.” Ibid.
The dissenting judge concluded that the case was “ready and ripe” for decision, id., at 1486, and stated at some length her reasons for believing that the restriction approved by the District Court was unwarranted. The United States and Revenue Agent Nishimura petitioned for certiorari. We called for a response from trustee Jose, but he filed no brief in opposition. We now reverse.
We express no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. The matter, indeed, is one that implicates an inter-circuit conflict. We think it clear, however, that the District Court's final order is indeed finaL It is a decision dis-positively granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested. The IRS prevailed to the extent that the District Court enforced the summonses. The Service did not prevail to the extent that the District Court imposed a condition — an unqualified requirement that the IRS provide five days’ notice to the trustee before transferring summoned information from its Examination Division to any other IRS office. With that disposition, the District Court completed its adjudication. “[W]e have expressly held that IRS summons enforcement orders are subject to appellate review.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 15 (1992) (citing Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, 449 (1964)). We adhere to that view, and note that appellate jurisdiction over final decisions does not turn on which side prevailed in the District Court.
Finality, not ripeness, is the doctrine governing appeals from district court to court of appeals. In this case, to gain access to appeal from the District Court’s final decision to the extent that it disfavored the Service, the IRS is not obligated, first, to defy the District Court’s order. Nor is the IRS required to provide notice of its intention to transfer documents internally, for this is the very condition the IRS seeks to attack on appeal.
The Court of Appeals cited no authority supporting its cryptic declaration that the conditional enforcement order was not ripe for appeal. We have found none. Indeed, prior to this case, the Ninth Circuit itself had twice upheld similar conditional enforcement orders. See United States v. Zolin, 809 F. 2d 1411, 1417 (CA9 1987); United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F. 2d 1520, 1525-1526 (CA9 1986). In neither ease did the Court of Appeals avoid the merits by interjecting the doctrine of ripeness. Aggrieved by the conditional enforcement upheld in Zolin, the United States petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. We granted the writ, 488 U. S. 907 (1988), and affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by an equally divided Court, 491 U. S. 554, 561 (1989). We hardly would have done so had we considered the matter unfit for review.
For the reasons stated, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment dismissing the appeal, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ordered.
It is so ordered.
Compare United States v. Barrett, 837 F. 2d 1341, 1349-1351 (CA5 1988) (en banc) (per curiam,) (District Court lacks authority to place conditions on enforcement of IRS summons), cert. denied, 492 U. S. 926 (1989), with United States v. Zolin, 809 F. 2d 1411, 1417 (CA9 1987) (upholding conditions on enforcement of IRS summons), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 491 U. S. 554, 561 (1989), and United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F. 2d 1520, 1525-1526 (CA9 1986) (District Court has “considerable” discretion to set terms of enforcement order); see also Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 14-15, n. 7 (1992) (recognizing split). The existing intercircuit conflict concerns judicial limitations on disclosure by the agency seeking summons enforcement to other governmental agencies. The instant case involves the related but distinct question of the District Court’s authority to restrict sharing of information within an agency.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is reversed.
In this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., the petitioner was awarded damages by a jury in the Superior Court of Baltimore City. The Court of Appeals held that the issue of employer negligence should not have been submitted to the jury and that the trial court erred in denying the motions of the railroad for a directed verdict and for a judgment n. o. v., 235 Md. 568, 202 A. 2d 348.
The petitioner worked, for the railroad as a tallyman and trucker at its Locust Point terminal in Baltimore City. His foreman directed him to find some boxes of merchandise. While working on this assignment near an open elevator shaft he fell into the shaft and one of the railroad’s forklift trucks fell in on top of him. The crucial fact question in the case concerned the forklift truck. There was testimony that the petitioner had mounted the truck and backed it into the shaft. There was also evidence, however, which, if believed by the jury, would support a finding that the operator assigned to use the truck .negligently left it unattended, and that it rolled toward the petitioner, either because it was not secured or because it was set in motion by an unauthorized third person, and struck petitioner in the back, propelling him into the shaft. In these circumstances, the Court of Appeals improperly invaded the function and province of the jury. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U. S. 108.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1925 the owners of certain acreage in Texas executed a lease which gave to Gulf Oil Corp., as lessee, the exclusive right to produce and market oil and gas from that land for the next 50 years. Gulf was entitled to drill wells, string telephone and telegraph wires, and build storage facilities and pipelines on the land. Gulf would also have “such other privileges as are reasonably requisite for the conduct of said operations.” App. 135. In exchange, the owners were to receive a royalty based on the quantity of natural gas produced and the number of producing wells, as well as other royalties and payments. The following year, the owners of the property sold one-half of their mineral fee interest to respondent South-land Royalty Co. and the rest to other respondents.
In 1951 Gulf contracted to sell casinghead gas from the leased property to the El Paso Natural Gas Co., an interstate pipeline. After this Court’s decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672 (1954), Gulf applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Power Commission authorizing the sale in interstate commerce of 30,000 Mcf per day. By order dated May 28, 1956, the Commission granted a certificate of unlimited duration, and this certificate was among those construed as “permanent” by this Court in Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 170, 175 (1960). Gulf entered into a second contract to sell additional volumes of gas to El Paso in 1972, and obtained a certificate of unlimited duration for those volumes in 1973.
The original 50-year lease obtained by Gulf expired on July 14, 1975, and, under local law, the lessee’s interest in the remaining oil and gas reserves terminated and reverted to respondents. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Southland Royalty Co., 496 S. W. 2d 547 (Tex. 1973). Just prior to expiration of the lease, respondents arranged to sell the remaining casinghead gas to an intrastate purchaser, at the higher prices available' in the intrastate market.
El Paso, in order to preserve one of its sources of supply, then filed a petition with the Commission seeking a determination that the remaining gas reserves could not be diverted to the intrastate market without abandonment authorization pursuant to § 7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 824, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 717f (b) (1976 ed.). The Commission agreed with this contention, relying on the “principle established by Section 7 (b) that 'service’ may not be abandoned without our permission and approval.” El Paso Natural Gas Co., 54 F. P. C. 145, 150, 10 P. U. R. 4th 344, 348 (1975). The Commission held that respondents could not, upon termination of the lease, sell gas in intrastate commerce without prior permission from the Commission under § 7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act and that Gulf was also obligated to seek abandonment permission. The Commission reaffirmed this view in an order denying rehearing, but added language insuring that any deliveries of gas to El Paso during the period that the Commission’s order was under review would not constitute a dedication of those reserves to the interstate market. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 54 F. P. C. 2821, 11 P. U. R. 4th 488 (1975).
On respondents’ petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Southland Royalty Co. v. FPC, 543 F. 2d 1134 (1976). The court held that Gulf, as a tenant for a term of years, could not legally dedicate that portion of the gas which Southland and other respondents might own upon expiration of the lease. Because of the importance of the question presented to the authority of the Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, we granted the petition for certiorari. 433 U. S. 907. We reverse.
The fundamental purpose of the Natural Gas Act is to assure an adequate and reliable supply of gas at reasonable prices. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 137, 147, 151-154 (1960); Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 360 U. S. 378, 388 (1959). To this end, not only must those who would serve the interstate market obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity but also, under § 7 (b) of the Act:
“No natural-gas company shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.” 15 U. S. C. § 717f (b) (1976 ed.).
The Commission may therefore control both the terms on which a service is provided to the interstate market and the conditions on which it, will cease:
“An initial application of an independent producer, to make movements of natural gas in interstate commerce, leads to a certificate of public convenience and necessity under which the Commission controls the basis on which 'gas may be initially dedicated to interstate use. Moreover, once so dedicated there can be no withdrawal of that supply from continued interstate movement without Commission approval.’ ” Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co., supra, at 156.
The Act was “so framed as to afford consumers a complete, permanent and effective bond of protection from excessive rates and charges.” Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, supra, at 388.
The jurisdiction of the Commission extends to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce or the sale in interstate commerce for resale to consumers. § 1 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 717 (b) (1976 ed.). Gas which flows across state lines for resale is dedicated to interstate commerce regardless of the intentions of the producer. California v. Lo-Vaca Co., 379 U. S. 366 (1965). The Court there approved an approach to questions of the Commission’s jurisdiction based on the physical flow of the gas:
“We said in Connecticut Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 324 U. S. 515, 529, 'Federal jurisdiction was to follow the flow of electric energy, an engineering and scientific, rather than a legalistic or governmental, test.’ And that is the test we have followed under both the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, except as Congress itself has substituted a so-called legal standard for the technological one. Id., at 530-531.” Id., at 369.
The Court reasoned that in the circumstances of that case, “[t]he fact that a substantial part of the gas will be resold [in interstate commerce] . . . invokes federal jurisdiction at the outset over the entire transaction.” Ibid.
In this litigation the Commission held that once gas began to flow in interstate commerce from a field subject to a certificate of unlimited duration, that flow could not be terminated unless the Commission authorized an abandonment of service. The initiation of interstate service pursuant to the certificate dedicated all fields subject to that certificate. The expiration of a lease on the field of gas did not affect the obligation to continue the flow of gas, a service obligation imposed by the Act.
We think that the Commission’s interpretation of the abandonment provision of the Natural Gas Act is a permissible one. In Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, the Court recognized that the obligation to serve the interstate market imposed by a certificate of unlimited duration could not be terminated by private contractual arrangements. In that case, a producing company which had contracted with a pipeline to supply gas for 20 years sought a certificate from the Commission limited to that period. The Commission insisted on a permanent certificate; and this Court upheld its authority to do so, holding that even after the contract had expired, the producer would remain under an obligation to supply gas to the pipeline, unless permission to abandon service had been obtained. The obligation on the producer which survived after the contract term “will not be one imposed by contract but by the Act.” 364 U. S., at 155. The obligation to continue the service despite the provisions of the sales contract was held essential to effectuate the purposes of the Act; otherwise producers and pipelines would be free to make arrangements that would circumvent the ratemaking and supply goals of the statute. Id., at 142-147.
Similar principles control this litigation. This issuance of a certificate of unlimited duration covering the gas at issue here created a federal obligation to serve the interstate market until abandonment authorization had been obtained. The Commission reasonably concluded that under the statute the obligation to continue service attached to the gas, not as a matter of contract but as a matter of law, and bound all those with dominion and power of sale over the gas, including the lessors to whom it reverted. Just as in Sunray, the service obligation imposed by the Commission survived the expiration of the private agreement which gave rise to the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Respondents seek to distinguish Sunray on the ground that the producer in that case owned all of the gas covered by the certificate, but the central theme of that opinion is that the Act is concerned with the continuation of “service” rather than with particular sales of gas or contract rights. The Court traced the language of the statute to show that “all the matters for which a certificate is required — the construction of facilities or their extension, as well as the making of jurisdictional sales — must be justified in terms of a ‘service’ to which they relate.” Id., at 150. The Court specifically noted that “§ 7 (b) does not refer to the abandonment of the continuation of sales, but rather to the abandonment of ‘services.’ ” Id., at 150 n. 17. The Commission “ [had] long drawn a distinction between the underlying service to the public a natural gas company performs and the specific manifestation — the contractual relationship — which that service takes at a given moment.” Id., at 152. Just as the federal obligation to continue service was held paramount to private arrangements in Sunray, that obligation must be recognized here. Once the gas commenced to flow into interstate commerce from the facilities used by the lessees, § 7 (b) required that the Commission’s permission be obtained prior to the discontinuance of “any service rendered by means of such facilities.” Private contractual arrangements might shift control of the facilities and thereby determine who is obligated to provide that service, but the parties may not simply agree to terminate the service obligation without the Commission’s permission.
Respondents contend that the gas at issue here was never impressed with an obligation to serve the interstate market because it was never “dedicated” to an interstate sale. The core of their argument is that “no man can dedicate what he does not own.” Brief for Respondent Southland Royalty Co. et al. 8. This maxim has an appealing resonance, but only because it takes unfair advantage of an ambiguity in the term “dedicate.” For most lawyers, as well as laymen, to “dedicate” is to “give, present, or surrender to public use.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 589 (1961). But gas which is “dedicated” pursuant to the Natural Gas Act is not surrendered to the public; it is simply placed within the jurisdiction of the Commission, so that it may be sold to the public at the “just and reasonable” rates specified by § 4 (a) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 717c (a) (1976 ed.). Judicial review insures that those rates will not be confiscatory. See FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575 (1942); FPC v. Hope Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 602-603 (1944). Thus, by “dedicating” gas to the interstate market, a producer does not effect a gift or even a sale of that gas, but only changes its regulatory status. Here, the lessee dedicated the gas by seeking and receiving a certificate of unlimited duration from the Commission. Respondents apparently had no objection, for they could have intervened in those proceedings but did not do so. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 54 F. P. C. 917, 919 n. 3 (1975).
Respondents also appear to argue that they should not be viewed as “natural gas companies” with respect to the Wad-dell Ranch gas because they have not voluntarily committed any act that would place them within the Commission’s jurisdiction. As we have seen, this argument is somewhat beside the point, for the obligation to serve the interstate market had already attached to the gas, and respondents became obligated to continue that service when they assumed control of the gas. In the Commission’s language, “the dedication involved is not the dedication of an individual party or producer, but the dedication of gas.” 54 F. P. C., at 149, 10 P. U. R. 4th, at 348.
In any event, we perceive no unfairness in holding respondents, as lessors, responsible for continuation of the service until abandonment is obtained. Respondents were “mineral lease owners who entered into a lease that permitted the lease holders to make interstate sales.” 54 F. P. C., at 920. They did not object when Gulf sought a certificate from the Commission. Indeed, as the Commission pointed out, Gulf may even have been under a duty to seek interstate purchasers for the gas. Id., at 919. Gas leases are typically construed to include a duty diligently to develop and market, see, e. g., 5 H. Williams & C. Meyers, Oil and Gas Law § 853 (1977), and at the time the certificate was sought the interstate market was the major outlet for gas, see Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 360 U. S., at 394. Having authorized Gulf to make interstate sales of gas, respondents could not have expected those sales to be free from the rules and restrictions that from time to time would cover the interstate market. Cf. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 482 (1911).
In Sunray, the Court discussed the “practical consequences” for the consumer if the term of the sales contract limited the term of the certificate. 364 U. S., at 143, 142-147. The Court reasoned:
“If petitioner’s contentions . . . were . . . sustained, the way would be clear for every independent producer of natural gas to seek certification only for the limited period of its initial contract with the transmission company, and thus automatically be free at a future date, untrammelled by Commission regulation, to reassess whether it desired to continue serving the interstate market.” Id., at 142.
A “local economy which had grown dependent on natural gas as a fuel” might experience disruption or significantly higher prices. Id., at 143. These observations are equally pertinent to private arrangements by way of leases. If the expiration of a lease to mineral rights terminated all obligation to provide interstate service, producers would be free to structure their leasing arrangements to frustrate the aims and goals of the Natural Gas Act.
Respondents suggest that the Commission could require a voluntary assumption of the service obligation by the lessor as a condition to certificates issued in the future. It is obvious that this solution does nothing to protect those communities presently depending on the flow of gas pursuant to a certificate of unlimited duration already issued. Moreover, the Court questioned in Sunray whether the conditioning power could be used to achieve indirectly what the Act did not authorize the Commission to do directly. Id., at 152. In light of this tension, the Court concluded that “the Commission’s power to protect the public interest under § 7 (e) need not be restricted to these indirect and dubious methods.” Ibid.
We conclude that the Commission acted within its statutory powers in requiring that respondents obtain permission to abandon interstate service. “A regulatory statute such as the Natural Gas Act would be hamstrung if it were tied down to technical concepts of local law.” United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 381 U. S. 392, 400 (1965). By tying the concept of dedication to local property law, respondents would cripple the authority of the Commission at a time when the need for decisive action is greatest. Guided by Sunray, we believe that the structure and purposes of the Natural Gas Act require a broader view of the Commission’s authority.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The “Waddell” lease, executed on July 14, 1925, covered 45,771 acres in Crane County, Tex. In the same year Gulf executed an identical lease, the “Goldsmith” lease, with the owners of 19,840 acres in Ector County, Tex. The gas remaining at the expiration of both leases is at issue in this litigation, but because the parties are in agreement that there are no material differences in the language or history of these leases, we shall discuss only the Waddell lease.
The Commission’s order of May 28, 1956, had granted more than 100 certificates with identical language. This Court’s decision in Sun Oil, though prompted by a dispute over a specific certificate, interpreted the Commission’s order as it applied to the entire “batch of certificates.” 364 U. S., at 175.
Texaco, Inc., owner of a 25% interest in the reversion under the Goldsmith Lease, see n. 1, supra, also filed a petition with the Commission, seeking a declaration that upon expiration of the lease the fee owners would be free to sell the remaining gas to intrastate purchasers. Although Texaco’s interest was adverse to El Paso, Texaco’s petition raised the same issues as El Paso’s petition and was therefore consolidated with it. The State of California and its Public Utilities Commission intervened in the consolidated proceeding.
In California v. Lo-Vaca Co., an interstate pipeline had entered into a private contractual arrangement with a producer that all gas purchased pursuant to the agreement would be for internal use only. Despite this explicit reservation intended to remove this gas from the jurisdiction of the Commission, the Court held that the Commission had jurisdiction over the entire transaction because at least some part of the contract gas, physically commingled in the pipeline .with gas from other sources, would be sold to other interstate purchasers.
An analogy in state law may be found in the power of a tenant to seek a change in the zoning status of leased property. See, e. g., Newport Associates, Inc. v. Solow, 30 N. Y. 2d 263, 283 N. E. 2d 600 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 931 (1973); Richman v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 391 Pa. 254, 258, 137 A. 2d 280, 283 (1958).
Moreover, the type of regulation which the Commission has here imposed is not without precedent. As we recognized in Sunray, § 7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act “follows a common pattern in federal utility regulation.” 364 U. S., at 141-142. Section 1 (18) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (18), similarly provides that “no carrier by railroad subject to this chapter shall abandon all or any portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity permit of such abandonment.” At a very early date the Interstate Commerce Commission interpreted this provision to require that a certificate of abandonment be obtained prior to the cessation of operations over leased tracks, even though the lease had expired by its own terms. Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Toledo, Peoria & Western R. Co., 146 I. C. C. 171 (1928). In Lehigh Valley R. Co. Proposed Abandonment of Operation, 202 I. C. C. 659 (1935), the Commission held that even a lessor which had ceased to operate as a railroad prior to enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act would be required to seek permission to abandon a railroad line which had reverted to it upon expiration of a lease. Long before Gulf applied for its certificate, this Court approved these decisions. See Smith v. Hoboken R., Warehouse & S. S. Connecting Co., 328 U. S. 123, 130 (1946) (“[A] certificate is required under § 1 (18) whether the lessee or the lessor is abandoning operations”); Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U. S. 134, 144-145 (1946) (“[T]he fact that the trackage contract was entered into in 1904 prior to the passage of the Act is immaterial; the provisions of the Act, including § 1 (18), are applicable to contracts made before as well as after its enactment”) . These precedents demonstrate that the specific type of obligation imposed here — an obligation to continue interstate service until abandonment has been obtained — is within the range of regulatory possibilities that must be anticipated by one profiting from interstate operations.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In November 1966, petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected from the 18th Congressional District of New York to serve in the United States House of Representatives for the 90th Congress. However, pursuant to a House resolution, he was not permitted to take his seat. Powell (and some of the voters of his district) then filed suit in Federal District Court, claiming that the House could exclude him only if it found he failed to meet the standing requirements of age, citizenship, and residence contained in Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution — requirements the House specifically found Powell met — and thus had excluded him unconstitutionally. The District Court dismissed petitioners' complaint “for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.” A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, although on somewhat different grounds, each judge filing a separate opinion. We have determined that it was error to dismiss the complaint and that petitioner Powell is entitled to a declaratory judgment that he was unlawfully excluded from the 90th Congress.
I.
Facts.
During the 89th Congress, a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration conducted an investigation into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was chairman. The Special Subcommittee issued a report concluding that Powell and certain staff employees had deceived the House authorities as to travel expenses. The report also indicated there was strong evidence that certain illegal salary payments had been made to Powell’s wife at his direction. See H. R. Rep. No. 2349, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 6-7 (1966). No formal action was taken during the 89th Congress. However, prior to the organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic members-elect met in caucus and voted to remove Powell as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor. See H. R. Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1967).
When the 90th Congress met to organize in January 1967, Powell was asked to step aside while the oath was administered to the other members-elect. Following the administration of the oath to the remaining members, the House discussed the procedure to be followed in determining whether Powell was eligible to take his seat. After some debate, by a vote of 363 to 65 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1, which provided that the Speaker appoint a Select Committee to determine Powell’s eligibility. 113 Cong. Rec. 26-27. Although the resolution prohibited Powell from taking his seat until the House acted on the Select Committee’s report, it did provide that he should receive all the pay and allowances due a member during the period.
The Select Committee, composed of nine lawyer-members, issued an invitation to Powell to testify before the Committee. The invitation letter stated that the scope of the testimony and investigation would include Powell’s qualifications as to age, citizenship, and residency; his involvement in a civil suit (in which he had been held in contempt); and “[mjatters of... alleged official misconduct since January 3, 1961.” See Hearings on H. R. Res. No. 1 before Select Committee Pursuant to H. R. Res. No. 1,90th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1967) (hereinafter Hearings). Powell appeared at the Committee hearing held on February 8,1967. After the Committee denied in part Powell's request that certain adversary-type procedures be followed, Powell testified. He would, however, give information relating only to his age, citizenship, and residency; upon the advice of counsel, he refused to answer other questions.
On February 10, 1967, the Select Committee issued another invitation to Powell. In the letter, the Select Committee informed Powell that its responsibility under the House Resolution extended to determining not only whether he met the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2, but also to “inquiring] into the question of whether you should be punished or expelled pursuant to the powers granted... the House under Article I, Section 5,... of the Constitution. In other words, the Select Committee is of the opinion that at the conclusion of the present inquiry, it has authority to report back to the House recommendations with respect to... seating, expulsion or other punishment.” See Hearings 110. Powell did not appear at the next hearing, held February 14, 1967. However, his attorneys were present, and they informed the Committee that Powell would not testify about matters other than his eligibility under the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2. Powell’s attorneys reasserted Powell’s contention that the standing qualifications were the exclusive requirements for membership, and they further urged that punishment or expulsion was not possible until a member had been seated. See Hearings 111-113.
The Committee held one further hearing at which neither Powell nor his attorneys were present. Then, on February 23, 1967, the Committee issued its report, finding that Powell met the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2. H. R. Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 31 (1967). However, the Committee further reported that Powell had asserted an unwarranted privilege and immunity from the processes of the courts of New York; that he had wrongfully diverted House funds for the use of others and himself; and that he had made false reports on expenditures of foreign currency to the Committee on House Administration. Id., at 31-32. The Committee recommended that Powell be sworn and seated as a member of the 90th Congress but that he be censured by the House, fined $40,000 and be deprived of his seniority. Id., at 33.
The report was presented to the House on March 1, 1967, and the House debated the Select Committee’s proposed resolution. At the conclusion of the debate, by a vote of 222 to 202 the House rejected a motion to bring the resolution to a vote. An amendment to the resolution was then offered; it called for the exclusion of Powell and a declaration that his seat was vacant. The Speaker ruled that a majority vote of the House would be sufficient to pass the resolution if it were so amended. 113 Cong. Rec. 5020. After further debate, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 248 to 176. Then the House adopted by a vote of 307 to 116 House Resolution No. 278 in its amended form, thereby excluding Powell and directing that the Speaker notify the Governor of New York that the seat was vacant.
Powell and 13 voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York subsequently instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Five members of the House of Representatives were named as defendants individually and “as representatives of a class of citizens who are presently serving... as members of the House of Representatives.” John W. McCormack was named in his official capacity as Speaker, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and the Doorkeeper were named individually and in their official capacities. The complaint alleged that House Resolution No. 278 violated the Constitution, specifically Art. I, § 2, cl. 1, because the resolution was inconsistent with the mandate that the members of the House shall be elected by the people of each State, and Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, which, petitioners alleged, sets forth the exclusive qualifications for membership. The complaint further alleged that the Clerk of the House threatened to refuse to perform the service for Powell to which a duly elected Congressman is entitled, that the Sergeant at Arms refused to pay Powell his salary, and that the Doorkeeper threatened to deny Powell admission to the House chamber.
Petitioners asked that a three-judge court be convened. Further, they requested that the District Court grant a permanent injunction restraining respondents from executing the House Resolution, and enjoining the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath, the Clerk from refusing to perform the duties due a Representative, the Sergeant at Arms from refusing to pay Powell his salary, and the Doorkeeper from refusing to admit Powell to the Chamber. The complaint also requested a declaratory judgment that Powell’s exclusion was unconstitutional.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint “for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.” Powell v. McCormack, 266 F. Supp. 354 (D. C. D. C. 1967). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed on somewhat different grounds, with each judge of the panel filing a separate opinion. Powell v. McCormack, 129 U. S. App. D. C. 354, 395 F. 2d 577 (1968). We granted certiorari. 393 U. S. 949 (1968). While the case was pending on our docket, the 90th Congress officially terminated and the 91st Congress was seated. In November 1968, Powell was again elected as the representative of the 18th Congressional District of New York and he was seated by the 91st Congress. The resolution seating Powell also fined him $25,000. See H. R. Res. No. 2, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 115 Cong. Rec. H21 (daily ed., January 3, 1969). Respondents then filed a suggestion of mootness. We postponed further consideration of this suggestion to a hearing on the merits. 393 U. S. 1060 (1969).
Respondents press upon us a variety of arguments to support the court below; they will be considered in the following order. (1) Events occurring subsequent to the grant of certiorari have rendered this litigation moot. (2) The Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 6, insulates respondents’ action from judicial review. (3) The decision to exclude petitioner Powell is supported by the power granted to the House of Representatives to expel a member. (4) This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. (5) Even if subject matter jurisdiction is present, this litigation is not justiciable either under the general criteria established by this Court or because a political question is involved.
II.
Mootness.
After certiorari was granted, respondents filed a memorandum suggesting that two events which occurred subsequent to our grant of certiorari require that the case be dismissed as moot. On January 3, 1969, the House of Representatives of the 90th Congress officially terminated, and petitioner Powell was seated as a member of the 91st Congress. 115 Cong. Rec. H22 (daily ed.,. January 3, 1969). Respondents insist that the gravamen of petitioners’ complaint was the failure. of the 90th Congress to seat petitioner Powell and’that,- since' the House of Representatives is not a continuing body and Powell has now been seated, his claims are moot. Petitioners counter that three issues remain unresolved and thus this litigation presents a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Art. Ill: (1) whether Powell was unconstitutionally deprived of his seniority by his exclusion from the 90th Congress; (2) whether the resolution of the 91st Congress imposing as “punishment” a $25,000 fine is a continuation of respondents’ allegedly unconstitutional exclusion, see H. R. Res. No. 2, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 115 Cong. Rec. H21 (daily ed., January 3, 1969); and (3) whether Powell is entitled to salary withheld after his exclusion from the 90th Congress. We conclude that Powell’s claim for back salary remains viable even though he has been seated in the 91st Congress and thus find it unnecessary to determine whether the other issues have become moot.
Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. See E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 35-37 (2d ed. 1941). Where one of the several issues presented becomes moot, the remaining live issues supply the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 86-94 (1947); 6A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 57.13 (2d ed. 1966). Despite Powell’s obvious and continuing interest in his withheld salary, respondents insist that Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528 (1926), leaves us no choice but to dismiss this litigation as moot. Alejandrino, a duly appointed Senator of the Philippine Islands, was suspended for one year by a resolution of the Philippine Senate and deprived of all “prerogatives, privileges and emoluments” for the period of his suspension. The Supreme Court of the Philippines refused to enjoin the suspension. By the time the case reached this Court, the suspension had expired and the Court dismissed as moot Alejandrino’s request that the suspension be enjoined. Then, sua sponte, the Court considered whether the possibility that Alejandrino was entitled to back salary required it “to retain the case for the purpose of determining whether he [Alejandrino] may not have a mandamus for this purpose.” Id., at 533. Characterizing the issue of Alejandrino’s salary as a “mere incident” to his claim that the suspension was improper, the Court noted that he had not briefed the salary issue and that his request for mandamus did not set out with sufficient clarity the official or set of officials against whom the mandamus should issue. Id., at 533-534. The Court therefore refused to treat the salary claim and dismissed the entire action as moot.
Respondents believe that Powell’s salary claim is also a “mere incident” to his insistence that he was unconstitutionally excluded so that we should likewise dismiss this entire action as moot. This argument fails to grasp that the reason for the dismissal in Alejandrino was not that Alejandrino’s deprivation of salary was insufficiently substantial to prevent the case from becoming moot, but rather that his failure to plead sufficient facts to establish his mandamus claim made it impossible for any court to resolve the mandamus request. By contrast, petitioners’ complaint names the official responsible for the payment of congressional salaries and asks for both mandamus and an injunction against that official.
Futhermore, even if respondents are correct that petitioners’ averments as to injunctive relief are not sufficiently definite, it does not follow that this litigation must be dismissed as moot. Petitioner Powell has not been paid his salary by virtue of an allegedly unconstitutional House resolution. That claim is still unresolved and hotly contested by clearly adverse parties. Declaratory relief has been requested, a form of relief not available when Alejandrino was decided. A court may grant declaratory relief even though it chooses not to issue an injunction or mandamus. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell, supra, at 93; cf. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 25-26 (1947). A declaratory judgment can then be used as a predicate to further relief, including an injunction. 28 U. S. C. § 2202; see Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Brothers Slate Co., 253 F. 2d 29 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1958); United States Lines Co. v. Shaughnessy, 195 F. 2d 385 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1952). Alejandrino stands only for the proposition that, where one claim has become moot and the pleadings are insufficient to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to another remedy, the action should be dismissed as moot. There is no suggestion that petitioners’ averments as to declaratory relief are insufficient and Powell’s allegedly unconstitutional deprivation of salary remains unresolved.
Respondents further argue that Powell’s “wholly incidental and subordinate” demand for salary is insufficient to prevent this litigation from becoming moot. They suggest that the “primary and principal relief” sought was the seating of petitioner Powell in the 90th Congress rendering his presumably secondary claims not worthy of judicial consideration. Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116 (1966), rejects respondents’ theory that the mootness of a “primary” claim requires a conclusion that all “secondary” claims are moot. At the Bond oral argument it was suggested that the expiration of the session of the Georgia Legislature which excluded Bond had rendered the case moot. We replied: “The State has not pressed this argument, and it could not do so, because the State has stipulated that if Bond succeeds on this appeal he will receive back salary for the term from which he was excluded.” 385 U. S., at 128, n. 4. Bond is not controlling, argue respondents, because the legislative term from which Bond was excluded did not end until December 31, 1966, and our decision was rendered December 5; further, when Bond was decided, Bond had not as yet been seated while in this case Powell has been. Respondents do not tell us, however, why these factual distinctions create a legally significant difference between Bond and this case. We relied in Bond on the outstanding salary claim, not the facts respondents stress, to hold that the case was not moot.
Finally, respondents seem to argue that Powell’s proper action to recover salary is a suit in the Court of Claims, so that, having brought the wrong action, a dismissal for mootness is appropriate. The short answer to this argument is that it confuses mootness with whether Powell has established a right to recover against the Sergeant at Arms, a question which it is inappropriate to treat at this stage of the litigation.
III.
Speech or Debate Clause.
Respondents assert that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 6, is an absolute bar to petitioners’ action. This Court has on four prior occasions — Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82 (1967); United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169 (1966); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951); and Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 (1881) — been called upon to determine if allegedly unconstitutional action taken by legislators or legislative employees is insulated from judicial review by the Speech or Debate Clause. Both parties insist that their respective positions find support in these cases and tender for decision three distinct issues: (1) whether respondents in participating in the exclusion of petitioner Powell were “acting in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 376; (2) assuming that respondents were so acting, whether the fact that petitioners seek neither damages from any of the respondents nor a criminal prosecution lifts the bar of the clause; and (3) even if this action may not be maintained against a Congressman, whether those respondents who are merely employees of the House may plead the bar of the clause. We find it necessary to treat only the last of these issues.
The Speech or Debate Clause, adopted by the Constitutional Convention without debate or opposition, finds its roots in the conflict between Parliament and the Crown culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Drawing upon this history, we concluded in United States v. Johnson, supra, at 181, that the purpose of this clause was “to prevent intimidation [of legislators] by the executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary.’' Although the clause sprang from a fear of seditious libel actions instituted by the Crown to punish unfavorable speeches made in Parliament, we have held that it would be a “narrow view” to confine the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause to words spoken in debate. Committee reports, resolutions, and the act of voting are equally covered, as are “things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, at 204. Furthermore, the clause not only provides a defense on the merits but also protects a legislator from the burden of defending himself. Dombrowski v. Eastland, supra, at 85; see Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 377.
Our cases make it clear that the legislative immunity created by the Speech or Debate Clause performs an important function in representative government. It insures that legislators are free to represent the interests of their constituents without fear that they will be later called to task in the courts for that representation. Thus, in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 373, the Court quoted the writings of James Wilson as illuminating the reason for legislative immunity: “In order to enable and encourage a representative of the publick to discharge his publick trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.”
Legislative immunity does not, of course, bar all judicial review of legislative acts. That issue was settled by implication as early as 1803, see Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, and expressly in Kilbourn v. Thompson, the first of this Court’s cases interpreting the reach of the Speech or Debate Clause. Challenged in Kilbourn was the constitutionality of a House Resolution ordering the arrest and imprisonment of a recalcitrant witness who had refused to respond to a subpoena issued by a House investigating committee. While holding that the Speech or Debate Clause barred Kilboum’s action for false imprisonment brought against several members of the House, the Court nevertheless reached the merits of Kil-bourn’s attack and decided that, since the House had no power to punish for contempt, Kilbourn’s imprisonment pursuant to the resolution was unconstitutional. It therefore allowed Kilbourn to bring his false imprisonment action against Thompson, the House’s Sergeant at Arms, who had executed the warrant for Kilbourn’s arrest.
The Court first articulated in Kilbourn and followed in Dombrowski v. Eastland the doctrine that, although an action against a Congressman may be barred by the Speech or Debate Clause, legislative employees who participated in the unconstitutional activity are responsible for their acts. Despite the fact that petitioners brought this suit against several House employees — the Sergeant at Arms, the Doorkeeper and the Clerk — as well as several Congressmen, respondents argue that Kilbourn and Dombrowski are distinguishable. Conceding that in Kilbourn the presence of the Sergeant at Arms and in Dombrowski the presence of a congressional subcommittee counsel as defendants in the litigation allowed judicial review of the challenged congressional action, respondents urge that both cases concerned an affirmative act performed by the employee outside the House having a direct effect upon a private citizen. Here, they continue, the relief sought relates to actions taken by House agents solely within the House. Alternatively, respondents insist that Kilbourn and Dombrowski prayed for damages while petitioner Powell asks that the Sergeant at Arms disburse funds, an assertedly greater interference with the legislative process. We reject the proffered distinctions.
That House employees are acting pursuant to express orders of the House does not bar judicial review of the constitutionality of the underlying legislative decision. Kilbourn decisively settles this question, since the Sergeant at Arms was held liable for false imprisonment even though he did nothing more than execute the House Resolution that Kilbourn be arrested and imprisoned. Respondents’ suggestions thus ask us to distinguish between affirmative acts of House employees and situations in which the House orders its employees not to act or between actions for damages and claims for salary. We can find no basis in either the history of the Speech or Debate Clause or our cases for either distinction. The purpose of the protection afforded legislators is not to forestall judicial review of legislative action but to insure that legislators are not distracted from or hindered in the performance of their legislative tasks by being called into court to defend their actions. A legislator is no more or no less hindered or distracted by litigation against a legislative employee calling into question the employee’s affirmative action than he would be by a lawsuit questioning the employee’s failure to act. Nor is the distraction or hindrance increased because the claim is for salary rather than damages, or because the litigation questions action taken by the employee within rather than without the House. Freedom of legislative activity and the purposes of the Speech or Debate Clause are fully protected if legislators are relieved of the burden of defending themselves. In Kilbourn and Dombrowski we thus dismissed the action against members of Congress but did not regard the Speech or Debate Clause as a bar to reviewing the merits of the challenged congressional action since congressional employees were also sued. Similarly, though this action may be dismissed against the Congressmen petitioners are entitled to maintain their action against House employees and to judicial review of the propriety of the decision to exclude petitioner Powell. As was said in Kilbourn, in language which time has not dimmed:
“Especially is it competent and proper for this court to consider whether its [the legislature’s] proceedings are in conformity with the Constitution and laws, because, living under a written constitution, no branch or department of the government is supreme; and it is the province and duty of the judicial department to determine in cases regularly brought before them, whether the powers of any branch of the government, and even those of the legislature in the enactment of laws, have been exercised in conformity to the Constitution; and if they have not, to treat their acts as null and void.” 103 U. S., at 199.
IV.
Exclusion oe Expulsion.
The resolution excluding petitioner Powell was adopted by a vote in excess of two-thirds of the 434 Members of Congress — 307 to 116. 113 Cong. Rec. 5037-5038. Article I, § 5, grants the House authority to expel a member “with the Concurrence of two thirds.” Respondents assert that the House may expel a member for any reason whatsoever and that, since a two-thirds vote was obtained, the procedure by which Powell was denied his seat in the 90th Congress should be regarded as an expulsion, not an exclusion. Cautioning us not to exalt form over substance, respondents quote from the concurring opinion of Judge McGowan in the court below:
“Appellant Powell’s cause of action for a judicially compelled seating thus boils down, in my view, to the narrow issue of whether a member found by his colleagues... to have engaged in official misconduct must, because of the accidents of timing, be formally admitted before he can be either investigated or expelled. The sponsor of the motion to exclude stated on the floor that he was proceeding on the theory that the power to expel included the power to exclude, provided a % vote was forthcoming. It was. Therefore, success for Mr. Powell on the merits would mean that the District Court must admonish the House that it is form, not substance, that should govern in great affairs, and accordingly command the House members to act out a charade.” 129 U. S. App. D. C., at 383-384, 395 F. 2d, at 606-607.
Although respondents repeatedly urge this Court not to speculate as to the reasons for Powell’s exclusion, their attempt to equate exclusion with expulsion would require a similar speculation that the House would have voted to expel Powell had it been faced with that question. Powell had not been seated at the time House Resolution No. 278 was debated and passed. After a motion to bring the Select Committee’s proposed resolution to an immediate vote had been defeated, an amendment was offered which mandated Powell’s exclusion. Mr. Celler, chairman of the Select Committee, then posed a parliamentary inquiry to determine whether a two-thirds vote was necessary to pass the resolution if so amended “in the sense that it might amount to an expulsion.” 113 Cong. Rec. 5020. The Speaker replied that “action by a majority vote would be in accordance with the rules.” Ibid. Had the amendment been regarded as an attempt to expel Powell, a two-thirds vote would have been constitutionally required. The Speaker ruled that the House was voting to exclude Powell, and we will not speculate what the result might have been if Powell had been seated and expulsion proceedings subsequently instituted.
Nor is the distinction between exclusion and expulsion merely one of form. The misconduct for which Powell was charged occurred prior to the convening of the 90th Congress. On several occasions the House has debated whether a member can be expelled for actions taken during a prior Congress and the House’s own manual of procedure applicable in the 90th Congress states that “both Houses have distrusted their power to punish in such cases.” Rules of the House of Representatives, H. R. Doc. No. 529, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 25 (1967); see G. Galloway, History of the House of Representatives 32 (1961). The House rules manual reflects positions taken by prior Congresses. For example, the report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the expulsion of John W. Langley states unequivocally that the House will not expel a member for misconduct committed during an earlier Congress:
“ [I] t must be said that with practical uniformity the precedents in such cases are to the effect that the House will not expel a Member for reprehensible action prior to his election as a Member, not even for conviction for an offense. On May 23, 1884, Speaker Carlisle decided that the House had no right to punish a Member for any offense alleged to have been committed previous to the time when he was elected a Member, and added, 'That has been so frequently decided in the House that it is no longer a matter of dispute.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 30, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1925).
Members of the House having expressed a belief that such strictures apply to its own power to expel, we will not assume that two-thirds of its members would have expelled Powell for his prior conduct had the Speaker announced that House Resolution No. 278 was for expulsion rather than exclusion.
Finally, the proceedings which culminated in Powell’s exclusion cast considerable doubt upon respondents’ assumption that the two-thirds vote necessary to expel would have been mustered. These proceedings have been succinctly described by Congressman Eckhardt:
“The House voted 202 votes for the previous question leading toward the adoption of the [Select] Committee report. It voted 222 votes against the previous question, opening the floor for the Curtis Amendment which ultimately excluded Powell.
“Upon adoption of the Curtis Amendment, the vote again fell short of two-thirds, being 248 yeas to 176 nays. Only on the final vote, adopting the Resolution as amended, was more than a two-thirds vote obtained, the vote being 307 yeas to 116 nays. On this last vote, as a practical matter, members who would not have denied Powell a seat if they were given the choice to punish him had to cast an aye vote or else record themselves as opposed to the only punishment that was likely to come before the House. Had the matter come up through the processes of expulsion, it appears that the two-thirds vote would have failed, and then members would have been able to apply a lesser penalty.”
We need express no opinion as to the accuracy of Congressman Eckhardt’s prediction that expulsion proceedings would have produced a different result. However, the House’s own views of the extent of its power to expel combined with the Congressman’s analysis counsel that exclusion and expulsion are not fungible proceedings. The Speaker ruled that House Resolution No. 278 contemplated an exclusion proceeding. We must reject respondents’ suggestion that we overrule the Speaker and hold that, although the House manifested an intent to exclude Powell, its action should be tested by whatever standards may govern an expulsion.
V.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
As we pointed out in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 198 (1962), there is a significant difference between determining whether a federal court has “jurisdiction of the subject matter” and determining whether a cause over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction is “justiciable.” The District Court determined that “to decide this case on the merits... would constitute a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers” and then dismissed the complaint “for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.” Powell v. McCormack, 266 F. Supp. 354, 359, 360 (D. C. D. C. 1967). However, as the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, the doctrine of separation of powers is more properly considered in determining whether the case is “justiciable.” We agree with the unanimous conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the District Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. However, for reasons set forth in Part VI, infra, we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that this case is not justiciable.
In Baker v. Carr, supra, we noted that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter (1) if the cause does not “arise under” the Federal Constitution, laws, or treaties (or fall within one of the other enumerated categories of Art. Ill); or (2) if it is not a “case or controversy” within the meaning of that phrase in Art. Ill; or (3) if the cause is not one described by any jurisdictional statute. And, as in Baker v. Carr, supra, our determination (see Part VI, B (1) infra) that this cause presents no non justiciable “political question” disposes of respondents’ contentions that this cause is not a “case or controversy.”
Respondents first contend that this is not a case “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III. They emphasize that Art. I, § 5, assigns to each House of Congress the power to judge the elections and qualifications of its own members and to punish its members for disorderly behavior. Respondents also note that under Art. I, § 3, the Senate has the “sole power” to try all impeachments. Respondents argue that these delegations (to “judge,” to “punish,” and to “try”) to the Legislative Branch are explicit grants of “judicial power” to the Congress and constitute specific exceptions to the general mandate of Art. Ill that the “judicial power” shall be vested in the federal courts. Thus, respondents maintain, the “power conferred on the courts by article III does not authorize this Court to do anything more than declare its lack of jurisdiction to proceed.”
We reject this contention. Article III, § 1, provides that the “judicial Power... shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may... establish.” Further, § 2 mandates that the “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases... arising under this Constitution....” It has long been held that a suit “arises under” the Constitution if a petitioner’s claim “will be sustained if the Constitution... [is] given one construction and will be defeated if [it is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 685 (1946). See King County v. Seattle School District No. 1, 263 U. S. 361, 363-364 (1923). Cf. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824). See generally C. Wright, Federal Courts 48-52 (1963). Thus, this case clearly is one “arising under” the Constitution as the Court has interpreted that phrase. Any bar to federal courts reviewing the judgments made by the House or Senate in excluding a member arises from the allocation of powers between the two branches of the Federal Government (a question of justiciability), and not from the petitioners’ failure to state a claim based on federal law.
Respondents next contend that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the District Court appealed from was entered on April 9, 1964, 229 F. Supp. 310 (D. C. M. D. Pa.). The District Court held invalid under the Four- ' teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Pennsylvania Representative Apportionment Act of January 9, 1964, P. L. 1419, 25 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2221-2222 (1963 Supp., including Acts of the 1963 Extra Session), the Pennsylvania Senatorial Apportionment Act of January 9, 1964, P. L. 1432, 25 Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann. §§2217-2220 (1963 Supp., including Acts of the 1963 Extra Session), and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s legislative apportionment provisions, Art. II, §§16, 17. The court restrained appellants from conducting any future elections under the apportionment acts, but stayed its order pending the disposition of an appeal to this Court. Thereafter on June 15, 1964, this Court decided Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, and companion cases: WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633; Maryland Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656; Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713. On September 29, 1964, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down a decision construing the legislative apportionment provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and holding these provisions constitutional as construed. The court, however, declared invalid, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. Constitution, the Pennsylvania legislative apportionment laws at issue in this appeal. Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438, 203 A. 2d 556. The Pennsylvania court retained jurisdiction of the case, stating:
“We have indicated that it is our expectation that the Legislature will proceed in timely fashion to enact reapportionment laws which conform to constitutional requirements. We must recognize, however, that if the General Assembly fails to act in a timely fashion, we shall be obliged to take necessary affirmative action to insure that the 1966 election of Pennsylvania legislators will be conducted pursuant to a constitutionally valid plan. Proper regard for our responsibility compels us to retain jurisdiction of this matter pending legislative action.
“Should the Legislature fail to enact a constitutionally valid plan of reapportionment as soon as practical, but not later than September 1, 1-965, we shall take such action as may be appropriate in light of the then existing situation.
“Jurisdiction retained in accordance with this opinion.” Id., at 468-469, 203 A. 2d, at 573.
The judgment of the District Court is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of the decisions supervening since the entry of the judgment of the District Court.
Vacated and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power to modify certificates of public convenience and necessity containing inadvertent errors, and, if so, whether, in the circumstances of these cases, the Commission could modify certificates which had inadvertently authorized the performance of unrestricted motor carrier services by a wholly owned subsidiary of a railroad.
Appellee, a wholly owned subsidiary of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, is a common carrier by motor vehicle engaged primarily in the transportation of property in interstate and intrastate commerce. The greater part of appellee’s motor carrier system was acquired in 1938 and 1939 by the purchase of existing independent motor carriers. These purchases were made pursuant to the predecessor of § 5 (2) (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2)(b), which permits the acquisition by a rail carrier of the rights and properties of a motor carrier if the Interstate Commerce Commission finds that the acquisition “will be consistent with the public interest and will enable such [rail] carrier to use service by motor vehicle to public advantage in its operations and will not unduly restrain competition.” In 1938, appellee began seeking permission to operate as a motor carrier over substantial mileage in seven States including routes in issue here. On some of the routes eventually acquired by appellee, the Commission authorized it to carry on unrestricted operations. On others, the Commission imposed restrictions limiting service to points within ten miles of the rail stations of appellee’s parent corporation or to transportation of shipments from, to, or through certain cities. In addition, on some routes the Commission imposed additional restrictions to assure that appellee’s service would be “auxiliary or supplementary” to the services performed by its corporate parent.
This case concerns four of appellee’s routes aggregating some 284 miles. Prior to appellee’s purchase, each of the routes was serviced by an independent motor carrier which engaged in unrestricted motor carrier operations. During 1938 and 1939, appellee made application to the Commission for permission to purchase the properties and operating rights of these independent carriers. Finance hearings were held before a Commission examiner to determine whether the acquisitions met the applicable statutory standards. Although appellee sought to continue the acquired carriers’ unrestricted operations, it represented to the Commission in each of its applications that acquisition of the carriers would enable it to establish coordinated truck service with the train servicé of its parent railroad along these routes. A number of motor carriers opposed appellee’s applications, but the hearing examiner recommended approval of each, subject to various conditions. Among these was the recommendation that the authority granted be subject “to such further limitations, restrictions, or modifications as the Commission may hereafter find necessary to impose, in order to insure that the service shall be auxiliary or supplementary to the train service of the [parent] railroad, and shall not unduly restrain competition.” The protestant motor carriers filed exceptions to the hearing examiner’s report on one of the purchases and all went to Division 5 of the Commission for action. It reviewed the reports and adopted the examiner’s recommendations including the above-quoted condition. Although appellee had asked for authority to operate unrestricted service, it took no exceptions to the Division reports and did not ask for review by the full Commission. Rather, it notified the Commission that it would consummate the approved purchases subject to the terms prescribed, and, within thirty days of the reports, it did consummate the transactions and commence operations.
Thereafter, in 1939, compliance orders issued to appellee in connection with the four routes in question. These informed appellee that certificates of convenience and necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate and foreign commerce as a common carrier according to specifications set forth in the orders would be issued as soon as appellee complied with applicable statutory requirements, including the filing of rate publications and evidence of security for the protection of the public. The specifications in the compliance orders did not include the condition adopted by Division 5 reserving the right to the Commission to take steps to insure that appellee’s service would be “auxiliary or supplementary” to its parent’s rail services.
In 1941, prior to the issuance of certificates covering the four routes, a complaint was filed by various competing motor carriers which charged that appellee was performing unauthorized motor carrier service which was independent of its parent’s rail services. During the course of this proceeding, a number of certificates of convenience and necessity issued to appellee. Those concerning the four routes in question contained no reservations of authority similar to the ones stated in the finance hearing orders issued by Division 5. On August 1, 1944, Division 5 entered findings in that proceeding stating that appellee was performing unauthorized direct motor carrier service which it had not been authorized to perform by the original acquisition orders. The Division further stated that appellee’s original authorization had been limited to services “auxiliary or supplementary” to the rail service of its parent. Because appellee had acquired unconditional certificates, however, the Division did not enter an order, but indicated that the acquisition proceedings would be reopened to determine what, if any, conditions should be imposed in appellee’s certificates. Subsequently, the Commission disapproved the Division’s findings that appellee had engaged in operations unauthorized by its certificates, but it stated that the conditions, if any, which should be imposed would be considered in the reopened proceedings.
The reopened proceedings commenced on motion of the Division in 1945. All parties to the proceeding were served with an examiner’s proposed report based on the records of the Commission. This report stated that the Commission had approved appellee’s acquisitions subject to the right to impose conditions to assure that appellee’s operations would be auxiliary or supplementary to the rail service of its parent, but that such a reservation inadvertently had been omitted from the certificates issued to appellee. The report proposed specific conditions to effectuate the original purpose of the Commission — i. e., to assure that appellee’s services were solely “auxiliary or supplementary.”
Appellee filed exceptions to the proposed report and requested hearings. Thereupon, the Division reopened the proceedings for further hearings which were held in 1946, after which the matter was referred to examiners for further appropriate proceedings. In an exhaustive report, the examiners discussed the history of appellee’s operations and the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the unconditioned certificates. They concluded that the certificates could not authorize operations broader than those approved by the Commission in the finance proceedings and that the certificates inadvertently had omitted relevant restrictions. The Division, in its report, reviewed the Commission’s administrative procedures and practices and pointed out how the error probably had occurred. It showed that certificates are prepared by a staff section of the Commission which, after a prescribed lapse of time from the adoption of reports or orders by the Commission authorizing the issuance of certificates, inserts on mimeographed forms containing stock paragraphs the authority described in the findings of the report. It further stated that, under the Commission rules, this staff section has no discretion to alter anything contained in the reports and is charged with the sole responsibility of transposing the Commission findings into certificate form. Different action, if any, which might be desired can only be taken by the Commission or a Division through a formal supplemental report. The certificates are reviewed by a supervisor, who is also without discretionary authority to make changes, and are then issued. The Division reasoned that as no supplemental report had issued between the conclusion of the finance hearings and the issuance of the certificates, the staff section of certificates obviously had made an inadvertent error in transposing the relevant findings.
The full Commission, after oral argument, stressed another aspect of the matter in affirming the action of the Division. In its view, the findings of the finance proceedings which specifically authorized appellee’s purchases, subject to the stated limitations, could not be changed to eliminate such limitations without a formal proceeding at which opponents of the unlimited application could be heard. Each opinion within the Commission thus found that the omission from the certificates of the stated reservations had been due to clerical inadvertence which should be corrected. These corrections were ordered, and in addition specified conditions were imposed consistent with the reservations.
Appellee, dissatisfied with the Commission’s final order, commenced an action before a specially convened three-judge District Court to have the order set aside. 28 U. S. C. § 2321 et seq. Appellee argued, and a majority of the court concluded, over a dissent of one of its members, that under United States v. Watson Bros. Transportation Co., 350 U. S. 927, the Commission was without power to order modification of the unconditional certificates issued to appellee. Further, the court held that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Commission finding that the relevant restrictions were omitted from the certificates due to inadvertency. 153 F. Supp. 572. We disagree with both of these conclusions.
I.
It is well settled that the Commission has the power to reserve in certificates issued to a rail-affiliated motor carrier the right to impose specific conditions to assure that the carrier’s operations will be “auxiliary or supplementary” to the rail services of its affiliate. United States v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co., 340 U. S. 419. In that case a certificate, which contained a reservation similar to the one at question here, was issued in 1941.
The reason for the reservation is obvious. Congress, in § 5 (2) (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2)(b), has limited the acquisition of motor carrier franchises by rail carriers or their affiliates to situations where the acquisition will enable the rail carrier to use service by motor carrier to public advantage. The Commission has long interpreted this mandate to confine such acquisitions to “operations which are auxiliary or supplementary to train service/’ at least in the absence of special circumstances which might justify less restricted operations. American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 355 U. S. 141, 148, n. 8. To accomplish this congressional purpose, the Commission can either state in the certificate the conditions necessary to provide the limitation or reserve the right to impose conditions should the necessity arise. United States v.Rock Island Motor Transit Co., supra.
Here, as the record shows, appellee sought the right to carry on unrestricted operations over all the routes which it was acquiring. In some instances, the Commission approved unconditioned operations for reasons which do not appear in the record. In others, however, including the four routes here at issue, approval of only conditional service was granted. Such approval was consistent with appellee’s representations that acquisition of the routes would enable it to give service which supplemented the operations of its rail-carrier parent. In fact, the limited approval did not appear inconsistent with appellee’s plans, for it took no appeal from the Division report adopting the order of the Commission examiner which clearly stated that the Commission reserved the right to impose future conditions. And appellee consummated the proposed purchases within thirty days of the Division report. Undoubtedly, therefore, at the time of the finance proceedings, the Commission authorized limited operations on the routes in question, to which appellee acceded.
Between two and four years later, the Commission issued certificates to appellee which did not contain the reservation. The question arises, therefore, whether the omission of the restrictions from the certificates was due to a conscious policy choice on the part of the Commission or, as found by it, to error in the administrative process of fashioning the certificates. Certainly a conclusion must be based on one or the other of these alternatives because, as is obvious from the findings of Division 5 as well as the full Commission, the staff section of the Commission which prepared the certificates could not exercise discretion in changing the findings, orders and authorizations contained in the Commission reports.
The majority below concluded that the omissions resulted from a policy change, and that the subsequent reopening of the proceedings and conditioning of the certificates was an attempt to restrict appellee’s operation on the basis of newly developed policies. The record does not support this conclusion. The District Court believed it significant that Division 5 only adopted the recommendations of a hearing examiner rather than authoring approval orders of its own. Additionally, the court found special meaning in the fact that one of the certificates issued to appellee contained the relevant reservation while the ones in issue did not. Further, the court viewed the issuance of unrestricted certificates after the commencement of the related carrier proceedings in 1941 as especially important. Viewing these facts, the court refused to accept the majority conclusion of inadvertence.
In our view, however, the Commission conclusion is well supported. First, we see no special significance in the fact that Division 5 adopted, without modification, the hearing examiner’s recommendations. Under the practices of the Commission, this is not unusual, see, e. g., 53 M. C. C. 97; 53 M. C. C. 117; 46 M. C. C. 328; and the hearing examiner’s report made it clear that appellee’s operations were to be circumscribed. Second, there is nothing in the record or in the dissenting opinions of the Commission to indicate that the Commission, or a Division, or any Commissioner instructed the staff to delete the restrictions and increase the scope of appellee’s operations. This factor militates strongly in favor of the Commission’s conclusion that the reservations inadvertently were omitted, particularly when it would have been improper for the Commission td change its decision without notice to the protestants who had appeared before the hearing examiner in opposition at the original finance proceedings and had taken exception to at least one of the purchases. 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (b); 5 U. S. C. § 1004. Cf. Federal Communications Comm’n v. National Broadcasting Co. (KOA), 319 U. S. 239. Third, the issuance of one restricted certificate is not inconsistent with the Commission finding because, had the Commission changed its policies, it likely would have treated the route there involved similarly to the four routes in question. In fact, the issuance of this restricted certificate really supports the conclusion that the others were not issued because of a change of policy. Also, the Commission’s exposition of its internal procedures shows how the error could easily have occurred. Finally, as the dissent below points out, at the time these certificates were issued, the staff sections of the Commission normally dealt with certificates authorizing unrestricted service by non-rail-affiliated motor carriers. The certificates issued here were, therefore, unusual, and it is easy to see how the restrictions were omitted. 153 F. Supp. 572, 578-579. Under all these circumstances, the conclusion of the Commission was compelled by the record.
Appellee complains that the Commission, or at least Division 5, improperly took official notice of the internal administrative practices and procedures of the Commission. The first full exposition of these procedures appeared in the report of Division 5 in the reopened proceedings, although certain of them had been mentioned in the hearing examiners’ reports. Appellee claims that the Commission had to disclose these procedures at the hearing so that it would have a chance to rebut unfavorable inferences which might be drawn from them. But we fail to see what prejudice could have accrued from taking official notice of the practices, for appellee had adequate opportunity to rebut inferences drawn from them on its argument to the full Commission. United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, 327 U. S. 515. Particularly is this true where there is no showing that the procedures were misstated to appellee’s prejudice. This is not a case like Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 301 U. S. 292, or United States v. Abilene & Southern R. Co., 265 U. S. 274, where the “facts” officially noticed were in doubt or controverted or were discussed for the first time in the final decision of the Commission.
II.
The remaining question is whether the Commission has the power to modify certificates issued due to inadvertence. This Court has, on one occasion, reserved this question in a case where it determined that inadvertence was not the reason for the failure to issue a proper certificate. United States v. Seatrain Lines, 329 U. S. 424. And on another occasion, in affirming the decision of a three-judge court, we ruled that the power, if any, may only be exercised after proper opportunity for notice and hearing. United States v. Watson Bros. Transportation Co., 350 U. S. 927.
It is axiomatic that cou'rts have the power and the duty to correct judgments which contain clerical errors or judgments which have issued due to inadvertence or mistake. Gagnon v. United States, 193 U. S. 451. Rule 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognizes this power and specifically provides that “[clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.” A similar power is vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission. Section 17 (3) of the Act creating the Commission, 49 U. S. C. § 17 (3), provides that: “The Commission shall conduct its proceedings under any provision of law in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” This broad enabling statute, in our opinion, authorizes the correction of inadvertent ministerial errors. To hold otherwise would be to say that once an error has occurred the Commission is powerless to take remedial steps. This would not, as Congress provided, “best conduce to the ends of justice.” In fact, the presence of authority in administrative officers and tribunals to correct such errors has long been recognized— probably so well recognized that little discussion has ensued in the reported cases. Bell v. Hearne, 19 How. 252.
Of course, the power to correct inadvertent ministerial errors may not be used as a guise for changing previous decisions because the wisdom of those decisions appears doubtful in the light of changing policies. Such was the case in United States v. Seatrain Lines, supra, where it was apparent that the Commission had not reopened prior proceedings to correct a mistake in the issuance of a certificate but to execute a subsequently adopted policy. Cf. Watson Bros. Transportation Co. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 905 (D. C. Neb.), aff’d 350 U. S. 927. To allow the reopening of proceedings in such a case under the pretext of correction would undercut the obvious purpose of § 212 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 312, which makes the issuance of a certificate the final step in the administrative process. But nothing in that Section prohibits the correction of inadvertent errors. Here, as we have shown, the certificates issued to appellee mistakenly omitted an intended provision, and the Commission’s subsequent action was not the execution of a newly adopted policy but, as it found in a proceeding in which appellants participated after notice, merely the correction of the inadvertence.
The judgment of the District Court is Reversed
Mr. Justice Whittaker,
believing that the evidence does not support the Commission’s finding that omission of restrictions from the four certificates of convenience and necessity involved was due to mere inadvertent clerical errors of the Commission’s staff, would affirm the judgment of the District Court. 153 F. Supp. 572.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, § 213, 49 Stat. 556, conditioned acquisitions as follows: “Provided, however, That if a carrier other than a motor carrier is an applicant, or any person which is controlled by such a carrier other than a motor carrier or affiliated therewith within the meaning of Section 5 (8) of part I, the Commission shall not enter such an order unless it finds that the transaction proposed will promote the public interest by-enabling such carrier other than a motor carrier to use service by motor vehicle to public advantage in its operations and will not unduly restrain competition.”
The Commission has long interpreted the language of § 5 (2) (b), quoted above, to confine acquisitions of motor carriers by railroads or their affiliates to operations which are auxiliary or supplementary to the train service of the railroad. See American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 355 U. S. 141, 148.
Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., v. Frisco Transportation Co., 43 M. C. C. 641.
Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., v. Frisco Transportation Co., 46 M. C. C. 222.
The appellants in Nos. 15 and 16, American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Railway Labor Executives’ Association, urge us to hold that the Commission was without power/to issue unconditioned certificates to appellee because of the requirements of § 5 (2) (b) and, therefore, the certificates issued to appellee were void. We have not had occasion to rule definitively whether that Section states rigid requirements that operations of rail-affiliated motor carriers be auxiliary or supplementary to train service. Cf. American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 355 U. S. 141. As resolution of the question is unnecessary for the present decision, we intimate no position with regard to it.
See Motor Carrier Act of 1935, § 213, 49 Stat. 556.
The reopened proceedings originally involved six routes. The certificate covering one of these contained a reservation of authority, and conditions imposed in connection with that route are not at issue here. On another route, the Commission’s original approval was unconditional as was the certificate issued in connection with it. The Commission has abandoned efforts to impose new conditions on this route.
See also Davis, Administrative Law (1951), 600. And the agencies have presumed the existence of such power. See Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation — Interpretation of Certificate, 53 M. C. C. 85; Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. R. Q. Black, doing business as Superior Trucking Co., 51 M. C. C. 717; Greyhound Corporation Extension of Operations—Slidell, La., 47 M. C. C. 103; Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company Extension of Operations — New Mexico Points, 46 M. C. C. 775; Pan American Airways, Inc., North Atlantic Route Amendments, 7 C. A. B. 849.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this appeal is whether Illinois may exclude from its Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program children who reside with relatives.
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program (AFDC-FC) authorizes federal financial subsidies for the care and support of children removed from their homes and made wards of the State pursuant to a judicial determination that the children’s homes were not conducive to their welfare. §§408 (a)(1), (2) of the Social Security Act of 1935 (Act), as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 608 (a)(1), (2). To qualify for Foster Care assistance, these children must be placed in a “foster family home or child-care institution.” §408 (a) (3), 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a)(3). The basic AFDC program, already in existence when the Foster Care program was enacted in 1961, provides aid to eligible children who live with a parent or with a relative specified in § 406 (a) of the Act. In administering these programs, Illinois distinguishes between related and unrelated foster parents. Children placed in unrelated foster homes may participate in the AFDC-FC program. But those who are placed in the homes of relatives listed in § 406 (a), and who are entitled to basic AFDC benefits, cannot receive AFDC-FC assistance because the State defines the term “foster family home” as a facility for children unrelated to the operator. Foster children living with relatives may participate only in Illinois’ basic AFDC program, which provides lower monthly payments than the Foster Care program. The specific question presented here is whether Illinois has correctly interpreted the federal standards for AFDC-FC eligibility set forth in § 408 (a) of the Act to exclude children who, because of placement with related rather than unrelated foster parents, qualify for assistance under the basic AFDC program.
I
Appellees are four foster children, their older sister (Linda Youakim), and her husband (Marcel Youakim). In 1969, Illinois removed the children from their mother’s home and made them wards of the State following a judicial determination of neglect. The Department of Children and Family-Services (Department), which became responsible for the children, placed them in unrelated foster care facilities until 1972. During this period, they each received full AFDC-FC benefits of $105 a month. In 1972, the Department decided to place two of the children with the Youakims, who were under no legal obligation to accept or support them. The Department investigated the Youakim home and approved it as meeting the licensing standards established for unrelated foster family homes, as required by state law. Despite this approval, the State refused to make Foster Care payments on behalf of the children because they were related to Linda Youakim.
The exclusion of foster children living with related caretakers from Illinois’ AFDC-FC program reflects the State’s view that the home of a relative covered under basic AFDC is not a “foster family home” within the meaning of § 408 (a)(3), the federal AFDC-FC eligibility provision at issue here. Interpreting that provision, Illinois defines a “foster family home” as
“a facility for child care in residences of families who receive no more than 8 children unrelated to them... for the purpose of providing family care and training for the children on a full-time basis....” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 23, §2212.17 (Supp. 1978) (emphasis added).
Homes that do not meet the definition may not be licensed, and under state law, only licensed facilities are entitled to Foster Care payments.
Although Illinois refused to make Foster Care payments, it did provide each child basic AFDC benefits of approximately $63 a month, substantially less than the applicable $105 AFDC-FC rate. The Youakims, however, believed that these payments were insufficient to provide proper support, and declined to accept the other two children. These children remain in unrelated foster care facilities and continue to receive AFDC-FC benefits.
In 1973, the Youakims and the four foster children brought a class action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for themselves and persons similarly situated, challenging Illinois’ distinction between related and unrelated foster parents as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court certified the class, but granted summary judgment for the state officials on the constitutional claim. 374 F. Supp. 1204 (ND Ill. 1974).
While the direct appeal from the summary judgment was pending in this Court, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) issued a formal interpretation of the scope of the federal AFDC-FC program, providing in pertinent part:
“When a child has been removed from his home by judicial determination and is placed in foster care under the various conditions specified in Section 408 of the Social Security Act and 45 CFR 233.110, the foster care rate of payment prevails regardless of whether or not the foster home is operated by a relative.” HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9 (Oct. 25, 1974).
In light of this administrative interpretation, we vacated the judgment and directed the District Court to consider whether the Illinois foster care scheme is inconsistent with the Social Security Act and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 (1976) (per curiam).
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for appellees, holding that the State’s denial of AFDC-FC benefits and services to otherwise eligible foster children who live with relatives conflicts with §§401 and 408 of the Social Security Act. 431 F. Supp. 40, 45 (ND Ill. 1976). It found that under the “plain words” of § 408, dependent children adjudged to be wards of the State, removed from their homes, and placed in approved foster homes are entitled to AFDC-FC benefits, regardless of whether their foster parent is a relative. 431 F. Supp., at 44-45. In so ruling, the court relied on HEW’s interpretive ruling and on the national policy embodied in § 401 of the Act to “encourag[e] the care of dependent children in their own homes or in the homes of relatives.” 431 F. Supp., at 44. Since the State had approved the Youakim home as meeting the licensing standards for unrelated foster homes, the District Court concluded that the requirements of § 408 had been satisfied. 431 F. Supp., at 43-44.
The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 562 F. 2d 483 (CA7 1977). It held that the statutory definition of “foster family home” in the last sentence of § 408 does not exclude relatives’ homes, and found no “implied legislative intent” to create such an exclusion. 562 F. 2d, at 487; see id., at 486 n. 4. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that any home approved as meeting the State’s licensing standards is a “foster family home” within the meaning of § 408. 562 F. 2d, at 486, 490.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 434 U. S. 1060 (1978), and now affirm.
II
A participating State may not deny assistance to persons who meet eligibility standards defined in the Social Security Act unless Congress clearly has indicated that the standards are permissive. See, e. g., Burns v. Alcala, 420 U. S. 575, 580 (1975); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U. S. 598 (1972) ; Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 286 (1971); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968). Congress has specified that programs, like AFDC-FC, which employ the term “dependent child” to define eligibility must be available for “all eligible individuals.” §402 (a) (10), 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10) ; see Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 740-743, and n. 18 (1978). Section 408 (e) reinforces this general rule by requiring States to provide Foster Care benefits to “any” child who satisfies the federal eligibility criteria of § 408 (a). Thus, if foster care in related homes is encompassed within § 408, Illinois may not deny AFDC-FC benefits when it places an eligible child in the care of a relative.
In arguing that related foster care does not fall within § 408’s definition of “foster family home,” appellants submit that Congress enacted the Foster Care program solely for the benefit of children not otherwise eligible for categorical assistance. We disagree. The purpose of the AFDC-FC program was not simply to duplicate the AFDC program for a different class of beneficiaries. As the language and legislative history of § 408 demonstrate, the Foster Care program was designed to meet the particular needs of all eligible neglected children, whether they are placed with related or unrelated foster parents.
A
Section 408 (a), in defining “dependent child,” establishes four conditions of AFDC-FC eligibility. First, the child must have been removed from the home of a parent or other relative specified in § 406 (a), the basic AFDC eligibility provision, “as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child.” § 408 (a) (1), 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a) (1). Second, the State must remain responsible for the placement and care of the child. § 408 (a) (2), 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a) (2). Third, the child must be placed in "a foster family home or child-care institution.” § 408 (a) (3), 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a) (3). Fourth, the child must have been eligible for categorical assistance under the State’s plan prior to initiation of the removal proceedings. § 408 (a)(4), 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a)(4).
The dispute in this case centers on the meaning of “foster family home” as used in the third eligibility requirement, § 408 (a)(3) of the Act. The statute itself defines this phrase in sweeping language:
“[T]he term ‘foster family home’ means a foster family home for children which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency of such State responsible for licensing homes of this type, as meeting the standards established for such licensing.” § 408, 42 U. S. C. § 608 (last sentence).
Congress manifestly did not limit the term to encompass only the homes of nonrelated caretakers. Rather, any home that a State approves as meeting its licensing standards falls within the ambit of this definitional provision. That Congress intended no distinction between related and unrelated foster homes is further demonstrated by the AFDC-FC definition of “aid to families with dependent children,” which includes foster care for eligible children who live “in the foster family home of any individual.” §408 (b)(1), 42 U. S. C. §608 (b)(1) (emphasis added). Far from excluding related caretakers, the statute uses the broadest possible language when it refers to the homes of foster parents.
Appellants concede that these provisions do not explicitly bar from the Foster Care program children living with related foster parents. Juris. Statement 11; Brief for Appellants 22; Reply Brief for Appellants 5; 562 F. 2d, at 486, and n. 4. Nevertheless, they infer from two isolated passages of § 408 a congressional intent to except relatives’ homes from the definition of “foster family home.”
Appellants first rely on the definition of dependent children in §§408 (a)(1) and (3). These provisions state in relevant part:
“(a) the term ‘dependent child’ shall, notwithstanding section [406 (a) — the basic AFDC eligibility provision], also include a child (1) who would meet the requirements of such section [406 (a) ] except for his removal... from the home of a relative (specified in such section [406 (a)]) as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child..., [and] (3) who has been placed in a foster family home.” (Emphasis added.)
Appellants construe the “notwithstanding” language of § 408 (a)(1) in conjunction with §408 (a) (3) as creating a class of AFDC-FC beneficiaries distinct from the dependent children covered under basic AFDC. In their view, “notwithstanding § 406 (a)” means that the Foster Care definition of “dependent child” both suspends the basic AFDC requirement that the child reside with a parent or close relative, and precludes a foster child who meets that requirement from participating in the AFDC-FC program. Under appellants’ construction, §§ 408 (a) (1) and (3) would read: For the purpose of Foster Care aid, a “dependent child” shall only include a child who would meet the requirements of § 406 (a) except that he has been both removed from the home of a parent or relative specified in § 406 (a) and placed in a nonrelative’s home.
The difficulty with this strained interpretation is that § 408 (a)(1) does not use the word “only.” It states that a dependent child shall “also” include a child removed from the home of a parent or relative. Thus, there is no basis for construing language that unquestionably expands the scope of the term “dependent child” as implicitly contracting the definition to exclude a child who meets the eligibility criteria of § 406 (a). Because §408 (a)(1) does not have the preclusive meaning urged by appellants, it cannot implicitly modify the phrase “foster family home” in § 408 (a) (3) to denote solely unrelated homes. We think it clear that neither § 408 (a)(1) nor § 408 (a) (3) embodies a congressional intent to constrict the broad statutory definition of “foster family home.”
Appellants next maintain that interpreting AFDC-FC to encompass foster care by relatives would render meaningless another provision of the program. Section 408 (f)(1) of the Act obligates States to ensure that
“services are provided which are designed to improve the conditions in the home from which [the foster child] was removed or to otherwise make possible his being placed in the home of a relative specified in section [406 (a) ].” 42 U. S. C. § 608 (f)(1) (emphasis added).
According to appellants, if related homes were “foster family homes,” it would be unnecessary to réquire States to- make the home of a relative suitable for placement when the foster child already lives in a relative’s home.
By ignoring the critical word “or,” appellants misconstrue the import of this provision. To be sure, § 408 (f) expresses a preference for the return of children to their original home or their transfer to the care of a relative. Congress, however, expressed this preference in the alternative. When a child is placed in related foster care, the State obviously can satisfy §408 (f)(1) by working toward his ultimate return to the home from which he was removed, in this case the mother’s home. Thus, §408 (f)(1) is fully consonant with including in the AFDC-FC program foster children placed with relatives.
Had Congress intended to exclude related foster parents from the definition of “foster family home,” it presumably would have done so explicitly, just as it restricted the definition of “child-care institution.” Instead, the statute plainly states that a foster family home is the home of any individual licensed or approved by the State as meeting its licensing requirements, and we are unpersuaded that the provisions on which appellants rely implicitly limit that expansive definition.
B
The legislative history and structure of the Act fortify our conclusion that the language of § 408 should be given its full scope. The Foster Care program was enacted in the aftermath of HEW's declaration that States could no longer discontinue basic AFDC assistance due to unsuitable home conditions “while the child continues to reside in the home.” State Letter No. 452, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Jan. 17, 1961) (hereinafter Flemming Ruling). In directing States “either to improve the home conditions” or “make arrangements for the child elsewhere,” ibid., the Ruling prompted Congress to encourage state protection of neglected children. Accordingly, Congress designed a program carefully tailored to the needs of children whose “home environments... are clearly contrary to the [ir] best interests,” and it offered the States financial subsidies to implement the plan. Neither the legislative history nor the structure of the Act indicates that Congress intended to differentiate among neglected children based on their relationship to their foster parents. Indeed, such a distinction would conflict in several respects with the overriding goal of providing the best available care for all dependent children removed from their homes because they were neglected. See S. Rep. No. 165, p. 6; 107 Cong. Rec. 6388 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Byrd).
Although a fundamental purpose of the Foster Care program was to facilitate removal of children from their homes, Congress also took steps to “safeguard” intact family units from unnecessary upheaval. See S. Rep. No. 165, p. 7; 107 Cong. Rec. 6388 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Byrd). To ensure that children would be removed only from homes demonstrably inimical to their welfare, Congress required participating States to obtain “a judicial determination... that continuation in the home was contrary to the welfare of the child.” S. Rep. No. 165, p. 7; see 108 Cong. Rec. 12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy); § 408 (a)(1). Protecting the integrity of established family units by mandating judicial approval of a State’s decision to remove a child obviously is a goal that embraces all neglected children, regardless of who the ultimate caretaker may be. Yet under appellants’ construction of § 408, the State would have no obligation to justify its removal of a dependent child if he were placed with relatives, since the child could not be eligible for Foster Care benefits. But the same child, placed in unrelated facilities, would be entitled under the Foster Care program to a judicial determination of neglect. The rights of allegedly abused children and their guardians would thus depend on the happenstance of where they are placed, which is normally determined after a court has found removal necessary. We are reluctant to attribute such an anomalous intent to Congress, particularly in the absence of any indication that it meant to protect from unnecessary removal only those dependent children placed with strangers.
Congress was also concerned with assuring that States place neglected children in substitute homes determined appropriate for foster care. See S. Rep. No. 165, pp. 6-7. To deter indiscriminate foster placements, Congress required that States establish licensing standards for every foster home, § 408 (definition of “foster family home”), and supervise the placement of foster children. § 408 (a) (2); see 45 CFR §§ 220.19 (a), 233.110 (a)(2)(i) (1977). The legislative materials at no point suggest that Congress intended to subject some foster homes, but not others, to minimum standards of quality, as could result if § 408 excluded relatives’ homes from the definition of “foster family home.” Indeed, in authorizing an approval procedure as an alternative to actual licensing of “foster family homes,” Congress evinced its understanding that children placed in related foster homes are entitled to Foster Care benefits. At the time the AFDC-FC program was enacted in 1961, many States exempted relatives’ homes from the licensing requirements imposed on all other types of settings in which foster children could be placed. It is therefore likely that Congress, by including an approval procedure, meant to encompass foster homes not subject to State licensing requirements, in particular, related foster homes.
The specific services offered by the AFDC-FC program further indicate that Congress did not intend to distinguish between related and unrelated foster caretakers. Congress attached considerable significance to the unique needs and special problems of abused children who are removed from their homes by court order, distinguishing them as a class from other dependent children:
“The conditions which make it necessary to remove [neglected] children from unsuitable homes often result in needs for special psychiatric and medical care of the children....
“These are the most underprivileged children and often have special problems....” 108 Cong. Fee. 12692-12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy).
Section 408 embodies Congress’ recognition of the peculiar status of neglected children in requiring that States continually supervise the care of these children, §408 (a)(2), develop a plan tailored to the needs of each foster child “to assure that he receives proper care,” §408 (f)(1), and periodically review both the necessity of retaining the child in foster care and the appropriateness of the care being provided. See ibid.; 45 CFR §§ 220.19 (b), (c), 233.110 (a)(2) (ii) (1977). Additionally, the States must work to improve the conditions in the foster child’s original home or to transfer him to a relative when feasible, §408 (f)(1); see supra, at 137. This procedure comports with Congress’ preference for care of dependent children by relatives, a policy underlying the categorical assistance program since its inception in 1935. See S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 16-17 (1935); H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-12 (1935); Burns v. Alcala, 420 U. S., at 581-582; §401, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 601, supra, at 132-133. We do not believe that Congress, when it extended assistance to foster children, meant to depart from this fundamental principle. Congress envisioned a remedial environment to correct the enduring effects of past neglect and abuse. There is nothing to indicate that it intended to discriminate between potential beneficiaries, equally in need of the program, on the basis of their relationship to their foster parents.
That Congress had no such intent is also evidenced by the 1967 amendments to the Act, which increased the federal matching payments for AFDC-FC to exceed the federal share of basic AFDC payments. The increase reflects Congress’ recognition that state-supervised care and programs designed to meet the special needs of neglected children cost more than basic AFDC care. The legislative history of the amendment reveals no basis for distinguishing between related and unrelated foster homes. Rather, it discloses a generalized concern for the plight of all dependent children who should be sheltered from their current home environments but are forced to remain in such homes because of the States’ inability to finance substitute care. S. Rep. No. 744, pp. 163-165; H. R. Rep. No. 544, pp. 100-101. Significantly, the Committee Reports suggest that increasing federal matching payments would encourage relatives “not legally responsible for support” to undertake the care of foster children “in order to obtain the best possible environment for the child.” S. Rep. No. 744, p. 164; H. R. Rep. No. 544, p. 101. The amendments are therefore described, without qualification, as providing “more favorable Federal matching... for foster care for children removed from an unsuitable home by court order.” S. Rep. No. 744, p. 4; H. R. Rep. No. 544, p. 4.
C
Our interpretation of the statute and its legislative history is buttressed by HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9, which requires States to provide AFDC-FC benefits “regardless of whether the... foster family home in which a child is placed is operated by a relative.” In reaching this conclusion, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reasoned:
“A non-legally liable relative has no financial responsibility towards the child placed with him and the income and resources of such a relative are not factors in determining entitlement to a foster care payment. It must be noted, too, that the 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act liberalized Federal financial participation in the cost of foster care, recognizing foster family care is more costly than care in the child’s own home.” HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9.
We noted in vacating the original three-judge District Court decision in this case that “[t]he interpretation of a statute by an agency charged with its enforcement is a substantial factor to be considered in construing the statute.” Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S., at 235-236, citing New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 421 (1973) ; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 121 (1973); Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 626-627 (1971). Administrative interpretations are especially persuasive where, as here, the agency participated in developing the provision. Adams v. United States, 319 U. S. 312, 314-315 (1943); United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 549 (1940). HEW’s Program Instruction is fully supported by the statute, its legislative history, and the common-sense observation that all dependent foster children are similarly in need of the protections and monetary benefits afforded by the AFDC-FC program.
III
We think it clear that Congress designed the AFDC-FC program to include foster children placed with relatives. The overriding purpose of § 408 was to assure that the most appropriate substitute care be given to those dependent children so mistreated that a court has ordered them removed from their homes. The need for additional AFDC-FC resources — both monetary and service related — to provide a proper remedial environment for such foster children arises from the status of the child as a subject of prior neglect, not from the status of the foster parent. Appellants attribute to Congress an intent to differentiate among children who are equally neglected and abused, based on a living arrangement bearing no relationship to the special needs that the AFDC-FC program was created to meet. Absent clear support in the statutory language or legislative history, we decline to make such an unreasonable attribution.
Accordingly, we hold that the AFDC-FC program encompasses foster children who, pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect, have been placed in related homes that meet a State’s licensing requirements for foster homes.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
MR. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 408 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 608, sets forth the provisions governing the Foster Care program:
“Payment to States for foster home care of dependent children; definitions
“Effective for the period beginning May 1, 1961—
“(a) the term ‘dependent child’ shall, notwithstanding section 606 (a) of this title, also include a child (1) who would meet the requirements of such section 606 (a) or of section 607 of this title except for his removal after April 30, 1961, from the home of a relative (specified in such section 606 (a)) as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child, (2) whose placement and care are the responsibility of (A) the State or local agency administering the State plan approved under section 602 of this title..., (3) who has been placed in a foster family home or childcare institution as a result of such determination, and (4) who (A) received aid under such State plan in or for the month in which court proceedings leading to such determination were initiated, or (B) (i) would have received such aid in or for such month if application had been made therefor, or (ii) in the case of a child who had been living with a relative specified in section 606 (a) of this title within 6 months prior to the month in which such proceedings were initiated, would have received such aid in or for such month if in such month he had been living with (and removed from the home of) such a relative and application had been made therefor;
“(b) the term ‘aid to families with dependent children’ shall, notwithstanding section 606 (b) of this title, include also foster care in behalf of a child described in paragraph (a) of this section—
“(1) in the foster family home of any individual, whether the payment therefor is made to such individual or to a public or nonprofit private child-placement or child-care agency, or
“(2) in a child-care institution, whether the payment therefor is made to such institution or to a public or nonprofit private child-placement or child-care agency....
“(c) the number of individuals counted under clause (A) of section 603 (a) (1) of this title for any month shall include individuals... with respect to whom expenditures were made in such month....
“but only with respect to a State whose State plan approved under section 602 of this title—
“(e) includes aid for any child described in paragraph (a) of this section, and
“(f) includes provision for (1) development of a plan for each such child (including periodic review of the necessity for the child’s being in a foster family home or child-care institution) to assure that he receives proper care and that services are provided which are designed to improve the conditions in the home from which he was removed or to otherwise make possible his being placed in the home of a relative specified in section 606 (a) of this title....
“For purposes of this section, the term ‘foster family home’ means a foster family home for children which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency of such State responsible for licensing homes of this type, as meeting the standards established for such licensing; and the term ‘child-care institution’ means a nonprofit private child-care institution which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency of such State responsible for licensing or approval of institutions of this type, as meeting the standards established for such licensing.”
The eligibility requirements of the AFDC-FC program are contained in the statutory definition of “dependent child,” § 408 (a). See n. 1, supra.
The eligibility criteria for the basic AFDC program are set forth in its statutory definition of “dependent child,” § 406 (a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a):
“When used in this part—
“(a) The term 'dependent' child’ means a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his father,, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or niece, in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen, or (B) under the age of twenty-one and (as determined by the State in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary) a student regularly attending a school, college, or university, or regularly attending a course of vocational or technical training designed to fit him for gainful employment.”
Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 23, §2212.17 (Supp. 1978). See infra, at 130-131.
Illinois, like most other States, has consistently authorized substantially greater AFDC-FC payments than basic AFDC benefits. See 25 Soc. Sec. Bull., No. 2, Tables 10, 14, pp. 28, 30 (Feb. 1962); U. S. Dept. of HEW, Public Assistance Statistics: April 1977, Tables A, B, 4, 6, 7 (Sept. 1977) : infra, at 130, 131.
See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, § 705-7 (1) (f) (1975); Ill. Ann. Stat, ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978), as amended, Pub. Act 80-1124, 1977 Ill. Laws 3367; Pub. Act 80-1364, Ill. Legis. Serv. 713 (West 1978).
See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 23, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978).
Ch. 23, §§ 4-1.2 and 2217 (Supp. 1978); Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Child Welfare Manual 2.8.2 (1976) (hereinafter DCFS Welfare Manual). The DCFS Welfare Manual recently has been revised to conform to the decisions below.
The Agency documented its approval in two “Relative Home Placement Agreements” which were identical, both in form and in obligations imposed, to those used for unrelated foster care placements, except that the term “foster” was sometimes crossed out, two references were made to the familial relationship among appellees, and the usual promise of AFDC-FC benefits was deleted. See 431 F. Supp. 40, 43-44, and nn. 4, 5 (ND Ill. 1976); App. 20-23.
Similarly, the phrase “facility for child care/’ which is used to define “foster family home,” includes
“any person, group of persons, agency, association or organization, whether established for gain or otherwise, who or which receives or arranges for care or placement of one or more children, unrelated to the operator of the facility....” Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.05 (Supp. 1978) (emphasis added).
See §§2213-2215; DCFS Welfare Manual 2.8.2.
See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978).
As an exception to this benefit differential, the State has authorized special supplemental payments, upon an adequate showing of need by related foster parents, to bring basic AFDC related foster care assistance up to $105 per month. Brief for Appellants 5; 374 F. Supp. 1204, 1206 (ND Ill. 1974). Since September 1, 1974, the Youakims have received these need-based payments for their foster children. This Court previously held that receipt of 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12131-12165, provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” § 12132. The question presented in this case is whether Title II exceeds Congress’ power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
In August 1998, respondents George Lane and Beverly Jones filed this action against the State of Tennessee and a number of Tennessee counties, alleging past and ongoing violations of Title II. Respondents, both of whom are paraplegics who use wheelchairs for mobility, claimed that they were denied access to, and the services of, the state court system by reason of their disabilities. Lane alleged that he was compelled to appear to answer a set of criminal charges on the second floor of a county courthouse that had no elevator. At his first appearance, Lane crawled up two flights of stairs to get to the courtroom. When Lane returned to the courthouse for a hearing, he refused to crawl again or to be carried by officers to the courtroom; he consequently was arrested and jailed for failure to appear. Jones, a certified court reporter, alleged that she has not been able to gain access to a number of county courthouses, and, as a result, has lost both work and an opportunity to participate in the judicial process. Respondents sought damages and equitable relief.
The State moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the motion without opinion, and the State appealed. The United States intervened to defend Title II’s abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. On April 28,2000, after the appeal had been briefed and argued, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered an order holding the case in abeyance pending our decision in Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 (2001).
In Garrett, we concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars private suits seeking money damages for state violations of Title I of the ADA. We left open, however, the question whether the Eleventh Amendment permits suits for money damages under Title II. Id., at 360, n. 1. Following the Garrett decision, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard argument in a Title II suit brought by a hearing-impaired litigant who sought money damages for the State’s failure to accommodate his disability in a child custody proceeding. Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court, 276 F. 3d 808 (CA6 2002). A divided court permitted the suit to proceed despite the State’s assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The majority interpreted Garrett to bar private ADA suits against States based on equal protection principles, but not those that rely on due process principles. 276 F. 3d, at 811-816. The minority concluded that Congress had not validly abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for any Title II claims, id., at 821, while the concurring opinion concluded that Title II validly abrogated state sovereign immunity with respect to both equal protection and due process claims, id., at 818.
Following the en banc decision in Popovich, a panel of the Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the District Court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss in this case. Judgt. order reported at 40 Fed. Appx. 911 (CA6 2002). The order explained that respondents’ claims were not barred because they were based on due process principles. In response to a petition for rehearing arguing that Popovich was not controlling because the complaint did not allege due process violations, the panel filed an amended opinion. It explained that the Due Process Clause protects the right of access to the courts, and that the evidence before Congress when it enacted Title II “established that physical barriers in government buildings, including courthouses and in the courtrooms themselves, have had the effect of denying disabled people the opportunity to access vital services and to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.” 315 F. 3d 680, 682 (2003). Moreover, that “record demonstrated that public entities’ failure to accommodate the needs of qualified persons with disabilities may result directly from unconstitutional animus and impermissible stereotypes.” Id., at 683. The panel did not, however, categorically reject the State’s submission. It instead noted that the case presented difficult questions that “cannot be clarified absent a factual record,” and remanded for further proceedings. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 539 U. S. 941 (2003), and now affirm.
II
The ADA was passed by large majorities in both Houses of Congress after decades of deliberation and investigation into the need for comprehensive legislation to address discrimination against persons with disabilities. In the years immediately preceding the ADA’s enactment, Congress held 13 hearings and created a special task force that gathered evidence from every State in the Union. The conclusions Congress drew from this evidence are set forth in the task force and Committee Reports, described in lengthy legislative hearings, and summarized in the preamble to the statute. Central among these conclusions was Congress’ finding that
“individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.” 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(7).
Invoking “the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce,” the ADA is designed “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” §§ 12101(b)(1), (b)(4). It forbids discrimination against persons with disabilities in three major areas of public life: employment, which is covered by Title I of the statute; public services, programs, and activities, which are the subject of Title II; and public accommodations, which are covered by Title III.
Title II, §§ 12131-12134, prohibits any public entity from discriminating against “qualified” persons with disabilities in the provision or operation of public services, programs, or activities. The Act defines the term “public entity” to include state and local governments, as well as their agencies and instrumentalities. §12131(1). Persons with disabilities are “qualified” if they, “with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, mee[t] the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” § 12131(2). Title IPs enforcement provision incorporates by reference § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982, as added, 29 U. S. C. § 794a, which authorizes private citizens to bring suits for money damages. 42 U. S. C. § 12133.
Ill
The Eleventh Amendment renders the States immune from “any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted... by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Even though the Amendment “by its terms... applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State,” our cases have repeatedly held that this immunity also applies to unconsented suits brought by a State’s own citizens. Garrett, 531 U. S., at 363; Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000). Our cases have also held that Congress may abrogate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. To determine whether it has done so in any given case, we “must resolve two predicate questions: first, whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate that immunity; and second, if it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” Id., at 73.
The first question is easily answered in this case. The Act specifically provides: “A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.” 42 U. S. C. § 12202. As in Garrett, see 531 U. S., at 363-364, no party disputes the adequacy of that expression of Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. The question, then, is whether Congress had the power to give effect to its intent.
In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976), we held that Congress can abrogate a State’s sovereign immunity when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the substantive guarantees of that Amendment. Id., at 456. This enforcement power, as we have often acknowledged, is a “broad power indeed.” Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 732 (1982), citing Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). It includes “the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 81. We have thus repeatedly affirmed that “Congress may enact so-called prophylactic legislation that proscribes facially constitutional conduct, in order to prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.” Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U. S. 721, 727-728 (2003). See also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 518 (1997). The most recent affirmation of the breadth of Congress’ § 5 power came in Hibbs, in which we considered whether a male state employee could recover money damages against the State for its failure to comply with the family-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 107 Stat. 6, 29 U. S. C. §2601 et seq. We upheld the FMLA as a valid exercise of Congress’ § 5 power to combat unconstitutional sex discrimination, even though there was no suggestion that the State’s leave policy was adopted or applied with a discriminatory purpose that would render it unconstitutional under the rule of Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256 (1979). When Congress seeks to remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination, §5 authorizes it to enact prophylactic legislation proscribing practices that are discriminatory in effect, if not in intent, to carry out the basic objectives of the Equal Protection Clause.
Congress’ §5 power is not, however, unlimited. While Congress must have a wide berth in devising appropriate remedial and preventative measures for unconstitutional actions, those measures may not work a “substantive change in the governing law.” Boerne, 521 U. S., at 519. In Boerne, we recognized that the line between remedial legislation and substantive redefinition is “not easy to discern,” and that “Congress must have wide latitude in determining where it lies.” Id., at 519-520. But we also confirmed that “the distinction exists and must be observed,” and set forth a test for so observing it: Section 5 legislation is valid if it exhibits “a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id., at 520.
In Boerne, we held that Congress had exceeded its § 5 authority when it enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. We began by noting that Congress enacted RFRA “in direct response” to our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), for the stated purpose of “restoring]” a constitutional rule that Smith had rejected. 521 U. S., at 512, 515 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though the respondent attempted to defend the statute as a reasonable means of enforcing the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted in Smith, we concluded that RFRA was “so out of proportion” to that objective that it could be understood only as an attempt to work a “substantive change in constitutional protections.” 521 U. S., at 529, 532. Indeed, that was the very purpose of the law.
This Court further defined the contours of Boerne's “congruence and proportionality” test in Florida Prepaid Post- secondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627 (1999). At issue in that case was the validity of the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (hereinafter Patent Remedy Act), a statutory amendment Congress enacted in the wake of our decision in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234 (1985), to clarify its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity from patent infringement suits. Florida Prepaid, 527 U. S., at 631-632. Noting the virtually complete absence of a history of unconstitutional patent infringement on the part of the States, as well as the Act’s expansive coverage, the Court concluded that the Patent Remedy Act’s apparent aim was to serve the Article I concerns of “providing] a uniform remedy for patent infringement and... placing] States on the same footing as private parties under that regime,” and not to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 647-648. See also Kimel, 528 U. S. 62 (finding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act exceeded Congress’ § 5 powers under Boerne); United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000) (Violence Against Women Act).
Applying the Boerne test in Garrett, we concluded that Title I of the ADA was not a valid exercise of Congress’ § 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on unconstitutional disability discrimination in public employment. As in Florida Prepaid, we concluded Congress’ exercise of its prophylactic §5 power was unsupported by a relevant history and pattern of constitutional violations. 531 U. S., at 368, 374. Although the dissent pointed out that Congress had before it a great deal of evidence of discrimination by the States against persons with disabilities, id., at 379 (opinion of Breyer, J.), the Court’s opinion noted that the “overwhelming majority” of that evidence related to “the provision of public services and public accommodations, which areas are addressed in Titles II and III,” rather than Title I, id., at 371, n. 7. We also noted that neither the ADA’s legislative findings nor its legislative history reflected a concern that the States had been engaging in a pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination. We emphasized that the House and Senate Committee Reports on the ADA focused on “ ‘[discrimination [in]... employment in the private sector,’” and made no mention of discrimination in public employment. Id., at 371-372 (quoting S. Rep. No. 101-116, p. 6 (1989), and H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, p. 28 (1990)) (emphasis in Garrett). Finally, we concluded that Title Fs broad remedial scheme was insufficiently targeted to remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination in public employment. Taken together, the historical record and the broad sweep of the statute suggested that Title Fs true aim was not so much to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibitions against disability discrimination in public employment as it was to “rewrite” this Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. 531 U. S., at 372-374.
In view of the significant differences between Titles I and II, however, Garrett left open the question whether Title II is a valid exercise of Congress’ § 5 enforcement power. It is to that question that we now turn.
IV
The first step of the Boerne inquiry requires us to identify the constitutional right or rights that Congress sought to enforce when it enacted Title II. Garrett, 531 U. S., at 365. In Garrett we identified Title Fs purpose as enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 439 (1985). As we observed, classifications based on disability violate that constitutional command if they lack a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Garrett, 531 U. S., at 366 (citing Cleburne, 473 U. S., at 446).
Title II, like Title I, seeks to enforce this prohibition on irrational disability discrimination. But it also seeks to enforce a variety of other basic constitutional guarantees, infringements of which are subject to more searching judicial review. See, e. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336-337 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 634 (1969); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). These rights include some, like the right of access to the courts at issue in this case, that are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, both guarantee to a criminal defendant such as respondent Lane the “right to be present at. all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.” Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 819, n. 15 (1975). The Due Process Clause also requires the States to afford certain civil litigants a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” by removing obstacles to their full participation in judicial proceedings. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379 (1971); M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102 (1996). We have held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants the right to trial by a jury composed of a fair cross section of the community, noting that the exclusion of “identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial.” Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522, 530 (1975). And, finally, we have recognized that members of the public have a right of access to criminal proceedings secured by the First Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside, 478 U. S. 1, 8-15 (1986).
Whether Title II validly enforces these constitutional rights is a question that “must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308 (1966). See also Florida Prepaid, 527 U. S., at 639-640; Boerne, 521 U. S., at 530. While §5 authorizes Congress to enact reasonably prophylactic remedial legislation, the appropriateness of the remedy depends on the gravity of the harm it seeks to prevent. “Difficult and intractable problems often require powerful remedies,” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 88, but it is also true that “[s]trong measures appropriate to address one harm may be an unwarranted response to another, lesser one,” Boerne, 521 U. S., at 530.
It is not difficult to perceive the harm that Title II is designed to address. Congress enacted Title II against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment in the administration of state services and programs, including systematic deprivations of fundamental rights. For example, “[a]s of 1979, most States... categorically disqualified ‘idiots’ from voting, without regard to individual capacity.” The majority of these laws remain on the books, and have been the subject of legal challenge as recently as 2001 Similarly, a number of States have prohibited and continue to prohibit persons with disabilities from engaging in activities such as marrying and serving as jurors. The historical experience that Title II reflects is also documented in this Court’s cases, which have identified unconstitutional treatment of disabled persons by state agencies in a variety of settings, including unjustified commitment, e. g., Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715 (1972); the abuse and neglect of persons committed to state mental health hospitals, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307 (1982); and irrational discrimination in zoning decisions, Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432 (1985). The decisions of other courts, too, document a pattern of unequal treatment in the administration of a wide range of public services, programs, and activities, including the penal system, public education, and voting. Notably, these decisions also demonstrate a pattern of unconstitutional treatment in the administration of justice.
This pattern of disability discrimination persisted despite several federal and state legislative efforts to address it. In the deliberations that led up to the enactment of the ADA, Congress identified important shortcomings in existing laws that rendered them “inadequate to address the pervasive problems of discrimination that people with disabilities are facing.” S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 18. See also H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 47. It also uncovered further evidence of those shortcomings, in the form of hundreds of examples of unequal treatment of persons with disabilities by States and their political subdivisions. See Garrett, 531 U. S., at 379 (Breyer, J., dissenting). See also id., at 391 (App. C to opinion of Breyer, J., dissenting). As the Court’s opinion in Garrett observed, the “overwhelming majority” of these examples concerned discrimination in the administration of public programs and services. Id., at 371, n. 7; Government’s Lodging in Garrett, O. T. 2000, No. 99-1240 (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
With respect to the particular services at issue in this case, Congress learned that many individuals, in many States across the country, were being excluded from courthouses and court proceedings by reason of their disabilities. A report before Congress showed that some 76% of public services and programs housed in state-owned buildings were inaccessible to and unusable by persons with disabilities, even taking into account the possibility that the services and programs might be restructured or relocated to other parts of the buildings. U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities 39 (1983). Congress itself heard testimony from persons with disabilities who described the physical inaccessibility of local courthouses. Oversight Hearing on H. R. 4498 before the House Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 40-41, 48 (1988). And its appointed task force heard numerous examples of the exclusion of persons with disabilities from state judicial services and programs, including exclusion of persons with visual impairments and hearing impairments from jury service, failure of state and local governments to provide interpretive services for the hearing impaired, failure to permit the testimony of adults with developmental disabilities in abuse cases, and failure to make courtrooms accessible to witnesses with physical disabilities. Government’s Lodging in Garrett, O. T. 2000, No. 99-1240. See also Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, From ADA to Empowerment (Oct. 12,1990).
Given the sheer volume of evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of public services, the dissent’s contention that the record is insufficient to justify Congress’ exercise of its prophylactic power is puzzling, to say the least. Just last Term in Hibbs, we approved the family-care leave provision of the FMLA as valid § 5 legislation based primarily on evidence of disparate provision of parenting leave, little of which concerned unconstitutional state conduct. 538 U. S., at 728-733. We explained that because the FMLA was targeted at sex-based classifications, which are subject to a heightened standard of judicial scrutiny, “it was easier for Congress to show a pattern of state constitutional violations” than in Garrett or Kimel, both of which concerned legislation that targeted classifications subject to rational-basis review. 538 U. S., at 735-737. Title II is aimed at the enforcement of a variety of basic rights, including the right of access to the courts at issue in this case, that call for a standard of judicial review at least as searching, and in some cases more searching, than the standard that applies to sex-based classifications. And in any event, the record of constitutional violations in this case— including judicial findings of unconstitutional state action, and statistical, legislative, and anecdotal evidence of the widespread exclusion of persons with disabilities from the enjoyment of public services — far exceeds the record in Hibbs.
The conclusion that Congress drew from this body of evidence is set forth in the text of the ADA itself: “[D]iscrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as... education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services.” 42 U. S. C. § 12101(a)(3) (emphasis added). This finding, together with the extensive record of disability discrimination that underlies it, makes clear beyond peradventure that inadequate provision of public services and access to public facilities was an appropriate subject for prophylactic legislation.
V
The only question that remains is whether Title II is an appropriate response to this history and pattern of unequal treatment. At the outset, we must determine the scope of that inquiry. Title II — unlike RFRA, the Patent Remedy Act, and the other statutes we have reviewed for validity under §5 — reaches a wide array of official conduct in an effort to enforce an equally wide array of constitutional guarantees. Petitioner urges us both to examine the broad range of Title IPs applications all at once, and to treat that breadth as a mark of the law’s invalidity. According to petitioner, the fact that Title II applies not only to public education and voting-booth access but also to seating at state-owned hockey rinks indicates that Title II is not appropriately tailored to serve its objectives. But nothing in our case law requires us to consider Title II, with its wide variety of applications, as an undifferentiated whole. Whatever might be said about Title II’s other applications, the question presented in this case is not whether Congress can validly subject the States to private suits for money damages for failing to provide reasonable access to hockey rinks, or even to voting booths, but whether Congress had the power under § 5 to enforce the constitutional right of access to the courts. Because we find that Title II unquestionably is valid § 5 legislation as it applies to the class of cases implicating the accessibility of judicial services, we need go no further. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 26 (1960).
Congress’ chosen remedy for the pattern of exclusion and discrimination described above, Title II’s requirement of program accessibility, is congruent and proportional to its object of enforcing the right of access to the courts. The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history, and has persisted despite several legislative efforts to remedy the problem of disability discrimination. Faced with considerable evidence of the shortcomings of previous legislative responses, Congress was justified in concluding that this “difficult and intractable proble[m]” warranted “added prophylactic measures in response.” Hibbs, 538 U. S., at 737 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The remedy Congress chose is nevertheless a limited one. Recognizing that failure to accommodate persons with disabilities will often have the same practical effect as outright exclusion, Congress required the States to take reasonable measures to remove architectural and other barriers to accessibility. 42 U. S. C. § 12131(2). But Title II does not require States to employ any and all means to make judicial services accessible to persons with disabilities, and it does not require States to compromise their essential eligibility criteria for public programs. It requires only “reasonable modifications” that would not fundamentally alter the nature of the service provided, and only when the individual seeking modification is otherwise eligible for the service. Ibid. As Title ITs implementing regulations make clear, the reasonable modification requirement can be satisfied in a number of ways. In the case, of facilities built or altered after 1992, the regulations require compliance with specific architectural accessibility standards. 28 CFR §35.151 (2003). But in the case of older facilities, for which structural change is likely to be more difficult, a public entity may comply with Title II by adopting a variety of less costly measures, including relocating services to alternative, accessible sites and assigning aides to assist persons with disabilities in accessing services. § 35.150(b)(1). Only if these measures are ineffective in achieving accessibility is the public entity required to make reasonable structural changes. Ibid. And in no event is the entity required to undertake measures that would impose an undue financial or administrative burden, threaten historic preservation interests, or effect a fundamental alteration in the nature of the service. §§ 35.150(a)(2), (a)(3).
This duty to accommodate is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process principle that, “within the limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard” in its courts. Boddie, 401 U. S., at 379 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our cases have recognized a number of affirmative obligations that flow from this principle: the duty to waive filing fees in certain family-law and criminal cases, the duty to provide transcripts to criminal defendants seeking review of their convictions, and the duty to provide counsel to certain criminal defendants. Each of these cases makes clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State’s failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II’s affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be “so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532; Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86. It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end.
For these reasons, we conclude that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of ae-cess to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress’ §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
In Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139 (1993), we held that “States and state entities that claim to be ‘arms of the State’ may take advantage of the collateral order doctrine to appeal a district court order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Id., at 147.
See 42 U. S. C. § 12101; Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, From ADA to Empowerment 16 (Oct. 12, 1990); S. Rep. No. 101-116 (1989); H. R. Rep. No. 101-485 (1990); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-558 (1990); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-596 (1990); cf. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 389-390 (2001) (App. A to opinion of Breyer, J., dissenting) (listing congressional hearings).
In Ex parte Virginia, we described the breadth of Congress’ § 5 power as follows:
“Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.” 100 U. S., at 345-346. See also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517-518 (1997).
In Boeme, we observed:
“Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States.’ Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 455 (1976). For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress’ parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U. S. Const., Arndt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U. S. 45 (1959). We have also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on the States. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra (upholding several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Katzenbach v. Morgan, [384 U. S. 641 (1966)] (upholding ban on literacy tests that prohibited certain, people schooled in Puerto Rico from voting); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970) (upholding 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar voting requirements for registering to vote); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 161 (1980) (upholding 7-year extension of the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear any change to a ‘ “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting”’); see also James Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545 (1924) (upholding ban on medical prescription of intoxicating malt liquors as appropriate to enforce Eighteenth Amendment ban on manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes).” Id., at 518.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 464, and n. 14 (1985) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (citing Note, Mental Disability and the Right to Vote, 88 Yale L. J. 1644 (1979)).
See Schriner, Ochs, & Shields, Democratic Dilemmas:
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal presents the question whether illegitimate children of a federal civil service employee are entitled to survivors’ benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act when the children once lived with the employee in a familial relationship, but were not living with the employee at the time of his death.
I
George Isaacson and the appellee Patricia Clark lived together from 1965 through 1971 without benefit of matrimony. They had two children, Shawn and Tricia Clark, born in 1968 and 1971, respectively, and the four lived together as a family. After the appellee and Isaacson separated, the appellee filed a state-court action in Montana seeking a determination of the paternity of the children. In June 1972, the Montana court issued a decree determining that Isaacson was the natural father of the children and ordering him to contribute to their support. Isaacson provided monthly support payments up to the time of his death in 1974.
At the time of. death, Isaacson was a federal employee covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U. S. C. § 8331 et seq. The Act provides that each surviving child of a deceased federal employee is entitled to a survivors’ annuity. 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (e)(1). All legitimate and adopted children under 18 years of age qualify for these benefits, but stepchildren or “recognized natural” children under 18 may recover only if they “lived with the employee ... in a regular parent-child relationship.” 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a)(3)(A). In September 1974, the Civil Service Commission’s Bureau of Retirement, Insurance, and Occupational Health denied the appellee’s application for such annuities for Shawn and Tricia. The Bureau held that 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a) (3) (A) bars recovery for otherwise qualified children born out of wedlock who, like Shawn and Tricia, were not living with the employee at the time of his death. The Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review affirmed.
The appellee then filed this action in the Court of Claims on behalf of her children. She argued that 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a)(3)(A) allows recovery where, as here, the recognized natural children had once lived with the employee in a parent-child relationship. Alternatively she contended that, if the Commission’s interpretation of 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a) (3) (A) was correct, that provision violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it impermissibly discriminated against illegitimate children.
The Court of Claims granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment. 218 Ct. Cl. 705, 590 F. 2d 343. Ignoring the statutory issue, the court granted relief on the authority of its earlier decision in Gentry v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 1, 546 F. 2d 343 (1976), rehearing denied, 212 Ct. Cl. 27, 551 F. 2d 852 (1977), which held that the “lived with” requirement of 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a) (3) (A) unconstitutionally discriminated against illegitimate children. We postponed consideration of our jurisdiction pending hearing on the merits, 441 U. S. 960 (1979), and now affirm on the statutory ground presented to but not addressed by the Court of Claims.
II
The Civil Service Retirement Act provides survivors’ annuities to all legitimate children, but grants the same benefits to children born out' of wedlock only if they “lived with the employee ... in a regular parent-child relationship.” Such a classification based on illegitimacy is unconstitutional unless it bears “an evident and substantial relation to the particular .. . interests this statute is designed to serve.” Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, 268 (1978) (plurality opinion); see id., at 279 (Brennan, J., dissenting). See also Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 767 (1977). The Government’s asserted justification for the classification — that it is an administratively convenient means of identifying children who actually were deprived of support by the employee’s death — is itself open to constitutional question, since the statute does not condition benefits to legitimate children on such a showing.
It is well settled that this Court will not pass on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress if a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.. E. g., Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 693 (1979); New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568, 582, and n. 22 (1979); Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 749-750 (1961); Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 (1944). Where both .a constitutional issue and an issue of statutory construction are raised, we are not, of course, foreclosed from .considering the statutory question merely because the lower court failed to address it. Califano v. Yamasaki, supra, at 693; University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 328 (1978) (opinion of Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.); id., at 281 (opinion of Powell, J.); id., at 411-412 (opinion of Stevens, J.). Accordingly, we turn to the statute to determine whether resolution of the constitutional question is necessary to the disposition of this case.
Shawn and Tricia Clark were denied annuities on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirement that they “lived with the employee ... in a regular parent-child relationship.” The appellee contended that her children did meet the requirement because they had lived with the decedent as a family from their birth through 1971. If the appellee’s construction of the statutory language is correct, the children are entitled to survivors’ annuities and decision of the constitutional question is unnecessary. The Civil Service Commission, however, has construed the “lived with” language to require that the children be living with the employee at the time of the employee’s death.
When the statutory language is considered on its face, the appellee’s reading is at least as plausible as that of the Government. Shawn and Tricia had “lived with” their father, and we believe those words would not ordinarily imply a temporal limitation. Moreover, Congress has demonstrated in other social welfare legislation that it knows how to restrict the class of eligible beneficiaries to those living with an individual at a particular time.
We can find nothing in the legislative history of the statute to indicate that appellee’s construction of the statute is out of harmony with the congressional intent. The original enactment in 1948 made an annuity payable to “an unmarried child, including a dependent stepchild or an adopted child, under the age of eighteen years, or such unmarried child who because of physical or mental disability is incapable of self-support.” Act of Feb. 28, 1948, § 11, 62 Stat. 55. The amount of the annuity depended on whether another parent survived. Although children born out of wedlock were not expressly included, the provision was seemingly broad enough to cover them. The Government argues that, in granting annuities to surviving children, Congress intended to provide funds to replace support lost by the wage earner’s dependents. The Government views the statutory scheme as designed to pay benefits only to those children Congress thought most likely to have been dependent on the wage earner, and to take account of the likelihood of supplementary support from the other parent. We note, however, that only stepchildren were required to show dependency.
In 1956, Congress amended the definition of an entitled child to include “an unmarried child, including (1) an adopted child, and (2) a stepchild or recognized natural child who received more than one-half his support from and lived with the . . . employee in a regular parent-child relationship.” Act of July 31, 1956, Title IV, § 1 (j), 70 Stat. 744. For the first time children born out of wedlock were explicitly included, but their eligibility was made subject both to the “lived with” requirement and to the dependency requirement originally applicable only to stepchildren.
The legislative history is devoid of any indication whether Congress intended that annuities could be recovered by all recognized natural children who had once lived with the employee in a familial relationship, or only by such children who were living with the employee at the time of death. Nor do the congressional materials illuminate the purpose of the “lived with” requirement. The Government defends the provision as a rational indicator of both dependency and parentage. An illegitimate child who lived with the natural parent, according to this view, is both more likely to have received support from the parent and more likely to be the true issue of that parent than is any illegitimate child who lived apart from the natural parent. It seems unlikely that Congress viewed the requirement as a means of ascertaining either dependency or parentage, however, since the statute also required the child to prove both that he had received more than one-half of his support from the deceased employee and that he was the employee’s “recognized natural child.” Those provisions speak directly to the concerns raised by the Government, and the additional requirement that the child must have lived with the parent would therefore .be superfluous regardless of whether it mandated that the child must have lived with the parent at the time of the parent’s death rather than at some other time.
The Government also urges that Congress intended the “lived with” requirement to serve as a means of thwarting fraudulent claims of dependency or parentage, and to promote efficient administration by facilitating the prompt identification of eligible annuitants. It is evident from the facts of this case, however, that the classification is not narrowly tailored as a means of furthering either goal. As we recognized in Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628, 636 (1974), the prevention of fraud is a legitimate goal, but it does not necessarily follow “that the blanket and conclusive exclusion of [appellee’s] subclass of illegitimates is reasonably related to the prevention of spurious claims.” Thus, even if the “lived with” requirement is assumed to serve as a device to prevent fraud or to promote efficient administration, it raises serious equal protection problems that this Court must seek to avoid by adopting a saving statutory construction not at odds with fundamental legislative purposes.
In sum, the legislative history of the 1956 amendments provides no direct guidance on the purpose of the “lived with” provision or on whether it was intended to be restricted to children living with the parent at a particular time. The less restrictive construction proposed by the appellee appears fair and reasonable in light of the language, purpose, and history of the enactment, and it avoids a serious constitutional question. Before we conclude our inquiry, however, we must consider whether a 1966 amendment to the statute affected the children’s right to recovery.
Congress enacted the 1966 amendments to the Act upon the request of the Executive Branch’s Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems. One of these amendments removed the requirement that children must prove they received one-half of their support from the deceased employee in order to recover survivors’ annuities. Act of July 18, 1966, Title V, § 502, 80 Stat. 300. Congress deleted the dependency requirement in order to ensure recovery for the children of female civil servants, who typically earned less than their husbands and accordingly contributed less than half of the support of their children. Congress also deleted the requirement of proof of dependency for stepchildren and “recognized natural” children, but retained the “lived with” requirement for those claimants. The reason for retaining the requirement was not clearly explained in the Cabinet Committee report, which simply stated:
“Stepchildren and natural children are eligible for ben- . efits at present only when they have been dependent on the deceased parent and living with the parent in a regular parent-child relationship. The latter requirement should be retained; but, if it is fulfilled, the benefits should be paid as for any other child, without regard to the dependency requirement.” H. R. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966).
The Government views the 1966 amendment as evidence that Congress intended the “lived with” requirement to serve as a convenient method of determining whether the child received support from the deceased employee. This proposition appears implausible, since in the same sentence the Committee recommended that if the “lived with” requirement were met benefits should be paid “as for any other child, without regard to the dependency requirement.” The Committee’s use of the word “retained” is a further indication that Congress did not intend the “lived with” provision to assume a new function previously performed by the dependency requirement. Moreover, the Government’s position again unnecessarily raises the equal protection question, because legitimate children and adopted children were not required to demonstrate that they had received support from the decedent. In the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, therefore, we assume that Congress’ failure to alter the “lived with” requirement likewise failed to modify the purpose of that provision as envisioned by the Congress that enacted it.
We conclude that the “lived with” requirement is satisfied when a recognized natural child has lived with the deceased employee in a “regular parent-child relationship,” regardless of whether the child was living with the employee at the time of the employee’s death. Our consideration of the language and purpose of the statute and of the available legislative history convinces us that this construction is a fair and reasonable reading of the congressional enactment. Furthermore, the construction is necessary to avoid a serious constitutional question. By so holding, we do not believe that we are creating undue administrative difficulties for the Civil Service Commission. In this case, for example, the Commission relied on the Montana court’s paternity decree and affidavits concerning when the appellee’s children lived with the deceased employee. Similar documentary evidence would be equally probative of whether an illegitimate child claiming a survivors’ annuity had ever lived with the deceased employee in a regular parent-child relationship.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is
Affirmed.
On January 1, 1979, the Civil Service Commission was abolished, and the Office of Personnel Management assumed primary responsibility for the civil service retirement program. See Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111; Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1978, 3 CFR 323 (1979). For convenience, throughout this opinion we shall refer to the agency administering the retirement program as the Civil Service Commission.
The appellee contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We disagree.
By an order dated January 27, 1978, the Court of Claims held that the “lived with” requirement of 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a) (3) (A) applicable to illegitimate children violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court then resolved the issue of relief and entered final judgment on November 6, 1978. The Government filed its notice of appeal on December 5, 1978.
The appeal statute relied upon by the Government, 28 U. S. C. § 1252, provides:
“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.” (Emphasis added.)
The appellee first contends that the Government failed to file a timely notice of appeal because it did not appeal the January 27,1978, decision on the liability issue. Section 1252 would have allowed the Government to seek review of this interlocutory order declaring a federal statute unconstitutional, but its permissive language providing that any party “may appeal . . . from an interlocutory or final judgment” plainly did not require the Government to appeal before final judgment was entered. Cf. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709 (1963) (review of final judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 1255 entails review of any interlocutory decisions on liability); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 320 U. S. 1, 47-48 (1943) (same); American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise, 423 U. S. 150 (1975) (same rule when jurisdiction based on 28 U. S. C. § 1254); Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U. S. 399, 418 (1923) (same).
The appellee also argues that no appeal will lie under 28 U. S. C. § 1252 because the Court of Claims did not declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. To the contrary, a determination that the “lived with” requirement of 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a) (3) (A) was unconstitutional was a necessary predicate to the relief the Court of Claims granted to the appellee’s children, and this determination of unconstitutionality may be appealed under § 1252. McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S. 21, 30 (1975); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20 (1960). It is irrelevant that the Court of Claims reached this holding by relying on its earlier decision in Gentry v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 1, 546 F. 2d 343 (1976), rehearing denied, 212 Ct. Cl. 27, 551 F. 2d 852 (1977). An appeal under §1252 lies for any federal-court decision declaring an Act of Congress unconstitutional in a civil action in which the United States is a party, not just for the first such decision. Cf. Garment Workers v. Donnelly Garment Co., 304 U. S. 243, 249 (1938).
The lower federal courts have uniformly held that the “lived with” requirement violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Gentry v. United States, supra; Jenkins v. U. S. Civil Service Comm’n, 460 F. Supp. 611 (DC 1978); Proctor v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 418 (DC 1977) (three-judge court); Tenny v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 224 (ED Mo. 1977); Myers v. Commissioners of Civil Service Comm’n, Civ. No. 8682 (SD Ohio, Aug. 8, 1977).
See 45 U. S. C. § 231e (c) (1) (i) (Railroad Retirement Act benefits payable in certain circumstances to “the widow or widower of the deceased employee who was living with such employee at the time of such employee’s death”); 42 U. S. C. § 416 (e) (Social Security Act in part defines legally adopted child as a person who “was at the time of such individual’s death living in such individual’s household”); 42 U. S. C. § 416 (h) (3) (A) (ii) (Social Security Act’s definition of qualified child is met in part when “such insured individual is shown ... to be the father of the applicant and was living with or contributing to the support of the applicant at the time such insured individual became entitled to benefits or attained age 65, whichever first occurred”).
See Visor v. United States, Civ. No. 9922 (2) (ED Mo., Feb. 12, 1955).
By authorizing the payment of benefits to an “unmarried child who because of physical or mental disability is incapable of self-support,” Act of Feb. 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 55, Congress apparently intended that, though disabled children over 18 years of age had to show they were unable to support themselves, they did not have to show they were dependent on the deceased parent.
The 1956 amendments also provided that a survivors’ annuity was payable to a legitimate child with a surviving parent only if the child proved that he had received more than one-half his support from the deceased employee. Act of July 31, 1956, amending Title IV, § 10(d), 70 Stat. 754.
See S. Rep. No. 1187, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1966); The Federal Salary and Fringe Benefits Act of 1966: Hearings on H. R. 14122 before the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1966); Joint Annual Report of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Report of the Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems, H. R. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966).
Two Committees of Congress, in passing on requests for legislation by the Civil Service Commission, have referred to the “lived with” requirement as a “living with” requirement. S. Rep. No. 92-527, p. 1 (1971); S. Rep. No. 1070, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1966). See also H. R. Rep. No. 92-811, p. 3 (1972); H. R. Rep. No. 33, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965). We read the Committees’ statements as nothing more than acknowledgments of the Commission’s interpretation of the requirement, which was made known to each Committee by letters from the Commission. S. Rep. No. 92-527, supra, at 2-3; S. Rep. No. 1070, supra, at 3-4. In any event, the views of some Congressmen as to the construction of a statute adopted years before by another Congress have “‘very little, if any, significance.’ ” United. States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 170 (1968) (quoting Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 593 (1958)).
The 1966 recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems referred to the “lived with” requirement as allowing benefits to recognized natural children “when they have been . . . living with, the parent in a regular parent-child relationship.” H. R. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966). This language might appear to be inconsistent with our construction of the “lived with” requirement. The language was formulated by the Executive Branch, however, not by Congress, and at most simply reflects the Civil Service Commission’s interpretation of the statute.
We recognize that the Civil Service Commission has interpreted the “lived with” requirement to be a “living with” requirement, although the Government does not inform us whether the agency interpretation was contemporaneous with the 1956 enactment. We do not disregard this evidence of the meaning of the statute. See, e. g., Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425, n. 9 (1977). In view of our analysis of the statute and its legislative history, and considering the need to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication, however, the agency interpretation would not be decisive even if it were contemporaneous.
Because we hold that the Civil Service Retirement Act expressly allows the appellee’s children to receive survivors’ annuities, there is no question that the Court of Claims below had both jurisdiction to entertain their claims and authority to grant recovery. See United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392, 397-398 (1976); Eastport S. S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 606-607, 372 F. 2d 1002, 1007-1009 (1967). In light of our holding, we need not address the Government’s argument that the Court of Claims exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared 5 U. S. C. § 8341 (a)(3)(A)’s “lived with” requirement unconstitutional, severed that requirement from the statute, and awarded relief to the appellee’s children based on the remaining language in the statute. Cf. United States v. Testan, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), in its capacity as receiver of a state-chartered savings and loan association (Association), brought this action in Federal District Court against former directors of the Association claiming damages for breach of their fiduciary duties under Illinois law. The District Court, relying on Circuit precedent, held that it had jurisdiction of the case pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1345 because the FSLIC is an agency of the United States. App. 38-46. However, observing that there was substantial ground for difference of opinion on this controlling question of law, the court certified the jurisdictional question for interlocutory appeal. Id., at 39-46. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed because it concluded that a proviso included in 20 Stat. 1042, 12 U. S. C. § 1730(k)(l), withdraws federal jurisdiction in cases in which the FSLIC “is a party in its capacity as . . . receiver ... of an insured State-chartered institution” if the suit “involves only the rights or obligations of investors, creditors, stockholders, and such institution under State law.” 832 F. 2d 1438 (1987). Since that ruling, if correct, will require dismissal of a large number of cases concerning the integrity of our financial institutions, we granted certiorari. 488 U. S. 815 (1988).
We resolve the jurisdictional issue by first considering the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1345 and then asking whether 12 U. S. C. § 1730(k)(l) enlarges or contracts the grant of federal jurisdiction in cases commenced by the FSLIC.
1 — 1
Federal jurisdiction over cases commenced by federal agencies is conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1345. That section provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.”
Three limits on this grant of jurisdiction are plain from its text. It applies only to civil litigation “commenced” by the federal party; it requires that the agency be “expressly authorized to sue”; and it is subject to such exceptions as may be “otherwise provided by Act of Congress.” In view of the fact that this case was commenced by the FSLIC, and the fact that the FSLIC is expressly authorized to sue and be sued, §1345 supports federal jurisdiction unless another statute otherwise provides. The question, then, is whether 12 U. S. C. § 1730(k)(l) is such a statute.
hH
The text of § 1730(k)(l) indicates that it is a statute that confirms and enlarges federal-court jurisdiction over cases to which the FSLIC is a party. It does so in two ways.
Prior to the enactment of § 1730(k)(l) in 1966, at least one court had expressed some doubt concerning the FSLIC’s status as an agency of the United States for purposes of asserting jurisdiction under § 1346. See Acron Investments, Inc. v. FSLIC, 363 F. 2d 236 (CA9), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 970 (1966). Clause (A) of the statute removed that doubt. The manifest purpose of enacting clause (A) was to foreclose the possible argument that § 1345 does not confer federal agency jurisdiction in cases brought by the FSLIC. Thus, clause (A) lends added support to the jurisdictional basis found in § 1345.
In addition, clause (B) enlarges the category of FSLIC litigation over which federal courts have jurisdiction because it covers all civil cases in which the FSLIC “shall be a party,” whereas § 1345 applies only to those “commenced” by the FSLIC. Thus, the grant of federal jurisdiction in § 1345 is expanded to include cases in which the FSLIC is named as a defendant as well as those in which it intervenes after proceedings are underway. Clause (C) further enlarges federal jurisdiction in cases involving the FSLIC by giving the agency the right to remove civil proceedings from state court to the appropriate federal district court. Thus, placing the proviso to one side for the moment, it is evident that each of the three clauses of § 1730(k)(l) was intended to buttress the FSLIC’s access to a federal forum.
There is no doubt that the proviso imposes a limit on this broad grant of federal jurisdiction. It is equally clear, however, that the proviso does not extend to clause (A) and the agency jurisdiction conferred by § 1345. Clause (B) provides that any civil suit in which the FSLIC is a party “shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” Clause (C), in turn, permits the FSLIC to remove “any such action” to federal court. Accordingly, these jurisdictional grants are predicated on the congressional finding that actions to which the FSLIC is a party “shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” The proviso qualifies this finding by describing a subcategory of cases to which the FSLIC is a party that “shall not be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” (Emphasis supplied.) Clause (A), however, does not rely on the presence of a federal question as a jurisdictional prerequisite, but rather confirms that the party-based jurisdiction of § 1345 is applicable in cases brought by the FSLIC. As a result, the proviso’s partial retraction of federal-question jurisdiction has no effect on clause (A), and, a fortiori, no effect on § 1345.
The Court of Appeals suggested that notwithstanding the plain language of the statute, Congress must have intended that the proviso apply to clause (A). 832 F. 2d, at 1443-1444. The court reasoned that because clause (B) applies to all civil cases in which the FSLIC is a party— whether as plaintiff or defendant — and because Congress intended to limit this grant of jurisdiction in the manner set out in the proviso, Congress must have intended that the proviso apply to clause (A) as well. To read the proviso otherwise, the court explained, would allow clause (A) “to grant jurisdiction indirectly in those cases that were deliberately and specifically excluded from the jurisdiction granted by part B.” Id., at 1444. The problem with this argument is that in an attempt to give the proviso full effect as applied to each class of cases that might fall within clause (B), the court renders clause (A) entirely redundant. Moreover, reading the proviso so as not to apply to clause (A) does not fail to give the proviso full effect as applied to clause (B). Clause (B) provides federal-question jurisdiction in any case in which the FSLIC is a party and the proviso limits this grant. The fact that clause (A) and § 1345 may provide agency jurisdiction in some of these same cases does not change the fact that the proviso has a real effect — it removes one basis of jurisdiction. We thus conclude that the language of § 1730(k)(l) not only plainly provides that the proviso does not apply to clause (A), but also is given its fullest effect by so reading the statute.
Because the proviso does not apply to clause (A), § 1730 (k)(l) is not an Act of Congress that has “otherwise provided” a limitation on the jurisdictional grant in § 1345. Accordingly, the District Court has federal agency jurisdiction over the FSLIC’s action.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The District Court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in FSLIC v. Krueger, 435 F. 2d 633 (1970). On appeal, the Seventh Circuit overruled the pertinent holding of Krueger. 832 F. 2d 1438 (1987).
Title 12 U. S. C § 1730(k)(l) provides:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, (A) the Corporation shall be deemed to be an agency of the United States within the meaning of section 451 of title 28; (B) any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the Corporation shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction thereof, without regard to the amount in controversy; and (C) the Corporation may, without bond or security, remove any such action, suit, or proceeding from a State court to the United States district court for the district and division embracing the place where the same is pending by following any procedure for removal now or hereafter in effect: Provided, That any action, suit, or proceeding to which the Corporation is a party in its capacity as conservator, receiver, or other legal custodian of an insured State-chartered institution and which involves only the rights or obligations of investors, creditors, stockholders, and such institution under State law shall not be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States. No attachment or execution shall be issued against the Corporation or its property before final judgment in any action, suit, or proceeding in any court of any State or of the United States or any territory, or any other court.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Title 28 U. S. C. § 451, in turn, provides in relevant part:
“The term ‘agency’ includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.”
Title 12 U. S. C. § 1725(c) provides that the FSLIC “shall have power . . . [t]o sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction in the United States
See n. 2, supra.
Had Congress intended to limit not only the federal-question jurisdiction of clauses (B) and (C) but also the party-based jurisdiction of § 1345, it could easily have drafted a more general proviso asserting that the defined subclass of cases “shall not fall within the federal jurisdiction."
Because we conclude that the proviso does not modify clause (A) and that jurisdiction was thus properly asserted under § 1345, we need not address the FSLIC’s alternative arguments that the proviso is inapplicable because this suit does not involve “only . . . rights or obligations . . . under State law!’ and does not involve “only the rights or obligations” of parties listed in the proviso.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The question presented is whether the parties’ debt-restructuring agreement is “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce” within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). 9 U. S. C. § 2. As we concluded in Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265 (1995), there is a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to make enforceable, pursuant to the FAA, an arbitration provision included in that agreement.
Petitioner The Citizens Bank — an Alabama lending institution — seeks to compel arbitration of a financial dispute with respondents Alafabco, Inc. — an Alabama fabrication and construction company — and its officers. According to a complaint filed by respondents in Alabama state court, the dispute among the parties arose out of a series of commercial loan transactions made over a deeade-long course of business dealings. In 1986, the complaint alleges, the parties entered into a quasi-contractual relationship in which the bank agreed to provide operating capital necessary for Alafabco to secure and complete construction contracts. That relationship began to sour in 1998, when the bank allegedly encouraged Alafabco to bid on a large construction contract in Courtland, Alabama, but refused to provide the capital necessary to complete the project. In order to compensate for the bank’s alleged breach of the parties’ implied agreement, Alafabco completed the Courtland project with funds that would otherwise have been dedicated to repaying existing obligations to the bank. Alafabco in turn became delinquent in repaying those existing obligations.
On two occasions, the parties attempted to resolve the outstanding debts. On May 3, 1999, Alafabco and the bank executed “ ‘renewal notes’ ” in which all previous loans were restructured and redocumented. 872 So. 2d 798 (Ala. 2002). The debt-restructuring arrangement included an arbitration agreement covering “ ‘all disputes, claims, or controversies.’ ” That agreement provided that the FA A “ ‘shall apply to [its] construction, interpretation, and enforcement.’ ” Id., at 799. Alafabco defaulted on its obligations under the renewal notes and sought bankruptcy protection in federal court in September 1999.
In return for the dismissal of Alafabco’s bankruptcy petition, the bank agreed to renegotiate the outstanding loans in a second debt-restructuring agreement. On December 10, 1999, the parties executed new loan documents encompassing Alafabco’s entire outstanding debt, approximately $430,000, which was secured by a mortgage on commercial real estate owned by the individual respondents, by Alafabco’s accounts receivable, inventory, supplies, fixtures, machinery, and equipment, and by a mortgage on the house of one of the individual respondents. Id., at 800. As part of the second debt-restructuring agreement, the parties executed an arbitration agreement functionally identical to that of May 3, 1999.
Within a year of the December 1999 debt restructuring, Alafabco brought suit in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, against the bank and its officers. Ala-fabco alleged, among other causes of action, breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with a contractual or business relationship. Essentially, the suit alleged that Ala-fabco detrimentally “ ‘incur[red] massive debt’ ” because the bank had unlawfully reneged on its agreement to provide capital sufficient to complete the Courtland project. Id., at 799. Invoking the arbitration agreements, the bank moved to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute. The Circuit Court ordered respondents to submit to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreements.
The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed over Justice See’s dissent. Applying a test it first adopted in Sisters of the Visitation v. Cochran Plastering Co., 775 So. 2d 759 (2000), the court held that the debt-restructuring agreements were the relevant transactions and proceeded to determine whether those transactions, by themselves, had a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.” 872 So. 2d, at 801, 808. Because there was no showing “that any portion of the restructured debt was actually attributable to interstate transactions; that the funds comprising that debt originated out-of-state; or that the restructured debt was inseparable from any out-of-state projects,” id., at 805, the court found an insufficient nexus with interstate commerce to establish FAA coverage of the parties’ dispute.
Justice See in dissent explained why, in his view, the court had erred by using the test formulated in Sisters of the Visitation, in which the Supreme Court of Alabama read this Court’s opinion in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), to require that “a particular contract, in order to be enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act must, by itself, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” 872 So. 2d, at 808. Rejecting that stringent test and assessing the evidence with a more generous view of the necessary effect on interstate commerce, Justice See would have found that the bank’s loans to Alafabco satisfied the FAA’s “involving commerce” requirement.
II
The FAA provides that a
“written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2 (emphasis added).
The statute further defines “commerce” to include “commerce among the several States.” §1. Echoing Justice See’s dissenting opinion, petitioner contends that the decision below gives inadequate breadth 'to the “involving commerce” language of the statute. We agree.
We have interpreted the term “involving commerce” in the FAA as the functional equivalent of the more familiar term “affecting commerce” — words of art that ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U. S., at 273-274. Because the statute provides for “the enforcement of arbitration agreements within the full reach of the Commerce Clause,” Perry v. Thomas, 482 U. S. 483, 490 (1987), it is perfectly clear that the FAA encompasses a wider range of transactions than those actually “in commerce” — that is, “within the flow of interstate commerce,” Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., supra, at 273 (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
The Supreme Court of Alabama was therefore misguided in its search for evidence that a “portion of the restructured debt was actually attributable to interstate transactions” or that the loans “originated out-of-state” or that “the restructured debt was inseparable from any out-of-state projects.” 872 So. 2d, at 805. Such evidence might be required if the FAA were restricted to transactions actually “‘in commerce,’ ” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 195-196 (1974), but, as we have explained, that is not the limit of the FAA’s reach.
Nor is application of the FAA defeated because the individual debt-restructuring transactions, taken alone, did not have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.” 872 So. 2d, at 803. Congress’ Commerce Clause power “may be exercised in individual cases without showing any specific effect upon interstate commerce” if in the aggregate the economic activity in question would represent “a general practice . .. subject to federal control.” Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 236 (1948). See also Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 154 (1971); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128 (1942). Only that general practice need bear on interstate commerce in a substantial way. Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196-197, n. 27 (1968); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37-38 (1937).
This case is well within our previous pronouncements on the extent of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. Although the debt-restructuring agreements were executed in Alabama by Alabama residents, they nonetheless satisfy the FAA’s “involving commerce” test for at least three reasons. First, Alafabco engaged in business throughout the southeastern United States using substantial loans from the bank that were renegotiated and redocumented in the debt-restructuring agreements. Indeed, the gravamen of Alafab-co’s state-court suit was that it had incurred “‘massive debt’ ” to the bank in order to keep its business afloat, and the bank submitted affidavits of bank officers establishing that its loans to Alafabco had been used in part to finance large construction projects in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama.
Second, the restructured debt was secured by all of Ala-fabco’s business assets, including its inventory of goods assembled from out-of-state parts and raw materials. If the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate local business establishments purchasing substantial quantities of goods that have moved in interstate commerce, Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 304-305 (1964), it necessarily reaches substantial commercial loan transactions secured by such goods.
Third, were there any residual doubt about the magnitude of the impact on interstate commerce caused by the particular economic transactions in which the parties were engaged, that doubt would dissipate upon consideration of the “general practice” those transactions represent. Mandeville Island Farms, supra, at 236. No elaborate explanation is needed to make evident the broad impact of commercial lending on the national economy or Congress’ power to regulate that activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 38-39 (1980) (“[B]anking and related financial activities are of profound local concern. . . . Nonetheless, it does not follow that these same activities lack important interstate attributes”); Perez, supra, at 154-155 (“Extortionate credit transactions, though purely intrastate, may in the judgment of Congress affect interstate commerce”).
The decision below therefore adheres to an improperly cramped view of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. That view, first announced by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Sisters of the Visitation v. Cochran Plastering Co., 775 So. 2d 759 (2000), appears to rest on a misreading of our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995). Lopez did not restrict the reach of the FAA or implicitly overrule Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. — indeed, we did not discuss that case in Lopez. Nor did Lopez purport to announce a new rule governing Congress’ Commerce Clause power over concededly economic activity such as the debt-restructuring agreements before us now. 514 U. S., at 561. To be sure, “the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits,” Maryland v. Wirtz, supra, at 196, but nothing in our decision in Lopez suggests that those limits are breached by applying the FAA to disputes arising out of the commercial loan transactions in this case.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine whether a person released on his own recognizance is “in custody” within the meaning of the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241 (c)(3), 2254 (a). See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968); Carajas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963). Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging a state court conviction on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The court denied relief, holding that since the petitioner was enlarged on his own recognizance pending execution of sentence, he was not yet “in custody” for purposes of the habeas corpus statute. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that release on one’s own recognizance is not sufficient custody to confer jurisdiction on the District Court, and affirmed the judgment. 453 F. 2d 1252 (1972). We granted certiorari, 409 U. S. 840 (1972), and we reverse.
Convicted of a misdemeanor in California Municipal Court for violation of § 29007 of the California Education Code, petitioner was sentenced to serve one year in jail and pay a fine of $625. He appealed his conviction unsuccessfully to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, and his efforts to have the conviction set aside on state court collateral attack have proved equally unavailing. It appears that petitioner exhausted all available state court remedies prior to filing this petition for federal habeas corpus. See 28 U. S. C. §2254 (b).
At all times since his conviction petitioner has been enlarged on his own recognizance. While pursuing his state court remedies he remained at large under an order of the state trial court staying execution of his sentence. And the state trial court extended its stay, even after the Supreme Court of California declined to hear his application for postconviction relief, apparently to permit petitioner to remain at large while seeking habeas corpus in the United States District Court. Pending appeal from the District Court's denial of relief, an application for extension of the state court stay was granted by Mr. Justice Black, as Acting Circuit Justice, on August 12, 1970, and extended by Mr. Justice Douglas, as Circuit Justice, on August 20, 1970, and again on September 9, 1970. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, but granted a 30-day stay of its mandate pending application for certiorari. That stay was extended by Mr. Justice Douglas, as Circuit Justice, on March 20, 1972, and it is pursuant to his order that petitioner remains at large at the present time.
The California Penal Code provides that any court that may release a defendant upon his giving bail may release him on his own recognizance, provided he agrees in writing that:
“(a) He will appear at all times and places as ordered by the court or magistrate releasing him and as ordered by any court in which, or any magistrate before whom, the charge is subsequently pending.
“(b) If he fails to so appear and is apprehended outside of the State of California, he waives extradition.
“(c) Any court or magistrate of competent jurisdiction may revoke the order of release and either return him to custody or require that he give bail or other assurance of his appearance . . . .” Cal. Penal Code § 1318.4.
A defendant is subject to re-arrest if he fails to appear as agreed, id., § 1318.8 (a), and a willful failure to appear is itself a criminal offense. Id., § 1319.6. We assume that these statutory conditions have been imposed on petitioner at all times since the state trial court stayed execution of his sentence.
The question presented for our decision is a narrow one: namely, whether the conditions imposed on petitioner as the price of his release constitute “custody” as that term is used in the habeas corpus statute. Respondent contends that the conditions imposed on petitioner are significantly less restrictive than those imposed on the petitioner in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963), where we held that a person released on parole is “in custody” for purposes of the district courts’ habeas corpus jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that the parolee is generally subject to greater restrictions on his liberty of movement than a person released on bail or his own recognizance. And some lower courts have reasoned that this difference precludes an extension of the writ in cases such as the one before us. On the other hand, a substantial number of courts, perhaps a majority, have concluded that a person released on bail or on his own recognizance may be “in custody” within the meaning of the statute. In view of the analysis, which led to a finding of custody in Jones v. Cunningham, supra, we conclude that this latter line of cases reflects the sounder view.
While the “rhetoric celebrating habeas corpus has changed little over the centuries,” it is nevertheless true that the functions of the writ have undergone dramatic change. Our recent' decisions have reasoned from the premise that habeas corpus is not “a static, narrow, formalistic remedy,” Jones v. Cunningham, supra, at 243, but one which must retain the “ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286, 291 (1969). See Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 346 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting). “The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.” Harris v. Nelson, supra, at 291.
Thus, we have consistently rejected interpretations of the habeas corpus statute that would suffocate the writ in stifling formalisms or hobble its effectiveness with the manacles of arcane and scholastic procedural requirements. The demand for speed, flexibility, and simplicity is clearly evident in our decisions concerning the exhaustion doctrine, Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953); the criteria for relitigation of factual questions, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963); the prematurity doctrine, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 (1968); the choice of forum, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484 (1973); Strait v. Laird, 406 U. S. 341 (1972); and the procedural requirements of a habeas corpus hearing, Harris v. Nelson, supra. That same theme has indelibly marked our construction of the statute’s custody requirement. See Strait v. Laird, supra; Peyton v. Rowe, supra; Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968); Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U. S. 335 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, supra.
The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty. Since habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy whose operation is to a large extent uninhibited by traditional rules of finality and federalism, its use has been limited to cases of special urgency, leaving more conventional remedies for cases in which the restraints on liberty are neither severe nor immediate. Applying that principle, we can only conclude that petitioner is in custody for purposes of the habeas corpus statute. First, he is subject to restraints “not shared by the public generally,” Jones v. Cunningham, supra, at 240: that is, the obligation to appear “at all times and places as ordered” by “[a]ny court or magistrate of competent jurisdiction.” Cal. Penal Code §§ 1318.4 (a), 1318.4(c). He cannot come and go as he pleases. His freedom of movement rests in the hands of state judicial officers, who may demand his presence at any time and without a moment’s notice. Disobedience is itself a criminal offense. The restraint on his liberty is surely no less severe than the conditions imposed on the unattached reserve officer whom we held to be “in custody” in Strait v. Laird, supra.
Second, petitioner remains at large only by the grace of a stay entered first by the state trial court and then extended by two Justices of this Court. The State has emphatically indicated its determination to put him behind bars, and the State has taken every possible step to secure that result. His incarceration is not, in other words, a speculative possibility that depends on a number of contingencies over which he has no control. This is not a case where the unfolding of events may render the entire controversy academic. The petitioner has been forced to fend off the state authorities by means of a stay, and those authorities retain the determination and the power to seize him as soon as the obstacle of the stay is removed. The need to keep the stay in force is itself an unusual and substantial impairment of his liberty.
Moreover, our conclusion that the petitioner is presently in custody does not interfere with any significant interest of the State. Indeed, even if we were to accept respondent’s argument that petitioner is not in custody, that result would do no more than postpone this habeas corpus action until petitioner had begun service of his sentence. It would still remain open to the District Court to order petitioner’s release pending consideration of his habeas corpus claim. In re Shuttlesworth, 369 U. S. 35 (1962). Even if petitioner remained in jail only long enough to have his petition filed in the District Court, his release by order of the District Court would not jeopardize his “custody” for purposes of a habeas corpus action. Carafas v. LaVallee, supra. Plainly, we would badly serve the purposes and the history of the writ to hold that under these circumstances the petitioner’s failure to spend even 10 minutes in jail is enough to deprive the District Court of power to hear his constitutional claim.
Finally, we emphasize that our decision does not open the doors of the district courts to the habeas corpus petitions of all persons released on bail or on their own recognizance. We are concerned here with a petitioner who has been convicted in state court and who has apparently exhausted all available state court opportunities to have that conviction set aside. Where a state defendant is released on bail or on his own recognizance pending trial or pending appeal, he must still contend with the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine if he seeks habeas corpus relief in the federal courts. Nothing in today’s opinion alters the application of that doctrine to such a defendant.
Since the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that petitioner was not “in custody” at the time his petition was filed, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court to consider his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the question was controlled by a prior decision of the same court, Matysek v. United States, 339 F. 2d 389 (1964).
Petitioner was convicted of awarding Doctor of Divinity degrees without obtaining the necessary accreditation. He defended the charge on the grounds that he is the chief presiding officer of a bona fide church, that his church has awarded honorary Doctor of Divinity certificates to persons who have completed a course of instruction in the church’s principles, and that state interference with this practice is an unconstitutional restraint on the free exercise of his religious beliefs.
There is a substantial question whether petitioner has forfeited the right to raise his First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the state court conviction by deliberately bypassing an opportunity to raise the claim in the state courts. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963). Respondent maintains that petitioner deliberately absented himself from trial following the close of the prosecution’s case, with full knowledge that the trial would continue in his absence. He thereby relinquished, respondent contends, the right to defend himself and present evidence on his behalf. Petitioner argues in response that trial counsel failed to advise him of the reopening of trial and failed to warn him that absence from trial would lead to conviction. Accordingly, he asserts that he should not be held to have knowingly and intelligently bypassed an available state procedure. The record on-this point is more than a little obscure, and we express no opinion on the question beyond noting that the issue was not considered, much less resolved, by either of the courts below, and it is not in any sense presented for our decision.
In his Motion for Stay, filed in this Court on August 11, 1970, and addressed to the Circuit Justice of the Ninth Circuit, petitioner explained that the “Stay of Execution granted by the Trial Court is scheduled to expire on August 12, 1970, at which time petitioner has been ordered to surrender himself to the Sheriff of Santa Clara County for immediate incarceration.” Motion for Stay 2.
See, e. g., United States ex rel. Meyer v. Weil, 458 F. 2d 1068 (CA7 1972); Allen v. United States, 349 F. 2d 362 (CA1 1965); Application of Jackson, 338 F. Supp. 1225 (WD Term. 1971); United States ex rel. Granello v. Krueger, 306 F. Supp. 1046 (EDNY 1969) ; Moss v. Maryland, 272 F. Supp. 371 (Md. 1967).
See, e. g., Capler v. City of Greenville, 422 F. 2d 299, 301 (CA5 1970); Marden v. Purdy, 409 F. 2d 784, 785 (CA5 1969); Beck v. Winters, 407 F. 2d 125, 126-127 (CA8 1969); Burris v. Ryan, 397 F. 2d 553, 555 (CA7 1968); United States ex rel. Smith v. DiBella, 314 F. Supp. 446 (Conn. 1970); Ouletta v. Sarver, 307 F. Supp. 1099, 1101 n. 1 (ED Ark. 1970), aff’d, 428 F. 2d 804 (CA8 1970); Cantillon v. Superior Court, 305 F. Supp. 304, 306-307 (CD Cal. 1969); Matzner v. Davenport, 288 F. Supp. 636, 638 n. 1 (NJ 1968), aff’d, 410 F. 2d 1376 (CA3 1969); Nash v. Purdy, 283 F. Supp. 837, 838-839 (SD Fla. 1968); Duncombe v. New York, 267 F. Supp. 103, 109 n. 9 (SDNY 1967); Foster v. Gilbert, 264 F. Supp. 209, 211-212 (SD Fla. 1967). In addition, the Supreme Court of California has concluded that release on one’s own recognizance under the laws of that State imposes “sufficient constructive custody” to permit an application for writ of habeas corpus. In re Smiley, 66 Cal. 2d 606, 613, 427 P. 2d 179, 183 (1967).
Note, Developments in the Law — Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1040 (1970).
Insofar as former decisions, Stallings v. Splain, 253 U. S. 339 (1920); Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245 (1913); Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 (1898); Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564 (1885), may indicate a narrower reading of the custody requirement, they may no longer be deemed controlling. In none of the decisions on which we today rely, Strait v. Laird, supra; Peyton v. Rowe, supra; Carafas v. LaVallee, supra; Jones v. Cunningham, supra, are these earlier cases even cited in the opinions of the Court.
Similarly, in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484 (1973), where the Commonwealth of Kentucky had lodged a detainer against a prisoner in an Alabama jail, we held that the petitioner was in the custody of Kentucky officials for purposes of his habeas corpus action.
By contrast, a finding of no “custody” in Carafas v. LaVallee, supra, would not merely have postponed the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction, but would have barred it altogether. Similarly, if we had held in Jones v. Cunningham, supra, that a parolee is not in custody, then habeas corpus jurisdiction could not have been exercised until such time as release on parole was revoked. Cf. Peyton v. Rowe, supra.
See United, States ex rel. Pon v. Esperdy, 296 F. Supp. 726 (SDNY 1969); Goldberg v. Hendrick, 254 F. Supp. 286, 288-289 (ED Pa. 1966).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, we consider the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages by students who were suspended from public elementary and secondary schools without procedural due process. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the students are entitled to recover substantial nonpunitive damages even if their suspensions were justified, and even if they do not prove that any other actual injury was caused by the denial of procedural due process. We disagree, and hold that in the absence of proof of actual injury, the students are entitled to recover only nominal damages.
I
Respondent Jarius Piphus was a freshman at Chicago Vocational High School during the 1973-1974 school year. On January 23, 1974, during school hours, the school principal saw Piphus and another student standing outdoors on school property passing back and forth what the principal described as an irregularly shaped cigarette. The principal approached the students unnoticed and smelled what he believed was the strong odor of burning marihuana. He also saw Piphus try to pass a packet of cigarette papers to the other student. When the students became aware of the principal’s presence, they threw the cigarette into a nearby hedge.
The principal took the students to the school’s disciplinary office and directed the assistant principal to impose the “usual” 20-day suspension for violation of the school rule against the use of drugs. The students protested that they had not been smoking marihuana, but to no avail. Piphus was allowed to remain at school, although not in class, for the remainder of the school day while the assistant principal tried, without success, to reach his mother.
A suspension notice was sent to Piphus’ mother, and a few days later two meetings were arranged among Piphus, his mother, his sister, school officials, and representatives from a legal aid clinic. The purpose of the meetings was not to determine whether Piphus had been smoking marihuana, but rather to explain the reasons for the suspension. Following an unfruitful exchange of views, Piphus and his mother, as guardian ad litem, filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U. S. C. § 1343, charging that Piphus had been suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, together with actual and punitive damages in the amount of $3,000. Piphus was readmitted to school under a temporary restraining order after eight days of his suspension.
Respondent Silas Brisco was in the sixth grade at Clara Barton Elementary School in Chicago during the 1973-1974 school year. On September 11, 1973, Brisco came to school wearing one small earring. The previous school year the school principal had issued a rule against the wearing of earrings by male students because he believed that this practice denoted membership in certain street gangs and increased the likelihood that gang members would terrorize other students. Brisco was reminded of this rule, but he refused to remove the earring, asserting that it was a symbol of black pride, not of gang membership.
The assistant principal talked to Brisco’s mother, advising her that her son would be suspended for 20 days if he did not remove the earring. Brisco’s mother supported her son’s position, and a 20-day suspension was imposed. Brisco and his mother, as guardian ad litem, filed suit in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343, charging that Brisco had been suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, together with actual and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Brisco was readmitted to school during the pendency of proceedings for a preliminary injunction after 17 days of his suspension.
Piphus’ and Brisco’s cases were consolidated for trial and submitted on stipulated records. The District Court held that both students had been suspended without procedural due process. It also held that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity from damages under the second branch of Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975), because they “should have known that a lengthy suspension without any adjudicative hearing of any type” would violate procedural due process. App. to Pet. for Cert. A14. Despite these holdings, the District Court declined to award damages because:
“Plaintiffs put no evidence in the record to quantify their damages, and the record is completely devoid of any evidence which could even form the basis of a speculative inference measuring the extent of their injuries. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages therefore fail for complete lack of proof.” Ibid.
The court also stated that the students were entitled to declaratory relief and to deletion of the suspensions from their school records, but for reasons that are not apparent the court failed to enter an order to that effect. Instead, it simply dismissed the complaints. No finding was made as to whether respondents would have been suspended if they had received procedural due process.
On respondents’ appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 545 F. 2d 30 (1976). It first held that the District Court erred in not granting declaratory and injunctive relief. It also held that the District Court should have considered evidence submitted by respondents after judgment that tended to prove the pecuniary value of each day of school that they missed while suspended. The court said, however, that respondents would not be entitled to recover damages representing the value of missed school time if petitioners showed on remand “that there was just cause for the suspension [s] and that therefore [respondents] would have been suspended even if a proper hearing had been held.” Id., at 32.
Finally, the Court of Appeals held that even if the District Court found on remand that respondents’ suspensions were justified, they would be entitled to recover substantial “non-punitive” damages simply because they had been denied procedural due process. Id., at 31. Relying on its earlier decision in Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F. 2d 569 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 963 (1976), the court stated that such damages should be awarded “even if, as in the case at bar, there is no proof of individualized injury to the plaintiff, such as mental distress....” 545 F: 2d, at 31. We granted certiorari to consider whether, in an action under § 1983 for the deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove that he actually was injured by the deprivation before he may recover substantial “non-punitive” damages. 430 U. S. 964 (1977).
II
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Rev. Stat. § 1979, derived from § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, provides:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
The legislative history of § 1983, elsewhere detailed, e. g., Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 172-183 (1961); id., at 225-234 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 238-242 (1972), demonstrates that it was intended to “[create] a species of tort liability” in favor of persons who are deprived of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured” to them by the Constitution. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976).
Petitioners contend that the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages under this “species of tort liability” should parallel those for recovery of damages under the common law of torts. In particular, they urge that the purpose of an award of damages under § 1983 should be to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights; and, further, that plaintiffs should be required to prove not only that their rights were violated, but also that injury was caused by the violation, in order to recover substantial damages. Unless respondents prove that they actually were injured by the deprivation of procedural due process, petitioners argue, they are entitled at most to nominal damages.
Respondents seem to make two different arguments in support of the holding below. First, they contend that substantial damages should be awarded under § 1983 for the deprivation of a constitutional right whether or not any injury was caused by the deprivation. This, they say, is appropriate both because constitutional rights are valuable in and of themselves, and because of the need to deter violations of constitutional rights. Respondents believe that this view reflects accurately that of the Congress that enacted § 1983. Second, respondents argue that even if the purpose of a § 1983 damages award is, as petitioners contend, primarily to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights, every deprivation of procedural due process may be presumed to cause some injury. This presumption, they say, should relieve them from the necessity of proving that injury actually was caused.
A
Insofar as petitioners contend that the basic purpose of a § 1983 damages award should be to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights, they have the better of the argument. Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests, and their contours are shaped by the interests they protect.
Our legal system’s concept of damages reflects this view of legal rights. “The cardinal principle of damages in Anglo-American law is that of compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.” 2 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts §25.1, p. 1299 (1956) (emphasis in original). The Court implicitly has recognized the applicability of this principle to actions under § 1983 by stating that damages are available under that section for actions “found... to have been violative of... constitutional rights and to have caused compensable-injury....” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 319 (emphasis supplied); see C-odd v. Velger, 429 U. S. 624, 630-631 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 232 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397 (1971) (action for damages directly under Fourth Amendment); id., at 408-409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). The lower federal courts appear generally to agree that damages awards under § 1983 should be determined by the compensation principle.
The Members of the Congress that enacted § 1983 did not address directly the question of damages, but the principle that damages are designed to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of rights hardly could have been foreign to the many lawyers in Congress in 1871. Two other sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 appear to incorporate this principle, and no reason suggests itself for reading § 1983 differently. To the extent that Congress intended that awards under § 1983 should deter the deprivation of constitutional rights, there is no evidence that it meant to establish a deterrent more formidable than that inherent in the award of compensatory damages. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., at 442 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
B
It is less difficult to conclude that damages awards under § 1983 should be governed by the principle of compensation than it is to apply this principle to concrete cases. But over the centuries the common law of torts has developed a set of rules to implement the principle that a person should be compensated fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights. These rules, defining the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery, provide the appropriate starting point for the inquiry under § 1983 as well.
It is not clear, however, that common-law tort rules of damages will provide a complete solution to the damages issue in every § 1983 case. In some cases, the interests protected by a particular branch of the common law of torts may parallel closely the interests protected by a particular constitutional right. In such cases, it may be appropriate to apply the tort rules of damages directly to the § 1983 action. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S., at 231-232 (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting). In other cases, the interests protected by a particular constitutional right may not also be protected by an analogous branch of the common law of torts. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S., at 196, and n. 5 (Harlan, J., concurring) id., at 250-251 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, at 232 (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotic Agents, 403 U. S., at 394; id., at 408-409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). In those cases, the task will be the more difficult one of adapting common-law rules of damages to provide fair compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right.
Although this task of adaptation will be one of some delicacy — as this case demonstrates — it must be undertaken. The purpose of § 1983 would be defeated if injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights went uncompensated simply because the common law does not recognize an analogous cause of action. Cf. Jones v. Hildebrant, 432 U. S. 183, 190-191 (1977) (White, J., dissenting); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 240 (1969). In order to further the purpose of § 1983, the rules governing compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights should be tailored to the interests protected by the particular right in question — just as the common-law rules of damages themselves were defined by the interests protected in the various branches of tort law. We agree with Mr. Justice Harlan that “the experience of judges in dealing with private [tort] claims supports the conclusion that courts of law are capable of making the types of judgment concerning causation and magnitude of injury necessary to accord meaningful compensation for invasion of [constitutional] rights.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, supra, at 409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the problem of compensation in the case at hand.
C
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”
This Clause “raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a person’s possessions,” or liberty, or life. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 81 (1972). Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Thus, in deciding what process constitutionally is due in various contexts, the Court repeatedly has emphasized that “procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process....” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 344 (1976). Such rules “minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of” life, liberty, or property by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. Shevin, supra, at 81.
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that if petitioners can prove on remand that “[respondents] would have been suspended even if a proper hearing had been held,” 545 F. 2d, at 32, then respondents will not be entitled to recover damages to compensate them for injuries caused by the suspensions. The court thought that in such a case, the failure to accord procedural due process could not properly be viewed as the cause of the suspensions. Ibid.; cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 285-287 (1977); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 270-271, n. 21 (1977). The court suggested that in such circumstances, an award of damages for injuries caused by the suspensions would constitute a windfall, rather than compensation, to respondents. 545 F. 2d, at 32, citing Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F. 2d, at 579; cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, supra, at 285-286. We do not understand the parties to disagree with this conclusion. Nor do we.
The parties do disagree as to the further holding of the Court of Appeals that respondents are entitled to recover substantial — although unspecified — damages to compensate them for “the injury which is 'inherent in the nature of the wrong'” 545 F. 2d, at 31, even if their suspensions were justified and even if they fail to prove that the denial of procedural due process actually caused them some real, if intangible, injury. Respondents, elaborating on this theme, submit that the holding is correct because injury fairly may be “presumed” to flow from every denial of procedural due process. Their argument is that in addition to protecting against unjustified deprivations, the Due Process Clause also guarantees the “feeling of just treatment” by the government. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 162 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). They contend that the deprivation of protected interests without procedural due process, even where the premise for the deprivation is not erroneous, inevitably arouses strong feelings of mental and emotional distress in the individual who is denied this “feeling of just treatment.” They analogize their case to that of defamation per se, in which “the plaintiff is relieved from the necessity of producing any proof whatsoever that he has been injured” in order to recover substantial compensatory damages. C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 116, p. 423 (1935).
Petitioners do not deny that a purpose of procedural due process is to convey to the individual a feeling that the government has dealt with him fairly, as well as to minimize the risk of mistaken deprivations of protected interests. They go so far as to concede that, in a proper case, persons in respondents' position might well recover damages for mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process.. Petitioners' argument ■ is the more limited one that such injury cannot be presumed to occur, and that plaintiffs at least should be put to their proof on the issue, as plaintiffs are in most tort actions.
We agree with petitioners in this respect. As we have observed in another context, the doctrine of presumed damages in the common law of defamation per se “is an oddity of tort law, for it allows recovery of purportedly compensatory damages without evidence of actual loss.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 349 (1974). The doctrine has been defended on the grounds that those forms of defamation that are actionable per se are virtually certain to cause serious injury to reputation, and that this kind of injury is extremely difficult to prove. See id., at 373, 376 (White, J., dissenting). Moreover, statements that are defamatory per se by their very nature are likely to cause mental and emotional distress, as well as injury to reputation, so there arguably is little reason to require proof of this kind of injury either. But these considerations do not support respondents’ contention that damages should be presumed to flow from every deprivation of procedural due process.
First, it is not reasonable to assume that every departure from procedural due process, no matter what the circumstances or how minor, inherently is as likely to cause distress as the publication of defamation per se is to cause injury to reputation and distress. Where the deprivation of a protected interest is substantively justified but procedures are deficient in some respect, there may well be those who suffer no distress over the procedural irregularities. Indeed, in contrast to the immediately distressing effect of defamation per se, a person may not even know that procedures were deficient until he enlists the aid of counsel to challenge a perceived substantive deprivation.
Moreover, where a deprivation is justified but procedures are deficient, whatever distress a person feels may be attributable to the justified deprivation rather than to deficiencies in procedure. But as the Court of Appeals held, the injury caused by a justified deprivation, including distress, is not properly compensable under § 1983. This ambiguity in causation, which is absent in the case of defamation per se, provides additional need for requiring the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact that he actually suffered distress because of the denial of procedural due process itelf.
Finally, we foresee no particular difficulty in producing evidence that mental and emotional distress actually was caused by the denial of procedural due process itself. Distress is a personal injury familiar to the law, customarily proved by showing the nature and circumstances of the wrong and its effect on the plaintiff. In sum, then, although mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process itself is compensable under § 1983, we hold that neither the likelihood of such injury nor the difficulty of proving it is so great as to justify awarding compensatory damages without proof that such injury actually was caused.
D
The Court of Appeals believed, and respondents urge, that cases dealing with awards of damages for racial discrimination, the denial of voting rights, and the denial of Fourth Amendment rights support a presumption of damages where procedural due process is denied. Many of the cases relied upon do not help respondents because they held or implied that some actual, if intangible, injury must be proved before compensatory damages may be recovered. Others simply did not address the issue. More importantly, the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of one constitutional right are not necessarily appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of another. As we have said, supra, at 258-259, these issues must be considered with reference to the nature of the interests protected by the particular constitutional right in question. For this reason, and without intimating an opinion as to their merits, we do- not deem the cases relied upon to be controlling.
Ill
Even if respondents’ suspensions were justified, and even if they did not suffer any other actual injury, the fact remains that they were deprived of their right to procedural due process. “It is enough to invoke the procedural safeguards of the Fourteenth Amendment that a significant property interest is at stake, whatever the ultimate outcome of a hearing....” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S., at 87; see Codd v. Velger, 429 U. S., at 632 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 424 (1915).
Common-law courts traditionally have vindicated deprivations of certain “absolute” rights that are not shown to have caused actual injury through the award of a nominal sum of money. By making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed; but at the same time, it remains true to the principle that substantial damages should be awarded only to compensate actual injury or, in the case of exemplary or punitive damages, to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.
Because the right to procedural due process is “absolute” in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant’s substantive assertions, and because of the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, see Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 375 (1971) ; Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S., at 171-172 (Frankfurter, J., concurring), we believe that the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury. We therefore hold that if, upon remand, the District Court determines that respondents’ suspensions were justified, respondents nevertheless will be entitled to recover nominal damages not to exceed one dollar from petitioners.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
At the time of the suspensions, the Board of Education’s general rule governing suspensions provided:
“For gross disobedience or misconduct a pupil may be suspended temporarily by the principal for a period not exceeding one school month for each offense. Each such suspension shall be reported immediately to the District Superintendent and also to the parent or guardian of the pupil, with a full statement of the reasons for such suspension. The District Superintendent shall have authority to review the action of the principal and to return the suspended pupil.” Rule 6-9 of the Rules of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago (1973), quoted in District Court opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. A9.
The District Court held that the terms “gross disobedience” and “misconduct” in this general rule are not unconstitutionally vague because they were narrowed by the school principals’ issuance of the particular rules allegedly violated here. Id., at A9-A10. Rule 6-9 was amended following this Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975). See App. to Pet. for Cert. A10-A11, n. 3.
The complaint named as defendants, individually and in their official capacities, the principal of the school; the General Superintendent of Schools of the city of Chicago; and the members of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago.
Also- named as plaintiff in Brisco's suit was People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), a religious corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, the membership of which includes parents of children in the Chicago public schools. The District Court held that PUSH had standing to maintain this suit, a ruling not challenged on appeal.
In addition to the procedural due process claim, Brisco's, complaint alleged that enforcement of the “no-earring” rule violated his right to freedom of expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Neither court below passed on this claim, nor do we.
The complaint named as defendants, individually and in their official capacities, the principal of the school; the General Superintendent of Schools of the city of Chicago; the members of the Board of Education of the city of Chicago; and the Illinois Superintendent of Public Instruction. The District Court granted the latter party’s motion to dismiss.
The District Court read Goss v. Lopez, supra, as requiring “more formal procedures” for suspensions of more than 10 days than for suspensions of less than 10 days, and it set forth a detailed list of procedural requirements. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A11-A12. Petitioners have not challenged either the holding that respondents were denied procedural due process, or the listing of rights that must be granted.
Although respondents’ suspensions occurred before Goss v. Lopez was decided, the District Court thought that petitioners' should have been placed on notice that the suspensions violated procedural due process by Linwood v. Board of Ed. of City of Peoria, 463 F. 2d 763 (CA7), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1027 (1972). Petitioners have not challenged this holding.
The District Court expressly held that petitioners did not lose their immunity under the first branch of Wood v. Strickland, i. e., that they did not act “with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student,” 420 U. S., at 322:
“Here the record is barren of evidence suggesting that any of the defendants acted maliciously in enforcing disciplinary policies against the plaintiffs. Undoubtedly defendants believed that they were protecting the integrity of the educational process.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A13.
See also D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.1, pp. 135-138 (1973); C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 1 (1935); W. Prosser, Law of Torts §2, p. 7 (4th ed. 1971).
See, e. g., United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 535 F. 2d 823, 829-830, and n. 13 (CA3 1976); United States ex rel. Larkins v. Oswald, 510 F. 2d 583, 590 (CA2 1975); Magnett v. Pelletier, 488 F. 2d 33, 35 (CA1 1973); Stolberg v. Members of Bd. of Trustees for State Colleges of Conn., 474 F. 2d 485, 488-489 (CA2 1973); Donovan v. Reinbold, 433 F. 2d 738, 743 (CA9 1970).
See 1 F. Hilliard, Law of Torts, ch. 3, § 5 (3d ed. 1866); T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages 25-35 (5th ed. 1869). Thus, one proponent of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 asked during debate: “[W]hat legislation could be more appropriate than to give a person injured by another under color of... State laws a remedy by civil action?” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 482 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Wilson). And one opponent of § 1 complained: “The deprivation may be of the slightest conceivable character, the damages in the estimation of any sensible man may not be five dollars or even five cents; they may be what lawyers call merely nominal damages; and yet by this section jurisdiction of that civil action is given to the Federal courts instead of its being prosecuted as now in the courts of the States.” Id,., at App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman). See also Nahmod, Section 1983 and the “Background” of Tort Liability, 50 Ind. L. J. 5,10 (1974).
Section 2 of the Act, 17 Stat. 13-14, now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1985 (3), made it unlawful to conspire, inter alia, “for the purpose of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws....” It further provided (emphasis supplied):
“[I]f any one or more persons engaged in any such conspiracy shall do', or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby any person shall be injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the person so injured or deprived of such rights and privileges may have and maintain an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation of rights and privileges against any one or more of the persons engaged in such conspiracy....”
Section 6 of the Act, 17 Stat. 15, now codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1986, provided (emphasis supplied):
“[A]ny person or persons, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in the second section of this act are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, shall neglect or refuse to do so, and such wrongful act shall be committed, such person or persons shall be liable to the person injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by any such wrongful act....”
This is not to say that exemplary or punitive damages might not be awarded in a proper case under § 1983 with the specific purpose of deterring or punishing violations of constitutional rights. See, e. g., Silver v. Cormier, 529 F. 2d 161, 163-164 (CA10 1976); Stengel v. Belcher, 522 F. 2d 438, 444 n. 4 (CA6 1975), cert. dismissed, 429 U. S. 118 (1976); Spence v. Staras, 507 F. 2d 554, 558 (CA7 1974); Caperci v. Huntoon, 397 F. 2d 799, 801 (CA1), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 940 (1968); Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F. 2d 573, 576 (CA5 1967); Basista v. Weir, 340 F. 2d 74, 84-88 (CA3 1965). Although we imply no approval or disapproval of any of these cases, we note that there is no basis for such an award in this case. The District Court specifically found that petitioners did not act with a malicious intention to deprive respondents of their rights or to do them other injury, see n. 6, supra, and the Court of Appeals approved only the award of “non-punitive” damages, 545 F. 2d 30, 31 (1976).
We also note that the potential liability of § 1983 defendants for attorney’s fees, see Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, amending 42 U. S. C. § 1988, provides additional— and by no means inconsequential — assurance that agents of the State will not deliberately ignore due process rights. See also 18 U. S. C. § 242, the criminal counterpart of § 1983.
For discussions of the problems of fashioning damages awards under § 1983, see generally McCormack, Federalism and Section 1983: Limitations on Judicial Enforcement of Constitutional Protections, Part 1, 60 Va. L. Rev. 1, 55-66 (1974); Nahmod, supra n. 9, at 25-27, n. 89; Yudof, Liability for Constitutional Torts and the Risk-Averse Public School Official, 49 S. Cal. L.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
[559 U.S. 546]
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the calculation of an attorney’s fee, under federal fee-shifting statutes, based on the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates, may be increased due to superior performance and results. We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule. But as we have also said in prior cases, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient; factors subsumed in the lodestar calculation cannot be used as a ground for increasing an award above the lodestar; and a party seeking fees has the burden of identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified. Because the District Court did not apply these standards, we reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[559 U.S. 547]
I
A
Respondents (plaintiffs below) are children in the Georgia foster-care system and their next friends. They filed this class action on behalf of 3,000 children in foster care and named as defendants the Governor of Georgia and various state officials (petitioners in this case). Claiming that deficiencies in the foster-care system in two counties near Atlanta violated their federal and state constitutional and statutory rights, respondents sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia eventually referred the case to mediation, where the parties entered into a consent decree, which the District Court approved. The consent decree resolved all pending issues other than the fees that respondents’ attorneys were entitled to receive under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
B
Respondents submitted a request for more than $14 million in attorney’s fees. Half of that amount was based on their calculation of the lodestar—roughly 30,000 hours multiplied by hourly rates of $200 to $495 for attorneys and $75 to $150 for nonattorneys. In support of their fee request, respondents submitted affidavits asserting that these rates were within the range of prevailing market rates for legal services in the relevant market.
[559 U.S. 548]
The other half of the amount that respondents sought represented a fee enhancement for superior work and results. Affidavits submitted in support of this request claimed that the lodestar amount “would be generally insufficient to induce lawyers of comparable skill, judgment, professional representation and experience” to litigate this case. See, e.g., App. 80. Petitioners objected to the fee request, contending that some of the proposed hourly rates were too high, that the hours claimed were excessive, and that the enhancement would duplicate factors that were reflected in the lodestar amount.
The District Court awarded fees of approximately $10.5 million. See 454 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1296 (ND Ga. 2006). The District Court found that the hourly rates proposed by respondents were “fair and reasonable,” id., at 1285, but that some of the entries on counsel’s billing records were vague and that the hours claimed for many of the billing categories were excessive. The court therefore cut the non-travel hours by 15% and halved the hourly rate for travel hours. This resulted in a lodestar calculation of approximately $6 million.
The court then enhanced this award by 75%, concluding that the lodestar calculation did not take into account “(1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no on [-] going reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel’s ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case.” Id., at 1288. The court stated that respondents’ attorneys had exhibited “a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism . . . than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench.” Id., at 1289. The court also commented that the results obtained were “ ‘extraordinary’ ” and added that “[a]fter 58
[559 U.S. 549]
years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale.” Id., at 1290. The enhancement resulted in an additional $4.5 million fee award.
Relying on prior Circuit precedent, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 532 F.3d 1209 (2008). The panel held that the District Court had not abused its discretion by failing to make a larger reduction in the number of hours for which respondents’ attorneys sought reimbursement, but the panel commented that it “would have cut the billable hours more if we were deciding the matter in the first instance” and added that the hourly rates approved by the District Court also “appear[ed] to be on the generous side.” Id., at 1220, and n. 2. On the question of the enhancement, however, the panel splintered, with each judge writing a separate opinion.
Judge Carnes concluded that binding Eleventh Circuit precedent required that the decision of the District Court be affirmed, but he opined that the reasoning in our opinions suggested that no enhancement should be allowed in this case. He concluded that the quality of the attorneys’ performance was “adequately accounted for ‘either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rates.’ ” Id., at 1225 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565-566, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1986) (Delaware Valley I)). He found that an enhancement could not be justified based on delay in the recovery of attorney’s fees and reimbursable expenses because such delay is a routine feature of cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And he reasoned that the District Court had contravened our holding in Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1992), when it relied on “ ‘the fact that class counsel’s compensation was totally contingent upon prevailing in this action.’ ” 532 F.3d, at 1226, 1228 (quoting affidavit in support of fee request).
[559 U.S. 550]
Judge Wilson concurred in the judgment but disagreed with Judge Carnes’ view that Eleventh Circuit precedent is inconsistent with our decisions. Judge Hill also concurred in the judgment but expressed no view about the correctness of the prior Circuit precedent.
The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of three judges. See 547 F.3d 1319 (2008). Judge Wilson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing; Judge Carnes, joined by Judges Tjo-flat and Dubina, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing; and Judge Tjoflat filed a separate dissent, contending, among other things, that the District Court, by basing the enhancement in large part on a comparison of the performance of respondents’ attorneys with all of the unnamed attorneys whose work he had observed during his professional career, had improperly rendered a decision that was effectively unreviewable on appeal and had essentially served as a witness in support of the enhancement. Id., at 1326-1327.
We granted certiorari. 556 U.S. 1165, 129 S. Ct. 1907, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2009).
II
The general rule in our legal system is that each party must pay its own attorney’s fees and expenses, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983), but Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in order to ensure that federal rights are adequately enforced. Section 1988 provides that a prevailing party in certain civil rights actions may recover “a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” Unfortunately, the statute does not explain what Congress meant by a “reasonable” fee, and therefore the task of identifying an appropriate methodology for determining a “reasonable” fee was left for the courts.
One possible method was set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (CA5 1974),
[559 U.S. 551]
which listed 12 factors that a court should consider in determining a reasonable fee. This method, however, “gave very little actual guidance to district courts. Setting attorney’s fees by reference to a series of sometimes subjective factors placed unlimited discretion in trial judges and produced disparate results.” Delaware Valley I, supra, at 563, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439.
An alternative, the lodestar approach, was pioneered by the Third Circuit in Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (1973), appeal after remand, 540 F.2d 102 (1976), and “achieved dominance in the federal courts” after our decision in Hensley. Gishrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 801, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 152 L. Ed. 2d 996 (2002). “Since that time, ‘[t]he “lodestar” figure has, as its name suggests, become the guiding light of our fee-shifting jurisprudence.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Dague, supra, at 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449).
Although the lodestar method is not perfect, it has several important virtues. First, in accordance with our understanding of the aim of fee-shifting statutes, the lodestar looks to “the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984). Developed after the practice of hourly billing had become widespread, see Gisbrecht, supra, at, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 152 L. Ed. 2d 996, the lodestar method produces an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case. Second, the lodestar method is readily administrable, see Dague, supra, at 566, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449; see also
[559 U.S. 552]
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 609, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 149 L. Ed. 2d 855 (2001); and unlike the Johnson approach, the lodestar calculation is “objective,” Hensley, supra, at 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, and thus cabins the discretion of trial judges, permits meaningful judicial review, and produces reasonably predictable results.
Ill
Our prior decisions concerning the federal fee-shifting statutes have established six important rules that lead to our decision in this case.
First, a “reasonable” fee is a fee that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights case. See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S., at 565, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439 (“ [I]f plaintiffs . . . find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a ‘reasonable fee,’ the purpose behind the fee-shifting statute has been satisfied”); Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (“[A] reasonable attorney’s fee is one that is adequate to attract competent counsel, but that does not produce windfalls to attorneys” (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Section 1988’s aim is to enforce the covered civil rights statutes, not to provide “a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys.” Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439.
Second, the lodestar method yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient to achieve this objective. See Dague, 505 U.S., at 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449; Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439; Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891; see also Gisbrecht, supra, at 801-802, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 152 L. Ed. 2d 996. Indeed, we have said that the presumption is a “strong” one. Dague, supra, at 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449; Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439.
Third, although we have never sustained an enhancement of a lodestar amount for performance, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, 17, we have repeatedly said that enhancements may be awarded in “ ‘rare’ ” and “ ‘exceptional’ ” circumstances. Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439; Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891; Hensley, supra, at 435, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40.
[559 U.S. 553]
Fourth, we have noted that “the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a ‘reasonable’ attorney’s fee,” Delaware Valley I, supra, at 566, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439, and have held that an enhancement may not be awarded based on a factor that is subsumed in the lodestar calculation, see Dague, supra, at 562-563, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449; Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 726-727, 107 S. Ct. 3078, 97 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley ID (plurality opinion); Blum, 465 U.S., at 898, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891. We have thus held that the novelty and complexity of a case generally may not be used as a ground for an enhancement because these factors “presumably [are] fully reflected in the number of billable hours recorded by counsel.” Ibid. We have also held that the quality of an attorney’s performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar “[b]ecause considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party’s counsel’s representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate.” Delaware Valley I, supra, at 566, 106 S. Ct. 3088, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439.
Fifth, the burden of proving that an enhancement is necessary must be borne by the fee applicant. Dague, supra, at 561, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449; Blum, 465 U.S., at 901-902, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891.
Finally, a fee applicant seeking an enhancement must produce “specific evidence” that supports the award. Id., at 899, 901, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (An enhancement must be based on “evidence that enhancement was necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation”). This requirement is essential if the lodestar method is to realize one of its chief virtues, i.e., providing a calculation that is objective and capable of being reviewed on appeal.
IV
A
In light of what we have said in prior cases, we reject any contention that a fee determined by the lodestar method may not be enhanced in any situation. The lodestar method was never intended to be conclusive in all circumstances. Instead,
[559 U.S. 554]
there is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar figure is reasonable, but that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee.
B
In this case, we are asked to decide whether either the quality of an attorney’s performance or the results obtained are factors that may properly provide a basis for an enhancement. We treat these two factors as one. When a plaintiffs attorney achieves results that are more favorable than would have been predicted based on the governing law and the available evidence, the outcome may be attributable to superior performance and commitment of resources by plaintiffs counsel. Or the outcome may result from inferior performance by defense counsel, unanticipated defense concessions, unexpectedly favorable rulings by the court, an unexpectedly sympathetic jury, or simple luck. Since none of these latter causes can justify an enhanced award, superior results are relevant only to the extent it can be shown that they are the result of superior attorney performance. Thus, we need only consider whether superior attorney performance can justify an enhancement. And in light of the principles derived from our prior cases, we inquire whether there are circumstances in which superior attorney performance is not adequately taken into account in the lodestar calculation. We conclude that there are a few such circumstances but that these circumstances are indeed “rare” and “exceptional,” and require specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been “adequate to attract competent counsel,” Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (internal quotation marks omitted).
First, an enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney’s
[559 U.S. 555]
true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation. This may occur if the hourly rate is determined by a formula that takes into account only a single factor (such as years since admission to the bar) or perhaps only a few similar factors. In such a case, an enhancement may be appropriate so that an attorney is compensated at the rate that the attorney would receive in cases not governed by the federal fee-shifting statutes. But in order to provide a calculation that is objective and reviewable, the trial judge should adjust the attorney’s hourly rate in accordance with specific proof linking the attorney’s ability to a prevailing market rate.
Second, an enhancement may be appropriate if the attorney’s performance includes an extraordinary outlay of expenses and the litigation is exceptionally protracted. As Judge Carnes noted below, when an attorney agrees to represent a civil rights plaintiff who cannot afford to pay the attorney, the attorney presumably understands that no reimbursement is likely to be received until the successful resolution of the case, 532 F.3d, at 1227, and therefore enhancements to compensate for delay in reimbursement for expenses must be reserved for unusual cases. In such exceptional cases, however, an enhancement may be allowed, but the amount of the enhancement must be calculated using a method that is reasonable, objective, and capable of being reviewed on appeal, such as by applying a standard rate of interest to the qualifying outlays of expenses.
[559 U.S. 556]
Third, there may be extraordinary circumstances in which an attorney’s performance involves exceptional delay in the payment of fees. An attorney who expects to be compensated under § 1988 presumably understands that payment of fees will generally not come until the end of the case, if at all. See ibid. Compensation for this delay is generally made “either by basing the award on current rates or by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 282, 109 S. Ct. 2463, 105 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). But we do not rule out the possibility that an enhancement may be appropriate where an attorney assumes these costs in the face of unanticipated delay, particularly where the delay is unjustifiably caused by the defense. In such a case, however, the enhancement should be calculated by applying a method similar to that described above in connection with exceptional delay in obtaining reimbursement for expenses.
We reject the suggestion that it is appropriate to grant performance enhancements on the ground that departures from hourly billing are becoming more common. As we have noted, the lodestar was adopted in part because it provides a rough approximation of general billing practices, and accordingly, if hourly billing becomes unusual, an alternative to the lodestar method may have to be found. However, neither respondents nor their amici contend that that day has arrived. Nor have they shown that permitting the award of enhancements on top of the lodestar figure corresponds to prevailing practice in the general run of cases.
We are told that, under an increasingly popular arrangement, attorneys are paid at a reduced hourly rate but receive a bonus if certain specified results are obtained, and this practice is analogized to the award of an enhancement such as the one in this case. Brief for Respondents 55-57. The analogy, however, is flawed. An attorney who agrees, at the outset of the representation, to a reduced hourly rate in exchange for the opportunity to earn a performance bonus is
[559 U.S. 557]
in a position far different from an attorney in a § 1988 case who is compensated at the full prevailing rate and then seeks a performance enhancement in addition to the lodestar amount after the litigation has concluded. Reliance on these comparisons for the purposes of administering enhancements, therefore, is not appropriate.
V
In the present case, the District Court did not provide proper justification for the large enhancement that it awarded. The court increased the lodestar award by 75% but, as far as the court’s opinion reveals, this figure appears to have been essentially arbitrary. Why, for example, did the court grant a 75% enhancement instead of the 100% increase that respondents sought? And why 75% rather than 50% or 25% or 10%?
The District Court commented that the enhancement was the “minimum enhancement of the lodestar necessary to reasonably compensate [respondents’] counsel.” 454 F. Supp. 2d, at 1290. But the effect of the enhancement was to increase the top rate for the attorneys to more than $866 per hour, and the District Court did not point to anything in the record that shows that this is an appropriate figure for the relevant market.
The District Court pointed to the fact that respondents’ counsel had to make extraordinary outlays for expenses and
[559 U.S. 558]
had to wait for reimbursement, id., at 1288, but the court did not calculate the amount of the enhancement that is attributable to this factor. Similarly, the District Court noted that respondents’ counsel did not receive fees on an ongoing basis while the case was pending, but the court did not sufficiently link this factor to proof in the record that the delay here was outside the normal range expected by attorneys who rely on § 1988 for the payment of their fees or quantify the disparity. Nor did the court provide a calculation of the cost to counsel of any extraordinary and unwarranted delay. And the court’s reliance on the contingency of the outcome contravenes our holding in Dague. See 505 U.S., at 565, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449.
Finally, insofar as the District Court relied on a comparison of the performance of counsel in this case with the performance of counsel in unnamed prior cases, the District Court did not employ a methodology that permitted meaningful appellate review. Needless to say, we do not question the sincerity of the District Court’s observations, and we are in no position to assess their accuracy. But when a trial judge awards an enhancement on an impressionistic basis, a major purpose of the lodestar method—providing an objective and reviewable basis for fees, see id., at 566, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449—is undermined.
Determining a “reasonable attorney’s fee” is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge, see 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (permitting court, “in its discretion,” to award fees), but the judge’s discretion is not unlimited. It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement. Unless such an explanation is given, adequate appellate review is not feasible, and without such review, widely disparate awards may be made, and awards may be influenced (or at least, may appear to be influenced) by a judge’s subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance of the case. In addition, in future cases,
[559 U.S. 559]
defendants contemplating the possibility of settlement will have no way to estimate the likelihood of having to pay a potentially huge enhancement. See Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S. Ct. 3012, 87 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985) (“‘[M]any a defendant would be unwilling to make a binding settlement offer on terms that left it exposed to liability for attorney’s fees in whatever amount the court might fix on motion of the plaintiff ’”).
Section 1988 serves an important public purpose by making it possible for persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights. But unjustified enhancements that serve only to enrich attorneys are not consistent with the statute’s aim. In many cases, attorney’s fees awarded under § 1988 are not paid by the individuals responsible for the constitutional or statutory violations on which the judgment is based. Instead, the fees are paid in effect by state and local taxpayers, and because state and local governments have limited budgets, money that is used to pay attorney’s fees is money that cannot be used for programs that provide vital public services. Cf. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 448, 129 S. Ct. 2579, 174 L. Ed. 2d 406 (2009) (payment of money pursuant to a federal-court order diverts funds from other state or local programs).
[559 U.S. 560]
For all these reasons, 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 Breyer would have us answer this question “Yes” and then end the opinion. See post, at 562, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 511-512 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Such an opinion would be of little use to the bench or bar and would pointlessly invite an additional round of litigation. The issue of the standards to be applied in granting an enhancement is fairly subsumed within the question that we agreed to decide and has been extensively discussed in the briefs filed in this case.
. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides:
“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 ofthis title, title IX of Public Law 92-318, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs (Citations omitted.)
. Virtually identical language appears in many of the federal fee-shifting statutes. See Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S. Ct. 2638, 120 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1992).
. These factors were: “(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430, n. 3, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983).
. Respondents correctly note that an attorney’s “brilliant insights and critical maneuvers sometimes matter far more than hours worked or years of experience.’’ Brief for Respondents 14. But as we said in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984), “[i]n those cases, the special skill and experience of counsel should be reflected in the reasonableness of the hourly rates.’’
. See, e.g., Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (DC 2000); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (DC 1983), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 746 F.2d 4 (CADC 1984).
. Justice Breyer’s reliance on the average hourly rate for all of respondents’ attorneys is highly misleading. See post, at 570, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 516. In calculating the lodestar, the District Court found that the hourly rate for each of these attorneys was “eminently fair and reasonable’’ and “consistent with the prevailing market rates in Atlanta for comparable work.’’ 454 F. Supp. 2d, at 1285-1286. Justice Breyer’s calculation of an average hourly rate for all attorney hours reflects nothing more than the fact that much of the work was performed by attorneys whose “fair and reasonable’’ market rate was below the market average. There is nothing unfair about compensating these attorneys at the very rate that they requested.
. Justice Breyer’s opinion dramatically illustrates the danger of allowing a trial judge to award a huge enhancement not supported by any discernible methodology. That approach would retain the $4.5 million enhancement here so that respondents’ attorneys would earn as much as the attorneys at some of the richest law firms in the country. Post, at 570-571, 176 L. Ed. 2d, at 516-517. These fees would be paid by the taxpayers of Georgia, where the annual per capita income is less than $34,000, see Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010, p. 437 (2009) (Table 665) (figures for 2008), and the annual salaries of attorneys employed by the State range from $48,000 for entry-level lawyers to $118,000 for the highest paid division chief, see Brief for State of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae 10, and n. 3 (citing National Association of Attorneys General, Statistics on the Office of the Attorney General, Fiscal Year 2006, pp. 37-39). Section 1988 was enacted to ensure that civil rights plaintiffs are adequately represented, not to provide such a windfall.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, after parallel trials of separate actions filed in 1970, entered an order in 1973 requiring petitioners “to submit to [the District] Court for its approval a comprehensive program for improving the handling of citizen complaints alleging police misconduct” in accordance with a comprehensive opinion filed together with the order. The proposed program, negotiated between petitioners and respondents for the purpose of complying with the order, was incorporated six months later into a final judgment. Petitioner City Police Commissioner was thereby required, inter alia, to put into force a directive governing the manner by which citizens’ complaints against police officers should henceforth be handled by the department. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upholding the District Court’s finding that the existing procedures for handling citizen complaints were “inadequate,” affirmed the District Court’s choice of equitable relief: “The revisions were . . . ordered because they appeared to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.” 506 F. 2d 542, 548 (1974). We granted certiorari to consider petitioners’ claims that the judgment of the District Court represents an unwarranted intrusion by the federal judiciary into the discretionary authority committed to them by state and local law to perform their official functions. We find ourselves substantially in agreement with these claims, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
The central thrust of respondents’ efforts in the two trials was to lay a foundation for equitable intervention, in one degree or another, because of an assertedly pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment by police officers. This mistreatment was said to have been directed against minority citizens in particular and against all Philadelphia residents in general. The named individual and group respondents were certified to represent these two classes. The principal petitioners here — the Mayor, the City Managing Director, and the Police Commissioner — were charged with conduct ranging from express authorization or encouragement of this mistreatment to failure to act in a manner so as to assure that it would not recur in the future.
Hearing some 250 witnesses during 21 days of hearings, the District Court was faced with a staggering amount of evidence; each of the 40-odd incidents might alone have been the piece de resistance of a short, separate trial. The District Court carefully and conscientiously resolved often sharply conflicting testimony, and made detailed findings of fact, which both sides now accept, with respect to eight of the incidents presented by the Ooode respondents and with respect to 28 of those presented by COPPAR.
The principal antagonists in the eight incidents recounted in Goode were Officers DeFazio and D'Amico, members of the city’s “Highway Patrol” force. They were not named as parties to the action. The District Court found the conduct of these officers to be violative of the constitutional rights of the citizen complainants in three of the incidents, and further found that complaints to the police Board of Inquiry had resulted in one case in a relatively mild five-day suspension and in another case a conclusion that there was no basis for disciplinary action.
In only two of the 28 incidents recounted in COPPAR (which ranged in time from October 1969 to October 1970) did the District Court draw an explicit conclusion that the police conduct amounted to a deprivation of a federally secured right; it expressly found no police misconduct whatsoever in four of the incidents; and in one other the departmental policy complained of was subsequently changed. As to the remaining 21, the District Court did not proffer a comment on the degree of misconduct that had occurred: whether simply improvident, illegal under police regulations or state law, or actually violative of the individual’s constitutional rights. Respondents’ brief asserts that of this latter group, the facts as found in 14 of them “reveal [federal] violations.” While we think that somewhat of an overstatement, we accept it, arguendo, and thus take it as established that, insofar as the COPPAR record reveals, there were 16 incidents occurring in the city of Philadelphia over a year’s time in which numbers of police officers violated citizens’ constitutional rights. Additionally, the District Court made reference to citizens complaints to the police in seven of those 16; in four of which, involving conduct of constitutional dimension, the police department received complaints but ultimately took no action against the offending officers.
The District Court made a number of conclusions of law, not all of which are relevant to our analysis. It found that the evidence did not establish the existence of any policy on the part of the named petitioners to violate the legal and constitutional rights of the plaintiff classes, but it did find that evidence of departmental procedure indicated a tendency to discourage the filing of civilian complaints and to minimize the consequences of police misconduct. It found that as to the larger plaintiff class, the residents of Philadelphia, only a small percentage of policemen commit violations of their legal and constitutional rights, but that the frequency with which such violations occur is such that “they cannot be dismissed as rare, isolated instances.” COPPAR v. Rizzo, 357 F. Supp. 1289, 1319 (1973). In the course of its opinion, the District Court commented:
“In the course of these proceedings, much of the argument has been directed toward the proposition that courts should not attempt to supervise the functioning of the police department. Although, contrary to the defendants’ assertions, the Court’s legal power to do just that is firmly established, . . . I am not persuaded that any such drastic remedy is called for, at least initially, in the present cases.” Id., at 1320.
The District Court concluded by directing petitioners to draft, for the court’s approval, “a comprehensive program for dealing adequately with civilian complaints,” to be formulated along the following “guidelines” suggested by the court:
“(1) Appropriate revision of police manuals and rules of procedure spelling out in some detail, in simple language, the ’dos and don’ts’ of permissible conduct in dealing with civilians (for example, manifestations of racial bias, derogatory remarks, offensive language, etc.; unnecessary damage to property and other unreasonable conduct in executing search warrants; limitations on pursuit of persons charged only with summary offenses; recording and processing civilian complaints, etc.). (2) Revision of procedures for processing complaints against police, including (a) ready availability of forms for use by civilians in lodging complaints against police officers; (b) a screening procedure for eliminating frivolous complaints; (c) prompt and adequate investigation of complaints; (d) adjudication of non-frivolous complaints by an impartial individual or body, insulated so far as practicable from chain of command pressures, with a fair opportunity afforded the complainant to present his complaint, and to the police officer to present his defense; and (3) prompt notification to the concerned parties, informing them of the outcome.” Id., at 1321.
While noting that the “guidelines” were consistent with “generally recognized minimum standards” and imposed “no substantial burdens” on the police department, the District Court emphasized that respondents had no constitutional right to improved police procedures for handling civilian complaints. But given that violations of constitutional rights of citizens occur in “unacceptably” high numbers, and are likely to continue to occur, the court-mandated revision was a “necessary first step” in attempting to prevent future abuses. Ibid. On petitioners’ appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed.
II
These actions were brought, and the affirmative equitable relief fashioned, under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. It provides that “[e]very person who, under color of [law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . person within the jurisdiction [of the United States] to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [or] suit in equity . . . .” The plain words of the statute impose liability — whether in the form of payment of redressive damages or being placed under an injunction — only for conduct which “subjects, or causes to be subjected” the complainant to a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.
The findings of fact made by the District Court at the conclusion of these two parallel trials — in sharp contrast to that which respondents sought to prove with respect to petitioners — disclose a central paradox which permeates that court’s legal conclusions. Individual police officers not named as parties to the action were found to have violated the constitutional rights of particular individuals, only a few of whom were parties plaintiff. As the facts developed, there was no affirmative link between the occurrence of the various incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy by petitioners — express or otherwise — showing their authorization or approval of such misconduct. Instead, the sole causal connection found by the District Court between petitioners and the individual respondents was that in the absence of a change in police disciplinary procedures, the incidents were likely to continue to occur, not with respect to them, but as to the members of the classes they represented. In sum, the genesis of this lawsuit — a heated dispute between individual citizens and certain policemen — has evolved into an attempt by the federal judiciary to resolve a “controversy” between the entire citizenry of Philadelphia and the petitioning elected and appointed officials over what steps might, in the Court of Appeals’ words, “[appear] to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.” 506 F. 2d, at 548. The lower courts have, we think, overlooked several significant decisions of this Court in validating this type of litigation and the relief ultimately granted.
A
We first of all entertain serious doubts whether on the facts as found there was made out the requisite Art. Ill case or controversy between the individually named respondents and petitioners. In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), the individual respondents, plaintiffs in the District Court, alleged that petitioners, a county magistrate and judge, had embarked on a continuing, intentional practice of racially discriminatory bond setting, sentencing, and assessing of jury fees. No specific instances involving the individual respondents were set forth in the prayer for injunctive relief against the judicial officers. And even though respondents’ counsel at oral argument had stated that some of the named respondents had in fact “suffered from the alleged unconstitutional practices,” the Court concluded that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief, however, if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id., at 495-496. The Court further recognized that while “past wrongs are evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury,” the attempt to anticipate under what circumstances the respondents there would be made to appear in the future before petitioners “takes us into the area of speculation and conjecture.” Id., at 496-497. These observations apply here with even more force, for the individual respondents’ claim to “real and immediate” injury rests not upon what the named petitioners might do to them in the future — such as set a bond on the basis of race — but upon what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman’s perception of departmental disciplinary procedures. This hypothesis is even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O’Shea to warrant invocation of federal jurisdiction. Thus, insofar as the individual respondents were concerned, we think they lacked the requisite “personal stake in the outcome,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), i. e., the order overhauling police disciplinary procedures.
B
That conclusion alone might appear to end the matter, for O’Shea also noted that “if none of the named plaintiffs . . . establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class” which they purport to represent. 414 U. S., at 494. But, unlike O’Shea, this case did not arise on the pleadings. The District Court, having certified the plaintiff classes, bridged the gap between the facts shown at trial and the class-wide relief sought with an unprecedented theory of § 1983 liability. It held that the classes’ § 1983 actions for equitable relief against petitioners were made out on a showing of an “unacceptably high” number of those incidents of constitutional dimension — some 20 in all — occurring at large in a city of three million inhabitants, with 7,500 policemen.
Nothing in Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939), the only decision of this Court cited by the District Court, or any other case from this Court, supports such an open-ended construction of § 1983. In Hague, the pattern of police misconduct upon which liability and injunctive relief were grounded was the adoption and enforcement of deliberate policies by the defendants there (including the Mayor and the Chief of Police) of excluding and removing the plaintiff's labor organizers and forbidding peaceful communication of their views to the citizens of Jersey City. These policies were implemented “by force and violence” on the part of individual policemen. There was no mistaking that the defendants proposed to continue their unconstitutional policies against the members of this discrete group.
Likewise, in Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802 (1974), relied upon by the Court of Appeals and respondents here, we noted:
“The complaint charged that the enjoined conduct was but one part of a single plan by the defendants, and the District Court found a pervasive pattern of intimidation in which the law enforcement authorities sought to suppress appellees’ constitutional rights. In this blunderbuss effort the police not only relied on statutes . . . found constitutionally deficient, but concurrently exercised their authority under valid laws in an unconstitutional manner.” Id., at 812 (emphasis added).
The numerous incidents of misconduct on the part of the named Texas Rangers, as found by the District Court and summarized in this Court’s opinion, established beyond peradventure not only a “persistent pattern” but one which flowed from an intentional, concerted, and indeed conspiratorial effort to deprive the organizers of their First Amendment rights and place them in fear of coming back. Id., at 814-815.
Respondents stress that the District Court not only found an “unacceptably high” number of incidents but held, as did the Court of Appeals, that “when a 'pattern of frequent police violations of rights is shown, the law is clear that injunctive relief may be granted.” 357 F. Supp., at 1318 (emphasis added). However, there was no showing that the behavior of the Philadelphia police was different in kind or degree from that which exists elsewhere; indeed, the District Court found “that the problems disclosed by the record . . . are fairly typical of [those] afflicting police departments in major urban areas.” Ibid. Thus, invocation of the word “pattern” in a case where, unlike Hague and Medrano, the defendants are not causally linked to it, is but a distant echo of the findings in those cases. The focus in Hague and Medrano was not simply on the number of violations which occurred but on the common thread running through them: a “pervasive pattern of intimidation” flowing from a deliberate plan by the named defendants to crush the nascent labor organizations. Medrano, supra, at 812. The District Court’s unadorned finding of a statistical pattern is quite dissimilar to the factual settings of these two cases.
The theory of liability underlying the District Court’s opinion, and urged upon us by respondents, is that even without a showing of direct responsibility for the actions of a small percentage of the police force, petitioners’ failure to act in the face of a statistical pattern is indistinguishable from the active conduct enjoined in Hague and Medrano. Respondents posit a constitutional “duty” on the part of petitioners (and a corresponding “right” of the citizens of Philadelphia) to “eliminate” future police misconduct; a “default” of that affirmative duty being shown by the statistical pattern, the District Court is empowered to act in petitioners’ stead and take whatever preventive measures are necessary, within its discretion, to secure the “right” at issue. Such reasoning, however, blurs accepted usages and meanings in the English language in a way which would be quite inconsistent with the words Congress chose in § 1983. We have never subscribed to these amorphous propositions, and we decline to do so now.
Respondents claim that the theory of liability embodied in the District Court’s opinion is supported by desegregation cases such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklen-burg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). But this case, and the long line of precedents cited therein, simply reaffirmed the body of law originally enunciated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954):
“Nearly 17 years ago this Court held, in explicit terms, that state-imposed segregation by race in public schools denies equal protection of the laws. At no time has the Court deviated in the slightest degree from that holding or its constitutional underpinnings.
“Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.” Swann, supra, at 11, 15.
Respondents, in their effort to bring themselves within the language of Swann, ignore a critical factual distinction between their case and the desegregation cases decided by this Court. In the latter, segregation imposed by law had been implemented by state authorities for varying periods of time, whereas in the instant case the District Court found that the responsible authorities had played no affirmative part in depriving any members of the two respondent classes of any constitutional rights. Those against whom injunctive relief was directed in cases such as Swann and Brown were not administrators and school board members who had in their employ a small number of individuals, which latter on their own deprived black students of their constitutional rights to a unitary school system. They were administrators and school board members who were found by their own conduct in the administration of the school system to have denied those rights. Here, the District Court found that none of the petitioners had deprived the respondent classes of any rights secured under the Constitution. Under the well-established rule that federal “judicial powers may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation,” Swann, supra, at 16, this case presented no occasion for the District Court to grant equitable relief against petitioners.
C
Going beyond considerations concerning the existence of a live controversy and threshold statutory liability, we must address an additional and novel claim advanced by respondent classes. They assert that given the citizenry’s “right” to be protected from unconstitutional exercises of police power, and the “need for protection from such abuses,” respondents have a right to mandatory equitable relief in some form when those in supervisory positions do not institute steps to reduce the incidence of unconstitutional police misconduct. The scope of federal equity power, it is proposed, should be extended to the fashioning of prophylactic procedures for a state agency designed to minimize this kind of misconduct on the part of a handful of its employees. However, on the facts of this case, not only is this novel claim quite at odds with the settled rule that in federal equity cases “the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy,” ibid., but important considerations of federalism are additional factors weighing against it. Where, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is attacked, federal courts must be constantly mindful of the “special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 120 (1951), quoted in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 500.
Section 1983 by its terms confers authority to grant equitable relief as well as damages, but its words “allow a suit in equity only when that is the proper proceeding for redress, and they refer to existing standards to determine what is a proper proceeding.” Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 486 (1903) (Holmes, J.). Even in an action between private individuals, it has long been held that an injunction is “to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.” Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 10, 33 (1850). When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government agency, even within a unitary court system, his case must contend with “the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the 'dispatch of its own internal affairs/ Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961)/’ quoted in Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 83 (1974). The District Court’s injunctive order here, significantly revising the internal procedures of the Philadelphia police department, was indisputably a sharp limitation on the department’s “latitude in the ‘dispatch of its own internal affairs.’ ”
When the frame of reference moves from a unitary court system, governed by the principles just stated, to a system of federal courts representing the Nation, subsisting side by side with 50 state judicial, legislative, and executive branches, appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 928 (1975).
So strongly has Congress weighted this factor of federalism in the case of a state criminal proceeding that it has enacted 28 U. S. C. § 2283 to actually deny to the district courts the authority to issue injunctions against such proceedings unless the proceedings come within narrowly specified exceptions. Even though an action brought under § 1983, as this was, is within those exceptions, Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972), the underlying notions of federalism which Congress has recognized in dealing with the relationships between federal and state courts still have weight. Where an injunction against a criminal proceeding is sought under § 1983, “the principles of equity, comity, and federalism” must nonetheless restrain a federal court. 407 U. S., at 243.
But even where the prayer for injunctive relief does not seek to enjoin the state criminal proceedings themselves, we have held that the principles of equity nonetheless militate heavily against the grant of an injunction except in the most extraordinary circumstances. In O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 502, we held that “a major continuing intrusion of the equitable power of the federal courts into the daily conduct of state criminal proceedings is in sharp conflict with the principles of equitable restraint which this Court has recognized in the decisions previously noted.” And the same principles of federalism may prevent the injunction by a federal court of a state civil proceeding once begun. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975).
Thus the principles of federalism which play such an important part in governing the relationship between federal courts and state governments, though initially expounded and perhaps entitled to their greatest weight in cases where it was sought to enjoin a criminal prosecution in progress, have not been limited either to that situation or indeed to a criminal proceeding itself. We think these principles likewise have applicability where injunctive relief is sought, not against the judicial branch of the state government, but against those in charge of an executive branch of an agency of state or local governments such as petitioners here. Indeed, in the recent case of Mayor v. Educational Equality League, 415 U. S. 605 (1974), in which private individuals sought injunctive relief against the Mayor of Philadelphia, we expressly noted the existence of such considerations, saying: “There are also delicate issues of federal-state relationships underlying this case.” Id., at 615.
Contrary to the District Court’s flat pronouncement that a federal court’s legal power to “supervise the functioning of the police department... is firmly established,” it is the foregoing cases and principles that must govern consideration of the type of injunctive relief granted here. When it injected itself by injunctive decree into the internal disciplinary affairs of this state agency, the District Court departed from these precepts.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decree of the District Court is
Reversed.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The complaint in the first action, filed in February 1970 and styled Goode v. Rizzo, was brought by respondent Goode and two other individuals. The second, filed in September 1970 and styled COPPAR v. Tate, was brought by 21 individuals and four organizations: the Council of Organizations on Philadelphia Police Accountability and Responsibility (COPPAR), an unincorporated association composed of some 32 constituent community organizations; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, whose principal office is in Atlanta, Ga.; and the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords Party, unincorporated associations of black citizens and citizens of Spanish origin, respectively. The latter two groups, of which some of the individual complainants in COPPAR were members, were ultimately dismissed as parties by the District Court for failure to submit to discovery. Both complaints named as defendants those officials then occupying the offices of Mayor, City Managing Director (who supervises and, with the Mayor’s approval, appoints the Police Commissioner), and the Police Commissioner, who has direct supervisory power over the department. Two other police supervisors subordinate to the Commissioner were also named defendants. Both actions were permitted to proceed as class actions, with the individual respondents representing all residents of Philadelphia and an “included” class of all black residents of that city. For a thorough account of the procedural background of this case, see the District Court’s opinion. COPPAR v. Rizzo, 357 F. Supp. 1289 (1973).
A judgment of considerable detail was entered against petitioners, appropriate substitution having been made in 1973 of the current officeholders, including petitioner Rizzo, by then Mayor. See n. 1, supra. The existing procedure for handling complaints, embodied in the 2%-page “Directive 127” (March 1967), was expanded to an all-encompassing 14-page document reflecting the revisions suggested by the District Court’s “guidelines.” See infra, at 369-370. Directive 127 as revised was ordered by the District Court to be promulgated as such by the Police Commissioner and posted in various public areas, with copies provided anyone who either requested one or inquired generally into the procedure for lodging complaints. A ‘'‘’Citizen’s Complaint Report" was ordered drawn up in a format designated by the court, with copies to be printed and available in sufficient quantities to the public in several locations. The department was further ordered to propose a police recruit training manual reflective of the court’s “guidelines,” with respondents then having the chance to proffer alternative suggestions. Finally, the department was directed to maintain adequate statistical records and annual summaries to provide a basis for the court’s “evaluation” of the program as ordered; the court reserved jurisdiction to review petitioners’ progress in these areas and to grant further relief as might be appropriate. Pet. for Cert. 20a-37a.
Each of the incidents in Goode and COPPAR is set out in full detail in the District Court’s opinion. 357 F. Supp., at 1294-1316. For present purposes we need only highlight those findings.
See n. 1, supra.
Incidents "1” through “3.” 357 F. Supp., at 1294-1297.
This textual summary of the District Court’s findings with respect to the COPPAR incidents is taken from the Brief for Respondents 14-15, and n. 18
The Court of Appeals noted that petitioners had in their appeal raised no question of the propriety of the class designation under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23. That issue is therefore not before us, and we express no opinion upon it.
Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F. 2d 197 (CA4 1966), was also cited by the District Court for the proposition that federal courts have the legal power to “supervise the functioning of the police department.” 357 F. Supp., at 1320. But the court in Lankford intimated no such power, and the facts which confronted it are obviously distinguishable. There, in. executing an “evil practice that has long and notoriously persisted in the Police Department,” the police, searching over a 19-day period for two black men who murdered one of their ranks, conducted some 300 warrantless searches -of private residences in a predominately Negro area “at all hours of the day and night” on nothing more than “unverified anonymous [telephone] tips.” 364 F. 2d, at 198, and 205 n. 9. This “series of the most flagrant invasions of privacy ever to come under the scrutiny of a federal court” arose out of what several experienced police officers testified was a “routine practice” in “serious cases.” Id., at 200-201. Injunctive relief under § 1983 was granted against the defendant Police Commissioner because the wholesale raids were the “effectuation of a plan conceived by high ranking [police] officials,” a practice which in the interim the defendant had “renounced only obliquely, if at all,” and as to which “the danger of repetition has not been removed.” Id., at 202, 204.
Brief for Respondents 34-35.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 respondent John David Stumpf’s conviction and death sentence for the murder of Mary Jane Stout. In adjudicating Stumpf’s petition for a writ of ha-beas corpus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted him relief on two grounds: that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and that his conviction and sentence could not stand because the State, in a later trial of Stumpf’s accomplice, pursued a theory of the case inconsistent with the theory it had advanced in Stumpf’s case. We granted certiorari to review both holdings. 543 U. S. 1042 (2005).
I
On May 14, 1984, Stumpf and two other men, Clyde Daniel Wesley and Norman Leroy Edmonds, were traveling in Edmonds’ car along Interstate 70 through Guernsey County, Ohio. Needing money for gas, the men stopped the car along the highway. While Edmonds waited in the car, Stumpf and Wesley walked to the home of Norman and Mary Jane Stout, about Í00 yards away. Stumpf and Wesley, each concealing a gun, talked their way into the home by telling the Stouts they needed to use the phone. Their real object, however, was robbery: Once inside, Stumpf held the Stouts at gunpoint, while Wesley ransacked the house. When Mr. Stout moved toward Stumpf, Stumpf shot him twice in the head, causing Mr. Stout to black out. After he regained consciousness, Mr. Stout heard two male voices coming from another room, and then four gunshots — the shots that killed his wife. Edmonds was arrested shortly afterward, and his statements led the police to issue arrest warrants for Stumpf and Wesley. Stumpf, who surrendered to the police, at first denied any knowledge of the crimes. After he was told that Mr. Stout had survived, however, Stumpf admitted to participating in the robbery and to shooting Mr. Stumpf. But he claimed not to have shot Mrs. Stout, and he has maintained that position ever since.
The proceedings against Stumpf occurred while Wesley, who had been arrested in Texas, was still resisting extradition to Ohio. Stumpf was indicted for aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and two counts of grand theft. With respect to the aggravated murder charge, the indictment listed four statutory “specifications” — three of them aggravating circumstances making Stumpf eligible for the death penalty. See App. 117-118; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2929.03 (Anderson 1982). The case was assigned to a three-judge panel in the Court of Common Pleas.
Rather than proceed to trial, however, Stumpf and the State worked out a plea agreement: Stumpf would plead guilty to aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder, and the State would drop most of the other charges; with respect to the aggravated murder charge, Stumpf would plead guilty to one of the three capital specifications, with the State dropping the other two. The plea was accepted after a colloquy with the presiding judge, and after a hearing in which the panel satisfied itself as to the factual basis for the plea.
Because the capital specification to which Stumpf pleaded guilty left him eligible for the death penalty, a contested penalty hearing was held before the same three-judge panel. Stumpf’s mitigation case was based in part on his difficult childhood, limited education, dependable work history, youth, and lack of prior serious offenses. Stumpf’s principal argument, however, was that he had participated in the plot only at the urging and under the influence of Wesley, that it was Wesley who had fired the fatal shots at Mrs. Stout, and that Stumpf’s assertedly minor role in the murder counseled against the death sentence. See § 2929.04(B)(6) (directing the sentencer to consider as a potential mitigating circumstance, “[i]f the offender was a participant in the offense but not the principal offender, the degree of the offender’s participation in the offense”). The State, on the other hand, argued that Stumpf had indeed shot Mrs. Stout. Still, while the prosecutor claimed Stumpf’s allegedly primary role in the shooting as a special reason to reject Stumpf’s mitigation argument, the prosecutor also noted that Ohio law did not restrict the death penalty to those who commit murder by their own hands — an accomplice to murder could also receive the death penalty, so long as he acted with the specific intent to cause death. As a result, the State argued, Stumpf deserved death even if he had not personally shot Mrs. Stout, because the circumstances of the robbery provided a basis from which to infer Stumpf’s intent to cause death. The three-judge panel, agreeing with the State’s first contention, specifically found that Stumpf “was the principal offender” in the aggravated murder of Mrs. Stout. App. 196. Determining that the aggravating factors in Stumpf’s case outweighed any mitigating factors, the panel .sentenced Stumpf to death.
Afterward, Wesley was successfully extradited to Ohio to stand trial. His case was tried to a jury, before the same judge who had presided over the panel overseeing Stumpf’s proceedings, and with the same prosecutor. This time, however, the prosecutor had new evidence: James Eastman, Wesley’s cellmate after his extradition, testified that Wesley had admitted to firing the shots that killed Mrs. Stout. The prosecutor introduced Eastman’s testimony in Wesley’s trial, and in his closing argument he argued for Eastman’s credibility and lack of motive to lie. The prosecutor claimed that Eastman’s testimony, combined with certain circumstantial evidence and with the implausibility of Wesley’s own account of events, proved that Wesley was the principal offender in Mrs. Stout’s murder — and that Wesley therefore deserved to be put to death. One way Wesley countered this argument was by noting that the prosecutor had taken a contrary position in Stumpf’s trial, and that Stumpf had already been sentenced to death for the crime. Wesley also took the stand in his own defense, and testified that Stumpf had shot Mrs. Stout. In the end, the jury sentenced Wesley to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 20 years.
After the Wesley trial, Stumpf, whose direct appeal was still pending in the Ohio Court of Appeals, returned to the Court of Common Pleas with a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate his death sentence. Stumpf argued that Eastman’s testimony, and the prosecution’s endorsement of that testimony in Wesley’s trial, cast doubt upon Stumpf’s conviction and sentence. The State (represented again by the same prosecutor who had tried both Wesley’s case and Stumpf’s original case) disagreed. According to the prosecutor, the court’s first task was to decide whether the Eastman testimony was sufficient to alter the court’s prior determination that Stumpf had been the shooter. Id., at 210. Contrary to the argument he had presented in the Wesley trial, however, the prosecutor now noted that Eastman’s testimony was belied by certain other evidence (ballistics evidence and Wesley’s testimony in his own defense) confirming Stumpf to have been the primary shooter. In the alternative, the State noted as it had before that an aider-and-abettor theory might allow the death sentence to be imposed against Stumpf even if he had not shot Mrs. Stout.
Although one judge speculated during oral argument that the court’s earlier conclusion about Stumpf’s principal role in the killing “may very well have had an effect upon” the prior sentencing determination, ibid., the Court of Common Pleas denied Stumpf’s motion in a brief summary order without explanation. That order was appealed together with the original judgment in Stumpf’s case, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St. 3d 95, 512 N. E. 2d 598 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1079 (1988).
After a subsequent request for state postconviction relief was denied by the state courts, Stumpf filed this federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in November 1995. The District Court denied Stumpf relief, but granted permission to appeal on four claims, including the two at issue here. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that habeas relief was warranted on “either or both” of “two alternative grounds.” Stumpf v. Mitchell, 367 F. 3d 594, 596 (2004). First, the court determined that Stumpf’s guilty plea was invalid because it had not been entered knowingly and intelligently. More precisely, the court concluded that Stumpf had pleaded guilty to aggravated murder without understanding that specific intent to cause death was a necessary element of the charge under Ohio law. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.01(B) and (D). Noting that Stumpf had all along denied shooting Mrs. Stout, and considering those denials inconsistent with an informed choice to plead guilty to aggravated murder, the Court of Appeals concluded that Stumpf must have entered his plea out of ignorance. Second, the court concluded that “Stumpf’s due process rights were violated by the state’s deliberate action in securing convictions of both Stumpf and Wesley for the same crime, using inconsistent theories.” 367 F. 3d, at 596. This violation, the court held, required setting aside “both Stumpf’s plea and his sentence.” Id., at 616. One member of the panel dissented.
II
Because Stumpf filed his habeas petition before enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we review his claims under the standards of the pre-AEDPA habeas statute. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997). Moreover, because petitioner has not argued that Stumpf’s habeas claims were barred as requiring announcement of a new rule, we do not apply the rule of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), to this case. See Schiro v. Farley, 510 U. S. 222, 229 (1994); Godinez v. Moran, 509 U. S. 389, 397, n. 8 (1993).
A
The Court of Appeals concluded that Stumpf’s plea of guilty to aggravated murder was invalid because he was not aware of the specific intent element of the charge — a determination we find unsupportable.
Stumpf’s guilty plea would indeed be invalid if he had not been aware of the nature of the charges against him, including the elements of the aggravated murder charge to which he pleaded guilty. A guilty plea operates as a waiver of important rights, and is valid only if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970). Where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime without having been informed of the crime’s elements, this standard is not met and the plea is invalid. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637 (1976).
But the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Stumpf had not been properly informed before pleading guilty. In Stumpf’s plea hearing, his attorneys represented on the record that they had explained to their client the elements of the aggravated murder charge; Stumpf himself then confirmed that this representation was true. See App. 135, 137-138. While the court taking a defendant’s plea is responsible for ensuring “a record adequate for any review that may be later sought,” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 244 (1969) (footnote omitted), we have never held that the judge must himself explain the elements of each charge to the defendant on the record. Rather, the constitutional prerequisites of a valid plea may be satisfied where the record accurately reflects that the nature of the charge and the elements of the crime were explained to the defendant by his own, competent counsel. Cf. Henderson, supra, at 647 (granting relief to a defendant unaware of the elements of his crime, but distinguishing that case from others where “the record contains either an explanation of the charge by the trial judge, or at least a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense has been explained to the accused”). Where a defendant is represented by competent counsel, the court usually may rely on that counsel’s assurance that the defendant has been properly informed of the nature and elements of the charge to which he is pleading guilty.
Seeking to counter this natural inference, Stumpf argues, in essence, that his choice to plead guilty to the aggravated murder charge was so inconsistent with his denial of having shot the victim that he could only have pleaded guilty out of ignorance of the charge’s specific intent requirement. But Stumpf’s asserted inconsistency is illusory. The aggravated murder charge’s intent element did not require any showing that Stumpf had himself shot Mrs. Stout. Rather, Ohio law considers aiders and abettors equally in violation of the aggravated murder statute, so long as the aiding and abetting is done with the specific intent to cause death. See In re Washington, 81 Ohio St. 3d 337, 691 N. E. 2d 285 (1998); State v. Scott, 61 Ohio St. 2d 155, 165, 400 N. E. 2d 375, 382 (1980). As a result, Stumpf’s steadfast assertion that he had not shot Mrs. Stout would not necessarily have precluded him from admitting his specific intent under the statute.
That is particularly so given the other evidence in this case. Stumpf and Wesley had gone to the Stouts’ home together, carrying guns and intending to commit armed robbery. Stumpf, by his own admission, shot Mr. Stout in the head at close range. Taken together, these facts could show that Wesley and Stumpf had together agreed to kill both of the Stouts in order to leave no witnesses to the crime. And that, in turn, could make both men guilty of aggravated murder regardless of who actually killed Mrs. Stout. See ibid.
Stumpf also points to aspects of the plea hearing transcript which he says show that both he and his attorneys were confused about the relevance and timing of defenses Stumpf and his attorneys had planned to make. First, at one point during the hearing, the presiding judge stated that by pleading guilty Stumpf would waive his trial rights and his right to testify in his own behalf. Stumpf’s attorney answered that Stumpf “was going to respond but we have informed him that there is, after the plea, a hearing or trial relative to the underlying facts so that he is of the belief that there will be [a] presentation of evidence.” App. 140. The presiding judge responded that “[o]f course in the sentencing portion of this trial you do have those rights to speak in your own behalf [and] to present evidence and testimony on your own behalf.” Ibid. A few moments later, there was another exchange along similar lines, after the judge asked Stumpf whether he was “in fact guilty of” the aggravated murder charge and its capital specification:
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:... Your Honor, the defendant has asked me to explain his answer. His answer is yes. He will recite that with obviously his understanding of his right to present evidence at a later time relative to his conduct, but he’ll respond to that.
“JUDGE HENDERSON: At no time am I implying that the defendant will not have the right to present evidence in [the] mitigation hearing .... And I’m going to ask that the defendant, himself, respond to the question that I asked with that understanding that he has the right to present evidence in mitigation. I’m going to ask the defendant if he is in fact guilty of the charge set forth in Count one, including specification one ... ?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.” Id., at 142.
Reviewing this exchange, the Court of Appeals concluded that Stumpf “obviously... was reiterating his desire to challenge the [S]tate’s account of his actions” — that is, to show that he did not intend to kill Mrs. Stout. 367 F. 3d, at 607. But the desire to contest the State’s version of events would not necessarily entail the desire to contest the aggravated murder charge or any of its elements. Rather, Stumpf’s desire to put on evidence “relative to the underlying facts” and “relative to his conduct” could equally have meant that Stumpf was eager to make his mitigation case — an interpretation bolstered by the attorney’s and Stumpf’s approving answers after the presiding judge confirmed that the defense could put on evidence “in mitigation” and in “the sentencing” phase. While Stumpf’s mitigation case was premised on the argument that Stumpf had not shot Mrs. Stout, that was fully consistent with his plea of guilty to aggravated murder. See supra, at 183-184.
Finally, Stumpf, like the Court of Appeals, relies on the perception that he obtained a bad bargain by his plea — that the State’s dropping several nonmurder charges and two of the three capital murder specifications was a bad tradeoff for Stumpf’s guilty plea. But a plea’s validity may not be collaterally attacked merely because the defendant made what turned out, in retrospect, to be a poor deal. See Brady, 397 U. S., at 757; Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U. S. 504, 508 (1984). Rather, the shortcomings of the deal Stumpf obtained east doubt on the validity of his plea only if they show either that he made the unfavorable plea on the constitutionally defective advice of counsel, see Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258, 267 (1973), or that he could not have understood the terms of the bargain he and Ohio agreed to. Though Stumpf did bring an independent claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is not before us in this case. And in evaluating the validity of Stumpf’s plea, we are reluctant to accord much weight to his post hoc reevaluation of the wisdom of the bargain. Stumpf pleaded guilty knowing that the State had copious evidence against him, including the testimony of Mr. Stout; the plea eliminated two of the three capital specifications the State could rely on in seeking the death penalty; and the plea allowed Stumpf to assert his acceptance of responsibility as an argument in mitigation. Under these circumstances, the plea may well have been a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent reaction to a litigation situation that was difficult, to say the least. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Stumpf was uninformed about the nature of the charge he pleaded guilty to, and we reverse that portion of the judgment below.
B
The Court of Appeals was also wrong to hold that prosecu-torial inconsistencies between the Stumpf and Wesley cases required voiding Stumpf’s guilty plea. Stumpf’s assertions of inconsistency relate entirely to the prosecutor’s arguments about which of the two men, Wesley or Stumpf, shot Mrs. Stout. For the reasons given above, see supra, at 183-184, the precise identity of the triggerman was immaterial to Stumpf’s conviction for aggravated murder. Moreover, Stumpf has never provided an explanation of how the prosecution’s postplea use of inconsistent arguments could have affected the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent nature of his plea.
The prosecutor’s use of allegedly inconsistent theories may have a more direct effect on Stumpf’s sentence, however, for it is at least arguable that the sentencing panel’s conclusion about Stumpf’s principal role in the offense was material to its sentencing determination. The opinion below leaves some ambiguity as to the overlap between how the lower court resolved Stumpf’s due process challenge to his conviction, and how it resolved Stumpf’s challenge to his sentence. It is not clear whether the Court of Appeals would have concluded that Stumpf was entitled to resentencing had the court not also considered the conviction invalid. Likewise, the parties’ briefing to this Court, and the question on which we granted certiorari, largely focused on the lower court’s determination about Stumpf’s conviction. See, e. g., Pet. for Cert, ii (requesting review of Stumpf’s conviction, not sentence); Reply Brief for Petitioner 3 (challenge to Court of Appeals’ decision is focused on issue of conviction); Brief for Respondent 15, n. 3 (“arguments regarding Stumpf’s death sentence are not before this Court”). In these circumstances, it would be premature for this Court to resolve the merits of Stumpf’s sentencing claim, and we therefore express no opinion on whether the prosecutor’s actions amounted to a due process violation, or whether any such violation would have been prejudicial. The Court of Appeals should have the opportunity to consider, in the first instance, the question of how Eastman’s testimony and the prosecutor’s conduct in the Stumpf and Wesley cases relate to Stumpf’s death sentencé in particular. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment below relating to Stumpf’s prosecutorial inconsistency claim, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Unless otherwise noted, all citations to Ohio statutes refer to the versions of those statutes in effect in 1984, at the time of the crime and trial.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 prohibits States from “enacting] or enforc[ing] any law . . . relating to [air carrier] rates, routes, or services.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1). This case concerns the scope of that preemptive provision, specifically, its application to a state-court suit, brought by participants in an airline’s frequent flyer program, challenging the airline’s retroactive changes in terms and conditions of the program. We hold that the ADA’s preemption prescription bars state-imposed regulation of air carriers, but allows room for court enforcement of contract terms set by the parties themselves.
I
A
Until 1978, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA), 72 Stat. 731, as amended, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1301 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), empowered the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to regulate the interstate airline industry. Although the FAA, pre-1978, authorized the Board both to regulate fares and to take administrative action against deceptive trade practices, the federal legislation originally contained no clause preempting state regulation. And from the start, the FAA has contained a “saving clause,” § 1106, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1506, stating: “Nothing ... in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.”
In 1978, Congress enacted the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), 92 Stat. 1705, which largely deregulated domestic air transport. “To ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own,” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U. S. 374, 378 (1992), the ADA included a preemption clause which read in relevant part:
“[N]o State . . . shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier ...49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1).
This case is our second encounter with the ADA’s preemption clause. In 1992, in Morales, we confronted detailed Travel Industry Enforcement Guidelines, composed by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). The NAAG guidelines purported to govern, inter alia, the content and format of airline fare advertising. See Morales, 504 U. S., at 393-418 (appendix to Court’s opinion setting out NAAG guidelines on air travel industry advertising and marketing practices). Several States had endeavored to enforce the NAAG guidelines, under the States’ general consumer protection laws, to stop allegedly deceptive airline advertisements. The States’ initiative, we determined, “ ‘relat[ed] to [airline] rates, routes, or services,’ ” id., at 378-379 (quoting 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1)); consequently, we held, the fare advertising provisions of the NAAG guidelines were preempted by the ADA, id., at 391.
For aid in construing the ADA words “relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier,” the Court in Morales referred to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which provides for preemption of state laws “insofar as they . . . relate to any employee benefit plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a). Under the ERISA, we had ruled, a state law “relates to” an employee benefit plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 97 (1983). Morales analogously defined the “relating to” language in the ADA preemption clause as “having a connection with, or reference to, airline ‘rates, routes, or services.’” Morales, 504 U. S., at 384.
The Morales opinion presented much more, however, in accounting for the ADA’s preemption of the state regulation in question. The opinion pointed out that the concerned federal agencies — the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — objected to the NAAG fare advertising guidelines as inconsistent with the ADA’s deregulatory purpose; both agencies, Morales observed, regarded the guidelines as state regulatory measures preempted by the ADA. See id., at 379 (DOT and FTC); id., at 386 (DOT); id., at 390 (FTC). Morales emphasized that the challenged guidelines set “binding requirements as to how airline tickets may be marketed,” and “imposed [obligations that] would have a significant impact upon . . . the fares [airlines] charge.” Id., at 388, 390. The opinion further noted that the airlines would not have “carte blanche to lie and deceive consumers,” for “the DOT retains the power to prohibit advertisements which in its opinion do not further competitive pricing.” Id., at 390-391. Morales also left room for state actions “too tenuous, remote, or peripheral ... to have pre-emptive effect.” Id., at 390 (internal quotation marks omitted).
B
The litigation now before us, two consolidated state-court class actions brought in Illinois, was sub judice when we decided Morales. Plaintiffs in both actions (respondents here) are participants in American Airlines’ frequent flyer program, AAdvantage. AAdvantage enrollees earn mileage credits when they fly on American. They can exchange those credits for flight tickets or class-of-service upgrades. Plaintiffs complained that AAdvantage program modifications, instituted by American in 1988, devalued credits AAd-vantage members had already earned. Plaintiffs featured American’s imposition of capacity controls (limits on seats available to passengers obtaining tickets with AAdvantage credits) and blackout dates (restrictions on dates credits could be used). Conceding that American had reserved the right to change AAdvantage terms and conditions, plaintiffs challenged only the retroactive application of modifications, i. e., cutbacks on the utility of credits previously accumulated. These cutbacks, plaintiffs maintained, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act or Act), 815 111. Comp. Stat. §505 (1992) (formerly codified at 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 121V2, ¶ 261 et seq. (1991)), and constituted a breach of contract. Plaintiffs currently seek only monetary relief.
In March 1992, several weeks before our decision in Morales, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs’ prayer for an injunction. Such a decree, the Illinois court reasoned, would involve regulation of an airline’s current rendition of services, a matter preempted by the ADA. That court, however, allowed the breach-of-contract and Consumer Fraud Act monetary relief claims to survive. The ADA’s preemption clause, the Illinois court said, ruled out “only those State laws and regulations that specifically relate to and have more than a tangential connection with an airline’s rates, routes or services.” American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 147 Ill. 2d 367, 373, 589 N. E. 2d 533, 536 (1992). After our decision in Morales, American petitioned for certiorari. The airline charged that the Illinois court, in a decision out of sync with Morales, had narrowly construed the ADA’s broadly preemptive § 1305(a)(1). We granted the petition, vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and remanded for further consideration in light of Morales. American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 506 U. S. 803 (1992).
On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court, with one dissent, adhered to its prior judgment. Describing frequent flyer programs as not “essential,” 157 Ill. 2d 466, 472, 626 N. E. 2d 205, 208 (1993), but merely “peripheral to the operation of an airline,” ibid., the Illinois court typed plaintiffs’ state-law claims for money damages as “relat[ed] to American’s rates, routes, and services” only “tangential[ly]” or “tenuously],” ibid.
We granted American’s second petition for certiorari, 511 U. S. 1017 (1994), and we now reverse the Illinois Supreme Court’s judgment to the extent that it allowed survival of plaintiffs’ Consumer Fraud Act claims; we affirm that judgment, however, to the extent that it permits plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract action to proceed. In both respects, we adopt the position of the DOT, as advanced in this Court by the United States.
II
We need not dwell on the question whether plaintiffs’ complaints state claims “relating to [air carrier] rates, routes, or services.” Morales, we are satisfied, does not countenance the Illinois Supreme Court’s separation of matters “essential” from matters unessential to airline operations. Plaintiffs’ claims relate to “rates,” i. e., American’s charges in the form of mileage credits for free tickets and upgrades, and to “services,” i. e., access to flights and class-of-service upgrades unlimited by retrospectively applied capacity controls and blackout dates. But the ADA’s preemption clause contains other words in need of interpretation, specifically, the words “enact or enforce any law” in the instruction: “[N]o State . . . shall enact or enforce any law . . . relating to [air carrier] rates, routes, or services.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1). Taking into account all the words Congress placed in § 1305(a)(1), we first consider whether plaintiffs’ claims under the Consumer Fraud Act are preempted, and then turn to plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims.
A
The Consumer Fraud Act declares unlawful
“[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the ‘Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act’ ... in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 111. Comp. Stat., ch. 815, § 505/2 (1992) (formerly codified at 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 121V2, ¶ 262 (1991)).
The Act is prescriptive; it controls the primary conduct of those falling within its governance. This Illinois law, in fact, is paradigmatic of the consumer protection legislation underpinning the NAAG guidelines. The NAAG Task Force on the Air Travel Industry, on which the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, Texas, and Washington served, see Morales, 504 U. S., at 392, reported that the guidelines created no
“new laws or regulations regarding the advertising practices or other business practices of the airline industry. They merely explain in detail how existing state laws apply to air fare advertising and frequent flyer programs.” Ibid.
The NAAG guidelines highlight the potential for intrusive regulation of airline business practices inherent in state consumer protection legislation typified by the Consumer Fraud Act. For example, the guidelines enforcing the legislation instruct airlines on language appropriate to reserve rights to alter frequent flyer programs, and they include transition rules for the fair institution of capacity controls. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-14, n. 7.
As the NAAG guidelines illustrate, the Consumer Fraud Act serves as a means to guide and police the marketing practices of the airlines; the Act does not simply give effect to bargains offered by the airlines and accepted by. airline customers. In light of the full text of the preemption clause, and of the ADA’s purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to States, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services, we conclude that § 1305(a)(1) preempts plaintiffs’ claims under the Consumer Fraud Act.
B
American maintains, and we agree, that “Congress could hardly have intended to allow the States to hobble [competition for airline passengers] through the application of restrictive state laws.” Brief for Petitioner 27. We do not read the ADA’s preemption clause, however, to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline’s alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings. As persuasively argued by the United States, terms and conditions airlines offer and passengers accept are privately ordered obligations “and thus do not amount to a State’s ‘enact[ment] or enforce[ment] [of] any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law’ within the meaning of [§]1305(a)(l).” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9. Cf. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 526 (1992) (plurality opinion) (“[A] common-law remedy for a contractual commitment voluntarily undertaken should not be regarded as a ‘requirement... imposed under State law’ within the meaning of [Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act] §5(b).”). A remedy confined to a contract’s terms simply holds parties to their agreements — in this instance, to business judgments an airline made public about its rates and services.
The ADA, as we recognized in Morales, 504 U. S., at 378, was designed to promote “maximum reliance on competitive market forces.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 1302(a)(4). Market efficiency requires effective means to enforce private agreements. See Farber, Contract Law and Modern Economic Theory, 78 Nw. U. L. Rev. 303, 315 (1983) (remedy for breach of contract “is necessary in order to ensure economic efficiency”); R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 90-91 (4th ed. 1992) (legal enforcement of contracts is more efficient than a purely voluntary system). As stated by the United States: “The stability and efficiency of the market depend fundamentally on the enforcement of agreements freely made, based on needs perceived by the contracting parties at the time.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23. That reality is key to sensible construction of the ADA.
The FAA’s text, we note, presupposes the vitality of contracts governing transportation by air carriers. Section 411(b), 49 U. S. C. App. § 1381(b), thus authorizes airlines to “incorporate by reference in any ticket or other written instrument any of the terms of the contract of carriage” to the extent authorized by the DOT. And the DOT’S regulations contemplate that, upon the January 1, 1983, termination of domestic tariffs, “ticket contracts” ordinarily would be enforceable under “the contract law of the States.” 47 Fed. Reg. 52129 (1982). Correspondingly, the DOT requires carriers to give passengers written notice of the time period within which they may “bring an action against the carrier for its acts.” 14 CFR § 253.5(b)(2) (1994).
American does not suggest that its contracts lack legal force. American sees the DOT, however, as the exclusively competent monitor of the airline’s undertakings. American points to the Department’s authority to require any airline, in conjunction with its certification, to file a performance bond conditioned on the airline’s “making appropriate compensation ..., as prescribed by the [Department], for failure ... to perform air transportation services in accordance with agreements therefor.” FAA § 401(q)(2), 49 U. S. C. App. § 1371(q)(2). But neither the DOT nor its predecessor, the CAB, has ever construed or applied this provision to displace courts as adjudicators in air carrier contract disputes. Instead, these agencies have read the provision to charge them with a less taxing task: In passing on air carrier fitness under FAA § 401(d), 49 U. S. C. App. § 1371(d)(1), the DOT and the CAB have used their performance bond authority to ensure that, when a carrier’s financial fitness is marginal, funds will be available to compensate customers if the carrier goes under before providing already-paid-for services. See, e. g., U. S. Bahamas Service Investigation, CAB Order 79—11—116, p. 3, 84 CAB Reports 73, 75 (1979) (“We ... find that Southeast [Airlines] is fit to provide scheduled foreign air transportation. However, because of Southeast’s current financial condition its operations present an unacceptable risk of financial loss to consumers. Therefore, we shall require the carrier ... to procure and maintain a bond for the protection of passengers who have paid for transportation not yet performed.”).
The United States maintains that the DOT has neither the authority nor the apparatus required to superintend a contract dispute resolution regime. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22. Prior to airline deregulation, the CAB set rates, routes, and services through a cumbersome administrative process of applications and approvals. 72 Stat. 731. When Congress dismantled that regime, the United States emphasizes, the lawmakers indicated no intention to establish, simultaneously, a new administrative process for DOT adjudication of private contract disputes. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22. We agree.
Nor is it plausible that Congress meant to channel into federal courts the business of resolving, pursuant to judicially fashioned federal common law, the range of contract claims relating to airline rates, routes, or services. The ADA contains no hint of such a role for the federal courts. In this regard, the ADA contrasts markedly with the ERISA, which does channel civil actions into federal courts, see ERISA §§ 502(a)) (e), 29 U. S. C. §§ 1132(a), (e), under a comprehensive scheme, detailed in the legislation, designed to promote “prompt and fair claims settlement.” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 54 (1987); see Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 143-145 (1990) (finding ERISA’s comprehensive civil enforcement scheme a “special feature” supporting preemption of common-law wrongful discharge claims).
The conclusion that the ADA permits state-law-based court adjudication of routine breach-of-contract claims also makes sense of Congress’ retention of the FAA’s saving clause, § 1106, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1506 (preserving “the remedies now existing at common law or by statute”). The ADA’s preemption clause, § 1305(a)(1), read together with the FAA’s saving clause, stops States from imposing their own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. This distinction between what the State dictates and what the airline itself undertakes confines courts, in breach-of-contract actions, to the parties’ bargain, with no enlargement or enhancement based on state laws or policies external to the agreement.
American suggests that plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims differ only in their labels, so that if Fraud Act claims are preempted, contract claims must be preempted as well. See Reply Brief 6. But a breach of contract, without more, “does not amount to a cause of action cognizable under the [Consumer Fraud] Act and the Act should not apply to simple breach of contract claims.” Golembiewski v. Hallberg Ins. Agency, Inc., 262 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1093, 635 N. E. 2d 452, 460 (1st Dist. 1994). The basis for a contract action is the parties’ agreement; to succeed under the consumer protection law, one must show not necessarily an agreement, but in all cases, an unfair or deceptive practice.
Ill
American ultimately argues that even under the position on preemption advanced by the United States — the one we adopt — plaintiffs’ claims must fail because they “inescapably depend on state policies that are independent of the intent of the parties.” Reply Brief 3. “The state court cannot reach the merits,” American contends, “unless it first invalidates or limits [American’s] express reservation of the right to change AAdvantage Program rules contained in AAdvan-tage contracts.” Ibid.
American’s argument is unpersuasive, for it assumes the answer to the very contract construction issue on which plaintiffs’ claims turn: Did American, by contract, reserve the right to change the value of already accumulated mileage credits, or only to change the rules governing credits earned from and after the date of the change? See Brief for Respondents 5 (plaintiffs recognize that American “reserved the right to restrict, suspend, or otherwise alter aspects of the Program prospectively,” but maintain that American “never reserved the right to retroactively diminish the value of the credits previously earned by members”). That question of contract interpretation has not yet had a full airing, and we intimate no view on its resolution.
Responding to our colleagues’ diverse opinions dissenting in part, we add a final note. This case presents two issues that run all through the law. First, who decides (here, courts or the DOT, the latter lacking contract dispute resolution resources for the task)? On this question, all agree to this extent: None of the opinions in this case would foist on the DOT work Congress has neither instructed nor funded the Department to do. Second, where is it proper to draw the line (here, between what the ADA preempts, and what it leaves to private ordering, backed by judicial enforcement)? Justice Stevens reads our Morales decision to demand only minimal preemption; in contrast, Justice O’Connor reads the same case to mandate total preemption. The middle course we adopt seems to us best calculated to carry out the congressional design; it also bears the approval of the statute’s experienced administrator, the DOT. And while we adhere to our holding in Morales, we do not overlook that in our system of adjudication, principles seldom can be settled “on the basis of one or two cases, but require a closer working out.” Pound, Survey of the Conference Problems, 14 U. Cin. L. Rev. 324, 339 (1940) (Conference on the Status of the Rule of Judicial Precedent).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia took no part in the decision of the case.
Reenacting Title 49 of the U. S. Code in 1994, Congress revised this clause to read:
“[A] State ... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier . . . .” § 41713(b)(1). Congress intended the revision to make no substantive change. Pub. L. 103-272, § 1(a), 108 Stat. 745.
Deceptive trade practices regulatory authority formerly residing in the CAB was transferred to the DOT when the CAB was abolished in 1985. Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-443, § 3, 98 Stat. 1703; 49 U. S. C. App. § 1551.
Plaintiffs no longer pursue requests they originally made for injunctive relief, or for punitive damages for alleged breach of contract. See Brief for Respondents 2, n. 2 (plaintiffs do not here contest holding of Illinois courts that injunctive relief is preempted); id., at 6, n. 9 (plaintiffs “concede that punitive damages traditionally have not been recoverable for a simple breach of contract”).
We note again, however, that the DOT retains authority to investigate unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by airlines, and may order an airline to cease and desist from such practices or methods of competition. See FAA § 411, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1381(a); Morales, 504 U. S., at 379; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 3, and n. 2 (reporting that in 1993, the DOT issued 34 cease-and-desist orders and assessed more than $1.8 million in civil penalties in aviation economic enforcement proceedings).
The United States recognizes that § 1305(a)(1), because it contains the word “enforce” as well as “enact,” “could perhaps be read to preempt even state-court enforcement of private contracts.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17. But the word series “law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision,” as the United States suggests, “connotes official, government-imposed policies, not the terms of a private contract.” Id., at 16. Similarly, the phrase “having the force and effect of law” is most naturally read to “refe[r] to binding standards of conduct that operate irrespective of any private agreement.” Ibid. Finally, the ban on enacting or enforcing any law “relating to rates, routes, or services” is most sensibly read, in light of the ADA’s overarching deregulatory purpose, to mean “States may not seek to impose their own public policies or theories of competition or regulation on the operations of an air carrier.” Ibid.
American notes that in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 129 (1991), the Court read the word “law” in a statutory exemption, 49 U. S. C. § 11341(a), to include “laws that govern the obligations imposed by contract.” But that statute and case are not comparable to the statute and case before us. Norfolk & Western concerned the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to approve rail carrier consolidations. A carrier participating in an ICC-approved consolidation is exempt “from the antitrust laws and from all other law ... as necessary to let [the participant] carry out the transaction.” 49 U. S. C. § 11341(a). We read the exemption clause to empower the ICC to override, individually, a carrier’s obligations under a collective-bargaining agreement. Our reading accorded with the ICC’s and “ma[de] sense of the consolidation provisions,” 499 U. S., at 132: “If § 11341(a) did not apply to bargaining agreements..., rail carrier consolidations would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve,” id., at 133. Similarly in this case, our reading of the statutory formulation accords with that of the superintending agency, here, the DOT, and is necessary to make sense of the statute as a whole.
The preceding subsection, FAA § 401(q)(l), 49 U. S. C. App. § 1371(q)(l), requires an air carrier to have insurance, in an amount prescribed by the DOT, to cover claims for personal injuries and property losses “resulting from the operation or maintenance of aircraft.” See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19-20, and n. 12. American does not urge that the ADA preempts personal injury claims relating to airline operations. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4 (acknowledgment by counsel for petitioner that “safety claims,” for example, a negligence claim arising out of a plane crash, “would generally not be preempted”); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20, n. 12 (“It is . . . unlikely that Section 1305(a) (1) preempts safety-related personal-injury claims relating to airline operations.”).
The United States notes in this regard that “[s]ome state-law principles of contract law . . . might well be preempted to the extent they seek to effectuate the State’s public policies, rather than the intent of the parties.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28. Because contract law is not at its core “diverse, nonuniform, and confusing,” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 529 (1992) (plurality opinion), we see no large risk of nonuniform adjudication inherent in “[sjtate-court enforcement of the terms of a uniform agreement prepared by an airline and entered into with its passengers nationwide.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27.
Justice O’Connor’s “all is pre-empted” position leaves room for personal injury claims, but only by classifying them as matters not “relating to [air carrier] services.” See post, at 242-243.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.
Mr. Justice Clark would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713, 744.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Seatrain is and long has been a common carrier of goods by water. Its harbor facilities and vessels have been constructed to enable it to perform a distinctive type of water carriage. Loaded railroad cars can be hoisted and transported in its vessels, thereby eliminating such things as trouble, time and breakage, said to be incident to loading and unloading goods from railroad cars. See United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 323 U. S. 612. Seatrain vessels also have tank space for carriage of liquid cargoes in bulk.
Part III of the Interstate Commerce Act, 54 Stat. 929,49 U. S. C. § 901, et seg., subjected water carriers to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Section 309 (a) of that Act required them to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Commission. The same section contains a proviso commonly referred to as the grandfather clause. It provides that any water carrier, with an exception not here material, which was in bona fide operation as a common carrier by water on January 1, 1940, shall be entitled to a certificate to continue operations over the route or routes which it had been serving previous to that date without determination by the Commission of the question of public convenience and necessity.
May 29, 1941, Seatrain filed two applications with the Commission to obtain certificates for two different routes, one of which it had operated since 1932, and another which it had begun to operate in 1940 shortly after passage of the water carrier provisions. Seatrain’s application described its operation on each route as that of a “common carrier by water of commodities generally.” After due notice had been given to all interested parties, Division 4 of the Commission conducted investigations, satisfied itself as to the right of Seatrain to be granted both applications under the provisions of the Act, made appropriate findings, and concluded that Seatrain was entitled to engage in transportation on both the routes as “a common carrier by water of commodities generally.” A single certificate to carry “commodities generally between the ports of New York, N. Y., New Orleans, La., and Texas City, Tex., by way of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico” was accordingly issued to Seatrain. By its terms it became effective August 10,1942, subject “to such terms, conditions, and limitations as are now, or may hereafter be, attached to the exercise of such authority by this Commission.”
A year and a half later, January 27, 1944, the Commission, on its own motion, ordered that the proceedings be reopened for the purpose of determining whether the 1942 certificate should not be modified so as to deprive Seatrain of the right to carry commodities generally. Seatrain appeared and moved to vacate and rescind the Commission’s order to reopen the proceedings on the ground that the Commission was without statutory authority to make the alteration proposed. Seatrain’s motion was rejected. At the subsequent hearing on the proposed modification, Seatrain declined to offer evidence, resting its case entirely on the Commission’s lack of authority to reconsider and alter the original certificate. After argument, the Commission entered an order canceling the former certificate and directing that a different one be issued. 260 I. C. C. 430. The proposed new certificate in effect deprived Sea-train of the right to carry goods generally between the ports it served, and limited it to operations only “as a common carrier by the ‘seatrain’ type of vessels, in interstate or foreign commerce, in the transportation of liquid cargoes in bulk; of empty railroad cars; and of property loaded in freight cars received from and delivered to rail carriers and transported without transfer from the freight cars between the ports of New York, N. Y., New Orleans, La., and Texas City, Tex.”
Seatrain then brought this action before a three-judge District Court under 28 U. S. C. §§ 41 (28), 47, to set aside the Commission’s order. The District Court set aside the order on the ground that the Commission had exceeded its statutory authority in reopening the proceeding and altering the certificate. The District Court further held that even if the Commission would have had power under different circumstances to alter a certificate, it should not have done so in this case where, as the Court found from evidence before it but which had not been before the Commission, Seatrain had expended large sums of money in reliance upon the complete validity of its certificate. 64 F. Supp. 156. We need not consider the Commission’s objection to the District Court’s admission of evidence not heard by the Commission since we agree with the District Court that the Commission was without authority to cancel this certificate.
In altering Seatrain’s certificate, the Commission held that a certificate authorizing the carriage of “commodities generally” does not embrace the right to carry loaded or unloaded railroad cars; that consequently the original certificate granted Seatrain actually deprived it of any future right to carry railroad cars — its chief business; that issuance of the original certificate to carry commodities generally was consequently an inadvertent error, patent on the face of the record, which the Commission has the right and power to change at any time the matter comes to its attention. But Seatrain argues that, far from restoring the right to which it was entitled under the original proceedings, the new order actually results in a drastic limitation on the nature of the equipment and service Seatrain is privileged to employ in loading and carrying freight, and could bar delivery or receipt of freight to or from any consignees except railroads.
We need not determine the Commission’s statutory power to correct clerical mistakes, since we are persuaded from Seatrain’s applications for its certificates, from the information supplied to the Commission indicating that Seatrain had long transported goods of all kinds loaded in freight cars to consignees other than railroads, from the findings of the Commission, and from the course of the earlier decisions of the Commission regarding Sea-train, that the issuance of the original certificate was not an “inadvertent” error which the Commission’s subsequent action was intended to correct. For all these indicate that prior to and at the time of the issuance of the Seatrain certificate it was the understanding of Seatrain and the Commission that its transportation of “commodities generally” included carriage of freight cars and that carriage of freight cars would not exclude carriage of commodities generally. Moreover, the Seatrain application was not reopened for consideration by the Commission until its decision in Foss Launch & Tug Co., 260 I. C. C. 103, decided December 18, 1943. There the Commission pointedly ruled for the first time that a certificate to carry “commodities generally” did not authorize water carriage of loaded or unloaded freight cars — so-called “car-ferry service.” Thus it seems apparent that the Seatrain proceedings were reopened not to correct a mere clerical error, but to execute the new policy announced in the Foss case. This conclusion is supported by the fact that in prior proceedings involving Seatrain, the Commission had rejected the contention that Seatrain’s vessels could be classed as “car ferries,” and had concluded that they were ocean-going water carriers.
Since the proceedings apparently were not reopened to correct a mere clerical error but were more likely an effort to revoke or modify substantially Seatrain’s original certificate under the new policy announced in the Foss case, the question remains whether the Act authorizes such alterations. The water carrier provisions are part of the general pattern of the Interstate Commerce Act which grants the Commission power to regulate railroads and motor carriers as well as water carriers. The Commission is authorized to issue certificates to all three types of carriers. But it is specifically empowered to revoke only the certificates of motor carriers. Section 212 (a), Part II, Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 555, 49 U. S. C. §312 (a). In fact, when the water carrier provisions were pending in Congress, the Commission’s spokesman, Commissioner Eastman, seems specifically to have requested the Congress to include no power to revoke a certificate. The Commissioner explained that while the power to revoke motor carriers’ certificates was essential as an effective means of enforcement of the motor carrier section, it was not necessary to use such sanctions in the regulation of water carriers. It is contended nonetheless that the Commission has greater power to revoke water carrier certificates, where Congress granted no specific authority at all, than to cancel and revoke motor carrier certificates, where specific but limited authority was granted. But in ruling upon its power to revoke motor carrier certificates, the Commission itself has held that unless it can find a reason to revoke a motor carrier’s certificate, which reason is specifically set out in § 212 (a), it cannot revoke such a certificate under its general statutory-power to alter orders previously made. Smith Bros. Revocation of Certificate, 33 M. C. C. 465.
It is argued, however, that this proceeding does not effect a partial revocation of Seatrain’s certificate, but is merely an exercise of the Commission’s statutory power under § 309 (d) to fix “terms, conditions, and limitations” for water carrier certificate holders. Whether the Commission could, under this authority, have imposed a restriction in an original certificate as to the type of service a water carrier could utilize to serve its shippers best is by no means free from doubt. Yet the alleged authority to alter a certificate after it has been finally granted so as to limit the type of service is certainly no greater than the Commission’s authority to limit the type of service when issuing the original certificate. It is of some significance that § 208, which prescribes the authority of the Commission in granting certificates to motor carriers, authorizes the Commission to “specify the service to be rendered” by those carriers. But § 309, which empowers the Commission to grant certificates to water carriers, does not authorize the Commission to specify “the service to be rendered.” Furthermore, § 309 (d), relating to water carrier certificates, specifically provides “That no terms, conditions, or limitations shall restrict the right of the carrier to add to its equipment, facilities, or service within the scope of such certificate, as the development of the business and the demands of the public shall require . . .” The language of this section would seem to preclude the Commission from attaching terms and conditions to a certificate which would deprive the public of the best type of service which could be rendered between ports by a water carrier. In view of this difference between the statutory authority of the Commission to prescribe the service of water carriers and of motor carriers, our decisions relating to the Commission’s power as to motor carriers in this respect are not controlling as to the Commission’s power to regulate the details of the service of water carriers. We can find no authority for alteration of Seatrain’s certificate from the Commission’s power to fix "terms and conditions.”
Nor do we think that the Commission’s ruling was justified by the language of §315 (c) which authorizes it to “suspend, modify, or set aside its orders under this part upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper.” That the word “order,” as here used, was intended to describe something different from the word “certificate” used in other places, is clearly shown by the way both these words are used in the Act. Section 309 describes the certificate, the method of obtaining it, and its scope and effect, but it nowhere refers to the word “order.” Section 315 of the Act, having specific reference to orders, and which in subsection (c), here relied on, authorizes suspension, alteration, or modification of orders, nowhere mentions the word “certificate.” It is clear that the “orders” referred to in § 315 (c) are formal commands of the Commission relating to its procedure and the rates, fares, practices, and like things coming within its authority. But, as the Commission has said as to motor carrier certificates, while the procedural “orders” antecedent to a water carrier certificate can be modified from time to time, the certificate marks the end of that proceeding. The certificate, when finally granted and the time fixed for rehearing it has passed, is not subject to revocation in whole or in part except as specifically authorized by Congress. Consequently, the Commission was without authority to revoke Seatrain’s certificate. That certificate, properly interpreted, authorized it to carry commodities generally, including freight cars, on the routes for which the certificate originally issued. The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Rutledge concurs in the result.
For a description of Seatrain equipment, see Investigation of Seatrain Lines, Inc., 1951. C. C. 215, 218-222.
See Investigation of Seatrain Lines, Inc., supra; Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Akron, C. & Y. R. Co., 226 I. C. C. 7; Hoboken Manufacturers’ R. Co. v. Abilene & Southern R. Co., 248 I. C. C. 109, but see Commissioner Patterson dissenting, id. at 120.
24 Stat. 379 (as amended), 49 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (railroads); 49 Stat. 543, 54 Stat. 919,49 U. S. C. § 301 et seq. (motor carriers); 54 Stat. 929,49 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. (water carriers).
Commissioner Eastman, Chairman of the Commission’s Legislative Committee, reporting to the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 2009 on January 29, 1940, stated, “This bill leaves section 212 (a) unchanged, and has no corresponding provision in the new part III. While there is room for argument, we are inclined to believe that provision for the revocation or suspension of water carrier certificates or permits is not essential, if adequate penalty provisions are provided for violations of part III. Revocation or suspension, in the case of motor carriers, is believed to be the most effective means of enforcement, since there are so many such carriers, and the operations of the great majority are so small, that enforcement through penal actions in courts presents many practical difficulties; but this should not be true of water carriers.”
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 1; Crescent Express Lines v. United States, 320 U. S. 401; Noble v. United States, 319 U. S. 88. See also Smith Bros. Revocation of Certificate, 33 M. C. C. 465; Quaker City Bus Co., 38 M. C. C. 603.
And §§ 316 and 317 of the Act pointedly treat an order as one thing and a certificate as another.
See Smith Bros. Revocation of Certificate, supra, Quaker City Bus Co., supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case brings before us a constitutional challenge to §§ 101 (b) (1) (D) and 101 (b) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Act), 66 Stat. 182, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101 (b) (1) (D) and 1101 (b) (2).
I
The Act grants special preference immigration status to aliens who qualify as the “children” or “parents” of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. Under § 101 (b) (1), a “child” is defined as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his natural mother. The definition does not extend to an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his natural father. Moreover, under § 101 (b) (2), a person qualifies as a “parent” for purposes of the Act solely on the basis of the person’s relationship with a “child.” As a result, the natural father of an illegitimate child who is either a United States citizen or permanent resident alien is not entitled to preferential treatment as a “parent.”
The special preference immigration status provided for those who satisfy the statutory “parent-child” relationship depends on whether the immigrant’s relative is a United States citizen or permanent resident alien. A United States citizen is allowed the entry of his “parent” or “child” without regard to either an applicable numerical quota or the labor certification requirement. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1151 (a), (b), 1182 (a) (14). On the other hand, a United States permanent resident alien is allowed the entry of the “parent” or “child” subject to numerical limitations but without regard to the labor certification requirement. 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (14); see 1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 2.40 n. 18 (rev. ed. 1975).
Appellants are three sets of unwed natural fathers and their illegitimate offspring who sought, either as an alien father or an alien child, a special immigration preference by virtue of a relationship to a citizen or resident alien child or parent. In each instance the applicant was informed that he was ineligible for an immigrant visa unless he qualified for admission under the general numerical limitations and, in the case of the alien parents, received the requisite labor certification.
Appellants filed this action in July 1974 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of §§ 101 (b)(1) and 101 (b) (2) of the Act under the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Appellants alleged that the statutory provisions (i) denied them equal protection by discriminating against natural fathers and their illegitimate children “on the basis of the father’s marital status, the illegitimacy of the child and the sex of the parent without either compelling or rational justification”; (ii) denied them due process of law to the extent that there was established “an unwarranted conclusive presumption of the absence of strong psychological and economic ties between natural fathers and their children born out of wedlock and not legitimated”; and (iii) “seriously burden[ed] and infringe [d] upon the rights of natural fathers and their children, born out of wedlock and not legitimated, to mutual association, to privacy, to establish a home, to raise natural children and to be raised by the natural father.” App. 11-12. Appellants sought to enjoin permanently enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions to the extent that the statute precluded them from qualifying for the special preference accorded other “parents” and “children.”
A three-judge District Court was convened to consider the constitutional issues. After noting that Congress’ power to fashion rules for the admission of aliens was “exceptionally broad,” the District Court held, with one judge dissenting, that the statutory provisions at issue were neither “wholly devoid of any conceivable rational purpose” nor “fundamentally aimed at achieving a goal unrelated to the regulation of immigration.” Fiallo v. Levi, 406 F. Supp. 162, 165, 166 (1975). The court therefore granted judgment for the Government and dismissed the action.
We noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Fiallo v. Levi, 426 U. S. 919 (1976), and for the reasons set forth below we affirm.
II
At the outset, it is important to underscore the limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 339 (1909); accord, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 766 (1972). Our cases “have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 210 (1953); see, e. g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580 (1952); Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538 (1895); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698 (1893); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581 (1889). Our recent decisions have not departed from this long-established rule. Just last Term, for example, the Court had occasion to note that “the power over aliens is of a political character and therefore subject only to narrow judicial review.” Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88, 101 n. 21 (1976), citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, supra, at 713; accord, Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 81-82 (1976). And we observed recently that in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, “Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” Id., at 80.
Appellants apparently do not challenge the need for special judicial deference to congressional policy choices in the immigration context, but instead suggest that a “unique coalescing of factors” makes the instant case sufficiently unlike prior immigration cases to warrant more searching judicial scrutiny. Brief for Appellants 52-55. Appellants first observe that since the statutory provisions were designed to reunite families wherever possible, the purpose of the statute was to afford rights not to aliens but to United States citizens and legal permanent residents. Appellants then rely on our border-search decisions in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975), for the proposition that the courts must scrutinize congressional legislation in the immigration area to protect against violations of the rights of citizens. At issue in the border-search cases, however, was the nature of the protections mandated by the Fourth Amendment with respect to Government procedures designed to stem the illegal entry of aliens. Nothing in the opinions in those cases suggests that Congress has anything but exceptionally broad power to determine which classes of aliens may lawfully enter the country. See 413 U. S., at 272; 422 U. S., at 883-884.
Appellants suggest a second distinguishing factor. They argue that none of the prior immigration cases of this Court involved “double-barreled” discrimination based on sex and illegitimacy, infringed upon the due process rights of citizens and legal permanent residents, or implicated “the fundamental constitutional interests of United States citizens and permanent residents in a familial relationship.” Brief for Appellants 53-54; see id., at 16-18. But this Court has resolved similar challenges to immigration legislation based on other constitutional rights of citizens, and has rejected the suggestion that more searching judicial scrutiny is required. In Kleindienst v. Mandel, supra, for example, United States citizens challenged the power of the Attorney General to deny a visa to an alien who, as a proponent of “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of World communism,” was ineligible to receive a visa under 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (28) (D) absent a waiver by the Attorney General. The citizen-appellees in that case conceded that Congress could prohibit entry of all aliens falling into the class defined by § 1182 (a) (28) (D). They contended, however, that the Attorney General’s statutory discretion to approve a waiver was limited by the Constitution and that their First Amendment rights were abridged by the denial of Mandel’s request for a visa. The Court held that “when the Executive exercises this [delegated] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.” 408 U. S., at 770. We can see no reason to review the broad congressional policy choice at issue here under a more exacting standard than was applied in Kleindienst v. Mandel, a First Amendment case.
Finally, appellants characterize our prior immigration cases as involving foreign policy matters and congressional choices to exclude or expel groups of aliens that were “specifically and clearly perceived to pose a grave threat to the national security,” citing Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580 (1952), “or to the general welfare of this country,” citing Boutilier v. INS, 387 U. S. 118 (1967). Brief for Appellants 54. We find no indication in our prior cases that the scope of judicial review is a function of the nature of the policy choice at issue. To the contrary, “[s]ince decisions in these matters may implicate our relations with foreign powers, and since a wide variety of classifications must be defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances, such decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary,” and “[t]he reasons that preclude judicial review of political questions also dictate a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization.” Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S., at 81-82. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 588-589. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed in his concurrence in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy:
“The conditions of entry for every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.” 342 U. S., at 596-597.
III
As originally enacted in 1952, §101 (b) (1) of the Act defined a “child” as an unmarried legitimate or legitimated child or stepchild under 21 years of age. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Attorney General subsequently concluded that the failure of this definition to refer to illegitimate children rendered ineligible for preferential nonquota status both the illegitimate alien child of a citizen mother, Matter of A, 5 I. & N. Dec. 272, 283-284 (A. G. 1953), and the alien mother of a citizen born out of wedlock, Matter of F, 7 I. & N. Dec. 448 (B. I. A. 1957). The Attorney General recommended that the matter be brought to the attention of Congress, Matter of A, supra, at 284, and the Act was amended in 1957 to include what is now 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (b) (1) (D). See n. 1, supra. Congress was specifically concerned with the relationship between a child born out of wedlock and his or her natural mother, and the legislative history of the 1957 amendment reflects an intentional choice not to provide preferential immigration status by virtue of the relationship between an illegitimate child and his or her natural father.
This distinction is just one of many drawn by Congress pursuant to its determination to provide some—but not all—families with relief from various immigration restrictions that would otherwise hinder reunification of the family in this country. In addition to the distinction at issue here, Congress has decided that children, whether legitimate or not, cannot qualify for preferential status if they are married or are over 21 years of age. 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (b) (1). Legitimated children are ineligible for preferential status unless their legitimation occurred prior to their 18th birthday and at a time when they were in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents. § 1101 (b) (1) (C). Adopted children are not entitled to preferential status unless they were adopted before the age of 14 and have thereafter lived in the custody of their adopting or adopted parents for at least two years, § 1101 (b) (1) (E). And stepchildren cannot qualify unless they were under 18 at the time of the marriage creating the stepchild relationship. § 1101 (b) (1) (B).
With respect to each of these legislative policy distinctions, it could be argued that the line should have been drawn at a different point and that the statutory definitions deny preferential status to parents and children who share strong family ties. Cf. Mathews v. Diaz, supra, at 83-84. But it is clear from our cases, see Part II, supra, that these are policy questions entrusted exclusively to the political branches of our Government, and we have no judicial authority to substitute our political judgment for that of the Congress.
Appellants suggest that the distinction drawn in § 101 (b) (1) (D) is unconstitutional under any standard of review since it infringes upon the constitutional rights of citizens and legal permanent residents without furthering legitimate governmental interests. Appellants note in this regard that the statute makes it more difficult for illegitimate children and their natural fathers to be reunited in this country than for legitimate or legitimated children and their parents, or for illegitimate children and their natural mothers. And appellants also note that the statute fails to establish a procedure under which illegitimate children and their natural fathers could prove the existence and strength of their family relationship. Those are admittedly the consequences of the congressional decision not to accord preferential status to this particular class of aliens, but the decision nonetheless remains one “solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S., at 597 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Congress obviously has determined that preferential status is not warranted for illegitimate children and their natural fathers, perhaps because of a perceived absence in most cases of close family ties as well as a concern with the serious problems of proof that usually lurk in paternity determinations. See Trimble v. Gordon, ante, at 771. In any event, it is not the judicial role in cases of this sort to probe and test the justifications for the legislative decision. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S., at 770.
IV
We hold that §§ 101 (b) (1) (D) and 101 (b) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 are not unconstitutional by virtue of the exclusion of the relationship between an illegitimate child and his natural father from the preferences accorded by the Act to the “child” or “parent” of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Affirmed.
Section 101 (b) (1), as set forth in 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (b), provides:
“(1) The term 'child' means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age who is—
“(A) a legitimate child; or
“(B) a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred; or
“(C) a child legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or domicile, or under the law of the father’s residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation.
“(D) an illegitimate child, by, through whom, or on whose behalf a status, privilege, or benefit is sought by virtue of the relationship of the child to its natural mother;
“(E) a child adopted while under the age of fourteen years if the child has thereafter been in the legal custody of, and has resided with, the adopting parent or parents for at least two years: Provided, That no natural parent of any such adopted child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter.
“(F) a child, under the age of fourteen at the time a petition is filed in his behalf to accord a classification as an immediate relative under section 1151 (b) of this title [§ 201 (b)], who is an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents, or for whom the sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing the proper care which will be provided the child if admitted to the United States and who has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption; who has been adopted abroad by a United States citizen and his spouse who personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings; or who is coming to the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and spouse who have complied with the preadoption requirements, if any, of the child’s proposed residence: Provided, That no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any such child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter.”
Effective January 1, 1977, the parent-child relationship no longer triggers an exemption from the labor certification requirement. Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976, § 5, 90 Stat. 2705. The 1976 amendments contain a saving clause, § 9, however, which provides that the amendments
“shall not operate to affect the entitlement to immigrant status or the order of consideration for issuance of an immigrant visa of an alien entitled to a preference status, under section 203 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act, on the basis of a petition filed with the Attorney General prior to such effective date.”
Appellant Ramon Martin Fiallo, a United States citizen by birth, currently resides in the Dominican Republic with his natural father, appellant Ramon Fiallo-Sone, a citizen of that country. The father initiated procedures to obtain an immigrant visa as the “parent” of his illegitimate son, but the United States Consul for the Dominican Republic informed appellant Fiallo-Sone that he could not qualify for the preferential status accorded to “parents” unless he legitimated Ramon Fiallo.
Appellant Cleophus Warner, a naturalized United States citizen, is the unwed father of appellant Serge Warner, who was born in 1960 in the French West Indies. In 1972 Cleophus Warner petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service to classify Serge as Warner’s “child” for purposes of obtaining an immigrant visa, but the petition was denied on the ground that there was no evidence that Serge was Warner’s legitimate or legitimated offspring.
Appellants Trevor Wilson and Earl Wilson, permanent resident aliens, are the illegitimate children of appellant Arthur Wilson, a citizen of Jamaica. Following the death of their mother in 1974, Trevor and Earl sought to obtain an immigrant visa for their father. We are informed by the appellees that although the application has not yet been rejected, denial is certain since the children are neither legitimate nor legitimated offspring of Arthur Wilson.
Writing for the Court in Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522 (1954), Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted that “much could be said for the view” that due process places some limitations on congressional power in the immigration area, “were we writing on a clean slate.”
“But the slate is not clean. As to the extent of the power of Congress under review, there is not merely 'a page of history’ . . . but a whole volume. Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. . . . But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government. . . .
“We are not prepared to deem ourselves wiser or more sensitive to human rights than our predecessors, especially those who have been most zealous in protecting civil liberties under the Constitution, and must therefore under our constitutional system recognize congressional power in dealing with aliens . . . .” Id., at 530-532.
We are no more inclined to reconsider this line of cases today than we were five years ago when we decided Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 767 (1972).
The appellees argue that the challenged sections of the Act, embodying as they do “a substantive policy regulating the admission of aliens into the United States, [are] not an appropriate subject for judicial review.” Brief for Appellees 15, 19-24. Our cases reflect acceptance of a limited judicial responsibility under the Constitution even with respect to the power of Congress to regulate the admission and exclusion of aliens, and there is no occasion to consider in this case whether there may be actions of the Congress with respect to aliens that are so essentially political in character as to be nonjusticiable.
The thoughtful dissenting opinion of our Brother Marshall would be persuasive if its basic premise were accepted. The dissent is grounded on the assumption that the relevant portions of the Act grant a “fundamental right” to American citizens, a right “given only to the citizen” and not to the putative immigrant. Post, at 806, 808, 816. The assumption is facially plausible in that the families of putative immigrants certainly have an interest in their admission. But the fallacy of the assumption is rooted deeply in fundamental principles of sovereignty.
We are dealing here with an exercise of the Nation’s sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners in accordance with perceived national interests. Although few, if any, countries have been as generous as the United States in extending the privilege to immigrate, or in providing sanctuary to the oppressed, limits and classifications as to who shall be admitted are traditional and necessary elements of legislation in this area. It is true that the legislative history of the provision at issue here establishes that congressional concern was directed at “the problem of keeping families of United States citizens and immigrants united.” H. R. Rep. No. 1199, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1957). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 29 (1952) (statute implements “the underlying intention of our immigration laws regarding the preservation of the family unit”). To accommodate this goal, Congress has accorded a special “preference status” to certain aliens who share relationships with citizens or permanent resident aliens. But there are widely varying relationships and degrees of kinship, and it is appropriate for Congress to consider not only the nature of these relationships but also problems of identification, administration, and the potential for fraud. In the inevitable process of “line drawing,” Congress has determined that certain classes of aliens are more likely than others to satisfy national objectives without undue cost, and it has granted preferential status only to those classes.
As Mr. Justice Frankfurter wrote years ago, the formulation of these “[p]olicies pertaining to the entry of aliens . . . is entrusted exclusively to Congress.” Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S., at 531. This is not to say, as we make clear in n. 5, supra, that the Government’s power in this area is never subject to judicial review. But our cases do make clear that despite the impact of these classifications on the interests of those already within our borders, congressional determinations such as this one are subject only to limited judicial review.
S. Rep. No. 1057, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1957) (the amendment was designed “to clarify the law so that the illegitimate child would in relation to his mother enjoy the same status under the immigration laws as a legitimate child”) (emphasis added) ; H. R. Rep. No. 1199, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1957) (the amendment was designed “to alleviate hardship and provide for a fair and humanitarian adjudication of immigration cases involving children born out of wedlock and the mothers of such children”) (emphasis added); 103 Cong. Rec. 14659 (1957) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy) (the amendment “would clarify the law so that an illegitimate child would, in relation to his mother, enjoy the same status under immigration laws as a legitimate child”) (emphasis added).
The inherent difficulty of determining the paternity of an illegitimate child is compounded when it depends upon events that may have occurred in foreign countries many years earlier. Congress may well have given substantial weight, in adopting the classification here challenged, to these problems of proof and the potential for fraudulent visa applications that would have resulted from a more generous drawing of the line. Moreover, our cases clearly indicate that legislative distinctions in the immigration area need not be as “ 'carefully tuned to alternative considerations,’ ” Trimble v. Gordon, ante, at 772 (quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 513 (1976)), as those in the domestic area.
Appellants insist that the statutory distinction is based on an overbroad and outdated stereotype concerning the relationship of unwed fathers and their illegitimate children, and that existing administrative procedures, which had been developed to deal with the problems of proving paternity, maternity, and legitimation with respect to statutorily recognized “parents” and “children,” could easily handle the problems of proof involved in determining the paternity of an illegitimate child. We simply note that this argument should be addressed to the Congress rather than the courts. Indeed, in that regard it is worth noting that a bill introduced in the 94th Congress would have eliminated the challenged distinction. H. R. 10993, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Alabama, together with every other State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and Guam, participates in the Federal Government’s Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was established by the Social Security Act of 1935. 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§301-1394. This appeal presents the question whether a regulation of the Alabama Department of Pensions and Security, employed in that Department’s administration of the State’s federally funded AFDC program, is consistent with Subchapter IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 601-609, and with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At issue is the validity of Alabama’s so-called “substitute father” regulation which denies AFDC payments to the children of a mother who “cohabits” in or outside her home with any single or married able-bodied man. Appellees brought this class action against appellants, officers, and members of the Alabama Board of Pensions and Security, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief. A properly convened three-judge District Court correctly adjudicated the merits of the controversy without requiring appellees to exhaust state administrative remedies, and found the regulation to be inconsistent with the Social Security Act and the Equal Protection Clause. We noted probable jurisdiction, 390 U. S. 903 (1968), and, for reasons which will appear, we affirm without reaching the constitutional issue.
I.
The AFDC program is one of three major categorical public assistance programs established by the Social Security Act of 1935. See U. S. Advisory Commission Report on Intergovernmental Relations, Statutory and Administrative Controls Associated with Federal Grants for Public Assistance 5-7 (1964) (hereafter cited as Advisory Commission Report). The category singled out for welfare assistance by AFDC is the “dependent child,” who is defined in § 406 of the Act, 49 Stat. 629, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. II), as an age-qualified “needy child... who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with” any one of several listed relatives. Under this provision, and, insofar as relevant here, aid can be granted only if “a parent” of the needy child is continually absent from the home. Alabama considers a man who qualifies as a “substitute father” under its regulation to be a nonabsent parent within the federal statute. The State therefore denies aid to an otherwise eligible needy child on the basis that his substitute parent is not absent from the home.
Under the Alabama regulation, an “able-bodied man,, married or single, is considered a substitute father of all the children of the applicant... mother” in three different situations: (1) if “he lives in the home with the child’s natural or adoptive mother for the purpose of cohabitation”; or (2) if “he visits [the home] frequently for the purpose of cohabiting with the child’s natural or adoptive mother”; or (3) if “he does not frequent the home but cohabits with the child’s natural or adoptive mother elsewhere.” Whether the substitute father is actually the father of the children is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether he is legally obligated to support the children, and whether he does in fact contribute to their support. What is determinative is simply whether he “cohabits” with the mother.
The testimony below by officials responsible for the administration of Alabama’s AFDC program establishes that “cohabitation,” as used in the regulation, means essentially that the man and woman have “frequent” or “continuing” sexual relations. With regard to how frequent or continual these relations must be, the testimony is conflicting. One state official testified that the regulation applied only if the parties had sex at least once a week; another thought once every three months would suffice; and still another believed once every six months sufficient. The regulation itself provides that pregnancy or a baby under six months of age is prima facie evidence of a substitute father.
Between June 1964, when Alabama’s substitute father regulation became effective, and January 1967, the total number of AFDC recipients in the State declined by about 20,000 persons, and the number of children recipients by about 16,000, or 22%. As applied in this case, the regulation has caused the termination of all AFDC payments to the appellees, Mrs. Sylvester Smith and her four minor children.
Mrs. Smith and her four children, ages 14, 12, 11, and 9, reside in Dallas County, Alabama. For several years prior to October 1, 1966, they had received aid under the AFDC program. By notice dated October 11, 1966, they were removed from the list of persons eligible to receive such aid. This action was taken by the Dallas County welfare authorities pursuant to the substitute father regulation, on the ground that a Mr. Williams came to her home on weekends and had sexual relations with her.
Three of Mrs. Smith’s children have not received parental support or care from a father since their natural father’s death in 1955. The fourth child’s father left home in 1963, and the child has not received the support or care of his father since then. All the children live in the home of their mother, and except for the substitute father regulation are eligible for aid. The family is not receiving any other type of public assistance, and has been living, since the termination of AFDC payments, on Mrs. Smith’s salary of between $16 and $20 per week which she earns working from 3:30 a. m. to 12 noon as a cook and waitress.
Mr. Williams, the alleged “substitute father” of Mrs. Smith’s children, has nine children of his own and lives with his wife and family, all of whom are dependent upon him for support. Mr. Williams is not the father of any of Mrs. Smith’s children. He is not legally obligated, under Alabama law, to support any of Mrs. Smith’s children. Further, he is not willing or able to support the Smith children, and does not in fact support them. His wife is required to work to help support the Williams household.
II.
The AFDC program is based on a scheme of cooperative federalism. See generally Advisory Commission Report, supra, at 1-59. It is financed largely by the Federal Government, on a matching fund basis, and is administered by the States. States are not required to participate in the program, but those which desire to take advantage of the substantial federal funds available for distribution to needy children are required to submit an AFDC plan for the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). 49 Stat. 627, 42 U. S. C. §§ 601, 602, 603, and 604. See Advisory-Commission Report, supra, at 21-23. The plan must conform with several requirements of the Social Security Act and with rules and regulations promulgated by HEW. 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (1964 ed., Supp. II). See also HEW, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IY, §§ 2200, 2300 (hereafter cited as Handbook).
One of the statutory requirements is that “aid to families with dependent children... shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals... 64 Stat. 650, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(9) (1964 ed., Supp. II). As noted above, § 406 (a) of the Act defines a “dependent child” as one who has been deprived of “parental” support or care by reason of the death, continued absence, or incapacity of a “parent.” 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. II). In combination, these two provisions of the Act clearly require participating States to furnish aid to families with children who have a parent absent from the home, if such families are in other respects eligible. See also Handbook, pt. IV, § 2200 (b)(4).
The State argues that its substitute father regulation simply defines who is a nonabsent “parent” under § 406 (a) of the Social Security Act. 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. II). The State submits that the regulation is a legitimate way of allocating its limited resources available for AFDC assistance, in that it reduces the caseload of its social workers and provides increased benefits to those still eligible for assistance. Two state interests are asserted in support of the allocation of AFDC assistance achieved by the regulation: first, it discourages illicit sexual relationships and illegitimate births; second, it puts families in which there is an informal “marital” relationship on a par with those in which there is an ordinary marital relationship, because families of the latter sort are not eligible for AFDC assistance.
We think it well to note at the outset what is not involved in this case. There is no question that States have considerable latitude in allocating their AFDC resources, since each State is free to set its own standard of need and to determine the level of benefits by the amount of funds it devotes to the program. See Advisory Commission Report, supra, at 30-59. Further, there is no question that regular and actual contributions to a needy child, including contributions from the kind of person Alabama calls a substitute father, can be taken into account in determining whether the child is needy. In other words, if by reason of such a man’s contribution, the child is not in financial need, the child would be ineligible for AFDC assistance without regard to the substitute father rule. The appellees here, however, meet Alabama’s need requirements; their alleged substitute father makes no contribution to their support; and they have been denied assistance solely on the basis of the substitute father regulation. Further, the regulation itself is unrelated to need, because the actual financial situation of the family is irrelevant in determining the existence of a substitute father.
Also not involved in this case is the question of Alabama’s general power to deal with conduct it regards as immoral and with the problem of illegitimacy. This appeal raises only the question whether the State may deal with these problems in the manner that it has here— by flatly denying AFDC assistance to otherwise eligible dependent children.
Alabama’s argument based on its interests in discouraging immorality and illegitimacy would have been quite relevant at one time in the history of the AFDC program. However, subsequent developments clearly establish that these state interests are not presently legitimate justifications for AFDC disqualification. Insofar as this or any similar regulation is based on the State’s asserted interest in discouraging illicit sexual behavior and illegitimacy, it plainly conflicts with federal law and policy.
A significant characteristic of public welfare programs during the last half of the 19th century in this country was their preference for the “worthy” poor. Some poor persons were thought worthy of public assistance, and others were thought unworthy because of their supposed incapacity for “moral regeneration.” H. Leyendecker, Problems and Policy in Public Assistance 45-57 (1955); Wedemeyer & Moore, The American Welfare System, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 326, 327-328 (1966). This worthy-person concept characterized the mothers’ pension welfare programs, which were the precursors of AFDC. See W. Bell, Aid to Dependent Children 3-19 (1965). Benefits under the mothers’ pension programs, accordingly, were customarily restricted to widows who were considered morally fit. See Bell, supra, at 7; Leyendecker, supra, at 53.
In this social context it is not surprising that both the House and Senate Committee Reports on the Social Security Act of 1935 indicate that States participating in AFDC were free to impose eligibility requirements relating to the “moral character” of applicants. H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1935); S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 36 (1935). See also 79 Cong. Rec. 5679 (statement by Representative Jenkins) (1935). During the following years, many state AFDC plans included provisions making ineligible for assistance dependent children not living in “suitable homes.” See Bell, supra, at 29-136 (1965). As applied, these suitable home provisions frequently disqualified children on the basis of the alleged immoral behavior of their mothers. Ibid.
In the 1940’s, suitable home provisions came under increasing attack. Critics argued, for example, that such disqualification provisions undermined a mother’s confidence and authority, thereby promoting continued dependency; that they forced destitute mothers into increased immorality as a means of earning money; that they were habitually used to disguise systematic racial discrimination; and that they senselessly punished impoverished children on the basis of their mothers’ behavior, while inconsistently permitting them to remain in the allegedly unsuitable homes. In 1945, the predecessor of HEW produced a state letter arguing against suitable home provisions and recommending their abolition. See Bell, supra, at 51. Although 15 States abolished their provisions during the following decade, numerous other States retained them. Ibid.
In the 1950’s, matters became further complicated by pressures in numerous States to disqualify illegitimate children from AFDC assistance. Attempts were made in at least 18 States to enact laws excluding children on the basis of their own or their siblings’ birth status. See Bell, supra, at 72-73. All but three attempts failed to pass the state legislatures, and two of the three successful bills were vetoed by the governors of the States involved. Ibid. In 1960, the federal agency strongly disapproved of illegitimacy disqualifications. See Bell, supra, at 73-74.
Nonetheless, in 1960, Louisiana enacted legislation requiring, as a condition precedent for AFDC eligibility, that the home of a dependent child be “suitable,” and specifying that any home in which an illegitimate child had been born subsequent to the receipt of public assistance would be considered unsuitable. Louisiana Acts, No. 251 (1960). In the summer of 1960, approximately 23,000 children were dropped from Louisiana’s AFDC rolls. Bell, supra, at 137. In disapproving this legislation, then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Flemming issued what is now known as the Flemming Ruling, stating that as of July 1, 1961,
“A State plan... may not impose an eligibility condition that would deny assistance with respect to a needy child on the basis that the home conditions in which the child lives are unsuitable, while the child continues to reside in the home. Assistance will therefore be continued during the time efforts are being made either to improve the home conditions or to make arrangements for the child elsewhere.”
Congress quickly approved the Flemming Ruling, while extending until September 1, 1962, the time for state compliance. 75 Stat. 77, as amended 42 U. S. C. § 604 (b). At the same time, Congress acted to implement the ruling by providing, on a temporary basis, that dependent children could receive AFDC assistance if they were placed in foster homes after a court determination that their former homes were, as the Senate Report stated, “unsuitable because of the immoral or negligent behavior of the parent.” S. Rep. No. 165, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1961). See 75 Stat. 76, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 608.
In 1962, Congress made permanent the provision for AFDC assistance to children placed in foster homes and extended such coverage to include children placed in child-care institutions. 76 Stat. 180, 185, 193, 196, 207, 42 U. S. C. § 608. See S. Rep! No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 13 (1962). At the same time, Congress modified the Flemming Ruling by amending § 404 (b) of the Act. As amended, the statute permits States to disqualify from AFDC aid children who live in unsuitable homes, provided they are granted other “adequate care and assistance.” 76 Stat. 189, 42 U. S. C. § 604 (b). See S. Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1962).
Thus, under the 1961 and 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act, the States are permitted to remove a child from a home that is judicially determined to be so unsuitable as to “be contrary to the welfare of such child.” 42 U. S. C. § 608 (a)(1). The States are also permitted to terminate AFDC assistance to a child living in an unsuitable home, if they provide other adequate care and assistance for the child under a general welfare program. 42 U. S. C. § 604 (b). See S. Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1962). The statutory approval of the Flemming Ruling, however, precludes the States from otherwise denying AFDC assistance to dependent children on the basis of their mothers’ alleged immorality or to discourage illegitimate births.
The most recent congressional amendments to the Social Security Act further corroborate that federal public welfare policy now rests on a basis considerably more sophisticated and enlightened than the “worthy-person” concept of earlier times. State plans are now required to provide for a rehabilitative program of improving and correcting unsuitable homes, §402 (a), as amended by § 201 (a)(1)(B), 81 Stat. 877, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (14) (1964 ed., Supp. Ill); §406, as amended by §201 (f), 81 Stat. 880, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (1964 ed., Supp. Ill) ; to provide voluntary family planning services for the purpose of reducing illegitimate births, § 402 (a), as amended by § 201 (a)(1)(C), 81 Stat. 878, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (15) (1964 ed., Supp. Ill); and to provide a program for establishing the paternity of illegitimate children and securing support for them, § 402 (a), as amended by § 201 (a)(1)(C), 81 Stat. 878, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (17) (1964 ed., Supp. III).
In sum, Congress has determined that immorality and illegitimacy should be dealt with through rehabilitative measures rather than measures that punish dependent children, and that protection of such children is the paramount goal of AFDC. In light of the Flemming Ruling and the 1961, 1962, and 1968 amendments to the Social Security Act, it is simply inconceivable, as HEW has recognized, that Alabama is free to discourage immorality and illegitimacy by the device of absolute disqualification of needy children. Alabama may deal with these problems by several different methods under the Social Security Act. But the method it has chosen plainly conflicts with the Act.
III.
Alabama's second justification for its substitute father regulation is that “there is a public interest in a State not undertaking the payment of these funds to families who because of their living arrangements would be in the same situation as if the parents were married, except for the marriage.” In other words, the State argues that since in Alabama the needy children of married couples are not eligible for AFDC aid so long as their father is in the home, it is only fair that children of a mother who cohabits with a man not her husband and not their father be treated similarly. The difficulty with this argument is that it fails to take account of the circumstance that children of fathers living in the home are in a very different position from children of mothers who cohabit with men not their fathers: the child's father has a legal duty to support him, while the unrelated substitute father, at least in Alabama, does not. We believe Congress intended the term’“parent” in § 406 (a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a), to include only those persons with a legal duty of support.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was part of a broad legislative program to counteract the depression. Congress was deeply concerned with the dire straits in which all needy children in the Nation then found themselves. In agreement with the President’s Committee on Economic Security, the House Committee Report declared, “the core of any social plan must be the child.” H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1935). The AFDC program, however, was not designed to aid all needy children. The plight of most children was caused simply by the unemployment of their fathers. With respect to these children, Congress planned that “the work relief program and... the revival of private industry” would provide employment for their fathers. S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1935). As the Senate Committee Report stated: “Many of the children included in relief families present no other problem than that of providing work for the breadwinner of the family.” Ibid. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that children would in fact be supported by the family “breadwinner.”
The AFDC program was designed to meet a need unmet by programs providing employment for breadwinners. It was designed to protect what the House Report characterized as “[o]ne clearly distinguishable group of children.” H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1935). This group was composed of children in families without a “breadwinner,” “wage earner,” or “father,” as the repeated use of these terms throughout the Report of the President’s Committee, Committee Hearings and Reports and the floor debates makes perfectly clear. To describe the sort of breadwinner that it had in mind, Congress employed the word “parent.” 49 Stat. 629, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a). A child would be eligible for assistance if his parent was deceased, incapacitated or continually absent.
The question for decision here is whether Congress could have intended that a man was to be regarded as a child’s parent so as to deprive the child of AFDC eligibility despite the circumstances: (1) that the man did not in fact- support the child; and (2) that he was not legally obligated to support the child. The State correctly observes that the fact that the man in question does not actually support the child cannot be determinative, because a natural father at home may fail actually to support his child but his presence will still render the child ineligible for assistance. On the question whether the man must be legally obligated to provide support before he can be regarded as the child’s parent, the State has no such cogent answer. We think the answer is quite clear: Congress must have meant by the term “parent” an individual who owed to the child a state-imposed legal duty of support.
It is clear, as we have noted, that Congress expected “breadwinners” who secured employment would support their children. This congressional expectation is most reasonably explained on the basis that the kind of breadwinner Congress had in mind was one who was legally obligated to support his children. We- think it beyond reason to believe that Congress would have considered that providing employment for the paramour of a deserted mother would benefit the mother’s children whom he was not obligated to support.
By a parity of reasoning, we think that Congress must have intended that the children in such a situation remain eligible for AFDC assistance notwithstanding their mother’s impropriety. AFDC was intended to provide economic security for children whom Congress could not reasonably expect would be provided for by simply securing employment for family breadwinners. We think it apparent that neither Congress nor any reasonable person would believe that providing employment for some man who is under no legal duty to support a child would in any way provide meaningful economic security for that child.
A contrary view would require us to assume that Congress, at the same time that it intended to provide programs for the economic security and protection of all children, also intended arbitrarily to leave one class of destitute children entirely without meaningful protection. Children who are told, as Alabama has told these appel-lees, to look for their food to a man who is not in the least obliged to support them are without meaningful protection. Such an interpretation of congressional intent would be most unreasonable, and we decline to adopt it.
Our interpretation of the term “parent” in § 406 (a) is strongly supported by the way the term is used in other sections of the Act. Section 402 (a) (10) requires that, effective July 1, 1952, a state plan must:
“provide for prompt notice to appropriate law-enforcement officials of the furnishing of aid to families with dependent children in respect of a child who has been deserted or abandoned by a parent.” 64 Stat. 550, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10). (Emphasis added.)
The “parent” whom this provision requires to be reported to law enforcement officials is surely the same “parent” whose desertion makes a child eligible for AFDC assistance in the first place. And Congress obviously did not intend that a so-called “parent” who has no legal duties of support be referred to law enforcement officials (as Alabama’s own welfare regulations recognize), for the very purpose of such referrals is to institute nonsupport proceedings. See Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 8100-8149. Whatever doubt there might have been over this proposition has been completely dispelled by the 1968 amendments to the Social Security Act, which provide that the States must develop a program:
“(i) in the case of a child born out of wedlock who is receiving aid to families with dependent children, to establish the paternity of such child and secure support for him, and
“(ii) in the case of any child receiving such aid who has been deserted or abandoned by his parent, to secure support for such child from such parent (or from any other person legally liable for such support)....” § 402 (a), as amended by § 201 (a) (1)(C), 81 Stat. 878, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(17) (1964 ed., Supp. III). (Emphasis added.)
Another provision in the 1968 amendments requires the States, effective January 1, 1969, to report to HEW any “parent... against whom an order for the support and maintenance of such [dependent] child or children has been issued by” a court, if such parent is not making the required support payments. §402 (a), as amended by §211 (a), 81 Stat. 896, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (21) (1964 ed., Supp. III). (Emphasis added.) Still another amendment requires the States to cooperate with HEW in locating any parent against whom a support petition has been filed in another State, and in securing compliance with any support order issued by another State, § 402 (a), as amended by § 211 (a), 81 Stat. 897, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (22) (1964 ed., Supp. III).
The pattern of this legislation could not be clearer. Every effort is to be made to locate and secure support payments from persons legally obligated to support a deserted child. The underlying policy and consistency in statutory interpretation dictate that the “parent” referred to in these statutory provisions is the same parent as that in § 406 (a). The provisions seek to secure parental support in lieu of AFDC support for dependent children. Such parental support can be secured only where the parent is under a state-imposed legal duty to support the child. Children with alleged substitute parents who owe them no duty of support are entirely unprotected by these provisions. We think that these provisions corroborate the intent of Congress that the only kind of “parent,” under § 406 (a), whose presence in the home would provide adequate economic protection for a dependent child is one who is legally obligated to support him. Consequently, if Alabama believes it necessary that it be able to disqualify a child on the basis of a man who is not under such a duty of support, its arguments should be addressed to Congress and not this Court.
IV.
Alabama’s substitute father regulation, as written and as applied in this case, requires the disqualification of otherwise eligible dependent children if their mother “cohabits” with a man who is not obligated by Alabama law to support the children. The regulation is therefore invalid because it defines “parent” in a manner that is inconsistent with § 406 (a) of the Social Security Act. 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a). In denying AFDC assistance to appellees on the basis of this invalid regulation, Alabama has breached its federally imposed obligation to furnish “aid to families with dependent children... with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals....” 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a)(9) (1964 ed., Supp. II). Our conclusion makes unnecessary consideration of appellees’ equal-protection claim, upon which we intimate no views.
We think it well, in concluding, to emphasize that no legitimate interest of the State of Alabama is defeated by the decision we announce today. The State's interest in discouraging illicit sexual behavior and illegitimacy may be protected by other means, subject to constitutional limitations, including state participation in AFDC rehabilitative programs. Its interest in economically allocating its limited AFDC resources may be protected by its undisputed power to set the level of benefits and the standard of need, and by its taking into account in determining whether a child is needy all actual and regular contributions to his support.
All responsible governmental agencies in the Nation today recognize the enormity and pervasiveness of social ills caused by poverty. The causes of and cures for poverty are currently the subject of much debate. We hold today only that Congress has made at least this one determination: that destitute children who are legally fatherless cannot be flatly denied federally funded assistance on the transparent fiction that they have a substitute father.
Affirmed.
The program was originally known as “Aid to Dependent Children.” 49 Stat. 627. Alabama’s program still bears this title. In the 1962 amendments to the Act, however, the name of the program was changed to “Aid and Services to Needy Families With Children,” 76 Stat. 185. Throughout this opinion, the program will be referred to as “Aid to Families With Dependent Children,” or AFDC.
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Since appellees sought injunctive relief restraining the appellant state officials from the enforcement, operation, and execution of a statewide regulation on the ground of its unconstitutionality, the three-judge court was properly convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2281. See Alabama Public Service Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341, 343, n. 3 (1951). See also Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73 (1960); Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U. S. 535 (1954). Jurisdiction was conferred on the court by 28 U. S. C. §§1343 (3) and (4). The decision we announce today holds Alabama’s substitute father regulation invalid as inconsistent with Subchapter IV of the Social Security Act. We intimate no views as to whether and under what circumstances suits challenging state AFDC provisions only on the ground that they are inconsistent with the federal statute may be brought in federal courts. See generally Note, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Col. L. Rev. 84 (1967).
We reject appellants’ argument that appellees were required to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. Pursuant to the requirement of the Social Security Act that States must grant AFDC applicants who are denied aid “an opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency,” 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (4) (1964 ed., Supp. II), Alabama provides for administrative review of such denials. Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance, pt. I, § II, pp. V-5 to V-12. Decisions of this Court, however, establish that a plaintiff in an action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, 28 U. S. C. § 1343, is not required to exhaust administrative remedies, where the constitutional challenge is sufficiently substantial, as here, to require the convening of a three-judge court. Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). See also McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 180-183 (1961). For a general discussion of review in the federal courts of state welfare practices, see Note, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Col. L. Rev. 84 (1967).
Smith v. King, 277 F. Supp. 31 (D. C. M. D. Ala. 1967).
A needy child, to qualify for the AFDC assistance, must be under the age of 18, or under the age of 21 and a student, as defined by HEW. 79 Stat. 422, 42 U. S. C. §§ 606 (a) (2) (A) and (B) (1964 ed., Supp. II).
The States are also permitted to consider as dependent children needy children who have an unemployed parent, as is discussed in n. 13, infra, and needy children without a parent who have under certain circumstances been placed in foster homes or child care institutions. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 607, 608.
Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance, pt. I, c. II, § VI.
Under the regulation, when “there appears to be a substitute father,” the mother bears the burden of proving that she has discontinued her relationship with the man before her AFDC assistance will be resumed. The mother’s claim of discontinuance must be “corroborated by at least two acceptable references in a position to know. Examples of acceptable references are: law-enforcement officials
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Alaska law limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for political office, or to an election-oriented group other than a political party, to $500 per year. Alaska Stat. § 15.13.070(b)(1) (2018). Petitioners Aaron Downing and Jim Crawford are Alaska residents. In 2015, they contributed the maximum amounts permitted under Alaska law to candidates or groups of their choice, but wanted to contribute more. They sued members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, contending that Alaska's individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group contribution limits violate the First Amendment.
The District Court upheld the contribution limits and the Ninth Circuit agreed. 909 F.3d 1027 (2018) ; Thompson v. Dauphinais , 217 F.Supp.3d 1023 (D.Alaska 2016). Applying Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether the contribution limits furthered a "sufficiently important state interest" and were "closely drawn" to that end. 909 F.3d at 1034 (quoting Montana Right to Life Assn. v. Eddleman , 343 F.3d 1085, 1092 (2003) ; internal quotation marks omitted). The court recognized that our decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n narrow "the type of state interest that justifies a First Amendment intrusion on political contributions" to combating "actual quid pro quo corruption or its appearance." 909 F.3d at 1034 (citing McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n , 572 U.S. 185, 206-207, 134 S.Ct. 1434, 188 L.Ed.2d 468 (2014) ; Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310, 359-360, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ). The court below explained that under its precedent in this area "the quantum of evidence necessary to justify a legitimate state interest is low: the perceived threat must be merely more than 'mere conjecture' and 'not ... illusory.' " 909 F.3d at 1034 (quoting Eddleman , 343 F.3d at 1092 ; some internal quotation marks omitted). The court acknowledged that " McCutcheon and Citizens United created some doubt as to the continuing vitality of [this] standard," but noted that the Ninth Circuit had recently reaffirmed it. 909 F.3d at 1034, n. 2.
After surveying the State's evidence, the court concluded that the individual-to-candidate contribution limit " 'focuses narrowly on the state's interest,' 'leaves the contributor free to affiliate with a candidate,' and 'allows the candidate to amass sufficient resources to wage an effective campaign,' " and thus survives First Amendment scrutiny. Id. , at 1036 (quoting Eddleman , 343 F.3d at 1092 ; alterations omitted); see also 909 F.3d at 1036-1039. The court also found the individual-to-group contribution limit valid as a tool for preventing circumvention of the individual-to-candidate limit. See id. , at 1039-1040.
In reaching those conclusions, the Ninth Circuit declined to apply our precedent in Randall v. Sorrell , 548 U.S. 230, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006), the last time we considered a non-aggregate contribution limit. See 909 F.3d at 1037, n. 5. In Randall , we invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contributions on a per-election basis to: $400 to a candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or other statewide office; $300 to a candidate for state senator; and $200 to a candidate for state representative. Justice BREYER's opinion for the plurality observed that "contribution limits that are too low can ... harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability." 548 U.S. at 248-249, 126 S.Ct. 2479 ; see also id. , at 264-265, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (agreeing that Vermont's contribution limits violated the First Amendment); id. , at 265-273, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (THOMAS, J., joined by Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (agreeing that Vermont's contribution limits violated the First Amendment while arguing that such limits should be subject to strict scrutiny). A contribution limit that is too low can therefore "prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote." Id. , at 249, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (plurality opinion).
In Randall , we identified several "danger signs" about Vermont's law that warranted closer review. Ibid . Alaska's limit on campaign contributions shares some of those characteristics. First, Alaska's $500 individual-to-candidate contribution limit is "substantially lower than ... the limits we have previously upheld." Id. , at 253, 126 S.Ct. 2479. The lowest campaign contribution limit this Court has upheld remains the limit of $1,075 per two-year election cycle for candidates for Missouri state auditor in 1998. Id. , at 251, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (citing Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC , 528 U.S. 377, 120 S.Ct. 897, 145 L.Ed.2d 886 (2000) ). That limit translates to over $1,600 in today's dollars. Alaska permits contributions up to 18 months prior to the general election and thus allows a maximum contribution of $1,000 over a comparable two-year period. Alaska Stat. § 15.13.074(c)(1). Accordingly, Alaska's limit is less than two-thirds of the contribution limit we upheld in Shrink .
Second, Alaska's individual-to-candidate contribution limit is "substantially lower than ... comparable limits in other States." Randall , 548 U.S. at 253, 126 S.Ct. 2479. Most state contribution limits apply on a per-election basis, with primary and general elections counting as separate elections. Because an individual can donate the maximum amount in both the primary and general election cycles, the per-election contribution limit is comparable to Alaska's annual limit and 18-month campaign period, which functionally allow contributions in both the election year and the year preceding it. Only five other States have any individual-to-candidate contribution limit of $500 or less per election: Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, and Montana. Colo. Const., Art. XXVIII, § 3 (1)(b); 8 Colo. Code Regs. 1505-6, Rule 10.17.1(b)(2) (2019); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-611(a)(5) (2017); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-4153(a)(2) (2018 Cum. Supp.); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21-A, § 1015(1) (2018 Cum. Supp.); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 13-37-216(1)(a)(ii), (iii) (2017). Moreover, Alaska's $500 contribution limit applies uniformly to all offices, including Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Alaska Stat. § 15.13.070(b)(1). But Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, and Montana all have limits above $500 for candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, making Alaska's law the most restrictive in the country in this regard. Colo. Const., Art. XXVIII, § 3 (1)(a)(I); 8 Colo. Code Regs. 1505-6, Rule 10.17.1(b)(1)(A); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-611(a)(1), (2) ; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-4153(a)(1) ; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21-A, § 1015(1) ; Mont. Code Ann. § 13-37-216(1)(a)(i).
Third, Alaska's contribution limit is not adjusted for inflation. We observed in Randall that Vermont's "failure to index limits means that limits which are already suspiciously low" will "almost inevitably become too low over time." 548 U.S. at 261, 126 S.Ct. 2479. The failure to index "imposes the burden of preventing the decline upon incumbent legislators who may not diligently police the need for changes in limit levels to ensure the adequate financing of electoral challenges." Ibid. So too here. In fact, Alaska's $500 contribution limit is the same as it was 23 years ago, in 1996. 1996 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 48, § 10(b)(1).
In Randall , we noted that the State had failed to provide "any special justification that might warrant a contribution limit so low." 548 U.S. at 261, 126 S.Ct. 2479. The parties dispute whether there are pertinent special justifications here.
In light of all the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for that court to revisit whether Alaska's contribution limits are consistent with our First Amendment precedents.
It is so ordered.
Statement of Justice GINSBURG.
I do not oppose a remand to take account of Randall v. Sorrell , 548 U.S. 230, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006). I note, however, that Alaska's law does not exhibit certain features found troublesome in Vermont's law. For example, unlike in Vermont, political parties in Alaska are subject to much more lenient contribution limits than individual donors. Alaska Stat. § 15.13.070(d) (2018) ; see Randall , 548 U.S. at 256-259, 126 S.Ct. 2479. Moreover, Alaska has the second smallest legislature in the country and derives approximately 90 percent of its revenues from one economic sector-the oil and gas industry. As the District Court suggested, these characteristics make Alaska "highly, if not uniquely, vulnerable to corruption in politics and government." Thompson v. Dauphinais , 217 F.Supp.3d 1023, 1029 (D.Alaska 2016). "[S]pecial justification" of this order may warrant Alaska's low individual contribution limit. See Randall , 548 U.S. at 261, 126 S.Ct. 2479.
The court below declined to consider Randall "because no opinion commanded a majority of the Court," 909 F.3d at 1037, n. 5, instead relying on its own precedent predating Randall by three years. Courts of Appeals from ten Circuits have, however, correctly looked to Randall in reviewing campaign finance restrictions. See, e.g. , National Org. for Marriage v. McKee , 649 F.3d 34, 60-61 (C.A.1 2011) ; Ognibene v. Parkes , 671 F.3d 174, 192 (C.A.2 2012) ; Preston v. Leake , 660 F.3d 726, 739-740 (C.A.4 2011) ; Zimmerman v. Austin , 881 F.3d 378, 387 (C.A.5 2018) ; McNeilly v. Land , 684 F.3d 611, 617-620 (C.A.6 2012) ; Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan , 904 F.3d 463, 469-470 (C.A.7 2018) ; Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson , 640 F.3d 304, 319, n. 9 (C.A.8 2011), rev'd in part on other grounds, 692 F.3d 864 (C.A.8 2012) (en banc); Independence Inst. v. Williams , 812 F.3d 787, 791 (C.A.10 2016) ; Alabama Democratic Conference v. Attorney Gen. of Ala. , 838 F.3d 1057, 1069-1070 (C.A.11 2016) ; Holmes v. Federal Election Comm'n , 875 F.3d 1153, 1165 (C.A.D.C. 2017).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether respondent Lyons satisfied the prerequisites for seeking injunctive relief in the Federal District Court.
I
This case began on February 7, 1977, when respondent, Adolph Lyons, filed a complaint for damages, injunction, and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants were the City of Los Angeles and four of its police officers. The complaint alleged that on October 6, 1976, at 2 a. m., Lyons was stopped by the defendant officers for a traffic or vehicle code violation and that although Lyons offered no resistance or threat whatsoever, the Officers, without provocation or justification, seized Lyons and applied a “chokehold” — either the “bar arm control” hold or the “carotid-artery control” hold or both — rendering him unconscious and causing damage to his larynx. Counts I through IV of the complaint sought damages against the officers and the City. Count V, with which we are principally concerned here, sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against the City barring the use of the control holds. That count alleged that the City’s police officers, “pursuant to the authorization, instruction and encouragement of Defendant City of Los Angeles, regularly and routinely apply these choke holds in innumerable situations where they are not threatened by the use of any deadly force whatsoever,” that numerous persons have been injured as the result of the application of the chokeholds, that Lyons and others similarly situated are threatened with irreparable injury in the form of bodily injury and loss of life, and that Lyons “justifiably fears that any contact he has with Los Angeles Police officers may result in his being choked and strangled to death without provocation, justification or other legal excuse.” Lyons alleged the threatened impairment of rights protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Injunctive relief was sought against the use of the control holds “except in situations where the proposed victim of said control reasonably appears to be threatening the immediate use of deadly force.” Count VI sought declaratory relief against the City, i. e., a judgment that use of the chokeholds absent the threat of immediate use of deadly force is a per se violation of various constitutional rights.
The District Court, by order, granted the City’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for the City on Counts V and VI. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the City on Counts V and VI, holding over the City’s objection that despite our decisions in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), and Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), Lyons had standing to seek relief against the application of the chokeholds. Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 615 F. 2d 1243 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that there was a sufficient likelihood that Lyons would again be stopped and subjected to the unlawful use of force to constitute a case or controversy and to warrant the issuance of an injunction, if the injunction was otherwise authorized. We denied certiorari. 449 U. S. 934 (1980).
On remand, Lyons applied for a preliminary injunction. Lyons pressed only the Count V claim at this point. See n. 6, infra. The motion was heard on affidavits, depositions, and government records. The District Court found that Lyons had been stopped for a traffic infringement and that without provocation or legal justification the officers involved had applied a “Department-authorized chokehold which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.” The court further found that the department authorizes the use of the holds in situations where no one is threatened by death or grievous bodily harm, that officers are insufficiently trained, that the use of the holds involves a high risk of injury or death as then employed, and that their continued use in situations where neither death nor serious bodily injury is threatened “is unconscionable in a civilized society.” The court concluded that such use violated Lyons’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. A preliminary injunction was entered enjoining “the use of both the carotid artery and bar arm holds under circumstances which do not threaten death or serious bodily injury.” An improved training program and regular reporting and recordkeeping were also ordered. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion stating that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction. 656 F. 2d 417 (1981). We granted certiorari, 455 U. S. 937 (1982), and now reverse.
II
Since our grant of certiorari, circumstances pertinent to the case have changed. Originally, Lyons’ complaint alleged that at least two deaths had occurred as a result of the application of chokeholds by the police. His first amended complaint alleged that 10 chokehold-related deaths had occurred. By May 1982, there had been five more such deaths. On May 6,1982, the Chief of Police in Los Angeles prohibited the use of the bar-arm chokehold in any circumstances. A few days later, on May 12,1982, the Board of Police Commissioners imposed a 6-month moratorium on the use of the carotid-artery chokehold except under circumstances where deadly force is authorized.
Based on these events, on June 3, 1982, the City filed in this Court a memorandum suggesting a question of mootness, reciting the facts but arguing that the case was not moot. Lyons in turn filed a motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. We denied that motion but reserved the question of mootness for later consideration. 457 U. S. 1115 (1982).
In his brief and at oral argument, Lyons has reasserted his position that in light of changed conditions, an injunctive decree is now unnecessary because he is no longer subject to a threat of injury. He urges that the preliminary injunction should be vacated. The City, on the other hand, while acknowledging that subsequent events have significantly changed the posture of this case, again asserts that the case is not moot because the moratorium is not permanent and may be lifted at any time.
We agree with the City that the case is not moot, since the moratorium by its terms is not permanent. Intervening events have not “irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979). We nevertheless hold, for another reason, that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief.
HH I — I l-H
It goes without saying that those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Art. Ill of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 94-101 (1968); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421-425 (1969) (opinion of Marshall, J.). Plaintiffs must demonstrate a “personal stake in the outcome” in order to “assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues” necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury” as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both “real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” See, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1969); Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 89-91 (1947); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923).
In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), we dealt with a case brought by a class of plaintiffs claiming that they had been subjected to discriminatory enforcement of the criminal law. Among other things, a county magistrate and judge were accused of discriminatory conduct in various respects, such as sentencing members of plaintiff’s class more harshly than other defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the suit- by the District Court, ruling that if the allegations were proved, an appropriate injunction could be entered.
We reversed for failure of the complaint to allege a case or controversy. Id., at 493. Although it was claimed in that case that particular members of the plaintiff class had actually suffered from the alleged unconstitutional practices, we observed that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id., at 495-496. Past wrongs were evidence bearing on “whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Id., at 496. But the prospect of future injury rested “on the likelihood that [plaintiffs] will again be arrested for and charged with violations of the criminal law and will again be subjected to bond proceedings, trial, or sentencing before petitioners.” Ibid. The most that could be said for plaintiffs’ standing was “that if [plaintiffs] proceed to violate an unchallenged law and if they are charged, held to answer, and tried in any proceedings before petitioners, they will be subjected to the discriminatory practices that petitioners are alleged to have followed.” Id., at 497. We could not find a case or controversy in those circumstances: the threat to the plaintiffs was not “sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing controversy simply because they anticipate violating lawful criminal statutes and being tried for their offenses. ...” Id., at 496. It was to be assumed that “[plaintiffs] will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction as well as exposure to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by petitioners.” Id., at 497.
We further observed that case-or-controversy considerations “obviously shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief,” id., at 499, and went on to hold that even if the complaint presented an existing case or controversy, an adequate basis for equitable relief against petitioners had not been demonstrated:
“[Plaintiffs] have failed, moreover, to establish the basic requisites of the issuance of equitable relief in these circumstances — the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and the inadequacy of remedies at law. We have already canvassed the necessarily conjectural nature of the threatened injury to which [plaintiffs] are allegedly subjected. And if any of the [plaintiffs] are ever prosecuted and face trial, or if they are illegally sentenced, there are available state and federal procedures which could provide relief from the wrongful conduct alleged.” Id., at 502.
Another relevant decision for present purposes is Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), a case in which plaintiffs alleged widespread illegal and unconstitutional police conduct aimed at minority citizens and against city residents in general. The Court reiterated the holding in O’Shea that past wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or controversy. The claim of injury rested upon “what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman’s perception” of departmental procedures. 423 U. S., at 372. This hypothesis was “even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O’Shea to warrant [the] invocation of federal jurisdiction.” Ibid. The Court also held that plaintiffs’ showing at trial of a relatively few instances of violations by individual police officers, without any showing of a deliberate policy on behalf of the named defendants, did not provide a basis for equitable relief.
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969), a case arising in an analogous situation, is directly apposite. Zwickler sought a declaratory judgment that a New York statute prohibiting anonymous handbills directly pertaining to election campaigns was unconstitutional. Although Zwickler had once been convicted under the statute, his sole concern related to a Congressman who had left the House of Representatives for a place on the Supreme Court of New York and who would not likely be a candidate again. A unanimous Court held that because it was “most unlikely” that Zwickler would again be subject to the statute, no case or controversy of “‘sufficient immediacy and reality’” was present to allow a declaratory judgment. Id., at 109. Just as Zwickler’s assertion that the former Congressman could be a candidate for Congress again was “hardly a substitute for evidence that this is a prospect of ‘immediacy and reality,’” ibid., Lyons’ assertion that he may again be subject to an illegal chokehold does not create the actual controversy that must exist for a declaratory judgment to be entered.
We note also our per curiam opinion in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171 (1977). There, the father of a boy who had been killed by the police sought damages and a declaration that the Missouri statute which authorized police officers to use deadly force in apprehending a person who committed a felony was unconstitutional. Plaintiff alleged that he had another son, who “‘if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers ....’” Id., at 172, n. 2. We ruled that “[s]uch speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.” Id., at 173, n. 2.
IV
No extension of O Shea and Rizzo is necessary to hold that respondent Lyons has failed to demonstrate a case or controversy with the City that would justify the equitable relief sought. Lyons’ standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers. Count V of the complaint alleged the traffic stop and choking incident five months before. That Lyons may have been illegally choked by the police on October 6, 1976, while presumably affording Lyons standing to claim damages against the individual officers and perhaps against the City, does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without any provocation or resistance on his part. The additional allegation in the complaint that the police in Los Angeles routinely apply chokeholds in situations where they are not threatened by the use of deadly force falls far short of the allegations that would be necessary to establish a case or controversy between these parties.
In order to establish an actual controversy in this case, Lyons would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los An-geles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner. Although Count V alleged that the City authorized the use of the control holds in situations where deadly force was not threatened, it did not indicate why Lyons might be realistically threatened by police officers who acted within the strictures of the City’s policy. If, for example, chokeholds were authorized to be used only to counter resistance to an arrest by a suspect, or to thwart an effort to escape, any future threat to Lyons from the City’s policy or from the conduct of police officers would be no more real than the possibility that he would again have an encounter with the police and that either he would illegally resist arrest or detention or the officers would disobey their instructions and again render him unconscious without any provocation.
Under O’Shea and Rizzo, these allegations were an insufficient basis to provide a federal court with jurisdiction to entertain Count V of the complaint. This was apparently the conclusion of the District Court in dismissing Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief. Although the District Court acted without opinion or findings, the Court of Appeals interpreted its action as based on lack of standing, i. e., that under O’Shea and Rizzo, Lyons must be held to have made an “insufficient showing that the police were likely to do this to the plaintiff again.” 615 F. 2d, at 1246. For several reasons — each of. them infirm, in our view — the Court of Appeals thought reliance on O’Shea and Rizzo was misplaced and reversed the District Court.
First, the Court of Appeals thought that Lyons was more immediately threatened than the plaintiffs in those cases since, according to the Court of Appeals, Lyons need only be stopped for a minor traffic violation to be subject to the strangleholds. But even assuming that Lyons would again be stopped for a traffic or other violation in the reasonably near future, it is untenable to assert, and the complaint made no such allegation, that strangleholds are applied by the Los Angeles police to every citizen who is stopped or arrested regardless of the conduct of the person stopped. We cannot agree that the “odds,” 615 F. 2d, at 1247, that Lyons would not only again be stopped for a traffic violation but would also be subjected to a chokehold without any provocation whatsoever are sufficient to make out a federal case for equitable relief. We note that five months elapsed between October 6, 1976, and the filing of the complaint, yet there was no allegation of further unfortunate encounters between Lyons and the police.
Of course, it may be that among the countless encounters between the police and the citizens of a great city such as Los Angeles, there will be certain instances in which strangleholds will be illegally applied and injury and death unconstitutionally inflicted on the victim. As we have said, however, it is no more than conjecture to suggest that in every instance of a traffic stop, arrest, or other encounter between the police and a citizen, the police will act unconstitutionally and inflict injury without provocation or legal excuse. And it is surely no more than speculation to assert either that Lyons himself will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances, or that he will be arrested in the future and provoke the use of a chokehold by resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or threatening deadly force or serious bodily injury.
Second, the Court of Appeals viewed O’Shea and Rizzo as cases in which the plaintiffs sought “massive structural” relief against the local law enforcement systems and therefore that the holdings in those cases were inapposite to cases such as this where the plaintiff, according to the Court of Appeals, seeks to enjoin only an “established,” “sanctioned” police practice assertedly violative of constitutional rights. O’Shea and Rizzo, however, cannot be so easily confined to their facts. If Lyons has made no showing that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of his experience of October 1976, then he has not met the requirements for seeking an injunction in a federal court, whether the injunction contemplates intrusive structural relief or the cessation of a discrete practice.
The Court of Appeals also asserted that Lyons “had a live and active claim” against the City “if only for a period of a few seconds” while the stranglehold was being applied to him and that for two reasons the claim had not become moot so as to disentitle Lyons to injunctive relief: First, because under normal rules of equity, a case does not become moot merely because the complained of conduct has ceased; and second, because Lyons’ claim is “capable of repetition but evading review” and therefore should be heard. We agree that Lyons had a live controversy with the City. Indeed, he still has a claim for damages against the City that appears to meet all Art. Ill requirements. Nevertheless, the issue here is not whether that claim has become moot but whether Lyons meets the preconditions for asserting an injunctive claim in a federal forum. The equitable doctrine that cessation of the challenged conduct does not bar an injunction is of little help in this respect, for Lyons’ lack of standing does not rest on the termination of the police practice but on the speculative nature of his claim that he will again experience injury as the result of that practice even if continued.
The rule that a claim does not become moot where it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, is likewise inapposite. Lyons’ claim that he was illegally strangled remains to be litigated in his suit for damages; in no sense does that claim “evade” review. Furthermore, the capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 319 (1974). As we have indicated, Lyons has not made this demonstration.
The record and findings made on remand do not improve Lyons’ position with respect to standing. The District Court, having been reversed, did not expressly address Lyons’ standing to seek injunctive relief, although the City was careful to preserve its position on this question. There was no finding that Lyons faced a real and immediate threat of again being illegally choked. The City’s policy was described as authorizing the use of the strangleholds “under circumstances where no one is threatened with death or grievous bodily harm.” That policy was not further described, but the record before the court contained the department’s existing policy with respect to the employment of chokeholds. Nothing in that policy, contained in a Police Department manual, suggests that the chokeholds, or other kinds of force for that matter, are authorized absent some resistance or other provocation by the arrestee or other suspect. On the contrary, police officers were instructed to use chokeholds only when lesser degrees of force do not suffice and then only “to gain control of a suspect who is violently resisting the officer or trying to escape.” App. 230.
Our conclusion is that the Court of Appeals failed to heed O’Shea, Rizzo, and other relevant authority, and that the District Court was quite right in dismissing Count V.
V
Lyons fares no better if it be assumed that his pending damages suit affords him Art. Ill standing to seek an injunction as a remedy for the claim arising out of the October 1976 events. The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again — a “likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 502. The speculative nature of Lyons’ claim of future injury requires a finding that this prerequisite of equitable relief has not been fulfilled.
Nor will the injury that Lyons allegedly suffered in 1976 go unrecompensed; for that injury, he has an adequate remedy at law. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, it is not at all “difficult” under our holding “to see how anyone can ever challenge police or similar administrative practices.” 615 F. 2d, at 1250. The legality of the violence to which Lyons claims he was once subjected is at issue in his suit for damages and can be determined there. -
Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles; and a federal court may not entertain a claim by .any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of law enforcement officers are unconstitutional. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975); Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974). This is not to suggest that such undifferentiated claims should not be taken seriously by local authorities. Indeed, the interest of an alert and interested citizen is an essential element of an effective and fair government, whether on the local, state, or national level. A federal court, however, is not the proper forum to press such claims unless the requirements for entry and the prerequisites for injunctive relief are satisfied.
We decline the invitation to slight the preconditions for equitable relief; for as we have held, recognition of the need for a proper balance between state and federal authority counsels restraint in the issuance of injunctions against state officers engaged in the administration of the States’ criminal laws in the absence of irreparable injury which is both great and immediate. O’Shea, supra, at 499; Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 46 (1971). Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972), held that suits brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 are exempt from the flat ban against the issuance of injunctions directed at state-court proceedings, 28 U. S. C. §2283. But this holding did not displace the normal principles of equity, comity, and federalism that should inform the judgment of federal courts when asked to oversee state law enforcement authorities. In exercising their equitable powers federal courts must recognize “[t]he special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 120 (1951); O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 500. See also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S., at 380; Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U. S. 392 (1963); Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U. S. 381 (1961); Pugach v. Dollinger, 365 U. S. 458 (1961). The Court of Appeals failed to apply these factors properly and therefore erred in finding that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering an injunction in this case.
As we noted in O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 503, withholding in-junctive relief does not mean that the “federal law will exercise no deterrent effect in these circumstances.” If Lyons has suffered an injury barred by the Federal Constitution, he has a remedy for damages under § 1983. Furthermore, those who deliberately deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights risk conviction under the federal criminal laws. Ibid.
Beyond these considerations the state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings. The individual States may permit their courts to use injunctions to oversee the conduct of law enforcement authorities on a continuing basis. But this is not the role of a federal court, absent far more justification than Lyons has proffered in this case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
The police control procedures at issue in this case are referred to as “control holds,” “chokeholds,” “strangleholds,” and “neck restraints.” All these terms refer to two basic control procedures: the “carotid” hold and the “bar arm” hold. In the “carotid” hold, an officer positioned behind a subject places one arm around the subject’s neck and holds the wrist of that arm with his other hand. The officer, by using his lower forearm and bicep muscle, applies pressure concentrating on the carotid arteries located on the sides of the subject’s neck. The “carotid” hold is capable of rendering the subject unconscious by diminishing the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain. The “bar arm” hold, which is administered similarly, applies pressure at the front of the subject’s neck. “Bar arm” pressure causes pain, reduces the flow of oxygen to the lungs, and may render the subject unconscious.
The order also gave judgment for the City on Count II insofar as that Count rested on the First and Eighth Amendments, as well as on Count VII, which sought a declaratory judgment that the City Attorney was not authorized to prosecute misdemeanor charges. It appears from the record on file with this Court that Counts III and IV had previously been dismissed on motion, although they reappeared in an amended complaint filed after remand from the Court of Appeals.
By its terms, the injunction was to continue in force until the court approved the training program to be presented to it. It is fair to assume that such approval would not be given if the program did not confine the use of the strangleholds to those situations in which their use, in the view of the District Court, would be constitutional. Because of successive stays entered by the Court of Appeals and by this Court, the injunction has not gone into effect.
The Board of Police Commissioners directed the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) staff to use and assess the effectiveness of alternative control techniques and report its findings to the Board every two months. Prior to oral argument in this case, two such reports had been submitted, but the Board took no further action. On November 9, 1982, the Board extended the moratorium until it had the “opportunity to review and evaluate” a third report from the Police Department. Insofar as we are advised, the third report has yet to be submitted.
Zwickler’s conviction was reversed on state-law grounds. 394 U. S., at 105.
The City states in its brief that on remand from the Court of Appeals’ first judgment “[t]he parties agreed and advised the district court that the respondent’s damages claim could be severed from his effort to obtain equitable relief.” Brief for Petitioner 8, n. 7. Respondent does not suggest otherwise. This case, therefore, as it came to us, is on all fours with O’Shea and should be judged as such.
The centerpiece of Justice Marshall’s dissent is that Lyons had standing to challenge the City’s policy because to recover damages he would have to prove that what allegedly occurred on October 6, 1976, was pursuant to city authorization. We agree completely that for Lyons to succeed in his damages action, it would be necessary to prove that what happened to him — that is, as alleged, he was choked without any provocation or legal excuse whatsoever — was pursuant to a city policy. For several reasons, however, it does not follow that Lyons had standing to seek the injunction prayed for in Count V.
First, Lyons alleges in Count II of his first amended complaint that on October 6, 1976, the officers were carrying out official policies of the City. That allegation was incorporated by reference in Count V. That policy, however, is described in paragraphs 20 and 23 of Count V as authorizing the use of chokeholds “in situations where [the officers] are threatened by far less than deadly force.” This is not equivalent to the unbelievable assertion that the City either orders or authorizes application of the choke-holds where there is no resistance or other provocation.
Second, even if such an allegation is thought to be contained in the complaint, it is belied by the record made on the application for preliminary injunction.
Third, even if the complaint must be read as containing an allegation that officers are authorized to apply the chokeholds where there is no resistance or other provocation, it does not follow that Lyons has standing to seek an injunction against the application of the restraint holds in situations that he has not experienced, as for example, where the suspect resists arrest or tries to escape but does not threaten the use of deadly force. Yet that is precisely the scope of the injunction that Lyons prayed for in Count V.
Fourth, and in any event, to have a case or controversy with the City that could sustain Count V, Lyons would have to credibly allege that he faced a realistic threat from the future application of the City’s policy. Justice Marshall nowhere confronts this requirement — the necessity that Lyons demonstrate that he, himself, will not only again be stopped by the police but will also be choked without any provocation or legal excuse. Justice Marshall plainly does not agree with that requirement, and he was in dissent in O’Shea v. Littleton. We are at issue in that respect.
As previously indicated, supra, at 98, Lyons alleged that he feared he would be choked in any future encounter with the police. The reasonableness of Lyons’ fear is dependent upon the likelihood of a recurrence of the allegedly unlawful conduct. It is the reality of the threat of repeated injury that is relevant to the standing inquiry, not the plaintiff’s subjective apprehensions. The emotional consequences of a prior act simply are not a sufficient basis for an injunction absent a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant. Of course, emotional upset is a relevant consideration in a damages action.
The dissent notes that a LAPD training officer stated that the police are authorized to employ the control holds whenever an officer “feels” that there is about to be a bodily attack. Post, at 118. The dissent’s emphasis on the word “feels” apparently is intended to suggest that LAPD officers are authorized to apply the holds whenever they “feel” like it. If there is a distinction between permitting the use of the holds when there is a “threat” of serious bodily harm, and when the officer “feels” or believes there is about to be a bodily attack, the dissent has failed to make it clear. The dissent does not, because it cannot, point to any written or oral pronouncement by the LAPD or any evidence showing a pattern of police behavior that would indicate that the official policy would permit the application of the control holds on a suspect who was not offering, or threatening to offer, physical resistance.
The City’s memorandum suggesting a question of mootness informed the Court that the use of the control holds had become “a major civic controversy” and that in April and May 1982 “a spirited, vigorous, and at times emotional debate” on the issue took place. The result was the current moratorium on the use of the holds.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Compact Clause of Art. I, § 10, cl. 3, of the Constitution provides: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power....” The Multistate Tax Compact, which established the Multistate Tax Commission, has not received congressional approval. This appeal requires us to decide whether the Compact is invalid for that reason. We also are required to decide whether it impermissibly encroaches on congressional power under the Commerce Clause and whether it operates in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
The Multistate Tax Compact was drafted in 1966 and became effective, according to its own terms, on August 4, 1967, after seven States had adopted it. By the inception of this litigation in 1972, 21 States had become members. Its formation was a response to this Court's decision in Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450 (1959), and the congressional activity that followed in its wake.
In Northwestern States, this Court held that net income from the interstate operations of a foreign corporation may be subjected to state taxation, provided that the levy is nondiscriminatory and is fairly apportioned to local activities that form a sufficient nexus to support the exercise of the taxing power. This prompted Congress to enact a statute, Act of Sept. 14, 1959, Pub. L. 86-272, 73 Stat. 555, which sets forth certain minimum standards for the exercise of that power. It also authorized a study for the purpose of recommending legislation establishing uniform standards to be observed by the States in taxing income of interstate businesses. Although the results of the study were published in 1964 and 1965, Congress has not enacted any legislation dealing with the subject.
While Congress was wrestling with the problem, the Multi-state Tax Compact was drafted. It symbolized the recognition that, as applied to multistate businesses, traditional state tax administration was inefficient and costly to both State and taxpayer." In accord with that recognition, Art. I of the Compact states four purposes: (1) facilitating proper determination of state and local tax liability of multistate taxpayers, including the equitable apportionment of tax bases and settlement of apportionment disputes; (2) promoting uniformity and compatibility in state tax systems; (3) facilitating taxpayer convenience and compliance in the filing of tax returns and in other phases of tax administration; and (4) avoiding duplicative taxation.
To these ends, Art. VI creates the Multistate Tax Commission, composed of the tax administrators from all the member States. Section 3 of Art. VI authorizes the Commission (i) to study state and local tax systems; (ii) to' develop and recommend proposals for an increase in uniformity and compatibility of state and local tax laws in order to encourage simplicity and improvement in state and local tax law and administration; (iii) to compile and publish information that may assist member States in implementing the Compact and taxpayers in complying with the tax laws; and (iv) to do all things necessary and incidental to the administration of its functions pursuant to the Compact.
Articles YII and VIII detail more specific powers of the Commission. Under Art. VII, the Commission may adopt uniform administrative regulations in the event that two or more States have uniform provisions relating to specified types of taxes. These regulations are advisory only. Each member State has the power to reject, disregard, amend, or modify any rules or regulations promulgated by the Commission. They have no force in any member State until adopted by that State in accordance with its own law.
Article VIII applies only in those States that specifically adopt it by statute. It authorizes any member State or its subdivision to request that the Commission perform an audit on its behalf. The Commission, as the State’s auditing agent, may seek compulsory process in aid of its auditing power in the courts of any State that has adopted Art. VIII. Information obtained by the audit may be disclosed only in accordance with the laws of the requesting State. Moreover, individual member States retain complete control over all legislation and administrative action affecting the rate of tax, the composition of the tax base (including the determination of the components of taxable income), and the means and methods of determining tax liability and collecting any taxes determined to be due.
Article X permits any party to withdraw from the Compact by enacting a repealing statute. The Compact’s other provisions are of less relevance to the matter before us.
In 1972, appellants brought this action on behalf of them-selves and all other multistate taxpayers threatened with audits by the Commission. They named the Commission, its individual Commissioners, and its Executive Director as defendants. Their complaint challenged the constitutionality of the Compact on four grounds: (1) the Compact, never having received the consent of Congress, is invalid under the Compact Clause; (2) it unreasonably burdens interstate commerce; (3) it violates the rights of multistate taxpayers under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) its audit provisions violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that the Compact is invalid and a permanent injunction barring its operation.
The complaint survived a motion to dismiss. 367 F. Supp. 107 (SDNY 1973). After extensive discovery, appellees moved for summary judgment. A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, rejected appellants' claim that the record would not support summary judgment. 417 F. Supp. 795, 798 (SDNY 1976). Turning to -the merits, the District Court first rejected the contention that the Compact Clause requires congressional consent to every agreement between two or more States. The court cited Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503 (1893), and New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U. S. 363 (1976), in support of its holding that consent is necessary only in the case of a compact that enhances the political power of the member States in relation to the Federal Government. The District Court found neither enhancement of state political power nor encroachment upon federal supremacy. Concluding that appellants’ Commerce Clause, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims also lacked merit, the District Court granted summary judgment for appellees.
Before this Court, appellants have abandoned their search- and-seizure claim. Although they preserved their claim relating to the propriety of summary judgment, we find no reason to disturb the conclusion of the court below on that point. We have before us, therefore, appellant’s contentions under the Compact Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment. We consider first the Compact Clause contention.
II
Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States. The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in Virginia v. Tennessee, supra. His conclusion that the Clause could not be read literally was approved in subsequent dicta, but this Court did not have occasion expressly to apply it in a holding until our recent decision in New Hampshire v. Maine, supra.
Appellants urge us to abandon Virginia v. Tennessee and New Hampshire v. Maine, but provide no effective alternative other than a literal reading of the Compact Clause. At this late date, we are reluctant to accept this invitation to circumscribe modes of interstate cooperation that do not enhance state power to the detriment of federal supremacy. We have examined, nevertheless, the origin and development of the Clause, to determine whether history lends controlling support to appellants’ position.
Article I, § 10, cl. 1, of the Constitution — the Treaty Clause — declares: “No State, shall enter into Any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation....” Yet Art. I, § 10, cl. 3 — the Compact Clause — permits the States to enter into “agrees ments” or “compacts,” so long as congressional consent is obtained. The Framers clearly perceived compacts and agreements as differing from treaties. The records of the Constitutional Convention, however, are barren of any clue as to the precise contours of the agreements and compacts governed by the Compact Clause. This suggests that the Framers used the words “treaty,” “compact,” and “agreement” as terms of art, for which no explanation was required and with which we are unfamiliar. Further evidence that the Framers ascribed precise meanings to these words appears in contemporary commentary.
Whatever distinct meanings the Framers attributed to the terms in Art. I, § 10, those meanings were soon lost. In 1833, Mr. Justice Story perceived no clear distinction among any of the terms. Lacking any clue as to the categorical definitions the Framers had ascribed to them, Mr. Justice Story-developed his own theory. Treaties, alliances, and confederations, he wrote, generally connote military and political accords and are forbidden to the States. Compacts and agreements, on the other hand, embrace “mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary; interests in land situate in the territory of each other; and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of States bordering on each other.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1403, p. 264 (T. Cooley ed. 1873.). In the latter situations, congressional consent was required, Story felt, “in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government.” Ibid.
The Court’s first opportunity to comment on the scope of the Compact Clause, Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 (1840), proved inconclusive. Holmes had been arrested in Vermont on a warrant issued by Jennison, the Governor. The warrant apparently reflected an informal agreement by Jennison to deliver Holmes to authorities in Canada, where he had been indicted for murder. On a petition for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court of Vermont held Holmes’ detention lawful. Although this Court divided evenly on the question of its jurisdiction to review the decision, Mr. Chief Justice Taney, in an opinion joined by Mr. Justice Story and two others, addressed the merits of Holmes’ claim that Jennison’s informal agreement to surrender him fell within the scope of the Compact Clause. Mr. Chief Justice Taney focused on the fact that the agreement in question was between a State and a foreign government. Since the clear intention of the Framers had been to cut off all communication between the States and foreign powers, id., at 568-579, he concluded that the Compact Clause would permit an arrangement such as the one at issue only if “made under the supervision of the United States...,” id., at 578. In his separate opinion, Mr. Justice Catron expressed disquiet over what he viewed as Mr. Chief Justice Taney’s literal reading of the Compact Clause, noting that it might threaten agreements between States theretofore considered lawful.
Despite Mr. Justice Catron’s fears, courts faced with the task of applying the Compact Clause appeared reluctant to strike down newly emerging forms of interstate cooperation. For example, in Union Branch R. Co. v. East Tennessee & G. R. Co., 14 Ga. 327 (1853), the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected a Compact Clause challenge to an agreement between Tennessee and Georgia concerning the construction of an interstate railroad. Omitting any mention of Holmes v. Jennison, the Georgia court seized upon Story’s observation that the words “treaty, alliance, and confederation” generally were known to apply to treaties of a political character. Without explanation, the court transferred this description of the Treaty Clause to the Compact Clause, which it perceived as restraining the power of the States only with respect to agreements “which might limit, or infringe upon a full and complete execution by the General Government, of the powers-intended to be delegated by the Federal Constitution... 14 Ga., at 339. A broader prohibition could not have been intended, since it was unnecessary to protect the Federal Government. Unless this view was taken, said the court:
“We must hold that a State, without the consent of Congress, can make no sort of contract, whatever, with another State. That it cannot sell to another state, any portion of public property,... though it may so sell to individuals....
“We can see no advantage to be gained by, or benefit in such a provision; and hence, we think it was not intended.” Id., at 340.
It was precisely this approach that formed the basis in 1893 for Mr. Justice Field's interpretation of the Compact Clause in Virginia v. Tennessee. In that case, the Court held that Congress tacitly had assented to the running of a boundary between the two States. In an extended dictum, however, Mr. Justice Field took the Court's first opportunity to comment upon the Compact Clause since the neglected essay in Holmes v. Jennison. Mr. Justice Field, echoing the puzzlement expressed by Story 60 years earlier, observed:
“The terms 'agreement' or 'compact' taken by themselves are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with, as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting States, so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control.” 148 U. S., at 517-518.
Mr., Justice Field followed with four examples of interstate agreements that could in “no respect concern the United States”: (1) an agreement by one State to purchase land within its borders owned by another State; (2) an agreement by one State to ship merchandise over a canal owned by another; (3) an agreement to drain a malarial district on the border between two States; and (4) an agreement to combat an immediate threat, such as invasion or epidemic. As the Compact Clause could not have been intended to reach every possible interstate agreement, it was necessary to construe the terms of the Compact Clause by reference to the object of the entire section in which it appears:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact’ or 'agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Id., at 519.
Mr. Justice Field reiterated this functional view of the Compact Clause a year later in Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 168-170 (1894).
Although this Court did not have occasion to apply Mr. Justice Field’s test for many years, it has been cited with approval on several occasions. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 17 (1900); Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 223, 246-248 (1900); North Carolina v. Tennessee, 235 U. S. 1, 16 (1914). Moreover, several decisions of this Court have upheld a variety of interstate agreements effected through reciprocal legislation without congressional consent. E. g., St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545 (1896); Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610 (1915); Bode v. Barrett, 344 U. S. 583 (1953); New York v. O’Neill, 359 U. S. 1 (1959). While none of these cases explicitly applied the Virginia v. Tennessee test, they reaffirmed its underlying assumption: not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact Clause. In O’Neill, for example, this Court upheld the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without the State in Criminal Proceedings, which had been enacted in 41 States and Puerto Rico. That statute permitted the judge of a court of any enacting State to invoke the process of the courts of a sister State for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses at criminal proceedings in the requesting State. Although no Compact Clause question was directly presented, the Court’s opinion touched upon similar concerns:
“The Constitution did not purport to exhaust imagination and resourcefulness in devising fruitful interstate relationships. It is not to be construed to limit the variety of arrangements which are possible through the voluntary and cooperative actions of individual States with a view to increasing harmony within the federalism created by the Constitution. Far from being divisive, this legislation is a catalyst of cohesion. It is within the unrestricted area of action left to the States by the Constitution.” 359 U. S., at 6.
The reciprocal-legislation cases support the soundness of the Virginia v. Tennessee rule, since the mere form of the interstate agreement cannot be dispositive. Agreements effected through reciprocal legislation may present opportunities for enhancement of state power at the expense of the federal supremacy similar to the threats inherent in a more formalized “compact.” Mr. Chief Justice Taney considered this point in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet., at 573:
“Can it be supposed, that the constitutionality of the act depends on the mere form of the agreement? We think not. The Constitution looked to the essence and substance of things, and not to mere form. It would be but an evasion of the constitution to place the question upon the formality with which the agreement is made.”
The Clause reaches both “agreements” and “compacts,” the formal as well as the informal. The relevant inquiry must be one of impact on our federal structure.
This was the status of the Virginia v. Tennessee test until two Terms ago, when we decided New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U. S. 363 (1976). In that case we specifically applied the test and held that an interstate agreement locating an ancient boundary did not require congressional consent. We reaffirmed Mr. Justice Field's view that the “application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are ‘directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.''' Id., at 369, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S., at 519. This rule states the proper balance between federal and state power with respect to compacts and agreements among States.
Appellants maintain that history constrains us to limit application of this rule to bilateral agreements involving no independent administrative body. They argue that this Court never has upheld a multilateral agreement creating an active administrative body with extensive powers delegated to it by the States, but lacking congressional consent. It is true that most multilateral compacts have been submitted for congressional approval. But this historical practice, which may simply reflect considerations of caution and convenience on the part of the submitting States, is not controlling. It is also true that the precise interstate mechanism involved in this case has not been presented to this Court before. New York v. O’Neill, supra, however, involving analogous multilateral arrangements, stands as an implicit rejection of appellants’ proposed limitation of the Virginia v. Tennessee rule.
Appellants further urge that the pertinent inquiry is one of potential, rather than actual, impact upon federal supremacy. We agree. But the multilateral nature of the agreement and its establishment of an ongoing administrative body do not, standing alone, present significant potential for conflict with the principles underlying the Compact Clause. The number of parties to an agreement is irrelevant if it does not impermis-sibly enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy. As to the powers delegated to the administrative body, we think these also must be judged in terms of enhancement of state power in relation to the Federal Government. See Virginia v. Tennessee, supra, at 520 (establishment of commission to run boundary not a “compact”). We turn, therefore, to the application of the Virginia v. Tennessee rule to the Compact before us.
Ill
On its face the Multistate Tax Compact contains no provisions that would enhance the political power of the member States in a way that encroaches upon the supremacy' of the United States. There well may be some incremental increase in the bargaining power of the member States quoad the corporations subject to their respective taxing jurisdictions. Group action in itself may be more influential than independent actions by the States. But the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quoad the National Government. This pact does not purport to authorize the member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence. Nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission; each State retains complete freedom to adopt or reject the rules and regulations of the Commission. Moreover, as noted above, each State is free to withdraw at any time. Despite this apparent compatibility of the Compact with the interpretation of the Clause established by our cases, appellants argue that the Compact’s effect is to threaten federal supremacy.
A
Appellants contend initially that the Compact encroaches upon federal supremacy with respect to interstate commerce. This argument, as we understand it, has four principal components. It is claimed, first, that the Commission’s use in its audits of “unitary business” and “combination of income” methods for determining a corporate taxpayer’s income creates a risk of multiple taxation for multistate businesses. Whether or not this risk is a real one, it cannot be attributed to the existence of the Multistate Tax Commission. When the Commission conducts an audit at the request of a member State, it uses the methods adopted by that State. Since appellants do not contest the right of each State to adopt these procedures if it conducted the audits separately, they cannot be heard to complain that a threat to federal supremacy arises from the Commission’s adoption of the unitary-business standard in accord with the wishes of the member States. Indeed, to the extent that the Commission succeeds in promoting uniformity in the application of state taxing principles, the risks of multiple taxation should be diminished.
Appellants’ second contention as to enhancement of state power over interstate commerce is that the Commission’s regulations provide for apportionment of nonbusiness income. This allegedly creates a substantial risk of multiple taxation, since other States are said to allocate this income to the place of commercial domicile. We note first that the regulations of the Commission do not require the apportionment of nonbusiness income. They do define business income, which is apportionable under the regulations, to include elements that might be regarded as nonbusiness income in some States. P-H State & Local Tax Serv. ¶¶ 6100-6286 (1973). But again there is no claim that the member States could not adopt similar definitions in the absence of the Compact. Any State’s ability to exact additional tax revenues from multistate businesses cannot be attributed to the Compact; it is the result of the State’s freedom to select, within constitutional limits, the method it prefers.
The third aspect of the Compact’s operation said to encroach upon federal commerce power involves the Commission’s requirement that multistate businesses under audit file data concerning affiliated corporations. Appellants argue that the costs of compiling financial data of related corporations burden the conduct of interstate commerce for the benefit of the taxing States. Since each State presumably could impose similar fifing requirements individually, however, appellants again do not show that the Commission’s practices, as auditing agent for member States, aggrandize their power or threaten federal control of commerce. Moreover, to the extent that the Commission is engaged in joint audits, appellants’ fifing burdens well may be reduced.
Appellants’ final claim of enhanced state power with respect to commerce is that the “enforcement powers” conferred upon the Commission enable that body to exercise authority over interstate business to a greater extent than the sum of the States’ authority acting individually. This claim also falls short of meeting the standard of Virginia v. Tennessee. Article VIII of the Compact authorizes the Commission to require the attendance of persons and the production of documents in connection with its audits. The Commission, however, has no power to punish failures to comply. It must resort to the courts for compulsory process, as would any auditing agent employed by the individual States. The only novel feature of the Commission’s “enforcement powers” is the provision in Art. VIII permitting the Commission to resort to the courts of any State adopting that Article. Adoption of the Article, then, amounts to nothing more than reciprocal legislation for providing mutual assistance to the auditors of the member States. Reciprocal legislation making the courts of one State available for the better administration of justice in another has been upheld by this Court as a method “to accomplish fruitful and unprohibited ends.” New York v. O’Neill, 359 U. S., at 11. Appellees make no showing that increased effectiveness in the administration of state tax laws, promoted by such legislation, threatens federal supremacy. See n. 21, supra.
B
Appellants further argue that the Compact encroaches upon the power of the United States with respect to foreign relations. They contend that the Commission has conducted multinational audits in which it applied the unitary business method to foreign corporate taxpayers, in conflict with federal policy concerning the taxation of foreign corporations.
This contention was not presented to the court below and in any event lacks substance. The existence of the Compact simply has no bearing on an individual State’s ability to utilize the unitary business method in determining the income of a particular multinational taxpayer. Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax. Comm’n, 266 U. S. 271 (1924). The Commission, as auditing agent, adopts the method only at the behest of a State requesting an audit. To the extent that its use contravenes any foreign policy of the United States, the facial validity of the Compact is not implicated.
C
Appellants’ final Compact Clause argument charges that the Compact impairs the sovereign rights of nonmember States. Appellants declare, without explanation, that if the use of the unitary business and combination methods continues to spread among the Western States, unfairness in taxation — presumably the risks of multiple taxation — will be avoidable only through the efforts of some coordinating body. Appellants cite the belief of the Commission’s Executive Director that the Commission represents the only available vehicle for effective coordination, and conclude that the Compact exerts undue pressure to join upon nonmember States in violation of their “sovereign right” to refuse.
We find no support for this conclusion. It has not been shown that any unfair taxation of multistate business resulting from the disparate use of combination and other methods will redound to the benefit of any particular group of States or to the harm of others. Even if the existence of such a situation were demonstrated, it could not be ascribed to the existence of the Compact. Each member State is free to adopt the auditing procedures it thinks best, just as it could if the Compact did not exist. Risks of unfairness and double taxation, then, are independent of the Compact.
Moreover, it is not explained how any economic pressure that does exist is an affront to the sovereignty of nonmember States. Any time a State adopts a fiscal or administrative policy that affects the programs of a sister State, pressure to modify those programs may result. Unless that pressure transgresses the bounds of the Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, see, e. g., Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U. S. 656 (1975), it is not clear how our federal structure is implicated. Appellants do not argue that an individual State's decision to apportion nonbusiness income — or to define business income broadly, as the regulations of the Commission actually do — -touches upon constitutional strictures. This being so, we are not persuaded that the same decision becomes a threat to the sovereignty of other States if a member State makes this decision upon the Commission's recommendation.
IY
Appellants further challenge, on relatively narrow grounds, the validity of the Multistate Tax Compact under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. They allege that the Commission has abused its powers by conducting a campaign of harassment against members of the plaintiff class. Specifically, they claim that the Commission induced eight States to issue burdensome requests for production of documents and to deviate from the provisions of state law by issuing arbitrary assessments against taxpayers who refuse to comply with these harassing production orders.
These allegations do not establish that the Compact is in violation either of the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. We observe first that this contention was not presented to the court below. The only evidence of record relating to the allegations are statements in the affidavit of appellants’ counsel and an ambiguous excerpt from a letter of the Commission to the Director of Taxation of the State of Hawaii, quoted therein. App. 51-53. On this fragile basis, we hardly would be justified in making an initial finding of fact that appellees engaged in the campaign sketched in the affidavit.
Even if appellants’ factual allegations were supported by the record, they would be irrelevant to the facial validity of the Compact. As we have noted above, it is only the individual State, not the Commission, that has the power to issue an assessment — whether arbitrary or not. If the assessment violates state law, we must assume that state remedies are available. E. g., Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Dorgan, 225 N. W. 2d 278 (N. D. 1974).
Y
We conclude that appellants’ constitutional challenge to the Multistate Tax Compact fails. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Affirmed.
Those States were: Alaska, Alaska Stat. Ann. §43.19.010 (1977); Arkansas, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-4101 (Supp. 1977); Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-60-1301 (1973); Florida, Fla. Stat. §213.15 (1971); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 255-1 (Supp. 1976); Idaho, Idaho Code § 63-3701 (1976); Illinois, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 871 (1973); Indiana, Ind. Code § 6-8-9-101 (1972); Kansas, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-4301 (1969); Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §205.581 (1970); Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. §32.200 (1969); Montana, Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 84-6701 (Supp. 1977); Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat. §77-2901 (1943); Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. §376.010 (1973); New Mexico, N. M. Stat. Ann. § 72-15A-37 (Supp. 1975); North Dakota, N. D. Cent. Code §57-59-01 (1972); Oregon, Ore. Rev. Stat. § 305.655 (1977); Texas, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 7359a (Vernon Supp. 1977); Utah, Utah Code Ann. §59-22-1 (1953 and Supp. 1977); Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 82.56.010 (1974); Wyoming, Wyo. Stat. §39-376 (Supp. 1975).
Since the suit began, four States — Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Wyoming — have withdrawn from the Compact, see 1976 Fla. Laws, ch. 76-149, § 1; 1975 HI. Laws, No. 79-639, § 1; 1977 Ind. Acts, No. 90; 1977 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 44, § 1. Two others — California and South Dakota— have joined it, see Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 38001 (West Supp. 1977); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 10-54r-l (Supp. 1977), for a current total of 19 members.
Title I of Pub. L. 86-272, codified as 15 U. S. C. §§ 381-384, essentially forbids the imposition of a tax on a foreign corporation’s net income derived from activities within a State, if those activities are limited to the solicitation of orders that are approved, filled, and shipped from a point outside the State.
H. R. Rep. No. 1480, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); H. R. Rep. No. 565, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); H. R. Rep. No. 952, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
There have been several unsuccessful attempts. H. R. 11798, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); H. R. 16491, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); S. 317, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H. R. 1538, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); S. 1245, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973); H. R. 977, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973); S. 2080, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); H. R. 9, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
The model Act proposed as the Multistate Tax Compact, with minor exceptions, has been adopted by each member State.
Article II consists of definitions. Article III permits small taxpayers— those whose only activities within the jurisdiction consist of sales totaling less than $100,000 — to elect to pay a tax on gross sales in lieu of a levy on net income. The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, contained in Art. IV, allows multistate taxpayers to apportion and allocate their income under formulae and rules set forth in the Compact or by any other method available under state law. It was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association in 1957. Article V deals with sales and use taxes. Article IX provides for arbitration of disputes, but is not in effect. Article XI disclaims any attempt to affect the power of member States to fix rates of taxation or limit the jurisdiction of any court. Finally, Art. XII provides for liberal construction and severability.
The action was filed by United States Steel Corp., Standard Brands Inc., General Mills, Inc., and the Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. On February 5, 1974, the court below permitted Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bristol Myers Co., Eltra Corp., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Green Giant Co., International Business Machines Corp., International Harvester Co., International Paper Co., International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., McGraw-Hill, Inc., NL Industries, Inc., Union Carbide Corp., and Xerox Corp. to intervene as plaintiffs. The court below ordered that the suit proceed as a class action. International Business Machines and Xerox withdrew as intervenor plaintiffs before decision.
Congressional consent has been sought, but never obtained. See S. 3892, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); S. 883, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); S. 1551, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); H. R. 9476, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); H. R. 13682, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); S. 1198, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969); H. R. 624
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Mary Ann Sause, proceeding pro se, filed this action under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and named as defendants past and present members of the Louisburg, Kansas, police department, as well as the current mayor and a former mayor of the town. The centerpiece of her complaint was the allegation that two of the town's police officers visited her apartment in response to a noise complaint, gained admittance to her apartment, and then proceeded to engage in a course of strange and abusive conduct, before citing her for disorderly conduct and interfering with law enforcement. Among other things, she alleged that at one point she knelt and began to pray but one of the officers ordered her to stop. She claimed that a third officer refused to investigate her complaint that she had been assaulted by residents of her apartment complex and had threatened to issue a citation if she reported this to another police department. In addition, she alleged that the police chief failed to follow up on a promise to investigate the officers' conduct and that the present and former mayors were aware of unlawful conduct by the town's police officers.
Petitioner's complaint asserted a violation of her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and her Fourth Amendment right to be free of any unreasonable search or seizure. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, arguing that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Petitioner then moved to amend her complaint, but the District Court denied that motion and granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, petitioner, now represented by counsel, argued only that her free exercise rights were violated by the two officers who entered her home. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. 859 F.3d 1270 (2017). Chief Judge Tymkovich filed a concurring opinion. While agreeing with the majority regarding petitioner's First Amendment claim, he noted that petitioner's "allegations fit more neatly in the Fourth Amendment context." Id., at 1279. He also observed that if the allegations in the complaint are true, the conduct of the officers "should be condemned," and that if the allegations are untrue, petitioner had "done the officers a grave injustice." Ibid.
The petition filed in this Court contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the officers who visited petitioner's home are entitled to qualified immunity. The petition argues that it was clearly established that law enforcement agents violate a person's right to the free exercise of religion if they interfere, without any legitimate law enforcement justification, when a person is at prayer. The petition further maintains that the absence of a prior case involving the unusual situation alleged to have occurred here does not justify qualified immunity.
There can be no doubt that the First Amendment protects the right to pray. Prayer unquestionably constitutes the "exercise" of religion. At the same time, there are clearly circumstances in which a police officer may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place. For example, if an officer places a suspect under arrest and orders the suspect to enter a police vehicle for transportation to jail, the suspect does not have a right to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the First Amendment. When an officer's order to stop praying is alleged to have occurred during the course of investigative conduct that implicates Fourth Amendment rights, the First and Fourth Amendment issues may be inextricable.
That is the situation here. As the case comes before us, it is unclear whether the police officers were in petitioner's apartment at the time in question based on her consent, whether they had some other ground consistent with the Fourth Amendment for entering and remaining there, or whether their entry or continued presence was unlawful. Petitioner's complaint contains no express allegations on these matters. Nor does her complaint state what, if anything, the officers wanted her to do at the time when she was allegedly told to stop praying. Without knowing the answers to these questions, it is impossible to analyze petitioner's free exercise claim.
In considering the defendants' motion to dismiss, the District Court was required to interpret the pro se complaint liberally, and when the complaint is read that way, it may be understood to state Fourth Amendment claims that could not properly be dismissed for failure to state a claim. We appreciate that petitioner elected on appeal to raise only a First Amendment argument and not to pursue an independent Fourth Amendment claim, but under the circumstances, the First Amendment claim demanded consideration of the ground on which the officers were present in the apartment and the nature of any legitimate law enforcement interests that might have justified an order to stop praying at the specific time in question. Without considering these matters, neither the free exercise issue nor the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity can be resolved. Thus, petitioner's choice to abandon her Fourth Amendment claim on appeal did not obviate the need to address these matters.
For these reasons, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari; we reverse the judgment of the Tenth Circuit; and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Here as in United States v. Armour & Co., 398 U. S. 268, we have been asked to determine if the Meat Packers Consent Decree of 1920, which prohibits Armour & Co. from dealing directly or indirectly in certain specified commodities, prohibits a corporation that may deal in some of those specified commodities from acquiring a controlling interest in Armour. When this decree was here last Term the Government was seeking to prevent General Host, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of food products, from acquiring control of Armour. While that case was pending, General Host agreed to sell its interest in Armour to Greyhound Corp., a regulated motor carrier. After the required approval was obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the transaction was consummated. This Court then dismissed the action against General Host as moot. 398 U. S. 268.
The Government then proceeded against Greyhound as it had against General Host and filed a petition in the District Court alleging that Greyhound’s engagement in businesses forbidden to Armour or any firm in which Armour has a direct or indirect interest, and that Greyhound’s ownership of Armour create a relationship forbidden by the 1920 Consent Decree. The District Court, as it had when General Host’s ownership of Armour was at issue, held that the Consent Decree did not prohibit such acquisitions. The Government appealed.
This case does not involve the question whether the acquisition of a majority of Armour stock by Greyhound is illegal under the antitrust laws. If the Government had wished to test that proposition, it could have brought an action to enjoin the acquisition Under § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 18. Alternatively, if the Government believed that changed conditions warranted further relief against the acquisition, it could have sought modification of the Meat Packers Decree itself. It took neither of those steps, but, rather, sought to enjoin the acquisition under the decree as originally written. Thus the case presents only the narrow question whether ownership of a majority of stock in Armour by a company that engages in business forbidden to Armour by the decree, in itself and without any evidentiary showing as to the consequences, violates the prohibition against Armour's “directly or indirectly . . . engaging in or carrying on” that forbidden business.
On February 27, 1920, the United States filed a bill in equity against the Nation’s five largest meatpackers, including Armour, and against their subsidiary corporations and controlling stockholders, charging conspiratorial and individual attempts to monopolize a substantial part of the Nation’s food supply. The bill alleged that the packers, from their initial position of power in the slaughtering and packing business, had acquired control of the Nation’s stockyards, stockyard terminal rail lines, refrigerated rolling stock, and cold storage facilities, and that they had used predatory practices to eliminate competition in the food business.
The bill further alleged that the packers, having gained monopoly power in the meat business, were attempting to destroy competition in products which might be substituted for meat. That objective was being pursued through the acquisition of nonmeat food companies and by means of exclusive output contracts with suppliers. The prayer for relief sought, along with other prohibitions against the defendants’ attempts to monopolize, the divestiture of most of their nonpacking operations and the permanent exclusion of them from the substitute food business.
On the same day as the complaint was filed, defendants filed their answer, denying its essential allegations, and both sides filed a stipulation to a consent decree, granting the Government the largest part of the relief it had sought. Paragraph Fourth of the decree enjoined the corporate defendants, including Armour, from “either directly or indirectly, by themselves or through their officers, directors, agents, or servants, engaging in or carrying on, either by concert of action or otherwise . . . the manufacturing, jobbing, selling . . . distributing, or otherwise dealing in” a long list of food and other products sold by grocery stores. Paragraph Fourth further enjoined the corporate defendants from “owning, either directly or indirectly . . . any capital stock or other interests whatsoever” in any business which dealt in these commodities.
Paragraph Eighteenth of the decree provided that the court should retain jurisdiction of the case “for the purpose of taking such other action or adding to the foot of this decree such other relief, if any, as may become necessary or appropriate for the carrying out and enforcement of this decree.”
Since 1920, the decree has withstood a motion to vacate it in its entirety, Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311 (1928), and two attempts on the part of the defendants to have it modified in light of alleged changed circumstances. United States v. Swift Co., 286 U. S. 106 (1932); United States v. Swift & Co., 189 F. Supp. 885, 892 (ND Ill. 1960), aff’d, 367 U. S. 909 (1961). Thus the decree stood at the time this case arose, and still stands, as originally written.
The Government does not contend that Greyhound’s acquisition of controlling interest in Armour subjects Greyhound to punishment for contempt since it was not a party to the decree. Nor does the Government contend that Greyhound has acted “in active concert or participation with” a party. Instead, the Government argues that Greyhound should have been brought before the District Court, which retained permanent jurisdiction over the decree, pursuant to § 5 of the Sherman Act, and be enjoined from acting to exercise control over or influence the business affairs of Armour, and be required to divest itself of the Armour stock.
The contention is that the acquisition violates the decree since it causes Armour to be engaged in activities prohibited by the decree. The claim is that Greyhound is engaged in businesses that the decree prohibits Armour from being engaged in and the decree's purported purpose of separating the meatpackers from the retail food business is thus circumvented.
But while structural separation of this kind may have been the Government’s overall aim, the decree itself, carefully worked out between the parties in exchange for their right to litigate the issues, does not effect a complete separation, but, rather, prohibits particular actions and relationships not including the one here in question. The crucial provision, Paragraph Fourth, forbids the corporate defendants from “engaging in or carrying on” commerce in the enumerated product lines. This language, taken in its natural sense, bars only active conduct on the part of the defendants. Thus Armour could not trade in these products, either under its own corporate form, or through its “officers, directors, agents, or servants.” The entry of Armour into the grocery business through subsidiaries is clearly and Draconically prevented by the separate provision of Paragraph Fourth forbidding the defendant meatpackers from owning “any . . . interests whatsoever” in a firm trading in the enumerated commodities. In the Government’s view these prohibitions also bar Armour from having any ownership relationship with corporations like Greyhound. The Government contends that Armour has an obligation not to engage directly or indirectly in legal or economic association with firms in the retail food business. It refers to the prohibited relationship between Armour and Greyhound.
But the decree does not speak in terms of relationships in general, but, rather, prohibits certain behavior, and in doing so prohibits some but not all economic interrelationship between Armour and the retail food business. Armour may not carry on or engage in that business, nor may it acquire any interest in any firm in that business, but there is no prohibition against selling any interest to a grocery firm, or more generally against entering into an ownership relationship with such a firm. If the parties had agreed to such a prohibition, they could have chosen language that would have established the sort of prohibition that the Government now seeks.
If the parties had agreed to prohibit the kind of transaction here involved, that end could also have been accomplished through the provision of the decree running against the stockholders of the defendant meat-packers. Many of the controlling stockholders were defendants in the 1920 action, and the decree prohibits certain conduct on their part in Paragraph Fifth. That paragraph prohibits the individual defendants from owning a half interest or more in any firm engaged in the product lines enumerated in Paragraph Fourth. This prohibition, through its negative implications, refutes the Government’s argument that the decree established a complete structural separation between the defendant corporations and the retail food business. For it allows a controlling stockholder of a meatpacker to own a controlling, though not a majority, interest in a grocery firm — say 49% of the common stock, a figure which in all but the most unusual corporate situation would represent de facto control.
Perhaps more important, the prohibitions of Paragraph Fifth run only against the named stockholders and not against their successors and assigns. If a “successors and assigns” clause had been included, the Government could argue with some persuasiveness that ownership of a meatpacker by a controlling interest in a retail food firm was prohibited. And the parties were able to use the words “successors and assigns” when they wanted to. Paragraph Third, which prohibits the corporate defendants from using their distribution facilities to handle the commodities named in Paragraph Fourth, expressly runs against the corporations and their “successors and assigns.”
In short, we do not find in the decree a structural separation such as the Government claims. On the one hand, the decree leaves gaps inconsistent with so complete a separation; on the other, language that would have been apt either to create a complete separation or tJbar with particularity^ the sort of transaction involved here was not used.
Stepping back from this analysis of the terms of the 1920 decree, we are confronted with the Government’s argument that to allow Greyhound to take over Armour would allow the same kind of anticompetitive evils that the 1920 suit was brought to prevent. In its 1920 suit, the Government sought to insulate the large meatpackers from the grocery business, both to prevent the destruction of competition in that business, and to prevent consolidation of the packers’ monopoly control of the meat business by controlling commerce in products that might be substitutes for meat. Those purposes, the Government says, are frustrated as much by a retail food company’s acquisition of a meatpacker as they would be by a meatpacker’s entry into the retail food business.
This argument would have great force if addressed to a court that had the responsibility for formulating original relief in this case, after the factual and legal issues raised by the pleadings had been litigated. It might be a persuasive argument for modifying the original decree, after full litigation, on a claim that unforeseen circumstances now made additional relief desirable to prevent the evils aimed at by the original complaint. Here, however, where we deal with the construction of an existing consent decree, such an argument is out of place.
Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms. The parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation. Naturally, the agreement reached normally embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might have won had they proceeded with the litigation. Thus the decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve. For these reasons, the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. Because the defendant has, by the decree, waived his right to litigate the issues raised, a right guaranteed to him by the Due Process Clause, the conditions upon which he has given that waiver must be respected, and the instrument must be construed as it is written, and not as it might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.
This Court has recognized these principles before. In Hughes v. United States, 342 U. S. 353 (1952), the Government sought to construe a consent decree that gave the defendant the option of selling his stock or putting it in a voting trust as requiring him to sell the stock within a reasonable time even though he chose the voting trust alternative, because the pro-competitive purpose of the decree would otherwise be frustrated. The Court responded:
“It may be true as the Government now contends that Hughes’ large block of ownership in both types of companies endangers the independence of each. Evidence might show that a sale by Hughes is indispensable if competition is to be preserved. However, in section V the parties and the District Court provided their own detailed plan to neutralize the evils from such ownership. Whatever justification there may be now or hereafter for new terms that require a sale of Hughes’ stock, we think there is no fair support for reading that requirement into the language of section V.” 342 U. S., at 357.
In United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 360 U. S. 19 (1959), the Government sought an order limiting the dividends payable by common carriers to shipper-owners, under a consent decree that allowed such dividends to be paid according to a stated formula. Noting that the language in which the formula was expressed could “be made to support the United States’ contention,” but characterizing that construction as “strained,” 360 U. S., at 22, the Court stated:
“The Government contends that the interpretation it now offers would more nearly effectuate ‘the basic purpose of the Elkins and Interstate Commerce Acts that carriers are to treat all shippers alike.’ This may be true. But it does not warrant our substantially changing the terms of a decree to which the parties consented without any adjudication of the issues.” Id., at 23.
And here too, although the relief the Government seeks may be in keeping with the purposes of the antitrust laws, we do not believe that it is supported by the terms of the consent decree under which it is sought.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or the decision of this case.
The Government claims that two of Greyhound’s wholly owned subsidiaries are engaged in the retail food business. Prophet Foods Co., an industrial catering company, operates eating facilities in industrial plants, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other commercial establishments. In 1968 Prophet’s sales were in excess of $77 million. Post Houses, Inc., operates restaurants in bus stations and at rest and meal stop locations. Post Houses had sales in excess of $33 million in 1968.
See Chrysler Corp. v. United, States, 316 U. S. 556 (1942); and see generally Note, Flexibility and Finality in Antitrust Consent Decrees, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1303 (1967).
Paragraph Eighth made identical provisions with respect to certain dairy commodities.
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65 (d) provides:
“Every order granting an injunction ... is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.”
Section 5 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 210, 15 U. S. C. § 5, provides:
“Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 4 of this title may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.”
That portion of Paragraph Fourth provides:
“[T]he corporation defendants and each of them be, and they are hereby, further perpetually enjoined and restrained from owning, either directly or indirectly, severally or jointly, by themselves or through their officers, directors, agents, or servants any capital stock or other interests whatsoever in any corporation, firm, or association except common carriers, which is in the business, in the United States, of manufacturing, jobbing, selling, transporting, except as common carriers, distributing, or otherwise dealing in any of the above-described products or commodities.”
The Government contends that Paragraph Fourth prohibits Armour from having “any . . . interests whatsoever” in firms engaged in the prohibited businesses and that Armour as a subsidiary of Greyhound has an “interest” in the other Greyhound subsidiaries that are engaged in the retail food business. But Paragraph Fourth does not prohibit Armour from having any interest; it prohibits Armour from “owning” an interest. See n. 6, supra. Clearly, Armour has nothing approaching an ownership interest in Greyhound or Greyhound’s subsidiaries.
Paragraph Fifth provides:
“That the individual defendants and each of them, be, and they are hereby, perpetually enjoined and restrained from, in the United States, either directly or indirectly, by themselves or through their agents, servants, or employees, owning voting stock which in the aggregate amounts to 50% or more of the voting stock of any corporation, except common carriers, or any interest in such corporation resulting in a voting power amounting to 50 per cent or more of the total voting power of such corporation, or which interest by any device gives to any such defendant or defendants a voting power of 50 per cent or more in any such corporation, or a half interest or more in any firm or association which corporation, firm, or association may be, in the United States, in the business of manufacturing, jobbing, selling, transporting, distributing, or otherwise dealing in . . . [specified products].”
See sources cited in n. 2, supra.
Cf. Note, Flexibility and Finality, n. 2, supra, at 1314-1315.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Only the people's elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them. Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements. They hand off the legislature's responsibility for defining criminal behavior to unelected prosecutors and judges, and they leave people with no sure way to know what consequences will attach to their conduct. When Congress passes a vague law, the role of courts under our Constitution is not to fashion a new, clearer law to take its place, but to treat the law as a nullity and invite Congress to try again.
Today we apply these principles to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That statute threatens long prison sentences for anyone who uses a firearm in connection with certain other federal crimes. But which other federal crimes? The statute's residual clause points to those felonies "that by [their] nature, involv[e] a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." § 924(c)(3)(B). Even the government admits that this language, read in the way nearly everyone (including the government) has long understood it, provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague. So today the government attempts a new and alternative reading designed to save the residual clause. But this reading, it turns out, cannot be squared with the statute's text, context, and history. Were we to adopt it, we would be effectively stepping outside our role as judges and writing a new law rather than applying the one Congress adopted.
I
After Maurice Davis and Andre Glover committed a string of gas station robberies in Texas, a federal prosecutor charged both men with multiple counts of robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. The prosecutor also charged Mr. Davis with being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the end, a jury acquitted Mr. Davis of one robbery charge and otherwise found the men guilty on all counts. And these convictions, none of which are challenged here, authorized the court to impose prison sentences of up to 70 years for Mr. Davis and up to 100 years for Mr. Glover.
But that was not all. This appeal concerns additional charges the government pursued against the men under § 924(c). That statute authorizes heightened criminal penalties for using or carrying a firearm "during and in relation to," or possessing a firearm "in furtherance of," any federal "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime." § 924(c)(1)(A). The statute proceeds to define the term "crime of violence" in two subparts-the first known as the elements clause, and the second the residual clause. According to § 924(c)(3), a crime of violence is "an offense that is a felony" and
"(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
"(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense."
Violators of § 924(c) face a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, over and above any sentence they receive for the underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. The minimum sentence rises to 7 years if the defendant brandishes the firearm and 10 years if he discharges it. Certain types of weapons also trigger enhanced penalties-for example, a defendant who uses a short-barreled shotgun faces a minimum sentence of 10 years. And repeat violations of § 924(c) carry a minimum sentence of 25 years.
At trial, the government argued that Mr. Davis and Mr. Glover had each committed two separate § 924(c) violations by brandishing a short-barreled shotgun in connection with their crimes. Here, too, the jury agreed. These convictions yielded a mandatory minimum sentence for each man of 35 years, which had to run consecutively to their other sentences. Adding the § 924(c) mandatory minimums to its discretionary sentences for their other crimes, the district court ultimately sentenced Mr. Glover to more than 41 years in prison and Mr. Davis to more than 50 years.
On appeal, both defendants argued that § 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. At first, the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument. United States v. Davis, 677 Fed.Appx. 933, 936 (2017) (per curiam ). But after we vacated its judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of our decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018), striking down a different, almost identically worded statute, the court reversed course and held § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional. 903 F.3d 483, 486 (2018) (per curiam ). It then held that Mr. Davis's and Mr. Glover's convictions on one of the two § 924(c) counts, the one that charged robbery as a predicate crime of violence, could be sustained under the elements clause. But it held that the other count, which charged conspiracy as a predicate crime of violence, depended on the residual clause; and so it vacated the men's convictions and sentences on that count.
Because the Fifth Circuit's ruling deepened a dispute among the lower courts about the constitutionality of § 924(c)'s residual clause, we granted certiorari to resolve the question. 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 782, 202 L.Ed.2d 511 (2018).
II
Our doctrine prohibiting the enforcement of vague laws rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. See Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1212-1213 (plurality opinion); id., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1224-1228 (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Vague laws contravene the "first essential of due process of law" that statutes must give people "of common intelligence" fair notice of what the law demands of them. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926) ; see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510 (1914). Vague laws also undermine the Constitution's separation of powers and the democratic self-governance it aims to protect. Only the people's elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to "make an act a crime." United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people's ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-358, and n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89-91, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921) ; United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1876).
In recent years, this Court has applied these principles to two statutes that bear more than a passing resemblance to § 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause. In Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the Court addressed the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which defined a "violent felony" to include offenses that presented a "serious potential risk of physical injury to another." § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The ACCA's residual clause required judges to use a form of what we've called the "categorical approach" to determine whether an offense qualified as a violent felony. Following the categorical approach, judges had to disregard how the defendant actually committed his crime. Instead, they were required to imagine the idealized " 'ordinary case' " of the defendant's crime and then guess whether a "'serious potential risk of physical injury to another' " would attend its commission. Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2557. Johnson held this judicial inquiry produced "more unpredictability and arbitrariness" when it comes to specifying unlawful conduct than the Constitution allows. Id., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2558-2559
Next, in Sessions v. Dimaya, we considered the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 16, which defines a "crime of violence" for purposes of many federal statutes. Like § 924(c)(3), § 16 contains an elements clause and a residual clause. The only difference is that § 16's elements clause, unlike § 924(c)(3)'s elements clause, isn't limited to felonies; but there's no material difference in the language or scope of the statutes' residual clauses. As with the ACCA, our precedent under § 16's residual clause required courts to use the categorical approach to determine whether an offense qualified as a crime of violence. Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1211-1212 ; see Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7, 10, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004). And, again as with the ACCA, we held that § 16's residual clause was unconstitutionally vague because it required courts "to picture the kind of conduct that the crime involves in the ordinary case, and to judge whether that abstraction presents some not-well-specified-yet-sufficiently-large degree of risk." Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1216 (internal quotation marks omitted).
What do Johnson and Dimaya have to say about the statute before us? Those decisions teach that the imposition of criminal punishment can't be made to depend on a judge's estimation of the degree of risk posed by a crime's imagined "ordinary case." But does § 924(c)(3)(B) require that sort of inquiry? The government and lower courts have long thought so. For years, almost everyone understood § 924(c)(3)(B) to require exactly the same categorical approach that this Court found problematic in the residual clauses of the ACCA and § 16. Today, the government acknowledges that, if this understanding is correct, then § 924(c)(3)(B) must be held unconstitutional too.
But the government thinks it has now found a way around the problem. In the aftermath of our decisions holding the residual clauses of the ACCA and § 16(b) unconstitutionally vague, the government "abandon[ed] its longstanding position" that § 924(c)(3)(B) requires a categorical analysis and began urging lower courts to "adopt a new 'case specific' method" that would look to "the 'defendant's actual conduct' in the predicate offense." 903 F.3d at 485. Now, the government tries the same strategy in this Court, asking us to abandon the traditional categorical approach and hold that the statute actually commands the government's new case-specific approach. So, while the consequences in this case may be of constitutional dimension, the real question before us turns out to be one of pure statutory interpretation.
In approaching the parties' dispute over the statute's meaning, we begin by acknowledging that the government is right about at least two things. First, a case-specific approach would avoid the vagueness problems that doomed the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya. In those cases, we recognized that there would be no vagueness problem with asking a jury to decide whether a defendant's "'real-world conduct' " created a substantial risk of physical violence. Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1215-1216 ; see Johnson, 576 U.S., at ----, ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2558, 2561. Second, a case-specific approach wouldn't yield the same practical and Sixth Amendment complications under § 924(c) that it would have under the ACCA or § 16. Those other statutes, in at least some of their applications, required a judge to determine whether a defendant's prior conviction was for a "crime of violence" or "violent felony." In that context, a case-specific approach would have entailed "reconstruct[ing], long after the original conviction, the conduct underlying that conviction." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2652. And having a judge, not a jury, make findings about that underlying conduct would have "raise[d] serious Sixth Amendment concerns." Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 269-270, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). By contrast, a § 924(c) prosecution focuses on the conduct with which the defendant is currently charged. The government already has to prove to a jury that the defendant committed all the acts necessary to punish him for the underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. So it wouldn't be that difficult to ask the jury to make an additional finding about whether the defendant's conduct also created a substantial risk that force would be used.
But all this just tells us that it might have been a good idea for Congress to have written a residual clause for § 924(c) using a case-specific approach. It doesn't tell us whether Congress actually wrote such a clause. To answer that question, we need to examine the statute's text, context, and history. And when we do that, it becomes clear that the statute simply cannot support the government's newly minted case-specific theory.
III
A
Right out of the gate, the government faces a challenge. This Court, in a unanimous opinion, has already read the nearly identical language of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) to mandate a categorical approach. And, importantly, the Court did so without so much as mentioning the practical and constitutional concerns described above. Instead, the Court got there based entirely on the text. In Leocal, the Court wrote:
"In determining whether petitioner's conviction falls within the ambit of § 16, the statute directs our focus to the 'offense' of conviction. See § 16(a) (defining a crime of violence as 'an offense that has as an element the use... of physical force against the person or property of another' (emphasis added)); § 16(b) (defining the term as 'any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense' (emphasis added)). This language requires us to look to the elements and the nature of the offense of conviction, rather than to the particular facts relating to petitioner's crime." 543 U.S. at 7, 125 S.Ct. 377.
Leocal went on to suggest that burglary would always be a crime of violence under § 16(b) "because burglary, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that the burglar will use force against a victim in completing the crime," regardless of how any particular burglar might act on a specific occasion. Id., at 10, 125 S.Ct. 377 (emphasis added); see also Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1217 (plurality opinion) (reaffirming that " § 16(b)'s text... demands a categorical approach"). And what was true of § 16(b) seems to us at least as true of § 924(c)(3)(B) : It's not even close; the statutory text commands the categorical approach.
Consider the word "offense." It's true that "in ordinary speech," this word can carry at least two possible meanings. It can refer to "a generic crime, say, the crime of fraud or theft in general," or it can refer to "the specific acts in which an offender engaged on a specific occasion." Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33-34, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009). But the word "offense" appears just once in § 924(c)(3), in the statute's prefatory language. And everyone agrees that, in connection with the elements clause, the term "offense" carries the first, "generic" meaning. Cf. id., at 36, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (similar language of the ACCA's elements clause "refers directly to generic crimes"). So reading this statute most naturally, we would expect "offense" to retain that same meaning in connection with the residual clause. After all, "[i]n all but the most unusual situations, a single use of a statutory phrase must have a fixed meaning." Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, 587 U.S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 1507, 1512, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2019).
To prevail, the government admits it must persuade us that the singular term "offense" bears a split personality in § 924(c), carrying the "generic" meaning in connection with the elements clause but then taking on the "specific act" meaning in connection with the residual clause. And, the government suggests, this isn't quite as implausible as it may sound; sometimes the term "offense" can carry both meanings simultaneously. To illustrate its point, the government posits a statute defining a "youthful gun crime" as "an offense that has as an element the use of a gun and is committed by someone under the age of 21." Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. This statute, the government suggests, would leave us little choice but to understand the single word "offense" as encompassing both the generic crime and the manner of its commission on a specific occasion. To which we say: Fair enough. It's possible for surrounding text to make clear that "offense" carries a double meaning. But absent evidence to the contrary, we presume the term is being used consistently. And nothing in § 924(c)(3)(B) comes close to rebutting that presumption.
Just the opposite. The language of the residual clause itself reinforces the conclusion that the term "offense" carries the same "generic" meaning throughout the statute. Section 924(c)(3)(B), just like § 16(b), speaks of an offense that, "by its nature," involves a certain type of risk. And that would be an exceedingly strange way of referring to the circumstances of a specific offender's conduct. As both sides agree, the "nature" of a thing typically denotes its " 'normal and characteristic quality,' " Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1217 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1507 (2002)), or its " 'basic or inherent features,' " United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166, 182 (CA2 2018) (quoting Oxford Dictionary of English 1183 (A. Stevenson ed., 3d ed. 2010)). So in plain English, when we speak of the nature of an offense, we're talking about "what an offense normally-or, as we have repeatedly said, 'ordinarily'-entails, not what happened to occur on one occasion." Dimaya, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1217 ; see Leocal, 543 U.S. at 7, 125 S.Ct. 377 (contrasting the "nature of the offense" with "the particular facts [of] petitioner's crime").
Once again, the government asks us to overlook this obvious reading of the text in favor of a strained one. It suggests that the statute might be referring to the "nature" of the defendant's conduct on a particular occasion. But while this reading may be linguistically feasible, we struggle to see why, if it had intended this meaning, Congress would have used the phrase "by its nature" at all. The government suggests that "by its nature" keeps the focus on the offender's conduct and excludes evidence about his personality, such as whether he has violent tendencies. But even without the words "by its nature," nothing in the statute remotely suggests that courts are allowed to consider character evidence-a type of evidence usually off-limits during the guilt phase of a criminal trial. Cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 404.
B
Things become clearer yet when we consider § 924(c)(3)(B)'s role in the broader context of the federal criminal code. As we've explained, the language of § 924(c)(3)(B) is almost identical to the language of § 16(b), which this Court has read to mandate a categorical approach. And we normally presume that the same language in related statutes carries a consistent meaning. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484, 110 S.Ct. 2499, 110 L.Ed.2d 438 (1990).
This case perfectly illustrates why we do that. There are dozens of federal statutes that use the phrase "crime of violence" to refer to presently charged conduct rather than a past conviction. Some of those statutes cross-reference the definition of "crime of violence" in § 924(c)(3), while others are governed by the virtually identical definition in § 16. The choice appears completely random. Reading the similar language in § 924(c)(3)(B) and § 16(b) similarly yields sensibly congruent applications across all these other statutes. But if we accepted the government's invitation to reinterpret § 924(c)(3)(B) as alone endorsing a case-specific approach, we would produce a series of seemingly inexplicable results.
Take just a few examples. If the government were right, Congress would have mandated the case-specific approach in a prosecution for providing explosives to facilitate a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 844(o ), but the (now-invalidated) categorical approach in a prosecution for providing information about explosives to facilitate a crime of violence, § 842(p)(2). It would have mandated the case-specific approach in a prosecution for using false identification documents in connection with a crime of violence, § 1028(b)(3)(B), but the categorical approach in a prosecution for using confidential phone records in connection with a crime of violence, § 1039(e)(1). It would have mandated the case-specific approach in a prosecution for giving someone a firearm to use in a crime of violence, § 924(h), but the categorical approach in a prosecution for giving a minor a handgun to use in a crime of violence, § 924(a)(6)(B)(ii). It would have mandated the case-specific approach in a prosecution for traveling to another State to acquire a firearm for use in a crime of violence, § 924(g), but the categorical approach in a prosecution for traveling to another State to commit a crime of violence, § 1952(a)(2). And it would have mandated the case-specific approach in a prosecution for carrying armor-piercing ammunition in connection with a crime of violence, § 924(c)(5), but the categorical approach in a prosecution for carrying a firearm while "in possession of armor piercing ammunition capable of being fired in that firearm" in connection with a crime of violence, § 929(a)(1).
There would be no rhyme or reason to any of this. Nor does the government offer any plausible account why Congress would have wanted courts to take such dramatically different approaches to classifying offenses as crimes of violence in these various provisions. To hold, as the government urges, that § 16(b) requires the categorical approach while § 924(c)(3)(B) requires the case-specific approach would make a hash of the federal criminal code.
C
Section 924(c)(3)(B)'s history provides still further evidence that it carries the same categorical-approach command as § 16(b). It's no accident that the language of the two laws is almost exactly the same. The statutory term "crime of violence" traces its origins to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. There, Congress enacted the definition of "crime of violence" in § 16. § 1001(a), 98 Stat. 2136. It also "employed the term 'crime of violence' in numerous places in the Act," Leocal, 543 U.S. at 6, 125 S.Ct. 377, including in § 924(c). § 1005(a), 98 Stat. 2138. At that time, Congress didn't provide a separate definition of "crime of violence" in § 924(c) but relied on § 16's general definition. The two statutes, thus, were originally designed to be read together.
Admittedly, things changed a bit over time. Eventually, Congress expanded § 924(c)'s predicate offenses to include drug trafficking crimes as well as crimes of violence. §§ 104(a)(2)(B)-(C), 100 Stat. 457. When it did so, Congress added a subsection-specific definition of "drug trafficking crime" in § 924(c)(2) -and, perhaps thinking that both terms should be defined in the same place, it also added a subsection-specific definition of "crime of violence" in § 924(c)(3). § 104(a)(2)(F), id., at 457. But even then, Congress didn't write a new definition of that term. Instead, it copied and pasted the definition from § 16 without making any material changes to the language of the residual clause. The government suggests that, in doing so, Congress "intentionally separated" and "decoupled"
the two definitions. Brief for United States 34, 37. But importing the residual clause from § 16 into § 924(c)(3) almost word for word would have been a bizarre way of suggesting that the two clauses should bear drastically different meanings. Usually when statutory language " 'is obviously transplanted from... other legislation,' " we have reason to think " 'it brings the old soil with it.' " Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729, 733, 133 S.Ct. 2720, 186 L.Ed.2d 794 (2013).
What's more, when Congress copied § 16(b)'s language into § 924(c) in 1986, it proceeded on the premise that the language required a categorical approach. By then courts had, as the government puts it, "beg[u]n to settle" on the view that § 16(b) demanded a categorical analysis. Brief for United States 36-37. Of particular significance, the Second Circuit, along with a number of district courts, had relied on the categorical approach to hold that selling drugs could never qualify as a crime of violence because "[w]hile the traffic in drugs is often accompanied by violence," it can also be carried out through consensual sales and thus "does not by its nature involve substantial risk that physical violence will be used." United States v. Diaz, 778 F.2d 86, 88 (1985). Congress moved quickly to abrogate those decisions. But, notably, it didn't do so by directing a case-specific approach or changing the language courts had read to require the categorical approach. Instead, it accepted the categorical approach as given and simply declared that certain drug trafficking crimes automatically trigger § 924 penalties, regardless of the risk of violence that attends them. §§ 104(a)(2)(B)-(C), 100 Stat. 457.
The government's reply to this development misses the mark. The government argues that § 16(b) had not acquired such a well-settled judicial construction by 1986 that the reenactment of its language in § 924(c)(3)(B) should be presumed to have incorporated the same construction. We agree. See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L. P. A., 559 U.S. 573, 590, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 176 L.Ed.2d 519 (2010) (interpretations of three courts of appeals "may not have'settled' the meaning" of a statute for purposes of the reenactment canon). But Congress in 1986 did more than just reenact language that a handful of courts had interpreted to require the categorical approach. It amended § 924(c) specifically to abrogate the results of those decisions, without making any attempt to overturn the categorical reading on which they were based. And that would have been an odd way of proceeding if Congress had thought the categorical reading erroneous.
There's yet one further and distinct way in which § 924(c)'s history undermines the government's case-specific reading of the residual clause. As originally enacted in 1968, § 924(c) prohibited the use of a firearm in connection with any federal felony. § 102, 82 Stat. 1224. The 1984 amendments narrowed § 924(c) by limiting its predicate offenses to "crimes of violence." But the case-specific reading would go a long way toward nullifying that limitation and restoring the statute's original breadth. After all, how many felonies don't involve a substantial risk of physical force when they're committed using a firearm-let alone when the defendant brandishes or discharges the firearm?
Recognizing this difficulty, the government assures us that a jury wouldn't be allowed to find a felony to be a crime of violence solely because the defendant used a firearm, although it could consider the firearm as a "factor." Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. But the government identifies no textual basis for this rule, and exactly how it would work in practice is anyone's guess. The government says, for example, that "selling counterfeit handbags" while carrying a gun wouldn't be a crime of violence under its approach. Id., at 9. But why not? Because the counterfeit-handbag trade is so inherently peaceful that there's no substantial risk of a violent confrontation with dissatisfied customers, territorial competitors, or dogged police officers? And how are jurors supposed to determine that? The defendant presumably knew the risks of his trade, and he chose to arm himself. See United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 247-248 (CA4 2019) (en banc) (refusing to "condem[n] jurors to such an ill-defined inquiry"). Even granting the government its handbag example, we suspect its approach would result in the vast majority of federal felonies becoming potential predicates for § 924(c) charges, contrary to the limitation Congress deliberately imposed when it restricted the statute's application to crimes of violence.
D
With all this statutory evidence now arrayed against it, the government answers that it should prevail anyway because of the canon of constitutional avoidance. Maybe the case-specific approach doesn't represent the best reading of the statute-but, the government insists, it is our duty to adopt any " 'fairly possible' " reading of a statute to save it from being held unconstitutional. Brief for United States 45.
We doubt, however, the canon could play a proper role in this case even if the government's reading were "possible." True, when presented with two "fair alternatives," this Court has sometimes adopted the narrower construction of a criminal statute to avoid having to hold it unconstitutional if it were construed more broadly. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 45, 47, 73 S.Ct. 543, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953) ; see, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 405-406, and n. 40, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010) ; United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265-267, and n. 6, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997). But no one before us has identified a case in which this Court has invoked the canon to expand the reach of a criminal statute in order to save it. Yet that is exactly what the government seeks here. Its case-specific reading would cause § 924(c)(3)(B)'s penalties to apply to conduct they have not previously been understood to reach: categorically nonviolent felonies committed in violent ways. See Simms, 914 F.3d at 256-257 (Wynn, J., concurring).
Employing the avoidance canon to expand a criminal statute's scope would risk offending the very same due process and separation-of-powers principles on which the vagueness doctrine itself rests. See supra, at 2325 - 2326. Everyone agrees that Mr. Davis and Mr. Glover did many things that Congress had declared to be crimes; and no matter how we rule today, they will face substantial prison sentences for those offenses. But does § 924(c)(3)(B) require them to suffer additional punishment, on top of everything else? Even if you think it's possible to read the statute to impose such additional punishment, it's impossible to say that Congress surely intended that result, or that the law gave Mr. Davis and Mr. Glover fair warning that § 924(c)'s mandatory penalties would apply to their conduct. Respect for due process and the separation of powers suggests a court may not, in order to save Congress the trouble of having to write a new law, construe a criminal statute to penalize conduct it does not clearly proscribe.
Employing the canon as the government wishes would also sit uneasily with the rule of lenity's teaching that ambiguities about the breadth of a criminal statute should be resolved in the defendant's favor. That rule is "perhaps not much less old than" the task of statutory "construction itself." United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820) (Marshall, C.J.). And much like the vagueness doctrine, it is founded on "the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals" to fair notice of the law "and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department." Ibid. ; see Lanier, 520 U.S. at 265-266, and n. 5, 117 S.Ct. 1219. Applying constitutional avoidance to narrow a criminal statute, as this Court has historically done, accords with the rule of lenity. By contrast, using the avoidance canon instead to adopt a more expansive reading of a criminal statute would place these traditionally sympathetic doctrines at war with one another.
IV
What does the dissent have to say about all this? It starts by emphasizing that § 924(c)(3)(B) has been used in "tens of thousands of federal prosecutions" since its enactment 33 years ago
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether the Georgia House of Representatives may constitutionally exclude appellant Bond, a duly elected Representative, from membership because of his statements, and statements to which he subscribed, criticizing the policy of the Federal Government in Vietnam and the operation of the Selective Service laws. An understanding of the circumstances of the litigation requires a complete presentation of the events and statements which led to this appeal.
Bond, a Negro, was elected on June 16, 1965, as the Representative to the Georgia House of Representatives from the 136th House District. Of the District’s 6,500 voters, approximately 6,000 are Negroes. Bond defeated his opponent, Malcolm Dean, Dean of Men at Atlanta University, also a Negro, by a vote of 2,320 to 487.
On January 6, 1966, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a civil rights organization of which Bond was then the Communications Director, issued the following statement on American policy in Vietnam and its relation to the work of civil rights organizations in this country:
“The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee has a right and a responsibility to dissent with United States foreign policy on an issue when it sees fit. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee now states its opposition to United States’ involvement in Viet Nam on these grounds:
“We believe the United States, government has been deceptive in its claims of concern for freedom of the Vietnamese people, just as the government has been deceptive in claiming concern for the freedom of colored people in such other countries as the Dominican Republic, the Congo, South Africa, Rhodesia and in the United States itself.
“We, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, have been involved in the black people’s struggle for liberation and self-determination in this country for the past five years. Our work, particularly in the South, has taught us that the United States government has never guaranteed the freedom of oppressed citizens, and is not yet truly determined to end the rule of terror and oppression within its own borders.
“We ourselves have often been victims of violence and confinement executed by United States government officials. We recall the numerous persons who have been murdered in the South because of their efforts to secure their civil and human rights, and whose murderers have been allowed to escape penalty for their crimes.
“The murder of Samuel Young in Tuskegee, Ala., is no different than the murder of peasants in Viet Nam, for both Young and the Vietnamese sought, and are seeking, to secure the rights guaranteed them by law. In each case the United States government bears a great part of the responsibility for these deaths.
“Samuel Young was murdered because United States law is not being enforced. Vietnamese are murdered because the United States is pursuing an aggressive policy in violation of international law. The United States is no respecter of persons or law when such persons or laws run counter to its needs and desires.
“We recall the indifference, suspicion and outright hostility with which our reports of violence have been met in the past by government officials.
“We know that for the most part, elections in this country, in the North as well as the South, are not free. We have seen that the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act have not yet been implemented with full federal power and sincerity.
“We question, then, the ability and even the desire of the United States government to guarantee free elections abroad. We maintain that our country’s cry of 'preserve freedom in the world’ is a hypocritical mask behind which it squashes liberation movements which are not bound, and refuse to be bound, by the expediencies of United States cold war policies.
“We are in sympathy with, and support, the men in this country who are unwilling to respond to a military draft which would compel them to contribute their lives to United States aggression in Viet Nam in the name of the 'freedom’ we find so false in this country.
“We recoil with horror at the inconsistency of a supposedly ‘free’ society where responsibility to freedom is equated with the responsibility to lend oneself to military aggression. We take note of the fact that 16 per cent of the draftees from this country are Negroes called on to stifle the liberation of Viet Nam, to preserve a ‘democracy’ which does not exist for them at home.
“We ask, where is the draft for the freedom fight in the United States?
“We therefore encourage those Americans who prefer to use their energy in building democratic forms within this country. We believe that work in the civil rights movement and with other human relations organizations is a valid alternative to the draft. We urge all Americans to seek this alternative, knowing full well that it may cost their lives— as painfully as in Viet Nam.”
On the same day that this statement was issued, Bond was interviewed by telephone by a reporter from a local radio station, and, although Bond had not participated in drafting the statement, he endorsed the statement in these words:
“Why, I endorse it, first, because I like to think of myself as a pacifist and one who opposes that war and any other war and eager and anxious to encourage people not to participate in it for any reason that they choose; and secondly, I agree with this statement because of the reason set forth in it— because I think it is sorta hypocritical for us to maintain that we are fighting for liberty in other places and we are not guaranteeing liberty to citizens inside the continental United States.
“Well, I think that the fact that the United States Government fights a war in Viet Nam, I don’t think that I as a second class citizen of the United States have a requirement to support that war. I think my responsibility is to oppose things that I think are wrong if they are in Viet Nam or New York, or Chicago, or Atlanta, or wherever.”
When the interviewer suggested that our involvement in Vietnam was because “if we do not stop Communism there that it is just a question of where will we stop it next,” Bond replied:
“Oh, no, I’m not taking a stand against stopping World Communism, and I’m not taking a stand in favor of the Viet Cong. What I’m saying that is, first, that I don’t believe in that war. That particular war. I’m against all war. I’m against that war in particular, and I don’t think people ought to participate in it. Because I’m against war, I’m against the draft. I think that other countries in the World get along without a draft — England is one — and I don’t see why we couldn’t, too.
“. . . I’m not about to justify that war, because it’s stopping International Communism, or whatever — you know, I just happen to have a basic disagreement with wars for whatever reason they are fought— . . . [F] ought to stop International Communism, to promote International Communism, or for whatever reason. I oppose the Viet Cong fighting in Viet Nam as much as I oppose the United States fighting in Viet Nam. I happen to five in the United States. If I lived in North Viet Nam I might not have the same sort of freedom of expression, but it happens that I live here — not there.”
The interviewer also asked Bond if he felt he could take the oath of office required by the Georgia Constitution, and Bond responded that he saw nothing inconsistent between his statements and the oath. Bond was also asked whether he would adhere to his statements if war were declared on North Vietnam and if his statements might become treasonous. He replied that he did not know “if I’m strong enough to place myself in a position where I’d be guilty of treason.”
Before January 10, 1966, when the Georgia House of Representatives was scheduled to convene, petitions challenging Bond’s right to be seated were filed by 75 House members. These petitions charged that Bond’s statements gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and Georgia, violated the Selective Service laws, and tended to bring discredit and disrespect on the House. The petitions further contended that Bond’s endorsement of the SNCC statement “is totally and completely repugnant to and inconsistent with the mandatory oath prescribed by the Constitution of Georgia for a Member of the House of Representatives to take before taking his seat.” For the same reasons, the petitions asserted that Bond could not take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. When Bond appeared at the House on January 10 to be sworn in, the clerk refused to administer the oath to him until the issues raised in the challenge petitions had been decided.
Bond filed a response to the challenge petitions in which he stated his willingness to take the oath and argued that he was not unable to do so in good faith. He further argued that the challenge against his seating had been filed to deprive him of his First Amendment rights, and that the challenge was racially motivated. A special committee was appointed to report on the challenge, and a hearing was held to determine exactly what Bond had said and the intentions with which he had said it.
At this hearing, the only testimony given against Bond was that which he himself gave the committee. Both, the opponents Bond had defeated in becoming the Representative of the 136th District testified to his good character and to his loyalty to the United States. A recording of the interview which Bond had given to the reporter after the SNCC statement was played, and Bond was called to the stand for cross-examination. He there admitted his statements and elaborated his views. He stated that he concurred in the SNCC statement “without reservation,” and, when asked if he admired the courage of persons who burn their draft cards, responded:
“I admire people who take an action, and I admire people who feel strongly enough about their convictions to take an action like that knowing the consequences that they will face, and that was my original statement when asked that question.
“I have never suggested or counseled or advocated that any one other person burn their draft card. In fact, I have mine in my pocket and will produce it if you wish. I do not advocate that people should break laws. What I simply try to say was that I admired the courage of someone who could act on his convictions knowing that he faces pretty stiff consequences.”
Tapes of an interview Bond had given the press after the clerk had refused to give him the oath were also heard by the special committee. In this interview, Bond stated:
“I stand before you today charged with ehtering into public discussion on matters of National interest. I hesitate to offer explanations for my actions or deeds where no charge has been levied against me other than the charge that I have chosen to speak my mind and no explanation is called for, for no member of this House, has ever, to my knowledge, been called upon to explain his public statements for public postures as a prerequisite to admission to that Body. I therefore, offer to my constituents a statement of my views. I have not counselled burning draft cards, nor have I burned mine. I have suggested that congressionally outlined alternatives to military service be extended to building democracy at home. The posture of my life for the past five years has been calculated to give Negroes the ability to participate in formulation of public policies. The fact of my election to public office does not lessen my duty or desire to express my opinions even when they differ from those held by others. As to the current controversy because of convictions that I have arrived at through examination of my conscience I have decided I personally cannot participate in war.
“I stand here with intentions to take an oath— that oath they just took in there — that will dispel any doubts about my convictions or loyalty.”
The special committee gave general approval in its report to the specific charges in the challenge petitions that Bond’s endorsement of the SNCC statement and his supplementary remarks showed that he “does not and will not” support the Constitutions of the United States and of Georgia, that he “adheres to the enemies of the . . . State of Georgia” contrary to the State Constitution, that he gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, that his statements violated the Universal Military Training and Service Act, § 12, 62 Stat. 622, 50 U. S. C. App. § 462, and that his statements “are reprehensible and are such as tend to bring discredit to and disrespect of the House.” On the same day the House adopted the committee report without findings and without further elaborating Bond’s lack of qualifications, and resolved by a vote of 184 to 12 that “Bond shall not be allowed to take the oath of office as a member of the House of Representatives and that Representative-Elect Julian Bond shall not be seated as a member of the House of Representatives.”
Bond then instituted an action in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the House action was unauthorized by the Georgia Constitution and violated Bond’s rights under the First Amendment. A three-judge District Court was convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2281. All three members of the District Court held that the court had jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of the House action because Bond had asserted substantial First Amendment rights. On the merits, however, the court was divided.
Judges Bell and Morgan, writing for the majority of the court, addressed themselves first to the question of whether the Georgia House had power under state law to disqualify Bond based on its conclusion that he could not sincerely take the oath of office. They reasoned that separation-of-powers principles gave the Legislature power to insist on qualifications in addition to those specified in the State Constitution. The majority pointed out that nothing in the Georgia Constitution limits the qualifications of the legislators to those expressed in the constitution.
Having concluded that the action of the Georgia House was authorized by state law, the court considered whether Bond’s disqualification violated his constitutional right of freedom of speech. It reasoned that the decisions of this Court involving particular state political offices supported an attitude of restraint in which the principles of separation of powers and federalism should be balanced against the alleged deprivation of individual constitutional rights. On this basis, the majority below fashioned the test to be applied in this case as being whether the refusal to seat Bond violated procedural or what it termed substantive due process. The court held that the hearing which had been given Bond by the House satisfied procedural due process. As for what it termed the question of substantive due process, the majority concluded that there was a rational eviden-tiary basis for the ruling of the House. It reasoned that Bond's right to dissent as a private citizen was limited by his decision to seek membership in the Georgia House. Moreover, the majority concluded, the SNCC statement and Bond's related remarks went beyond criticism of national policy and provided a rational basis for a conclusion that the speaker could not in good faith take an oath to support the State and Federal Constitutions:
“A citizen would not violate his oath by objecting to or criticizing this policy or even by calling it deceptive and false as the statement did.
“But the statement does not stop with this. It is a call to action based on race; a call alien to the concept of the pluralistic society which makes this nation. It aligns the organization with ‘. . . colored people in such other countries as the Dominican Republic, the Congo, South Africa, Rhodesia . . . .’ It refers to its involvement in the black people’s struggle for liberation and self-determination . . . .' It states that ‘Vietnamese are murdered because the United States is pursuing an aggressive policy in violation of international law.’ It alleges that Negroes, referring to American servicemen, are called on to stifle the liberation of Viet Nam.
“The call to action, and this is what we find to be a rational basis for the decision which denied Mr. Bond his seat, is that language which states that SNCC supports those men in this country who are unwilling to respond to a military draft.”
Chief Judge Tuttle dissented. He reasoned that the question of the power of the Georgia House under the State Constitution to disqualify a Representative under these circumstances had never been decided by the state courts, and that federal courts should construe state law, if possible, so as to avoid unnecessary federal constitutional issues. Since Bond satisfied all the stated qualifications in the State Constitution, Chief Judge Tuttle concluded that his disqualification was beyond the power of the House as a matter of state constitutional law.
Bond appealed directly to this Court from the decision of the District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. While this appeal was pending, the Governor of Georgia called a special election to fill the vacancy caused by Bond’s exclusion. Bond entered this election and won overwhelmingly. The House was in recess, but the Rules Committee held a hearing in which Bond declined to recant his earlier statements. Consequently, he was again prevented from taking the oath of office, and the seat has remained vacant. Bond again sought the seat from the 136th District in the regular 1966 election, and he won the Democratic primary in September 1966, and won an overwhelming majority in the election of November 8, 1966.
The Georgia Constitution sets out a number of specific provisions dealing with the qualifications and eligibility of state legislators. These provide that Representatives shall be citizens of the United States, at least 21 years of age, citizens of Georgia for two years, and residents for one year of the counties from which elected. The Georgia Constitution further provides that no one convicted of treason against the State, or of any crime of moral turpitude, or of a number of other enumerated crimes may hold any office in the State. Idiots and insane persons are barred from office, and no one holding any state or federal office is eligible for a seat in either house. The State Constitution also provides:
“Election, returns, etc.; disorderly conduct.— Each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its members and shall have power to punish them for disorderly behavior, or misconduct, by censure, fine, imprisonment, or expulsion; but no member shall be expelled, except by a vote of two-thirds of the House to which he belongs.”
These constitute the only stated qualifications for membership in the Georgia Legislature and the State concedes that Bond meets all of them. The Georgia Constitution also requires Representatives to take an oath stated in the Constitution:
“Oath of members. — Each senator and Representative, before taking his seat, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, to-wit: T will support the Constitution of this State and of the United States, and on all questions and measures which may come before me, I will so conduct myself, as will, in my judgment, be most conducive to the interests and prosperity of this State.’ ”
The State points out in its brief that the latter part of this oath, involving the admonition to act in the best interests of the State, was not the standard by which Bond was judged.
The State does not claim that Bond refused to take the oath to support the Federal Constitution, a requirement imposed on state legislators by Art. VI, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Tests shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Instead, it argues that the oath provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions constitute an additional qualification. Because under state law the legislature has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an elected Representative meets the enumerated qualifications, it is argued that the legislature has power to look beyond the plain meaning of the oath provisions which merely require that the oaths be taken. This additional power is said to extend to determining whether a given Representative may take the oath with sincerity. The State does not claim that it should be completely free of judicial review whenever it disqualifies an elected Representative; it admits that, if a State Legislature excluded a legislator on racial or other clearly unconstitutional grounds, the federal (or state) judiciary would be justified in testing the exclusion by federal constitutional standards. But the State argues that there can be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the qualification involved in this case because it is one imposed on the State Legislatures by Article VI of the United States Constitution. Moreover, the State contends that no decision of this Court suggests that a State may not ensure the loyalty of its public servants by making the taking of an oath a qualification of office. Thus the State argues that there should be no judicial review of the legislature’s power to judge whether a prospective member may conscientiously take the oath required by the State and Federal Constitutions.
We are not persuaded by the State’s attempt to distinguish, for purposes of our jurisdiction, between an exclusion alleged to be on racial grounds and one alleged to violate the First Amendment. The basis for the argued distinction is that, in this case, Bond’s disqualification was grounded on a constitutional standard — the requirement of taking an oath to support the Constitution. But Bond’s contention is that this standard was utilized to infringe his First Amendment rights, and we cannot distinguish, for purposes of our assumption of jurisdiction, between a disqualification under an unconstitutional standard and a disqualification which, although under color of a proper standard, is alleged to violate the First Amendment.
We conclude as did the entire court below that this Court has jurisdiction to review the question of whether the action of the Georgia House of Representatives deprived Bond of federal constitutional rights, and we now move to the central question posed in the case — whether Bond’s disqualification because of his statements violated the free speech provisions of the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State argues that the exclusion does not violate the First Amendment because the State has a right, under Article VI of the United States Constitution, to insist on loyalty to the Constitution as a condition of office. A legislator of course can be required to swear to support the Constitution of the United States as a condition of holding office, but that is not the issue in this case, as the record is uncontradicted that Bond has repeatedly expressed his willingness to swear to the oaths provided for in the State and Federal Constitutions. Nor is this a case where a legislator swears to an oath pro forma while declaring or manifesting his disagreement with or indifference to the oath. Thus, we do not quarrel with the State’s contention that the oath provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions do not violate the First Amendment. But this requirement does not authorize a majority of state legislators to test the sincerity with which another duly elected legislator can swear to uphold the Constitution. Such a power could be utilized to restrict the right of legislators to dissent from national or state policy or that of a majority of their colleagues under the guise of judging their loyalty to the Constitution. Certainly there can be no question but that the First Amendment protects expressions in opposition to national foreign policy in Vietnam and to the Selective Service system. The State does not contend otherwise. But it argues that Bond went beyond expressions of opposition, and counseled violations of the Selective Service laws, and that advocating violation of federal law demonstrates a lack of support for the Constitution. The State declines to argue that Bond’s statements would violate any law if made by a private citizen, but it does argue that even though such a citizen might be protected by his First Amendment rights, the State may nonetheless apply a stricter standard to its legislators. We do not agree.
Bond could not have been constitutionally convicted under 50 U. S. C. App. §462 (a), which punishes any person who “counsels, aids, or abets another to refuse or evade registration.” Bond’s statements were at worst unclear on the question of the means to be adopted to avoid the draft. While the SNCC statement said “We are in sympathy with, and support, the men in this country who are unwilling to respond to a military draft,” this statement alone cannot be interpreted as a call to unlawful refusal to be drafted. Moreover, Bond’s supplementary statements tend to resolve the opaqueness in favor of legal alternatives to the draft, and there is no evidence to the contrary. On the day the statement was issued, Bond explained that he endorsed it “because I like to think of myself as a pacifist and one who opposes that war and any other- war and eager and anxious to encourage people not to participate in it for any reason that they choose.” In the same interview, Bond stated categorically that he did not oppose the Vietnam policy because he favored the Communists; that he was a loyal American citizen and supported the Constitution of the United States. He further stated “I oppose the Viet Cong fighting in Viet Nam as much as I oppose the United States fighting in Viet Nam.” At the hearing before the Special Committee of the Georgia House, when asked his position on persons who burned their draft cards, Bond replied that he admired the courage of persons who “feel strongly enough about their convictions to take an action like that knowing the consequences that they will face.” When pressed as to whether his admiration was based on the violation of federal law, Bond stated:
“I have never suggested or counseled or advocated that any one other person burn their draft card. In fact, I have mine in my pocket and will produce it if you wish. I do not advocate that people should break laws. What I simply try to say was that I admired the courage of someone who could act on his convictions knowing that he faces pretty stiff consequences.”
Certainly this clarification does not demonstrate any incitement to violation of law. No useful purpose would be served by discussing the many decisions of this Court which establish that Bond could not have been convicted for these statements consistently with the First Amendment. See, e. g., Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375 (1962); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949). Nor does the fact that the District Court found the SNCC statement to have racial overtones constitute a reason for holding it outside the protection of the First Amendment. In fact the State concedes that there is no issue of race in the case.
The State attempts to circumvent the protection the First Amendment would afford to these statements if made by a private citizen by arguing that a State is constitutionally justified in exacting a higher standard of loyalty from its legislators than from its citizens. Of course, a State may constitutionally require an oath to support the Constitution from its legislators which it does not require of its private citizens. But this difference in treatment does not support the exclusion of Bond, for while the State has an interest in requiring its legislators to swear to a belief in constitutional processes of government, surely the oath gives it no interest in limiting its legislators’ capacity to discuss their views of local or national policy. The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. The central commitment of the First Amendment, as summarized in the opinion of the Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), is that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." We think the rationale of the New York Times case disposes of the claim that Bond’s statements fell outside the range of constitutional protection. Just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected. The State argues that the New York Times principle should not be extended to statements by a legislator because the policy of encouraging free debate about governmental operations only applies to the citizen-critic of his government. We find no support for this distinction in the New York Times case or in any other decision of this Court. The interest of the public in hearing all sides of a public issue is hardly advanced by extending more protection to citizen-critics than to legislators. Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them. We therefore hold that the disqualification of Bond from membership in the Georgia House because of his statements violated Bond’s right of free expression under the First Amendment. Because of our disposition of the ease on First Amendment grounds, we need not decide the other issues advanced by Bond and the amici.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
The opinion of the District Court is reported at 251 F. Supp. 333 (1966).
Id., at 344.
Id., at 345.
A question was raised in oral argument as to whether this case might not be moot since the session of the House which excluded Bond was no longer in existence. The State has not pressed this argument, and it could not do so, because the State has stipulated that if Bond succeeds on this appeal he will receive back salary for the term from which he was excluded.
Georgia Const., Art. 3, § 6 (§2-1801, Ga. Code Ann.).
Georgia Const., Art. 2, § 2 (§2-801, Ga. Code Ann.).
Ibid.
Georgia Const., Art. 3, § 4 (§2-1606, Ga. Code Ann.)9
Georgia Const., Art. 3, § 7 (§2-1901, Ga. Code Ann.).
Georgia Const., Art. 3, §4 (§2-1605, Ga. Code Ann.).
See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), in which the Court stated: “When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right.” 364 U. S., at 347.
The pertinent provisions of §462 (a) are as follows:
“[A]ny person who shall knowingly make, or be a party to the making, of any false statement or certificate regarding or bearing upon a classification or in support of any request for a particular classification, for service under the provisions of this title ... , or rules, regulations, or directions made pursuant thereto, or who otherwise evades or refuses registration or service in the armed forces or any of the requirements of this title ... , or who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to refuse or evade registration or service in the armed forces or any of the requirements of this title ... , or of said rules, regulations, or directions, ... or any person or persons who shall knowingly hinder or interfere or attempt to do so in any way, by force or violence or otherwise, with the administration of this title ... or the rules or regulations made pursuant thereto, or who conspires to commit any one or more of such offenses, shall, upon conviction in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, 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 . . . .”
Madison and Hamilton anticipated the oppressive effect on freedom of expression which would result if the legislature could utilize its power of judging qualifications to pass judgment on a legislator’s political views. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Madison opposed a proposal to give to Congress power to establish qualifications in general. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 420-422 (1937). The Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 states:
“Mr. Madison was opposed to the Section as vesting an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a Republican Govt, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. . . . Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised, by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of a weaker faction.
“Mr. Madison observed that the British Parliamt. possessed the power of regulating the qualifications both of the electors, and the elected; and the abuse they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention. They had made the changes in both cases subservient to their own views, or to the views of political or Religious parties.” 2 Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 249-250 (Aug. *10, 1787).
Hamilton agreed with Madison that:
“The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen . . . are defined and fixed in the constitution; and are unalterable by the legislature.” The Federalist, No. 60, p. 409 (Cooke ed. 1961).
Bond argues that the action of the Georgia House was not authorized by state law, that if the State Constitution allows this exclusion it does so pursuant to an oath which is unconstitutionally vague, that the exclusion was based on statements protected by the First Amendment, and that the exclusion is a bill of attainder and an ex -post jacto law. In addition, amicus briefs filed in support of appellant Bond add the arguments that the decision not to seat him was inextricably involved with race prejudice and that it violated the guarantee of a republican form of government clause.
Similarly, we need not pass on the standing of two of Bond's constituents who joined in the suit below. The majority below dismissed the complaint as to these two constituents because they lacked a sufficiently direct interest in the controversy as would give them standing. The majority noted that it was appropriate to dismiss the case as to Bond’s constituents because Bond’s complaint would resolve every issue necessary to a decision in the case. We express no opinion on the question of whether Bond’s constituents can claim that concrete adverseness which would be necessary to give them standing.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1956 respondent was found guilty in a Nebraska court of first-degree murder; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. After exhausting his post-conviction remedies under Nebraska law, respondent petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska for a writ of habeas corpus. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court dismissed the petition. One of the issues presented to the District Court was the volun-tariness of confessions used against respondent at his trial. Relying on the findings of the state court in a 1965 post-conviction proceeding, the District Court concluded that the confessions were voluntarily given and hence admissible. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, without reaching the other issues before it, reversed on the ground that respondent’s confessions were involuntary. 413 F. 2d 459 (1969). The court first found that the opinion of the Nebraska Supreme Court affirming respondent’s conviction indicated that the trial judge had not found the confessions voluntary before admitting them into evidence. The court then found that this violation of the procedural rule of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964), had tainted all subsequent findings of voluntariness in the Nebraska courts and in the District Court. Since it seemed “unlikely that either party has any additional substantial evidence on the voluntariness issue,” 413 F. 2d, at 463, the Court of Appeals chose to evaluate the confessions itself rather than to remand the case to allow the State to make an untainted determination on the voluntariness question. After examining the record of the trial and the post-conviction proceedings, the court held that the confessions could on no view of the evidence be deemed voluntary. On the basis of this determination, the court directed that the writ of habeas corpus should be granted unless within a reasonable time respondent was given a new trial from which the confessions were excluded.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the record of proceedings in the trial court and the opinion of the Nebraska Supreme Court affirming respondent’s conviction do not justify a conclusion that the trial judge made his own determination of voluntariness as required by Jackson v. Denno, supra. See Sims v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 538 (1967). In addition, we accept the Court of Appeals’ determination that all subsequent findings of voluntariness were made at least in part in reliance on the first, procedurally defective, determination of the admissibility of the confessions. However, as indicated in our opinion in Jackson v. Denno, supra, at 391-396, the appropriate remedy when a federal court finds a Jackson v. Denno error in a prior state proceeding is to allow the State a reasonable time to make an error-free determination on the voluntariness of the confession at issue. Hence it was error for the Court of Appeals to pass judgment on the voluntariness of respondent’s confessions without first permitting a Nebraska court to make such an evaluation uninfluenced by the apparent finding of voluntariness at the 1956 trial.
The writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
After a hearing in 1965 under the Nebraska Post Conviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§29-3001 to 29-3004 (Cum. Supp. 1967), the state trial court found that the record and exhibits indicated that the confessions were voluntary. The Court of Appeals may have deemed this conclusion unsatisfactory because the state court’s finding on the voluntariness question was followed immediately by a reference to the original determination, at trial and on appeal from the conviction, as to the admissibility of the confessions. The Court of Appeals’ view is supported by the fact that the Nebraska Supreme Court relied heavily on the apparent finding of voluntariness at the original trial and on appeal in affirming the trial court’s denial of collateral relief. State v. Parker, 180 Neb. 707, 144 N. W. 2d 525 (1966).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease concerns the time within which a defendant named in a state-court action may remove the action to a federal court. The governing provision is 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b), which specifies, in relevant part, that the removal notice “shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the [complaint].” The question presented is whether the named defendant must be officially summoned to appear in the action before the time to remove begins to run. Or, may the 30-day period start earlier, on the named defendant’s receipt, before service of official process, of a “courtesy copy” of the filed complaint faxed by counsel for the plaintiff?
removal in light of a bedrock principle: An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process. Accordingly, we hold that a named defendant’s time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, “through service or otherwise,” after and apart from service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service.
I
On January 26, 1996, respondent Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (Michetti), filed a complaint in Alabama state court seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract and fraud by petitioner Murphy Bros., Inc. (Murphy). Michetti did not serve Murphy at that time, but three days later it faxed a “courtesy copy” of the file-stamped complaint to one of Murphy’s vice presidents. The parties then engaged in settlement discussions until February 12,1996, when Michetti officially served Murphy under local law by certified mail.
On March 13,1996 (30 days receiving the faxed copy of the complaint), Murphy removed the case under 28 U. S. C. § 1441 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Michetti moved to remand the case to the state court on the ground that Murphy filed the removal notice 14 days too late. The notice of removal had not been filed within 30 days of the date on which Murphy’s vice president received the facsimile transmission. Consequently, Michetti asserted, the removal was untimely under 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b), which provides:
“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” (Emphasis added.)
The District Court denied the remand motion on the ground that the 30-day removal period did not commence until Murphy was officially served with a summons. The court observed that the phrase “or otherwise” was added to § 1446(b) in 1949 to govern removal in States where an action is commenced merely by the service of a summons, without any requirement that the complaint be served or even filed contemporaneously. See App. A-24. Accordingly, the District Court said, the phrase had “no field of operation” in States such as Alabama, where the complaint must be served along with the summons. See ibid,
On interlocutory appeal permitted pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, instructing the District Court to remand the action to state court. 125 F. 3d 1396, 1399 (1997). The Eleventh Circuit held that “the clock starts to tick upon the defendant’s receipt of a copy of the filed initial pleading.” Id., at 1397. “By and large,” the appellate court wrote, “our analysis begins and ends with” the words “receipt ... or otherwise.” Id., at 1397-1398 (emphasis deleted). Because lower courts have divided on the question whether service of process is a prerequisite for the running of the 30-day removal period under § 1446(b), we granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 960 (1998).
II
Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant. At common law, the writ of capias ad respondendum directed the sheriff to secure the defendant’s appearance by taking him into custody. See 1 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶0.6[2.~2], p. 212 (2d ed. 1996) (“[T]he three royal courts, Exchequer, Common Pleas, and King’s Bench ... obtained an in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in the same manner through the writ of capias ad respondendum.”). The requirement that a defendant be brought into litigation by official service is the contemporary counterpart to that writ. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945) (“[T]he capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice.”).
In the absence of service of process by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant. See Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co,, 484 U. S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a... court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.”); Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 444-445 (1946) (“[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court... asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”). Accordingly, one becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(a) (“[The summons] shall . . . state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend, and notify the defendant that failure to do so will result in a judgment by default against the defendant.”); Rule 12(a)(1)(A) (a defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days of being served with the summons and complaint). Unless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.
Ill
When Congress enacted § 1446(b), the legislators did not endeavor to break away from the traditional understanding. Prior to 1948, a defendant could remove a case any time before the expiration of her time to respond to the complaint under state law. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. §72 (1940 ed.). Because the time limits for responding to the complaint varied from State to State, however, the period for removal correspondingly varied. To reduce the disparity, Congress in 1948 enacted the original version of § 1446(b), which provided that “[t]he petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding may be filed within twenty days after commencement of the action or service of process, whichever is later.” Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 939, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b). According to the relevant House Report, this provision was intended to “give adequate time and operate uniformly throughout the Federal jurisdiction.” H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947).
soon recognized, however, that § 1446(b), as first framed, did not “give adequate time and operate uniformly” in all States. In States such as New York, most notably, service of the summons commenced the action, and such service could precede the filing of the complaint. Under § 1446(b) as originally enacted, the period for removal in such a State could have expired before the defendant obtained access to the complaint.
ensure that the defendant would have access to the complaint before commencement of the removal period, Congress in 1949 enacted the current version of § 1446(b): “The petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within twenty days [now thirty days] after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” Act of May 24, 1949, § 83(a), 63 Stat. 101. The accompanying Senate Report explained:
“In some States suits are begun by the service of a summons or other process without the necessity of filing any pleading until later. As the section now stands, this places the defendant in the position of having to take steps to remove a suit to Federal court before he knows what the suit is about. As said section is herein proposed to be rewritten, a defendant is not required to file his petition for removal until 20 days after he has received (or it has been made available to him) a copy of the initial pleading filed by the plaintiff setting forth the claim upon which the suit is based and the relief prayed for. It is believed that this will meet the varying conditions of practice in all the States.” S. Rep. No. 303,81st Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1949).
See also H. R. Rep. No. 352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1949) (“The first paragraph of the amendment to subsection (b) corrects [the New York problem] by providing that the petition for removal need not be filed until 20 days after the defendant has received a copy of the plaintiff’s initial pleading.”). Nothing in the legislative history of the 1949 amendment so much as hints that Congress, in making changes to accommodate atypical state commencement and complaint filing procedures, intended to dispense with the historic function of service of process as the official trigger for responsive action by an individual or entity named defendant.
IV
The Eleventh Circuit relied on the “plain meaning” of § 1446(b) that the panel perceived. See 125 F. 3d, at 1398. In the Eleventh Circuit’s view, because the term “ '[Receipt’ is the nominal form of 'receive,’ which means broadly 'to come into possession of or to ‘acquire,’” the phrase '“[receipt] through service or otherwise’ opens a universe of means besides service for putting the defendant in possession of the complaint.” Ibid. What are the dimensions of that “universe”? The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion is uninformative. Nor can one tenably maintain that the words “or otherwise” provide a clue. Cf. Potter v. McCauley, 186 F. Supp. 146, 149 (Md. 1960) (“It is not possible to state definitely in general terms the precise seope and effect of the word 'otherwise’ in its context here because its proper application in particular situations will vary with state procedural requirements.”); Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 145 F. R. D. 674, 679 (Ariz. 1993) (“[I]f in fact the words ‘service or otherwise’ had a plain meaning, the cases would not be so hopelessly split over their proper interpretation.”).
The interpretation tradition, makes sense of the phrase “or otherwise,” and assures defendants adequate time to decide whether to remove an action to federal court. As the court in Potter observed, the various state provisions for service of the summons and the filing or service of the complaint fit into one or another of four main categories. See 186 F. Supp., at 149. In each of the four categories, the defendant’s period for removal will be no less than 30 days from service, and in some categories, it will be more than 30 days from service, depending on when the complaint is received.
As summarized in Potter, the possibilities are as First, if the summons and complaint are served together, the 30-day period for removal runs at once. Second, if the defendant is served with the summons but the complaint is furnished to the defendant sometime after, the period for removal runs from the defendant’s receipt of the complaint. Third, if the defendant is served with the summons and the complaint is filed in court, but under local rules, service of the complaint is not required, the removal period runs from the date the complaint is made available through filing. Finally, if the complaint is filed in court prior to any service, the removal period runs from the service of the summons. See ibid.
Notably, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c), amended in 1949, uses the identical “receipt through service or otherwise” language in specifying the time the defendant has to answer the complaint once the case has been removed:
“In a removed action in which the defendant has not answered, the defendant shall answer or present the other defenses or objections available under these rules within 20 days after the receipt through service or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action or proceeding is based.”
Rule 81(c) sensibly has been interpreted to afford the defendant at least 20 days after service of process to respond. See Silva v. Madison, 69 F. 3d 1368, 1376-1377 (CA7 1995). In Silva, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals observed that “nothing... would justify our concluding that the drafters, in their quest for evenhandedness and promptness in the removal process, intended to abrogate the necessity for something as fundamental as service of process.” Id., at 1376. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished an earlier decision, Roe v. O’Donohue, 38 F. 3d 298 (CA7 1994), which held that a defendant need not receive service of process before his time for removal under § 1446(b) begins to run. See 69 F. 3d, at 1376. But, as the United States maintains in its amicus curiae brief, the Silva court “did not adequately explain why one who has not yet lawfully been made a party to an action should be required to decide in which court system the case should be heard.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13, n. 4. If, as the Seventh Circuit rightly determined, the “service or otherwise” language was not intended to abrogate the service requirement for purposes of Rule 81(c), that same language also was not intended to bypass service as a starter for § 1446(b)’s clock. The fact that the Seventh Circuit could read the phrase “or otherwise” differently in Silva and Roe, moreover, undercuts the Eleventh Circuit’s position that the phrase has an inevitably “plain meaning.”
Furthermore, the so-called “receipt rule” — starting the time to remove on receipt of a copy of the complaint, however informally, despite the absence of any formal service— could, as the District Court recognized, operate with notable unfairness to individuals and entities in foreign nations. See App. A-24. Because facsimile machines transmit instantaneously, but formal service abroad may take much longer than 80 days, plaintiffs “would be able to dodge the requirements of international treaties and trap foreign opponents into keeping their suits in state courts.” Ibid.
* * *
In sum, it would take a clearer statement than Congress has made to read its endeavor to extend removal time (by adding receipt of the complaint) to effect so strange a change — to set removal apart from all other responsive acts, to render removal the sole instance in which one's procedural rights slip away before service of a summons, i. e., before one is subject to any court’s authority. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Murphy invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship. Michetti is a Canadian company with its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada; Murphy is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in that State.
Compare Reece v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 F. 3d 839, 841 (CA5 1996) (removal period begins with receipt of a copy of the initial pleading through any means, not just service of process); Roe v. O’Donohue, 38 F. 3d 298, 303 (CA7 1994) (“Once the defendant possesses a copy of the complaint, it must decide promptly in which court it wants to proceed.”), with Bowman v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 329, 333 (SC 1996) (removal period begins only upon proper service of process); Baratt v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 787 F. Supp. 333, 336 (WDNY 1992) (proper service is a prerequisite to commencement of removal period).
Congress extended the period for removal from 20 days to 30 days in 1965. See Act of Sept. 29, 1965, 79 Stat. 887.
The second half of the revised removal shall be filed “within twenty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter,” 183(b), 63 Stat. 101, was added to address the situation in States such as Kentucky, which required the complaint to be filed at the time the summons issued, but did not require service of the complaint along with the summons. See H. R. Rep. No. 352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1949) (“Th[e first clause of revised § 1446(b)], however, without more, would create further difficulty in those States, such as Kentucky, where suit is commenced by the filing of the plaintiff’s initial pleading and the issuance and service of a summons without any requirement that a copy of the pleading be served upon or otherwise furnished to the defendant. Accordingly ... the amendment provides that in such cases the petition for removal shall be filed within 20 days after the service of the summons.”).
. It ievident, too, that Congress could not have foreseen the situation posed by this case, for, as the District Court recognized, “[i]n 1949 Congress did not anticipate use of faesmile Isic] transmissions.” App. A-23, n. 1. Indeed, even the photocopy machine was not yet on the scene at that time. See 9 New Encyclopaedia Britannica 400 (15th ed. 1985) (noting that photocopiers “did not become available for commercial use until 1950”).
Contrary to a suggestion made at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-7, 28 U. S. C. § 1448 does not support the Eleventh Circuit’s position. That section provides that “[i]n all cases removed from any State court to any district court of the United States in which any one or more of the defendants has not been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal... such process or service may be completed or new process issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.” Nothing in § 1448 requires the defendant to take any action. The statute simply allows the plaintiff to serve an un-served defendant or to perfect flawed service once the action has been removed. In fact, the second paragraph of §1448, which provides that “[t]his section shall not deprive any defendant upon whom process is served after removal of his right to move to remand the case,” explicitly reserves the unserved defendant’s right to take action (move to remand) after service is perfected.
See, e. g., Fed. Rule individuals in a foreign country).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue raised by this appeal is whether § 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act prohibits Connecticut from imposing its sales and use taxes on servicemen stationed there who are residents or domicil-iarios of other States. The United States instituted this action in federal court against the appropriate Connecticut officials on behalf of the aggrieved servicemen. The District Court entered a declaratory judgment that the federal statute prevents collection of the sales and use taxes from such servicemen, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We noted probable jurisdiction of this appeal.
The sales and use taxes imposed by the Connecticut Education, Welfare and Public Health Tax Act are typical of those enacted by the vast majority of States. A tax of 3yz% is levied on the gross receipts from sales of tangible personal property at retail within the State. Although the retailer is liable for payment of the tax, he is required to pass it on to purchasers by adding it to the original sales price of all items sold. The use tax is imposed at the same rate on “the storage, use or other consumption” in the State of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer. The use tax provisions — designed to reach the use or consumption in the State of property purchased outside it — exempt all transactions which are subject to the sales tax. And while the consumer is liable directly to the State for the use tax, he can discharge his liability by paying it to the retailer if the retailer is “engaged in business” within the State and therefore required to collect the use tax. The use tax is also imposed upon purchasers of motor vehicles, boats, or airplanes from nonretailers. The amount of any tax under the Act is reduced by whatever sales or use tax has already been collected “by any other state or political subdivision thereof.” Finally, the Act commands that all proceeds of the sales and use taxes “shall be allocated to and expended for public health, welfare and education purposes only.”
By stipulation and affidavits in the District Court, the parties offered some examples of the imposition of these taxes on naval personnel stationed in Connecticut but domiciled elsewhere. Lieutenant Schuman, a Nebraska domiciliary, and Commander Carroll, a Michigan domiciliary, bought used motorboats from nonretailers in Connecticut and were assessed a use tax. Schuman paid the tax under protest, and Carroll has refused to pay, each claiming that he is exempt under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act. Lieutenant Commander Shaffer and Commander Foster, who are domiciled in Pennsylvania and Texas respectively, each purchased a new car; the Connecticut retailer collected and paid the sales tax. Foster registered his car in Texas, which also exacted a sales or use tax. Finally, Commander Roloff, whose home State is Wisconsin, purchased a used car in Florida and paid that State a 2% sales tax. When he registered the car in Connecticut, he was assessed and paid the use tax, with credit for the Florida sales tax.
As enacted in 1942, § 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act provided that for purposes of any state “taxation in respect of any person, or of his [personal] property, income, or gross income,” he shall not be deemed to have lost his residence or domicile in his home State or acquired a residence in any other State “solely by reason of being absent [from home] in compliance with military or naval orders.” Clarifying language was added in 1944 to provide that for purposes of taxation in respect of personal property, the “personal property shall not be deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for taxation in such State.” Also in 1944 Congress enacted a special subsection for automobiles: servicemen are exempt from “licenses, fees, or excises imposed in respect of motor vehicles or the use thereof” if they have paid such levies in their home States. Finally, in 1962, Congress added the provision that § 514 applies to property in any tax jurisdiction other than the serviceman’s home State, “regardless of where the owner may be serving” in compliance with military orders.
We think it clear from the face of § 514 that state taxation of sales to servicemen is not proscribed. A tax on the privilege of selling or buying property has long been recognized as distinct from a tax on the property itself. And while § 514 refers to taxes “in respect of” rather than “on” personal property, we think it an overly strained construction to say that taxation of the sales transaction is the same as taxation “in respect of” the personal property transferred. Nor does it matter to the imposition of the sales tax that the property “shall not be deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for taxation” in Connecticut. The incidence of the sales tax is not the property itself or its presence within the State. Rather it is the transfer of title for consideration, a legal act which can be accomplished without the property ever entering the State. Had Congress intended to include sales taxes within the coverage of § 514, it surely would not have employed language so poorly suited to that purpose as “taxation in respect of the personal property.”
It is contended on behalf of the servicemen that, even if § 514 does not encompass sales taxes, at least it prohibits taxation of the use of personal property. Not only are use taxes said to fall literally within the meaning of the phrase “taxation in respect of the personal property,” but § 514 specifically refers in two places to property “or the use thereof.” Moreover, it is argued, the sole jurisdictional basis of the use tax is the location of the personal property in Connecticut; yet imposition of a tax with such incidence on a serviceman contravenes the command of § 514 that his personal property “shall not be deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for taxation in such State.” While we agree that use taxes are not so clearly excluded by the language of § 514 as are sales taxes, neither do we believe that they are clearly included. And consideration of the purpose and legislative history of § 514 along with its language and other factors has led us to the conclusion that Congress did not intend to free servicemen stationed away from home from the sales or use taxes of the host State.
The legislative history of the 1942 enactment and the 1944 and 1962 amendments of § 514 reveals that Congress intended the Act to cover only annually recurring taxes on property — the familiar ad valorem personal property tax. Thus, the reports advert to the possibility that servicemen ordered to move around the country— as they were increasingly during World War II — might have their property taxed by more than one State “within the same calendar year.” And the reports throughout refer explicitly to “personal-property taxes on property.” The language of these reports is simply irreconcilable with the proposition that Congress thought the Act would apply to a tax which, like the sales or use tax, does not apply annually to all personal property within the State but is imposed only once and then only when there has been a retail sales transaction.
The absence of any reference to sales and use taxes in the history of § 514 is particularly illuminative of legislative intent when considered in the light of Congress’ full awareness of such state taxes and their relationship to federal interests. Sales and use taxes were prevalent by 1942, and Congress had dealt specifically with them only two years earlier. In the 1940 Buck Act, Congress provided that the States have “full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect” sales and use taxes in “any Federal area,” except with respect to the sale or use of property sold by the United States or its instrumentalities through commissaries, ship’s stores, and the like. If nothing else, this statute illustrates that Congress in 1942 was fully cognizant of state sales and use taxes and identified them by name when it wanted to deal with them. Moreover, it is unlikely that Congress, which had in 1940 expressly authorized sales and use taxation of servicemen everywhere on federal military reservations except post exchanges, would two years later have exempted so many of them from such taxes by means of such imprecise language as that of § 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act. And since servicemen can apparently purchase all the necessities and many of the luxuries of life tax-free at military commissaries, Congress may reasonably have considered the occasional sales and use taxes that servicemen might have to pay an insignificant burden, as compared with annual ad valorem property taxes, and consequently not deserving of the same exemption.
Section 514 does not relieve servicemen stationed away from home from all taxes of the host State. It was enacted with the much narrower design “to prevent multiple State taxation of the property.” And the substantial risk of double taxation under multi-state ad valorem property taxes does not exist with respect to sales and use taxes. Like Connecticut, nearly every State which levies such taxes provides a credit for sales or use taxes paid on the transaction to another State. Of course it is true, as we held in Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U. S. 322, that § 514 prevents imposition of ad valorem property taxes even though the serviceman’s home State does not tax the property. But the predominant legislative purpose nonetheless remains highly relevant in determining the scope of the exemption, and the absence of any significant risk of double taxation under state sales and use taxes generally is therefore strong evidence of congressional intent not to include them in §514.
The language of § 514 does not undercut our conclusion that Congress did not propose to exempt servicemen from sales and use taxes. The appellees, like the courts below, make much of the reference at two places in the section to property “or the use thereof.” This phrase first appeared in the 1944 addition of subsection (2) (b):
“When used in this section, . . . (b) the term 'taxation’ shall include but not be limited to licenses, fees, or excises imposed in respect to motor vehicles or the use thereof: Provided, That the license, fee, or excise required by the State ... of which the person is a resident or in which he is domiciled has been paid.”
The second reference to “use” did not appear until the addition to subsection (1) of the following sentence in 1962:
“Where the owner of personal property is absent from his residence or domicile solely by reason of compliance with military or naval orders, this section applies with respect to personal property, or the use thereof, within any tax jurisdiction other than such place of residence or domicile, regardless of where the owner may be serving in compliance with such orders . . . .”
We think that, in light of the clear indications of congressional intent discussed above, the most sensible inference to be drawn from this language is that the only taxes on the use of property from which servicemen are exempted are the special registration taxes imposed annually by all States on the use of motor vehicles. Indeed, this interpretation is supported by the structure of § 514 itself. There is no reference to “use” of property in those portions of subsection (1) which set out the basic exemption and in which Congress would naturally have been expected to mention use taxes had it meant to include them. Moreover, subsection (2)(b) does not say that for purposes of § 514 “taxation” includes “licenses, fees, or excises” on the use of all personal property except those in respect of motor vehicles for which such fees have not been paid at home. Rather it says that “taxation” includes such levies only on motor vehicles when they have been paid at home. Thus, as we held in California v. Buzard, 382 U. S. 386, subsection (2) (b) does not encompass ordinary revenue-raising excise or use taxes, but is limited to “those taxes which are essential to the functioning of the host State’s licensing and registration laws in their application to the motor vehicles of nonresident servicemen.” Id., at 395. The Court held in Buzará that § 514 exempted servicemen from the California tax on automobiles, not because it was an excise tax on use covered by subsection (2)(b), but rather because it was not such a tax. The so-called “license fee” there in question was an annual tax in the amount of 2% of the assessed market value of the car — a levy which was indistinguishable from the annually recurring ad valorem taxes that § 514 was designed to cover.
It is thus evident that in subsection (2) (b) Congress was dealing solely with a unique form of state “tax”— the motor vehicle registration fee. Because such fees are not always clearly classifiable as property taxes, servicemen would not be exempted from many of them by subsection (1) of § 514. Since annually recurring license fees raise much the same risk of double taxation to transitory military personnel as do property taxes, Congress evidently decided in 1944 to extend the exemption of § 514 to include motor vehicle registration fees as well as property taxes. From 1944 to 1962 the oaly reference in § 514 to “use” of property was found in subsection (2)(b). And, in view of the narrow purpose of that subsection and the absence for 20 years of any other reference to “use” in § 514, we cannot believe the repetition of that word in the 1962 amendment — described by Congress as a mere clarification of the existing law — can be deemed to have added all use taxes to the coverage of the statute. The 1962 amendment merely reflected the prior reference to the “use” of motor vehicles in subsection (2)(b).
Finally, we find unpersuasive the appellees’ contention that, since the Connecticut use tax can be applied only with respect to personal property used within the State, its imposition on servicemen away from home cannot be squared with the declaration of § 514 that “personal property shall not be deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for taxation in such State.” That clause is modified by the opening words of the sentence — “[f]or the purposes of taxation in respect of the personal property.” Section 514, therefore, does not in terms relieve servicemen from every state tax which is somehow dependent on the presence of personal property within the State. Rather, it provides only that a State cannot justify imposing the taxes to which § 514 was initially intended to apply — annually recurring ad valorem property taxes — on the ground of the property’s presence within the State.
This construction is confirmed by the explanation which Congress itself gave for the addition in 1944 of the language on which the appellees rely:
“The purpose of the proposed legislation is to clarify the intent of section 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act .... When that provision of law was added to the act to relieve persons in service from liability of double taxation by being moved from one State to another under orders, it was intended that it should apply to personal-property taxes as well as to income taxes. As presently constituted, it primarily affects taxes in respect to income and other taxes based on residence or domicile, but it does not prevent the State of ‘temporary residence’ from taxing tangible personal property actually located in such State so long as the tax does not depend on residence or domicile. A few States have taken the position that tangible personal property of military personnel who are only temporarily within their jurisdiction does not acquire a situs for taxation, but it has been held that section 514 of the act as now written does not affect the right of a State to assess personal-property taxes on property within its jurisdiction.”
The 1944 amendment, therefore, had only the limited purpose “to clarify” Congress’ original intent to cover “personal-property taxes on property,” not to expand the exemption in a manner which would include sales or use taxes.
For these reasons we hold that § 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act does not exempt servicemen from the sales and use taxes imposed by Connecticut. Accordingly, the judgment is Reversed.
As added by § 17 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act Amendments of 1942, 56 Stat. 777, and as amended, 58 Stat. 722, 76 Stat. 768, 50 U. S. C. App. § 574.
Although the issue was raised in the District Court, the appellants no longer dispute the right of the United States to bring this action on behalf of the servicemen in federal court. See Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 358; United States v. Arlington County, 326 F. 2d 929.
In this Court the United States has presented arguments prepared by officers of the Department of Justice in support of the judgment below. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice have informed the Court, however, that they have not been persuaded by those arguments, and that they do not believe that § 514 was intended to apply to the ordinary retail sales tax and concomitant use tax now imposed by most of the States. For other examples of such divergence of opinion among representatives of the United States before this Court, see De Laval Steam Turbine Co. v. United States, 284 U. S. 61, 67-68; Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U. S. 145, 147-151.
270 F. Supp. 236. The District Court later amended its judgment to permit Connecticut to continue to collect sales and use taxes from nonresident servicemen, provided that the amounts collected would be refunded if the judgment was ultimately sustained.
398 F. 2d 672.
393 U. S. 1012.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. §§ 12-406 to 12-432a.
See J. Hellerstein, State and Local Taxation Cases and Materials 15 (3d ed. 1969). 35 States have filed briefs in this case in support of the position of Connecticut.
§ 12-408 (1).' This section also imposes the sales tax on “the privilege of . . . transferring occupancy of any room or rooms in a hotel or lodging house.”
§12-408 (2).
§ 12-411 (1).
See, e. g., Stetson v. Sullivan, 152 Conn. 649, 652-653, 211 A. 2d 685, 686; Avco Mfg. Corp. v. Connelly, 145 Conn. 161, 170-171, 140 A. 2d 479, 484; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 299-300, 57 A. 2d 128, 130-131.
§12-413 (1).
§§12-411 (2), (3).
§ 12-431.
§12-430 (5).
§ 12-432.
Lieutenant Schuman joined the United States as a party plaintiff in the District Court, seeking to represent the class of all servicemen or former servicemen from whom Connecticut had collected or threatened to collect any sales or use tax. The complaint was dismissed as to him for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the requisite jurisdictional amount was not alleged to be in controversy and that the Eleventh Amendment forbids a suit by a private individual against a State in the federal courts. 270 F. Supp. 236, 246-247.
Foster’s situation is not entirely clear. His affidavit states that officials of the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles informed him that he was required to pay a use tax but the tax actually paid was identified on the dealer’s invoice as a sales tax. The latter seems to be correct, since the purchase was from a Connecticut retailer. Texas officials told Foster he would have to pay a sales tax in order to register the car in that State. The Texas tax collector’s receipt does not identify whether the payment was a sales or use tax, however, and under the Texas statutes it appears more likely that it was the latter. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 6.01, provides that the motor vehicle sales tax applies only to sales in the State, while the use tax, in the same amount, applies to out-of-state sales of motor vehicles for use in Texas.
56 Stat. 777.
The word “personal” was interpolated by the 1944 amendment. 58 Stat. 722.
76 Stat. 768.
Section 514, as set forth in 50 U. S. C. App. § 574, now reads in its entirety as follows:
“(1) For the purposes of taxation in respect of any person, or of his personal property, income, or gross income, by any State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or by the District of Columbia, such person shall not be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in any State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or in the District of Columbia, solely by reason of being absent therefrom in compliance with military or naval orders, or to have acquired a residence or domicile in, or to have become resident in or a resident of, any other State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia, while, and solely by reason of being, so absent. For the purposes of taxation in respect of the personal property, income, or gross income of any such person by any State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia, of which such pierson is not a resident or in which he is not domiciled, compensation for military or naval service shall not be deemed income for services performed within, or from sources within, such State, Territory, possession, political subdivision, or District, and personal property shall not be deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for taxation in such State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision, or district. Where the owner of personal property is absent from his residence or domicile solely by reason of compliance with military or naval orders, this section applies with respect to personal property, or the use thereof, within any tax jurisdiction other than such place of residence or domicile, regardless of where the owner may be serving in compliance with such orders: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall prevent taxation by any State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia in respect of personal property used in or arising from a trade or business, if it otherwise has jurisdiction. This section shall be effective as of September 8, 1939, except that it shall not require the crediting or refunding of any tax paid prior to October 6, 1942.
“(2) When used in this section, (a) the term ‘personal property’ shall include tangible and intangible property (including motor vehicles), and (b) the term ‘taxation’ shall include but not be limited to licenses, fees, or excises imposed in respect to motor vehicles or the use thereof: Provided, That the license, fee, or excise required by the State, Territory, possession, or District of Columbia of which the person is a resident or in which he is domiciled has been paid.”
See, e. g., N. Jacoby, Retail Sales Taxation 3-4 (1938). And see n. 28, infra.
The Connecticut statute defines a “sale” generally as “[a]ny transfer of title ... for a consideration.” § 12-407 (2) (a). And see Avco Mfg. Corp. v. Connelly, 145 Conn. 161, 172, 140 A. 2d 479, 484-485. The term also includes a transaction in which the right of possession is transferred but the seller retains title as security. §12-407 (2) (f).
See Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 42ar-2-401 (3).
S. Rep. No. 1558, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 11 (1942); H. R. Rep. No. 2198, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1942).
S. Rep. No. 959, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1944). See also the reference to “personal property taxes” in H. R. Rep. No. 1514, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1944). The reports on the 1942 Act talked about “taxation of the property” and the possibility that “the personal property . . . may become hable for taxes in several States.” S. Rep. No. 1558, supra, n. 26, at 11; H. R. Rep. No. 2198, supra, n. 26, at 6. At the time of the 1962 Amendment, the reports continued to describe the taxes covered by § 514 as those “imposed upon property of a serviceman.” S. Rep. No. 2182, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1962); H. R. Rep. No. 2126, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1962).
It has frequently been said that a use tax, like a sales tax, is an excise or privilege tax different in kind from a tax on property. E. g., Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 292 U. S. 86, 93; Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642, 649. As the Connecticut Supreme Court has described the very tax here in question, “The use tax is not a tax on property but is described in the act as, and in fact is, in the nature of an excise tax upon the privilege of using, storing or consuming property.” Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 307, 57 A. 2d 128, 134. This distinction may sometimes be more formal than actual, cf. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577, 582, 586. But its long-time general acceptance supports the conclusion that when Congress talked about taxes on, or even “in respect of,” personal property, it did not thereby include use taxes.
This conclusion is further buttressed by the close interconnection of sales and use taxes. See generally 3 State Taxation of Interstate Commerce, H. R. Rep. No. 565, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 607-620 (1965). As a complement to the sales tax and an integral part of a single broad pattern of excise taxes, the use tax is not likely to have been grouped by Congress with taxes “in respect of the personal property.”
By 1938, more than half the States had adopted sales and use taxes. See 3 State Taxation of Interstate Commerce, supra, n. 28, at 609.
54 Stat. 1059, now 4 U. S. C. §§ 105-110.
4 U. S. C. § 105 (a) states:
“No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.”
4 U. S. C. § 107 states:
“(a) The provisions of sections 105 and 106 of this title shall not be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from the United States or any instrumentality thereof, or the levy or collection of any tax with respect to sale, purchase, storage, or use of tangible personal property sold by the United States or any instrumentality thereof to any authorized purchaser.
“(b) A person shall be deemed to be an authorized purchaser under this section only with respect to purchases which he is permitted to make from commissaries, ship's stores, or voluntary unincorporated organizations of personnel of any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, under regulations promulgated by the departmental Secretary having jurisdiction over such branch.”
The stipulation filed in the District Court contained the following:
“11. Most of the day-to-day purchases of tangible personal property, which includes food, clothing, toilet articles and other personal items, made by servicemen in Connecticut are made from military exchanges, and commissaries operated by the armed services on military installations.
“12. Sales made by military exchanges and commissaries operated by the armed services on military installations to servicemen are not subject to any tax under the Tax Act.”
Conversely, the administrative burden which the States would have to shoulder if § 514 applied to sales and use taxes is potentially far greater than that attributable to the exemption from ad valorem property taxes. Whereas property taxation involves only the property owner and the tax officials, sales and use taxation usually requires participation and accounting by the seller as well. And the accounting difficulties which retailers and the States would encounter in determining for thousands of transactions which customers were properly exempt under § 514 are considerably greater than any that Congress can be thought to have envisioned for the exemption from property taxes alone.
S. Rep. No. 1558, supra, n. 26, at 11; H. R. Rep. No. 2198, supra, n. 26, at 6. This purpose was restated in the 1944 reports: “When the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 was amended by the act of October 6, 1942, a provision was written into the act to relieve persons in the service from liability of double taxation by being moved from one State to another under orders.” H. R. Rep. No. 1514, supra, n. 27, at 2. And see S. Rep. No. 959, supra, n. 27, at 1.
See Prentice-Hall State and Local Tax Service, All States Unit, ¶ 92,963.
See also Snapp v. Neal, 382 U. S. 397, 398: “We reverse on the authority of our holding today in Buzará that the failure to pay the motor vehicle ‘license, fee, or excise’ of the home State entitles the host State only to exact motor vehicle taxes qualifying as ‘licenses, fees, or excises’; the ad valorem tax, as the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged, is not such an exaction.”
Indeed, the Court in Buzará emphasized that the tax had been adopted by California “as a substitute for local ad valorem taxation of automobiles.” 382 U. S., at 395, n. 9. California’s sales and use taxes were not involved in that case.
See California v. Buzard, 382 U. S., at 394, n. 8, for the various methods by which States impose registration or license fees on motor vehicles.
“This bill amends the tax immunity provisions of the Soldiers' and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act ... so as to clarify a situation which sometimes results in taxation contrary to the intent of the act. More specifically, the bill provides that where a serviceman is absent from his residence or domicile solely by reason of compliance with military or naval orders, the tax immunity provision of existing law shall apply with respect to his personal property, or the use thereof, within any tax jurisdiction other than his State of residence or domicile, regardless of where such serviceman may be located in compliance with such orders.” (Emphasis supplied.) S. Rep. No. 2182, supra, n. 27, at 1.
S. Rep. No. 959, supra, n. 27, at 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we return to the issue that splintered the Court in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222 (1980): Whether the Constitution prohibits a sentencing court from considering a defendant’s previous uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in sentencing him for a subsequent offense.
In 1990, petitioner Nichols pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines (Sentencing Guidelines), petitioner was assessed three criminal history points for a 1983 federal felony drug conviction. An additional criminal history point was assessed for petitioner’s 1983 state misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), for which petitioner was fined $250 but was not incarcerated. This additional criminal history point increased petitioner’s Criminal History Category from Category II to Category III. As a result, petitioner’s sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines increased from 168-210 months (under Criminal History Category II) to 188-235 months (under Category III).
Petitioner objected to the inclusion of his DUI misdemeanor conviction in his criminal history score because he was not represented by counsel at that proceeding. He maintained that consideration of that uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in establishing his sentence would violate the Sixth Amendment as construed in Baldasar, supra. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee found that petitioner’s misdemeanor conviction was uncounseled and that, based on the record before it, petitioner had not waived his right to counsel. 763 F. Supp. 277 (1991). But the District Court rejected petitioner’s Baldasar argument, explaining that in the absence of a majority opinion, Baldasar “stands only for the proposition that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction may not be used to create a felony with a prison term.” 763 F. Supp., at 279. Because petitioner’s offense was already defined as a felony, the District Court ruled that Baldasar was inapplicable to the facts of this case; thus, petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated by using his 1983 DUI conviction to enhance his sentence. It sentenced petitioner to the maximum term allowed by the Sentencing Guidelines under its interpretation of Baldasar, a term 25 months longer than if the misdemeanor conviction had not been considered in calculating petitioner’s criminal history score.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 979 F. 2d 402 (1992). After reviewing the fractured decision in Baldasar and the opinions from other Courts of Appeals that had considered the issue, the court held that Baldasar limits the collateral use at sentencing of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction only when the effect of such consideration is to convert a misdemeanor into a felony. The dissent, while recognizing that “numerous courts have questioned whether [Baldasar] expresses any single holding, and, accordingly, have largely limited Baldasar to its facts,” nevertheless concluded that Baldasar proscribed the use of petitioner’s prior uncounseled DUI conviction to enhance his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 979 F. 2d, at 407-408 (citations omitted).
We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. 953 (1993), to address this important question of Sixth Amendment law, and to thereby resolve a conflict among state courts as well as Federal Courts of Appeals. We now affirm.
In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 (1979), we held that where no sentence of imprisonment was imposed, a defendant charged with a misdemeanor had no constitutional right to counsel. Our decision in Scott was dictated by Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), but we stated that “[e]ven were the matter res nova, we believe that the central premise of Argersinger — that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment — is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.” Scott, supra, at 373.
One year later, in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222 (1980), a majority of the Court held that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, constitutional under Scott, could nevertheless not be collaterally used to convert a second misdemeanor conviction into a felony under the applicable Illinois sentencing enhancement statute. The per curiam opinion in Baldasar provided no rationale for the result; instead, it referred to the “reasons stated in the concurring opinions.” 446 U. S., at 224. There were three different opinions supporting the result. Justice Stewart, who was joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens, stated simply that the defendant “was sentenced to an increased term of imprisonment only because he had been convicted in a previous prosecution in which he had not had the assistance of appointed counsel in his defense,” and that “this prison sentence violated the constitutional rule of Scott . . . .” Ibid. Justice Marshall, who was also joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens, rested his opinion on the proposition that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is “not sufficiently reliable” to support imprisonment under Argersinger, and that it “does not become more reliable merely because the accused has been validly convicted of a subsequent offense.” 446 U. S., at 227-228. Justice Blackmun, who provided the fifth vote, ádvanced the same rationale expressed in his dissent in Scott — that the Constitution requires appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant whenever he is charged with a “nonpetty” offense (an offense punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment) or when the defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment. 446 U. S., at 229-230. Under this rationale, Baldasar’s prior misdemeanor conviction was invalid and could not be used for enhancement purposes because the initial misdemeanor was punishable by a prison term of more than six months.
Justice Powell authored the dissent, in which the remaining three Members of the Court joined. The dissent criticized the majority’s holding as one that “undermines the rationale of Scott and Argersinger and leaves no coherent rationale in its place.” Id., at 231. The dissent opined that the majority’s result misapprehended the nature of enhancement statutes that “do not alter or enlarge a prior sentence,” ignored the significance of the constitutional validity of the first conviction under Scott, and created a “hybrid” conviction, good for the punishment actually imposed but not available for sentence enhancement in a later prosecution. 446 U. S., at 232-233. Finally — and quite presciently — the dissent predicted that the Court’s decision would create confusion in the lower courts. Id., at 234.
In Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977), we stated that “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ....’” .Id., at 193, quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 169, n. 15 (1976). This test is more easily stated than applied to the various opinions supporting the result in Baldasar. A number of Courts of Appeals have decided that there is no lowest common denominator or “narrowest grounds” that represents the Court’s holding. See, e. g., United States v. Castro-Vega, 945 F. 2d 496, 499-500 (CA2 1991); United States v. Eckford, 910 F. 2d 216, 219, n. 8 (CA5 1990); Schindler v. Clerk of Circuit Court, 715 F. 2d 341, 345 (CA7 1983), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1068 (1984). Another Court of Appeals has concluded that the holding in Baldasar is Justice Blackmun’s rationale, Santillanes v. United States Parole Comm’n, 754 F. 2d 887, 889 (CA10 1985); yet another has concluded that the “consensus” of the Baldasar concurrences is roughly that expressed by Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion. United States v. Williams, 891 F. 2d 212, 214 (CA9 1989). State courts have similarly divided. The Sentencing Guidelines have also reflected uncertainty over Baldasar. We think it not useful to pursue the Marks inquiry to the utmost logical possibility when it has so obviously baffled and divided the lower courts that have considered it. This degree of confusion following a splintered decision such as Baldasar is itself a reason for reexamining that decision. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 829-830 (1991); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 24-25 (1973).
Five Members of the Court in Baldasar — the four dissenters and Justice Stewart — expressed continued adherence to Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367 (1979). There the defendant was convicted of shoplifting under a criminal statute which provided that the penalty for the offense should be a fine of not more than $500, a term of not more than one year in jail, or both. The defendant was in fact fined $50, but he contended that since imprisonment for the offense was authorized by statute, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution required Illinois to provide trial counsel. We rejected that contention, holding that so long as no imprisonment was actually imposed, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not obtain. Id., at 373-374. We reasoned that the Court, in a number of decisions, had already expanded the language of the Sixth Amendment well beyond its obvious meaning, and that the line should be drawn between criminal proceedings that resulted in imprisonment, and those that did not. Id., at 372.
We adhere to that holding today, but agree with the dissent in Baldasar that a logical consequence of the holding is that an uncounseled conviction valid under Scott may be re-
lied upon to enhance the sentence for a subsequent offense, even though that sentence entails imprisonment. Enhancement statutes, whether in the nature of criminal history provisions such as those contained in the Sentencing Guidelines, or recidivist statutes that are commonplace in state criminal laws, do not change the penalty imposed for the earlier conviction. As pointed out in the dissenting opinion in Baldasar, “[t]his Court consistently has sustained repeat-offender laws as penalizing only the last offense committed by the defendant. E. g., Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673, 677 (1895); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 451 (1962).” 446 U. S., at 232.
Reliance on such a conviction is also consistent with the traditional understanding of the sentencing process, which we have often recognized as less exacting than the process of establishing guilt. As a general proposition, a sentencing judge “may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446 (1972). “Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U. S. 476, 485 (1993). One such important factor, as recognized by state recidivism statutes and the criminal history component of the Sentencing Guidelines, is a defendant’s prior convictions. Sentencing courts have not only taken into consideration a defendant’s prior convictions, but have also considered a defendant’s past criminal behavior, even if no conviction resulted from that behavior. We have upheld the constitutionality of considering such previous conduct in Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241 (1949). We have also upheld the consideration of such conduct, in connection with the offense presently charged, in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986). There we held that the state could consider, as a sentence enhancement factor, visible possession of a firearm during the felonies of which defendant was found guilty.
Thus, consistently with due process, petitioner in the present case could have been sentenced more severely based simply on evidence of the underlying conduct that gave rise to the previous DUI offense. And the state need prove such conduct only by a preponderance of the evidence. Id., at 91. Surely, then, it must be constitutionally permissible to consider a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction based on the same conduct where that conduct must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Petitioner contends that, at a minimum, due process requires a misdemeanor defendant to be warned that his conviction might be used for enhancement purposes should the defendant later be convicted of another crime. No such requirement was suggested in Scott, and we believe with good reason. In the first place, a large number of misdemeanor convictions take place in police or justice courts which are not courts of record. Without a drastic change in the procedures of these courts, there would be no way to memorialize any such warning. Nor is it at all clear exactly how expansive the warning would have to be; would a Georgia court have to warn the defendant about permutations and commutations of recidivist statutes in 49 other States, as well as the criminal history provision of the Sentencing Guidelines applicable in federal courts? And a warning at the completely general level — that if he is brought back into court on another criminal charge, a defendant such as Nichols will be treated more harshly — would merely tell him what he must surely already know.
Today we adhere to Scott v. Illinois, supra, and overrule Baldosar. Accordingly we hold, consistent with the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott because no prison term was imposed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
At the time of his conviction, petitioner faced a maximum punishment of one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Georgia law provided that a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Ga. Code Ann. §40.6-391(c) (1982).
There are six criminal history categories under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (USSG) eh. 5, pt. A (Nov. 1993) (Sentencing Table). A defendant’s criminal history category is determined by the number of his criminal history points, which in turn is based on his prior criminal record. Id., ch. 4, p. A.
The Sentencing Table provides a matrix of sentencing ranges. On the vertical axis of the matrix is the defendant’s offense level representing the seriousness of the crime; on the horizontal axis is the defendant’s criminal history category. The sentencing range is determined by identifying the intersection of the defendant’s offense level and his criminal history category. Id., ch. 5, pt. A (Sentencing Table).
The Government contends that, even if Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222 (1980), prohibits using the prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction to enhance petitioner’s sentence, the District Court applied the wrong legal standard in finding no valid waiver of the right to counsel. Based on Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 467-469 (1938), and Parke v. Raley, 506 U. S. 20, 28-29 (1992), the Government argues that petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish the absence of a valid waiver of counsel. We need not address this contention due to our resolution of the Baldasar issue.
Petitioner’s instant felony conviction was punishable under statute by not less than 10 years’ imprisonment and not more than life imprisonment. See 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(B); 979 F. 2d 402, 413-414, 417-418 (CA6 1992).
The court also stated that its decision was “logically compelled” by Charles v. Foltz, 741 F. 2d 834, 837 (CA6 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1193 (1986), 979 F. 2d, at 416-416, 418 (“ ‘[Ejvidence of prior uncounselled misdemeanor convictions for which imprisonment was not imposed . . . may be used for impeachment purposes’ ”).
Cf. Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 426, 428, 678 S. W. 2d 318, 320 (1984) (.Baldasar bars any prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction from enhancing a term of imprisonment following a second conviction); State v. Vares, 71 Haw. 617, 620, 801 P. 2d 655, 557 (1990) (same); State v. Laurick, 120 N. J. 1, 16, 575 A. 2d 1340, 1347 (Baldasar bars an enhanced penalty only when it is greater than that authorized in the absence of the prior offense or converts a misdemeanor into a felony), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 967 (1990); Hlad v. State, 565 So. 2d 762, 764-766 (Fla. App. 1990) (following the approach of Justice Blackmun, thereby limiting enhancement to situations where the prior uncounseled misdemeanor was punishable by six months’ imprisonment or less), aff’d, 585 So. 2d 928, 930 (Fla. 1991); Sheffield v. Pass Christian, 556 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Miss. 1990) (Baldasar establishes no barrier to the collateral use of valid, uncounseled misdemeanor convictions).
The Sixth Circuit expressly joined the Fifth and Second Circuits in essentially limiting Baldasar to its facts. See Wilson v. Estelle, 625 F. 2d 1158, 1159, and n. 1 (CA5 1980) (a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used under a sentence enhancement statute to convert a subsequent misdemeanor into a felony with a prison term), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 912 (1981); United States v. Castro-Vega, 945 F. 2d 496, 600 (CA2 1991) (Baldasar does , not apply where “the court used an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction to determine the appropriate criminal history category for a crime that was already a felony”), cert, denied sub nom. Cintron-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U. S. 908 (1992). But see, e. g., United States v. Brady, 928 F. 2d 844, 854 (CA9 1991) (Baldasar and the Sixth Amendment bar any imprisonment in a subsequent case imposed because of an uncounseled conviction in which the right to counsel was not waived).
In felony cases, in contrast to misdemeanor charges, the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant be offered appointed counsel unless that right is intelligently and competently waived. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). We have held that convictions gained in violation of Gideon cannot be used “either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense,” Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 115 (1967), and that a subsequent sentence that was based in part on a prior invalid conviction must be set aside, United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 447-449 (1972).
See n. 7, supra.
The 1989 version of the Sentencing Guidelines stated that, in determining a defendant’s criminal history score, an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction should be excluded only if it “would result in the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment under circumstances that would violate the United States Constitution.” USSG §4A1.2, Application Note 6 (Nov. 1989). Effective November 1,1990, the Sentencing Commission amended §4A1.2 by deleting the above quoted phrase and adding the following statement as background commentary: “Prior sentences, not otherwise excluded, are to be counted in the criminal history score, including uncounseled misdemeanor sentences where imprisonment was not imposed.” USSG App. C, amdt. 363 (Nov. 1993). When the Sentencing Commission initially published the amendment for notice and comment, it included the following explanation: “The Commission does not believe the inclusion of sentences resulting from constitutionally valid, uncounseled misdemeanor convictions in the criminal history score is foreclosed by Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222 (1980).” 55 Fed. Reg. 5741 (1990).
Of course States may decide, based on their own constitutions or public policy, that counsel should be available for all indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors. Indeed, many, if not a majority, of States guarantee the right to counsel whenever imprisonment is authorized by-statute, rather than actually imposed. See, e. g., Alaska Stat. Ann. § 18.85.100 (1991) (“serious” crime means any crime where imprisonment authorized); Ariz. Eule Crim. Proc. 6.1(b) (indigent defendant shall be entitled to have attorney appointed in any criminal proceeding that may result in punishment by loss of liberty, or where court concludes that appointment satisfies the ends of justice); Cal. Penal Code Aim. § 15 (West 1988), Cal. Penal Code Arm. §858 (West 1985); Brunson v. State, 182 Ind. App. 146, 394 N. E. 2d 229 (1979) (right to counsel in misdemeanor proceedings guaranteed by Ind. Const., Art. I, § 13); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 604-A:2 (1986 and Supp. 1992).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The city of Charlotte, N. C., refuses to withhold from the paychecks of its firefighters dues owing to their union, Local 660, International Association of Firefighters. We must decide whether this refusal violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Local 660 represents about 351 of the 543 uniformed members of the Charlotte Fire Department. Since 1969 the union and individual members have repeatedly requested the city to withhold dues owing to the union from the paychecks of those union members who agree to a checkoff. The city has refused each request. After the union learned that it could obtain a private group life insurance policy for its membership only if it had a dues checkoff agreement with the city, the union and its officers filed suit in federal court alleging, inter alia, that the city’s refusal to withhold the dues of union members violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint asserted that since the city withheld amounts from its employees’ paychecks for payment to various other organizations, it could not arbitrarily refuse to withhold amounts for payment to the union.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruled against the city. The court determined that, although the city had no written guidelines, its “practice has been to allow check offs from employees’ pay to organizations or programs as required by law or where the check off option is available to all City employees or where the check off option is available to all employees within a single employee unit such as the Fire Department.” 381 F. Supp. 500, 502 (1974). The court further found that the city has “not allowed check off options serving only single employees or programs which are not available either to all City employees or to all employees engaged in a particular section of City employment.” Ibid. Finding, however, that withholding union dues from the paychecks of union members would be no more difficult than processing any other deduction allowed by the city, the District Court concluded that the city had not offered a rational explanation for its refusal to withhold for the union. Accordingly, the District Court held that the city’s refusal to withhold moneys when requested to do so by the respondents for the benefit of Local 660 “constitutes a violation of the individual [respondents’] rights to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 502-503. The court ordered that so long as the city continued “without clearly stated and fair standards, to withhold moneys from the paychecks of City employees for other purposes,” it was enjoined from refusing to withhold union dues from the paychecks of the respondents. Id., at 503. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 518 F. 2d 83 (1975), and we granted certiorari. 423 U. S. 890 (1975). We reverse.
II
Since it is not here asserted — and this Court would reject such a contention if it were made — that respondents’ status as union members or their interest in obtaining a dues checkoff is such as to entitle them to special treatment under the Equal Protection Clause, the city’s practice must meet only a relatively relaxed standard of reasonableness in order to survive constitutional scrutiny.
The city presents three justifications for its refusal to allow the dues checkoff requested by respondents. First, it argues, North Carolina law makes it illegal for the city to enter into a contract with a municipal union, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 95-98 (1975), and an agreement with union members to provide a dues checkoff, with the union as a third-party beneficiary, would in effect be such a contract. See 40 N. C. Op. Atty. Gen. 591 (1968-1970). Thus, compliance with the state law, and with the public policy it represents of discouraging dealing with municipal unions, is said to provide a sufficient basis for refusing respondents’ request. Second, it claims, a dues checkoff is a proper subject of collective bargaining, which the city asserts Congress may shortly require of state and local governments. Under this theory, the desire to preserve the checkoff as a bargaining chip in any future collective-bargaining process is in itself an adequate basis for the refusal. Lastly, the city contends, allowing withholding only when it benefits all city or departmental employees is a legitimate method for avoiding the burden of withholding money for all persons or organizations that request a checkoff. Because we find that this explanation provides a sufficient justification for the challenged practice, we have no occasion to address the first two reasons proffered.
The city submitted affidavits to show that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive for it to withhold money for every organization or person that requested it, App. 17, 45, 55, and respondents did not contest this showing. As respondents concede, it was therefore reasonable, and permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, for the city to develop standards or restrictions to determine who would be eligible for withholding. Mathews v. Diaz, ante, at 82-83. See Brief for Respondents 9. Within the limitations of the Equal Protection Clause, of course, the choice of those standards is for the city and not for the courts. Thus, our inquiry is not whether standards might be drawn that would include the union but whether the standards that were drawn were reasonable ones with “some basis in practical experience.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 331 (1966). Of course, the fact that the standards were drawn and applied in practice rather than pursuant to articulated guidelines is of no import for equal protection purposes.
The city allows withholding for taxes, retirement-insurance programs, savings programs, and certain charitable organizations. These categories, the District Court found, are those in which the checkoff option can, or must, be availed of by all city employees, or those in an entire department. Although the District Court found that this classification did not present a rational basis for rejecting respondents’ requests, 381 F. Supp., at 502, we disagree. The city has determined that it will provide withholding only for programs of general interest in which all city or departmental employees can, without more, participate. Employees can participate in the union checkoff only if they join an outside organization— the union. Thus, Local 660 does not fit the category of groups for which the city will withhold. We cannot say that denying withholding to associational or special interest groups that claim only some departmental employees as members and that employees must first join before being eligible to participate in the checkoff marks an arbitrary line so devoid of reason as to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, this division seems a reasonable method for providing the benefit of withholding to employees in their status as employees, while limiting the number of instances of withholding and the financial and administrative burdens attendant thereon.
Given the permissibility of creating standards and the reasonableness of the standards created, the District Court’s conclusion that it would be no more difficult for the city to withhold dues for the union than to process other deductions is of no import. We may accept, arguendo, that the difficulty involved in processing any individual deduction is neither great nor different in kind from that involved in processing any other deduction. However, the city has not drawn its lines in order to exclude individual deductions, but in order to avoid the cumulative burden of processing deductions every time a request is made; and inherent in such a line-drawing process are difficult choices and “some harsh and apparently arbitrary consequences . . . .” Mathews v. Diaz, ante, at 83. See ante, at 82-84; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485 (1970). Cf. Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U. S. 357, 364 (1971); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955).
Respondents recognize the legitimacy of such a process and concede that the city “is free to develop fair and reasonable standards to meet any possible cost problem.” Brief for Respondents 9. Respondents have wholly failed, however, to present any reasons why the present standards are not fair and reasonable — other than the fact that the standards exclude them. This fact, of course, is insufficient to transform the city policy into a constitutional violation. Since we find a reasonable basis for the challenged classification, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart concurs in the judgment upon the ground that the classification challenged in this case is not invidiously discriminatory and does not, therefore, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Respondents brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, grounding jurisdiction in 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343. As the Court of Appeals noted, insofar as the suit was brought against the city of Charlotte and the Charlotte City Council, the District Court was without jurisdiction under § 1343 since a municipal corporation is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U. S. 507 (1973). We need not decide whether respondents’ allegation of $10,000 in damages was sufficient to confer § 1331 jurisdiction over the city and city council, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971); Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 (1946); Note, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 922 (1976), since respondents also sued the individual members of the city council and the District Court unquestionably had jurisdiction under § 1343 to consider those claims. See Lynch v. Household Finance Cory., 405 U. S. 538 (1972). For convenience, we shall refer to all the petitioners collectively as the “city.”
The District Court granted the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the union, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and certiorari was not sought on this ruling. Relief was granted only to the union officers who, in their capacity as city employees, had been denied a dues checkoff.
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 253-254 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 335 (1972); Kramer v. Union School Dist., 395 U. S. 621, 626 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30 (1968).
The following payroll deductions are required by law: (a) federal income tax; (b) state income tax; (c) North Carolina Firemen’s Retirement System; (d) North Carolina Local Government Employees Retirement System; (e) city, county, and state tax levies.
The following deductions are permitted for all city employees:
(a) United States Savings Bonds; (b) medical and life insurance;
(c) Aetna Deferred Compensation Plan (a savings program);
(d) United Way.
The following deductions are permitted for all firemen: (a) Firemen’s Benefit Fund (a group life insurance program); (b) Firemen’s Credit Union (a savings and loan program); (e) Firemen’s Voluntary Pledge Fund (a special withholding providing benefits to the survivors of deceased firemen).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our writ issued in this case (358 U. S. 917) to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals (260 F. 2d 21) affirming petitioner’s conviction under the so-called membership clause of the Smith Act. 18 U. S. C. § 2385. The Act, among other things, makes a felony the acquisition or holding of knowing membership in any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence. The indictment charged that from January 1946 to the date of its filing (November 18,1954) the Communist Party of the United States was such an organization, and that petitioner throughout that period was a member thereof, with knowledge of the Party’s illegal purpose and a specific intent to accomplish overthrow “as speedily as circumstances would permit.”
The validity of this conviction is challenged on statutory, constitutional, and evidentiary grounds, and further on the basis of certain alleged trial and procedural errors. We decide the issues raised upon the fullest consideration, the case having had an unusually long history in this Court. For reasons given in this opinion we affirm the Court of Appeals.
I.
Statutory Challenge.
Petitioner contends that the indictment fails to state an offense against the United States. The claim is that § 4 (f) of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 50 U. S. C. § 781 et seq., constitutes a pro tanto repeal of the membership clause of the Smith Act by excluding from the reach of that clause membership in any Communist organization. Section 4 (f) provides:
“Neither the holding of office nor membership in any Communist organization by any person shall constitute per se a violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or of any other criminal statute. The fact of the registration of any person under section 7 or section 8 of this title as an officer or member of any Communist organization shall not be received in evidence against such person in any prosecution for any alleged violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or for any alleged violation of any other criminal statute.”
To prevail in his contention petitioner must, of course, bring himself within the first sentence of this provision, since the second sentence manifestly refers only to exclusion from evidence of the fact of registration, thus assuming that a prosecution may take place.
We turn first to the provision itself, and find that, as to petitioner’s construction of it, the language is at best ambiguous if not suggestive of a contrary conclusion. Section 4 (f) provides that membership or office-holding in a Communist organization shall not constitute “per se a violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or of any other criminal statute.” Petitioner would most plainly be correct if the statute under which he was indicted purported to proscribe membership in Communist organizations, as such, and to punish membership per se in an organization engaging in proscribed advocacy. But the membership clause of the Smith Act on its face, much less as we construe it in this case, does not do this, for it neither proscribes membership in Communist organizations, as such, but only in organizations engaging in advocacy of violent overthrow, nor punishes membership in that kind of organization except as to one “knowing the purposes thereof,” and, as we have interpreted the clause, with a specific intent to further those purposes (infra, pp. 219-222). We have also held that the proscribed membership must be active, and not nominal, passive or theoretical (infra, pp. 222-224). Thus the words of the first sentence of § 4 (f) by no means unequivocally demand the result for which petitioner argues. When we turn from those words to their context, both in the section as a whole and in the scheme of the Act of which they are a part, whatever ambiguity there may be must be resolved, in our view, against the petitioner’s contention.
In the context of § 4 as a whole, the first sentence of subsection (f) does not appear to be a provision repealing in whole or in part any other provision of the Internal Security Act. Subsection (a) of § 4 makes it a crime
“for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship... the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization or foreign individual....”
Subsection (c) makes it a crime for any officer or member of a “Communist organization” to obtain classified information. We should hesitate long before holding that subsection (f) operates to repeal pro tanto either one of these provisions which are found in the same section of which subsection (f) is a part; and indeed the petitioner does not argue for any such quixotic result. The natural tendency of the first sentence of subsection (f) as to the criminal provisions specifically mentioned is to provide clarification of the meaning of those provisions, that is, that an offense is not made out on proof of mere membership in a Communist organization. As to these particularly mentioned criminal provisions immunity, such as there is, is specifically granted in the second sentence only, where it is said that the fact of registration shall not be admitted in evidence. Yet petitioner argues that when we come to the last phrase of the first sentence, the tag “or... any other criminal statute,” the operative part of the sentence, “membership... shall [not] constitute per se a violation,” has an altogether different purport and effect. What operated as a clarification and guide to construction to the specifically identified provisions is, petitioner argues, a partial repealer as to the statutes referred to in the omnibus clause at the end of the sentence.
It seems apparent from the foregoing that the language of § 4 (f) in its natural import and context should not be taken to immunize members of Communist organizations from the membership clause of the Smith Act, but rather as a mandate to the courts charged with the construction of subsections (a) and (c) “or... any other criminal statute” that neither those two named criminal provisions nor any other shall be construed so as to make “membership” in a Communist organization “per se a violation.” Indeed, as we read the first sentence of § 4 (f), even if the membership clause of the Smith Act could be taken as punishing naked Communist Party membership, it would then be our duty under § 4 (f) to construe it in accordance with that mandate, certainly not to strike it down. Although we think that the membership clause on its face goes beyond making mere Party membership a violation, in that it requires a showing both of illegal Party purposes and of a member’s knowledge of such purposes, we regard the first sentence of § 4 (f) as a clear warrant for construing the clause as requiring not only knowing membership, but active and purposive membership, purposive that is as to the organization’s criminal ends. (Infra, pp. 219-224.) By its terms, then, subsection (f) does not effect a pro tanto repeal of the membership clause; at most it modifies it.
Petitioner argues that if the § 4 (f) provision does not bar this prosecution under the membership clause, then the phrase “or of any other criminal statute” becomes meaningless, for there is no other federal criminal statute that makes this sort of membership a crime. But the argument assumes the answer. The first sentence was intended to clarify, not repeal, § 4 (a) of the Internal Security Act. By a parity of reasoning, its effect on “any other criminal statute” is also clarification, not repeal.
Petitioner’s contentions do not stop, however, with the words of § 4 (f) itself. The supposed partial repeal of the membership clause by that provision, it is claimed, is a consequence of the latter’s purpose in the whole scheme of the Internal Security Act of 1950, as illuminated by its legislative history. The argument runs as follows: The core of the Internal Security Act is its registration provisions (§§ 7 and 8), requiring disclosure of membership in the Communist Party following a valid final determination of the Subversive Activities Control Board as to the status of the Party. See No. 12, ante, p. 1. The registration requirement would be rendered nugatory by a plea of self-incrimination and could only be saved by a valid grant of immunity from prosecution by reason of any such disclosure. However, the immunity provided by the second sentence of § 4 (f) is insufficient, in that it forbids only the use of the “fact of... registration” as evidence in any future prosecution, and not also its employment as a “lead” to other evidence. See Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332. Therefore to effectuate the congressional purpose it becomes necessary to consider the first sentence of § 4 (f) a pro tanto repealer of the membership clause of the Smith Act, thereby assuring effective immunity from the criminal consequences of registration in this instance.
Although this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute. Certainly the section before us cannot be construed as petitioner argues. The fact of registration may provide a significant investigatory lead not only in prosecutions under the membership clause of the Smith Act, but equally probably to prosecutions under § 4 (a) of the Internal Security Act, let alone §4(c). Thus, if we accepted petitioner’s argument that § 4 (f) must be read as a partial repealer of the membership clause, we would be led to the extraordinary conclusion that Congress also intended to immunize under § 4 (f) what it prohibited in these other subsections which it passed at the same time. Furthermore, the thrust of petitioner’s argument cannot be limited to the membership clause, for it is equally applicable to any prosecution under any of a host of criminal provisions where Communist Party membership might provide an investigatory lead as to the elements of the crime. We cannot attribute any such sweeping purpose to Congress on the basis of the attenuated inference offered by petitioner.
Presented as we are with every indication in the statute itself that Congress had no purpose to bar a prosecution such as this, we turn to the legislative history of the Internal Security Act of 1950 to see if a different conclusion is indicated.
Section 4 (f) is the product of the fusion of provisions contained in measures conceived by the House and the Senate to deal with the problem which is the subject of the present Internal Security Act. Primarily, however, § 4 is the result of the Senate’s efforts. In 1949 Senator Mundt reintroduced in the Senate a bill, the Mundt-Nixon bill, which had died in committee the year before. S. 2311, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. The bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, contained registration provisions similar to those in the present statute, and a § 4 (a), a criminal provision identical to that of the present § 4 (a). In response to an enquiry, the Committee received a letter from an eminent lawyer, the late John W. Davis of New York, to the effect that although the primary purpose of the bill appears to be “ventilation rather than prohibition,” there was a question whether “mere membership in a Communist political organization, which is... required to register [might] constitute an act such as section 4 (a) proscribes? If so,” the letter continued, “is there not inherent contradiction between these sections, and might not a person called on to register as a member claim that he would involuntarily incriminate himself by so doing?” (Emphasis supplied.) S. Rep. No. 1358, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 43-44. Thus, the Davis letter seemed to address itself only to self-incrimination under the proscriptions of §4 (a), and only to the extent that the membership disclosed by registration would without more constitute a violation of § 4 (a).
In response to this narrow objection the Committee drafted the predecessor of the present § 4 (f). That section, also numbered § 4 (f), provided that:
“Neither the holding of office nor membership in any Communist organization by any person shall constitute a violation of subsection (a)... of this section. The fact of the registration of any person... shall not be received in evidence against such person in any prosecution for any alleged violation of subsection (a)....” S. 2311, as amended.
The Committee in reporting the bill out to the Senate made it abundantly clear that whatever objections might be made could, in its view, be overcome by the clarification of § 4 (a) contained in § 4 (f), to wit: that “mere membership in an organization required to register is not an overt act such as to bring a person within the prohibitions of section 4. This amendment was inserted to make clear the intent of Congress that registration... was not evidence of a violation of section 4 of the bill.” (Emphasis supplied.) S. Rep. No. 1358, supra, p. 2. To the drafters of the original version of the section, then, the perforce limited immunity of the second sentence of § 4 (f) together with the clarification of the meaning of § 4 (a) in the first sentence was adequate to deal with the self-incrimination problem under §4 (a), raised by the Davis letter. There is no mention of the Smith Act or any other criminal statute as yet, but the problem of the necessary scope of immunity is no different in relation to § 4 (a) than it would be to such other statutes.
The subsequent history of the section in the Senate reinforces the conclusion that there was no intent to grant a broad immunity such as would meet the reasoning of Counselman v. Hitchcock. The Mundt-Nixon bill was incorporated in the body of an omnibus measure, the McCarran bill. S. 4037, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. When this bill was reported out to the Senate no further mention was made in the majority report of the Judiciary Committee of the sections under consideration. However, Senator Kilgore’s minority report squarely presented two questions as to the insufficiency of the immunity provisions of § 4 (f): (1) that the immunity was inadequate to meet the Counselman rule, and (2) that in any case there was no immunity of any sort granted in respect of the Smith Act. S. Rep. No. 2369, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 2, pp. 12-13. These grounds were urged against the bill also in debate by its opponents. Senator Humphrey read into the Record a “brief” prepared by the Justice Department which in effect restated the objections of the minority report. 96 Cong. Rec. 14475, at 14479. Senator Lehman stated the same objections, and also suggested that the membership clause of the Smith Act as well as § 4 (a) made Communist membership per se a crime. This latter contention was vigorously denied by the proponents of the measure. Thus, the-Senate passed its predecessor version of §4(f), even though it had had clearly presented to it constitutional objections to that provision which are the same as the objections petitioner now makes to a natural and literal reading of the present statute. There was no immunity of any kind against Smith Act prosecutions, and only limited immunity against prosecutions under the comparable provisions of § 4 (a).
The history of the original House measure is likewise relevant to the issue under consideration. That measure, the Wood bill, which also provided for registration, contained no provision similar to § 4 (a), but did have a provision similar to the present § 4 (c), forbidding members of Communist organizations from obtaining classified information. H. R. 9490, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. The bill included an immunity proyision in the same subsection as the predecessor to present § 4 (c), which declared that:
“... the fact of the registration of any person... shall not be received in evidence against such person in any prosecution for any alleged violation... of this section.”
Once again, the Wood bill demonstrates the same narrow view of the self-incrimination problem as was evidenced by the Senate bill. In debate Congressmen Celler and Marcantonio, opposing the bill, pointed to the twofold inadequacy of the immunity provision: its failure to meet Counselman, and its not reaching other criminal statutes. 96 Cong. Rec. 13739-13740. The House responded to these objections by adding the words “or for any alleged violation of any other... criminal statute” at the end of the above-quoted provision. 96 Cong. Rec. 13761. It is, therefore, even clearer than in the case of the Senate’s action that there was no attempt to grant complete immunity or to repeal any other statute at least as to prosecution of Communist Party members, since the House’s immunity provision in terms only dealt with the admission into evidence of the fact of registration, having no provision comparable to the first sentence of present §4(f). That there was no such provision may perhaps be explained by the fact that there was no equivalent to § 4 (a) in need of clarification.
In conference, the substance of the Senate bill was accepted by the conferees, including the criminal provision of the present § 4 (a). The Senate version of § 4 (f) was amended to its present form by the addition of the House “or any other criminal statute” language to both the first and second sentences of the subsection, and by the addition of “per se” to the first sentence. Thus we are asked by petitioner to hold that although neither House in its preconference bills evidenced any purpose to repeal the Smith Act insofar as Communist Party membership was concerned, let alone other possibly applicable statutes.under which registration as a Party member might produce an investigatory lead (see note 3, supra), the amalgamation of these two bills was intended, though without any notification by the conferees to either House in their conference reports, to have this result. Nor does the addition of the words “per se” advance petitioner’s argument. On its face the addition would seem simply to make more explicit the clarifying purpose of the sentence. In its context of worries that § 4 (a) or the Smith Act makes Communist membership per se criminal, and of statements by the proponents of the bills that this was an unfounded fear as to both provisions, the purely clarifying purpose of per se is apparent. Furthermore, we are asked to attribute this purpose to the conferees, although neither they nor the proponents of the measure as it finally emerged from conference said a word about such an important departure from the original purposes of the two Houses.
Finally, it is worth noting that after the conference measure returned to the floor of the Senate it was attacked by Senator Kefauver on precisely the same grounds as had been urged against it in both Houses prior to conference: that the immunity conferred by the present § 4 (f) was too narrowly drawn to save the registration provisions against an attack under Counselman. 96 Cong. Rec. 15198-15199. This same attack was renewed after the President’s veto, which was overridden by Congress. 96 Cong. Rec. 15553-15554.
The legislative history of § 4 (f), therefore, far from weakening the conclusion flowing from analysis of the terms of the statute itself, fortifies that analysis at every point. To conclude that Congress’ desire to protect the registration provisions of the Internal Security Act against pleas of self-incrimination should prevail over its advertent failure to assure that result at the expense of wiping out the membership clause of the Smith Act, as applied to Communists, would require a disregard by this Court of the evident congressional purpose. Whatever may be the consequences of that failure upon the Internal Security Act, we are concerned here solely with the question whether Congress by § 4 (f) intended a partial repeal of the membership clause of the Smith Act. We conclude that it did not and hold that this prosecution is not barred by § 4 (f) of the Internal Security Act of 1950.
II.
Constitutional Challenge to the Membership Clause on its Face.
Petitioner’s constitutional attack goes both to the statute on its face and as applied. At this point we deal with the first aspect of the challenge and with one part of its second aspect. The balance of the latter, which essentially concerns the sufficiency of the evidence, is discussed in the next section of this opinion.
It will bring the constitutional issues into clearer focus to notice first the premises on which the case was submitted to the jury. The jury was instructed that in order to convict it must find that within the three-year limitations period (1) the Communist Party advocated the violent overthrow of the Government, in the sense of present “advocacy of action” to accomplish that end as soon as circumstances were propitious; and (2) petitioner was an “active” member of the Party, and not merely “a nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical” member, with knowledge of the Party’s illegal advocacy and a specific intent to bring about violent overthrow “as speedily as circumstances would permit.”
The constitutional attack upon the membership clause, as thus construed, is that the statute offends (1) the Fifth Amendment, in that it impermissibly imputes guilt to an individual merely on the basis of his associations and sympathies, rather than because of some concrete personal involvement in criminal conduct; and (2) the First Amendment, in that it infringes on free political expression and association. Subsidiarily, it is argued that the statute cannot be interpreted as including a requirement of a specific intent to accomplish violent overthrow, or as requiring that membership in a proscribed organization must be “active” membership, in the absence of both or either of which it is said the statute becomes a fortiori unconstitutional. It is further contended that even if the adjective “active” may properly be implied as a qualification upon the term “member,” petitioner’s conviction would nonetheless be unconstitutional, because so construed the statute would be impermissibly vague under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and so applied would in any event infringe the Sixth Amendment, in that the indictment charged only that Scales was a “member,” not an “active” member, of the Communist Party.
1. Statutory Construction.
Before reaching petitioner’s constitutional claims, we should first ascertain whether the membership clause permissibly bears the construction put upon it below. We think it does.
The trial court’s definition of the kind of organizational advocacy that is proscribed was fully in accord with what was held in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298. And the statute itself requires that a defendant must have knowledge of the organization’s illegal advocacy.
The only two elements of the crime, as defined below, about which there is controversy are therefore “specific intent” and “active” membership. As to the former, this Court held in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 499-500, that even though the “advocacy” and “organizing” provisions of the Smith Act, unlike the “literature” section (note 1, supra), did not expressly contain such a specific intent element, such a requirement was fairly to be implied. We think that the reasoning of Dennis applies equally to the" membership clause, and are left unpersuaded by the distinctions petitioner seeks to draw between this clause and the advocacy and organizing provisions of the Smith Act.
We find hardly greater difficulty in interpreting the membership clause to reach only “active” members. We decline to attribute to Congress a purpose to punish nominal membership, even though accompanied by “knowledge” and “intent,” not merely because of the close constitutional questions that such a purpose would raise (cf. infra, p. 228; Yates, supra, at 319), but also for two other reasons: It is not to be lightly inferred that Congress intended to visit upon mere passive members the heavy penalties imposed by the Smith Act. Nor can we assume that it was Congress’ purpose to allow the quality of the punishable membership to be measured solely by the varying standards of that relationship as subjectively viewed by different organizations. It is more reasonable to believe that Congress contemplated an objective standard fixed by the law itself, thereby assuring an evenhanded application of the statute.
This Court in passing on a similar provision requiring the deportation of aliens who have become members of the Communist Party — a provision which rested on Congress’ far more plenary power over aliens, and hence did not press nearly so closely on the limits of constitutionality as this enactment — had no difficulty in interpreting “membership” there as meaning more than the mere voluntary listing of a person’s name on Party rolls. Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522; Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U. S. 115; see Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135. A similar construction is called for here.
Petitioner’s particular constitutional objections to this construction are misconceived. The indictment was not defective in failing to charge that Scales was an “active” member of the Party, for that factor was not in itself a discrete element of the crime, but an inherent quality of the membership element. As such it was a matter not for the indictment, but for elucidating instructions to the jury on what the term “member” in the statute meant. Nor do we think that the objection on the score of vagueness is a tenable one. The distinction between “active” and “nominal” membership is well understood in common parlance (cf. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U. S. 337; United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374), and the point at which one shades into the other is something that goes not to the sufficiency of the statute, but to the adequacy of the trial court’s guidance to the jury by way of instructions in a particular case. See note 29, infra. Moreover, whatever abstract doubts might exist on the matter, this case presents no such problem. For petitioner’s actions on behalf of the Communist Party most certainly amounted to active membership by whatever standards one could reasonably anticipate, and he can therefore hardly be considered to have acted unadvisedly on this score.
We find no substance in the further suggestion that petitioner could not be expected to anticipate a construction of the statute that included within its elements activity and specific intent, and hence that he was not duly warned of what the statute made criminal. It is, of course, clear that the dower courts’ construction was narrower, not broader, than the one for which petitioner argues in defining the character of the forbidden conduct and that therefore, according to petitioner’s own construction, his actions were forbidden by the statute. The contention must then be that petitioner had a right to rely on the statute’s, as he construed it, being held unconstitutional. Assuming, arguendo, that petitioner’s construction was not unreasonable, no more can be said than that — in light of the courts’ traditional avoidance of constructions of dubious constitutionality and in light of their role in construing the purpose of a statute — there were two ways one could reasonably anticipate this statute’s being construed, and that petitioner had clear warning that his actions were in violation of both constructions. There is no additional constitutional requirement that petitioner should be entitled to rely upon the statute’s being construed in such a way as possibly to render it unconstitutional. In sum, this argument of a “right” to a literal construction simply boils down to a claim that the view of the statute taken below did violence tó the congressional purpose. Of course a litigant is always prejudiced when a court errs, but whether or not the lower courts erred in their construction is an issue which can only be met on its merits, and not by reference to a “right” to a particular interpretation.
We hold that the statute was correctly interpreted by the two lower courts, and now turn to petitioner’s basic constitutional challenge.
2. Fifth Amendment.
In our jurisprudence guilt is personal, and when the imposition of punishment on a status or on conduct can only be justified by reference to the relationship of that status or conduct to other concededly criminal activity (here advocacy of violent overthrow), that relationship must be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the concept of personal guilt in order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Membership, without more, in an organization engaged in illegal advocacy, it is now said, has not heretofore been recognized by this Court to be such a relationship. This claim stands, and we shall examine it, independently of the claim made under the First Amendment.
Any thought that due process puts beyond the reach of the criminal law all individual associational relationships, unless accompanied by the Commission of specific acts of criminality, is dispelled by familiar concepts of the law of conspiracy and complicity. While both are commonplace in the landscape of the criminal law, they are not natural features. Rather they are particular legal concepts manifesting the more general principle that society, having the power to punish dangerous behavior, cannot be powerless against those who work to bring about that behavior. The fact that Congress has not resorted to either of these familiar concepts means only that the enquiry here must direct itself to an analysis of the relationship between the fact of membership and the underlying substantive illegal conduct, in order to determine whether that relationship is indeed too tenuous to permit its use as the basis of criminal liability. In this instance it is an organization which engages in criminal activity, and we can perceive no reason why one who actively and knowingly works in the ranks of that organization, intending to contribute to the success of those specifically illegal activities, should be any more immune from prosecution than he to whom the organization has assigned the task of carrying out the substantive criminal act. Nor should the fact that Congress has focussed here on “membership,” the characteristic relationship between an individual and the type of conspiratorial quasi-political associations with the criminal aspect of whose activities Congress was concerned, of itself require the conclusion that the legislature has traveled outside the familiar and permissible bounds of criminal imputability. In truth, the specificity of the proscribed relationship is not necessarily a vice; it provides instruction and warning.
What must be met, then, is the argument that membership, even when accompanied by the elements of knowledge and specific intent, affords an insufficient quantum of participation in the organization’s alleged criminal activity, that is, an insufficiently significant form of aid and encouragement to permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on that basis. It must indeed be recognized that a person who merely becomes a member of an illegal organization, by that “act” alone need be doing nothing more than signifying his assent to its purposes and activities on one hand, and providing, on the other, only the sort of moral encouragement which comes from the knowledge that others believe in what the organization is doing. It may indeed be argued that such assent and encouragement do fall short of the concrete, practical impetus given to a criminal enterprise which is lent for instance by a commitment on the part of a conspirator to act in furtherance of that enterprise. A member, as distinguished from a conspirator, may indicate his approval of a criminal enterprise by the very fact of his membership without thereby necessarily committing himself to further it by any act or course of conduct whatever.
In an area of the criminal law which this Court has indicated more than once demands its watchful scrutiny (see Dennis, supra, at 516; Yates, supra, at 328; and see also Noto v. United States, decided today, post, p. 290), these factors have weight and must be found to be overborne in a total constitutional assessment of the statute. We think, however, they are duly met when the statute is found to reach only “active” members having also a guilty knowledge and intent, and which therefore prevents a conviction on what otherwise might be regarded as merely an expression of sympathy with the alleged criminal enterprise, unaccompanied by any significant action in its support or any commitment to undertake such action.
Thus, given the construction of the membership clause already discussed, we think the factors called for in rendering members criminally responsible for the illegal advocacy of the organization fall within established, and therefore presumably constitutional, standards of criminal imputability.
3. First Amendment.
Little remains to be said concerning the claim that the statute infringes First Amendment freedoms. It was settled in Dennis that the advocacy with which we are here concerned is not constitutionally protected speech, and it was further established that a combination to promote such advocacy, albeit under the aegis of what purports to be a political party, is not such association as is protected by the First Amendment. We can discern no reason why membership, when it constitutes a purposeful form of complicity in a group engaging in this same forbidden advocacy, should receive any greater degree of protection from the guarantees of that Amendment.
If it is said that the mere existence of such an enactment tends to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, in that it engenders an unhealthy fear that one may find himself unwittingly embroiled in criminal liability, the answer surely is that the statute provides that a defendant must be proven to have knowledge of the proscribed advocacy before he may be convicted. It is, of course, true that quasi-political parties or other groups that may embrace both legal and illegal aims differ from a technical conspiracy, which is defined by its criminal purpose, so that all knowing association with the conspiracy is a proper subject for criminal proscription as far as First Amendment liberties are concerned. If there were a similar blanket prohibition of association with a group having both legal and illegal aims, there would indeed be a real danger that legitimate political expression or association would be impaired, but the membership clause, as here construed, does not cut deeper into the freedom of association than is necessary to deal with “the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52. The clause does not make criminal all association with an organization which has been shown to engage in illegal advocacy. There must be clear proof that a defendant “specifically intend[s] to accomplish [the aims of the organization] by resort to violence.” Noto v. United States, post, at p. 299. Thus the member for whom the organization is a vehicle for the advancement of legitimate aims and policies does not fall within the ban of the statute: he lacks the requisite specific intent “to bring about the overthrow of the government as speedily as circumstances would permit.” Such a person may be foolish, deluded, or perhaps merely optimistic, but he is not by this statute made a criminal.
We conclude that petitioner’s constitutional challenge must be overruled.
III.
Evidentiary Challenge.
Only in rare instances will this Court review the general sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, for ordinarily that is a function which properly belongs to and ends with the Court of Appeals. We do so in this case and in No. 9, Noto v. United States, post, p. 290—our first review of convictions under the membership clause of the Smith Act — not only to make sure that substantive constitutional standards have not been thwarted, but also to provide guidance for the future to the lower courts in an area which borders so closely upon constitutionally protected rights.
On this phase of the case petitioner’s principal contention is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Communist Party was engaged in present advocacy of violent overthrow of the Government in the sense required by the Smith Act, that is, in “advocacy of action” for the accomplishment of such overthrow either immediately or as soon as circumstances proved propitious, and uttered in terms reasonably calculated to “incite” to such action. See Yates v. United States, supra, 318-322. This contention rests largely on the proposition that the evidence on this aspect of the case does not differ materially
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a resident of New York, who owned stock worth $10,000 or more in the respondent South Chester Tube Company, a corporation, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where respondent was incorporated and maintained its business headquarters. Alleging that the corporation had many times denied petitioner's requests to inspect its books and records as authorized by Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 16, § 2852-308B (1958), the complaint requested the court to enter an order directing the corporation to permit such an inspection. Jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (a), which vests jurisdiction in the district courts where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 and where the parties are citizens of different States. The respondent answered, admitting parts of the allegations of the complaint and denying others. Respondent also moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter on the two following grounds:
“1. The only relief sought in this diversity action is an order to compel the defendant company to allow the plaintiff, a minority shareholder, to inspect certain corporate records. Such an order is in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Under the All Writs Act, this United States District Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus in a case in which that writ is the only relief sought.
“2. . . . That right of inspection is not subject to any monetary valuation. Since diversity jurisdiction depends upon the existence of an amount in controversy which is capable of such monetary valuation [in excess of $10,000], no jurisdiction exists in this Court.”
The District Court dismissed on the first ground of the motion, 252 F. Supp. 329 (D. C. E. D. Pa. 1966), and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the same ground, 378 F. 2d 205 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1967). For reasons to be stated we hold that these rulings on the mandamus point were erroneous and reverse the judgment below.
The courts below viewed petitioner’s complaint as in effect a plea for a writ of mandamus and relied on a long line of cases which have interpreted the All Writs Act to deny power to issue this writ when it is the only relief sought. A writ of mandamus, so these cases hold, can issue only in aid of jurisdiction acquired to grant some other form of relief. See M’Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504 (1813); Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450 (1887); Covington Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U. S. 109 (1906). We think, however, that the courts below erred in concluding that the relief sought here is “mandamus” within the meaning of these cases. Practically all the cases relied on by respondent and the courts below involved mandamus in its original sense — a suit against a public officer to compel performance of some “ministerial” duty. Although the word “mandamus” is also frequently used to describe orders that compel affirmative action by private parties, the considerations that come into play here certainly differ from the problems involved when the courts seek to compel action by public officials.
So far as we are aware, there is only one case in which this Court has held a federal district court without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a private party. In Knapp v. Lake Shore R. Co., 197 U. S. 536 (1905), the Interstate Commerce Commission had filed a “petition for mandamus” in the federal court, seeking to compel a railroad company to file certain reports as required by § 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Court applied the principle of the earlier cases involving public officers and held that mandamus would not fie against the railroad company defendant. But the Court was careful to note that relief against the railroad might be available in the form of a “writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise.” Id., at 543. The distinction drawn by the Court in Knapp between mandamus and a mandatory injunction seems formalistic in the present day and age, but it must be remembered that Knapp was decided before the simplification of the rules of pleading and, more importantly, before the merger of law and equity. Since a writ of mandamus could be issued only in an action at law, while an injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitive, was an equitable remedy, the distinction referred to in Knapp was a familiar one in the judicial system of the time.
We need not now decide whether Knapp properly extended the mandamus bar to suits for relief against private parties or even whether the distinction between mandamus and mandatory injunctions can survive the merger of law and equity and the simplification of the rules of pleading. In the present case petitioner did not even fall into the trap of using the possibly fatal label, “mandamus”; instead he simply asked the court “to order the defendant to permit plaintiff to examine [its records].” Thus, even under the broadest possible reading of the Knapp decision, the All Writs Act would not deny a federal court power to issue the relief sought here.
We find no other principle of federal law, whether judge-made, statutory, or constitutional, which bars the granting of a mandatory remedy here. Petitioner undoubtedly has a right, under the substantive law of the State, to inspect the records of the corporation in which he holds stock, and since he has no adequate remedy at law, the federal court has jurisdiction to grant relief under its traditional equity power. We need not decide whether this is a case where such a federal remedy can be provided even in the absence of a similar state remedy, Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Co., 339 U. S. 667, 674 (1950); cf. Guffey v. Smith, 237 U. S. 101 (1915), because it is clear that state law here also provides for enforcement of the shareholder’s right by a compulsory judicial order. See Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 1911 (1967). While the State labels the right of action “mandamus,” what the Pennsylvania statute actually does is to authorize an action to compel Pennsylvania corporations to permit inspection of their records by their shareholders, and the label used under state practice of course has no bearing on the question whether the federal courts have power to grant the kind of relief actually sought. Consequently the District Court here does have power to issue the proper orders to enforce petitioner’s state-granted right to inspect the corporate records.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“Every shareholder shall have a right to examine, in person or by agent or attorney, at any reasonable time or times, for any reasonable purpose, the share register, books or records of account, and records of the proceedings of the shareholders and directors, and make extracts therefrom.”
1 Stat. 81 (1789), as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a):
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
A provision of the federal bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), makes criminal a knowing scheme to obtain property owned by, or in the custody of, a bank "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." The question presented is whether the Government must prove that a defendant charged with violating that provision intended to defraud a bank. We hold that the Government need not make that showing.
I
Petitioner Kevin Loughrin executed a scheme to convert altered or forged checks into cash. Pretending to be a Mormon missionary going door-to-door in a neighborhood in Salt Lake City, he rifled through residential mailboxes and stole any checks he found. Sometimes, he washed, bleached, ironed, and dried the checks to remove the existing writing, and then filled them out as he wanted; other times, he did nothing more than cross out the name of the original payee and add another. And when he was lucky enough to stumble upon a blank check, he completed it and forged the accountholder's signature. Over several months, Loughrin made out six of these checks to the retailer Target, for amounts of up to $250. His modus operandi was to go to a local store and, posing as the accountholder, present an altered check to a cashier to purchase merchandise. After the cashier accepted the check (which, remarkably enough, happened time after time), Loughrin would leave the store, then turn around and walk back inside to return the goods for cash.
Each of the six checks that Loughrin presented to Target was drawn on an account at a federally insured bank, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Employees in Target's back office identified three of the checks as fraudulent, and so declined to submit them for payment. Target deposited the other three checks. The bank refused payment on one, after the accountholder notified the bank that she had seen a man steal her mail. Target appears to have received payment for the other two checks, though the record does not conclusively establish that fact. See Brief for United States 6, 7, n. 3.
The Federal Government eventually caught up with Loughrin and charged him with six counts of committing bank fraud-one for each of the altered checks presented to Target. The federal bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, provides as follows:
"Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice-
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both." 1
Ruling (for a reason not material here) that Circuit precedent precluded convicting Loughrin under the statute's first clause, § 1344(1), the District Court allowed the case to go to the jury on the statute's second, § 1344(2).
The court instructed the jury that it could convict Loughrin under that clause if, in offering the fraudulent checks to Target, he had "knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain money or property from the [banks on which the checks were drawn] by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." App. 7. Loughrin asked as well for another instruction: The jury, he argued, must also find that he acted with "intent to defraud a financial institution." App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a. The court, however, declined to give that charge, and the jury convicted Loughrin on all six counts.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. See 710 F.3d 1111 (2013). As relevant here, it rejected Loughrin's argument that "a conviction under § 1344(2) requires proof that he intended to defraud the banks on which the [altered] checks had been drawn." Id., at 1115. That intent, the court reasoned, is necessary only under the bank fraud law's first clause. The court acknowledged that under its interpretation, § 1344(2) "cast[s] a wide net for bank fraud liability," but concluded that such a result is "dictated by the plain language of the statute." Id., at 1117.
We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 822, 187 L.Ed.2d 623 (2013), to resolve a Circuit split on whether § 1344(2) requires the Government to show that a defendant intended to defraud a federally insured bank or other financial institution.2 We now affirm the Tenth Circuit's decision.
II
We begin with common ground. All parties agree, as do we and the Courts of Appeals, that § 1344(2) requires that a defendant "knowingly execute[ ], or attempt[ ] to execute, a scheme or artifice" with at least two elements. First, the clause requires that the defendant intend "to obtain any of the moneys... or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution." (We refer to that element, more briefly, as intent "to obtain bank property.") Brief for United States 11, 17, 20, 22, 32; Brief for Petitioner 30-31. And second, the clause requires that the envisioned result- i.e., the obtaining of bank property-occur "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." See Brief for United States 21-22; Reply Brief 18-19. Loughrin does not contest the jury instructions on either of those two elements. Nor does he properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting them here.3
The single question presented is whether the Government must prove yet another element: that the defendant intended to defraud a bank. As Loughrin describes it, that element would compel the Government to show not just that a defendant intended to obtain bank property (as the jury here found), but also that he specifically intended to deceive a bank. See Reply Brief 17. And that difference, Loughrin claims, would have mattered in this case, because his intent to deceive ran only to Target, and not to any of the banks on which his altered checks were drawn.
But the text of § 1344(2) precludes Loughrin's argument. That clause focuses, first, on the scheme's goal (obtaining bank property) and, second, on the scheme's means (a false representation). We will later address how the "means" component of § 1344(2) imposes certain inherent limits on its reach. See infra, at 2392 - 2395. But nothing in the clause additionally demands that a defendant have a specific intent to deceive a bank. And indeed, imposing that requirement would prevent § 1344(2) from applying to a host of cases falling within its clear terms. In particular, the clause covers property "owned by" the bank but in someone else's custody and control (say, a home that the bank entrusted to a real estate company after foreclosure); thus, a person violates § 1344(2)'s plain text by deceiving a non-bank custodian into giving up bank property that it holds. Yet under Loughrin's view, the clause would not apply to such a case except in the (presumably rare) circumstance in which the fraudster's intent to deceive extended beyond the custodian to the bank itself. His proposed inquiry would thus function as an extra-textual limit on the clause's compass.
And Loughrin's construction of § 1344(2) becomes yet more untenable in light of the rest of the bank fraud statute. That is because the first clause of § 1344, as all agree, includes the requirement that a defendant intend to "defraud a financial institution"; indeed, that is § 1344(1)'s whole sum and substance. See Brief for United States 18; Brief for Petitioner 8. To read the next clause, following the word "or," as somehow repeating that requirement, even while using different words, is to disregard what "or" customarily means. As we have recognized, that term's "ordinary use is almost always disjunctive, that is, the words it connects are to be given separate meanings." United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 557, 567, 187 L.Ed.2d 472 (2013). Yet Loughrin would have us construe the two entirely distinct statutory phrases that the word "or" joins as containing an identical element. And in doing so, his interpretation would make § 1344's second clause a mere subset of its first: If, that is, § 1344(2) implicitly required intent to defraud a bank, it would apply only to conduct already falling within § 1344(1). Loughrin's construction thus effectively reads "or" to mean "including"-a definition foreign to any dictionary we know of.
As that account suggests, Loughrin's view collides as well with more general canons of statutory interpretation. We have often noted that when "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another"-let alone in the very next provision-this Court "presume [s]" that Congress intended a difference in meaning. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (citation omitted). And here, as just stated, overriding that presumption would render § 1344's second clause superfluous. Loughrin's view thus runs afoul of the "cardinal principle" of interpretation that courts "must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (citation omitted). 4
III
Loughrin makes two principal arguments to avoid the import of the statute's plain text. First, he relies on this Court's construction of comparable language in the federal mail fraud statute to assert that Congress intended § 1344(2) merely to explicate the scope of § 1344(1)'s prohibition on scheming to defraud a bank, rather than to cover any additional conduct. And second, he contends that unless we read the second clause in that duplicative way, its coverage would extend to a vast range of fraudulent schemes, thus intruding on the historic criminal jurisdiction of the States. Neither argument is without force, but in the end, neither carries the day.
A
"[D]espite appearances," Loughrin avers, § 1344(2) has no independent meaning: It merely specifies part of what § 1344(1) already encompasses. Brief for Petitioner 8. To support that concededly counterintuitive argument, Loughrin invokes our decision in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), interpreting similar language in the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. That law, which served as a model for § 1344, see Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 20-21, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), prohibits using the mail to further "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." Loughrin rightly explains that, despite the word "or," McNally understood that provision as setting forth just one offense-using the mails to advance a scheme to defraud. The provision's back half, we held, merely codified a prior judicial decision applying the front half: In other words, the back clarified that the front included certain conduct, rather than doing independent work. 483 U.S., at 358-359, 107 S.Ct. 2875. According to Loughrin, we should read the bank fraud statute in the same way.
But the two statutes, as an initial matter, have notable textual differences. The mail fraud law contains two phrases strung together in a single, unbroken sentence. By contrast, § 1344's two clauses have separate numbers, line breaks before, between, and after them, and equivalent indentation-thus placing the clauses visually on an equal footing and indicating that they have separate meanings. The legislative structure thus reinforces the usual (even if not McNally's) understanding of the word "or" as meaning... well, "or"-rather than, as Loughrin would have it, "including."
Moreover, Loughrin's reliance on McNally encounters a serious chronological problem. Congress passed the bank fraud statute in 1984, three years before we decided that case. And at that time, every Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue had concluded that the two relevant phrases of the mail fraud law must be read "in the disjunctive" and "construed independently." 483 U.S., at 358, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (citing, e.g.,United States v. Clapps, 732 F.2d 1148, 1152 (C.A.3 1984); United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 764 (C.A.8 1973)). McNally disagreed, eschewing the most natural reading of the text in favor of evidence it found in the drafting history of the statute's money-or-property clause. But the Congress that passed the bank fraud statute could hardly have predicted that McNally would overturn the lower courts' uniform reading. We thus see no reason to doubt that in enacting § 1344, Congress said what it meant and meant what it said, see Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992)- i.e., that it both said "or" and meant "or" in the usual sense.
And a peek at history, of the kind McNally found decisive, only cuts against Loughrin's reading of the bank fraud statute. According to McNally, Congress added the mail fraud statute's second, money-or-property clause merely to affirm a decision of ours interpreting the ban on schemes "to defraud": The second clause, McNally reasoned, thus worked no substantive change in the law. See 483 U.S., at 356-359, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (discussing Congress's codification of Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S.Ct. 508, 40 L.Ed. 709 (1896)). By contrast, Congress passed the bank fraud statute to disapprove prior judicial rulings and thereby expand federal criminal law's scope-and indeed, partly to cover cases like Loughrin's. One of the decisions prompting enactment of the bank fraud law, United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 94 S.Ct. 645, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974), involved a defendant who used a stolen credit card to obtain food and lodging. (Substitute a check for a credit card and Maze becomes Loughrin.) The Government brought charges of mail fraud, relying on post-purchase mailings between the merchants and issuing bank to satisfy the statute's mailing element. But the Court held those mailings insufficiently integral to the fraudulent scheme to support the conviction. See id., at 402, 94 S.Ct. 645. Hence, Maze created a "serious gap[ ]... in Federal jurisdiction over frauds against banks." S.Rep. No. 98-225, p. 377 (1983). Congress passed § 1344 to fill that gap, enabling the Federal Government to prosecute fraudsters like Maze and Loughrin. We will not deprive that enactment of its full effect because McNally relied on different history to adopt a counter-textual reading of a similar provision.
B
Loughrin also appeals to principles of federalism to support his proffered construction. Unless we read § 1344(2) as requiring intent to defraud a bank, Loughrin contends, the provision will extend to every fraud, no matter how prosaic, happening to involve payment with a check-even when that check is perfectly valid. Consider, for example, a garden-variety con: A fraudster sells something to a customer, misrepresenting its value. There are countless variations, but let's say the fraudster passes off a cheap knock-off as a Louis Vuitton handbag. The victim pays for the bag with a good check, which the criminal cashes. Voila!, Loughrin says, bank fraud has just happened-unless we adopt his narrowing construction. After all, the criminal has intended to "obtain... property... under the custody or control of" the bank (the money in the victim's checking account), and has made "false or fraudulent... representations" (the lies to the victim about the handbag). 5 But if the bank fraud statute were to encompass all such schemes, Loughrin continues, it would interfere with matters "squarely within the traditional criminal jurisdiction of the state courts." Brief for Petitioner 29. We should avoid such a "sweeping expansion of federal criminal" law, he concludes, by reading § 1344(2), just like § 1344(1), as requiring intent to defraud a bank. Reply Brief 3 (quoting Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 24, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000)).
We agree with this much of what Loughrin argues: Unless the text requires us to do so, we should not construe § 1344(2) as a plenary ban on fraud, contingent only on use of a check (rather than cash). As we have often (and recently) repeated, "we will not be quick to assume that Congress has meant to effect a significant change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction." Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2089, 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971)); see Cleveland, 531 U.S., at 24, 121 S.Ct. 365 ("We resist the Government's reading... because it invites us to approve a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress"); Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 858, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000) (similar). Just such a rebalancing of criminal jurisdiction would follow from interpreting § 1344(2) to cover every pedestrian swindle happening to involve payment by check, but in no other way affecting financial institutions. Indeed, even the Government expresses some mild discomfort with "federalizing frauds that are only tangentially related to the banking system." Brief for United States 41.
But in claiming that we must therefore recognize an invisible element, Loughrin fails to take account of a significant textual limitation on § 1344(2)'s reach. Under that clause, it is not enough that a fraudster scheme to obtain money from a bank and that he make a false statement. The provision as well includes a relational component: The criminal must acquire (or attempt to acquire) bank property "by means of" the misrepresentation. That phrase typically indicates that the given result (the "end") is achieved, at least in part, through the specified action, instrument, or method (the "means"), such that the connection between the two is something more than oblique, indirect, and incidental. See, e.g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1399 (2002) (defining "by means of" as "through the instrumentality of: by the use of as a means"); 9 Oxford English Dictionary 516 (2d ed. 1989) (defining "means" as "[a]n instrument, agency, method, or course of action, by the employment of which some object is or may be attained, or which is concerned in bringing about some result"). In other words, not every but-for cause will do. If, to pick an example out of a hat, Jane traded in her car for money to take a bike trip cross-country, no one would say she "crossed the Rockies by means of a car," even though her sale of the car somehow figured in the trip she took. The relation between those things would be (as the Government puts it) too "tangential[ ]" to make use of the phrase at all appropriate. Brief for United States 41.
Section 1344(2)'s "by means of" language is satisfied when, as here, the defendant's false statement is the mechanism naturally inducing a bank (or custodian of bank property) to part with money in its control. That occurs, most clearly, when a defendant makes a misrepresentation to the bank itself-say, when he attempts to cash, at the teller's window, a forged or altered check. In that event, the defendant seeks to obtain bank property by means of presenting the forgery directly to a bank employee. But no less is the counterfeit check the "means" of obtaining bank funds when a defendant like Loughrin offers it as payment to a third party like Target.6 After all, a merchant accepts a check only to pass it along to a bank for payment; and upon receipt from the merchant, that check triggers the disbursement of bank funds just as if presented by the fraudster himself. So in either case, the forged or altered check- i.e., the false statement-serves in the ordinary course as the means (or to use other words, the mechanism or instrumentality) of obtaining bank property. To be sure, a merchant might detect the fraud (as Target sometimes did) and decline to submit the forged or altered check to the bank. But that is to say only that the defendant's scheme to obtain bank property by means of a false statement may not succeed. And we have long made clear that such failure is irrelevant in a bank fraud case, because § 1344 punishes not "completed frauds," but instead fraudulent "scheme [s]." Neder, 527 U.S., at 25, 119 S.Ct. 1827.
By contrast, the cases Loughrin hopes will unnerve us-exemplified by the handbag swindle-do not satisfy § 1344(2)'s "means" requirement.7 Recall that in such a case the check is perfectly valid; so the check itself is not (as it was here) a false or fraudulent means of obtaining bank money. And the false pretense that has led, say, the handbag buyer to give a check to the fraudster has nothing to do with the bank that will cash it: No one would dream of passing on to the bank (as Target would forward a forged check) the lie that a knock-off is a Louis Vuitton. The bank's involvement in the scheme is, indeed, wholly fortuitous-a function of the victim's paying the fraudster by (valid) check rather than cash. Of course, the bank would not have disbursed funds had the misrepresentation never occurred, and in that sense, the lie counts as a but-for cause of the bank's payment. But as we have said, § 1344(2)'s "by means of" language requires more, see supra, at 2392 - 2393: It demands that the defendant's false statement is the mechanism naturally inducing a bank (or custodian) to part with its money. And in cases like the handbag swindle, where no false statement will ever go to a financial institution, the fraud is not the means of obtaining bank property.8
The premise of Loughrin's federalism argument thus collapses. He claims that we must import an unstated element into § 1344(2) to avoid covering run-of-the-mill frauds, properly of concern only to States. But in fact, the text of § 1344(2) already limits its scope to deceptions that have some real connection to a federally insured bank, and thus implicate the pertinent federal interest. See S.Rep. No. 98-225, at 378 (noting that federal "jurisdiction is based on the fact that the victim of the offense is a federally controlled or insured institution"). And Loughrin's own crime, as we have explained, is one such scheme, because he made false statements, in the form of forged and altered checks, that a merchant would, in the ordinary course of business, forward to a bank for payment. See supra, at 2393 - 2394. We therefore reject Loughrin's reading of § 1344(2) and his challenge to his conviction.9
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice SCALIA, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion, Part III-A except the last paragraph, and the last footnote in Part III-B. I do not join the remainder of Part III-B.
I agree with the Court that neither intent to defraud a bank nor exposure of a bank to a risk of loss is an element of the crime codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2). But I am dubitante on the point that one obtains bank property "by means of" a fraudulent statement only if that statement is "the mechanism naturally inducing a bank (or custodian of bank property) to part with money in its control," ante, at 2393. The Government suggested that test, but only briefly claimed it was to be found in the "by means of" language, Brief for United States 40-41-so briefly that Loughrin responded that "[t]he Government does not claim any textual basis for this [naturally inducing] rule," Reply Brief 13. We have heard scant argument (nothing but the Government's bare-bones assertion) in favor of the "by means of" textual limitation, and no adversary presentation whatever opposing it. The Court's opinion raises the subject in order to reply to Loughrin's argument that, unless we adopt his proposed nontextual limitations, all frauds effected by receipt of a check will become federal crimes. It seems to me enough to say that Loughrin's solutions to the problem of the statute's sweep are, for the reasons well explained by the Court's opinion, not correct. What the proper solution may be should in my view be left for another day. I discuss below my difficulties with the "by means of" solution.
Recall the Court's hypothetical garden-variety con. "A fraudster [makes a statement] pass[ing] off a cheap knock-off as a Louis Vuitton handbag. The victim pays for the bag with a good check, which the criminal cashes." Ante, at 2392. The fraudster unquestionably has obtained bank property. But how? By presenting the check to a bank teller, yes. But also by duping the buyer. Yet according to the Court, the fraudster's deceit was not a "means" of obtaining the cash, because tricking a buyer into swapping a check for a counterfeit carryall is not a "mechanism naturally inducing a bank... to part with money in its control." Ante, at 2393 - 2394. The bank's involvement, it says, is mere happenstance.
I do not know where the Court's crabbed definition of "means" comes from. Certainly not the dictionary entries that it quotes. Quite the contrary, those suggest that the handbag fraudster's deceitful statement was a "means": Undoubtedly, the trickery was a "'method, or course of action, by the employment of which [bank property was] attained.' " Ante, at 2393. Though the dictionaries do not appear to add that the connection between "means" and end must be "something more than oblique, indirect, and incidental," ibid., I agree that, in common usage, not every but-for cause of an act is a cause "by means of" which the act has occurred. No one would say, for example, that the handbag fraudster obtained bank property by means of his ancestors' emigration to the United States. But all would say, I think, that he obtained the property by means of the lie. His deceit is far from merely incidental to, or an oblique or indirect way of, obtaining the money. That was the lie's very purpose.
That the fraudster likely was indifferent to the victim's method of payment-making his receipt of bank money instead of straight cash merely "fortuitous," ante, at 2394-does not suggest, in ordinary parlance, that the fraud was not a means of acquiring bank property. Indeed, saying that indifference is disqualifying comes close to requiring the intent to defraud a bank that the Court properly rejects. In any case, indifference certainly does not cause what is a means not to be a means. Suppose I resolve to purchase (with the two dollars in my billfold) a coffee at the first convenience store I pass on my way to work. I am indifferent to what store that might be. I catch sight of a 7-Eleven, pull in, and, with my cash, buy the drink. That it is a 7-Eleven coffee rather than a Sheetz coffee is "wholly fortuitous," ibid. Still, no one would say that I had not obtained 7-Eleven coffee by means of my two dollars. So too with the handbag swindler: Regardless of whether the cash is the victim's or, technically, the bank's, and regardless of whether the swindler cared which it was, would we not say that the fraudster has obtained it by means of the trick?
The majority responds that the measure of "means" is not indifference or the absence of fortuity but rather directness. And not just proximate-cause-like directness-the fraudulent statement literally must "reach the bank," ante, at 2394, n. 8. Once again, it seems to me the Court's definition does not accord with common usage. Suppose little Bobby falsely tells his mother that he got an A on his weekly spelling test and so deserves an extra cookie after dinner. Mother will not be home for dinner, but she leaves a note for Father: "Bobby gets an extra cookie after dinner tonight." (Much like the handbag buyer's note to the bank: "Pay $2,000 to the order of Mr. Handbag Fraudster.") Dinner wraps up, and Bobby gets his second cookie. Has he obtained it by means of the fib to his mother? Plainly yes, an ordinary English speaker would say. But plainly no under the Court's definition, since the lie did not make its way to the father.
The Court's chief illustration of its "by means of" gloss seems to me contrived. If "Jane traded in her car for money to take a bike trip cross-country, no one would say she 'crossed the Rockies by means of a car.' " Ante, at 2393. Of course. By using two vehicles of conveyance, and describing the end in question as "crossing the Rockies," the statement that the car was the "means" of achieving that end invites one to think that Jill traveled by automobile. But the proper question-the one parallel to the question whether the fraudster obtained bank funds by means of fraudulently selling the counterfeit-is not whether Jill crossed the Rockies by means of the car, but whether she funded her trip by means of selling the car. Which she assuredly did. Just as the handbag swindler, in the Louis Vuitton example, obtained money by means of his false representation.
I certainly agree that this statute must be interpreted, if possible, in a manner that will not make every fraud effected by receipt of a check a federal offense. But deciding this case does not require us to identify that manner, and I would leave that for another case.
Justice ALITO, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court's holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) requires neither intent to defraud a bank nor the creation of a risk of financial loss to a bank, but I must write separately to express disagreement with some dicta in the opinion of the Court.
In a few passages, the Court suggests that § 1344(2) requires a mens rea of purpose. See ante, at 2389 ("[T]he clause requires that the defendant intend 'to obtain any of the moneys... or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution' " (ellipsis in original)); ante, at 2393, n. 6 ("[W]hen the defendant has the requisite intent to acquire bank property, his presentation of a forged or altered check to a third party satisfies § 1344(2)'s'means' requirement").* That is incorrect.
Congress expressly denoted the mens rea a defendant must have to violate § 1344(2), and it is not purpose. Instead, § 1344(2) imposes liability on "[w]hoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice" to obtain bank property. (Emphasis added.) It is hard to imagine how Congress could have been clearer as to the mental state required for liability.
The Court's contrary statements apparently derive from the fact that the criminal venture that a defendant must knowingly execute or attempt to execute must be a scheme or artifice "to obtain... property owned by... a financial institution." § 1344(2). A defendant must have the purpose to obtain bank property, so the argument goes, because he must execute a scheme the purpose of which is to obtain bank property.
This argument confuses the design of the scheme with the mens rea of the defendant. The statute requires only that the objective of the scheme must be the obtaining of bank property, not that the defendant must have such an objective. Of course, in many cases a scheme's objective will be the same as an individual defendant's. Where the defendant acts alone, for instance, his objective will almost certainly be the same as that of the scheme, and the inquiry into the defendant's mens rea and the scheme's objective will accordingly merge. But in some cases, such as those involving large, complex criminal ventures, a given defendant's purpose may diverge from the scheme's objective. For instance, a defendant who is paid by a large ring of check forgers to present one of their forged checks to a bank for payment has executed "a scheme or artifice... to obtain" bank property, even if he only presents the check because he is paid to do so and personally does not care whether the forged check is honored. That is because the objective of the scheme as a whole is to obtain bank property, and the defendant knowingly executes that scheme.
The majority reads the word "knowingly" out of the statute. That term "'requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.' " Dixon 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.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act provides that every common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce shall be liable in damages for the injury or death of its employees resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of the railroad or its agents or resulting from defects in its equipment due to its negligence. The question in this case is whether the respondent Pacific Fruit Express Company is a “common carrier by railroad.”
The respondent is the largest company of its kind in the United States. It owns, maintains, and leases refrigerator cars to railroads to transport perishable products in commerce. Because it repairs its own cars, it also owns buildings, plants, switching tracks, and equipment to make these repairs. While the railroads to which its cars are leased transport them as directed, the respondent Express Company reserves the right to have the cars diverted to carry out its own business plans. The petitioner Edwards works as an iceman at one of respondent’s repair and concentration plants. His duties are to transport ice and help store it in cars for carriage by the railroads. While driving a company motor vehicle in the performance of his duty as an employee for respondent, he was thrown violently to the ground, covered with burning gasoline and severely burned. He later brought this action against respondent, charging it was a “common carrier by railroad” and liable for damages under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Contending that it was not a railroad within the meaning of the Act, respondent company moved for a summary judgment which the District Court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 378 F. 2d 54, and we granted cer-tiorari. 389 U. S. 912. We agree with both courts and affirm.
In conducting its business of providing and servicing insulated railroad cars for the carriage of perishable commodities, it is undoubtedly true that respondent performs some railroad functions. For example, it maintains and takes care of railroad cars which are leased to railroads for transportation in interstate commerce. It services these cars while in transit and controls their eventual destination. And respondent has yards and facilities for the repair and storage of its refrigerator cars. The question is whether such functions as these are sufficient to constitute respondent a “common carrier by railroad.” For the answer to this question we must look to past judicial decisions interpreting the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and also the legislative history surrounding the Act.
This Court has held that the words “common carrier by railroad” mean “one who operates a railroad as a means of carrying for the public, — that is to say, a railroad company acting as a common carrier. This view not only is in accord with the ordinary acceptation of the words, but is enforced by the mention of cars, engines, track, roadbed and other property pertaining to a going railroad . . . .” Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U. S. 175, 187-188. (Emphasis added.) This interpretation of the Act with its references to “operat[ing] a railroad” and a “going railroad” would indicate that the business of renting refrigerator cars to railroads or shippers and providing protective service in the transportation of perishable commodities is not of itself that of a “common carrier by railroad.” And indeed the Wells Fargo decision held that express companies were not within the coverage of the Act. In an even earlier case, Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U. S. 84, this Court held that a Pullman car porter was not an employee of a railroad, hence, not within the coverage of the Act. These decisions are based on the rationale that there exist a number of activities and facilities which, while used in conjunction with railroads and closely related to railroading, are yet not railroading itself. In fact, this Court pointed out in the Robinson case, in discussing the coverage of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, that, “It was well known that there were on interstate trains persons engaged in various services for other masters. Congress, familiar with this situation, did not use any appropriate expression which could be taken to indicate a purpose to include such persons among those to whom the railroad company was to be liable under the Act.” 237 U. S., at 94.
In 1939 Congress substantially amended the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Because of such decisions as Wells Fargo, supra, and Robinson, supra, one of the proposed amendments would have changed the coverage language of § 1 of the Act to read as follows: “Every common carrier by railroad, including every express company, freight forwarding company, and sleeping-car company, engaged in commerce . . . .” Obviously the proposal was designed to nullify this Court’s construction of the Act which had excluded employees of sleeping-car companies and express companies. In committee the proposal received little support and was even opposed by certain segments of organized labor, and it failed to pass. By refusing to broaden the meaning of railroads, Congress declined to extend the coverage of the Act to activities and facilities intimately associated with the business of common carrier by railroad.
Equally significant is the fact that in the years immediately preceding the 1939 amendment to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, Congress had enacted other major labor and social transportation legislation in which refrigerator car companies were expressly included. For example, in the decade of the 1930’s Congress passed the following Acts which specifically extend coverage to “any company . . . which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service ... in connection with . . . refrigeration or icing ... of property transported by railroad . . (1) An amendment to the Railway Labor Act, 48 Stat. 1185 (1934), 45 U. S. C. § 151. The Act as originally passed, 44 Stat. 577 (1926), did not specifically include refrigerator car companies. Congress amended it to do so. (2) The Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1283, held unconstitutional in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330 (1935). (3) The Railroad Retirement Act (1935), 49 Stat. 967, and (4) The Carriers’ Taxing Act, 49 Stat. 974 (1935), both of which were passed to overcome the constitutional objection to the Act of 1934. (5) The Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 307, 45 U. S. C. § 228a et seq. (1937). (6) The Carriers’ Taxing Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 435. (7) The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 52 Stat. 1094, 45 U. S. C. § 351 et seq. (1938). Yet in 1939, when it came to the amendment of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, Congress made no mention of refrigerator car companies.
In light of this history it is not surprising that there are only four reported cases where suits have been filed alleging that refrigerator car companies like respondent are covered by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act— all refusing to hold liability under the Act. The first was Gaulden v. Southern Pacific Co., 174 F. 2d 1022 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1949), where suit was brought by an iceman employed by the very refrigerator car company involved here. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s opinion (78 F. Supp. 651) holding that such a refrigerator car company was not a “common carrier by railroad.” In a subsequent case the Third Circuit, citing the Gaulden opinion, held that another refrigerator car company “which conducted a business similar in all critical aspects to that of” Pacific Fruit Express Company, was not a “common carrier by railroad.” Hetman v. Fruit Growers Express Co., 346 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1965). There have also been two state cases involving this very respondent which denied liability. In both Aguirre v. Southern Pacific Co., 232 Cal. App. 2d 636, 43 Cal. Rptr. 73, and Moleton v. Union Pac. R. Co., 118 Utah 107, 219 P. 2d 1080, cert. denied, 340 U. S. 932, the courts concluded that respondent was not a “common' carrier by railroad.”
Thus, for 60 years the Federal Employers’ Liability Act has been administered with the understanding that refrigerator car companies are not included within the terms of the Act. During that time injured employees have been taken care of under state compensation laws. In fact the petitioner here has already drawn more than $6,000 under the California compensation law. The question of whether employees shall rely on state compensation or on the Federal Employers’ Liability Act is a pure question of legislative policy, concerning which apparently even the labor organizations most interested have been divided. Under these circumstances we do not think this Court should depart from 60 years of history to do what is a job for Congress.
Affirmed.
35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51.
Express companies were again excluded in the subsequent case of Jones v. New York Cent. R. Co., 182 F. 2d 326 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1950), relying on the Wells Fargo decision.
S. 1708, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939).
Hearings before Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Amending the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 57, 58 (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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee is an adult resident of Hartford) Wis. She brought suit in a federal district court in Wisconsin to have a Wisconsin statute declared unconstitutional. • A three-judge court was convened, 28 U. S. C. § 2281. That court, by a divided vote, held the Act unconstitutional, 302 F. Supp. 861, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 397 U. S. 985.
The Act, Wis. Stat. § 176.26 (1967), provides that designated persons may in writing forbid the sale or gift of intoxicating liquors to one who “by excessive drinking” produces described conditions or exhibits speci-’ fied traits, such as exposing himself or family “to want” or becoming “dangerous to the peace” of the community.
The chief of police of Hartford, without notice or hearing to appellee, caused to be posted a notice in all retail liquor outlets in Hartford that sales, or gifts of liquors to appellee were forbidden for one year. Thereupon this suit was brought against the chief of police claiming damages and asking for injunctive relief. The State of Wisconsin intervened as a defendant on the injunctive phase of the case and that was the only issue tried and decided, the three-judge court holding the Act unconstitutional on its face and enjoining its enforcement, The court said:
“In ‘posting’ an individual, the particular city official or spouse is doing more than denying him the ability to purchase alcoholic beverages within the city limits. In essence, he is giving notice to the public that he has found the particular individual’s behavior to fall within one of the categories., enumerated in the statutes. It would be naive not-to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule, and it is our opinion that procedural due process requires that before one acting pursuant to State statute can make such a quasi-judicial determination, the individual involved must be given notice of the intent to post and an opportunity to present his side of the matter.” 302 F. Supp., at 864.
We have no doubt as to the power of a State to deal. with the evils described in the Act. The police power of the States over intoxicating liquors was extremely broad even prior to the Twenty-first Amendment. Crane v. Campbell, 245 U. S. 304. The only issue present here is whether the label or characterization given a person by “posting,” though a mark of serious illness to some, is to others such a stigma or badge of disgrace that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree with the District Court that the private interest is such that those requirements of procedural due process must be met.
It is significant that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are procedural, for it is procedure that marks much of the difference between rule by law and rule by fiat.
We reviewed in Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896, the nature of the various “private interest^]” that have fallen on one side or the other of the line. See also Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337, 339-342. Generalizations are hazardous as some state and federal administrative procedures are summary by reason of necessity or history. Yet certainly where the State attaches “a badge of infamy” to the citizen, due process comes into play. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 191. “[T]he right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal .conviction, is a principle basic to our society.” Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. “Posting” under the Wisconsin Act may to some be merely the mark of illness, to others it is a stigma, an official branding of a person. The label is a degrading one. Under the Wisconsin Act, a resident of Hartford is given no process at all. This appellee was not afforded a chance to defend herself. She may have been the victim of an official’s caprice. Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented.
It is suggested that the three-judge court should have stayed its hand while the aggrieved person repaired to the state courts to obtain a construction of the Act or relief from it. The fact that Wisconsin does not raise the point does not, of course, mean that it lacks merit. Yet the suggestion is not in keeping with the precedents.
Congress could, of course, have routed all federal constitutional questions through the state court systems, saving to this Court the final say when it came to .review of the state court judgments. But our First Congress resolved differently and created the federal court system and in time granted the federal courts various heads of jurisdiction, which today involve most federal constitutional rights. Once that jurisdiction was granted, the federal courts resolved those questions even when they were enmeshed with state law questions. In 1941 we gave vigor to the so-called abstention doctrine in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496. In that ease an authoritative resolution of a knotty state law question might end the litigation and not give rise to any federal constitutional claim. Id., at 501. We, therefore, directed the District Court to retain the suit pending a determination by a state court of the underlying state law question. We applied the abstention doctriné most recently in Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., ante, p. 41, where a relatively new Puerto Rican statute, which had not been authoritatively construed by the Commonwealth’s courts, “might be judicially confined to a more narrow ambit which would avoid all constitutional questions.” We ordered the federal courts to stay their hands until the Puerto Rican courts had spoken. Speaking of Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, we noted that the “three-judge federal court should not have proceeded to strike down ah Alaská law which, if construed by the Alaska Supreme Court, might be so confined as not to have any constitutional infirmity.” Ante, at 43. But the abstention rule only applies where “the issue of state law is uncertain.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 534. Thus our abstention cases have dealt with unresolved questions of state law which only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe. Reetz v. Bozanich, supra; City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639.
. In the present case the Wisconsin Act does not contain any provision whatsoever for notice and hearing. There is no ambiguity in' the state statute. There are no provisions which could fairly be taken to mean that notice and hearing might be given under some circumstances or under some construction but not under others. The Act on its face gives the chief of police the power to do what he did to the appellee. Hence the naked question, uncomplicated by an unresolved state law, is whether that Act on its face is unconstitutional. As we said in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 251, abstention should not be ordered merely to await an attempt to vindicate the claim in a state court. Where there is no ambiguity in thé state statute, the federal court should not abstain but should proceed to decide the federal constitutional claim, id., at 250-251. We would negate the history of the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the federal district courts, if we held the federal court should stay its hand and not decide the question before the state courts decided it.
Affirmed.
28 U. S. C. § 1343 provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person .... (3) To redress; the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” '
Section 176.26 reads as follows:
“(1) When any person shall by excessive drinking of intoxicating liquors, or fermented malt beverages misspend, waste or lessen his estate so as to expose himself or family to want, or the town, city, village or county to which he belongs to liability'for the support of himself- or family, or so as thereby to injure his health, endanger the loss thereof, or to endanger the personal safety and comfort of his family or any member thereof, or the safety of any other person, or the security of the property of any other person, or when any person shall, on account of the use of intoxicating liquors or fermented malt beverages, become dangerous to the peace of any community, the wife of such person, the supervisors of such town, the mayor, chief of police or aldermen of such city, the trustees of such village, the county superintendent of the-poor of such county, the chairman of the county board of supervisors of such eounty, the district attorney of such county or any of them, may, in writing signed by her, him or them, forbid all persons knowingly to sell or give away to such person any intoxicating liquors or fermented malt beverages, for the space of one year and in like manner may forbid the selling, furnishing, or giving away of any such liquors or fermented malt beverages, knowingly to such person by any person in any town, city or village to which such person may resort for the same. A copy of said writing so signed shall be personally served upon the person so intended to be prohibited from obtaining .any such liquor or beverage.
“(2) And the wife of such person, the supervisors of any town, the aldermen of any city, the trustees of any village, the county superintendent of the poor of such county, the mayor of any city, the chairman of the county board of supervisors of such county, the district attorney or sheriff of such county, may, by a notice made and signed as aforesaid, in like manner forbid all persons in such town, city or village, to sell or give away intoxicating liquors or drinks or fermented malt beverages to any person given to the excessive- use of such liquors, drinks or beverages, specifying such person, and such notice shall have the same force and effect when such specified person is a nonresident as is herein provided when such specified person is a resident of said town, city or village.”
Section 176.28 makes the sale or gift of liquor to such a person a misdemeanor.
The first Judiciary Act is in 1 Stat. 73.
28 U. ,S. C. § 1343 (3) involved in the present case came into the statutes in ,1871., 17 Stat. 13. In 1875 Congress enlarged federal jurisdiction by authorizing the “federal question” jurisdiction presently contained 5n ,28 U. S. C. § 1331. See 18 Stat. 470. We recently reviewed this history in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-248.
See n. 4, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, 39 Stat. 733, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 814, requires all persons subject to the Act to file with the Federal Maritime Commission every agreement within specified categories reached with any other person subject to the Act. The section further empowers the Commission to disapprove, cancel, or modify any such agreement which it finds to be unjustly discriminatory, to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, contrary to the public interest, or violative of the terms of the Act. The Commission is directed to approve all other agreements, and the statute expressly provides that agreements so approved are exempt from the antitrust laws.
The question presently before us is whether a contract which calls for the acquisition of all the assets of one carrier by another carrier and which creates no ongoing obligations is an “agreement” within the meaning of this section. The question is of some importance, since if such contracts are not approved by the Commission, the antitrust laws are fully applicable to them. See Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S. 213 (1966). Cf. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 (1939). But cf. United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474 (1932); Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570 (1952). On the other hand, if they are within the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Commission may approve them even though they are violative of the antitrust laws, although the Commission must take antitrust principles into account in reaching its decision. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 390 U. S. 261, 273-274 (1968); FMC v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U. S. 238, 244-246 (1968).
In this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that § 15 did not confer jurisdiction upon the Commission to approve discrete acquisition-of-assets agreements. In so holding, it followed a prior District Court decision in United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 F. Supp. 656 (NJ 1971), but declined to follow a Ninth Circuit holding that the Commission had such jurisdiction. See Matson Navigation Co. v. FMC, 405 F. 2d 796 (CA9 1968). We granted certiorari in order to resolve this conflict and because the case posed an important issue concerning the interface between the antitrust laws and the Commission’s regulatory powers. We conclude that in enacting § 15, Congress did not intend to invest the Commission with the power to shield from antitrust liability merger or acquisition-of-assets agreements which impose no ongoing responsibilities. Rather, Congress intended to invest the Commission with jurisdiction over only those agreements, or those portions of agreements, which created ongoing rights and responsibilities and which, therefore, necessitated continuous Commission supervision. We therefore affirm the judgment below.
I
This case was initiated when respondent Seatrain Lines, Inc. (Seatrain) filed a protest with the Commission against an agreement reached between Pacific Far East Lines, Inc. (PFEL) and Oceanic Steamship Co. (Oceanic), both of which are’ also respondents here, whereby Oceanic agreed to sell all its assets to PFEL. Under the terms of the agreement, Oceanic promised to transfer its entire fleet and all the related equipment together with Oceanic’s interest in two container ships then being constructed and all of Oceanic’s employees to PFEL. Although Oceanic did not formally merge with PFEL and retained its corporate existence, it was left as a shell corporation wholly without assets. However, Oceanic undertook no continuing obligation not to re-enter the business and compete with PFEL. On October 6, 1970, Oceanic and PFEL notified the Commission of the agreement, but accompanied the notification with an express statement that, in their view, the agreement was not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission published notice of the agreement, see 35 Fed. Reg. 16114, and allowed 10 days for interested parties to protest and request a hearing. Seatrain filed such a request on October 21, 1970, alleging that it was a potential competitor of PFEL and that the acquisition agreement would have anticompetitive consequences and, hence, was contrary to the public-interest standard of the statute.
Instead of holding a hearing to investigate these allegations, however, the Commission issued a summary order denying the request for an investigation and approving the agreement. The Commission held that “[wjhile section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, requires notice and opportunity for hearing, prior to agreement approval, there is no requirement of law that the mere filing of a protest is sufficient to require that a hearing be held before the Commission may grant approval of any protested agreement.” Finding that “the likelihood of any impact at all upon [Seatrain’s] operations which might result from approval of the agreement is a matter of mere speculation,” the Commission concluded that “Seatrain has no standing in this matter, and that its protest is without substance.”
After Seatrain’s petition to reopen was denied, it appealed the Commission’s ruling to the Court of Appeals. Seatrain argued that the Commission was required to hold a hearing on its objection, while the United States, as statutory respondent, and Oceanic and PFEL, as inter venors, argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the agreement. In a comprehensive opinion, the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to reach the hearing issue, since it found that the Commission “lacks jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, to approve arrangements of the type involved here, which do not require the continued existence or participation of the parties in such arrangements.” 148 U. S. App. D. C. 424, 441, 460 F. 2d 932, 949 (1972). The Court therefore vacated the Commission’s decision and directed that the agreement be removed from its docket. The case then came here on the Commission’s petition for certiorari. 409 U. S. 1058 (1972).
II
At the outset, it must be recognized that the statutory language neither clearly embraces nor clearly excludes discrete merger or acquisition-of-assets agreements. The situation is therefore fundamentally different from that posed in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, relied upon heavily by petitioner, where we held in the context of an ongoing agreement that the Commission’s ruling that the agreement was without its § 15 jurisdiction “simply does not square with the structure of the statute.” 390 U. S., at 275. In this case, the statute is ambiguous in its scope and must therefore be read in light of its history and the governing statutory presumptions.
By its terms, the statute requires those covered by it to “file immediately with the Commission a true copy, or, if oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every agreement... or modification or cancellation thereof” which falls into any one of seven categories. These are agreements
“[1] fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; [2] giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; [3] controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; [4] pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; [5] allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; [6] limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; [7] or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement.”
None of these seven categories expressly refers to a one-time merger or acquisition-of-assets agreement which imposes no continuing obligation and which, indeed, effectively destroys one of the parties to the agreement. The Commission vigorously argues that such agreements can be interpreted as falling within the third category — which concerns agreements “controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition.” Without more, we might be inclined to agree that many merger agreements probably fit within this category. But a broad reading of the third category would conflict with our frequently expressed view that exemptions from antitrust laws are strictly construed, see, e. g., United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 351 U. S. 305, 316 (1956), and that “[r]epeals of the antitrust laws by implication from a regulatory statute are strongly disfavored, and have only been found in cases of plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions.” United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351 (1963) (footnotes omitted). As we observed only recently: “When... relationships are governed in the first instance by business judgment and not regulatory coercion, courts must be hesitant to conclude that Congress intended to override the fundamental national policies embodied in the antitrust laws.” Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U. S. 366, 374 (1973). See also Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341 (1963); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 296 (1963); California v. FPC, 369 U. S. 482 (1962); United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 (1939). This principle has led us to construe the Shipping Act as conferring only a “limited antitrust exemption” in light of the fact that “antitrust laws represent a fundamental national economic policy.” Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S., at 219, 218.
Our reluctance to construe the third category of agreements broadly so as to include discrete merger arrangements is bolstered by the structure of the Act. It should be noted that of the seven categories, six are expressly limited to ongoing arrangements in which both parties undertake continuing responsibilities. Indeed, even the third category refers to agreements “controlling,” “regulating” and “preventing” competition — all of which are continuing activities. Only the reference to the destruction of competition supports the Commission’s argument that the provision was intended to cover one-time, discrete transactions. But even this reference must be read in light of the final, comprehensive category which refers to agreements “in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement.” As the Court of Appeals noted, this last category was clearly meant as a catchall provision, “intended... to summarize the type of agreements covered.” 148 U. S. App. D. C., at 427, 460 F. 2d, at 935. Cf. FMB v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S. 481, 492 (1958). It is, of course, a familiar canon of statutory construction that such clauses are to be read as bringing within a statute categories similar in type to those specifically enumerated. See 2 J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 4908 et seq. (3d ed. 1943) and cases there cited. Since the summary provision is explicitly limited to “working arrangements]” (emphasis added), it is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended this limitation to apply to the specifically enumerated categories as well.
This reading of the statute is especially compelling in light of the rest of the statutory scheme, which simply does not make sense if the statute is read to encompass one-time agreements creating no continuing obligations. For example, the statute directs the Commission to “disapprove, cancel or modify any agreement... whether or not previously approved hy it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to the public interest, or to be in violation of this chapter” (emphasis added). The statute thus envisions a continuing supervisory role for the Commission and invests it with power to disallow an agreement after a period of time even though it had initially been permitted. But it is hard to see how the Commission can exercise this supervisory function when there are no continuing obligations to supervise. And we think it unlikely that Congress intended to permit the Commission to approve acquisition-of-assets agreements, allow them to go into effect, and then, sometime in the indefinite future, resuscitate the expired company and unscramble the assets under its continuing power to disapprove agreements previously approved.
Similarly, the provision in the Act which provides that “[t]he Commission shall disapprove any... agreement... on a finding of inadequate policing of the obligations under it” makes no sense unless the agreements create continuing obligations to police. The statutory requirement that “continued approval” shall not be permitted for agreements “between carriers not members of the same conference or conferences of carriers serving different trades that would otherwise be naturally competitive, unless in the case of agreements between carriers, each carrier, or in the case of agreement between conferences, each conference, retains the right of independent action,” suggests an ongoing relationship between the contracting parties. And the requirement that the contracting parties “adopt and maintain reasonable procedures for promptly and fairly hearing and considering shippers’ requests and complaints” can only be understood in the context of a continuing relationship between the contracting parties.
In short, while the statute neither expressly includes nor expressly excludes one-time acquisition-of-assets arrangements, the words must be read in context, and the context makes undeniably clear the ongoing, supervisory role which the Commission was intended to perform. As the Court of Appeals concluded, “'[t]he whole structure of Section 15, not only the first paragraph listing the type agreement covered, shows an intent to grant the Commission authority to deal with agreements of a continuing nature.” 148 U. S. App. D. C., at 427, 460 F. 2d, at 935.
Ill
This construction of the Shipping Act is strongly supported by the legislative history of the Act and by Congress’ treatment of other industries in contemporaneous and related statutes. As this Court recognized in FMB v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U. S., at 490, most of the legislative history of the Act is contained in the so-called Alexander Report which culminated a comprehensive investigation into the shipping industry by the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries chaired by Congressman Alexander. See House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Report on Steamship Agreements and Affiliations in the American Foreign and Domestic Trade, H. R. Doc. No. 805, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (1914) (hereinafter Alexander Report). Although legislation designed to carry out the Report’s recommendations initially failed to pass, see H. R. 17328, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., a substantially similar bill was enacted in the next Congress and was clearly intended to write the Alexander proposals into law. See H. R. Rep. No. 659, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 27; S. Rep. No. 689, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 7.
After examining some 80 steamship agreements and conference arrangements, the Alexander Committee concluded that “practically all the established lines operating to and from American ports work in harmonious cooperation, either through written or oral agreements, conference arrangements, or gentlemen’s understandings.” Alexander Report 281. The Committee found that this network of agreements, many of them secret, provided a comprehensive system for fixing rates and suppressing competition. See id., at 282-295. As the Committee described the resulting competitive structure of the industry,
“The primary object of [the] conferences and agreements is to prevent new lines from being organized in a trade and to crush existing lines which refuse to comply with conditions prescribed by the combination, or which, for other reasons, are not acceptable as members of the conference. The methods which have been adopted from time to time to eliminate competition show the futility of a weak line attempting to enter a trade in opposition to the combined power of the established lines when united by agreement. By resorting to the use of the ‘fighting ship,’ or to unlimited rate cutting, the conference lines soon exhaust the resources of their antagonists. By distributing the loss resulting from the rate war over the several members of the conference, each constituent line suffers proportionately a much smaller loss than the one line which is fighting the entire group. Moreover, the federated lines can conduct the competitive struggle with the comfortable assurance that, following the retirement of the competing line, they are in a position to reimburse themselves through an increase in rates. To allow conferences, therefore, generally means giving the trade to the lines now enjoying it. Only a powerful line can hope to fight its way into the trade, and with the inevitable result, if successful, that it will join the combination or be allowed to exist by virtue of some rate understanding.” Alexander Report 304-305.
Yet despite these findings, the Committee decided against recommending the outright banning of the conference system. Instead, it chose to place that system under government supervision and to invest an administrative agency with the power to approve or disapprove various conference arrangements. The Committee’s reasons for this decision are crucial to the issue presently before us. The Committee found that:
“[O]pen competition can not be assured for any length of time by ordering existing agreements terminated. The entire history of steamship agreements shows that in ocean commerce there is no happy medium between war and peace when several lines engage in the same trade. Most of the numerous agreements and conference arrangements discussed in the foregoing report were the outcome of rate wars, and represent a truce between the contending lines. To terminate existing agreements would necessarily bring about one of two results: the lines would either engage in rate wars which would mean the elimination of the weak and the survival of the strong, or, to avoid a costly struggle, they would consolidate through common ownership. Neither result can be prevented by legislation, and either would mean a monopoly fully as effective, and it is believed more so, than can exist by virtue of an agreement.” Id., at 416.
Thus, the Committee chose to permit continuation of the conference system, but to curb its abuses by requiring government approval of conference agreements. It did so because it feared that if conferences were abolished, the result would be a net decrease in competition through the mergers and acquisition-of-assets agreements that would result from unregulated rate wars. It is readily apparent that the Commission’s reading of the statute would frustrate this legislative purpose. The Committee gave the Commission power to insulate certain anti-competitive arrangements in order to prevent outright mergers. Yet the Commission would have us construe this authority in such a way as to allow it to shield the mergers themselves — the very thing which Congress intended to prevent. Cf. Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S., at 218-220.
The illogical nature of the Commission’s argument is especially apparent when one remembers that at the time the Act was passed, the Commission was arguably not permitted to take antitrust policies into account when ruling on proposed agreements. We have construed the “public interest” standard contained in the Act as requiring the Commission to consider the antitrust implications of an agreement before approving it. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 390 U. S., at 274 n. 20; FMC v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U. S., at 242-244. Cf. Mediterranean Pools Investigation, 9 F. M. C. 264, 289 (1966). But the “public interest” criterion was not added to the Act until 1961. See 76 Stat. 763. Thus, under the petitioner’s interpretation, at the time the Act was passed, the Commission was arguably required to approve merger agreements despite strong antitrust objections to them if the other criteria of the Act were met. We simply cannot believe that Congress intended to require approval of the very arrangements which, as the legislative history clearly shows, it wanted to prevent.
The legislative history also demonstrates that the Alexander Committee used the term “agreements” as a word of art and that mergers and other arrangements creating no continuing rights and obligations were not included within its definition. As the District Court in United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. observed,
“The catalog or ‘full classification of these agreements’ (i. e., the ‘agreements’ to which the Alexander Committee’s attention was primarily directed and to which its recommendations were exclusively directed) does not include a single agreement of merger or other form of corporate reorganization. The ‘agreements’ represented in the Report are all ‘on-going’ in nature. Most of these ‘agreements’ are cooperative working arrangements. These ‘agreements’ describe practices or regular activities in which two or more shipping companies have agreed to participate over a considerable period of time. None of the ‘agreements’ studied by the Alexander Committee bears the slightest resemblance to an agreement of merger, which is essentially a single, discrete event, which transforms the relationship of the merging parties at the instant of merger.” 325 F. Supp., at 658-659 (footnotes omitted).
Moreover, in the few places where the Committee did discuss mergers, it distinguished sharply between such arrangements and the ongoing agreements to which its recommendations were directed. For example, in summarizing its findings the Committee wrote:
“The numerous methods of controlling competition between water carriers in the domestic trade, referred to in the preceding pages, may be grouped under three headings, viz, (1) control through the acquisition of water lines or the ownership of accessories to the lines; (2) control through agreements or understandings; and (3) control through special practices.” Alexander Report 409 (emphasis added).
As the Reynolds court concluded,
“Consistently throughout the Report, mergers and other corporate reorganizations, when occasionally mentioned, are referred to by the terms ‘consolidation by ownership’ and ‘control through acquisition,’ or variations thereof. Never is the word ‘agreement’ used in the Report to refer to a merger agreement.
It is clear that the Alexander Committee distinguished conceptually between agreements in the sense of on-going, cooperative agreements and agreements of ‘consolidation’ or ‘acquisition’ (of which merger agreements are a form)325 F. Supp., at 659 (footnotes omitted).
Finally, an examination of contemporaneous and related statutes makes clear that when Congress intended to bring acquisitions and mergers under control, it did so in unambiguous language. For example, only a few years prior to passage of the Shipping Act, Congress expressly dealt with mergers involving water carriers. In the Panama Canal Act, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (14), Congress provided that:
“[I]t shall be unlawful for any carrier [as defined in the Interstate Commerce Act]... to own, lease, operate, control, or have any interest whatsoever (by stock ownership or otherwise, either directly indirectly, through any holding company, or by stockholders or directors in common, or in any other manner) in any common carrier by water operated through the Panama Canal or elsewhere with which such carrier aforesaid does or may compete for traffic or any vessel carrying freight or passengers upon said water route or elsewhere with which said railroad or other carrier aforesaid does or may compete for traffic.”
Similarly, when Congress meant to require agency approval for mergers and acquisitions, it did so unambiguously. Thus, the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (a) (i) authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission to give its approval “for two or more carriers to consolidate or merge their properties or franchises, or any part thereof, into one corporation for the ownership, management, and operation of the properties theretofore in separate ownership.” In the same manner, the Federal Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 222 (b)(1) provides:
“It shall be lawful, upon application to and approval by the [Federal Communications] Commission as hereinafter provided, for any two or more domestic telegraph carriers to effect a consolidation or merger; and for any domestic telegraph carrier, as a part of any such consolidation or merger or thereafter, to acquire all or any part of the domestic telegraph properties, domestic telegraph facilities, or domestic telegraph operations of any carrier which is not primarily a telegraph carrier.”
Examination of the Federal Aviation Act is particularly instructive in this regard. Title 49 U. S. C. § 1382 (a) requires air carriers to file with the Civil Aeronautics Board for prior approval
“every contract or agreement... for pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, trafile, service, or equipment, or relating to the establishment of transportation rates, fares, charges, or classifications,... or otherwise eliminating destructive, oppressive, or wasteful competition, or for regulating stops, schedules, and character of service, or for other cooperative working arrangements.”
This provision closely parallels § 15 of the Shipping Act, and was obviously modeled after it. Yet Congress clearly thought the provision insufficient to bring discrete merger and acquisition agreements within the Civil Aeronautics Board’s jurisdiction, since it enacted another, separate provision requiring Board approval when air carriers “consolidate or merge their properties.” 49 U. S. C. § 1378 (a)(1).
IV
In light of these specific grants of merger approval authority, we are unwilling to construe the ambiguous provisions of § 15 to serve this purpose — a purpose for which it obviously was not intended. As the Court of Appeals found, the House Committee which wrote § 15 “neither sought information nor had discussion on ship sale agreements. They were neither part of the problem nor part of the solution.” 148 U. S. App. D. C., at 432, 460 F. 2d, at 940. If, as petitioner contends, there is now a compelling need to fill the gap in the Commission’s regulatory authority, the need should be met in Congress where the competing policy questions can be thrashed out and a resolution found. We are not ready to meet that need by rewriting the statute and legislative history ourselves.
But the Commission contends that since it is charged with administration of the statutory scheme, its construction of the statute over an extended period should be given great weight. See, e. g., NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111 (1944). This proposition may, as a general matter, be conceded, although it must be tempered with the caveat that an agency may not bootstrap itself into an area in which it has no jurisdiction by repeatedly violating its statutory mandate. In this case, however, there is a disjunction between the abstract principle and the empirical data. The court below made a detailed study of the prior Commission cases relied upon by petitioner to bolster its interpretation of the statute and concluded that none of them involved assertion of jurisdiction over a case such as this, where the agreement in question imposed no ongoing obligations. We find it unnecessary to decide whether every prior case decided by the Commission can be reconciled with our opinion today. It is sufficient to note that the cases do not demonstrate the sort of longstanding, clearly articulated interpretation of the statute which would be entitled to great judicial deference, particularly in light of the clear indications that Congress did not intend to vest the Commission with the authority it is now seeking to assert. As this Court held in a related context,
“The construction put on a statute by the agency charged with administering it is entitled to deference by the courts, and ordinarily that construction will be affirmed if it has a'reasonable basis in law.’... But the courts are the final authorities on issues of statutory construction, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U. S. 374, 385, and ‘are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.’ NLRB v. Brown, 380 U. S. 278, 291.” Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 390 U. S., at 272.
In this case, we find that the Commission overstepped the limits which Congress placed on its jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must therefore be
Affirmed.
Originally, the Shipping Act conferred jurisdiction on the United States Shipping Board. See 39 Stat. 728, 729, 733. Over the years, the jurisdiction here at issue has been shifted to the United States Shipping Board Bureau of the Department of Commerce, see Exec. Order No. 6166, § 12 (1933), the United States Maritime Commission, see 49 Stat. 1985, the Federal Maritime Board, see 64 Stat. 1273, and finally, the Federal Maritime Commission, see 75 Stat. 840. For convenience, we will follow the practice of the parties and the court below and refer throughout to the “Commission.”
Section 15 provides in pertinent part:
“Every common carrier by water, or other person subject to this chapter, shall file immediately with the Commission a true copy, or, if oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every agreement with another such carrier or other person subject to this chapter, or modification or cancellation thereof, to which it may be a party or conform in whole or in part, fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement. The term 'agreement’ in this section includes understandings, conferences, and other arrangements.
“The Commission shall by order, after notice and hearing, disapprove, cancel or modify any agreement, or any modification or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to the public interest, or to be in violation of this chapter, and shall approve all other agreements, modifications, or cancellations....
“Any agreement and any modification or cancellation of any agreement not approved, or disapproved, by the Commission shall be unlawful, and agreements, modifications, and cancellations shall be lawful only when and as long as approved by the Commission....”
Section 15 provides that “[e]very agreement, modification, or cancellation lawful under this section... shall be excepted from the provisions of sections 1 to 11 and 15 of Title 15, and amendments and Acts supplementary thereto.” Since the Act makes lawful those agreements approved by the Commission, its effect is to vest the Commission with the power to shield those agreements approved by it from antitrust attack. See Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S. 213, 216 (1966). But cf. FMC v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U. S. 238, 242-246 (1968).
In light of our holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over this agreement, we do not decide whether the Commission’s decision that Seatrain was not entitled to a hearing would have been proper in a case in which the Commission properly asserted jurisdiction. Cf. Marine Space Enclosures, Inc. v. FMC, 137 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 420 F. 2d 577 (1969).
Direct appeal to the Court of Appeals of final orders of the Commission is authorized by 28 U. S. C. §2342 (3).
See 28 U. S. C. § 2344.
The Commission’s position in this regard is not without irony. In denying Seatrain’s application for a hearing and approving the agreement, the Commission held that Seatrain had failed to make sufficient allegations to show that the acquisition of assets would be destructive of competition. Yet the Commission now contends that it had jurisdiction over the agreement because it was one “preventing” competition.
It is true that “antitrust exemption results, not when an agreement is submitted for filing, but only when the agreement is actually approved.” Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. FMC, 390 U. S. 261, 273 (1968). But the fact remains that an expansive reading of the Commission’s jurisdiction would increase the number of cases subject to potential antitrust immunity.
The statute itself provides no definition of the term “agreement” beyond the statement that “[t]he term ‘agreement’ in this section includes understandings, conferences, and other arrangements.” Although certainly not dispositive, it is at least worthy of note that these synonyms given for “agreement” are all evocative of ongoing activity.
The Reynolds court’s observations were directed at the Committee’s study of foreign trade. In this context, the Committee found that competition was largely frustrated by extensive use of conference arrangements. When the Committee turned to domestic trade, it found that “[u]nlike the practice of water carriers in the foreign trade of the United States, agreements to divide the territory or charge certain rates in the domestic trade are few.” Alexander Report 421. Rather, in the domestic arena, the Committee found that competition was controlled largely through mergers, chiefly between railroads and water carriers. The Commission argues from this fact that Congress intended merger agreements to be filed, since the legislation which was ultimately enacted made no distinction between foreign and domestic trade. But throughout the Report whenever the Committee referred to mergers and acquisitions, it distinguished sharply between them and agreements, for which the filing and approval mechanism was applicable. See the discussion in text. Cf. Note, The Shipping Industry Seeks a Safe Haven: Merger Jurisdiction for the FMC?, 5 Law & Pol. Int’l Bus. 274, 285-286 (1973). Moreover, a careful reading of the Report makes clear that the Committee envisioned other devices for controlling the mergers prevalent in the domestic field. Thus, the Committee noted that the Panama Canal Act of 1912, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (14), already prohibited railroads from owning or controlling water carriers, see infra, at 742, and observed that this requirement went “far toward eliminating some of the undesirable practices which were found by the Committee to exist in the domestic commerce of the United States.” Alexander Report 422. While the Committee made other recommendations with respect to domestic carriers, these merely paralleled its foreign recommendations and, hence, pertained to “agreements” and “arrangements” rather than “mergers” and “acquisitions” which it thought were sufficiently regulated by existing legislation. See id., at 422-424.
The Commission would have us infer that the 1916 Act conferred jurisdiction upon it from an amendment added in 1950 to § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 18, as amended by 64 Stat. 1125, 1126. As amended, the provision specifies that:
“Nothing contained in this section shall apply to transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by the Civil Aeronautics Board, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Power Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission... the United States Maritime Commission, or the Secretary of Agriculture.”
As is clear from the face of the statute, the Act confers no new jurisdiction on any of the listed agencies, but merely provides that mergers already exempt from Clayton Act coverage were to be unaffected by changes in the Act. As this Court held in California v. FPC, the amended § 7 was “plainly not a grant of power to adjudicate antitrust issues.” 369 U. S.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The False Claims Act provides that the United States may recover from a person who presents a false claim or causes a false claim to be presented to it a forfeiture of $2,000 plus an amount equal to double the amount of damages that it sustains by reason of the false claim. This case presents two interpretative problems that arise when the United States sues a subcontractor under the Act on the ground that the subcontractor has caused the prime contractor to present false claims: First, how should the number of $2,000 forfeitures be counted? Second, when the United States has already recovered damages from the prime contractor because of the subcontractor’s fraud, what effect does that recovery have upon the Government’s right to recover double damages from the subcontractor?
I
In 1962, the United States entered into a $2,100,000 contract with Model Engineering & Manufacturing Corporation, Inc. (Model), for the provision of radio kits. Each kit was to contain electron tubes that met certain specifications. Model subcontracted with United National Labs (United) to supply these tubes at a price of $32 each. The tubes that United sent to Model under this subcontract were not of the required quality, but were falsely marked by United to indicate that they were. United sent at least 21 boxes of these falsely marked tubes to Model, in three separately invoiced shipments. The radio kits that Model in turn shipped to the United States contained 397 of those falsely marked tubes. Model sent 35 invoices to the Government for the radio kits, and each invoice included claims for payment for the falsely marked tubes that had been supplied to Model by United. After the Government discovered the fraud, it recovered $40.72 per tube from Model and also retained the falsely marked tubes.
Subsequently, the Government brought this civil action in a Federal District Court under the False Claims Act against United and two of its owner-officers, the respondents Philip L. Bornstein and Gerald Page. The complaint alleged that United was liable for 35 $2,000 forfeitures — one forfeiture for each invoice that it had “caused” Model to submit, and also claimed damages of $16,205.54, consisting of $40.82 per tube for 397 tubes. The trial court agreed that there had been 35 forfeitures, but ruled that before the Government’s damages could be doubled, they were to be reduced by the amount of Model’s payment to the United States. The court accordingly computed double damages at only $79.40 and awarded the Government a total of $70,079.40. 361 F. Supp. 869 (NJ). On cross-appeals the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court on the double-damages issue, but concluded that since there had been only one subcontract involved, there should be only one statutory forfeiture. Accordingly, the appellate court held that'United was liable for only $2,079.40. 504 F. 2d 368 (CA3). We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari to consider the statutory questions presented. 420 U. S. 906.
II
The Number of Statutory Forfeitures
The False Claims Act provides that a person “who shall do or commit any of the acts prohibited by” Rev. Stat. § 5438 “shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of two thousand dollars . . . Rev. Stat. § 3490. Section 5438 makes it illegal for a person to present or cause to be presented “for payment or approval . . . any claim upon or against the Government of the United States . . . knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.” It is settled that the Act permits recovery of multiple forfeitures and that it gives the United States a cause of action against a subcontractor who causes a prime contractor to submit a false claim to the Government. See United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537. The precise issue presented here is whether the subcontractor should be liable for each claim submitted by its prime contractor or whether it should be liable only for certain identifiable acts that it itself committed.
The legislative history of the Act offers little guidance on how properly to determine the number of forfeitures. The Act was originally aimed principally at stopping the massive frauds perpetrated by large contractors during the Civil War. There is no indication that Congress gave any thought to the question of how the number of forfeitures should be determined in cases involving subcontractor fraud. But the absence of specific legislative history in no way modifies the conventional judicial duty to give faithful meaning to the language Congress adopted in the light of the evident legislative purpose in enacting the law in question.
The respondents defend the decision of the Court of Appeals that held them liable for only one forfeiture. In reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeals relied principally on its earlier decision in United States v. Rohleder, 157 F. 2d 126 (CA3), where it found that 16 forfeitures were appropriate because 16 contracts were involved. The Rohleder court had relied in turn on this Court's decision in United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, supra. The Hess case involved several electrical contractors who had collusively bid on 56 Public Works Administration projects. The District Court in Hess had imposed 56 forfeitures, rejecting the defendants’ claim that only one forfeiture should have been imposed because there had been only one fraudulent scheme. This Court concluded that the District Court was correct because the incidence of fraud on each separate project was clearly individualized. 317 U. S., at 552. No party argued in this Court that more than 56 forfeitures should have been imposed, and no statement in the Hess opinion expressly limited the number of imposable forfeitures to the number of contracts involved in a case. Hess simply approved the result reached by the District Court which had found that “in each project there was a single, false, or fraudulent claim.” 41 F. Supp. 197, 216 (WD Pa.).
The Hess case, therefore, in no way stands for the proposition that the number of forfeitures is inevitably measured by the number of contracts involved in a case. Such an automatic measurement would ignore the plain language of the statute, as the .present case itself illustrates. United is liable under the statute only because it engaged in conduct that caused false claims to be submitted to the United States. While it is true that no false claims would have been submitted had United and Model not entered into a contractual relationship, the entry into that relationship did not in itself cause the submission of any false claims. Had United shipped tubes of the required quality to Model, no false claims would have been presented. By the same token, Model was not caused to file a false claim until it received shipments of falsely branded tubes from United. The language of the statute focuses on false claims, not on contracts. See n. 4, supra. That language does not support a conclusion that United is chargeable with only one forfeiture in this case.
To equate the number of forfeitures with the number of contracts would in a case such as this result almost always in but a single forfeiture, no matter how many fraudulent acts the subcontractor might have committed. This result would not only be at odds with the statutory language; it would also defeat the statutory purpose. Such a limitation would, in the language of the Government’s brief, convert “the Act’s forfeiture provision into little more than a $2,000 license for subcontractor fraud.”
At the other extreme, the Government urges that 35 forfeitures should be assessed, in accord with the position of the District Court, which ruled that “[United’s fraudulent] acts caused Model to submit thirty-five false claims, each of which constituted a separate violation justifying a separate forfeiture.” 361 F. Supp., at 879. The difficulty with this position is that it fails to distinguish between the acts committed by Model and the acts committed by United. The distinction is a critical one, because the statute imposes liability only for the commission of acts which cause false claims to be presented.
If United had committed one act which caused Model to file a false claim, it would clearly be liable for a single forfeiture. If, as a result of the same act by United, Model had filed three false claims, United would still have committed only one act that caused the filing of false claims, and thus, under the language of the statute, would again be liable for only one forfeiture. If, on the other hand, United had committed three separate such causative acts, United would be liable for three forfeitures, even if Model had filed only one false claim. The Act, in short, penalizes a person for his own acts, not for the acts of someone else.
The Government’s claim that United “caused” Model to submit 35 false claims is simply not accurate. While United committed certain acts which caused Model to submit false claims, it did not cause Model to submit any particular number of false claims. The fact that Model chose to submit 35 false claims instead of some other number was, so far as United was concerned, wholly irrelevant — completely fortuitous and beyond United’s knowledge or control. The Government suggests that United assumed the risk that Model might send 35 invoices when United sent the falsely branded tubes to Model. The statute, however, does not penalize United for what Model did. It penalizes United for what it did. The construction given to the statutory language by the District Court is, therefore, no more satisfactory than the interpretation adopted by the Court of Appeals.
A correct application of the statutory language requires, rather, that the focus in each case be upon the specific conduct of the person from whom the Government seeks to collect the statutory forfeitures. In the present case United committed three acts which caused Model to submit false claims to the Government — the three separately invoiced shipments to Model. If United had not shipped any falsely branded tubes to Model, Model could not have incorporated such tubes into its radio kits and would not have had occasion to submit any false claims to the United States. When, however, United dispatched each shipment of falsely marked tubes to Model, it did so knowing that Model would incorporate the tubes into the radio kits it later shipped to the Government, and that it would ask for payment from the Government on account of those tubes. Thus, United’s three shipments of falsely branded tubes to Model caused Model to submit false claims to the United States, and United is thus liable for three $2,000 statutory forfeitures representing the three separate shipments that it made to Model.
Ill
Computation of Double Damages
In the District Court “[I] be Government . . . established that the per unit cost to replace the [falsely branded] tubes was $40.82.” 361 F. Supp., at 875. Finding that the Government had already received $40.72 per tube as damages from Model, the court concluded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the Government’s total statutory damages were $79.40 — double the 10-cent difference per tube between its replacement costs and the payment already received from Model for the 397 tubes.
The Government argues that both courts were wrong, and that its damages under the Act should be calculated by doubling the amount of its original loss and only then deducting Model’s payment from that doubled amount. We agree that the Government’s damages should be doubled before any compensatory payments are deducted, because that method of computation most faithfully conforms to the language and purpose of the Act.
Although there is nothing in the legislative history that specifically bears on the question of how to calculate double damages, past decisions of this Court have reflected a clear understanding that Congress intended the double-damages provision to play an important role in compensating the United States in cases where it has been defrauded. “We think the chief purpose of the [Act’s civil penalties] was to provide for restitution to the government of money taken from it by fraud, and that the device of double damages plus a specific sum was chosen to make sure that the government would be made completely whole.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S., at 551-552. For several different reasons, this make-whole purpose of the Act is best served by doubling the Government’s damages before any compensatory payments are deducted.
First, this method of computation comports with the congressional judgment that double damages are necessary to compensate the Government completely for the costs, delays, and inconveniences occasioned by fraudulent claims. Second, the rule that damages should be doubled prior to any deductions fixes the liability of the defrauder without reference to the adventitious actions of other persons. The position adopted by the Court of Appeals would mean that two subcontractors who committed similar acts and caused similar damage could be subjected to widely disparate penalties depending upon whether and to what extent their prime contractors had paid the Government in settlement of the Government’s claims against them. Just as fortuitous acts of the prime contractor should not determine the liability of the subcontractor under the forfeiture provision of the Act, so likewise the prime contractor’s fortuitous acts should not determine the liability of the subcontractor under the double-damages provision. Third, the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and the District Court would enable the subcontractor to avoid the Act’s double-damages provision by tendering the amount of the undoubled damages at any time prior to judgment. This possibility would make the double-damages provision meaningless. Doubling the Government’s actual damages before any deduction is made for payments previously received from any source in mitigation of those damages forecloses such a result.
For these reasons we hold that, in computing the double damages authorized by the Act, the Government’s actual damages are to be doubled before any subtractions are made for compensatory payments previously received by the Government from any source. This method of computation, which maximizes the deterrent impact of the double-damages provision and fixes the relative rights and liabilities of the respective parties with maximum precision, best comports in our view with the language and purpose of the Act.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The False Claims Act was adopted in 1863. Act of Mar. 2, Í863, c. 67, 12 Stat. 696. It was re-enacted as Rev. Stat. §§ 3490-3494, 5438. The part of the Act dealing with civil prohibitions is now codified in 31 U. S. C. § 231 et seq. The language used in Title 31 differs in some important respects from that contained in the Revised Statutes. Since Title 31 has not been enacted into positive law, the official text of the statute is that which appears in the Revised Statutes. See United States v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U. S. 228, 228-229, n. 1; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 539-540, and n. 2.
The relevant statutory provisions are as follows:
§ 3490. “Any person not in the military or naval forces of the United States, or in the militia called into or actually employed in the service of the United States, who shall do or commit any of the acts prohibited by any of the provisions of section fifty-four hundred and thirty-eight, Title 'CRIMES/ shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of two thousand dollars, and, in addition, double the amount of damages which the United States may have sustained by reason of the doing or committing such act, together with the costs of suit; and such forfeiture and damages shall be sued for in the same suit.”
§ 5438. “Every person who makes or causes to be made, or presents or causes to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim, to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or who, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of such claim, makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, or who enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false or fraudulent claim, or who, having charge, possession, custody, or control of any money or other public property used or to be used in the military or naval service, who, with intent to defraud the United States or willfully .to conceal such money or other property, delivers or causes to be delivered, to any other person having authority to receive the same, any amount of such money or other property less than that for which he received a certificate or took a receipt, and every person authorized to make or deliver any certificate, voucher, receipt, or other paper certifying the receipt of arms, ammunition, provisions, clothing, or other property so used or to be used, who makes or delivers the same to any other person without a full knowledge of the truth of the facts stated therein, and with intent to defraud the United States, and every person who knowingly purchases or receives in pledge for any obligation or indebtedness from any soldier, officer, sailor, or other person called into or employed in the military or naval service any arms, equipments, ammunition, clothes, military stores, or other public property, such soldier, sailor, officer, or other person not having the lawful right to pledge or sell the same, every person so offending in any of the matters set forth in this section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one nor more than five years, or fined not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars.”
Section 5438 was repealed in 1909. Act of Mar. 4, 1909, c. 321, § 341, 35 Stat. 1153. It has continued vitality only insofar as it specifies the acts giving rise to civil liability under § 3490. See United States v. Neifert-White Co., supra. The criminal prohibitions were subsequently altered and codified in 18 U. S. C. §§287 and 1001.
United was dismissed as a party prior to judgment. For convenience, however, the respondents are sometimes referred to in this opinion as United. The United States also brought criminal charges against Bornstein and Page. They pleaded guilty to those charges and were given suspended sentences.
The Government also claimed that United was liable for three additional $2,000 forfeitures under the second clause of § 5438 which prohibits the preparation and use of false documents in support of a false claim. See n. 1, supra. The Government does not press that claim here.
In cases involving prime contractors the number of imposable forfeitures has generally been set at the number of individual false payment demands that the contractor has made upon the Government. See, e. g., United States v. Woodbury, 359 F. 2d 370, 377-378 (CA9); Fleming v. United States, 336 F. 2d 475, 480 (CA10); United States v. National Wholesalers, 236 F. 2d 944, 950 (CA9); Faulk v. United States, 198 F. 2d 169, 171 (CA5); United States v. Grannis, 172 F. 2d 507, 515-516 (CA4); United States v. Collyer Insulated Wire Co., 94 F. Supp. 493, 496-498 (RI). Cf. United States v. Ueber, 299 F. 2d 310 (CA6). This result is in accord with this Court’s statement that “ ‘the conception of a claim against the government normally connotes a demand for money or for some transfer of public property.’” United States v. McNinch, 356 U. S. 595, 599, quoting United States v. Tieger, 234 F. 2d 589, 591 (CA3).
According to its sponsor, the False Claims Act was adopted “for the purpose of punishing and preventing . . . frauds.” Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 952 (remarks of Sen. Howard). See also id., at 955 (remarks of Sen. Wilson).
See n. 5, supra.
Cf. United States v. Ueber, 299 F. 2d 310 (CA6).
This Court has noted that in construing § 5438 “we are actually construing the provisions of a criminal statute. Such provisions must be carefully restricted, not only to their literal terms but to the evident purpose of Congress in using those terms, particularly where they are broad and susceptible [of] numerous definitions.” United States v. McNinch, 356 U. S., at 598. See also Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 592-593.
At one point in this litigation the Government urged that any compensatory payments it received should not be deducted from its statutory damages at all. It has now abandoned that position, perhaps for the reason that since United is liable to Model for Model’s payment to the United States, United would in effect be assessed triple damages under such a rule.
The statute speaks of doubling “damages” and not doubling “net damages” or “uncompensated damages.”
As originally enacted, the False Claims Act contained a qui tarn provision which authorized any person to bring an action on behalf of the United States to recover the civil penalties that could be imposed under the Act. Act of Mar. 2, 1863, §4, 12 Stat. 698. If successful, the person would receive one-half of the damages awarded to the United States. § 6. Respondents suggest that double damages were provided by Congress because it knew that half of the Government’s recovery would go to a private person and that as a result double damages were necessary in order to allow the Government’s share of the proceeds of a suit to cover the Government’s single damages. Thus, they argue that Congress never concluded that the United States needed to recover double damages in order to be made completely whole.
This argument would have some force if the only enforcement mechanism provided in the Act were the qui tarn action. However, the Act clearly envisioned that the Government could sue on its own behalf, §4, and it specifically exhorted United States attorneys to enforce the Act diligently. § 5. Moreover, in 1943 Congress placed restrictions on the possibility of bringing a qui tarn action and limited a private person’s recovery to a maximum of one quarter of the damages awarded the United States, Act of Dee. 23, 1943, c. 377, 57 Stat. 608. In adopting these changes, Congress did not make any adjustment in the double-damages provision, again suggesting that it thought that double damages are necessary to make the United States whole in fraudulent-claim cases.
The only two District Courts that have addressed this question have reached opposing results. Compare United States v. Klein, 230 F. Supp. 426, 443 (WD Pa.), aff’d per curiam, 356 F. 2d 983 (CA3) (damages doubled after offsetting credits deducted), with United States v. Globe Remodeling Co., 196 F. Supp. 652, 657 (Vt.) (damages doubled before offsetting credits deducted).
The Government's actual damages are equal to the difference between the market value of the tubes it received and retained and the market value that the tubes would have had if they had been of the specified quality. C. McCormick, Law of Damages § 42, p. 137 (1935). See, e. g., United States v. Cooperative Grain & Supply Co., 476 F. 2d 47, 61-65 (CA8); United States v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 447 F. 2d 100, 102 (CA2); United States v. Woodbury, 359 F. 2d, at 379; Toepleman v. United States, 263 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA4); United States v. Ben Grunstein & Sons Co., 137 F. Supp. 197, 205 (NJ); United States v. American Packing Corp., 125 F. Supp. 788, 791 (NJ); but cf. United States v. Aerodex, Inc., 469 F. 2d 1003, 1010-1011 (CA5); Faulk v. United States, 198 F. 2d 169, 172 (CA5).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into "the waters of the United States." 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), (12). Because it can be difficult to determine whether a particular parcel of property contains such waters, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue to property owners an "approved jurisdictional determination" stating the agency's definitive view on that matter. See 33 CFR § 331.2 and pt. 331, App. C (2015). The question presented is whether that determination is final agency action judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704.
I
A
The Clean Water Act prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant" without a permit into "navigable waters," which it defines, in turn, as "the waters of the United States." 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), (12). During the time period relevant to this case, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defined the waters of the United States to include land areas occasionally or regularly saturated with water-such as "mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, [and] playa lakes"-the "use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce." 33 CFR § 328.3(a)(3) (2012). The Corps has applied that definition to assert jurisdiction over "270-to-300 million acres of swampy lands in the United States-including half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 States."
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 722, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006) (plurality opinion).
It is often difficult to determine whether a particular piece of property contains waters of the United States, but there are important consequences if it does. The Clean Water Act imposes substantial criminal and civil penalties for discharging any pollutant into waters covered by the Act without a permit from the Corps. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1319(c), (d), 1344(a). The costs of obtaining such a permit are significant. For a specialized "individual" permit of the sort at issue in this case, for example, one study found that the average applicant "spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process," without "counting costs of mitigation or design changes." Rapanos, 547 U.S., at 721, 126 S.Ct. 2208. Even more readily available "general" permits took applicants, on average, 313 days and $28,915 to complete. Ibid. See generally 33 CFR § 323.2(h) (limiting "general" permits to activities that "cause only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts").
The Corps specifies whether particular property contains "waters of the United States" by issuing "jurisdictional determinations" (JDs) on a case-by-case basis. § 331.2. JDs come in two varieties: "preliminary" and "approved." Ibid. While preliminary JDs merely advise a property owner "that there may be waters of the United States on a parcel," approved JDs definitively "stat[e] the presence or absence" of such waters. Ibid. (emphasis added). Unlike preliminary JDs, approved JDs can be administratively appealed and are defined by regulation to "constitute a Corps final agency action." §§ 320.1(a)(6), 331.2. They are binding for five years on both the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency, which share authority to enforce the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319, 1344(s) ; 33 CFR pt. 331, App. C ; EPA, Memorandum of Agreement: Exemptions Under Section 404(F) of the Clean Water Act § VI-A (1989) (Memorandum of Agreement).
B
Respondents are three companies engaged in mining peat in Marshall County, Minnesota. Peat is an organic material that forms in waterlogged grounds, such as wetlands and bogs. See Xuehui & Jinming, Peat and Peatlands, in 2 Coal, Oil Shale, Natural Bitumen, Heavy Oil and Peat 267-272 (G. Jinsheng ed. 2009) (Peat and Peatlands). It is widely used for soil improvement and burned as fuel. Id., at 277. It can also be used to provide structural support and moisture for smooth, stable greens that leave golfers with no one to blame but themselves for errant putts. See Monteith & Welton, Use of Peat and Other Organic Materials on Golf Courses, 13 Bulletin of the United States Golf Association Green Section 90, 95-100 (1933). At the same time, peat mining can have significant environmental and ecological impacts, see Peat and Peatlands 280-281, and therefore is regulated by both federal and state environmental protection agencies, see, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 103G.231 (2014).
Respondents own a 530-acre tract near their existing mining operations. The tract includes wetlands, which respondents believe contain sufficient high quality peat, suitable for use in golf greens, to extend their mining operations for 10 to 15 years. App. 8, 14-15, 31.
In December 2010, respondents applied to the Corps for a Section 404 permit for the property. Id., at 15. A Section 404 permit authorizes "the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites." 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a). Over the course of several communications with respondents, Corps officials signaled that the permitting process would be very expensive and take years to complete. The Corps also advised respondents that, if they wished to pursue their application, they would have to submit numerous assessments of various features of the property, which respondents estimate would cost more than $100,000. App. 16-17, 31-35.
In February 2012, in connection with the permitting process, the Corps issued an approved JD stating that the property contained "water of the United States" because its wetlands had a "significant nexus" to the Red River of the North, located some 120 miles away. Id., at 13, 18, 20. Respondents appealed the JD to the Corps' Mississippi Valley Division Commander, who remanded for further factfinding. On remand, the Corps reaffirmed its original conclusion and issued a revised JD to that effect. Id., at 18-20; App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a-45a.
Respondents then sought judicial review of the revised JD under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. The District Court dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the revised JD was not "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court," as required by the APA prior to judicial review, 5 U.S.C. § 704. 963 F.Supp.2d 868, 872, 878 (Minn.2013). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, 782 F.3d 994, 1002 (2015), and we granted certiorari, 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 615, 193 L.Ed.2d 495 (2015).
II
The Corps contends that the revised JD is not "final agency action" and that, even if it were, there are adequate alternatives for challenging it in court. We disagree at both turns.
A
In Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997), we distilled from our precedents two conditions that generally must be satisfied for agency action to be "final" under the APA. "First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process-it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow." Id., at 177-178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Corps does not dispute that an approved JD satisfies the first Bennett condition. Unlike preliminary JDs-which are "advisory in nature" and simply indicate that "there may be waters of the United States" on a parcel of property, 33 CFR § 331.2 -an approved JD clearly "mark[s] the consummation" of the Corps' decisionmaking process on that question, Bennett, 520 U.S., at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is issued after extensive factfinding by the Corps regarding the physical and hydrological characteristics of the property, see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 47-60 (2007), and is typically not revisited if the permitting process moves forward. Indeed, the Corps itself describes approved JDs as "final agency action," see 33 CFR § 320.1(a)(6), and specifies that an approved JD "will remain valid for a period of five years," Corps, Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-02, § 1(a), p. 1 (June 14, 2005) (2005 Guidance Letter); see also 33 CFR pt. 331, App. C.
The Corps may revise an approved JD within the five-year period based on "new information." 2005 Guidance Letter § 1(a), at 1. That possibility, however, is a common characteristic of agency action, and does not make an otherwise definitive decision nonfinal. See Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1367, 1372, 182 L.Ed.2d 367 (2012) ; see also National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 981, 125 S.Ct. 2688, 162 L.Ed.2d 820 (2005). By issuing respondents an approved JD, the Corps for all practical purposes "has ruled definitively" that respondents' property contains jurisdictional waters. Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1374-1375 (GINSBURG, J., concurring).
The definitive nature of approved JDs also gives rise to "direct and appreciable legal consequences," thereby satisfying the second prong of Bennett , 520 U.S., at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154. Consider the effect of an approved JD stating that a party's property does not contain jurisdictional waters-a "negative" JD, in Corps parlance. As noted, such a JD will generally bind the Corps for five years. See 33 CFR pt. 331, App. C ; 2005 Guidance Letter § 1. Under a longstanding memorandum of agreement between the Corps and EPA, it will also be "binding on the Government and represent the Government's position in any subsequent Federal action or litigation concerning that final determination." Memorandum of Agreement §§ IV-C-2, VI-A. A negative JD thus binds the two agencies authorized to bring civil enforcement proceedings under the Clean Water Act, see 33 U.S.C. § 1319, creating a five-year safe harbor from such proceedings for a property owner. Additionally, although the property owner may still face a citizen suit under the Act, such a suit-unlike actions brought by the Government-cannot impose civil liability for wholly past violations. See §§ 1319(d), 1365(a) ; Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 58-59, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987). In other words, a negative JD both narrows the field of potential plaintiffs and limits the potential liability a landowner faces for discharging pollutants without a permit. Each of those effects is a "legal consequence[ ]" satisfying the second Bennett prong. 520 U.S., at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 ; see also Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1371.
It follows that affirmative JDs have legal consequences as well: They represent the denial of the safe harbor that negative JDs afford. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(13) (defining "agency action" to include an agency "rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent," or the "denial thereof"). Because "legal consequences ... flow" from approved JDs, they constitute final agency action. Bennett, 520 U.S., at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (internal quotation marks omitted).
This conclusion tracks the "pragmatic" approach we have long taken to finality. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). For example, in Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 76 S.Ct. 569, 100 L.Ed. 910 (1956), we considered the finality of an order specifying which commodities the Interstate Commerce Commission believed were exempt by statute from regulation, and which it believed were not. Although the order "had no authority except to give notice of how the Commission interpreted" the relevant statute, and "would have effect only if and when a particular action was brought against a particular carrier," Abbott, 387 U.S., at 150, 87 S.Ct. 1507 we held that the order was nonetheless immediately reviewable, Frozen Food, 351 U.S., at 44-45, 76 S.Ct. 569. The order, we explained, "warns every carrier, who does not have authority from the Commission to transport those commodities, that it does so at the risk of incurring criminal penalties." Id., at 44, 76 S.Ct. 569. So too here, while no administrative or criminal proceeding can be brought for failure to conform to the approved JD itself, that final agency determination not only deprives respondents of a five-year safe harbor from liability under the Act, but warns that if they discharge pollutants onto their property without obtaining a permit from the Corps, they do so at the risk of significant criminal and civil penalties.
B
Even if final, an agency action is reviewable under the APA only if there are no adequate alternatives to APA review in court. 5 U.S.C. § 704. The Corps contends that respondents have two such alternatives: either discharge fill material without a permit, risking an EPA enforcement action during which they can argue that no permit was required, or apply for a permit and seek judicial review if dissatisfied with the results. Brief for Petitioner 45-51.
Neither alternative is adequate. As we have long held, parties need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of "serious criminal and civil penalties." Abbott, 387 U.S., at 153, 87 S.Ct. 1507. If respondents discharged fill material without a permit, in the mistaken belief that their property did not contain jurisdictional waters, they would expose themselves to civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each day they violated the Act, to say nothing of potential criminal liability. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c), (d) ; Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, n. 1, 132 S.Ct., at 1370, n. 1 (citing 74 Fed.Reg. 626, 627 (2009) ). Respondents need not assume such risks while waiting for EPA to "drop the hammer" in order to have their day in court. Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1372.
Nor is it an adequate alternative to APA review for a landowner to apply for a permit and then seek judicial review in the event of an unfavorable decision. As Corps officials indicated in their discussions with respondents, the permitting process can be arduous, expensive, and long. See Rapanos, 547 U.S., at 721, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (plurality opinion). On top of the standard permit application that respondents were required to submit, see 33 CFR § 325.1(d) (detailing contents of permit application), the Corps demanded that they undertake, among other things, a "hydrogeologic assessment of the rich fen system including the mineral/nutrient composition and pH of the groundwater; groundwater flow spatially and vertically; discharge and recharge areas"; a "functional/resource assessment of the site including a vegetation survey and identification of native fen plan communities across the site"; an "inventory of similar wetlands in the general area (watershed), including some analysis of their quality"; and an "inventory of rich fen plant communities that are within sites of High and Outstanding Biodiversity Significance in the area." App. 33-34. Respondents estimate that undertaking these analyses alone would cost more than $100,000. Id., at 17. And whatever pertinence all this might have to the issuance of a permit, none of it will alter the finality of the approved JD, or affect its suitability for judicial review. The permitting process adds nothing to the JD.
The Corps nevertheless argues that Congress made the "evident [ ]" decision in the Clean Water Act that a coverage determination would be made "as part of the permitting process, and that the property owner would obtain any necessary judicial review of that determination at the conclusion of that process." Brief for Petitioner 46. But as the Corps acknowledges, the Clean Water Act makes no reference to standalone jurisdictional determinations, ibid., so there is little basis for inferring anything from it concerning the reviewability of such distinct final agency action. And given "the APA's presumption of reviewability for all final agency action," Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1373, "[t]he mere fact" that permitting decisions are "reviewable should not suffice to support an implication of exclusion as to other[ ]" agency actions, such as approved JDs, Abbott, 387 U.S., at 141, 87 S.Ct. 1507 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sackett, 566 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1373 ("[I]f the express provision of judicial review in one section of a long and complicated statute were alone enough to overcome the APA's presumption of reviewability ..., it would not be much of a presumption at all").
Finally, the Corps emphasizes that seeking review in an enforcement action or at the end of the permitting process would be the only available avenues for obtaining review "[i]f the Corps had never adopted its practice of issuing standalone jurisdictional determinations upon request." Reply Brief 3; see also id., at 4, 23. True enough. But such a "count your blessings" argument is not an adequate rejoinder to the assertion of a right to judicial review under the APA.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice ALITO join, concurring.
My join extends to the Court's opinion in full. The following observation seems appropriate not to qualify what the Court says but to point out that, based on the Government's representations in this case, the reach and systemic consequences of the Clean Water Act remain a cause for concern. As Justice ALITO has noted in an earlier case, the Act's reach is "notoriously unclear" and the consequences to landowners even for inadvertent violations can be crushing. See Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1367, 1374-1375, 182 L.Ed.2d 367 (2012) (concurring opinion).
An approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD) gives a landowner at least some measure of predictability, so long as the agency's declaration can be relied upon. Yet, the Government has represented in this litigation that a JD has no legally binding effect on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) enforcement decisions. It has stated that the memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which today's opinion relies on, does not have binding effect and can be revoked or amended at the Agency's unfettered discretion. Reply Brief 12; Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. If that were correct, the Act's ominous reach would again be unchecked by the limited relief the Court allows today. Even if, in an ordinary case, an agency's internal agreement with another agency cannot establish that its action is final, the Court is right to construe a JD as binding in light of the fact that in many instances it will have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process.
The Act, especially without the JD procedure were the Government permitted to foreclose it, continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government's power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.
In 2015, the Corps adopted a new rule modifying the definition of the scope of waters covered by the Clean Water Act in light of scientific research and decisions of this Court interpreting the Act. See Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," 80 Fed.Reg. 37054, 37055-37056. That rule is currently stayed nationwide, pending resolution of claims that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804, 807-809 (C.A.6 2015).
Because we determine that a JD satisfies both prongs of Bennett, we need not consider respondents' argument that an agency action that satisfies only the first may also constitute final agency action. See Brief for Respondents 19-20.
The Corps asserts that the Memorandum of Agreement addresses only "special case" JDs, rather than "mine-run" ones "of the sort at issue here." Reply Brief 12, n. 3. But the memorandum plainly makes binding "[a]ll final determinations," whether in "[s]pecial" or "[n]on-special" cases. Memorandum of Agreement §§ IV-C, VI-A; see also Corps, Memorandum of Understanding Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program, 45 Fed.Reg. 45019, n. 1 (1980) ("[U]nder this [memorandum], except in special cases previously agreed to, the [Corps] is authorized to make a final determination ... and such determination shall be binding.").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Terrell is incarcerated in a state prison in Ohio. After applying for state-law postconviction relief, he petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254 (1982 ed.).
Terrell’s habeas petition includes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The Ohio courts held in postconviction proceedings that Terrell had defaulted this claim by failing to raise it when represented by new counsel on direct appeal. In so doing, the Ohio courts relied upon State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St. 3d 112, 113-114, 443 N. E. 2d 169, 171 (1982). The Cole rule postdated Terrell’s appeal, which was decided on December 30, 1981. Before Cole, Ohio had permitted ineffective-assistance claims in collateral challenges even if a petitioner had not raised those claims when represented by new counsel on direct appeal. See State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St. 2d 71, 71-72, 74-75, 341 N. E. 2d 304, 305, 307 (1976) (permitting a postconviction ineffective assistance claim to go forward despite a failure to raise the issue on direct appeal); see also Cole, supra, at 113-114, 443 N. E. 2d, at 171 (expressly modifying Hester).
Terrell thus could not have known that he would default his ineffective-assistance claim by his new counsel’s failure to raise it on direct appeal. Terrell argued to the Federal District Court that the State could not invoke its procedural default rule retroactively. The District Judge agreed and proceeded to the merits of Terrell’s ineffective-assistance claim.
The Sixth Circuit disposed of Terrell’s pro se appeal in a per curiam, unpublished opinion. Terrell v. Marshall, 872 F. 2d 1029 (1989) (judgment order). The Court of Appeals held that “the District Court properly determined that Terrell’s” ineffective-assistance claim, as well as several other claims, “were not re viewable” because of Terrell’s “failure to raise these claims in state court proceedings.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2. The District Court had, however, made no such determination: the District Court reached the merits of the ineffective-assistance claim because the only applicable procedural default rule postdated Terrell’s conviction. The Court of Appeals neither noted nor addressed the retroactivity issue.
The Sixth Circuit, by its unpublished opinion, affirmed a decision that the District Court never made, and so never reviewed that court’s actual decision. Review of the procedural bar and retroactivity issues should be undertaken based on a correct formulation of the ruling in the District Court. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The author of the Court of Appeals’ unpublished opinion may have relied on the Magistrate’s conclusion that petitioner’s ineffective-assistanee-of-counsel claim was barred by procedural default. See App. to Pet. for Cert. C-4. The Magistrate, however, had. neither noted nor addressed the retroactivity issue that the District Court resolved in petitioner’s favor. Because the question whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St. 3d 112, 443 N. E. 2d 169 (1982), should be given retroactive effect may govern the disposition of a significant number of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, the question clearly merits the attention of the Court of Appeals. Moreover, since the answer to the question requires a familiarity with Ohio law, it should not be addressed in this Court before we have the benefit of the Court of Appeals’ views.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the meaning of § 490(a) (Pub. L. 99-498), 100 Stat. 1491, as added, 20 U. S. C. § 1097(a) (1988 ed.), which declared it a felony “knowingly and willfully” to misapply student loan funds insured under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The United States acknowledges that § 1097(a) demanded allegation and proof of the defendant’s intentional conversion of loan funds to his own use or the use of a third party. The question presented is whether § 1097(a) demanded, in addition, allegation and proof that the defendant specifically intended to injure or defraud someone — either the United States as loan guarantor, as the District Court read the measure, or another. We hold, in accord with the Court of Appeals, that specific intent to. injure or defraud someone, whether the United States or another, is not an element of the misapplication of funds proscribed by § 1097(a).
I
. The indictment in this ease, App. 2-12, alleged the following facts. James and Laurenda Jackson ówned and operated Education America, Inc., a for-profit consulting and management firm for technical and vocational schools. In December 1986, the Jacksons acquired the Acme Institute of Technology, a not-for-profit technical school located in South Bend, Indiana, which offered associate degree programs in electronic engineering, and tool, die, and plastics mold design. After the acquisition, the Jacksons appointed Bates— then the vice president of Education America — to serve as treasurer of Acme’s board of trustees.
On April 30, 1987, James Jackson, as president of Acme, signed a program participation agreement with the Department of Education that authorized the school to receive student loan checks through the Title IV federal Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program. See 20 U. S. C. § 1070 et seq. (1988 ed.). Acme’s participation hinged upon both its continued accreditation by an approved accrediting association and Jackson’s promise to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.
Under the GSL program, banks and other private institutions lent money to Acme students for tuition and other educational expenses. The Federal Government administered the program and guaranteed payment if a student borrower defaulted. Acme would receive a loan check directly from the lender, endorse the check, and credit the amount of the check against the student’s tuition debt. If a GSL student withdrew from Acme before the term ended, the governing regulations, 34 CFR §§668.22 and 682.606 (1990), required Acme to return to the lender a portion of the loan proceeds, based upon how late in the term the student withdrew and how much the student had paid at that point. Refunds to the lender, the applicable regulation, §682.607, instructed, were to be made within a specified period (30 or 60 days) following the student’s withdrawal. The lender would then deduct the refund from the amount that the student owed. If Acme did not refund the loans to the lender, the student — and if she defaulted, the Government — would remain liable for the full amount of the loan.
Around the end of 1987, pursuant to decisions made by the Jacksons and Bates, Acme initiated a pattern and practice of not making GSL refunds. On April 14,1988, James Jackson sent a letter to Acme’s director ordering him, effective the following month, to “tally [Acme’s] receipts for the preceding month and remit a management fee of 10% of [the] total receipts to Education America, Inc.” App. 4. The letter also told the director to pay the Jacksons a monthly salary. The letter further stated: “If the above creates a cash shortfall in your school, money will be loaned back to you to cover the shortfall.” See ibid. Bates, serving as Acme’s chief financial officer, permitted these fee and salary payments to take priority over*the GSL refunds, and specifically instructed other Acme employees not to make the required GSL refunds. In late 1988 or early 1989, Education America officials ordered Acme to stop using a special bank account that segregated the unearned student-loaned tuition from the general account. Acme’s former owners had used this special account to ensure that funds were always available for timely refunds to lenders.
By October 1988, Acme had amassed roughly $55,000 in unmade GSL refunds. Acme’s financial aid director sent James Jackson a letter in January 1989 to draw Jackson’s attention to the gravity of the unmade refunds, which then totaled $68,000. By March 1989, Acme’s refund liability had grown to approximately $85,000. In a letter dated March 13, 1989, Bates, as Education America’s vice president, released Acme’s financial aid director from all responsibility concerning GSL refunds, as she had requested. The letter stated that unmade refunds were “solely the responsibility and decision of the corporate office.” See id., at 5.
In April 1989, the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools, a national accrediting association, conducted an on-site audit of Acme to determine whether it should continue to accredit the school. A month later, the Association reported to the Department of Education that Acme had “inadequately demonstrated its ability to make appropriate and timely refunds,” and had “loaned substantial amounts of money to [James Jackson,] the chief trustee.” The report also noted evidence that management fees had been “upstream[ed]” to Education America. See ibid. Acme subsequently lost its accreditation, and the Department of Education notified the school on April 7, 1990, that effective March 8, 1990, Acme was no longer eligible to participate in the GSL program. On June 5, 1990, Acme ceased operations. During Bates’s tenure as Acme’s chief financial officer, the school amassed $139,649 in unmade refunds, not including interest and certain special allowances.
On September 8,1994, a federal grand jury indicted Bates on twelve counts of “knowingly and willfully misapply[ing],” id., at 11, federally insured student loan funds between January 15, 1990, and June 15, 1990, in violation of 20 U. S. C. § 1097(a) (1988 ed.) and 18 U. S. C. §2 (1988 ed.). On February 7, 1995, Bates filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He argued, and the District Court agreed, that conviction under § 1097(a) for willful misapplication required an allegation of the defendant’s “intent to injure or defraud the United States.” 96 F. 3d 964, 967 (CA7 1996). Because the indictment lacked such an allegation, the District Court dismissed it.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and reinstated the prosecution. 96 F. 3d 964 (1996). The Court of Appeals concluded that § 1097(a) required the Government to prove only that “the defendant misapplied — i. e;, converted — Title IV funds and that he did so knowingly and willfully.” Id., at 970. The Seventh Circuit's decision conflicts with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Kammer, 1 F. 3d 1161, 1165-1166 (1993), which held that § 1097(a) requires the Government to allege and prove that the defendant had an “intent to defraud” the United States. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 519 U. S. 1108 (1997), and now affirm the Seventh Circuit’s judgment.
II
Our inquiry begins with the text of 20 U. S. C. § 1097(a) (1988 ed.). At the time of the offenses charged in the indictment, the measure provided in relevant part: “Any person who knowingly and willfully embezzles, misapplies, steals, or obtains by fraud, false statement, or forgery any funds, assets, or property provided or insured under this subchapter .. . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”
. The text of § 1097(a) does not include an “intent to defraud” state of mind requirement, and we ordinarily resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not appear on its face. In contrast, § 1097(d), enacted at the same time as § 1097(a), makes it a felony “knowingly and willfully” to “destroCy] or eoneea[l] any record relating to the provision of assistance under [Title IV] with intent to defraud the United States” (emphasis added). As this Court has reiterated: “ ‘[Wjhere Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’ ” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972)).
Despite the contrasting language of §§ 1097(a) and (d), Bates urges that an “intent to defraud” is an essential, albeit unexpressed, element of the offenses charged against him. For this argument, Bates relies primarily upon the District Court’s reasoning in this ease. The District Court, like the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Kammer, 1 F. 3d, at 1165, looked to decisions interpreting 18 U. S. C. § 656, which proscribes -willful misapplication of bank funds. The Courts of Appeals unanimously agree that § 656 requires the Government to prove that the defendant acted with an intent to “injure or defraud” the bank or “deceive” a bank officer, even though the statute, on its face, contains no such element. In another case involving a different defendant named Bates, the Seventh Circuit explained why §656 included an “intent to injure or defraud” element:
“The current statutory language does not expressly require any proof of [fraudulent or injurious] intent. Originally the statute did require proof of intent to ‘injure or defraud’ the hank or ‘deceive’ a bank officer but these words were inadvertently dropped in the course of a technical revision of the criminal code. To avoid making every unauthorized loan by a bank officer a willful misapplication of bank funds, courts . . . read the missing words back into the section.” United States v. Bates, 852 F. 2d 212, 215 (1988).
Assuming, without deciding, that the Seventh Circuit’s reading of § 656 is correct, § 1097(a) never contained, as § 656 did, an “intent to defraud” requirement, a requirement present from the start and still contained in § 1097(d). In short, there is here neither text nor history warranting the construction of § 1097(a) that Bates urges us to adopt.
Nor does § 1097(a) set a “trap for the unwary,” as the Seventh Circuit suggested § 656 would if read to render felonious “every unauthorized loan by a bank officer.” See Bates, 852 F. 2d, at 215. Under the Seventh Circuit’s construction, § 1097(a) catches only the transgressor who intentionally exercises unauthorized dominion over federally insured student loan funds for his own benefit or for the benefit of a third party. “[Ijnnocent... maladministration of a business enterprise” or a use of funds that is simply “unwise,” see Brief for Petitioner 5, does not fit within that construction.
Bates also relies on a 1992 amendment to § 1097(a), which added “fails to refund” to the provision’s text. This change, Bates argues, establishes that the deliberate failure to return GSL funds, without an intent to defraud, was not previously an offense within § 1097(a)’s compass, but became one only under the statute’s current text. Congress’ 1992 amendment hardly means that § 1097(a) did not previously cover the conduct in question. Cf. Commissioner v. Estate of Sternberger, 348 U. S. 187, 194 (1955) (“Subsequent amendments have clarified and not changed th[e earlier] principle.”). The three added words — “fails to refund” — simply foreclose any argument that § 1097(a) does not reach the failure to make refunds; those words do not make the argument a persuasive one. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-630, p. 513 (1992) (“[F]ailure to pay refunds does constitute criminal misapplication under current law. Language is added in this bill merely as a clarification.”).
Bates finally urges that, to the extent § 1097(a) is ambiguous, the rule of lenity supports interpretation of the provision to include fraudulent intent as an essential element of the offense of knowing and willful misapplication of funds. As we have explained, however, nothing in the text, structure, or history of § 1097(a) warrants importation of an “intent to defraud” requirement into the misapplication proscription. The rule of lenity, therefore, does not come into play. See United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 499 (1997). The Government need not charge or prove that Bates aimed to injure or defraud anyone, nor is it a defense that Bates hoped the Jacksons, the students, or someone else would pay the amount due the lenders so that the federal fisc would suffer no loss.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
In 1992, Congress amended the GSL program and renamed it the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-325, § 411(a)(1), 106 Stat. 510. Because the indictment in this case concerns only pre-1992 conduct, we refer to the program as the GSL program.
The Department of Education since has consolidated the requirements of §§668.22 and 682.606 into the current §668.22. See 59 Fed. Reg. 61211 (1994).
Higher Education Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. 99-498, § 490(a), 100 Stat. 1491.
United States v. Whitlock, 663 F. 2d 1094, 1102 (CADC 1980); United States v. Wester, 90 F. 3d 592, 595 (CA1 1996); United States v. Castiglia, 894 F. 2d 533, 537 (CA2), cert. denied, 497 U. S. 1004 (1990); United States v. Thomas, 610 F. 2d 1166, 1174 (CA3 1979); United States v. Duncan, 598 F. 2d 839, 858 (CA4), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 871 (1979); United States v. McCord, 33 F. 3d 1434, 1448 (CA5 1994), cert. denied sub nom. Haley v. United States, 515 U. S. 1132 (1995); United States v. Woods, 877 F. 2d 477, 479 (CA6 1989); United States v. Crabtree, 979 F. 2d 1261, 1266 (CA7 1992), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 878 (1993); United States v. Ness, 665 F. 2d 248, 249 (CA8 1981); United States v. Wolfswinkel, 44 F. 3d 782, 786 (CA9 1995); United States v. Evans, 42 F. 3d 586, 589 (CA10 1994); United States v. Morales, 978 F. 2d 650, 652 (CA11 1992).
Section 656 currently provides that any person “connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank” or a related organization commits a felony if she “embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits” of the bank or related organization.
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994), does not bear on our decision today. Ratzlaf decided only, in the particular statutory context of currency structuring, that knowledge of illegality was an element of 31 U. S. C. § 5322(a) as that provision was then framed. Ratzlaf did not involve the question presented here regarding § 1097(a), which is whether, in addition to a knowledge requirement, the Government must allege and prove an “intent to injure or defraud.”
The Seventh Circuit’s “working definition” of § 1097(a) reads:
“[Wjillful misapplication under § 1097(a) requires the government to allege and prove that the defendant consciously, voluntarily, and intentionally exercised unauthorized control or dominion over federally provided or guaranteed Title IV funds that interfered with the rights of the funds’ true owner(s), for the use and benefit of the defendant or a third person, while knowing that such an exercise of control- or dominion over the funds was a violation of the law.” 96 F. 3d, at 970.
The Government argues that the Seventh Circuit erred in reading § 1097(a) to require proof that a defendant knew his misapplication violated the law. Brief for United States 21-22. However, the Government did not challenge by cross-petition any part of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, so the question whether the defendant must know his conduct was a violation of the law is not before us.
As amended in 1992, § 1097(a) reads in relevant part:
“Any person who knowingly and willfully embezzles, misapplies, steals, obtains by fraud, false statement, or forgery, or fails to refund any funds, assets, or property provided or insured under this subchapter... shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-325, §495,106 Stat. 631.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 case raises issues similar to those involved in United States v. American Freightways Co., 352 U. S. 1020, where a dismissal of an information charging a partnership entity with violations of 18 U. S. C. § 835 was affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Appellees, two partnerships, were charged, as entities, in separate informations with violations of 18 U. S. C. § 835, which makes it criminal knowingly to violate Interstate Commerce Commission regulations for the safe transportation in interstate commerce of “explosives and other dangerous articles.” Appellee A & P Trucking Company was also charged with numerous violations of 49 U. S. C. § 322 (a) (§ 222 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act. of 1935). The District Court dismissed, on motion, the informations on the ground that a partnership entity cannot be guilty of violating the statutes involved. The Government appealed directly to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 356 U. S. 917. For reasons set forth below we hold that the informations were erroneously dismissed.
49 U. S. C. § 322 (a), the comprehensive misdemeanor provision of the Motor Carrier Act, provides that “any person knowingly and willfully violating any provision of this chapter [Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act], or any rule, regulation, requirement, or order [of the Interstate Commerce Commission] thereunder, or any term or condition of any certificate, permit, or license, for which a penalty is not otherwise herein provided, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined . . . .” The Motor Carrier Act also contains its own definition of the word “person”: “The term ‘person’ means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association; . . . .” (Italics supplied.) 49 U. S. C. §303 (a).
18 U. S. C. § 835 provides that “whoever knowingly violates any such regulation [ICC regulations pertaining to the safe transport of dangerous articles] shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;....” The section makes such regulations binding on “all common carriers” engaged in interstate commerce. And 1 U. S. C. § 1, part of a chapter entitled “Rules of Construction” and in light of which § 835 must be read, provides that “in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; . . . .” (Italics supplied.) The word “whoever” in 18 U. S. C. § 835 must, therefore, be construed to include partnerships “unless the context' indicates otherwise.”
We think that partnerships as entities may be proceeded against under both § 322 (a) and § 835. The purpose of both statutes is clear: to ensure compliance by motor carriers, among others, with safety and other requirements laid down by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the exercise of its statutory duty to regulate the operations of interstate carriers for hire. In the effectuation of this policy it certainly makes no difference whether the carrier which commits the infraction is organized as a corporation, a joint stock company, a partnership, or an individual proprietorship. The mischief is the same, and we think that Congress intended to make the consequences of infraction the same.
True, the common law made a distinction between a corporation and a partnership, deeming the latter not a separate entity for purposes of suit. But the power of Congress to change the common-law rule, is not to be doubted. See United States v. Adams Express Co., 229 U. S. 381. We think it beyond dispute that it has done so in § 322 (a) for, as we have seen, “person” in that section is expressly defined in the Motor Carrier Act to include partnerships. We think it likewise has done so in § 835, since we find nothing in that section which would justify our not applying to the word “whoever” the definition given it in 1 U. S. C. § 1, which includes partnerships. Section 835 makes regulations promulgated by the ICC for the transportation of dangerous articles binding on all common carriers. In view of the fact that many motor carriers are organized as partnerships rather than as corporations, the conclusion is not lightly to be reached that Congress intended that some carriers should not be subject to the full gamut of sanctions provided for infractions of ICC regulations merely because of the form under which they were organized to do business. More particularly, we perceive no reason why Congress should have intended to make partnership motor carriers criminally liable for infractions of § 322 (a), but not for violations of § 835.
It is argued that the words “knowingly” (§ 835) and “knowingly and willfully” (§ 322 (a)) by implication eliminate partnerships from the coverage of the statutes, because a partnership, as opposed to its individual partners, cannot so act. But the same inability so to act in fact is true, of course, with regard to corporations and other associations; yet it is elementary that such impersonal entities can be guilty of “knowing” or “willful” violations of regulatory statutes through the doctrine of respondeat superior. Thus in United States v. Adams Express Co., supra, in which the Adams Express Co., a joint stock association, was indicted for “wilfully” receiving sums for expressage in excess of its scheduled rates, Mr. Justice Holmes said, at pp. 389-390:
“It has been notorious for many years that some of the great express* companies are organized as joint stock associations, and the reason for the amendment hardly could be seen unless it was intended to bring those associations under the act. ' As suggested in the argument for the Government, no one, certainly not the defendant, seems to have doubted that the statute now imposes upon them the duty to file schedules of rates.But if it imposes upon them the duties under the words common carrier as interpreted, it is reasonable to suppose that the same words are intended to impose upon them the penalty inflicted on common carriers in case those duties are not performed. . . .
“The power of Congress hardly is denied. The constitutionality of the statute as against corporations is established, New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 492, and no reason is suggested why Congress has not equal power to charge the partnership assets with a liability and to personify the company so far as to collect a fine by a proceeding against it by the company name. That is what we believe that Congress intended to do. . . .”
The policy to be served in this case is the same. The business entity cannot be left free to break the law merely because its owners, stockholders in the Adams case, partners in the present one, do not personally participate in the infraction. The treasury of the business may not with impunity obtain the fruits of violations which are committed knowingly by agents of the entity in the scope of their employment. Thus pressure is brought on those who own the entity to see to it that their agents abide by the law.
We hold, therefore, that a partnership can violate each of the statutes here in question quite apart from the participation and knowledge of the partners as individuals. The corollary is, of course,, that the conviction of a partnership cannot be used to punish the individual partners, who might be completely free of personal guilt. As in the case of corporations, the conviction of the entity can lead only to a fine levied on the firm’s assets.
Reversed.
The information as to appellee A & P Trucking Company charged in one count an offense under 18 U. S. C. § 835 through the transportation by truck of chromic acid without the markings or placardings prescribed by 49 CFR § 77.823 (a). It charged in 34 other counts offenses under 49 U. S. C. §322 (a), consisting of failure to comply with 49 CFR § 191.8, which prescribes physical examinations and certificates for drivers of trucks (one count), violation of 49 CFR, 1958 Cum. Pocket Supp., § 193.95 (a), which requires that common-carrier trucks be equipped with fire extinguishers (one count), and violation of 49 U. S. C. §306 (a), which forbids the operation of a common-carrier truck in interstate commerce without a certificate of convenience and necessity (32 counts). The information as to appellee Hopla Trucking Company charged.two violations of 18 U. S. C. § 835, in that Hopla shipped methanol, a flammable liquid, without properly marking or placarding the truck as required by 49 CFR §77.823 (a), and without its driver having in his possession a paper showing the prescribed labels required for the outside containers of the methanol as required by 49 CFR § 77.817.
Subsequent to the filing of the information against A & P Trucking Company, 49 TJ. S. C. § 322 (a) was amended to increase the fines provided for its violation. See 49 U. S. C. (Supp. V) §322 (a).
It is significant that the definition of “whoever” in 1 U. S. C. § 1 was first enacted into law as part of the very same statute which enacted into positive law the revised Criminal Code. 62 Stat. 683, 859 (1948). The connection between 1 U. S. C. § 1 and the Criminal Code, which includes § 835, is thus more than a token one, the very same statute which creates the crime admonishing that “whoever” is to be liberally interpreted.
Congress has specifically included partnerships within the definition of “person” in a large number of regulatory Acts, thus showing its intent to treat partnerships as entities. See, e. g., Civil Aeronautics Act, 52 Stat. 979, 49 U. S. C. § 401 (27); Federal Communications Act, 48 Stat. 1066, 47 U. S. C. § 153 (i); Shipping Act, 39 Stat. 729, 46 U. S. C. §801; Tariff Act, 46 Stat. 708, 19 U. S. C. §1401 (d).
The fact that § 835 provides for imprisonment, as well as fine, for its violation, whereas § 322 (a) provides only for fines, does not lead to a different conclusion. Cf. United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50.
Since the two informations were held insufficient on their face, we must, for present purposes, accept as true their allegations that the offenses charged were not inadvertently .committed.
Gordon v. United States, 347 U. S. 909, relied on by appellees, is not to the contrary. That case held merely that individual partners could not be convicted of “willfully” violating the Defense Production Act of 1950 without a showing that they had knowledge of the criminal acts of their agents. Cf. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277. Here the Government does not seek to hold the individual partners, but only the partnerships as entities.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case challenges under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a provision of the Missouri workers’ compensation laws, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.240 (Supp. 1979), which is claimed to involve an invalid gender-based discrimination.
I
The facts are not in dispute. On February 11, 1977, Ruth Wengler, wife of appellant Paul J. Wengler, died in a work-related accident in the parking lot of her employer, appellee Dicus Prescription Drugs, Inc. Appellant filed a claim for death benefits under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.240 (Supp. 1979) , under which a widower is not entitled to death benefits unless he either is mentally or physically incapacitated from wage earning or proves actual dependence on his wife’s earnings. In contrast, a widow qualifies for death benefits without having to prove actual dependence on her husband’s earnings.
Appellant stipulated that he was neither incapacitated nor dependent on his wife’s earnings, but argued that, owing to its disparate treatment of similarly situated widows and widowers, § 287.240 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The claim was administratively denied, but the Circuit Court of Madison County reversed, holding that § 287.240 violated the Equal Protection Clause because the statutory restriction on a widower’s recovery of death benefits did not also apply to a surviving wife. Dicus and its insurer, appellee Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., were ordered to pay death benefits to appellant in the appropriate amount. App. to Juris. Statement A22-A25.
The Missouri Supreme Court, distinguishing certain cases in this Court, reversed the Circuit Court’s decision. The equal protection challenge to § 287.240 failed because “the substantive difference in the economic standing of working men and women justifies the advantage that [§287.240] administratively gives to a widow.” 583 S. W. 2d 162, 168 (1979).
Because the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri arguably conflicted with our precedents, we noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U. S. 924 (1979). We now reverse.
II
The Missouri law indisputably mandates gender-based discrimination. Although the Missouri Supreme Court was of the view that the law favored, rather than disfavored, women, it is apparent that the statute discriminates against both men and women. The provision discriminates against a woman covered by the Missouri workers’ compensation system since, in the case of her death, benefits are payable to her spouse only if he is mentally or physically incapacitated or was to some extent dependent upon her. Under these tests, Mrs. Wengler’s spouse was entitled to no benefits. If Mr. Wengler had died, however, Mrs. Wengler would have been conclusively presumed to be dependent and would have been paid the statutory amount for life or until she remarried even though she may not in fact have been dependent on Mr. Wengler. The benefits, therefore, that the working woman can expect to be paid to her spouse in the case of her work-related death are less than those payable to the spouse of the deceased male wage earner.
It is this kind of discrimination against working women that our cases have identified and in the circumstances found unjustified. At issue in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1976), was a provision in the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (g), that granted survivors’ benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father covered by the Act both to his widow and to the couple’s minor children in her care, but that granted benefits based on the earnings of a covered deceased wife and mother only to the minor children and not to the widower. In concluding that the provision violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, we noted that, “ [ojbviously, the notion that men are more likely than women to be the primary supporters of their spouses and children is not entirely without empirical support.” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 645, citing Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351, 354, n. 7 (1974). But such a generalization could not itself justify the gender-based distinction found in the Act, for § 402 (g) “clearly operate[d] ... to deprive women of protection for their families which men receive as a result of their employment.” 420 U. S., at 645. The offensive assumption was “that male workers’ earnings are vital to the support of their families, while the earnings of female wage earners do not significantly contribute to their families’ support.” Id., at 643 (footnote omitted).
Similarly, in Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977), we dealt with a Social Security Act provision providing survivors’ benefits to a widow regardless of dependency, but providing the same benefits to a widower only if he had been receiving at least half of his support from his deceased wife. 42 U. S. C. § 402 (f) (1) (D). Mr. Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion pointed out that, under the challenged section, “female insureds received less protection for their spouses solely because of their sex” and that, as in Wiesenfeld, the provision disadvantaged women as compared to similarly situated men by providing the female wage earner with less protection for her family than it provided the family of the male wage earner even though the family needs might be identical. Califano v. Goldfarb, supra, at 208. The plurality opinion, in the circumstances there, found the discrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973), involved a similar discrimination. There, a serviceman could claim his wife as a dependent without regard to whether she was in fact dependent upon him and so obtain increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits. A servicewoman, on the other hand, could not claim her husband as a dependent for these purposes unless he was in fact dependent upon her for over one-half .of his support. This discrimination, devaluing the service of the woman as compared with that of the man, was invalidated.
The Missouri law, as the Missouri courts recognized, also discriminates against men who survive their employed wives’ dying in work-related accidents. To receive benefits, the surviving male spouse must prove his incapacity or dependency. The widow of a deceased wage earner, in contrast, is presumed dependent and is guaranteed a weekly benefit for life or until remarriage. It was this discrimination against the male survivor as compared with a similarly situated female that Mr. Justice Stevens identified in Califano v. Goldfarb, supra, as resulting in a denial of equal protection. 430 U. S., at 217-224 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
Ill
However the discrimination is described in this case, our precedents require that gender-based discriminations must serve important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76, 85 (1979); Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268, 279 (1979); Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313, 316-317 (1977); Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197 (1976).
Acknowledging that the discrimination involved here must satisfy the Craig v. Boren standard, 583 S. W. 2d, at 164-165, the Missouri Supreme Court stated that “the purpose of the [law] was to favor widows, not to disfavor them” and that when the law was passed in 1925 the legislature no doubt believed that “a widow was more in need of prompt payment of death benefits upon her husband’s death without drawn-out proceedings to determine the amount of dependency than was a widower.” Id,., at 168. Hence, the conclusive presumption of dependency satisfied “a perceived need widows generally had, which need was not common to men whose wives might be killed while working.” Ibid. The survivor’s “hardship was seen by the legislature] as more immediate and pronounced on women than on men,” and “the substantive difference in the economic standing of working men and women justifies the advantage that [the law] administratively gives to a widow.” Ibid.
Providing for needy spouses is surely an important governmental objective, Orr v. Orr, supra, at 280, and the Missouri statute effects that goal by paying benefits to all surviving female spouses and to all surviving male spouses who prove their dependency. But the question remains whether the discriminatory means employed — discrimination against women wage earners and surviving male spouses — itself substantially serves the statutory end. Surely the needs of surviving widows and widowers would be completely served either by paying benefits to all members of both classes or by paying benefits only to those members of either class who can demonstrate their need. Why, then, employ the discriminatory means of paying all surviving widows without requiring proof of dependency, but paying only those widowers who make the required demonstration? The only justification offered by the state court or appellees for not treating males and females alike, whether viewed as wage earners or survivors of wage earners, is the assertion that most women are dependent on male wage earners and that it is more efficient to presume dependency in the case of women than to engage in case-to-case determination, whereas individualized inquiries in the postulated few cases in which men might be dependent are not prohibitively costly.
The burden, however, is on those defending the discrimination to make out the claimed justification, and this burden is not carried simply by noting that in 1925 the state legislature thought widows to be more in need of prompt help than men or that today “the substantive difference in the economic standing of working men and women justifies the advantage” given to widows. 583 S. W. 2d, at 168. It may be that there is empirical support for the proposition that men are more likely to be the principal supporters of their spouses and families, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S., at 645, but the bare assertion of this argument falls far short of justifying gender-based discrimination on the grounds of administrative convenience. Yet neither the court below nor appellees in this Court essay any persuasive demonstration as to what the economic consequences to the State or to the beneficiaries might be if, in one way or another, men and women, whether as wage earners or survivors, were treated equally under the workers’ compensation law, thus eliminating the double-edged discrimination described in Part II of this opinion.
We think, then, that the claimed justification of administrative convenience fails, just as it has in our prior cases. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S., at 689-690, the Government claimed that, as an empirical matter, wives are so frequently dependent upon their husbands and husbands so rarely dependent upon their wives that it was cheaper to presume wives to be dependent upon their husbands while requiring proof of dependency in the case of the male. The Court found the claimed justification insufficient to save the discrimination. And in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 76 (1971), the Court said “[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. . . .” See also Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S., at 219-220 (opinion of Stevens, J.). It may be that there are levels of administrative convenience that will justify discriminations that are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, but the requisite showing has not been made here by the mere claim that it would be inconvenient to individualize determinations about widows as well as widowers.
IV
Thus we conclude that the Supreme Court of Missouri erred in upholding the constitutional validity of § 287.240. We are left with the question whether the defect should be cured by extending the presumption of dependence to widowers or by eliminating it for widows. Because state legislation is at issue, and because a remedial outcome consonant with the state legislature’s overall purpose is preferable, we believe that state judges are better positioned to choose an appropriate method of remedying the constitutional violation. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri and remand the case to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, continuing to believe that Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977), was wrongly decided, and that constitutional issues should be more readily reexamined under the doctrine of stare decisis than other issues, dissents and would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Missouri Rev. Stat. § 287.240 (Supp. 1979) provides in its entirety (emphasis added):
“If the injury causes death, either with or without disability, the compensation therefor shall be as provided in this section:
“(1) In all cases the employer shall pay direct to the persons furnishing the same the reasonable expense of the burial of the deceased employee not exceeding two thousand dollars. But no person shall be entitled to compensation for the burial expenses of a deceased employee unless he has furnished the same by authority of the widow or widower, the nearest relative of the deceased employee in the county of his death, his personal representative, or the employer, who shall have the right to give the authority in the order named. All fees and charges under this section shall be fair and reasonable, shall be subject to regulation by the division or the commission and shall be limited to such as are fair and reasonable for similar ■ service to persons of a like standard of living. The division or the commission shall also have jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes as to the charges. If the deoeased employee leaves no dependents the death benefit in this subdivision provided shall be the limit of the liability of the employer under this chapter on account of the death, except as herein provided for burial expenses and except as provided in section 287.140; provided, that in all cases when the employer admits or does not deny liability for the burial expense, it shall be paid within thirty days after written notice, that the service has been rendered, has been delivered to the employer. The notice may be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, or may be made by personal delivery;
“(2) The employer shall also pay to the total dependents of the employee a death benefit on the basis of sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the employee’s average weekly earnings during the year immediately preceding the injury as provided in section 287.250. Compensation shall be payable in installments in the same manner that compensation is required to. be paid under this chapter, but in no case be less than at the rate of sixteen dollars per week nor more than one hundred twenty dollars per week or as provided in section 287.160. If there is a total dependent, no death benefit shall be payable to partial dependents or any other persons except as provided in subdivision (1);
“(3) If there are partial dependents, and no total dependents, a part of the death benefit herein provided in the case of total dependents, determined by the proportion of his contributions to all partial dependents by the employee at the time of the injury, shall be paid by the employer to each of the dependents proportionately;
“(4) The word ‘dependent’ as.used in this chapter shall be construed to mean a relative by blood or marriage of a deceased employee, who is actually dependent for support, in whole or in part, upon his wages at the time of the injury. The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to be totally dependent for support upon a deceased employee and any death benefit shall be payable to them to the exclusion of other total dependents:
“(a) A wife upon a husband legally liable for her support, and a husband mentally or physically incapacitated from wage earning upon a wife; provided, that on the death or remarriage of a widow or widower, the death benefit shall cease unless there be other total dependents entitled to any death benefit under this chapter. In the event of remarriage, a lump sum payment equal in amount to the benefits due for a period of two years shall be paid to the widow or widower. Thereupon the periodic death benefits shall cease unless there are other total dependents entitled to any death benefit under this chapter in which event the periodic benefits to which said widow or widower would have been entitled had he or she not died or remarried, shall be divided among such other total dependents and paid to them during their period of entitlement under this chapter;
“(b) A natural, posthumous, or adopted child or children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, under the age of eighteen years, or over that age if physically or mentally incapacitated from wage earning, upon the parent legally hable for the support or with whom he is living at the time of the death of the parent. In case there is a wife or a husband mentally or physically incapacitated from wage earning, dependent upon a wife, and a child or more than one child thus dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among them in such proportion as may be determined by the commission after considering their ages and other facts bearing on the dependency. In all other eases questions of total or partial dependency shall be determined in accordance with the facts at the time of the injury, and in such other cases if there is more than one person wholly dependent the death benefit shall be divided equally among them. The payment of death benefits to a child or other dependent as provided in this paragraph shall cease when the dependent dies, attains the age of eighteen years, or becomes physically and mentally capable of wage earning over that age, or until twenty-two years of age if the child of the deceased is in attendance and remains as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, or if at eighteen years of age the dependent child is a member of the armed forces of the United States on active duty; provided, however, that such dependent child shall be entitled to compensation during four years of full-time attendance at a fully accredited educational institution to commence prior to twenty-three years of age and immediately upon cessation of his active duty in the armed forces, unless there are other total dependents entitled to the death benefit under this chapter;
“(5) The division or the commission may, in its discretion, order or award the share of compensation of any such child to be paid to the parent, grandparent, or other adult next of kin or legal guardian of the child for the latter’s support, maintenance and education, which order or award upon notice to the parties may be modified from time to time by the commission in its discretion with respect to the person to whom shall be paid the amount of the order or award remaining unpaid at the time of the-modification;
“(6) The payments of compensation by the employer in accordance with the order or award of the division or the commission shall discharge the employer from all further obligations as to the compensation;
“(7) All death benefits in this chapter shall be paid in installments in the same manner as provided for disability compensation;
“(8) Every employer shall keep a record of the correct names and addresses of the dependents of each of his employees, and upon the death of an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment shall so far as possible immediately furnish the division with said names and addresses.”
At the time of her death Mrs. Wengler’s wages were $69 per week. Had appellant prevailed in his attempt to receive full death benefits under the statute, his compensation would have been $46 per week. App. to Juris. Statement A23; see Mo. Rev. Stat. §287.240 (2) (Supp. 1979). These benefits would have continued until appellant's death or remarriage. §287.240 (4) (a).
Recent decisions in three States have held unconstitutional workers’ compensation statutes with presumptions of dependency identical to that at issue in this case. Arp v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 19 Cal. 3d 395, 563 P. 2d 849 (1977); Passante v. Walden Printing Co., 53 App. Div. 2d 8, 385 N. Y. S. 2d 178 (1976); Tomarchio v. Township of Greenwich, 75 N. J. 62, 379 A. 2d 848 (1977). The workers’ compensation laws of the vast majority of States now make no distinction between the eligibility of widows and widowers for death benefits.
In Kahn v. Shevin, the Court upheld a Florida annual $500 real estate tax exemption for all widows in the face of an equal protection challenge. The Court believed that statistics established a lower median income for women than men, a discrepancy that justified "a state tax law reasonably designed to further the state policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for which that loss imposes a disproportionately heavy burden.” 416 U. S., at 355. As in Kahn we accept the importance of the state goal of helping needy spouses, see infra, at 151, but as described in text the Missouri law in our view is not “reasonably designed” to achieve this goal. Thus the holding in Kahn is in no way dispositive of the case at bar.
As noted previously, see n. 3, supra, three state courts have recently held unconstitutional workers’ compensation statutes with presumptions of dependency identical to that at issue in this case. In each of the three cases the court characterized the statute’s discrimination as against both working wives and surviving husbands. See Arp v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 19 Cal. 3d, at 406, 563 P. 2d, at 855 ("[I]t is noteworthy that the conclusive presumption in favor of widows discriminates not only against the widower but against the employed female as well”); Passante v. Walden Printing Co., 53 App. Div. 2d, at 12, 385 N. Y. S. 2d, at 181 (the statute “compels dissimilar treatment both for surviving husbands and working wives, respectively, vis-á-vis widows and working males”); Tomarchio v. Township of Greenwich, 75 N. J., at 75, 379 A. 2d, at 854 (statute unconstitutionally discriminates against both working women and surviving husbands).
Appellees attempt to draw support from the fact that Goldfarb and Wiesenfeld arose in the context of the Social Security program. First, they argue, the statute at issue here, unlike a social insurance system that provides blanket survivorship benefits, seeks to compensate for specific economic loss to the worker or his dependents, and appellant can claim no such loss. Relatedly, a widower who suffers and can prove any loss of support is entitled to a corresponding level of benefits under § 287.240, whereas Mr. Goldfarb, under the Social Security Act provision, had to show that he had received at least one-half of his support from his wife at the time of her death. These arguments rely on the fact that covered widowers suffering provable economic loss will receive benefits corresponding to that loss under § 287.240, but they ignore the statute’s discriminatory effect on working women by providing them with less protection for their families than working men. Appellees also argue that, unlike the Social Security program, the workers’ compensation system is not based on mandatory contributions from past wage earnings of the employee. Thus appellant’s late wife was not deprived of a portion of her earnings to contribute to a fund out of which her husband would not benefit. But we have before rejected the proposition that “the Constitution is indifferent to a statute that conditions the availability of noncontributory welfare benefits on the basis of gender,” Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76, 85 (1979), and we refuse to part ways with our earlier decisions by applying a different standard of review in this case simply because the system is funded by employer rather than employee contributions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Acting under § 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Alien Property Custodian vested in himself the American assets of Interhandel, a Swiss corporation. In-terhandel sued in the District Court to recover the assets. The Custodian answered alleging that the Swiss corporation was dominated and controlled by officers, agents, and stockholders who were engaged in a conspiracy with German nationals and with the German Government to operate the company’s business in their interests while we were at war with Germany. Petitioners, United States citizens who own stock in Interhandel, filed a motion to intervene. They admitted the Custodian’s charge that Interhandel was dominated by officers and stockholders who had been engaged in such a conspiracy. They also admitted the right of the Custodian to retain an interest in the seized assets proportional to the stock ownership of enemy stockholders. But petitioners contended that they and other nonenemy stockholders had claims in the corporate assets which it was the corporation’s duty to protect. Alleging that the dominant enemy group which had charge of the suit would not press the corporate claim in a manner that would adequately protect the claims of innocent shareholders, petitioners asserted a right to intervene under Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court denied the motion to intervene, 90 F. Supp. 1011, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 88 U. S. App. D. C. 296, 188 F. 2d 1017. Underlying the claimed right of petitioners to intervene is an important question of the power of the Alien Property Custodian under the Trading with the Enemy Act, namely: What part of the assets of a corporation organized under the laws of a neutral country may the Custodian retain where part of the corporate stock is owned by enemies, part by American citizens, and part by nonenemy aliens? This question was reserved in Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U. S. 480, 489-490. To consider it we granted certiorari in this case. 342 U. S. 847.
First. Interhandel is a neutral corporation organized in Switzerland. Prior to 1941, even ownership of its stock and domination by enemy nationals would not have justified seizure of its assets. In order to reach the enemy interests in such neutral corporations, Congress amended the controlling Act in 1941. The background, scope and consequences of that amendment were discussed in Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., supra. We there held that the 1941 amendment authorized the Custodian to seize and vest in himself all property of any foreign country or national, even that of friendly or neutral nations. At the same time we refused to hold that the 1941 amendment deprived friendly or neutral nations or nationals of a right to have their assets returned -if they could prove that they were free of any open or concealed enemy taint. The purpose of the amendment, we found, was “not to appropriate friendly or neutral assets but to reach enemy interests which masqueraded under those innocent fronts.” Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp., supra, at 485.
Thus, under the 1941 amendment the nonenemy character of a foreign corporation because it was organized in a friendly or neutral nation no longer conclusively determines that all interests in the corporation must be treated as friendly or neutral. The corporate veil can now be pierced. Enemy taint can be found if there are enemy officers or stockholders; even the presence of some nonenemy stockholders does not prevent seizure of all the corporate assets. But such a governmental seizure requires consideration of the plight of innocent stockholders. For as stated in the Uebersee case, the amendment does not contemplate appropriation of friendly or neutral assets. While Congress has clearly provided for forfeiture of enemy assets, it has used no language requiring us to hold that innocent interests must be confiscated because of the guilt of other stockholders. Nor does any legislative history pointed out persuade us that Congress intended to inflict such harsh consequences upon the innocent. We decline to read such a congressional purpose into the Act.
Our holding is that when the Government seizes assets of a corporation organized under the laws of a neutral country, the rights of innocent stockholders to an interest in the assets proportionate to their stock holdings must be fully protected. This holding is not based on any technical concept of derivative rights appropriate to the law of corporations. It is based on the Act which enables one not an enemy as defined in § 2 to recover any interest, right or title which he has in the property vested. The innocent stockholder may not have title to corporate assets, but he does have an interest which Congress has indicated should not be confiscated merely because some others who have like interests are enemies.
Second. Section 9 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act authorizes Interhandel to maintain this action for the recovery of all its assets because it has alleged that it is not enemy dominated. Alleging that they and others are nonenemy stockholders, petitioners charge that it is Interhandel’s corporate duty to assert a claim for the return of their proportionate interests in the assets even though other stockholders who dominate the corporation are found to be enemies. Petitioners further allege that the corporate management refuses to assert such a claim, but continues to claim only a return of all assets on the theory that whatever return is obtained must be divided among enemy and nonenemy shareholders in proportion to their stock holdings. This position is taken, petitioners charge, because the suit is being controlled by the very stockholders on whose account the Custodian seized the property and whose interests will be worthless if they are found to be enemies. Petitioners allege that this enemy corporate management, fearing confiscation of its enemy-tainted interests, is about to settle the corporate claim with the Custodian for an amount less than the value of the nonenemy part of the assets. Should this be done, it is said the enemy management contemplates dividing the proceeds proportionately among enemy and nonenemy stockholders, thus violating the Act in two ways: (1) by depriving nonenemy stockholders of part of their property, and (2) by returning assets to foreign enemy stockholders.
A mere narration of the allegations shows that petitioners’ fears are by no means fanciful. Indeed, the Government agrees with the dominant corporate management that the interests of enemy and nonenemy stockholders should be treated alike. The United States wishes to sell the entire assets of Interhandel. And it is argued that if nonenemy stockholders are to be given a chance in court (which right is challenged), they should be limited to individual suits for money judgments against the Custodian. Petitioners claim a proportional right or interest in the specific assets of Interhandel and that they may not be driven to accept their share of whatever price the Government may happen to get from a sale of these valuable assets. In order to play safe, petitioners have filed a separate suit in a Federal District Court. But we think the questions involved in disputes like this can be more appropriately resolved in the corporate actions authorized by § 9 (a) than by resort to a multiplicity of separate actions. In such suits the nonenemy stockholder in his own right may assert his nonenemy character in order to protect his own interest from the enemy taint caused by other stockholders. Courts trying such corporate actions have adequate equitable power and procedural flexibility to protect all interests, even when the corporate recovery is not for the benefit of all stockholders but only for those who are nonenemies.
In view of our holding that Congress has recognized that nonenemy stockholders of nonenemy foreign corporations have a severable interest in corporate assets seized by the Custodian, it follows that the allegations of these petitioners entitle them to intervene. These allegations, if true, show that petitioners’ interests may be inadequately represented and that they may be bound by a judgment in this corporate action. This brings the claim of intervention squarely within Rule 24 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1, as amended by the First War Powers Act, 1941, 55 Stat. 839, 50 U. S. C. App. § 5 (b).
Although the corporation is commonly called “Interhandel,” its full legal name is Societe Internationale Pour Participations In-dustrielles et Commerciales S. A., etc. The American assets consisted of bank accounts and over 90% of the capital stock in the General Aniline & Film Corporation of Delaware, all of the assets apparently being valued at more than $100,000,000.
In 1946, the Attorney General succeeded to the powers and duties of the Alien Property Custodian. Exec. Order No. 9788, 11 Fed. Reg. 11981.
“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action; . . . .” See Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 19.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a federal prisoner must resort to the internal grievance procedure promulgated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons before he may initiate a suit, pursuant to the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), solely for money damages. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that exhaustion of the grievance procedure was required. 914 F. 2d 1411 (1990). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 499 U. S. 974 (1991).
I
While he was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, petitioner John J. McCarthy filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against four prison employees: the hospital administrator, the chief psychologist, another psychologist, and a physician. McCarthy alleged that respondents had violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment by their deliberate indifference to his needs and medical condition resulting from a back operation and a history of psychiatric problems. On the first page of his complaint, he wrote: “This Complaint seeks Money Damages Only.” App. 7.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioner had failed to exhaust prison administrative remedies. Id., at 12. Under 28 CFR pt. 542 (1991), setting forth the general “Administrative Remedy Procedure for Inmates” at federal correctional institutions, a prisoner may “seek formal review of a complaint which relates to any aspect of his imprisonment.” § 542.10. When an inmate files a complaint or appeal, the responsible officials are directed to acknowledge the filing with a “signed receipt” which is returned to the inmate, to “[c]onduct an investigation,” and to “[rjespond to and sign all complaints or appeals.” §§ 542.11(a)(2) to (4). The general grievance regulations do not provide for any kind of hearing or for the granting of any particular type of relief.
To promote efficient dispute resolution, the procedure includes rapid filing and response timetables. An inmate first seeks informal resolution of his claim by consulting prison personnel. § 542.13(a). If this informal effort fails, the prisoner “may file a formal written complaint on the appropriate form, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date on which the basis of the complaint occurred.” § 542.13(b). Should the warden fail to respond to the inmate’s satisfaction within 15 days, the inmate has 20 days to appeal to the Bureau’s Regional Director, who has 30 days to respond. If the inmate still remains unsatisfied, he has 30 days to make a final appeal to the Bureau’s general counsel, who has another 30 days to respond. §§542.14 and 542.15. If the inmate can demonstrate a “valid reason for delay,” he “shall be allowed” an extension of any of these time periods for filing. § 542.13(b).
Petitioner McCarthy filed with the District Court a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies, because he sought only money damages which, he claimed, the Bureau could not provide. 1 Record, Exh. 7. The court denied the motion. App. 14.
The Court of Appeals, in affirming, observed that because Bivens actions are a creation of the judiciary, the courts may impose reasonable conditions upon their filing. 914 F. 2d, at 1412. The exhaustion rule, the court reasoned, “is not keyed to the type of relief sought, but to the need for preliminary fact-finding” to determine “whether there is a possible Bivens cause of action.” Ibid. Accordingly, “‘[although the administrative apparatus could not award money damages . . . , administrative consideration of the possibility of corrective action and a record would have aided a court in measuring liability and determining the extent of the damages.’” Ibid., quoting Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F. 2d 27, 29 (CA6 1982) (emphasis in original). Exhaustion of the general grievance procedure was required notwithstanding the fact that McCarthy’s request was solely for money damages.
II
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one among related doctrines — including abstention, finality, and ripeness — that govern the timing of federal-court deci-sionmaking. Of “paramount importance” to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U. S. 496, 501 (1982). Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S. 561, 579 (1989); Patsy, 457 U. S., at 502, n. 4. But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 483, n. 6 (1971). See also Patsy, 457 U. S., at 518 (White, J., concurring in part) (“[Ejxhaustion is ‘a rule of judicial administration,’. .. and unless Congress directs otherwise, rightfully subject to crafting by judges”). Nevertheless, even in this field of judicial discretion, appropriate deference to Congress’ power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in a federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme. Id., at 501-502, and n. 4.
A
This Court long has acknowledged the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts. See, e. g., Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-51, and n. 9 (1938) (discussing cases as far back as 1898). Exhaustion is required because it serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial efficiency.
As to the first of these purposes, the exhaustion doctrine recognizes the notion, grounded in deference to Congress’ delegation of authority to coordinate branches of Government, that agencies, not the courts, ought to have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has charged them to administer. Exhaustion concerns apply with particular force when the action under review involves exercise of the agency’s discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the agency to apply its special expertise. McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 194 (1969). See also Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 484 (1986). The exhaustion doctrine also acknowledges the commonsense notion of dispute resolution that an agency ought to have an opportunity to correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal court. Correlatively, exhaustion principles apply with special force when “frequent and deliberate flouting of administrative processes” could weaken an agency’s effectiveness by encouraging disregard of its procedures. McKart v. United States, 395 U. S., at 195.
As to the second of the purposes, exhaustion promotes judicial efficiency in at least two ways. When an agency has the opportunity to correct its own errors, a judicial controversy may well be mooted, or at least piecemeal appeals may be avoided. See, e. g., Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34, 37 (1972); McKart v. United States, 395 U. S., at 195. And even where a controversy survives administrative review, exhaustion of the administrative procedure may produce a useful record for subsequent judicial consideration, especially in a complex or technical factual context. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 765 (1975) (exhaustion may allow agency “to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review”).
B
Notwithstanding these substantial institutional interests, federal courts are vested with a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction given them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817-818 (1976). “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Accordingly, this Court has declined to require exhaustion in some circumstances even where administrative and judicial interests would counsel otherwise. In determining whether exhaustion is required, federal courts must balance the interest of the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion. “[A]dministrative remedies need not be pursued if the litigant’s interests in immediate judicial review outweigh the government’s interests in the efficiency or administrative autonomy that the exhaustion doctrine is designed to further.” West v. Bergland, 611 F. 2d 710, 715 (CA8 1979), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 821 (1980). Application of this balancing principle is “intensely practical,” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S., at 484, citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 331, n. 11 (1976), because attention is directed to both the nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.
C
This Court’s precedents have recognized at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests of the individual weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion. First, requiring resort to the administrative remedy may occasion undue prejudice to subsequent assertion of a court action. Such prejudice may result, for example, from an unreasonable or indefinite timeframe for administrative action. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 575, n. 14 (1973) (administrative remedy deemed inadequate “[m]ost often . . . because of delay by the agency”). See also Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S., at 587 (“Because the Bank Board’s regulations do not place a reasonable time limit on FSLIC’s consideration of claims, Coit cannot be required to exhaust those procedures”); Walker v. Southern R. Co., 385 U. S. 196, 198 (1966) (possible delay of 10 years in administrative proceedings makes exhaustion unnecessary); Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U. S. 587, 591-592 (1926) (claimant “is not required indefinitely to await a decision of the rate-making tribunal before applying to a federal court for equitable relief”). Even where the administrative decisionmaking schedule is otherwise reasonable and definite, a particular plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S., at 483 (disability-benefit claimants “would be irreparably injured were the exhaustion requirement now enforced against them”); Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752, 773 (1947) (“impending irreparable injury flowing from delay incident to following the prescribed procedure” may contribute to finding that exhaustion is not required). By the same token, exhaustion principles apply with less force when an individual’s failure to exhaust may preclude a defense to criminal liability. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 497, n. 5 (1977) (plurality opinion); McKart v. United States, 395 U. S., at 197.
Second, an administrative remedy may be inadequate “because of some doubt as to whether the agency was empowered to grant effective relief.” Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S., at 575, n. 14. For example, an agency, as a preliminary matter, may be unable to consider whether to grant relief because it lacks institutional competence to resolve the particular type of issue presented, such as the constitutionality of a statute. See, e. g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S., at 497, n. 5; Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 76 (1976). In a similar vein, exhaustion has not been required where the challenge is to the adequacy of the agency procedure itself, such that “ 'the question of the adequacy of the administrative remedy . . . [is] for all practical purposes identical with the merits of [the plaintiff’s] lawsuit.’ ” Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 63, n. 10 (1979) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S., at 575). Alternatively, an agency may be competent to adjudicate the issue presented, but still lack authority to grant the type of relief requested. McNeese v. Board of Ed. for Community Unit School Dist. 187, 373 U. S. 668, 675 (1963) (students seeking to integrate public school need not file complaint with school superintendent because the “Superintendent himself apparently has no power to order corrective action” except to request the Attorney General to bring suit); Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County, 276 U. S. 499, 505 (1928) (taxpayer seeking refund not required to exhaust where “any such application [would have been] utterly futile since the county board of equalization was powerless to grant any appropriate relief” in face of prior controlling court decision).
Third, an administrative remedy may be inadequate where the administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S., at 575, n. 14; Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U. S. 639, 640 (1968) (in view of Attorney General’s submission that the challenged rules of the prison were “validly and correctly applied to petitioner,” requiring administrative review through a process culminating with the Attorney General “would be to demand a futile act”); Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 201 U. S. App. D. C. 165, 170-171, 627 F. 2d 1151, 1156-1157 (1979) (bias of Federal Trade Commission chairman), cert. denied, 447 U. S. 921 (1980). See also Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F. 2d 900, 912-913 (CA6 1981) (en banc) (administrative procedures must “not be used to harass or otherwise discourage those with legitimate claims”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U. S. 496 (1982).
Ill
In light of these general principles, we conclude that petitioner McCarthy need not have exhausted his constitutional claim for money damages. As a preliminary matter, we find that Congress has not meaningfully addressed the appropriateness of requiring exhaustion in this context. Although respondents’ interests are significant, we are left with a firm conviction that, given the type of claim McCarthy raises and the particular characteristics of the Bureau’s general grievance procedure, McCarthy’s individual interests outweigh countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion.
A
Turning first to congressional intent, we note that the general grievance procedure was neither enacted nor mandated by Congress. Respondents, however, urge that Congress, in effect, has acted to require exhaustion by delegating power to the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons to control and manage the federal prison system. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 4001(b) and 4042. Brief for Respondents 3, 16; Tr. of Oral Arg. 41-42. We think respondents confuse what Congress could be claimed to allow by implication with what Congress affirmatively has requested or required. By delegating authority, in the most general of terms, to the Bureau to administer the federal prison system, Congress cannot be said to have spoken to the particular issue whether prisoners in the custody of the Bureau should have direct access to the federal courts.
Respondents next argue that Congress, by enactment of §7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 94 Stat. 352, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e, has articulated a policy favoring exhaustion of the prison grievance procedure prior to the filing of a constitutional claim against prison officials. Section 1997e imposes a limited exhaustion requirement for a claim brought by a state prisoner under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, provided that the underlying state prison administrative remedy meets specified standards. See Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U. S., at 507-512. Section 1997e has no direct application in this case, because at issue here is a Bivens claim by a federal prisoner against federal prison officials. We find it significant that Congress, in enacting § 1997e, stopped short of imposing a parallel requirement in the federal prison context.
Section 1997e is not only inapplicable to Bivens claims, but — by its own terms — cuts against respondents’ claim that the particular procedure now at issue need be exhausted. First, unlike the rule of exhaustion proposed here, §1997e does not authorize dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust. Instead, it provides that the action is to be stayed for a maximum of 90 days. See § 1997e(a)(l). Second, § 1997e does not mechanically require exhaustion in every case where an acceptable state procedure is in place. Rather, it directs federal courts to abstain “if the court believes that such a [waiting] requirement would be appropriate and in the interests of justice.” § 1997e(a)(l). In other words, if an inmate fails to meet filing deadlines under an administrative scheme, a court has ample discretion to determine that exhaustion nonetheless should be forgone. Third, in contrast to the absence of any provision for the award of money damages under the Bureau’s general grievance procedure, the statute conditions exhaustion on the existence of “effective administrative remedies.” It is difficult to see why a stricter rule of exhaustion than Congress itself has required in the state prison context should apply in the federal prison context.
Respondents also argue that requiring exhaustion is appropriate because Bivens relief gives way when necessary to accommodate either the effective functioning of Government or an articulated congressional policy. Brief for Respondents 15. We have recognized that a Bivens remedy does not lie in two situations: (1) where Congress has provided an equally effective alternative remedy and declared it to be a substitute for recovery under the Constitution, and (2) where, in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, special factors counsel hesitation. Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14, 18-19 (1980). As to the first exception, Congress did not create the remedial scheme at issue here and that scheme, in any case, as noted above, cannot be considered to be equally effective with respect to a claim for money damages. As to the second exception, respondents appear to confuse the presence of special factors with any factors counseling hesitation. In Carlson, the Court held that “special factors” do not free prison officials from Bivens liability, because prison officials do not enjoy an independent status in our constitutional scheme, nor are they likely to be unduly inhibited in the performance of their duties by the assertion of a Bivens claim. Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S., at 19.
Interpreting the “special factors” exception in Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412 (1988), and in Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367 (1983), the Court found the Bivens remedy displaced because Congress had legislated an elaborate and comprehensive remedial scheme. Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 425; Bush, 462 U. S., at 388. “When the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies.” Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 423. Here Congress has enacted nothing.
B
Because Congress has not required exhaustion of a federal prisoner’s Bivens claim, we turn to an evaluation of the individual and institutional interests at stake in this case. The general grievance procedure heavily burdens the individual interests of the petitioning inmate in two ways. First, the procedure imposes short, successive filing deadlines that create a high risk of forfeiture of a claim for failure to comply. Second, the administrative “remedy” does not authorize an award of monetary damages — the only relief requested by McCarthy in this action. The combination of these features means that the prisoner seeking only money damages has everything to lose and nothing to gain from being required to exhaust his claim under the internal grievance procedure.
The filing deadlines for the grievance procedure require an inmate, within 15 days of the precipitating incident, not only to attempt to resolve his grievance informally but also to file a formal written complaint with the prison, warden. 28 CFR §542.13 (1991). Then, he must successively hurdle 20-day and 30-day deadlines to advance to the end of the grievance process. §542.15. Other than the Bureau’s general and quite proper interest in having early notice of any claim, we have not been apprised of any urgency or exigency justifying this timetable. Cf. Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 435 (1944) (“The sixty days’ period allowed for protest of the Administrator’s regulations cannot be said to be unreasonably short in view of the urgency and exigencies of wartime price regulation”). As a practical matter, the filing deadlines, of course, may pose little difficulty for the knowledgeable inmate accustomed to grievances and court actions. But they are a likely trap for the inexperienced and unwary inmate, ordinarily indigent and unrepresented by counsel, with a substantial claim.
Respondents argue that the deadlines are not jurisdictional and may be extended for any “valid” reason. See 28 CFR §§ 542.13(b) and 542.15 (1991). Yet the regulations do not elaborate upon what a “valid” reason is. Moreover, it appears that prison officials — perhaps the very officials subject to suit — are charged with determining what is a “valid” reason.
All in all, these deadlines require a good deal of an inmate at the peril of forfeiting his claim for money damages. The “first” of “the principles that necessarily frame our analysis of prisoners’ constitutional claims” is that “federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 84 (1987). Because a prisoner ordinarily is divested of the privilege to vote, the right to file a court action might be said to be his remaining most “fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886). The rapid filing deadlines counsel strongly against exhaustion as a prerequisite to the filing of a federal-court action.
As we have noted, the grievance procedure does not include any mention of the award of monetary relief. Respondents argue that this should not matter, because “in most cases there are other things that the inmate wants.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. This may be true in some instances. But we cannot presume, as a general matter, that when a litigant has deliberately forgone any claim for injunctive relief and has singled out discrete past wrongs, specifically requesting monetary compensation only, that he is likely interested in “other things.” The Bureau, in any case, is always free to offer an inmate administrative relief in return for withdrawal of his lawsuit. We conclude that the absence of any monetary remedy in the grievance procedure also weighs heavily against imposing an exhaustion requirement.
In the alternative, respondents argue that, despite the absence of any provision in the general grievance procedure for the award of money damages, such damages in fact are available for most prisoners asserting Bivens claims. As to Bivens claims that could have been brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), respondents contend that a grievance asking for money damages can be “converted” by prison officials to a FTCA claim for which prison officials are authorized, under 28 CFR § 543.30 (1991), to award money damages. This “conversion” authority does not appear in the regulations having to do with the grievance procedure, which raises substantial doubt that an inmate would have sufficient notice as to how his claim would be treated. In any event, respondents have not pointed to anything in the record showing that prison officials have a practice of converting a claim filed under the general grievance procedure to a claim under the FTCA procedure. We agree with petitioner that it is implausible to think that they do. The availability of a money damages remedy is, at best, uncertain, and the uncertainty of the administrative agency’s authority to award relief counsels against requiring exhaustion. See Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 626 (1946); Union Pacific R. Co. v. Board of Comm’rs of Weld County, 247 U. S. 282, 287 (1918).
We do not find the interests of the Bureau of Prisons to weigh heavily in favor of exhaustion in view of the remedial scheme and particular claim presented here. To be sure, the Bureau has a substantial interest in encouraging internal resolution of grievances and in preventing the undermining of its authority by unnecessary resort by prisoners to the federal courts. But other institutional concerns relevant to exhaustion analysis appear to weigh in hardly at all. The Bureau’s alleged failure to render medical care implicates only tangentially its authority to carry out the control and management of the federal prisons. Furthermore, the Bureau does not bring to bear any special expertise on the type of issue presented for resolution here.
The interests of judicial economy do not stand to be advanced substantially by the general grievance procedure. No formal factfindings are made. The paperwork generated by the grievance process might assist a court somewhat in ascertaining the facts underlying a prisoner’s claim more quickly than if it has only a prisoner’s complaint to review. But the grievance procedure does not create a formal factual record of the type that can be relied on conclusively by a court for disposition of a prisoner’s claim on the pleadings or at summary judgment without the aid of affidavits.
C
In conclusion, we are struck by the absence of supporting material in the regulations, the record, or the briefs that the general grievance procedure here was crafted with any thought toward the principles of exhaustion of claims for money damages. The Attorney General’s professed concern for internal dispute resolution has not translated itself into a more effective grievance procedure that might encourage the filing of an administrative complaint as opposed to a court action. Congress, of course, is free to design or require an appropriate administrative procedure for a prisoner to exhaust his claim for money damages. Even without further action by Congress, we do not foreclose the possibility that the Bureau itself may adopt an appropriate administrative procedure consistent with congressional intent.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Compare Hessbrook v. Lennon, 777 F. 2d 999 (CA5 1985) (exhaustion required), and Brice v. Day, 604 F. 2d 664 (CA10 1979) (same), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 1086 (1980), with Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F. 2d 122 (CA3 1984) (exhaustion not required), and Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F. 2d 27 (CA6 1982) (same).
Certain categories of filings, however, “will not be accepted” under the general procedure. These include, among others, “tort claims.” See 28 CFR §642.12 (1991). The Bureau of Prisons has interpreted this “tort claims” exception to include claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but not constitutional claims for relief recognized under the Bivens case. Brief for Respondents 3, n. 1. Claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act are governed by a separate administrative procedure. See §§543.30 to 643.32.
McCarthy actually had initiated a grievance prior to filing his complaint in the District Court. Brief for Petitioner 5, n. 7. But he did not exhaust the procedures at that time and, in any event, he concedes that that grievance related to his request for a private cell and not to the medical issues at the heart of his federal complaint. After his initial grievance was dismissed, he filed a grievance with respect to the medical issues. It was accepted, even though it was late, but was denied by the warden on the merits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. McCarthy’s subsequent appeal to the Bureau’s regional office was rejected because it was filed late. Id., at 16; Brief for Petitioner 5, n. 7.
The Conference Committee Report states: “It is the intent of the Congress that the court not find such a requirement [of exhaustion] appropriate in those situations in which the action brought . . . raises issues which cannot, in reasonable probability, be resolved by the grievance resolution system ....” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-897, p. 16 (1980).
The Attorney General, charged under the statute with certifying the adequacy of state administrative remedial schemes, has provided by regulation: “The [state] grievance procedure shall afford a successful grievant a meaningful remedy.” 28 CFR §40.6 (1991) (emphasis added). At the time of promulgating these regulations, the Department of Justice observed on the public record: “Presumably, where monetary relief was the sole adequate remedy and could not be obtained through a grievance procedure, exhaustion would not be appropriate.” 46 Fed. Reg. 3846 (1981).
Petitioner concedes that if his complaint contained a prayer for injunc-tive relief, exhaustion principles would apply differently. Brief for Petitioner 20, n. 20. Were injunctive relief sought, the grievance procedure probably would be capable of producing the type of corrective action desired. Additionally, because of the continuing nature of conduct subject to injunctive relief, the short filing deadlines would pose less difficulty because the limitations period would be triggered anew by ongoing conduct.
Respondents contend that Bivens claims are almost always categoriza-ble as FTCA claims, especially in view of the Attorney General’s concession that corrections guards are “law enforcement” officers within the meaning of the exception to the intentional-tort exception of the FTCA. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. As to those claims that are not categorizable as FTCA claims, respondents concede that the Bureau of Prisons has no authority to offer a monetary settlement. Id., at 40. Instead, they contend that the Department of Justice has a general settlement authority under the federal regulations that might be exercised to dispose of general grievance claims. 28 CFR § 50.16(c)(2) (1991). Nothing in the record indicates that this authority has ever been exercised to recompense a prisoner with a Bivens claim. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a monetary settlement would be made in the course of an administrative proceeding, because the regulation provides that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances” a monetary settlement will not be paid “before entry of an adverse verdict, judgment, or award.” § 50.15(c)(3).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners challenge the Court of Appeals’ approval of an order enjoining the City of Memphis from following its seniority system in determining who must be laid off as a result of a budgetary shortfall. Respondents contend that the injunction was necessary to effectuate the terms of a Title VII consent decree in which the City agreed to undertake certain obligations in order to remedy past hiring and promotional practices. Because we conclude that the order cannot be justified, either as an effort to enforce the consent decree or as a valid modification, we reverse.
h-H
In 1977 respondent Carl Stotts, a black holding the position of firefighting captain in the Memphis, Tenn., Fire Department, filed a class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint charged that the Memphis Fire Department and certain city officials were engaged in a pattern or practice of making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., as well as 42 U. S. C. §§1981 and 1983. The District Court certified the case as a class action and consolidated it with an individual action subsequently filed by respondent Fred Jones, a black firefighting private in the Department, who claimed that he had been denied a promotion because of his race. Discovery proceeded, settlement negotiations ensued, and, in due course, a consent decree was approved and entered by the District Court on April 25, 1980.
The stated purpose of the decree was to remedy the hiring and promotion practices “of the... Department with respect to the employment of blacks.” 679 F. 2d 541, 575-576 (CA6 1982) (Appendix). Accordingly, the City agreed to promote 13 named individuals and to provide backpay to 81 employees of the Fire Department. It also adopted the long-term goal of increasing the proportion of minority representation in each job classification in the Fire Department to approximately the proportion of blacks in the labor force in Shelby County, Tenn. However, the City did not, by agreeing to the decree, admit “any violations of law, rule, or regulation with respect to the allegations” in the complaint. Id., at 574. The plaintiffs waived any further relief save to enforce the decree, ibid., and the District Court retained jurisdiction “for such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this decree.” Id., at 578.
The long-term hiring goal outlined in the decree paralleled the provisions of a 1974 consent decree, which settled a case brought against the City by the United States and which applied citywide. Like the 1974 decree, the 1980 decree also established an interim hiring goal of filling on an annual basis 50 percent of the job vacancies in the Department with qualified black applicants. The 1980 decree contained an additional goal with respect'to promotions: the Department was to attempt to ensure that 20 percent of the promotions in each job classification be given to blacks. Neither decree contained provisions for layoffs or reductions in rank, and neither awarded any competitive seniority. The 1974 decree did require that for purposes of promotion, transfer, and assignment, seniority was to be computed “as the total seniority of that person with the City.” Id., at 572.
In early May 1981, the City announced that projected budget deficits required a reduction of nonessential personnel throughout the city government. Layoffs were to be based on the “last hired, first fired” rule under which city wide seniority, determined by each employee’s length of continuous service from the latest date of permanent employment, was the basis for deciding who would be laid off. If a senior employee’s position were abolished or eliminated, the employee could “bump down” to a lower ranking position rather than be laid off. As the Court of Appeals later noted, this layoff policy was adopted pursuant to the seniority system “mentioned in the 1974 Decree and... incorporated in the City’s memorandum of understanding with the Union.” 679 F. 2d, at 549.
On May 4, at respondents’ request, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order forbidding the layoff of any black employee. The Union, which previously had not been a party to either of these cases, was permitted to intervene. At the preliminary injunction hearing, it appeared that 55 then-filled positions in the Department were to be eliminated and that 39 of these positions were filled with employees having “bumping” rights. It was estimated that 40 least-senior employees in the firefighting bureau of the Department would be laid off and that of these 25 were white and 15 black. It also appeared that 56 percent of the employees hired in the Department since 1974 had been black and that the percentage of black employees had increased from approximately 3 or 4 percent in 1974 to 1154 percent in 1980.
On May 18, the District Court entered an order granting an injunction. The court found that the consent decree “did not contemplate the method to be used for reduction in rank or lay-off,” and that the layoff policy was in accordance with the City’s seniority system and was not adopted with any intent to discriminate. Nonetheless, concluding that the proposed layoffs would have a racially discriminatory effect and that the seniority system was not a bona fide one, the District Court ordered that the City “not apply the seniority policy proposed insofar as it will decrease the percentage of black lieutenants, drivers, inspectors and privates that are presently employed....” On June 23, the District Court broadened its order to include three additional classifications. A modified layoff plan, aimed at protecting black employees in the seven classifications so as to comply with the court’s order, was presented and approved. Layoffs pursuant to the modified plan were then carried out. In certain instances, to comply with the injunction, nonminority employees with more seniority than minority employees were laid off or demoted in rank.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed despite its conclusion that the District Court was wrong in holding that the City’s seniority system was not bona fide. 679 F. 2d, at 551, n. 6. Characterizing the principal isssue as “whether the district court erred in modifying the 1980 Decree to prevent minority employment from being affected disproportionately by unanticipated layoffs,” id., at 551, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had acted properly. After determining that the decree was properly approved in the first instance, the court held that the modification was permissible under general contract principles because the City “contracted” to provide “a substantial increase in the number of minorities in supervisory positions” and the layoffs would breach that contract. Id., at 561. Alternatively, the court held that the District Court was authorized to modify the decree because new and unforeseen circumstances had created a hardship for one of the parties to the decree. Id., at 562-563. Finally, articulating three alternative rationales, the court rejected petitioners’ argument that the modification was improper because it conflicted with the City’s seniority system, which was immunized from Title VII attack under § 703(h) of that Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(h).
The Fire Department (and city officials) and the Union filed separate petitions for certiorari. The two petitions were granted, 462 U. S. 1105 (1983), and the cases were consolidated for oral argument.
1 — I f — <
We deal first with the claim that these cases are moot. Respondents submit that the injunction entered in these cases was a preliminary injunction dealing only with the 1981 layoffs, that all white employees laid off as a result of the injunction were restored to duty only one month after their layoff, and that those who were demoted have now been offered back their old positions. Assertedly, the injunction no longer has force or effect, and the cases are therefore moot. For several reasons, we find the submission untenable.
First, the injunction on its face ordered that “the defendants not apply the seniority policy proposed insofar as it will decrease the percentage of black” employees in specified classifications in the Department. The seniority policy was the policy adopted by the City and contained in the collective-bargaining contract with the Union. The injunction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and has never been vacated. It would appear from its terms that the injunction is still in force and that unless set aside must be complied with in connection with any future layoffs.
Second, even if the injunction itself applied only to the 1981 layoffs, the predicate for the so-called preliminary injunction was the ruling that the consent decree must be construed to mean and, in any event, must be modified to provide that layoffs were not to reduce the percentage of blacks employed in the Fire Department. Furthermore, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, for different reasons, held that the seniority provisions of the City’s collective-bargaining contract must be disregarded for the purpose of achieving the mandated result. These rulings remain undisturbed, and we see no indication that respondents concede in urging mootness that these rulings were in error and should be reversed. To the contrary, they continue to defend them. Unless overturned, these rulings would require the City to obey the modified consent decree and to disregard its seniority agreement in making future layoffs.
Accordingly, the inquiry is not merely whether the injunction is still in effect, but whether the mandated modification of the consent decree continues to have an impact on the parties such that the case remains alive. We are quite unconvinced — and it is the respondents’ burden to convince us, County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979)— that the modification of the decree and the pro tanto invalidation of the seniority system is of no real concern to the City because it will never again contemplate layoffs that if carried out in accordance with the seniority system would violate the modified decree. For this reason alone, the case is not moot.
Third, the judgment below will have a continuing effect on the City’s management of the Department in still another way. Although the City has restored or offered to restore to their former positions all white employees who were laid off or demoted, those employees have not been made whole: those who were laid off have lost a month’s pay, as well as seniority that has not been restored; and those employees who “bumped down” and accepted lesser positions will also have backpay claims if their demotions were unjustified. Unless the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, however, the layoffs and demotions were in accordance with the law, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect the City to pay out money to which the employees had no legal right. Nor would it feel free to respond to the seniority claims of the three white employees who, as the City points out, lost competitive seniority in relation to all other individuals who were not laid off, including those minority employees who would have been laid off but for the injunction. On the other hand, if the Court of Appeals’ judgment is reversed, the City would be free to take a wholly different position with respect to backpay and seniority.
Undoubtedly, not much money and seniority are involved, but the amount of money and seniority at stake does not determine mootness. As long as the parties have a concrete interest in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot notwithstanding the size of the dispute. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496-498 (1969). Moreover, a month’s pay is not a negligible item for those affected by the injunction, and the loss of a month’s competitive seniority may later determine who gets a promotion, who is entitled to bid for transfers, or who is first laid off if there is another reduction in force. These are matters of substance, it seems to us, and enough so to foreclose any claim of mootness. Cf. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 756 (1976); Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 496-498; Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 128, n. 4 (1966).
In short, respondents successfully attacked the City’s initial layoff plan and secured a judgment modifying the consent decree, ordering the City to disregard its seniority policy, and enjoining any layoffs that would reduce the percentage of blacks in the Department. Respondents continue to defend those rulings, which, as we have said, may determine the City’s disposition of backpay claims and claims for restoration of competitive seniority that will affect respondents themselves. It is thus unrealistic to claim that there is no longer a dispute between the City and respondents with respect to the scope of the consent decree. Respondents cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court to obtain a favorable modification of a consent decree and then insulate that ruling from appellate review by claiming that they are no longer interested in the matter, particularly when the modification continues to have adverse effects on the other parties to the action.
Ill
The issue at the heart of this case is whether the District Court exceeded its powers in entering an injunction requiring white employees to be laid off, when the otherwise applicable seniority system would have called for the layoff of black employees with less seniority. We are convinced that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving this issue and in affirming the District Court.
A
The Court of Appeals first held that the injunction did no more than enforce the terms of the consent decree. This specific-performance approach rests on the notion that because the City was under a general obligation to use its best efforts to increase the proportion of blacks on the force, it breached the decree by attempting to effectuate a layoff policy reducing the percentage of black employees in the Department even though such a policy was mandated by the seniority system adopted by the City and the Union. A variation of this argument is that since the decree permitted the District Court to enter any later orders that “may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this decree,” 679 F. 2d, at 578 (Appendix), the City had agreed in advance to an injunction against layoffs that would reduce the proportion of black employees. We are convinced, however, that both of these are improvident constructions of the consent decree.
It is to be recalled that the “scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it” or by what “might have been written had the plaintiff established his factual claims and legal theories in litigation.” United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U. S. 673, 681-682 (1971). Here, as the District Court recognized, there is no mention of layoffs or demotions within the four corners of the decree; nor is there any suggestion of an intention to depart from the existing seniority system or from the City’s arrangements with the Union. We cannot believe that the parties to the decree thought that the City would simply disregard its arrangements with the Union and the seniority system it was then following. Had there been any intention to depart from the seniority plan in the event of layoffs or demotions, it is much more reasonable to believe that there would have been an express provision to that effect. This is particularly true since the decree stated that it was not “intended to conflict with any provisions” of the 1974 decree, 679 F. 2d, at 574 (Appendix), and since the latter decree expressly anticipated that the City would recognize seniority, id., at 572. It is thus not surprising that when the City anticipated layoffs and demotions, it in the first instance faithfully followed its pre-existing seniority system, plainly having no thought that it had already agreed to depart from it. It therefore cannot be said that the express terms of the decree contemplated that such an injunction would be entered.
The argument that the injunction was proper because it carried out the purposes of the decree is equally unconvincing. The decree announced that its purpose was “to remedy past hiring and promotion practices” of the Department, id., at 575-576, and to settle the dispute as to the “appropriate and valid procedures for hiring and promotion,” id., at 574. The decree went on to provide the agreed-upon remedy, but as we have indicated, that remedy did not include the displacement of white employees with seniority over blacks. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the “remedy”, which it was the purpose of the decree to provide, would not exceed the bounds of the remedies that are appropriate under Title VII, at least absent some express provision to that effect. As our cases have made clear, however, and as will be reemphasized below, Title VII protects bona fide seniority systems, and it is inappropriate to deny an innocent employee the benefits of his seniority in order to provide a remedy in a pattern-or-practice suit such as this. We thus have no doubt that the City considered its system to be valid and that it had no intention of departing from it when it agreed to the 1980 decree.
Finally, it must be remembered that neither the Union nor the nonminority employees were parties to the suit when the 1980 decree was entered. Hence the entry of that decree cannot be said to indicate any agreement by them to any of its terms. Absent the presence of the Union or the nonmi-nority employees and an opportunity for them to agree or disagree with any provisions of the decree that might encroach on their rights, it seems highly unlikely that the City would purport to bargain away nonminority rights under the then-existing seniority system. We therefore conclude that the injunction does not merely enforce the agreement of the parties as reflected in the consent decree. If the injunction is to stand, it must be justified on some other basis.
B
The Court of Appeals held that even if the injunction is not viewed as compelling compliance with the terms of the decree, it was still properly entered because the District Court had inherent authority to modify the decree when an economic crisis unexpectedly required layoffs which, if carried out as the City proposed, would undermine the affirmative action outlined in the decree and impose an undue hardship on respondents. This was true, the court held, even though the modification conflicted with a bona fide seniority system adopted by the City. The Court of Appeals erred in reaching this conclusion.
Section 703(h) of Title VII provides that it is not an unlawful employment practice 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. It is clear that the City had a seniority system, that its proposed layoff plan conformed to that system, and that in making the settlement the City had not agreed to award competitive seniority to any minority employee whom the City proposed to lay off. The District Court held that the City could not follow its seniority system in making its proposed layoffs because its proposal was discriminatory in effect and hence not a bona fide plan. Section 703(h), however, permits the routine application of a seniority system absent proof of an intention to discriminate. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 352 (1977). Here, the District Court itself found that the layoff proposal was not adopted with the purpose or intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Nor had the City in agreeing to the decree admitted in any way that it had engaged in intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals was therefore correct in disagreeing with the District Court’s holding that the layoff plan was not a bona fide application of the seniority system, and it would appear that the City could not be faulted for following the seniority plan expressed in its agreement with the Union. The Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the injunction was proper even though it conflicted with the seniority system. This was error.
To support its position, the Court of Appeals first proposed a “settlement” theory, i. e., that the strong policy favoring voluntary settlement of Title VII actions permitted consent decrees that encroached on seniority systems. But at this stage in its opinion, the Court of Appeals was supporting the proposition that even if the injunction was not merely enforcing the agreed-upon terms of the decree, the District Court had the authority to modify the decree over the objection of one of the parties. The settlement theory, whatever its merits might otherwise be, has no application when there is no “settlement” with respect to the disputed issue. Here, the agreed-upon decree neither awarded competitive seniority to the minority employees nor purported in any way to depart from the seniority system.
A second ground advanced by the Court of Appeals in support of the conclusion that the injunction could be entered notwithstanding its conflict with the seniority system was the assertion that “[i]t would be incongruous to hold that the use of the preferred means of resolving an employment discrimination action decreases the power of a court to order relief which vindicates the policies embodied within Title VII and 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983.” 679 F. 2d, at 566. The court concluded that if the allegations in the complaint had been proved, the District Court could have entered an order overriding the seniority provisions. Therefore, the court reasoned, “[t]he trial court had authority to override the Firefighter’s Union seniority provisions to effectuate the purpose of the 1980 Decree.” Ibid.
The difficulty with this approach is that it overstates the authority of the trial court to disregard a seniority system in fashioning a remedy after a plaintiff has successfully proved that an employer has followed a pattern or practice having a discriminatory effect on black applicants or employees. If individual members of a plaintiff class demonstrate that they have been actual victims of the discriminatory practice, they may be awarded competitive seniority and given their rightful place on the seniority roster. This much is clear from Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (1976), and Teamsters v. United States, supra. Teamsters, however, also made clear that mere membership in the disadvantaged class is insufficient to warrant a seniority award; each individual must prove that the discriminatory practice had an impact on him. 431 U. S., at 367-371. Even when an individual shows that the discriminatory practice has had an impact on him, he is not automatically entitled to have a nonminority employee laid off to make room for him. He may have to wait until a vacancy occurs, and if there are nonminority employees on layoff, the court must balance the equities in determining who is entitled to the job. Teamsters, supra, at 371-376. See also Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 236-240 (1982). Here, there was no finding that any of the blacks protected from layoff had been a victim of discrimination and no award of competitive seniority to any of them. Nor had the parties in formulating the consent decree purported to identify any specific employee entitled to particular relief other than those listed in the exhibits attached to the decree. It therefore seems to us that in light of Teamsters, the Court of Appeals imposed on the parties as an adjunct of settlement something that could not have been ordered had the case gone to trial and the plaintiffs proved that a pattern or practice of discrimination existed.
Our ruling in Teamsters that a court can award competitive seniority only when the beneficiary of the award has actually been a victim of illegal discrimination is consistent with the policy behind § 706(g) of Title VII, which affects the remedies available in Title YII litigation. That policy, which is to provide make-whole relief only to those who have been actual victims of illegal discrimination, was repeatedly expressed by the sponsors of the Act during the congressional debates. Opponents of the legislation that became Title VII charged that if the bill were enacted, employers could be ordered to hire and promote persons in order to achieve a racially balanced work force even though those persons had not been victims of illegal discrimination. Responding to these charges, Senator Humphrey explained the limits on a court’s remedial powers as follows:
“No court order can require hiring, reinstatement, admission to membership, or payment of back pay for anyone who was not fired, refused employment or advancement or admission to a union by an act of discrimination forbidden by this title. This is stated expressly in the last sentence of section 707(e) [enacted without relevant change as § 706(g)].... Contrary to the allegations of some opponents of this title, there is nothing in it that will give any power to the Commission or to any court to require... firing... of employees in order to meet a racial ‘quota’ or to achieve a certain racial balance. That bugaboo has been brought up a dozen times; but it is nonexistent.” 110 Cong. Rec. 6549 (1964).
An interpretative memorandum of the bill entered into the Congressional Record by Senators Clark and Case likewise made clear that a court was not authorized to give preferential treatment to nonvictims. “No court order can require hiring, reinstatement, admission to membership, or payment of back pay for anyone who was not discriminated against in violation of [Title VII]. This is stated expressly in the last sentence of section [706(g)]....” Id., at 7214.
Similar assurances concerning the limits on a court’s authority to award make-whole relief were provided by supporters of the bill throughout the legislative process. For example, following passage of the bill in the House, its Republican House sponsors published a memorandum describing the bill. Referring to the remedial powers given the courts by the bill, the memorandum stated: “Upon conclusion of the trial, the Federal court may enjoin an employer or labor organization from practicing further discrimination and may order the hiring or reinstatement of an employee or the acceptance or reinstatement of a union member. But title VII does not permit the ordering of racial quotas in businesses or unions....” Id., at 6566 (emphasis added). In like manner, the principal Senate sponsors, in a bipartisan newsletter delivered during an attempted filibuster to each Senator supporting the bill, explained that “[u]nder title VII, not even a court, much less the Commission, could order racial quotas or the hiring, reinstatement, admission to membership or payment of back pay for anyone who is not discriminated against in violation of this title.” Id., at 14465.
The Court of Appeals holding that the District Court’s order was permissible as a valid Title VII remedial order ignores not only our ruling in Teamsters but the policy behind § 706(g) as well. Accordingly, that holding cannot serve as a basis for sustaining the District Court’s order.
Finally, the Court of Appeals was of the view that the District Court ordered no more than that which the City unilaterally could have done by way of adopting an affirmative-action program. Whether the City, a public employer, could have taken this course without violating the law is an issue we need not decide. The fact is that in these cases the City took no such action and that the modification of the decree was imposed over its objection.
We thus are unable to agree either that the order entered by the District Court was a justifiable effort to enforce the terms of the decree to which the City had agreed or that it was a legitimate modification of the decree that could be imposed on the City without its consent. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The Memphis Fire Department is divided into several bureaus, including firefighting, alarm office, administration, apparatus, maintenance, and fire prevention. Of the positions covered by the original injunction, all but one were in the firefighting bureau.
The City ultimately laid off 24 privates, 3 of whom were black. Had the seniority system been followed, 6 blacks would have been among the 24 privates laid off. Thus, three white employees were laid off as a direct result of the District Court’s order. The number of whites demoted as a result of the order is not clear from the record before us.
The Court of Appeals, recognizing that the District Court had done more than temporarily preclude the City from applying its seniority sys-tern, stated that the “principal issue” before it was “whether the district court erred in modifying the 1980 Decree to prevent minority employment from being affected disproportionately by unanticipated layoffs.” 679 F. 2d, at 551.
Of course if layoffs become necessary, both the City and respondents will be affected by the modified decree, the City because it will be unable to apply its seniority system, respondents because they will be given greater protection than they would otherwise receive under that system. Moreover, the City will be immediately affected by the modification even though no layoff is currently pending. If the lower courts’ ruling is left intact, the City will no longer be able to promise current or future employees that layoffs will be conducted solely on the basis of seniority. Against its will, the City has been deprived of the power to offer its employees one of the benefits that make employment with the City attractive to many workers. Seniority has traditionally been, and continues to be, a matter of great concern to American workers. “ ‘More than any other provision of the collective [-bargaining] agreement... seniority affects the economic security of the individual employee covered by its terms.’ ” Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 766 (1976) (quoting Aaron, Reflections on the Legal Nature and Enforceability of Seniority Rights, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1532, 1535 (1962)). It is not idle speculation to suppose that the City will be required to offer greater monetary compensation or fringe benefits in order to attract and retain the same caliber and number of workers as it could without offering such benefits were it completely free to implement its seniority system. The extent to which the City’s employment efforts will be harmed by the loss of this “bargaining chip” may be difficult to measure, but in view of the importance that American workers have traditionally placed on such benefits, the harm cannot be said to be insignificant. Certainly, an employer’s bargaining position is as substantially affected by a decree precluding it from offering its employees the benefits of a seniority system as it is by a state statute that provides economic benefits to striking employees. Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U. S. 115, 122-125 (1974).
Since the District Court’s order precludes the City from reducing the percentage of black employees holding particular jobs in the event of a layoff or reduction in rank and since competitive seniority is the basis for determining who will be laid off or bumped down, there is some question whether, in light of the judgment below, the City could legally restore to the laid-off employees the competitive seniority they had before the layoffs without violating the order.
The present case is distinguishable from University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390 (1981), on which the dissent relies, in that the defendant in Camenisch was not a party to a decree that had been modified by the lower court. When the injunction in that case expired, the defendant was in all respects restored to its pre-injunction status. Here, the City is faced with a modified consent decree that prevents it from applying its seniority system in the manner that it chooses.
Respondents contend that the memorandum of understanding between the Union and the City is unenforceable under state law, citing Fulenwider v. Firefighters Assn. Local Union 1784, 649 S. W. 2d 268 (Tenn. 1982). However, the validity of that memorandum under state law is unimportant for purposes of the issues presented in this case. First, the Court of Appeals assumed that the memorandum was valid in reaching its decision. 679 F. 2d, at 564, n. 20. Since we are reviewing that decision, we are free to assume the same. Moreover, even if the memorandum is unenforceable, the City’s seniority system is still in place. The City unilaterally adopted the seniority system citywide in 1973. That policy was incorporated into the memorandum of understanding with the Firefighters Union in 1975, but its eitywide effect, including its application to the Fire Department, continues irrespective of the status of the memorandum.
The dissent’s contention that the only issue before us is whether the District Court so misapplied the standards for issuing a preliminary injunction that it abused its discretion, post, at 601, overlooks what the District Court did in this case. The District Court did not purport to apply the standards for determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. It did not even mention them. Instead, having found that the consent decree did “not contemplate what method would be used for a reduction in rank or layoff,” the court considered “whether or not... it should exercise its authority to modify the consent decree....” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 82-229, p. A73. As noted above, the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that more was at stake than a mere preliminary injunction, stating that the “principal issue” was “whether the district court erred in modifying the 1980 Decree to prevent minority employment from being affected disproportionately by unanticipated layoffs.” 679 F. 2d, at 551. By deciding whether the District Court erred in interpreting or modifying the consent decree so as to preclude the City from applying its seniority system, we do not, as the dissent shrills, attempt to answer a question never faced by the lower courts.
The dissent seems to suggest, post, at 611, and n. 9, and Justice Stevens expressly states, post, at 590, that Title VII is irrelevant in determining whether the District Court acted properly in modifying the consent decree. However, this was Title VII litigation, and in affirming modifications of the decree, the Court of Appeals relied extensively on what it considered to be its authority under Title VII. That is the posture in which the cases come to us. Furthermore, the District Court’s authority to impose a modification of a decree is not wholly dependent on the decree. “[T]he District Court’s authority to adopt a consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree is intended to enforce,” not from the parties’ consent to the decree. Railway Employees v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642, 651 (1961). In recognition of this principle, this Court in Wright held that when a change in the law brought the terms of a decree into conflict with the statute pursuant to which the decree was entered, the decree should be modified over the objections of one of the parties bound by the decree. By the same token, and for the same reason, a district court cannot enter a disputed modification of a consent decree in Title VII litigation if the resulting order is inconsistent with that statute.
Thus, Title VII necessarily acted as a limit on the District Court’s authority to modify the decree over the objections of the City; the issue cannot be resolved solely by reference to the terms of the decree and notions of equity. Since, as we note, infra, at 577, Title VII precludes a district court from displacing a nonminority employee with seniority under the contractually established seniority system absent either a finding that the seniority system was adopted with discriminatory intent or a determination that such a remedy was necessary to make whole a proven victim of discrimination, the District Court was precluded from granting such relief over the City’s objection in these cases.
Section 703 (h) provides that “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 or merit 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).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether a tax lien of the United States is prior in right to an attachment lien where the federal tax lien was recorded subsequent to the date of the attachment lien but prior to the date the attaching creditor obtained judgment.
On October 17, 1946, Wilton M. Morrison sued George and Genell Styliano on an unsecured note. Pursuant to §§ 537 and 542 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Morrison procured the attachment of four parcels of real estate owned by the Stylianos in San Diego County. On April 24, 1947, Morrison obtained judgment and it was recorded in the office of the Recorder of San Diego County on May 2, 1947. Meanwhile, on December 3, 5, and 10, 1946, the United States had filed notices of federal tax liens in the same office.
Subsequently, four suits were brought in the Superior Court of San Diego County involving the four parcels of land upon which Morrison had procured the attachment. Morrison and the United States were made parties defendant in each of these suits. The first suit was brought to quiet title to one of the parcels of real estate. The Stylianos had sold this parcel to the plaintiffs of the suit, who paid the balance of the purchase price into court. The other three suits were to foreclose separate mortgages on the other three parcels. The Superior Court ordered the balance of the purchase price and any surplus remaining from the foreclosure sales after the mortgagees received payment in full to be applied first in payment of Morrison’s judgment lien, and secondly in payment of any federal tax liens.
The District Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed. 93 Cal. App. 2d 608, 209 P. 2d 657. The Supreme Court of California declined to hear the case, and we granted certiorari. 339 U. S. 947. The four cases were consolidated below for purposes of appeal, and Morrison’s claims of priority were treated as a single issue. They are treated here in the same manner.
Section 537 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may have the property of the defendant attached at any time “as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered.” Section 542a provides: “The lien of the attachment on real property attaches and becomes effective upon the recording of a copy of the writ, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached with the county recorder of the county wherein said real property is situate .... The attachment whether heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied shall be a lien upon all real property attached for a period of three years after the date of levy unless sooner released or discharged either as provided in this chapter, or by dismissal of the action, or by the filing with the recorder of an abstract of the judgment in the action.”
The effect of a lien in relation to a provision of federal law for the collection of debts owing the United States is always a federal question. Hence, although a state court’s classification of a lien as specific and perfected is entitled to weight, it is subject to reexamination by this Court. On the other hand, if the state court itself describes the lien as inchoate, this classification is “practically conclusive.” Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 371. The Supreme Court of California has so described its attachment lien in the case of Puissegur v. Yarbrough, 29 Cal. 2d 409, 412, 175 P. 2d 830, 831, by stating that, “The attaching creditor obtains only a potential right or a contingent lien . . . .” Examination of the California statute shows that the above is an apt description. The attachment lien gives the attachment creditor no right to proceed against the property unless he gets a judgment within three years or within such extension as the statute provides. Numerous contingencies might arise that would prevent the attachment lien from ever becoming perfected by a judgment awarded and recorded. Thus the attachment lien is contingent or inchoate&wkey;merely a lis pendens notice that a right to perfect a lien exists.
Nor can the doctrine of relation back — which by process of judicial reasoning merges the attachment lien in the judgment and relates the judgment lien back to the date of attachment — operate to destroy the realities of the situation. When the tax liens of the United States were recorded, Morrison did not have a judgment lien. He had a mere “caveat of a more perfect lien to come.” New York v. Maclay, 288 U. S. 290, 294.
The liens asserted by the United States stem from 53 Stat. 448, 449, 26 U. S. C. §§ 3670, 3671, 3672. Section 3670 provides: “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to such tax, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” Section 3671 provides that the lien arises when the assessment lists are received by the Collector unless some other date is specified by law. Section 3672 provides that the lien shall not be valid against mortgagees, pledgees, purchasers or judgment creditors, until notice thereof has been filed in the office provided by the law of the state for such filing — in this case, the office of the Recorder of San Diego County.
In cases involving a kindred matter, i. e., the federal priority under R. S. § 3466, it has never been held sufficient to defeat the federal priority merely to show a lien effective to protect the lienor against others than the Government, but contingent upon taking subsequent steps for enforcing it. Illinois v. Campbell, supra, 374. If the purpose of the federal tax lien statute to insure prompt and certain collection of taxes due the United States from tax delinquents is to be fulfilled, a similar rule must prevail here. Accordingly, we hold that the tax liens of the United States are superior to the inchoate attachment lien of Morrison, and the judgment of the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District is reversed.
Reversed.
Deering’s Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Ann., 1941, §§ 537 and 542.
Notice of a further lien in the sum of $412.18 was filed on January 22, 1948, but as to this the Government does not claim priority.
The Government also disclaims any priority over the mortgages foreclosed in these proceedings.
Morrison died while the case was pending on appeal to the District Court of Appeal, and the Security Trust and Savings Bank as executor of his last will and testament was substituted.
R. S. § 3466. “Whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent, or whenever the estate of any deceased debtor, in the hands of the executors or administrators, is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased, the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied; and the priority hereby established shall extend as well to cases in which a debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his debts, makes a voluntary assignment thereof, or in which the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed, or absent debtor are attached by process of law, as to cases in which an act of bankruptcy is committed.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On December 5, 1947, petitioner filed suit in the Court of Claims to recover just compensation for certain of its properties in the Philippine Islands which the United States had allegedly requisitioned for military purposes. On March 24, 1948, petitioner filed an amended petition, including for the first time the claims here involved, the Seventh and the Fifteenth. A second amended petition was filed June 1, 1948. In the Seventh claim of the amended petition, petitioner alleged that the United States on or about December 18, 1941, requisitioned and took certain petroleum products and other personal and real property of petitioner located in the Philippine Islands. The Fifteenth claim of the amended petition contained an allegation, inter alia, that during the period from December 1941 to January 1942, respondent took and disbursed certain other petroleum products of petitioner located at another place in the Philippine Islands. In the interim between the filing of the first and the second amended petitions, on April 12, 1948, the United States had filed a motion to dismiss the Seventh and Fifteenth claims on the ground that it appeared on the face of the amended petition that the claims sued upon each accrued more than six years prior to the filing of the amended petition, that the claims were therefore barred by § 156 of the Judicial Code, and the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to hear said claims. The court allowed this motion to stand directed against the second amended petition. After hearing argument, the court sustained the motion to dismiss, and did dismiss the Seventh and Fifteenth claims. 112 Ct. Cl. 137, 80 F. Supp. 657. We granted certiorari (336 U. S. 935) on the assumption that the record presented the question whether deprivation of access to information bearing on the existence of petitioner’s claims during the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands could or did affect the operation of the six-year statute. But since the record does not properly present that question, we cannot answer it.
The case reaches us upon pleadings that allege only the fact of taking in 1941 and 1942, more than six years before the Seventh and Fifteenth claims were filed by petitioner. We do not intimate that any facts could have the effect of relieving petitioner from the limitation of the statute, nor what facts should be alleged that could have that effect.
It might be assumed in favor of petitioner’s pleadings what is judicially known, that the Japanese were, for all practical purposes, in complete control of the Philippine Islands by May 1942 and continued in control until sometime subsequent to October 1944, when the United States Army returned. But it cannot be assumed that petitioner was deprived of information about its property before and during that period. The pleadings do not so inform, and certainly a court could not know judicially the facts of petitioner’s information or lack of information. Then there is the period from the United States reoccupation in 1945 to March 24, 1948. With respect to this period of United States control of the Islands, nothing is alleged by petitioner concerning its deprivation of or access to information about the taking of its property at the times set forth in the claims.
True, the discussion of petitioner’s claims seems to have been at large before the Court of Claims as to the information or lack of information petitioner had concerning its claims and as to the effect such information or lack thereof might have had upon petitioner’s right to file the claims more than six years after they accrued. The majority opinion of the Court of Claims recites:
“Plaintiff alleges that because of the loss and destruction of its records proper claims could not be filed until the Japanese occupation had ended and opportunity had to reconstruct statistically the properties, stocks, equipment, etc., owned by it at the time of requisitioning or destruction.” 112 Ct. Cl. at 139, 80 F. Supp. at 658.
There are no such allegations in the amended petition. What allegations there are in the petition bring the case squarely within the statute, which denies the Court of Claims power to entertain an action brought more than six years after the action accrues.
Thus the case was decided not only upon what was alleged in the pleadings but upon other allegations as well, as to which no clear inkling appears in the record. Because the Court of Claims considered these additional allegations, it is urged that we should also consider them. But we cannot consider such allegations in determining the sufficiency of the cause stated. After all, pleadings and the making of a proper record have not been dispensed with. They still have a function to perform. This case points up that function. We will not review questions not clearly raised on the record.
Since it is apparent that facts were considered by both the Court of Claims and counsel that were not in the pleadings, and the court’s opinion and judgment take cognizance of such facts, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded. The Court of Claims may permit further pleadings if in the court’s discretion such further pleadings seem proper and just. If permission to plead further is denied, or if petitioner fails to plead further should permission be granted, the cause shall be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
This portion of the Fifteenth claim is hereafter referred to as the Fifteenth claim.
“Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court . . . within six years after the claim first accrues . . . .” 36 Stat. 1139, 28 U. S. C. § 262, now 62 Stat. 976,28 U. S. C. § 2501.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a defendant may be liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed the patent under § 271(a) or any other statutory provision. The statutory text and structure and our prior case law require that we answer this question in the negative. We accordingly reverse the Federal Circuit, which reached the opposite conclusion.
I
A
Respondent the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 ('703 patent), which claims a method of delivering electronic data using a "content delivery network," or "CDN." Respondent Akamai Technologies, Inc., is the exclusive licensee. Akamai maintains many servers distributed in various locations. Proprietors of Web sites, known as "content providers," contract with Akamai to deliver their Web sites' content to individual Internet users. The '703 patent provides for the designation of certain components of a content provider's Web site (often large files, such as video or music files) to be stored on Akamai's servers and accessed from those servers by Internet users. The process of designating components to be stored on Akamai's servers is known as "tagging." By "aggregat[ing] the data demands of multiple content providers with differing peak usage patterns and serv[ing] that content from multiple servers in multiple locations," 614 F.Supp.2d 90, 96 (D.Mass.2009), as well as by delivering content from servers located in the same geographic area as the users who are attempting to access it, Akamai is able to increase the speed with which Internet users access the content of its customers' Web sites.
Petitioner Limelight Networks, Inc., also operates a CDN and carries out several of the steps claimed in the '703 patent. But instead of tagging those components of its customers' Web sites that it intends to store on its servers (a step included in the '703 patent), Limelight requires its customers to do their own tagging.1 Respondents claim that Limelight "provides instructions and offers technical assistance" to its customers regarding how to tag, 629 F.3d 1311, 1321 (C.A.Fed.2010), but the record is undisputed that Limelight does not tag the components to be stored on its servers.
B
In 2006, respondents sued Limelight in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming patent infringement. The case was tried to a jury, which found that Limelight had committed infringement and awarded more than $40 million in damages.
Respondents' victory was short-lived, however. After the jury returned its verdict, the Federal Circuit decided Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (2008). In that case the Court of Appeals rejected a claim that the defendant's method, involving bidding on financial instruments using a computer system, directly infringed the plaintiff's patent. The defendant performed some of the steps of the patented method, and its customers, to whom the defendant gave access to its system along with instructions on the use of the system, performed the remaining steps. The court started from "the proposition that direct infringement requires a single party to perform every step of a claimed method." Id., at 1329. This requirement is satisfied even though the steps are actually undertaken by multiple parties, the court explained, if a single defendant "exercises 'control or direction' over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party." Ibid. The court held that the defendant in Muniauction was not liable for direct infringement because it did not exercise control or direction over its customers' performance of those steps of the patent that the defendant itself did not perform. Id., at 1330.
In light of Muniauction, Limelight moved for reconsideration of its earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court had denied. The District Court granted the motion, concluding that Muniauction precluded a finding of direct infringement under § 271(a) because infringement of the '703 patent required tagging and Limelight does not control or direct its customers' tagging. A panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed, explaining that a defendant that does not itself undertake all of a patent's steps can be liable for direct infringement only "when there is an agency relationship between the parties who perform the method steps or when one party is contractually obligated to the other to perform the steps." 629 F.3d, at 1320. Since neither of these conditions was met in the present case, the Federal Circuit panel held that Limelight could not be held liable for direct infringement. 2Ibid.
The Federal Circuit granted en banc review and reversed. The en banc court found it unnecessary to revisit its § 271(a) direct infringement case law. Instead, it concluded that the "evidence could support a judgment in [respondents'] favor on a theory of induced infringement" under § 271(b). 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (2012) ( per curiam ). This was true, the court explained, because § 271(b) liability arises when a defendant carries out some steps constituting a method patent and encourages others to carry out the remaining steps-even if no one would be liable as a direct infringer in such circumstances, because those who performed the remaining steps did not act as agents of, or under the direction or control of, the defendant. The Court of Appeals did not dispute that "there can be no indirect infringement without direct infringement," id., at 1308, but it explained that "[r]equiring proof that there has been direct infringement ... is not the same as requiring proof that a single party would be liable as a direct infringer," id., at 1308-1309 (emphasis deleted). Judge Newman and Judge Linn both dissented (with the latter joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, and O'Malley).
Limelight sought certiorari, which we granted. 571 U.S. ----, 187 L.Ed.2d 701, 134 S.Ct. 895 (2014).
II
A
Neither the Federal Circuit, see 692 F.3d, at 1308, nor respondents, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 44, dispute the proposition that liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement. This is for good reason, as our case law leaves no doubt that inducement liability may arise "if, but only if, [there is] ... direct infringement." Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 341, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961) (emphasis deleted).3
One might think that this simple truth is enough to dispose of this appeal. But the Federal Circuit reasoned that a defendant can be liable for inducing infringement under § 271(b) even if no one has committed direct infringement within the terms of § 271(a) (or any other provision of the patent laws), because direct infringement can exist independently of a violation of these statutory provisions. See 692 F.3d, at 1314.
The Federal Circuit's analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent. A method patent claims a number of steps; under this Court's case law, the patent is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out. See, e.g., Aro, supra, at 344, 81 S.Ct. 599 (a "patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim and ... no element, separately viewed, is within the grant"). This principle follows ineluctably from what a patent is: the conferral of rights in a particular claimed set of elements. "Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention," Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997), and a patentee's rights extend only to the claimed combination of elements, and no further.
The Federal Circuit held in Muniauction that a method's steps have not all been performed as claimed by the patent unless they are all attributable to the same defendant, either because the defendant actually performed those steps or because he directed or controlled others who performed them. See 532 F.3d, at 1329-1330. Assuming without deciding that the Federal Circuit's holding in Muniauction is correct, there has simply been no infringement of the method in which respondents have staked out an interest, because the performance of all the patent's steps is not attributable to any one person. And, as both the Federal Circuit and respondents admit, where there has been no direct infringement, there can be no inducement of infringement under § 271(b).
The Federal Circuit's contrary view would deprive § 271(b) of ascertainable standards. If a defendant can be held liable under § 271(b) for inducing conduct that does not constitute infringement, then how can a court assess when a patent holder's rights have been invaded? What if a defendant pays another to perform just one step of a 12-step process, and no one performs the other steps, but that one step can be viewed as the most important step in the process? In that case the defendant has not encouraged infringement, but no principled reason prevents him from being held liable for inducement under the Federal Circuit's reasoning, which permits inducement liability when fewer than all of a method's steps have been performed within the meaning of the patent. The decision below would require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law: one for liability for direct infringement, and one for liability for inducement.
Section 271(f)(1) reinforces our reading of § 271(b). That subsection imposes liability on a party who "supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention ... in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States " (emphasis added). As this provision illustrates, when Congress wishes to impose liability for inducing activity that does not itself constitute direct infringement, it knows precisely how to do so. The courts should not create liability for inducement of non-infringing conduct where Congress has elected not to extend that concept.
The Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the view that Limelight induced infringement on the theory that the steps that Limelight and its customers perform would infringe the '703 patent if all the steps were performed by the same person. But we have already rejected the notion that conduct which would be infringing in altered circumstances can form the basis for contributory infringement, and we see no reason to apply a different rule for inducement. In Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1700, 32 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972), a manufacturer produced components of a patented machine and then exported those components overseas to be assembled by its foreign customers.4 (The assembly by the foreign customers did not violate U.S. patent laws.) In both Deepsouth and this case, the conduct that the defendant induced or contributed to would have been infringing if committed in altered circumstances: in Deepsouth if the machines had been assembled in the United States, see id., at 526, 92 S.Ct. 1700, and in this case if performance of all of the claimed steps had been attributable to the same person. In Deepsouth, we rejected the possibility of contributory infringement because the machines had not been assembled in the United States, and direct infringement had consequently never occurred. See id., at 526-527, 92 S.Ct. 1700. Similarly, in this case, performance of all the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person, so direct infringement never occurred. Limelight cannot be liable for inducing infringement that never came to pass.
B
Respondents' arguments in support of the Federal Circuit's reading of the statute are unpersuasive. First, respondents note that tort law imposes liability on a defendant who harms another through a third party, even if that third party would not himself be liable, and respondents contend that, given the background tort principles against which the Patent Act of 1952 was enacted, it should not matter that no one is liable for direct infringement in this case. But the reason Limelight could not have induced infringement under § 271(b) is not that no third party is liable for direct infringement; the problem, instead, is that no direct infringement was committed. Muniauction (which, again, we assume to be correct) instructs that a method patent is not directly infringed-and the patentee's interest is thus not violated-unless a single actor can be held responsible for the performance of all steps of the patent. Because Limelight did not undertake all steps of the '703 patent and cannot otherwise be held responsible for all those steps, respondents' rights have not been violated. Unsurprisingly, respondents point us to no tort case in which liability was imposed because a defendant caused an innocent third party to undertake action that did not violate the plaintiff's legal rights.
In a related argument, respondents contend that, at tort, liability sometimes attaches where two or more defendants inflict injury, even if each defendant's conduct, standing alone, would not be actionable. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 52, p. 354 (5th ed. 1984) (multiple defendants who each add negligible impurities to stream liable if aggregate impurities cause harm). But the rationale for imposing liability in these circumstances is that the defendants collectively invaded the plaintiff's protected interests. See ibid. By contrast, under the Muniauction rule, respondents' interests in the '713 patent have not been invaded.
Second, respondents seek to analogize § 271(b) to the federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and they argue that two parties who divide all the necessary elements of a crime between them are both guilty under § 2. The analogy does not hold up. The aiding and abetting statute must be read "against its common-law background," Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 19, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980), and at common law two or more defendants, each of whom committed an element of a crime, were liable as principals. See, e.g., 1 J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law § 649, p. 392 (7th ed. 1882). While we have drawn on criminal law concepts in the past in interpreting § 271(b), see Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2068-2070, 179 L.Ed.2d 1167 (2011), we think it unlikely that Congress had this particular doctrine in mind when it enacted the Patent Act of 1952, given the doctrine's inconsistency with the Act's cornerstone principle that patentees have a right only to the set of elements claimed in their patents and nothing further.
Third, respondents contend that patent law principles established before the enactment of the Patent Act demonstrate that a defendant that performs some steps of a patent with the purpose of having its customers perform the remaining steps is liable for inducing infringement. But here, too, the nature of the rights created by the Patent Act defeats the notion that Congress could have intended to permit inducement liability where there is no underlying direct infringement. According to respondents, their understanding of the pre-1952 doctrine casts doubt on the Muniauction rule for direct infringement under § 271(a), on the ground that that rule has the indirect effect of preventing inducement liability where Congress would have wanted it. But the possibility that the Federal Circuit erred by too narrowly circumscribing the scope of § 271(a) is no reason for this Court to err a second time by misconstruing § 271(b) to impose liability for inducing infringement where no infringement has occurred.
Finally, respondents, like the Federal Circuit, criticize our interpretation of § 271(b) as permitting a would-be infringer to evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent's steps with another whom the defendant neither directs nor controls. We acknowledge this concern. Any such anomaly, however, would result from the Federal Circuit's interpretation of § 271(a) in Muniauction. A desire to avoid Muniauction 's natural consequences does not justify fundamentally altering the rules of inducement liability that the text and structure of the Patent Act clearly require-an alteration that would result in its own serious and problematic consequences, namely, creating for § 271(b) purposes some free-floating concept of "infringement" both untethered to the statutory text and difficult for the lower courts to apply consistently.
III
Respondents ask us to review the merits of the Federal Circuit's Muniauction rule for direct infringement under § 271(a). We decline to do so today.
In the first place, the question presented is clearly focused on § 271(b), not § 271(a). We granted certiorari on the following question: "Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under § 271(a)." Pet. for Cert. i. The question presupposes that Limelight has not committed direct infringement under § 271(a). And since the question on which we granted certiorari did not involve § 271(a), petitioner did not address that important issue in its opening brief. Our decision on the § 271(b) question necessitates a remand to the Federal Circuit, and on remand, the Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question if it so chooses.
IV
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
In its brief, Limelight disputes whether its customers actually "tag" within the meaning of the patent. Brief for Petitioner 7, n. 4. We assume arguendo that Limelight's customers do in fact "tag" within the patent's meaning.
The panel noted that Limelight's contracts instruct its customers to tag the components they wish to be stored on Limelight's CDN, but concluded that, because these contracts did not give Limelight control over its customers, the customers' tagging could not be attributed to Limelight. See 629 F.3d, at 1321.
Aro addressed contributory infringement under § 271(c), rather than inducement of infringement under § 271(b), but we see no basis to distinguish for these purposes between the two, which after all spring from common stock. See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2067-2068, 179 L.Ed.2d 1167 (2011).
.Section 271(f) now prohibits the exporter's conduct at issue in Deepsouth.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 requires us to decide whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), without more, “taints” subsequent admissions made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights. Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent’s signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by a prior remark made in response to questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings. We granted certiorari, 465 U. S. 1078 (1984), and we now reverse.
I
In December 1981, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Gross, in the town of Salem, Polk County, Ore., was burglarized. Missing were art objects and furnishings valued at $150,000. A witness to the burglary contacted the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, implicating respondent Michael El-stad, an 18-year-old neighbor and friend of the Grosses’ teenage son. Thereupon, Officers Burke and McAllister went to the home of respondent Elstad, with a warrant for his arrest. Elstad’s mother answered the door. She led the officers to her son’s room where he lay on his bed, clad in shorts and listening to his stereo. The officers asked him to get dressed and to accompany them into the living room. Officer McAllister asked respondent’s mother to step into the kitchen, where he explained that they had a warrant for her son’s arrest for the burglary of a neighbor’s residence. Officer Burke remained with Elstad in the living room. He later testified:
“I sat down with Mr. Elstad and I asked him if he was aware of why Detective McAllister and myself were there to talk with him. He stated no, he had no idea why we were there. I then asked him if he knew a person by the name of Gross, and he said yes, he did, and also added that he heard that there was a robbery at the Gross house. And at that point I told Mr. Elstad that I felt he was involved in that, and he looked at me and stated, ‘Yes, I was there.’” App. 19-20.
The officers then escorted Elstad to the back of the patrol car. As they were about to leave for the Polk County Sheriff’s office, Elstad’s father arrived home and came to the rear of the patrol car. The officers advised him that his son was a suspect in the burglary. Officer Burke testified that Mr. Elstad became quite agitated, opened the rear door of the car and admonished his son: “I told you that you were going to get into trouble. You wouldn’t listen to me. You never learn.” Id., at 21.
Elstad was transported to the Sheriff’s headquarters and approximately one hour later, Officers Burke and McAllister joined him in McAllister’s office. McAllister then advised respondent for the first time of his Miranda rights, reading from a standard card. Respondent indicated he understood his rights, and, having these rights in mind, wished to speak with the officers. Elstad gave a full statement, explaining that he had known that the Gross family was out of town and had been paid to lead several acquaintances to the Gross residence and show them how to gain entry through a defective sliding glass door. The statement was typed, reviewed by respondent, read back to him for correction, initialed and signed by Elstad and both officers. As an afterthought, Elstad added and initialed the sentence, “After leaving the house Robby & I went back to [the] van & Robby handed me a small bag of grass.” App. 42. Respondent concedes that the officers made no threats or promises either at his residence or at the Sheriff’s office.
Respondent was charged with first-degree burglary. He was represented at trial by retained counsel. Elstad waived his right to a jury, and his case was tried by a Circuit Court Judge. Respondent moved at once to suppress his oral statement and signed confession. He contended that the statement he made in response to questioning at his house “let the cat out of the bag,” citing United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532 (1947), and tainted the subsequent confession as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). The judge ruled that the statement, “I was there,” had to be excluded because the defendant had not been advised of his Miranda rights. The written confession taken after Elstad’s arrival at the Sheriff’s office, however, was admitted in evidence. The court found:
“[H]is written statement was given freely, voluntarily and knowingly by the defendant after he had waived his right to remain silent and have counsel present which waiver was evidenced by the card which the defendant had signed. [It] was not tainted in any way by the previous brief statement between the defendant and the Sheriff’s Deputies that had arrested him.” App. 45.
Elstad was found guilty of burglary in the first degree. He received a 5-year sentence and was ordered to pay $18,000 in restitution.
Following his conviction, respondent appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, relying on Wong Sun and Bayer. The State conceded that Elstad had been in custody when he made his statement, “I was there,” and accordingly agreed that this statement was inadmissible as having been given without the prescribed Miranda warnings. But the State maintained that any conceivable “taint” had been dissipated prior to the respondent’s written confession by McAllister’s careful administration of the requisite warnings. The Court of Appeals reversed respondent’s conviction, identifying the crucial constitutional inquiry as “whether there was a sufficient break in the stream of events between [the] inadmissible statement and the written confession to insulate the latter statement from the effect of what went before.” 61 Ore. App. 673, 676, 658 P. 2d 552, 554 (1983). The Oregon court concluded:
“Regardless of the absence of actual compulsion, the coercive impact of the unconstitutionally obtained statement remains, because in a defendant’s mind it has sealed his fate. It is this impact that must be dissipated in order to make a subsequent confession admissible. In determining whether it has been dissipated, lapse of time, and change of place from the original surroundings are the most important considerations.” Id., at 677, 658 P. 2d, at 554.
Because of the brief period separating the two incidents, the “cat was sufficiently out of the bag to exert a coercive impact on [respondent’s] later admissions.” Id., at 678, 658 P. 2d, at 555.
The State of Oregon petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review, and review was declined. This Court granted certiorari to consider the question whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the suppression of a confession, made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, solely because the police had obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the defendant.
II
The arguments advanced in favor of; suppression of respondent’s written confession rely heavily on metaphor. One metaphor, familiar from the Fourth Amendment context, would require that respondent’s confession, regardless of its integrity, voluntariness, and probative value, be suppressed as the “tainted fruit of the poisonous tree” of the Miranda, violation. A second metaphor questions whether a confession can be truly voluntary once the “cat is out of the bag.” Taken out of context, each of these metaphors can be misleading. They should not be used to obscure fundamental differences between the role of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the function of Miranda in guarding against the prosecutorial use of compelled statements as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The Oregon court assumed and respondent here contends that a failure to administer Miranda warnings necessarily breeds the same consequences as police infringement of a constitutional right, so that evidence uncovered following an unwarned statement must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” We believe this view misconstrues the nature of the protections afforded by Miranda warnings and therefore misreads the consequences of police failure to supply them.
A
Prior to Miranda, the admissibility of an accused’s in-custody statements was judged solely by whether they were “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940). If a suspect’s statements had been obtained by “techniques and methods offensive to due process,” Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S., at 515, or under circumstances in which the suspect clearly had no opportunity to exercise “a free and unconstrained will,” id., at 514, the statements would not be admitted. The Court in Miranda required suppression of many statements that would have been admissible under traditional due process analysis by presuming that statements made while in custody and without adequate warnings were protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, of course, is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 764 (1966) (defendant may be compelled to supply blood samples). Nor is it concerned with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion. See, e. g., California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125, and n. 3 (1983) (per curiam); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 303, and n. 10 (1980); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 495-496 (1977). Voluntary statements “remain a proper element in law enforcement.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 478. “Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable.... Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions.” United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977). As the Court noted last Term in New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984) (footnote omitted):
“The Miranda Court, however, presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and... that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights. The prophylactic Miranda warnings therefore are ‘not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.’ Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 492 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring). Requiring Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation provides ‘practical reinforcement’ for the Fifth Amendment right.”
Respondent’s contention that his confession was tainted by the earlier failure of the police to provide Miranda warnings and must be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree” assumes the existence of a constitutional violation. This figure of speech is drawn from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), in which the Court held that evidence and witnesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from evidence. The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. It is settled law that “a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.’” Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 690 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 602 (1975)).
But as we explained in Quarles and Tucker, a procedural Miranda violation differs in significant respects from violations of the Fourth Amendment, which have traditionally mandated a broad application of the “fruits” doctrine. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is to deter unreasonable searches, no matter how probative their fruits. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 216-217 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 600-602. “The exclusionary rule,... when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth.” Id., at 601. Where a Fourth Amendment violation “taints” the confession, a finding of voluntariness for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement in determining whether the confession may be admitted in evidence. Taylor v. Alabama, supra, at 690. Beyond this, the prosecution must show a sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation.
The Miranda exclusionary rule, however, serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself. It may be triggered even in the absence of a Fif th Amendment violation. The Fif th Amendment prohibits use by the prosecution in its case in chief only of compelled testimony. Failure to administer Miranda warnings creates a presumption of compulsion. Consequently, unwarned statements that are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment must nevertheless be excluded from evidence under Miranda. Thus, in the individual case, Miranda’s preventive medicine provides a remedy even to the defendant who has suffered no identifiable constitutional harm. See New York v. Quarles, supra, at 654; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974).
But the Miranda presumption, though irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution’s case in chief, does not require that the statements and their fruits be discarded as inherently tainted. Despite the fact that patently voluntary statements taken in violation of Miranda must be excluded from the prosecution’s case, the presumption of coercion does not bar their use for impeachment purposes on cross-examination. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). The Court in Harris rejected as an “extravagant extension of the Constitution,” the theory that a defendant who had confessed under circumstances that made the confession inadmissible, could thereby enjoy the freedom to “deny every fact disclosed or discovered as a ‘fruit’ of his confession, free from confrontation with his prior statements” and that the voluntariness of his confession would be totally irrelevant. Id., at 225, and n. 2. Where an unwarned statement is preserved for use in situations that fall outside the sweep of the Miranda presumption, “the primary criterion of admissibility [remains] the ‘old’ due process voluntariness test.” Schul-hofer, Confessions and the Court, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 865, 877 (1981).
In Michigan v. Tucker, supra, the Court was asked to extend the Wong Sun fruits doctrine to suppress the testimony of a witness for the prosecution whose identity was discovered as the result of a statement taken from the accused without benefit of full Miranda warnings. As in respondent’s case, the breach of the Miranda procedures in Tucker involved no actual compulsion. The Court concluded that the unwarned questioning “did not abridge respondent’s constitutional privilege... but departed only from the prophylactic standards later laid down by this Court in Miranda to safeguard that privilege.” 417 U. S., at 446. Since there was no actual infringement of the suspect’s constitutional rights, the case was not controlled by the doctrine expressed in Wong Sun that fruits of a constitutional violation must be suppressed. In deciding “how sweeping the judicially imposed consequences” of a failure to administer Miranda warnings should be, 417 U. S., at 445, the Tucker Court noted that neither the general goal of deterring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence would be served by suppression of the witness’ testimony. The unwarned confession must, of course, be suppressed, but the Court ruled that introduction of the third-party witness’ testimony did not violate Tucker’s Fifth Amendment rights.
We believe that this reasoning applies with equal force when the alleged “fruit” of a noncoercive Miranda violation is neither a witness nor an article of evidence but the accused’s own voluntary testimony. As in Tucker, the absence of any coercion or improper tactics undercuts the twin rationales— trustworthiness and deterrence — for a broader rule. Once warned, the suspect is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or not to make a statement to the authorities. The Court has often noted: “‘[A] living witness is not to be mechanically equated with the proffer of inanimate eviden-tiary objects illegally seized.... [T]he living "witness is an individual human personality whose attributes of will, perception, memory and volition interact to determine what testimony he wall give.”’ United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 277 (1978) (emphasis added) (quoting from Smith v. United States, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 3-4, 324 F. 2d 879, 881-882 (1963) (Burger, J.) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 954 (1964)).
Because Miranda warnings may inhibit persons from giving information, this Court has determined that they need be administered only after the person is taken into “custody” or his freedom has otherwise been significantly restrained. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 478. Unfortunately, the task of defining “custody” is a slippery one, and “policemen investigating serious crimes [cannot realistically be expected to] make no errors whatsoever.” Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 446. If errors are made by law enforcement officers in administering the prophylactic Miranda procedures, they should not breed the same irremediable consequences as police infringement of the Fifth Amendment itself. It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will, so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period. Though Miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.
B
The Oregon court, however, believed that the unwarned remark compromised the voluntariness of respondent’s later confession. It was the court’s view that the prior answer and not the unwarned questioning impaired respondent’s ability to give a valid waiver and that only lapse of time and change of place could dissipate what it termed the “coercive impact” of the inadmissible statement. When a prior statement is actually coerced, the time that passes between confessions, the change in place of interrogations, and the change in identity of the interrogators all bear on whether that coercion has carried over into the second confession. See Westover v. United States, decided together with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 494; Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967). The failure of police to administer Miranda warnings does not mean that the statements received have actually been coerced, but only that courts will presume the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination has not been intelligently exercised. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S., at 654, and n. 5; Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 457. Of the courts that have considered whether a properly warned confession must be suppressed because it was preceded by an unwarned but clearly voluntary admission, the majority have explicitly or implicitly recognized that Westover's requirement of a break in the stream of events is inapposite. In these circumstances, a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings serves to cure the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible. The warning conveys the relevant information and thereafter the suspect’s choice whether to exercise his privilege to remain silent should ordinarily be viewed as an “act of free will.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 486.
The Oregon court nevertheless identified a subtle form of lingering compulsion, the psychological impact of the suspect’s conviction that he has let the cat out of the bag and, in so doing, has sealed his own fate. But endowing the psychological effects of voluntary unwarned admissions with constitutional implications would, practically speaking, disable the police from obtaining the suspect’s informed cooperation even when the official coercion proscribed by the Fifth Amendment played no part in either his warned or unwarned confessions. As the Court remarked in Bayer:
“[AJfter an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. He can never get the cat back in the bag. The secret is out for good. In such a sense, a later confession may always be looked upon as fruit of the first. But this Court has never gone so far as to hold that making a confession under circumstances which preclude its use, perpetually disables the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed.” 331 U. S., at 540-541.
Even in such extreme cases as Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596 (1944), in which police forced a full confession from the accused through unconscionable methods of interrogation, the Court has assumed that the coercive effect of the confession could, with time, be dissipated. See also Westover v. United States, supra, at 496.
This Court has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion or compromises the voluntariness of a subsequent informed waiver. The Oregon court, by adopting this expansive view of Fifth Amendment compulsion, effectively immunizes a suspect who responds to pre-Miranda warning questions from the consequences of his subsequent informed waiver of the privilege of remaining silent. See 61 Ore. App., at 679, 658 P. 2d, at 555 (Gillette, P. J., concurring). This immunity comes at a high cost to legitimate law enforcement activity, while adding little desirable protection to. the individual’s interest in not being compelled to testify against himself. Cf. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 107-111 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result). When neither the initial nor the subsequent admission is coerced, little, justification exists for permitting the highly probative evidence of a voluntary confession to be irretrievably lost to the factfinder.
There is a vast difference between the direct consequences flowing from coercion of a confession by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break the suspect’s will and the uncertain consequences of disclosure of a “guilty secret” freely given in response to an unwarned but non-coercive question, as in this case. Justice Brennan’s contention that it is impossible to perceive any causal distinction between this case and one involving a confession that is coerced by torture is wholly unpersuasive. Certainly, in respondent’s case, the causal connection between any psychological disadvantage created by his admission and his ultimate decision to cooperate is speculative and attenuated at
Though belated, the reading of respondent’s rights was undeniably complete. McAllister testified that he read the Miranda warnings aloud from a printed card and recorded best. It is difficult to tell with certainty what motivates a suspect to speak. A suspect’s confession may be traced to factors as disparate as “a prearrest event such as a visit with a minister,” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S., at 220 (Stevens, J., concurring), or an intervening event such as the exchange of words respondent had with his father. We must conclude that, absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion. A subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement. In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.
I — I Elstad’s responses. There is no question that respondent knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent before he described his participation in the burglary. It is also beyond dispute that respondent’s earlier remark was voluntary, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Neither the environment nor the manner of either “interrogation” was coercive. The initial conversation took place at midday, in the living room area of respondent’s own home, with his mother in the kitchen area, a few steps away. Although in retrospect the officers testified that respondent was then in custody, at the time he made his statement he had not been informed that he was under arrest. The arresting officers’ testimony indicates that the brief stop in the living room before proceeding to the station house was not to interrogate the suspect but to notify his mother of the reason for his arrest. App. 9-10.
The State has conceded the issue of custody and thus we must assume that Burke breached Miranda procedures in failing to administer Miranda warnings before initiating the discussion in the living room. This breach may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as “custodial interrogation” or it may simply have reflected Burke’s reluctance to initiate an alarming police procedure before McAllister had spoken with respondent’s mother. Whatever the reason for Burke’s oversight, the incident had none of the earmarks of coercion. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 109-110 (1980). Nor did the officers exploit the unwarned admission to pressure respondent into waiving his right to remain silent.
Respondent, however, has argued that he was unable to give a fully informed waiver of his rights because he was unaware that his prior statement could not be used against him. Respondent suggests that Officer McAllister, to cure this deficiency, should have added an additional warning to those given him at the Sheriff’s office. Such a requirement is neither practicable nor constitutionally necessary. In many cases, a breach of Miranda procedures may not be identified as such until long after full Miranda warnings are administered and a valid confession obtained. See, e. g., United States v. Bowler, 561 F. 2d 1323, 1324-1325 (CA9 1977) (certain statements ruled inadmissible by trial court); United States v. Toral, 536 F. 2d 893, 896 (CA9 1976); United States v. Knight, 395 F. 2d 971, 974-975 (CA2 1968) (custody unclear). The standard Miranda warnings explicitly inform the suspect of his right to consult a lawyer before speaking. Police officers are ill-equipped to pinch-hit for counsel, construing the murky and difficult questions of when “custody” begins or whether a given unwarned statement will ultimately be held admissible. See Tanner v. Vincent, 541 F. 2d 932, 936 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1065 (1977).
This Court has never embraced the theory that a defendant’s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness. See California v. Beheler, 463 U. S., at 1125-1126, n. 3; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 769 (1970). If the prosecution has actually violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by introducing an inadmissible confession at trial, compelling the defendant to testify in rebuttal, the rule announced in Harrison v. United States, 392 U. S. 219 (1968), precludes use of that testimony on retrial. “Having ‘released the spring’ by using the petitioner’s unlawfully obtained confessions against him, the Government must show that its illegal action did not induce his testimony.” Id., at 224-225. But the Court has refused to find that a defendant who confesses, after being falsely told that his codefendant has turned State’s evidence, does so involuntarily. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739 (1969). The Court has also rejected the argument that a defendant’s ignorance that a prior coerced confession could not be admitted in evidence compromised the voluntariness of his guilty plea. McMann v. Richardson, supra, at 769. Likewise, in California v. Beheler, supra, the Court declined to accept defendant’s contention that, because he was unaware of the potential adverse consequences of statements he made to the police, his participation in the interview was involuntary. Thus we have not held that the sine qua non for a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to remain silent is a full and complete appreciation of all of the consequences flowing from the nature and the quality of the evidence in the case.
J — I <1
When police ask questions of a suspect in custody without administering the required warnings, Miranda dictates that the answers received be presumed compelled and that they be excluded from evidence at trial in the State’s case in chief. The Court has carefully adhered to this principle, permitting a narrow exception only where pressing public safety concerns demanded. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S., at 655-656. The Court today in no way retreats from the bright-line rule of Miranda. We do not imply that good faith excuses, a failure to administer Miranda warnings; nor do we condone inherently coercive police tactics or methods offensive to due process that render the initial admission involuntary and undermine the suspect’s will to invoke his rights once they are read to him. A handful of courts have, however, applied our precedents relating to confessions obtained under coercive circumstances to situations involving wholly voluntary admissions, requiring a passage of time or break in events before a second, fully warned statement can be deemed voluntary. Far from establishing a rigid rule, we direct courts to avoid one; there is no warrant for presuming coercive effect where the suspect’s initial inculpatory statement, though technically in violation of Miranda, was voluntary. The relevant inquiry is whether, in fact, the second statement was also voluntarily made. As in any such inquiry, the finder of fact must examine the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect in evaluating the voluntariness of his statements. The fact that a suspect chooses to speak after being informed of his rights is, of course, highly probative. We find that the dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied in the circumstances of this case by barring use of the unwarned statement in the case in chief. No further purpose is served by imputing “taint” to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver. We hold today that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Oregon is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens expresses puzzlement at our statement that a simple failure to administer Miranda warnings is not in itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Yet the Court so held in New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1983), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974). The Miranda Court itself recognized this point when it disclaimed any intent to create a “constitutional straitjacket” and invited Congress and the States to suggest “potential alternatives for protecting the privilege.” 384 U. S., at 467. A Miranda violation does not constitute coercion but rather affords a bright-line, legal presumption of coercion, requiring suppression of all unwarned statements. It has never been remotely suggested that any statement taken from Mr. Elstad without benefit of Miranda warnings would be admissible.
See, e. g., United States v. Bowler, 561 F. 2d 1323, 1326 (CA9 1977); Tanner v. Vincent, 541 F. 2d 932 (CA2 1976); United States v. Toral, 536 F. 2d 893, 896-897 (CA9 1976); United States v. Knight, 395 F. 2d 971, 975 (CA21968); State v. Montes, 136 Ariz. 491,496-497, 667 P. 2d 191,196-197 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 166-167, 434 A. 2d 356, 365-366, cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1064 (1980); State v. Holt, 354 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. App.), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1978); Fried v. State, 42 Md. App. 643, 644-648, 402 A. 2d 101, 102-104 (1979); Commonwealth v. White, 353 Mass. 409, 232 N. E. 2d 335 (1967); State v. Sickels, 275 N. W. 2d 809, 813-814 (Minn. 1979); State v. Dakota, 300 Minn. 12, 217 N. W. 2d 748 (1974); State v. Raymond, 305 Minn. 160,170, 232 N. W. 2d 879, 886 (1975) (noting common thread in line of cases holding prejudicial coercion not present “just because [defendant] had made an earlier confession which ‘let the cat out of the bag’ ”); Commonwealth v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571, 580-582, 459 A. 2d 311, 316 (1983) (“After being given his Miranda warnings it is clear [defendant] maintained his intention to provide his questioners with his version of the incident”). But see In re Pablo A. C., 129 Cal. App. 3d 984,181 Cal. Rptr. 468 (1982); State v. Hibdon, 57 Ore. App. 509, 645 P. 2d 580 (1982); State v. Lavaris, 99 Wash. 2d 851, 857-860, 664 P. 2d 1234, 1237-1239 (1983).
Most of the 50 cases cited by Justice Brennan in his discussion of consecutive confessions concern an initial unwarned statement obtained through overtly or inherently coercive methods which raise serious Fifth Amendment and due process concerns. Without describing each case cited, the following are representative of the situations Justice Brennan views as analogous to this case: e. g., Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U. S.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
These three cases arise from a recurring conflict — the conflict between asserted state power to suppress the distribution of books and .magazines through criminal or civil proceedings, and the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
I.
In No. 3, Redrup v. New York, the petitioner was a clerk at. a New York City newsstand. A plainclothes patrolman approached the newsstand, saw two paperback books on a -rack — Lust Pool, and Shame Agent — and asked for them by name. . The petitioner handed him the books and collected the price of $1.65. As a result of this transaction, the petitioner was charged in the New York City Criminal Court with violating a state criminal law. He was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
In No. 16, Austin v. Kentucky, the petitioner owned and operated á retail bookstore and newsstand in Paducah, Kentucky. A woman resident of Paducah purchased two magazines from a salesgirl in the. petitioner’s store,.after asking for them by name — High Heels, and Spree. As a result of this transaction the petitioner stands convicted in the Kentucky courts for violating a criminal law of that State.
In No. 50, Gent v. Arkansas, the prosecuting attorney of the Eleventh Judicial District of Arkansas brought a civil proceeding under a state statute, to have certain issues of various magazines declared obscene, to enjoin their distribution and-to obtain a judgment ordering their surrender and destruction. The magazines proceeded against were: Gent, Swank, Bachelor, Modern Man, Cavalcade, Gentleman, Ace, and Sir. The County Chancery Court entered the requested judgment after a trial with an advisory jury, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, with minor modifications.
In none of the cases was there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific and limited state concern for juveniles. See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158; cf. Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380. In none was there any suggestion of an assault upon individual privacy by publication in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622; Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451. And in none was there evidence of the sort of “pandering” which the Court found significant in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463.
II.
The Court originally limited review in these cases to certain particularized questions, upon the hypothesis that the material involved in each case was of a character described as “obscene in the constitutional sense” in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418. But we have concluded that the hypothesis upon which the Court originally proceeded was invalid, and accordingly that the cases can and should be decided upon a common and controlling fundamental constitutional basis, without prejudice to the questions upon which review was originally granted. We have concluded, in short, that the distribution of the publications in each of these cases is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from governmental suppression, whether criminal or civil, in personam or in rem.
Two members of the Court have consistently adhered to the view that a State is utterly without power to suppress, control, or punish the distribution of any writings or pictures upon the ground of their “obscenity.” A third has held to the opinion that a State’s power in this area is narrowly limited to a distinct and clearly identifiable class of material. Others have subscribed to a not dissimilar standard, holding that a State may not constitutionally inhibit the distribution of literary material as obscene unless “(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in’sex; (b).the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value/’ emphasizing that the “three elements must coalesce,” and that no such material can “be proscribed unless it i§ found to be utterly without redeeming social value.” Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418-419. Another Justice has not viewed the “social value” element as an independent factor in the judgment of obscenity. Id., at 460-462 (dissenting opinion).
Whichever of these constitutional views is brought to bear Upon the cases before us, it is clear that the judgments cannot stand. Accordingly, the judgment in each casé is reversed.
T, . , , It is so ordered.
N. Y. Pen. Law § 1141 (1).
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.100. The Kentucky Court of Appeals denied plenary review of the petitioner’s conviction, the Chief Justice dissenting. 386 S. W. 2d 270.
Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2713 to 41-2728.
239 Ark. 474, 393 S. W. 2d 219.
Redrup v. New York, 384 U. S. 916; Austin v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 916; Gent v. Arkansas, 384 U. S. 937.
In each cf the cases before us, the contention that the publications involved were basically protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was timely but unsuccessfully asserted in the state proceedings. In each of these cases, this contention was properly and explicitly presented for review here.
See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 476, 482 (dissenting opinions); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 196 (concurring opinion); Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (dissenting opinion).
See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 499, and n. 3 (dissenting opinion). See also Magrath, The Obscenity Cases: Grapes of Roth, 1966 Supreme Court Review 7, 69-77.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice White, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun joined.
This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV, § 1, of the United States Constitution bars the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of substantive Minnesota law to govern the effect of a provision in an insurance policy issued to respondent’s decedent. 444 U. S. 1070 (1980).
I
Respondent’s late husband, Ralph Hague, died of injuries suffered when a motorcycle on which he was a passenger was struck from behind by an automobile. The accident occurred in Pierce County, Wis., which is immediately across the Minnesota border from Red Wing, Minn. The operators of both vehicles were Wisconsin residents, as was the decedent, who, at the time of the accident, resided with respondent in Hager City, Wis., which is one and one-half miles from Red Wing. Mr. Hague had been employed in Red Wing for the 15 years immediately preceding his death and had commuted daily from Wisconsin to his place of employment.
Neither the operator of the motorcycle nor the operator of the automobile carried valid insurance. However, the decedent held a policy issued by petitioner Allstate Insurance Co. covering three automobiles owned by him and containing an uninsured motorist clause insuring him against loss incurred from accidents with uninsured motorists. The uninsured motorist coverage was limited to $15,000 for each automobile.
After the accident, but prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, respondent moved to Red Wing. Subsequently, she married a Minnesota resident and established residence with her new husband in Savage, Minn. At approximately the same time, a Minnesota Registrar of Probate appointed respondent personal representative of her deceased husband’s estate. Following her appointment, she brought this action in Minnesota District Court seeking a declaration under Minnesota law that the $15,000 uninsured motorist coverage on each of her late husband’s three automobiles could be “stacked” to provide total coverage of $45,000. Petitioner defended on the ground that whether the three uninsured motorist coverages could be stacked should be determined by Wisconsin law, since the insurance policy was delivered in Wisconsin, the accident occurred in Wisconsin, and all persons involved were Wisconsin residents at the time of the accident.
The Minnesota District Court disagreed. Interpreting Wisconsin law to disallow stacking, the court concluded that Minnesota’s choice-of-law rules required the application of Minnesota law permitting stacking. The court refused to apply Wisconsin law as “inimical to the public policy of Minnesota” and granted summary judgment for respondent.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court. The court, also interpreting Wisconsin law to prohibit stacking, applied Minnesota law after analyzing the relevant Minnesota contacts and interests within the analytical framework developed by Professor Leflar. See Leflar, Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law, 41 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 267 (1966). The state court, therefore, examined the conflict-of-laws issue in terms of (1) predictability of result, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. Although stating that the Minnesota contacts might not be, “in themselves, sufficient to mandate application of [Minnesota] law,” 289 N. W. 2d 43, 49 (1978), under the first four factors, the court concluded that the fifth factor — application of the better rule of law — favored selection of Minnesota law. The court emphasized that a majority of States allow stacking and that legal decisions allowing stacking “are fairly recent and well considered in light of current uses of automobiles.” Ibid. In addition, the court found the Minnesota rule superior to Wisconsin’s “because it requires the cost of accidents with uninsured motorists to be spread more broadly through insurance premiums than does the Wisconsin rule.” Ibid. Finally, after rehearing en banc, the court buttressed its initial opinion by indicating “that contracts of insurance on motor vehicles are in a class by themselves” since an insurance company “knows the automobile is a movable item which will be driven from state to state.” 289 N. W. 2d, at 50 (1979). From this premise the court concluded that application of Minnesota law was “not so arbitrary and unreasonable as to violate due process.” Ibid.
II
It is not for this Court to say whether the choice-of-law analysis suggested by Professor Leflar is to be preferred or whether we would make the same choice-of-law decision if sitting as the Minnesota Supreme Court. Our sole function is to determine whether the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of its own substantive law in this case exceeded federal constitutional limitations. Implicit in this inquiry is the recognition, long accepted by this Court, that a set of facts giving rise to a lawsuit, or a particular issue within a lawsuit, may justify, in constitutional terms, application of the law of more than one jurisdiction. See, e. g., Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S. 66, 72-73 (1954); n. 11, infra. See generally Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., 377 U. S. 179, 181-182 (1964) (hereinafter cited as Clay II). As a result, the forum State may have to select one law from among the laws of several jurisdictions having some contact with the controversy.
In deciding constitutional choice-of-law questions, whether under the Due Process Clause or the Full Faith and Credit Clause, this Court has traditionally examined the contacts of the State, whose law was applied, with the parties and with the occurrence or transaction giving rise to the litigation. See Clay II, supra, at 183. In order to ensure that the choice of law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair, see Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S. 532, 542 (1935), the Court has invalidated the choice of law of a State which has had no significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, with the parties and the occurrence or transaction.
Two instructive examples of such invalidation are Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U. S. 397 (1930), and John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U. S. 178 (1936). In both cases, the selection of forum law rested exclusively on the presence of one nonsignificant forum contact.
Home Ins. Co. v. Dick involved interpretation of an insurance policy which had been issued in Mexico, by a Mexican insurer, to a Mexican citizen, covering a Mexican risk. The policy was subsequent^ assigned to Mr. Dick, who was domiciled in Mexico and “physically present and acting in Mexico,” 281 U. S., at 408, although he remained a nominal, permanent resident of Texas. The policy restricted coverage to losses occurring in certain Mexican waters and, indeed, the loss occurred in those waters. Dick brought suit in Texas against a New York reinsurer. Neither the Mexican insurer nor the New York reinsurer had any connection to Texas. The Court held that application of Texas law to void the insurance contract's limitation-of-actions clause violated due process.
The relationship of the forum State to the parties and the transaction was similarly attenuated in John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Yates. There, the insurer, a Massachusetts corporation, issued a contract of insurance on the life of a New York resident. The contract was applied for, issued, and delivered in New York where the insured and his spouse resided. After the insured died in New York, his spouse moved to Georgia and brought suit on the policy in Georgia. Under Georgia law, the jury was permitted to take into account oral modifications when deciding whether an insurance policy application contained material misrepresentations. Under New York law, however, such misrepresentations were to be evaluated solely on the basis of the written application. The Georgia court applied Georgia law. This Court reversed, finding application of Georgia law to be unconstitutional.
Dick and Yates stand for the proposition that if a State has only an insignificant contact with the parties and the occurrence or transaction, application of its law is unconstitutional. Dick concluded that nominal residence — standing alone — was inadequate; Yates held that a postoccurrence change of residence to the forum State — standing alone — was insufficient to justify application of forum law. Although instructive as extreme examples of selection of forum law, neither Dick nor Yates governs this case. For in contrast to those decisions, here the Minnesota contacts with the parties and the occurrence are obviously significant. Thus, this case is like Alaska Packers, Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S. 469 (1947), and Clay II — cases where this Court sustained choice-of-law decisions based on the contacts of the State, whose law was applied, with the parties and occurrence.
In Alaska Packers, the Court upheld California’s application of its Workmen’s Compensation Act, where the most significant contact of the worker with California was his execution of an employment contract in California. The worker, a nonresident alien from Mexico, was hired in California for seasonal work in a salmon canning factory in Alaska. As part of the employment contract, the employer, who was doing business in California, agreed to transport the worker to Alaska and to return him to California when the work was completed. Even though the employee contracted to be bound by the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Law and was injured in Alaska, he sought an award under the California Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Court held that the choice of California law was not “so arbitrary or unreasonable as to amount to a denial of due process,” 294 U. S., at 542, because “[wjithout a remedy in California, [he] would be remediless,” ibid., and because of California’s interest that the worker not become a public charge, ibid.
In Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra, a District of Columbia resident, employed by a District of Columbia employer and assigned by the employer for the three years prior to his death to work in Virginia, was killed in an automobile crash in Virginia in the course of his daily commute home from work. The Court found the District’s contacts with the parties and the occurrence sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements, based on the employee’s residence in the District, his commute between home and the Virginia workplace, and his status as an employee of a company “engaged in electrical construction work in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas.” Id., at 471.
Similarly, Clay II upheld the constitutionality of the application of forum law. There, a policy of insurance had issued in Illinois to an Illinois resident. Subsequently the insured moved to Florida and suffered a property loss in Florida. Relying explicitly on the nationwide coverage of the policy and the presence of the insurance company in Florida and implicitly on the plaintiff’s Florida residence and the occurrence of the property loss in Florida, the Court sustained the Florida court’s choice of Florida law.
The lesson from Dick and Yates, which found insufficient forum contacts to apply forum law, and from Alaska Packers, Cardillo, and Clay II, which found adequate contacts to sustain the choice of forum law, is that for a State’s substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair. Application of this principle to the facts of this case persuades us that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of its own law did not offend the Federal Constitution.
Ill
Minnesota has three contacts with the parties and the occurrence giving rise to the litigation. In the aggregate, these contacts permit selection by the Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota law allowing the stacking of Mr. Hague’s uninsured motorist coverages.
First, and for our purposes a very important contact, Mr. Hague was a member of Minnesota’s work force, having been employed by a Red Wing, Minn., enterprise for the 15 years preceding his death. While employment status may implicate a state interest less substantial than does resident status, that interest is nevertheless important. The State of employment has police power responsibilities towards the nonresident employee that are analogous, if somewhat less profound, than towards residents. Thus, such employees use state services and amenities and may call upon state facilities in appropriate circumstances.
In addition, Mr. Hague commuted to work in Minnesota, a contact which was important in Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S., at 475-476 (daily commute between residence in District of Columbia and workplace in Virginia), and was presumably covered by his uninsured motorist coverage during the commute. The State’s interest in its commuting nonresident employees reflects a state concern for the safety and well-being of its work force and the concomitant effect on Minnesota employers.
That Mr. Hague was not killed while commuting to work or while in Minnesota does not dictate a different result. To hold that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of Minnesota law violated the Constitution for that reason would require too narrow a view of Minnesota’s relationship with the parties and the occurrence giving rise to the litigation. An automobile accident need not occur within a particular jurisdiction for that jurisdiction to be connected to the occurrence. Similarly, the occurrence of a crash fatal to a Minnesota employee in another State is a Minnesota contact. If Mr. Hague had only been injured and missed work for a few weeks, the effect on the Minnesota employer would have been palpable and Minnesota’s interest in having its employee made whole would be evident. Mr. Hague’s death affects Minnesota’s interest still more acutely, even though Mr. Hague will not return to the Minnesota work force. Minnesota’s work force is surely affected by the level of protection the State extends to it, either directly or indirectly. Vindication of the rights of the estate of a Minnesota employee, therefore, is an important state concern.
Mr. Hague’s residence in Wisconsin does not — as Allstate seems to argue — constitutionally mandate application of Wisconsin law to the exclusion of forum law. If, in the instant case, the accident had occurred in Minnesota between Mr. Hague and an uninsured Minnesota motorist, if the insurance contract had been executed in Minnesota covering a Minnesota registered company automobile which Mr. Hague was permitted to drive, and if a Wisconsin court sought to apply Wisconsin law, certainly Mr. Hague’s residence in Wisconsin, his commute between Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the insurer’s presence in Wisconsin should be adequate to apply Wisconsin’s law. See generally Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., supra; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S. 532 (1935); Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U. S., at 408, n. 5. Employment status is not a sufficiently less important status than residence, see generally Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408 (1955); Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, supra, when combined with Mr. Hague’s daily commute across state lines and the other Minnesota contacts present, to prohibit the choice-of-law result in this case on constitutional grounds.
Second, Allstate was at all times present and doing business in Minnesota. By virtue of its presence, Allstate can hardly claim unfamiliarity with the laws of the host jurisdiction and surprise that the state courts might apply forum law to litigation in which the company is involved. “Particularly since the company was licensed to do business in [the forum], it must have known it might be sued there, and that [the forum] courts would feel bound by [forum] law.” Clay v. Sun Insurance Office Ltd., 363 U. S. 207, 221 (1960) (Black, J., dissenting). Moreover, Allstate’s presence in Minnesota gave Minnesota an interest in regulating the company’s insurance obligations insofar as they affected both a Minnesota resident and court-appointed representative — respondent — and a longstanding member of Minnesota’s work force Mr. Hague. See Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, 316 (1943).
Third, respondent became a Minnesota resident prior to institution of this litigation. The stipulated facts reveal that she first settled in Red Wing, Minn., the town in which her late husband had worked. She subsequently moved to Savage, Minn., after marrying a Minnesota resident who operated an automobile service station in Bloomington, Minn. Her move to Savage occurred “almost concurrently,” 289 N. W. 2d, at 45, with the initiation of the.instant case. There is no suggestion that Mrs. Hague moved to Minnesota in anticipation of this litigation or for the purpose of finding a legal climate especially hospitable to her claim. The stipulated facts, sparse as they are, negate any such inference.
While John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U. S. 178 (1936), held that a postoccurrence change of residence to the forum State was insufficient in and of itself to confer power on the forum State to choose its law, that case did not hold that such a change of residence was irrelevant. Here, of course, respondent’s bona fide residence in Minnesota was not the sole contact Minnesota had with this litigation. And in connection with her residence in Minnesota, respondent was appointed personal representative of Mr. Hague’s estate by the Registrar of Probate for the County of Goodhue, Minn. Respondent’s residence and subsequent appointment in Minnesota as personal representative of her late husband’s estate constitute a Minnesota contact which gives Minnesota an interest in respondent’s recovery, an interest which the court below identified as full compensation for “resident accident victims” to keep them “off welfare rolls” and able “to meet financial obligations.” 289 N. W. 2d, at 49.
In sum, Minnesota had a significant aggregation of contacts with the parties and the occurrence, creating state interests, such that application of its law was neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, the choice of Minnesota law by the Minnesota Supreme Court did not violate the Due Process Clause or the Pull Faith and Credit Clause.
Affirmed.
Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State “shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, § 1, provides:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Ralph Hague paid a separate premium for each automobile including an additional separate premium for each uninsured motorist coverage.
App. C to Pet. for Cert. A-29.
289 N. W. 2d 43 (1978).
Respondent has suggested that this case presents a “false conflict.” The court below rejected this contention and applied Minnesota law. Even though the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of Minnesota law followed a discussion of whether this case presents a false conflict, the fact is that the court chose to apply Minnesota law. Thus, the only question before this Court is whether that choice was constitutional.
Minnesota had previously adopted the conceptual model developed by Professor Leflar in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 203 N. W. 2d 408 (1973).
The court apparently was referring to sufliciency as a matter of choice of law and not as a matter of constitutional limitation on its choice-of-law decision.
289 N.W. 2d, at 50 (1979).
This Court has taken a similar approach in deciding choice-of-law eases under both the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In each instance, the Court has examined the relevant contacts and resulting interests of the State whose law was applied. See, e. g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, 424 (1979). Although at one time the Court required a more exacting standard under the Full Faith and Credit Clause than under the Due Process Clause for evaluating the constitutionality of choice-of-law decisions, see Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S. 532, 549-550 (1935) (interest of State whose law was applied was no less than interest of State whose law was rejected), the Court has since abandoned the weighing-of-interests requirement. Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408 (1955); see Nevada v. Hall, supra; Weintraub, Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Limitations on a State’s Choice of Law, 44 Iowa L. Rev. 449 (1959). Different considerations are of course at issue when full faith and credit is to be accorded to acts, records, and proceedings outside the choice-of-law area, such as in the case of sister state-court judgments.
Prior to the advent of interest analysis in the state courts as the “dominant mode of analysis in modem choice of law theory,” Silberman, Shaffer v. Heitner: The End of an Era, 53 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 33, 80, n. 259 (1978); cf. Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 11-13, and nn. 26-27 (1962) (discussing trend toward interest analysis in state courts), the prevailing choice-of-law methodology focused on the jurisdiction where a particular event occurred. See, e. g., Restatement of Conflict of Laws (1934). For example, in cases characterized as contract cases, the law of the place of contracting controlled the determination of such issues as capacity, fraud, consideration, duty, performance, and the like. Id., § 332; see Beale, What Law Governs the Validity of a Contract, 23 Harv. L. Rev. 260, 270-271 (1910). In the tort context, the law of the place of the wrong usually governed traditional choice-of-law analysis. Restatement, supra, § 378; see Richards v. United States, supra, at 11-12.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 292 U. S. 143 (1934), can, perhaps, best be explained as an example of that period. In that case, the Court struck down application by the Mississippi courts of Mississippi law which voided the limitations provision in a fidelity bond written in Tennessee between a Connecticut insurer and Delta, both of which were doing business in Tennessee and Mississippi. By its terms, the bond covered misapplication of funds “by any employee ‘in any position, anywhere Id., at 145. After Delta discovered defalcations by one of its Mississippi-based employees, a lawsuit was commenced in Mississippi.
That case, however, has scant relevance for today. It implied a choice-of-law analysis which, for all intents and purposes, gave an isolated event— the writing of the bond in Tennessee — controlling constitutional significance, even though there might have been contacts with another State (there Mississippi) which would make application of its law neither unfair nor unexpected. See Martin, Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 872, 874, and n. 11 (1980).
Dick sought to obtain quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by garnishing the reinsurance obligation of the New York reinsurer. The reinsurer had never transacted business in Texas, but it “was cited by publication, in accordance with a Texas statute; attorneys were appointed for it by the trial court; and they filed on its behalf an answer which denied liability.” 281 U. S., at 402. There would be no jurisdiction in the Texas courts to entertain such a lawsuit today. See Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U. S. 320 (1980); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977); Silberman, supra, at 62-65.
The Court noted that the result might have been different if there had been some connection to Texas upon “which the State could properly lay hold as the basis of the regulations there imposed.” 281 U. S., at 408, n. 5; see Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S. 66, 71 (1954).
See generally, Weintraub, supra n. 10, at 455-457.
The Court found no violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, since California’s interest was considered to be no less than Alaska’s, 294 U. S., at 547-548, 549-550, even though the injury occurred in Alaska while the employee was performing his contract obligations there. While Alaska Packers balanced the interests of California and Alaska to determine the full faith and credit issue, such balancing is no longer required. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 424; n. 10, supra.
The precise question raised was whether the Virginia Compensation Commission “had sole jurisdiction over the claim.” 330 U. S., at 472-473. In finding that application of the District’s law did not violate either due process or full faith and credit requirements, the Court in effect treated the question as a constitutional choice-of-law issue.
The Court has upheld choice-of-law decisions challenged on constitutional grounds in numerous other decisions. See Nevada v. Hall, supra (upholding California’s application of California law to automobile accident in California between two California residents and a Nevada official driving car owned by State of Nevada while engaged in official business in California); Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408 (1955) (upholding Arkansas’ choice of Arkansas law where Missouri employee executed employment contract with Missouri employer and was injured on job in Arkansas but was removed immediately to a Missouri hospital); Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S. 66 (1954) (allowing application of Louisiana direct action statute by Louisiana resident against insurer even though policy was written and delivered in another State, where plaintiff was injured in Louisiana); Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U. S. 493 (1939) (holding Full Faith and Credit Clause not violated where California applied own Workmen’s Compensation Act in case of injury suffered by Massachusetts employee temporarily in California in course of employment). Thus, Nevada v. Hall, supra, and Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., supra, upheld application of forum law where the relevant contacts consisted of plaintiff’s residence and the place of the injury. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, supra, and Carroll v. Lanza, supra, relied on the place of the injury arising from the respective employee’s temporary presence in the forum State in connection with Iris employment.
The policy issued to Mr. Hague provided that Allstate would pay to the insured, or his legal representative, damages “sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of [an] uninsured automobile. . . .” No suggestion has been made that Mr. Hague’s uninsured motorist protection is unavailable because he was not killed while driving one of his insured automobiles.
Numerous cases have applied the law of a jurisdiction other than the situs of the injury where there existed some other link between that jurisdiction and the occurrence. See, e. g., Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S. 469 (1947); Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S. 532 (1935); Rosenthal v. Warren, 475 F. 2d 438 (CA2), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 856 (1973); Clark v. Clark, 107 N. H. 351, 222 A. 2d 205 (1966); Tooker v. Lopez, 24 N. Y. 2d 569, 249 N. E. 2d 394 (1969); Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N. Y. 2d 473, 191 N. E. 2d 279 (1963).
The injury or death of a resident of State A in State B is a contact of State A with the occurrence in State B. See cases cited in n. 19, supra.
Petitioner’s statement that the instant dispute involves the interpretation of insurance contracts which were “underwritten, applied for, and paid for by Wisconsin residents and issued covering cars garaged in Wisconsin,” Brief for Petitioner 6, is simply another way of stating that’Mr. Hague was a Wisconsin resident. Respondent could have replied that the insurance contract was underwritten, applied for and paid for by a Minnesota worker, and issued covering cars that were driven to work in Minnesota and garaged there for a substantial portion of the day. The former statement is hardly more significant than the latter since the accident in any event did not involve any of the automobiles which were covered under Mr. Hague’s policy. Recovery is sought pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage.
In addition, petitioner’s statement that the contracts were “underwritten ... by Wisconsin residents” is not supported by the stipulated facts if petitioner means to include itself within that phrase. Indeed, the policy, which is part of the record, recites that Allstate signed the policy in Northbrook, Ill. Under some versions of the hoary rule of lex loci contractus, and depending on the precise sequence of events, a sequence which is unclear from the record before us, the law of Illinois arguably might apply to govern contract construction, even though Illinois would have less contact with the parties and the occurrence than either Wisconsin or Minnesota. No party sought application of Illinois law on that basis in the court below.
Of course Allstate could not be certain that Wisconsin law would necessarily govern any accident which occurred in Wisconsin, whether brought in the Wisconsin courts or elsewhere. Such an expectation would give controlling significance to the wooden lex loci delicti doctrine. While the place of the accident is a factor to be considered in choice-of-law analysis, to apply blindly the traditional, but now largely abandoned, doctrine, Silberman, supra n. 11, at 80, n. 259; see n. 11, supra, would fail to distinguish between the relative importance of various legal issues involved in a lawsuit as well as the relationship of other jurisdictions to the parties and the occurrence or transaction. If, for example, Mr. Hague had been a Wisconsin resident and employee who was injured in Wisconsin and was then taken by ambulance to a hospital in Red Wing, Minn., where he languished for several weeks before dying, Minnesota’s interest in ensuring that its medical creditors were paid would be obvious. Moreover, under such circumstances, the accident itself might be reasonably characterized as a bistate occurrence beginning in Wisconsin and ending in Minnesota. Thus, reliance by the insurer that Wisconsin law would necessarily' govern any accident that occurred in Wisconsin, or that the law of another jurisdiction would necessarily govern any accident that did not occur in Wisconsin, would be unwarranted. See n. 11, supra; cf. Rosenthal v. Warren, supra (Massachusetts hospital could not have purchased insurance with expectation that Massachusetts law would govern damages recovery as to New York patient who died in hospital and whose widow brought suit in New York).
If the law of a jurisdiction other than Wisconsin did govern, there was a substantial likelihood, with respect to uninsured motorist coverage, that stacking would be allowed. Stacking was the rule in most States at the time the policy was issued. Indeed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Nelson v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 63 Wis. 2d 558, 563-566, and nn. 2, 3, 217 N. W. 2d 670, 672, 674, and nn. 2, 3 (1974), identified 29 States, including Minnesota, whose law it interpreted to allow stacking, and only 9 States whose law it interpreted to prohibit stacking. Clearly then, Allstate could not have expected that an antistaeMng rule would govern any particular accident in which the insured might be involved and thus cannot claim unfair surprise from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s choice of forum law.
The Court has recognized that examination of a State’s contacts may result in divergent conclusions for jurisdiction and choice-of-law purposes. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 98 (1978) (no jurisdiction in California but California law “arguably might” apply); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 215 (no jurisdiction in Delaware, although Delaware interest “may support the application of Delaware law”); cf. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 254, and n. 27 (1958) (no jurisdiction in Florida; the “issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice of law,” an issue which the Court found no need to decide). Nevertheless, “both inquiries ‘are often closely related and to a substantial degree depend upon similar considerations.’ ” Shaffer, 433 U. S., at 224-225 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Here, of course, jurisdiction in the Minnesota courts is unquestioned, a factor not without significance in assessing the constitutionality of Minnesota’s choice of its own substantive law. Cf. id., at 225 (“the decision that it is fair to bind a defendant by a State’s laws and rules should prove to be highly relevant to the fairness of permitting that same State to accept jurisdiction for adjudicating the controversy”).
There is no element of unfair surprise or frustration of legitimate expectations as a result of Minnesota’s choice of its law. Because Allstate was doing business in Minnesota and was undoubtedly aware that Mr. Hague was a Minnesota employee, it had to have anticipated that Minnesota law might apply to an accident in which Mr. Hague was involved. See Clay II, 377 U. S. 179, 182 (1964); Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S., at 72-73; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U. S., at 538-543; cf. Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U. S., at 404 (neither insurer nor reinsurer present in forum State). Indeed, Allstate specifically anticipated that Mr. Hague might suffer an accident either in Minnesota or elsewhere in the United States, outside of Wisconsin, since the policy it issued offered continental coverage. Cf. id., at 403 (coverage limited to losses occurring in certain Mexican waters which were outside of jurisdiction whose law was applied). At the same time, Allstate did not seek to control construction of the contract since the policy contained no choice-of-law clause dictating application of Wisconsin law. See Clay II, supra, at 182 (nationwide coverage of policy and lack of choice-of-law clause).
Justice Black’s dissent in the first Clay decision, a decision which vacated and remanded a lower-court determination to obtain an authoritative construction of state law that might moot the constitutional question, subsequently commanded majority support in the second Clay decision. Clay II, supra, at 180-183.
The stipulated facts do not reveal the date on which Mrs. Hague first moved to Red Wing.
These proceedings began on May 28, 1976. Mrs. Hague was remarried on June 19, 1976.
The dissent suggests that considering respondent’s postoecurrence change of residence as one of the Minnesota contacts will encourage forum shopping. Post, at 337. This overlooks the fact that her change of residence was bona fide and not motivated by litigation considerations.
We express no view whether the first two contacts, either together or separately, would have sufficed to sustain the choice of Minnesota law made by the Minnesota 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:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., makes it an unfair employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to hiring or the terms and condition of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in ways that would adversely affect any employee because of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. §2000e-2(a). Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431 (1971), construed Title VII to proscribe “not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in practice.” Under this basis for liability, which is known as the “disparate-impact” theory and which is involved in this case, a facially neutral employment practice may be deemed violative of Title VII without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a “disparate-treatment” case.
I
The claims before us are disparate-impact claims, involving the employment practices of petitioners, two companies that operate salmon canneries in remote and widely separated areas of Alaska. The canneries operate only during the salmon runs in the summer months. They are inoperative and vacant for the rest of the year. In May or June of each year, a few weeks before the salmon runs begin, workers arrive and prepare the equipment and facilities for the canning operation. Most of these workers possess a variety of skills. When salmon runs are about to begin, the workers who will operate the cannery lines arrive, remain as long as there are fish to can, and then depart. The canneries are then closed down, winterized, and left vacant until the next spring. During the off-season, the companies employ only a small number of individuals at their headquarters in Seattle and Astoria, Oregon, plus some employees at the winter shipyard in Seattle.
The length and size of salmon runs vary from year to year, and hence the number of employees needed at each cannery also varies. Estimates are made as early in the winter as possible; the necessary employees are hired, and when the time comes, they are transported to the canneries. Salmon must be processed soon after they are caught, and the work during the canning season is therefore intense. For this reason, and because the canneries are located in remote regions, all workers are housed at the canneries and have their meals in company-owned mess halls.
Jobs at the canneries are of two general types: “cannery jobs” on the cannery line, which are unskilled positions; and “noncannery jobs,” which fall into a variety of classifications. Most noncannery jobs are classified as skilled positions. Cannery jobs are filled predominantly by nonwhites: Filipinos and Alaska Natives. The Filipinos are hired through, and dispatched by, Local 37 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union pursuant to a hiring hall agreement with the local. The Alaska Natives primarily reside in villages near the remote cannery locations. Non-cannery jobs are filled with predominantly white workers, who are hired during the winter months from the companies’ offices in Washington and Oregon. Virtually all of the non-cannery jobs pay more than cannery positions. The predominantly white noncannery workers and the predominantly nonwhite cannery employees live in separate dormitories and eat in separate mess halls.
In 1974, respondents, a class of nonwhite cannery workers who were (or had been) employed at the canneries, brought this Title VII action against petitioners. Respondents alleged that a variety of petitioners’ hiring/promotion practices— e. g., nepotism, a rehire preference, a lack of objective hiring criteria, separate hiring channels, a practice of not promoting from within — were responsible for the racial stratification of the work force and had denied them and other nonwhites employment as noncannery workers on the basis of race. Respondents also complained of petitioners’ racially segregated housing and dining facilities. All of respondents’ claims were advanced under both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact theories of Title VII liability.
The District Court held a bench trial, after which it entered 172 findings of fact. 34 EPD ¶34,437, pp. 33,822-33,836 (WD Wash. 1983). It then rejected all of respondents’ disparate-treatment claims. It also rejected the disparate-impact challenges involving the subjective employment criteria used by petitioners to fill these noncannery positions, on the ground that those criteria were not subject to attack under a disparate-impact theory. Id., p.33,840. Petitioners’ “objective” employment practices (e. g., an English language requirement, alleged nepotism in hiring, failure to post noncannery openings, the rehire preference, etc.) were found to be subject to challenge under the disparate-impact theory, but these claims were rejected for failure of proof. Judgment was entered for petitioners.
On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 768 F. 2d 1120 (1985), but that decision was vacated when the Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case en banc, 787 F. 2d 462 (1985). The en banc hearing was ordered to settle an intracircuit conflict over the question whether subjective hiring practices could be analyzed under a disparate-impact model; the Court of Appeals held — as this Court subsequently ruled in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977 (1988)— that disparate-impact analysis could be applied to subjective hiring practices. 810 F. 2d 1477, 1482 (1987). The Ninth Circuit also concluded that in such a case, “[o]nce the plaintiff class has shown disparate impact caused by specific, identifiable employment practices or criteria, the burden shifts to the employer,” id., at 1485, to “prov[e the] business necessity” of the challenged practice, id., at 1486. Because the en banc holding on subjective employment practices reversed the District Court’s contrary ruling, the en banc Court of Appeals remanded the case to a panel for further proceedings.
On remand, the panel applied the en banc ruling to the facts of this case. 827 F. 2d 439 (1987). It held that respondents had made out a prima facie case of disparate impact in hiring for both skilled and unskilled noncannery positions. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the District Court that it was the employer’s burden to prove that any disparate impact caused by its hiring and employment practices was justified by business necessity. Neither the en banc court nor the panel disturbed the District Court’s rejection of the disparate-treatment claims.
Petitioners sought review of the Court of Appeals’ decision in this Court, challenging it on several grounds. Because some of the issues raised by the decision below were matters on which this Court was evenly divided in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, supra, we granted certiorari, 487 U. S. 1264 (1988), for the purpose of addressing these disputed questions of the proper application of Title VII’s disparate-impact theory of liability.
II
In holding that respondents had made out a prima facie case of disparate impact, the Court of Appeals relied solely on respondents’ statistics showing a high percentage of nonwhite workers in the cannery jobs and a low percentage of such workers in the noncannery positions. Although statistical proof can alone make out a prima facie case, see Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 339 (1977); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U. S. 299, 307-308 (1977), the Court of Appeals’ ruling here misapprehends our precedents and the purposes of Title VII, and we therefore reverse.
“There can be no doubt,” as there was when a similar mistaken analysis had been undertaken by the courts below in Hazelwood, supra, at 308, “that the . . . comparison . . . fundamentally misconceived the role of statistics in employment discrimination cases.” The “proper comparison [is] between the racial composition of [the at-issue jobs] and the racial composition of the qualified . . . population in the relevant labor market.” Ibid. It is such a comparison — between the racial composition of the qualified persons in the labor market and the persons holding at-issue jobs — that generally forms the proper basis for the initial inquiry in a disparate-impact case. Alternatively, in cases where such labor market statistics will be difficult if not impossible to ascertain, we have recognized that certain other statistics — such as measures indicating the racial composition of “otherwise-qualified applicants” for at-issue jobs — are equally probative for this purpose. See, e. g., New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568, 585 (1979).
It is clear to us that the Court of Appeals’ acceptance of the comparison between the racial composition of the cannery work force and that of the noncannery work force, as probative of a prima facie case of disparate impact in the selection of the latter group of workers, was flawed for several reasons. Most obviously, with respect to the skilled non-cannery jobs at issue here, the cannery work force in no way reflected “the pool of qualified job applicants” or the “qualified population in the labor force.” Measuring alleged discrimination in the selection of accountants, managers, boat captains, electricians, doctors, and engineers — and the long list of other “skilled” noncannery positions found to exist by the District Court, see 34 EPD ¶ 34,437, p. 33,832 — by comparing the number of nonwhites occupying these jobs to the number of nonwhites filling cannery worker positions is nonsensical. If the absence of minorities holding such skilled positions is due to a dearth of qualified nonwhite applicants (for reasons that are not petitioners’ fault), petitioners’ selection methods or employment practices cannot be said to have had a “disparate impact” on nonwhites.
One example illustrates why this must be so. Respondents’ own statistics concerning the noncannery work force at one of the canneries at issue here indicate that approximately 17% of the new hires for medical jobs, and 15% of the new hires for officer worker positions, were nonwhite. See App. to Brief for Respondents B-l. If it were the case that less than 15 to 17% of the applicants for these jobs were nonwhite and that nonwhites made up a lower percentage of the relevant qualified labor market, it is hard to see how respondents, without more, cf. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U. S. 440 (1982), would have made out a prima facie case of disparate impact. Yet, under the Court of Appeals’ theory, simply because nonwhites comprise 52% of the cannery workers at the cannery in question, see App. to Brief for Respondents B-l, respondents would be successful in establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII.
Such a result cannot be squared with our cases or with the goals behind the statute. The Court of Appeals’ theory, at the very least, would mean that any employer who had a segment of his work force that was — for some reason — racially imbalanced, could be haled into court and forced to engage in the expensive and time-consuming task of defending the “business necessity” of the methods used to select the other members of his work force. The only practicable option for many employers would be to adopt racial quotas, insuring that no portion of their work forces deviated in racial composition from the other portions thereof; this is a result that Congress expressly rejected in drafting Title VII. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(j); see also Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. at 922-994, and n. 2 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). The Court of Appeals’ theory would “leave the employer little choice . . . but to engage in a subjective quota system of employment selection. This, of course, is far from the intent of Title VII.” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 449 (1975) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).
The Court of Appeals also erred with respect to the unskilled noncannery positions. Racial imbalance in one segment of an employer’s work force does not, without more, establish a prima facie case of disparate impact with respect to the selection of workers for the employer’s other positions, even where workers for the different positions may have somewhat fungible skills (as is arguably the case for cannery and unskilled noncannery workers). As long as there are no barriers or practices deterring qualified nonwhites from applying for noncannery positions, see n. 6, supra, if the percentage of selected applicants who are nonwhite is not significantly less than the percentage of qualified applicants who are nonwhite, the employer’s selection mechanism probably does not operate with a disparate impact on minorities. Where this is the case, the percentage of nonwhite workers found in other positions in the employer’s labor force is irrelevant to the question of a prima facie statistical case of disparate impact. As noted above, a contrary ruling on this point would almost inexorably lead to the use of numerical quotas in the workplace, a result that Congress and this Court have rejected repeatedly in the past.
Moreover, isolating the cannery workers as the potential “labor force” for unskilled noncannery positions is at once both too broad and too narrow in its focus. It is too broad because the vast majority of these cannery workers did not seek jobs in unskilled noneannery positions; there is no showing that many of them would have done so even if none of the arguably “deterring” practices existed. Thus, the pool of cannery workers cannot be used as a surrogate for the class of qualified job applicants because it contains many persons who have not (and would not) be noncannery job applicants. Conversely, if respondents propose to use the cannery workers for comparison purposes because they represent the “qualified labor population” generally, the group is too narrow because there are obviously many qualified persons in the labor market for noncannery jobs who are not cannery workers.
The peculiar facts of this case further illustrate why a comparison between the percentage of nonwhite cannery workers and nonwhite noncannery workers is an improper basis for making out a claim of disparate impact. Here, the District Court found that nonwhites were “overrepresent[ed]” among cannery workers because petitioners had contracted with a predominantly nonwhite union (local 37) to fill these positions. See 34 EPD ¶33,437, p. 33,829. As a result, if petitioners (for some permissible reason) ceased using local 37 as its hiring channel for cannery positions, it appears (according to the District Court’s findings) that the racial stratification between the cannery and noncannery workers might diminish to statistical insignificance. Under the Court of Appeals’ approach, therefore, it is possible that with no change whatsoever in their hiring practices for noncannery workers — the jobs at issue in this lawsuit — petitioners could make respondents’ prima facie case of disparate impact “disappear. ” But ¿/‘there would be no prima facie case of disparate impact in the selection of noncannery workers absent petitioners’ use of local 37 to hire cannery workers, surely petitioners’ reliance on the union to fill the cannery jobs not at issue here (and its resulting “overrepresentation” of nonwhites in those positions) does not — standing alone — make out a prima facie case of disparate impact. Yet it is precisely such an ironic result that the Court of Appeals reached below.
Consequently, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ ruling that a comparison between the percentage of cannery workers who are nonwhite and the percentage of noncannery workers who are nonwhite makes out a prima facie case of disparate impact. Of course, this leaves unresolved whether the record made in the District Court will support a conclusion that a prima facie case of disparate impact has been established on some basis other than the racial disparity between cannery and noncannery workers. This is an issue that the Court of Appeals or the District Court should address in the first instance.
Ill
Since the statistical disparity relied on by the Court of Appeals did not suffice to make out a prima facie case, any inquiry by us into whether the specific challenged employment practices of petitioners caused that disparity is pretermitted, as is any inquiry into whether the disparate impact that any employment practice may have had was justified by business considerations. Because we remand for further proceedings, however, on whether a prima facie case of disparate impact has been made in defensible fashion in this case, we address two other challenges petitioners have made to the decision of the Court of Appeals.
A
First is the question of causation in a disparate-impact case. The law in this respect was correctly stated by Justice O’Connor’s opinion last Term in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S., at 994:
“[W]e note that the plaintiff’s burden in establishing a prima facie case goes beyond the need to show that there are statistical disparities in the employer’s work force. The plaintiff must begin by identifying the specific employment practice that is challenged. . . . Especially in cases where an employer combines subjective criteria with the use of more rigid standardized rules or tests, the plaintiff is in our view responsible for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.”
Cf. also id., at 1000 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Indeed, even the Court of Appeals — whose decision petitioners assault on this score — noted that “it is . . . essential that the practices identified by the cannery workers be linked causally with the demonstrated adverse impact.” 827 F. 2d, at 445. Notwithstanding the Court, of Appeals’ apparent adherence to the proper inquiry, petitioners contend that that court erred by permitting respondents to make out their case by offering “only [one] set of cumulative comparative statistics as evidence of the disparate impact of each and all of [petitioners’ hiring] practices.” Brief for Petitioners 31.
Our disparate-impact cases have always focused on the impact of particular hiring practices on employment opportunities for minorities. Just as an employer cannot escape liability under Title VII by demonstrating that, “at the bottom line,” his work force is racially balanced (where particular hiring practices may operate to deprive minorities of employment opportunities), see Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U. S., at 450, a Title VII plaintiff does not make out a case of disparate impact simply by showing that, “at the bottom line,” there is racial imbalance in the work force. As a general matter, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the application of a specific or particular employment practice that has created the disparate impact under attack. Such a showing is an integral part of the plaintiff’s prima facie case in a disparate-impact suit under Title VII.
Here, respondents have alleged that several “objective” employment practices (e. g., nepotism, separate hiring channels, rehire preferences), as well as the use of “subjective decision making” to select noncannery workers, have had a disparate impact on nonwhites. Respondents base this claim on statistics that allegedly show a disproportionately low percentage of nonwhites in the at-issue positions. However, even if on remand respondents can show that nonwhites are underrepresented in the at-issue jobs in a manner that is acceptable under the standards set forth in Part II, supra, this alone will not suffice to make out a prima facie case of disparate impact. Respondents will also have to demonstrate that the disparity they complain of is the result of one or more of the employment practices that they are attacking here, specifically showing that each challenged practice has a significantly disparate impact on employment opportunities for whites and nonwhites. To hold otherwise would result in employers being potentially liable for “the myriad of innocent causes that may lead to statistical imbalances in the composition of their work forces.” Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, supra, at 992.
Some will complain that this specific causation requirement is unduly burdensome on Title VII plaintiffs. But liberal civil discovery rules give plaintiffs broad access to employers’ records in an effort to document their claims. Also, employers falling within the scope of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR §1607.1 et seq. (1988), are required to “maintain . . . records or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests and other selection procedures have upon employment opportunities of persons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic group[s].” See § 1607.4(A). This includes records concerning “the individual components of the selection process” where there is a significant disparity in the selection rates of whites and nonwhites. See § 1607.4(C). Plaintiffs as a general matter will have the benefit of these tools to meet their burden of showing a causal link between challenged employment practices and racial imbalances in the work force; respondents presumably took full advantage of these opportunities to build their case before the trial in the District Court was held.
Consequently, on remand, the courts below are instructed to require, as part of respondents’ prima facie case, a demonstration that specific elements of the petitioners’ hiring process have a significantly disparate impact on non whites.
B
If, on remand, respondents meet the proof burdens outlined above, and establish a prima facie case of disparate impact with respect to any of petitioners’ employment practices, the case will shift to any business justification petitioners offer for their use of these practices. This phase of the disparate-impact case contains two components: first, a consideration of the justifications an employer offers for his use of these practices; and second, the availability of alternative practices to achieve the same business ends, with less racial impact. See, e. g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 425. We consider these two components in turn.
(1)
Though we have phrased the query differently in different cases, it is generally well established that at the justification stage of such a disparate-impact case, the dispositive issue is whether a challenged practice serves, in a significant way, the legitimate employment goals of the employer. See, e. g., Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S., at 997-999; New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S., at 587, n. 31; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S., at 432. The touchstone of this inquiry is a reasoned review of the employer’s justification for his use of the challenged practice. A mere insubstantial justification in this regard will not suffice, because such a low standard of review would permit discrimination to be practiced through the use of spurious, seemingly neutral employment practices. At the same time, though, there is no requirement that the challenged practice be “essential” or “indispensable” to the employer’s business for it to pass muster: this degree of scrutiny would be almost impossible for most employers to meet, and would result in a host of evils we have identified above. See supra, at 652-653.
In this phase, the employer carries the burden of producing evidence of a business justification for his employment practice. The burden of persuasion, however, remains with the disparate-impact plaintiff. To the extent that the Ninth Circuit held otherwise in its en banc decision in this case, see 810 F. 2d, at 1485-1486, or in the panel’s decision on remand, see 827 F. 2d, at 445, 447 — suggesting that the persuasion burden should shift to petitioners once respondents established a prima facie case of disparate impact — its decisions were erroneous. “[T]he ultimate burden of proving that discrimination against a protected group has been caused by a specific employment practice remains with the plaintiff at all times.'” Watson, supra, at 997 (O’Con-nor, J.) (emphasis added). This rule conforms with the usual method for allocating persuasion and production burdens in the federal courts, see Fed. Rule Evid. 301, and more specifically, it conforms to the rule in disparate-treatment cases that the plaintiff bears the burden of disproving an employer’s assertion that the adverse employment action or practice was based solely on a legitimate neutral consideration. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 256-258 (1981). We acknowledge that some of our earlier decisions can be read as suggesting otherwise. See Watson, supra, at 1006-1008 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). But to the extent that those cases speak of an employer’s “burden of proof” with respect to a legitimate business justification defense, see, e. g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 329 (1977), they should have been understood to mean an employer’s production— but not persuasion — burden. Cf., e. g., NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U. S. 393, 404, n. 7 (1983). The persuasion burden here must remain with the plaintiff, for it is he who must prove that it was “because of such individual’s race, color,” etc., that he was denied a desired employment opportunity. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a).
(2)
Finally, if on remand the case reaches this point, and respondents cannot persuade the trier of fact on the question of petitioners’ business necessity defense, respondents may still be able to prevail. To do so, respondents will have to persuade the factfinder that “other tests or selection devices, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer’s legitimate [hiring] interest[s]”; by so demonstrating, respondents would prove that “[petitioners were] using [their] tests merely as a ‘pretext’ for discrimination.” Albemarle Paper Co., supra, at 425; see also Watson, 487 U. S., at 998 (O’Connor, J.); id., at 1005-1006 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). If respondents, having established a prima facie case, come forward with alternatives to petitioners’ hiring practices that reduce the racially disparate impact of practices currently being used, and petitioners refuse to adopt these alternatives, such a refusal would belie a claim by petitioners that their incumbent practices are being employed for nondiscriminatory reasons.
Of course, any alternative practices which respondents offer up in this respect must be equally effective as petitioners’ chosen hiring procedures in achieving petitioners’ legitimate employment goals. Moreover, “[fjactors such as the cost or other burdens of proposed alternative selection devices are relevant in determining whether they would be equally as effective as the challenged practice in serving the employer’s legitimate business goals.” Watson, supra, at 998 (O’Connor, J.). “Courts are generally less competent than employers to restructure business practices,” Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 578 (1978); consequently, the judiciary should proceed with care before mandating that an employer must adopt a plaintiff’s alternative selection or hiring practice in response to a Title VII suit.
IV
For the reasons given above, 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.
Title 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), provides:
“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
“(1) 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; or
“(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
“Independent fishermen catch the salmon and turn them over to company-owned boats called ‘tenders,’ which transport the fish from the fishing grounds to the canneries. Once at the cannery, the fish are eviscerated, the eggs pulled, and they are cleaned. Then, operating at a rate of approximately four cans per second, the salmon are filled into cans. Next, the canned salmon are cooked under precise time-temperature requirements established by the FDA, and the cans are inspected to ensure that proper seals are maintained on the top, bottom and sides.” 768 F. 2d 1120, 1123 (CA9), vacated, 787 F. 2d 462 (1985).
The noncannery jobs were described as follows by the Court of Appeals: “Machinists and engineers are hired to maintain the smooth and continuous operation of the canning equipment. Quality control personnel conduct the FDA-required inspections and recordkeeping. Tenders are staffed with a crew necessary to operate the vessel. A variety of support personnel are employed to operate the entire cannery community, including, for example, cooks, carpenters, store-keepers, bookkeepers, beach gangs for dock yard labor and construction, etc.” 768 F. 2d, at 1123.
The fact that neither the District Court, nor the Ninth Circuit en banc, nor the subsequent Court of Appeals panel ruled for respondents on their disparate-treatment claims— i. e., their allegations of intentional racial discrimination-warrants particular attention in light of the dissents’ comment that the canneries “bear an unsettling resemblance to aspects of a plantation economy.” Post, at 664, n. 4 (Stevens, J., dissenting); post, at 662 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Whatever the “resemblance,” the unanimous view of the lower courts in this litigation has been that respondents did not prove that the canneries practice intentional racial discrimination. Consequently, Justice Black-mun’s hyperbolic allegation that our decision in this case indicates that this Court no longer “believes that race discrimination . . . against nonwhites ... is a problem in our society,” ibid., is inapt. Of course, it is unfortunately true that race discrimination exists in our country. That does not mean, however, that it exists at the canneries — or more precisely, that it has been proved to exist at the canneries.
Indeed, Justice Stevens concedes that respondents did not press before us the legal theories under which the aspects of cannery life that he finds to most resemble a “plantation economy” might be unlawful. Post, at 664, n. 4. Thus, the question here is not whether we “approve” of petitioners’ employment practices or the society that exists at the canneries, but, rather, whether respondents have properly established that these practices violate Title VII.
The parties dispute the extent to which there is a discrepancy between the percentage of nonwhites employed as cannery workers and those employed in noncannery positions. Compare, e. g., Brief for Petitioners 4-9 with Brief for Respondents 4-6. The District Court made no precise numerical findings in this regard, but simply noted that there were “significant disparities between the at-issue jobs [i. <?., noncannery jobs] and the total workforce at the canneries” which were explained by the fact that “nearly all employed in the ‘cannery worker’ department are non-white.” See 34 EPD ¶ 34,437, pp. 33,841, 33,829 (WD Wash. 1983).
For reasons explained below, the degree of disparity between these groups is not relevant to our decision here.
In fact, where “figures for the general population might. . . accurately reflect the pool of qualified job applicants,” cf. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 340, n. 20 (1977), we have even permitted plaintiffs to rest their prima facie cases on such statistics as well. See, e. g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1977).
Obviously, the analysis would be different if it were found that the dearth of qualified nonwhite applicants was due to practices on petitioners’ part which — expressly or implicitly — deterred minority group members from applying for noncannery positions. See, e. g.. Teamsters v. United States, supra, at 365.
We qualify this conclusion — observing that it is only “probable” that there has been no disparate impact on minorities in such circumstances — because bottom-line racial balance is not a defense under Title VII. See Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U. S. 440 (1982). Thus, even if petitioners could show that the percentage of selected applicants who are nonwhite is not significantly less than the percentage of qualified applicants who are nonwhite, respondents would still have a ease under Title VII, if they could prove that some particular hiring practice has a disparate impact on minorities, notwithstanding the bottom-line racial balance in petitioners’ work force. See Teal, supra, at 450.
As we understand the opinions below, the specific employment practices were challenged only insofar as they were claimed to have been responsible for the overall disparity between the number of minority cannery and noncannery workers. The Court of Appeals did not purport to hold that any specified employment practice produced its own disparate impact that was actionable under Title VII. This is not to say that a specific practice, such as nepotism, if it were proved to exist, could not itself be subject to challenge if it had a disparate impact on minorities. Nor is it to say that segregated dormitories and eating facilities in the workplace may not be challenged under 42 U. S. C. § 2000e — 2(a)(2) without showing a disparate impact on hiring or promotion.
Of course, petitioners' obligation to collect or retain any of these data may be limited by the Guidelines themselves. See 29 CFR § 1602.14(b) (1988) (exempting “seasonal” jobs from certain recordkeepingrequirements).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A citizen of Hawaii comes before us claiming that an explicit, raee-based voting qualification has barred him from voting in a statewide election. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, binding on the National Government, the States, and their political subdivisions, controls the ease.
The Hawaiian Constitution limits the right to vote for nine trustees chosen in a statewide election. The trustees compose the governing authority of a state agency known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA. Haw. Const., Art. XII, § 5. The agency administers programs designed for the benefit of two subclasses of the Hawaiian citizenry. The smaller class comprises those designated as “native Hawaiians,” defined by statute, with certain supplementary language later set out in fall, as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778. Haw. Rev. Stat. §10-2 (1998). The second, larger class of persons benefited by OHA programs is “Hawaiians,” defined to be, with refinements contained in the statute we later quote, those persons who are descendants of people inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. Ibid. The right to vote for trustees is limited to “Hawaiians,” the second, larger class of persons, which of course includes the smaller class of “native Hawaiians.” Haw. Const., Art. XII, § 5.
Petitioner Rice, a citizen of Hawaii and thus himself a Hawaiian in a well-accepted sense of the term, does not have the requisite ancestry even for the larger class. He is not, then, a “Hawaiian” in terms of the statute; so he may not vote in the trustee election. The issue presented by this case is whether Rice may be so barred. Rejecting the State’s arguments that the classification in question is not racial or that, if it is, it is nevertheless valid for other reasons, we hold Hawaii’s denial of petitioner’s right to vote to be a clear violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
I
When Congress and the State of Hawaii enacted the laws we are about to discuss and review, they made their own assessments of the events which intertwine Hawaii’s history with the history of America itself. We will begin with a very brief account of that historical background. Historians and other scholars who write of Hawaii will have a different purpose and more latitude than do we. They may draw judgments either more laudatory or more harsh than the ones to which we refer. Our more limited role, in the posture of this particular case, is to recount events as understood by the lawmakers, thus ensuring that we accord proper appreciation to their purposes in adopting the policies and laws at issue. The litigants seem to agree that two works in particular are appropriate for our consideration, and we rely in part on those sources. See L. Fuchs, Hawaii Pono: An Ethnic and Political History (1961) (hereinafter Fuchs); 1-3 R. Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom (1938); (1953); (1967) (hereinafter Kuykendall).
The origins of the first Hawaiian people and the date they reached the islands are not established with certainty, but the usual assumption is that they were Polynesians who voyaged from Tahiti and began to settle the islands around A. D. 750. Fuchs 4; 1 Kuykendall 3; see also G. Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands xii-xiii (1968) (Marquesas Islands and Tahiti). When England’s Captain Cook made landfall in Hawaii on his expedition in 1778, the Hawaiian people had developed, over the preceding 1,000 years or so, a cultural and political structure of their own. They had well-established traditions and customs and practiced a polytheistic religion. Agriculture and fishing sustained the people, and, though population estimates vary, some modern historians conclude that the population in 1778 was about 200,000-300,000. See Fuchs 4; R. Schmitt, Historical Statistics of Hawaii 7 (1977) (hereinafter Schmitt). The accounts of Hawaiian life often remark upon the people’s capacity to find beauty and pleasure in their island existence, but life was not altogether idyllic. In Cook’s time the islands were ruled by four different kings, and intra-Hawaiian wars could inflict great loss and suffering. Kings or principal chieftains, as well as high priests, could order the death or sacrifice of any subject. The society was one, however, with its own identity, its own cohesive forces, its own history.
In the years after Cook’s voyage many expeditions would follow. A few members of the ships’ companies remained on the islands, some as authorized advisers, others as deserters. Their intermarriage with the inhabitants of Hawaii was not infrequent.
In 1810, the islands were united as one kingdom under the leadership of an admired figure in Hawaiian history, Kamehameha I. It is difficult to say how many settlers from Europe and America were in Hawaii when the King consolidated his power. One historian estimates there were no more than 60 or so settlers at that time. 1 Kuykendall 27. An influx was soon to follow. Beginning about 1820, missionaries arrived, of whom Congregationalists from New England were dominant in the early years. They sought to teach Hawaiians to abandon religious beliefs and customs that were contrary to Christian teachings and practices.
The 1800’s are a story of increasing involvement of westerners in the economic and political affairs of the Kingdom. Rights to land became a principal concern, and there was unremitting pressure to allow non-Hawaiians to use and to own land and to be secure in their title. Westerners were not the only ones with pressing concerns, however, for the disposition and ownership of land came to be an unsettled matter among the Hawaiians themselves.
The status of Hawaiian lands has presented issues of complexity and controversy from at least the rule of Kamehameha I to the present day. We do not attempt to interpret that history, lest our comments be thought to bear upon issues not before us. It suffices to refer to various of the historical conclusions that appear to have been persuasive to Congress and to the State when they enacted the laws soon to be discussed.
When Kamehameha I came to power, he reasserted suzerainty over all lands and provided for control of parts of them by a system described in our own cases as “feudal.” Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 232 (1984); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 166 (1979). A well-known description of the King’s early decrees is contained in an 1864 opinion of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The court, in turn, drew extensively upon an earlier report which recited, in part, as follows:
“ ‘When the islands were conquered by Kamehameha L, he followed the example of his predecessors, and divided out the lands among his principal warrior chiefs, retaining, however, a portion in his own hands to be cultivated or managed by his own immediate servants or attendants. Each principal chief divided his lands anew and gave them out to an inferior order of chiefs or persons of rank, by whom they were subdivided again and again after (often) passing through the hands of four, five or six persons from the King down to the lowest class of tenants. All these persons were considered to have rights in the lands, or the productions of them, the proportions of which rights were not clearly defined, although universally acknowledged.... The same rights which the King possessed over the superior landlords and all under them, the several grades of landlords possessed over their inferiors, so that there was a joint ownership of the land, the King really owning the allo-dium, and the person in whose hands he placed the land, holding it in trust.’ ” In re Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 715, 718-719 (quoting Principles Adopted by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles, 2 Stat. Laws 81-82 (Haw. Kingdom 1847)).
Beginning in 1839 and through the next decade, a successive ruler, Kamehameha III, approved a series of decrees and laws designed to accommodate demands for ownership and security of title. In the words of the Hawaiian Supreme Court, “[t]he subject of rights in land was one of daily increasing importance to the newly formed Government, for it was obvious that the internal resources of the country could not be developed until the system of undivided and undefined ownership in land should be abolished.” 2 Haw., at 721. Arrangements were made to confer freehold title in some lands to certain chiefs and other individuals. The King retained vast lands for himself, and directed that other extensive lands be held by the government, which by 1840 had adopted the first Constitution of the islands. Thus was effected a fundamental and historic division, known as the Great Mahele. In 1850, foreigners, in turn, were given the right of land ownership.
The new policies did not result in wide dispersal of ownership. Though some provisions had been attempted by which tenants could claim lands, these proved ineffective in many instances, and ownership became concentrated. In 1920, the Congress of the United States, in a Report on the bill establishing the Hawaiian Homes Commission, made an assessment of Hawaiian land policy in the following terms:
“Your committee thus finds that since the institution of private ownership of lands in Hawaii the native Hawaiians, outside of the King and the chiefs, were granted and have held but a very small portion of the lands of the Islands. Under the homestead laws somewhat more than a majority of the lands were homesteaded to Hawaiians, but a great many of these lands have been lost through improvidence and inability to finance farming operations. Most frequently, however, the native Hawaiian, with no thought of the future, has obtained the land for a nominal sum, only to turn about and sell it to wealthy interests for a sum more nearly approaching its real value. The Hawaiians are not business men and have shown themselves unable to meet competitive conditions unaided. In the end the speculators are the real beneficiaries of the homestead laws. Thus the tax returns for 1919 show that only 6.28 per centum of the property of the Islands is held by native Hawaiians and this for the most part is lands in the possession of approximately a thousand wealthy Hawaiians, the descendente of the chiefs.” H. R. Rep. No. 839, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1920).
While these developments were unfolding, the United States and European powers made constant efforts to protect their interests and to influence Hawaiian political and economic affairs in general. The first “articles of arrangement” between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii were signed in 1826,8 Department of State, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949, p. 861 (C. Bevans comp. 1968), and additional treaties and conventions between the two countries were signed in 1849, 1876, and 1887, see Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, 9 Stat. 977 (1849) (friendship, commerce, and navigation); Convention between the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, 19 Stat. 625 (1875) (commercial reciprocity); Supplementary Convention between the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, 25 Stat. 1399 (1887) (same). The United States was not the only country interested in Hawaii and its affairs, but by the later part of the century the reality of American dominance in trade, settlement, economic expansion, and political influence became apparent.
Tensions intensified between an anti-Western, pro-native bloc in the government on the one hand and western business interests and property owners on the other. The conflicts came to the fore in 1887. Westerners forced the resignation of the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the adoption of a new Constitution, which, among other things, reduced the power of the monarchy and extended the right to vote to non-Hawaiians. 3 Kuykendall 344-372.
Tensions continued through 1893, when they again peaked, this time in response to an attempt by the then-Hawaiian monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, to promulgate a new constitution restoring monarchical control over the House of Nobles and limiting the franchise to Hawaiian subjects. A so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawaii, acting with United States Armed Forces, replaced the monarchy with a provisional government. That government sought annexation by the United States. On December 18 of the same year, President Cleveland, unimpressed and indeed offended by the actions of the American Minister, denounced the role of the American forces and called for restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy. Message of the President to the Senate and House of Representatives, reprinted in H. R. Rep. No. 243, 53d Cong., 2d Sess., 3-15 (1893). The Queen could not resume her former place, however, and, in 1894, the provisional government established the Republic of Hawaii. The Queen abdicated her throne a year later.
In 1898, President McKinley signed a Joint Resolution, sometimes called the Newlands Resolution, to annex the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States. 30 Stat. 750. According to the Joint Resolution, the Republic of Hawaii ceded all former Crown, government, and public lands to the United States. Ibid. The resolution further provided that revenues from the public lands were to be “used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.” Ibid. Two years later the Hawaiian Organic Act established the Territory of Hawaii, asserted United States control over the ceded lands, and put those lands “in the possession, use, and control of the government of the Territory of Hawaii... until otherwise provided for by Congress.” Act of Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, § 91, 31 Stat. 159.
In 1993, a century after the intervention by the Committee of Safety, the Congress of the United States reviewed this history, and in particular the role of Minister Stevens. Congress passed a Joint Resolution recounting the events in some detail and offering an apology to the native Hawaiian people. 107 Stat. 1510.
Before we turn to the relevant provisions two other important matters, which affected the demographics of Hawaii, must be recounted. The first is the tragedy inflicted on the early Hawaiian people by the introduction of western diseases and infectious agents. As early as the establishment of the rule of Kamehameha I, it was becoming apparent that the native population had serious vulnerability to diseases borne to the islands by settlers. High mortality figures were experienced in infancy and adulthood, even from common illnesses such as diarrhea, colds, and measles. Fuchs 13; see Schmitt 58. More serious diseases took even greater tolls. In the smallpox epidemic of 1853, thousands of lives were lost. Ibid. By 1878, 100 years after Cook’s arrival, the native population had been reduced to about 47,500 people. Id., at 25. These mortal illnesses no doubt!were an initial cause of the despair, disenchantment, and despondency some commentators later noted in deseendents of the early Hawaiian people. See Fuchs 13.
The other important feature of Hawaiian demographics to be noted is the immigration to the islands by people of many different races and cultures. Mostly in response to the demand of the sugar industry for arduous labor in the cane fields, successive immigration waves brought Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, and Filipinos to Hawaii. Beginning with the immigration of 293 Chinese in 1852, the plantations alone drew to Hawaii, in one estimate, something over 400,000 men, women, and children over the next century. Id., at 24; A. Lind, Hawaii’s People 6-7 (4th ed. 1980). Each of these ethnic and national groups has had its own history in Hawaii, its own struggles with societal and official discrimination, its own successes, and its own role in creating the present society of the islands. See E. Nordyke, The Peopling of Hawai'i 28-98 (2d ed. 1989). The 1990 census figures show the resulting ethnic diversity of the Hawaiian population. U. S. Dept, of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1990 Census of Population, Supplementary Reports, Detailed Ancestry Groups for States (Oct. 1992).
With this background we turn to the legislative enactments of direct relevance to the ease before us.
II
Not long after the creation of the new Territory, Congress became concerned with the condition of the native Hawaiian people. See H. R. Rep. No. 839, at 2-6; Hearings on the Rehabilitation and Colonization of Hawaiians and Other Proposed Amendments to the Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii before the House Committee on the Territories, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (1920). Reciting its purpose to rehabilitate the native Hawaiian population, see H. R. Rep. No. 839, at 1-2, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which set aside about 200,000 acres of the ceded public lands and created a program of loans and long-term leases for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108. The Act defined “native Hawaiian[s]” to include “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.” Ibid.
Hawaii was admitted as the 50th State of the Union in 1959. With admission, the new State agreed to adopt the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act as part of its own Constitution. Pub. L. 86-3, §§4, 7, 73 Stat. 5, 7 (Admission Act); see Haw. Const., Art. XII, §§ 1-3. In addition, the United States granted Hawaii title to all public lands and public property within the boundaries of the State, save those which the Federal Government retained for its own use. Admission Act §§ 5(b) — (d), 73 Stat. 5. This grant included the 200,000 acres set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and almost 1.2 million additional acres of land. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4.
The legislation authorizing the grant recited that these lands, and the proceeds and income they generated, were to be held “as a public trust” to be “managed and disposed of for one or more of” five purposes:
“[1] for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, [2] for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, [3] for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible[,] [4] for the making of public improvements, and [5] for the provision of lands for public use.” Admission Act §5(f), 73 Stat. 6.
In the first decades following admission, the State apparently continued to administer the lands that had been set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act for the benefit of native Hawaiians. The income from the balance of the public lands is said to have “by and large flowed to the department of education.” Hawaii Senate Journal, Standing Committee Rep. No. 784, pp. 1350, 1351 (1979).
In 1978 Hawaii amended its Constitution to establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Haw. Const., Art. XII, § 5, which has as its mission “[t]he betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians... [and] Hawaiians,” Haw. Rev. Stat. §10-3 (1993). Members of the 1978 constitutional convention, at which the new amendments were drafted and proposed, set forth the purpose of the proposed agency:
“Members [of the Committee of the Whole] were impressed by the concept of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs which establishes a public trust entity for the benefit of the people of Hawaiian ancestry. Members foresaw that it will provide Hawaiians the right to determine the priorities which will effectuate the betterment of their condition and welfare and promote the protection and preservation of the Hawaiian race, and that it will unite Hawaiians as a people.” 1 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1978, Committee of the Whole Rep. No. 13, p. 1018 (1980).
Implementing statutes and their later amendments vested OHA with broad authority to administer two categories of funds: a 20 percent share of the revenue from the 1.2 million acres of lands granted to the State pursuant to § 5(b) of the Admission Act, which OHA is to administer "for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians,” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10-13.5 (1993), and any state or federal appropriations or private donations that may be made for the benefit of "native Hawaiians” and/or "Hawaiians,” Haw. Const., Art. XII, §6. See generally Haw. Rev. Stat. §§10-1 to 10-16. (The 200,000 acres set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act are administered by a separate agency. See Haw. Rev. Stat. §26-17 (1993).) The Hawaiian Legislature has charged OHA with the mission of "[s]erving as the principal public agency... responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians,” “[assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians,” "conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians,” “[a]pplying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and Hawaiian programs and services,” and “[serving as a receptacle for reparations.” § 10-3.
OHA is overseen by a nine-member board of trustees, the members of which “shall be Hawaiians” and — -presenting the precise issue in this case — shall be “elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law.” Haw. Const., Art. XII, §5; see Haw. Rev. Stat. §§13D-1, 13D-3(b)(l) (1993). The term "Hawaiian” is defined by statute:
" ‘Hawaiian’ means any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and whieh peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawaii.” § 10-2.
The statute defines “native Hawaiian” as follows:
“‘Native Hawaiian’ means any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended; provided that the term identically refers to the descendants of such blood quantum of such aboriginal peoples which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778 and which peoples thereafter continued to reside in Hawaii.” Ibid.
Petitioner Harold Rice is a citizen of Hawaii and a descendant of preannexation residents of the islands. He is not, as we have noted, a descendant of pre-1778 natives, and so he is neither “native Hawaiian” nor “Hawaiian” as defined by the statute. Rice applied in March 1996 to vote in the elections for OHA trustees. To register to vote for the office of trustee he was required to attest: “I am also Hawaiian and desire to register to vote in OHA elections.” Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, Lodging by Petitioner, Tab 2. Rice marked through the words “am also Hawaiian and,” then checked the form “yes.” The State denied his application.
Rice sued Benjamin Cayetano, the Governor of Hawaii, in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. (The Governor was sued in his official capacity, and the Attorney General of Hawaii defends the challenged enactments. We refer to the respondent as “the State.”) Rice contested his exclusion from voting in elections for OHA trustees and from voting in a special election relating to native Hawaiian sovereignty which was held in August 1996. After the District Court rejected the latter challenge, see Rice v. Cayetano, 941 F. Supp. 1629 (1996) (a decision not before us), the parties moved for summary judgment on the claim that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution invalidate the law excluding Rice from the OHA trustee elections.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the State. 963 F. Supp. 1547 (Haw. 1997)* Surveying the history of the islands and their people, the District Court determined that Congress and the State of Hawaii have recognized a guardian-ward relationship with the native Hawaiians, which the court found analogous to the relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. Id., at 1551-1554. On this premise, the court examined the voting qualification with the latitude that we have applied to legislation passed pursuant to Congress’ power over Indian affairs. Id., at 1554-1555 (citing Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535 (1974)). Finding that the electoral scheme was “rationally related to the State’s responsibility under the Admission Act to utilize a portion of the proceeds from the § 5(b) lands for the betterment of Native Hawaiians,” the District Court held that the voting restriction did not violate the Constitution’s ban on racial classifications. 963 F. Supp., at 1554-1555.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 146 F. 3d 1075 (CA9 1998). The court noted that Rice had not challenged the constitutionality of the underlying programs or of OHA itself. Id., at 1079. Considering itself bound to “accept the trusts and their administrative structure as [it found] them, and assume that both are lawful,” the court held that Hawaii “may rationally conclude that Hawaiians, being the group to whom trust obligations run and to whom OHA trustees owe a duty of loyalty, should be the group to decide who the trustees ought to be.” Ibid. The court so held notwithstanding its clear holding that the Hawaii Constitution and implementing statutes “contain a racial classification on their face.” Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 526 U. S. 1016 (1999), and now reverse.
III
The purpose and command of the Fifteenth Amendment are set forth in language both explicit and comprehensive. ■The National Government and the States may not violate a fundamental principle: They may not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Color and previous condition of servitude, too, are forbidden criteria or classifications, though it is unnecessary to consider them in the present case.
Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, the immediate concern of the Amendment was to guarantee to the emancipated slaves the right to vote, lest they be denied the civil and political capacity to protect their new freedom. Vital as its objective remains, the Amendment goes beyond it. Consistent with the design of the Constitution, the Amendment is cast in fundamental terms, terms transcending the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment. The Amendment grants protection to all persons, not just members of a particular race.
The design of the Amendment is to reaffirm the equality of races at the most basic level of the democratic process, the exercise of the voting franchise. A resolve so absolute required language as simple in command as it was comprehensive in reach. Fundamental in purpose and effect and self-executing in operation, the Amendment prohibits all provisions denying or abridging the voting franchise of any citizen or class of citizens on the basis of race. “[B]y the inherent power of the Amendment the word white disappeared” from our voting laws, bringing those who had been excluded by reason of race within “the generic grant of suffrage made by the State.” Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 363 (1915); see also Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 389 (1881). The Court has acknowledged the Amendment’s mandate of neutrality in straightforward terms: “If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination: now there is.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 218 (1876).
Though the commitment was clear, the reality remained far from the promise. Manipulative devices and practices were soon employed to deny the vote to blacks. We have cataloged before the “variety and persistence” of these techniques. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 311-312 (1966) (citing, e.g., Guinn, supra (grandfather clause); Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368 (1915) (same); Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939) (“procedural hurdles”); Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953) (white primary); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944) (same); United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58 (1960) (per curiam) (registration challenges); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960) (racial gerrymandering); Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145 (1965) (“interpretation tests”)). Progress was slow, particularly when litigation had to proceed case by case, district by district, sometimes voter by voter. See 383 U. S., at 313-315.
Important precedents did emerge, however, which give instruction in the case now before us. The Fifteenth Amendment was quite sufficient to invalidate a scheme which did not mention race but instead used ancestry in an attempt to confine and restrict the voting franchise. In 1910, the State of Oklahoma enacted a literacy requirement for voting eligibility, but exempted from that requirement the “ ‘lineal descendants]’” of persons who were “‘on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation.’” Guinn, supra, at 357. Those persons whose ancestors were entitled to vote under the State’s previous, discriminatory voting laws were thus exempted from the eligibility test. Recognizing that the test served only to perpetuate those old laws and to effect a transparent racial exclusion, the Court invalidated it. 238 U. S., at 364-365.
More subtle, perhaps, than the grandfather device in Guinn were the evasions attempted in the white primary cases; but the Fifteenth Amendment, again by its own terms, sufficed to strike down these voting systems, systems designed to exclude one racial class (at least) from voting. See Terry, supra, at 469-470; Allwright, supra, at 663-666 (overruling Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45 (1985)). The Fifteenth Amendment, the Court held, could not be so circumvented: “The Amendment bans racial discrimination in voting by both state and nation. It thus establishes a national policy... not to be discriminated against as voters in elections to determine public governmental policies or to select public officials, national, state, or local.” Terry, supra, at 467.
Unlike the cited eases, the voting structure now before us is neither subtle nor indirect. It is specific in granting the vote to persons of defined ancestry and to no others. The State maintains this is not a racial category at all but instead a classification limited to those whose ancestors were in Hawaii at a particular time, regardless of their race. Brief for Respondent 38-40. The State points to theories of certain scholars concluding that some inhabitants of Hawaii as of 1778 may have migrated from the Marquesas Islands and the Pacific Northwest, as well as from Tahiti. Id., at 38-39, and n. 15. Furthermore, the State argues, the restriction in its operation excludes a person whose traceable ancestors were exclusively Polynesian if none of those ancestors resided in Hawaii in 1778; and, on the other hand, the vote would be granted to a person who could trace, say, one sixty-fourth of his or her ancestry to a Hawaiian inhabitant on the pivotal date. Ibid. These factors, it is said, mean the restriction is not a racial classification. We reject this line of argument.
Ancestry can be a proxy for race. It is that proxy here. Even if the residents of Hawaii in 1778 had been of more diverse ethnic backgrounds and cultures, it is far from clear that a voting test favoring their descendants would not be a race-based qualification. But that is not this case. For centuries Hawaii was isolated from migration. 1 Kuyken-dall 3. The inhabitants shared common physical character-isties, and by 1778 they had a common culture. Indeed, the drafters of the statutory definition in question emphasized the "unique culture of the ancient Hawaiians” in explaining their work. Hawaii Senate Journal, Standing Committee Rep. No. 784, at 1354; see ibid. (“Modern scholarship also identified such race of people as culturally distinguishable from other Polynesian peoples”). The provisions before us reflect the State’s effort to preserve that commonality of people to the present day. In the interpretation of the Reconstruction era civil rights laws we have observed that “racial discrimination” is that which singles out “identifiable classes of persons... solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U. S. 604, 613 (1987). The very object of the statutory definition in question and of its earlier congressional counterpart in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is to treat the early Hawaiians as a distinct people, commanding their own recognition and respect. The State, in enacting the legislation before us, has used ancestry as a racial definition and for a racial purpose.
The history of the State’s definition demonstrates the point. As we have noted, the statute defines “Hawaiian” as
“any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and which peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawaii.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10-2 (1993).
A different definition of “Hawaiian” was first promulgated in 1978 as one of the. proposed amendments to the State Constitution. As proposed, “Hawaiian” was defined as “any descendant of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands, previous to 1778.” 1 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1978, Committee of the Whole Rep. No. 13, at 1018. Rejected as not ratified in a valid manner, see Kahalekai v. Doi, 60 Haw. 324, 342, 590 P. 2d 543, 555 (1979), the definition was modified and in the end promulgated in statutory form as quoted above. See Hawaii Senate Journal,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 State of Arizona and county officials from four of its counties seek relief from an interlocutory injunction entered by a two-judge motions panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kennedy has referred the applicants’ filings to the Court. We construe the filings of the State and the county officials as petitions for certiorari; we grant the petitions; and we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
I
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. The measure sought to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.
The election procedures implemented to effect Proposition 200 do not necessarily result in the turning away of qualified, registered voters by election officials for lack of proper identification. A voter who arrives at the polls on election day without identification may cast a conditional provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter is allowed five business days to return to a designated site and present proper identification. In addition any voter who knows he or she cannot secure identification within five business days of the election has the option to vote before election day during the early voting period. The State has determined that, because there is adequate time during the early voting period to compare the voters’ signatures on the ballot with their signatures on the registration rolls, voters need not present identification if voting early.
Arizona is a covered jurisdiction under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So it was required to preclear any new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” with either the United States Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure its new voting policy did “not have the purpose [or] effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 461-462 (2003). On May 6, 2005, the United States Attorney General precleared the procedures Arizona adopted under Proposition 200.
In the District Court the plaintiffs in this action are residents of Arizona, Indian tribes, and various community organizations. In May 2006, these plaintiffs brought suit challenging Proposition 200’s identification requirements. On September 11, 2006, the District Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, but it did not at that time issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. These findings were important because resolution of legal questions in the Court of Appeals required evaluation of underlying factual issues.
The plaintiffs appealed the denial, and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals set a briefing schedule that concluded on November 21, two weeks after the upcoming November 7 election. The plaintiffs then requested an injunction pending appeal from the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ rules, the request for an injunction was assigned to a two-judge motions/sereening panel. See Rule 3-3 (CA9 2002). On October 5, after receiving lengthy written responses from the State and the county officials but without oral argument, the panel issued a four-sentence order enjoining Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200’s provisions pending disposition, after full briefing, of the appeals of the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals offered no explanation or justification for its order. Four days later, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. The order denying the motion likewise gave no rationale for the court’s decision.
Despite the time-sensitive nature of the proceedings and the pendency of a request for emergency relief in the Court of Appeals, the District Court did not issue its findings of fact and conclusions of law until October 12. It then concluded that “plaintiffs have shown a possibility of success on the merits of some of their arguments but the Court cannot say that at this stage they have shown a strong likelihood.” Order in No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS etc. (D. Ariz., Oct. 11, 2006), pp. 7-8, App. to Application for Stay of Injunction, Tab 5 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The District Court then found the balance of the harms and the public interest counseled in favor of denying the injunction.
II
“A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 231 (1989). Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964). Countering the State’s compelling interest in preventing voter fraud is the plaintiffs’ strong interest in exercising the “fundamental political right” to vote. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the likely effects of Proposition 200 are much debated, the possibility that qualified voters might be turned away from the polls would caution any district judge to give careful consideration to the plaintiffs’ challenges.
Faced with an application to enjoin operation of voter identification procedures just weeks before an election, the Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction, considerations specific to election cases and its own institutional procedures. Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase. So the Court of Appeals may have deemed this consideration to be grounds for prompt action. Furthermore, it might have given some weight to the possibility that the nonprevailing parties would want to seek en banc review. In the Ninth Circuit that procedure, involving voting by all active judges and an en banc hearing by a court of 15, can consume further valuable time. These considerations, however, cannot be controlling here. It was still necessary, as a procedural matter, for the Court of Appeals to give deference to the discretion of the District Court. We find no indication that it did so, and we conclude this was error.
Although at the time the Court of Appeals issued its order the District Court had not yet made factual findings to which the Court of Appeals owed deference, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), by failing to provide any factual findings or indeed any reasoning of its own the Court of Appeals left this Court in the position of evaluating the Court of Appeals’ bare order in light of the District Court’s ultimate findings. There has been no explanation given by the Court of Appeals showing the ruling and findings of the District Court to be incorrect. In view of the impending election, the necessity for clear guidance to the State of Arizona, and our conclusion regarding the Court of Appeals’ issuance of the order we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
We underscore that we express no opinion here on the correct disposition, after full briefing and argument, of the appeals from the District Court’s September 11 order or on the ultimate resolution of these cases. As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested, and “[n]o bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 359 (1997). Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed. without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules.
The order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.3, the Clerk is directed to issue the judgment in these cases forthwith.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire easements over small wetland areas suitable for migratory waterfowl breeding and nesting grounds. Although the State of North Dakota initially consented to the Secretary’s acquisition of easements over certain wetlands, the State now seeks to withdraw its consent and to impose conditions on any future acquisitions. This has led to the present litigation, for the State’s present posture raises the question whether the Secretary may proceed to acquire easements pursuant to North Dakota’s prior consent.
A
In 1929, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Conservation Act), 45 Stat. 1222, ch. 257, 16 U. S. C. §715 et seq., became law. By § 5 of that Act, 45 Stat. 1223, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to acquire land “for use as inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds.” Land acquisitions under the Conservation Act are subject to certain conditions: they must be approved in advance by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, §§2 and 5, 16 U. S. C. §§715a and 715d, and the State in which the land is located must “have consented by law to the acquisition,” § 7, 16 U. S. C. § 715f.
In 1934, in order to provide funding for land acquisitions under the Conservation Act, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Stamp Act), 48 Stat. 451, 16 U. S. C. §718 et seq., was enacted. Section 1 of the Stamp Act, 16 U. S. C. §718a, required waterfowl hunters to purchase migratory bird hunting stamps, commonly known as duck stamps. By §4, 16 U. S. C. §718d, the proceeds from the sale of the stamps were to form a special “migratory bird conservation fund” (conservation fund) to be used primarily to pay for “the location, ascertainment, acquisition, administration, maintenance, and development” of bird sanctuaries pursuant to the Conservation Act.
To hasten the acquisition of land suitable for waterfowl habitats, Congress amended the Stamp Act in 1958. The price of a duck stamp was increased, and, most important for our present purposes, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to expend money from the conservation fund for a new type of property: “small wetland and pothole areas, interests therein, and rights-of-way to provide access thereto,” the small areas “to be designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas.’” Pub. L. 85-585, §3, 72 Stat. 487, 16 U. S. C. §718d(c). Such waterfowl production areas could be “acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.” Ibid. Because these waterfowl production areas did not have to be maintained as sanctuaries, there was no need for them to be purchased outright; the Secretary was authorized to acquire easements prohibiting fee owners from draining their wetlands or otherwise destroying the wetlands’ suitability as breeding grounds.
Despite the 1958 amendments, however, the proceeds from duck stamp sales proved insufficient to acquire land at the rate Congress deemed necessary. Accordingly, a new source of income was provided through the Wetlands Act of 1961 (Loan Act), Pub. L. 87-383, 75 Stat. 813. Section 1 of this new Act originally authorized sums for appropriation not to exceed $105 million for a 7-year period. These sums were to be added to the conservation fund in the form of interest-free loans that were to be repaid out of duck stamp proceeds. In addition, § 3 of the Loan Act provided that no land could be acquired with money from the conservation fund unless consent had been obtained from the Governor or an appropriate agency of the State in which the land was located.
B
The principal waterfowl breeding grounds in the continental United States are located in four States of the northern Great Plains — North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. North Dakota, in particular, is rich in wetlands suitable for waterfowl breeding, and the Government’s acquisition of North Dakota land has been given high priority. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 95-1518, p. 5 (1978); S. Rep. No. 94-594, p. 3 (1976).
For the most part, North Dakota has cooperated with federal efforts to preserve waterfowl habitats. Two years after the Conservation Act went into effect, the State, pursuant to § 7 of that Act, 45 Stat. 1223, 16 U. S. C. § 715f, gave its consent to the “acquisition by the United States... of such areas of land or water, or of land and water, in the State of North Dakota, as the United States may deem necessary for the establishment of migratory bird reservations.” 1931 N. D. Laws, ch. 207, p. 360. By 1958, the United States had acquired more than 276,000 acres of North Dakota land for use as migratory bird refuges. Hearings on S. 2447 et al. before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 79-81 (1958).
When the Loan Act was passed in 1961, the United States, through its Fish and Wildlife Service, promptly sought the necessary gubernatorial consent from Governor Guy of North Dakota. Between 1961 and 1977, Governor Guy and his successor, Governor Link, consented to the acquisition of easements covering approximately 1.5 million acres of wetlands. The consents specified the maximum acreage to be acquired within each county in the State, but did not list particular parcels. By 1977, the Fish and Wildlife Service had obtained easements covering about half of the total wetlands acreage authorized by the consents.
In the mid-1970’s cooperation between North Dakota and the United States began to break down. The sources of the dispute are not altogether clear; the State accuses the United States of misleading landowners from whom it purchased easements, and of reneging on some unrelated agreements relating to flood-control projects. See Record 19-20, 40; Brief for Appellant 30-33. In any event, North Dakota enacted legislation in 1977 restricting the United States’ ability to acquire easements over wetlands. 1977 N. D. Laws, ch. 204, p. 461, and ch. 426, p. 923.
The 1977 legislation affects the acquisition of wetlands easements in three major ways. First, §2 of ch. 204, codified as N. D. Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.1 (Supp. 1981), as amended by 1979 N. D. Laws, ch. 553, § 11, p. 1412, requires the Governor to submit proposed wetlands acquisitions for approval by the board of county commissioners of the county in which the land is located. The “federal agency involved” — here, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service — must provide the county with a “detailed impact analysis,” and the county, as well, is directed to prepare an impact analysis at federal expense. If the county does not recommend the acquisition, the Governor may not approve it. Next, §3 of ch. 204, codified as §20.1-02-18.2, as amended by 1981 N. D. Laws, ch. 258, p. 654, authorizes the landowner to negotiate the terms and time period of the easement acquired by the United States, to restrict the easement “by legal description to the land, wetland, or water areas being sought,” and to “drain any after-expanded wetland or water area in excess of the legal description.” Finally, §1 of ch. 426, codified as N. D. Cent. Code §47-05-02.1 (1978), restricts all easements to a maximum duration of 99 years. Because these restrictions have cast doubt upon the sufficiency of its title, the United States has acquired no easement over North Dakota wetlands since 1977.
In 1979, the United States brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1977 state statutes were hostile to federal law in certain respects and could not be applied; that any easement acquired in violation of the 1977 statutes would nevertheless be valid; and that the legislative-consent provision of the Conservation Act, § 7, 45 Stat. 1223, 16 U. S. C. § 715f, did not apply to the acquisition of waterfowl production areas under the Stamp Act. The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, App. to Juris. Statement 16a, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 650 F. 2d 911 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction over North Dakota’s appeal. 455 U. S. 987 (1982).
II
The protection of migratory birds has long been recognized as “a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude.” Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 435 (1920). Since the turn of the century, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior successively have been charged with responsibility for “the preservation, distribution, introduction, and restoration of game birds and other wild birds.” Act of May 25, 1900, 31 Stat. 187, 16 U. S. C. § 701. A series of treaties dating back to 1916 obligates the United States to preserve and protect migratory birds through the regulation of hunting, the establishment of refuges, and the protection of bird habitats. By providing for the acquisition of sanctuaries and waterfowl production areas, the Conservation Act and the Stamp Act play a central role in assuring that our Nation’s migratory birds will continue to flourish.
In the absence of federal legislation to the contrary, the United States unquestionably has the power to acquire wetlands for waterfowl production areas, by purchase or condemnation, without state consent. Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245, 264 (1963); Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 371-372 (1876). Here,. however, Congress has conditioned any such acquisition upon the United States’ obtaining the consent of the Governor of the State in which the land is located. North Dakota concedes that its Governors, at various times since 1961, have consented to the acquisition of easements over 1.5 million acres of North Dakota wetlands. The issue before us is whether North Dakota may revoke its consent to the acquisition of further easements in the State, and whether North Dakota by statute may impose conditions and restrictions on the United States’ power to acquire easements.
A
North Dakota’s central argument is that the gubernatorial consent required by 16 U. S. C. § 715k-5, once given, may be revoked by the State at will. North Dakota reads §715k-5 to require not only that the Governor have consented to the acquisition of land for waterfowl production areas, but also that the Governor (and his successors in office) must continue to consent until the moment the land is actually acquired. Thus, although the United States has acquired easements over only half the acreage authorized by Governors Guy and Link, North Dakota asserts that it can terminate the United States’ power to acquire the remainder. The United States takes the position that § 715k-5 does not permit a State to revoke its consent at will; once consent has been given, “the role assigned to the state by Congress has been exhausted.” Brief for United States 24.
As with any case involving statutory interpretation, “we state once again the obvious when we note that, in determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language.” Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., ante, at 110. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lems, 444 U. S. 11, 19 (1979). “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). The language of §715k-5 is uncomplicated; it provides that money from the conservation fund shall not be used to acquire land “unless the acquisition thereof has been approved” by the Governor or the appropriate state agency. In this case, the acquisition of approximately 1.5 million acres of wetlands clearly “has been approved” by North Dakota’s Governors. Nothing in the statute authorizes the withdrawal of approval previously given.
Nor does the legislative history of §715k-5 suggest that Congress intended to permit Governors to revoke their consent. Before 1961, neither legislative nor gubernatorial consent was required prior to the acquisition of wetlands for waterfowl production areas. State legislative consent was a prerequisite to the acquisition of bird sanctuaries, § 715f, but waterfowl production areas were expressly exempted from this requirement, § 718d(c). Nonetheless, the United States followed an informal practice of obtaining agreement from the Governor or appropriate state agency before acquisition. The gubernatorial-consent provision was intended simply to incorporate this practice. 107 Cong. Rec. 17171 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Magnuson); id., at 17172 (remarks of Sen. Hruska). There is no indication in the legislative history or elsewhere that under this prior practice a Governor could withdraw consent already given.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that the consent required by § 715k-5 cannot be revoked at the will of an incumbent Governor. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the very purpose behind the Loan Act of which § 715k-5 is a part. The Loan Act was expressly intended to facilitate the acquisition of wetlands by making available an additional source of funds. The legislative history is replete with references to the need to preserve the Nation’s wetlands by bringing four to five million additional acres under federal control. See Hearings on S. 2187 et al. before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 14-19, 23-24, 28-31, 33-39 (1961); S. Rep. No. 705, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1961); H. R. Rep. No. 545, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1961). Obviously, this acquisition could not take place overnight; careful planning over many years was anticipated. See S. Rep. No. 705, supra, at 2. If consent under §715k-5 were revocable, the United States’ ability to engage in such planning would be severely hampered. A detailed federal program involving the estimate of needs, setting of priorities, allocation of funds, and negotiations with landowners could be negated in an instant by a Governor’s decision that the politics of the moment made further federal acquisitions undesirable.
Our conclusion in this regard is strengthened by the fact that, at the time of its enactment, the gubernatorial-consent provision was not at all controversial. It was added by the Senate Committee on Commerce without explanation, see S. Rep. No. 705, supra, at 3, and was accepted by the House of Representatives without explanation or discussion, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1184, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1961); 107 Cong. Rec. 21184 (1961). The only discussion of the provision came on the Senate floor, when that body was assured that it did no more than formalize the existing practice of gaining state approval prior to acquiring land. We are unwilling to assume that Congress, while expressing its firm belief in the need to preserve additional wetlands, so casually would have undercut the United States’ ability to plan for their preservation. Clearly, Congress intended the States to play an important role in the planning process. But once plans have been made and the Governor’s approval has been freely given, the role of the State indeed is at an end. It is then up to the United States to choose how best to use its resources in putting its acquisition plans into effect.
Although it has been intimated that a Governor’s consent might become revocable if the United States were to delay unreasonably its land acquisitions pursuant to the consent, see Brief for United States 26; Tr. of Oral Arg. 35, we need not reach that issue here. In this case, there has been no unreasonable delay. Until North Dakota’s legislation interfered in 1977, the United States had pursued diligently its program of acquiring wetlands easements in North Dakota. The acreage fluctuated somewhat from year to year, but the acquisitions each year were substantial. In 1958, when Congress first authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire waterfowl production areas, it was generally anticipated that the United States’ acquisition program would take a minimum of 20 to 25 years to complete. The acquisition program had been underway for only 16 years in 1977, a time-span well within the limits contemplated by Congress.
B
We next consider North Dakota’s 1977 legislation, which purports to impose conditions on the United States’ power to acquire further wetlands easements. Because the statutes at issue raise somewhat different concerns, we discuss each in turn.
1. N. D. Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.1 (Supp. 1981). This statute sets out certain conditions that must be met “prior to final approval” of the acquisition of wetlands easements. The only sanction provided in §20.1-02-18.1 for failure to comply with its conditions is that consent for the acquisitions will be refused. North Dakota explains that this represents the State’s decision “to qualify or condition any consent to future acquisitions.” Brief for Appellant 33; see id., at 35.
We thus need not consider in this case whether the gubernatorial-consent provision, 16 U. S. C. §715k-5, permits North Dakota to impose these conditions on any consent it chooses to give in the future. At issue here is the status of acquisitions authorized by consents already given. We do not understand the State to argue that §20.1-02-18.1 imposes retroactive conditions on these prior consents. By its terms, the statute has no application to the acquisition of easements for which consent previously has been given, because nothing in the statute purports to limit the United States’ power to acquire land once “final approval” has been obtained. Moreover, any attempt to impose retroactive conditions clearly would be unavailing. We have ruled above that once the requisite gubernatorial consent has been obtained, it may not be revoked. Since 16 U. S. C. § 715k-5 does not permit North Dakota to revoke its consent outright, North Dakota may not revoke its consent based on noncompliance with the conditions set forth in N. D. Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.1 (Supp. 1981).
2. N. D. Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.2 (Supp. 1981). The United States does not challenge those portions of §20.1-02-18.2 that permit a landowner to negotiate the conditions of an easement and restrict the scope of the easement to a particular legal description. The United States does object, however, to that part of § 20.1-02-18.2(2) that permits a landowner to “drain any after-expanded wetland or water area in excess of the legal description in the... easement....” The United States’ standard easement agreement contains a clause prohibiting the draining of after-expanded wetlands, see n. 6, supra, and §20.1-02-18.2(2) might be read to void such clauses even when agreed to by the landowner.
This Court addressed a similar situation in United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U. S. 580 (1978). In that case, the United States had exercised its authority under the Conservation Act to acquire land in Louisiana for use as a wildlife refuge. Mineral rights were reserved to the prior landowners for a period of 10 years, subject to extensions under certain conditions. A Louisiana statute barred the reversion of the mineral rights to the United States, and thus in effect extended the prior landowners’ mineral rights indefinitely.
Applying Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363 (1943), this Court concluded that because the United States’ acquisition of land under the Conservation Act “is one arising from and bearing heavily upon a federal regulatory program..., the choice-of-law task is a federal task for federal courts.” 412 U. S., at 592. The key factors in Little Lake Misere were that “[w]e deal[t] with the interpretation of a land acquisition agreement (a) explicitly authorized, though not precisely governed, by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and (b) to which the United States itself [was] a party.” Id., at 594. Although the present case involves acquisitions under the Stamp Act rather than the Conservation Act, the federal interests at stake are the same. Thus, the choice of applicable law presents a federal question. Although state law may be borrowed if appropriate, “specific aberrant or hostile state rules do not provide appropriate standards for federal law.” Id., at 596.
Because the Louisiana statute at issue in Little Lake Misere was “plainly hostile to the interests of the United States,” id., at 597, the Court refused to apply it. In language equally applicable to the present case, the Court said:
“To permit state abrogation of the explicit terms of a federal land acquisition would deal a serious blow to the congressional scheme contemplated by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and indeed all other federal land acquisition programs. These programs are national in scope. They anticipate acute and active bargaining by officials of the United States charged with making the best possible use of limited federal conservation appropriations. Certainty and finality are indispensable in any land transaction, but they are especially critical when, as here, the federal officials carrying out the mandate of Congress irrevocably commit scarce fundsi” Ibid.
To the extent that §20.1-02-18.2(2) authorizes landowners to drain after-expanded wetlands contrary to the terms of their easement agreements, we must conclude that it is equally hostile to federal interests and may not be applied to easements acquired under previously given consents. The United States is authorized to incorporate into easement agreements such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary for the protection of wildlife, 16 U. S. C. § 715e, and these rules and regulations may include restrictions on land outside the legal description of the easement. See Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 546 (1976); Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 525-526 (1897). To respond to the inherently fluctuating nature of wetlands, the Secretary has chosen to negotiate easement agreements imposing restrictions on after-expanded wetlands as well as those described in the easement itself. As long as North Dakota landowners are willing to negotiate such agreements, the agreements may not be abrogated by state law.
3. N. D. Cent. Code §17-05-02.1 (1978). Much the same analysis persuades us that this statute, which limits nonap-purtenant easements to a maximum term of 99 years, may not be applied to wetlands easements acquired by the United States under consents previously given pursuant to the Stamp Act. The United States’ commitment to the protection of migratory birds will not cease after 99 years have passed. This commitment has been incorporated into law for over 80 years and has been expressed in treaties since 1916, and the need to preserve migratory bird habitats is now no less than before.
To ensure that essential habitats will remain protected, the United States has adopted the practice of acquiring permanent easements whenever possible. Permanent easements are authorized by the gubernatorial consents given from 1961 to 1977, and the United States apparently has had no difficulty in negotiating permanent easements with North Dakota landowners. The automatic termination of federal wetlands easements after 99 years would make impossible the “[certainty and finality” that we have regarded as “critical when... federal officials carrying out the mandate of Congress irrevocably commit scarce funds.” United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U. S., at 597. We conclude that § 47-05-02.1 is hostile to federal interests and may not be applied. See 412 U. S., at 596; United States v. Albrecht, 496 F. 2d 906, 911 (CA8 1974).
HH I — I HH
The District Court and the Court of Appeals held that gubernatorial consent was not required prior to federal acquisition of wetlands easements, and that North Dakota’s 1977 legislation could not be applied to any easements acquired under the Stamp Act. We conclude that although gubernatorial consent is required, it has been given here and cannot be revoked. We also conclude that North Dakota’s 1977 legislation cannot restrict the United States’ ability to acquire easements pursuant to consent previously given. To this extent, we affirm the judgment below.
It is so ordered.
Section 5 was amended by § 5(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvements Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3113, with minor changes from the language quoted in the text. The sense of that language, however, was not altered. See 16 U. S. C. § 715d (1976 ed., Supp. V).
The authorization loan limit was increased to $200 million by §2(a) of the Wetlands Loan Extension Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 189, 16 U. S. C. § 715k-3.
Section 3 reads in relevant part:
“Provided further, That no land shall be acquired with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund unless the acquisition thereof has been approved by the Governor of the State or appropriate State agency.” 75 Stat. 813, 16 U. S. C. §715k-5.
This proviso is in addition to the Conservation Act’s requirement, in its § 7, that the State “shall have consented by law” to the acquisition of land for inviolate bird sanctuaries. 45 Stat. 1223, 16 U. S. C. § 715f. The latter requires consent by the legislature; the former requires consent by the Governor or the “appropriate State agency.”
When the glaciers retreated from the northern Great Plains at the end of the last ice age, they left in their wake thousands of shallow depressions. These depressions, known as prairie potholes, provide excellent breeding grounds for migratory ducks. In United States v. Albrecht, 496 F. 2d 906 (CA8 1974), the Court of Appeals described the characteristics of a prairie pothole region and its advantages for breeding ducks:
“Each square mile of such land is dotted by approximately 70 to 80 potholes of three to four feet deep.... [On certain types of land] the potholes usually retain water through July or August, and therefore, provide an excellent environment for the production of aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants, the basic foods for breeding adult ducks and their offspring. Essential to the maintenance of the land as a waterfowl production area is the availability of shallow water in these numerous potholes during the usually drier summer months. On the other hand, too much water, as a lake area with its deeper waters, does not provide the proper habitat for many species of duck to rear their young. Also, for the protection of their young, many species of duck prefer to be isolated in a small pothole, rather than to share a large lake.” Id., at 908-909.
See generally Kantrud & Stewart, Use of Natural Basin Wetlands By Breeding Waterfowl in North Dakota, 41 J. Wildlife Management 243 (1977); Prairie Potholes: Draining the Duck Hatchery, National Wildlife (Oct.-Nov. 1981) p. 6.
The consents were in written form prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Each covered a separate county, and read substantially as follows:
“I,-, Governor of the State of North Dakota, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of October 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 813, hereby grant approval to the acquisition of easements by the United States of America of any lands within the county of-, State of North Dakota, for Waterfowl Production Area purposes not to exceed- — acres of wetlands.” App. 3, 55.
Some of the forms were signed by the North Dakota Game and Fish Commissioner as the authorized representative of the Governor. Id., at 4-5, 47.
The typical easement agreement contained a legal description of a parcel of land, and imposed restrictions on all wetland areas within the parcel “now existing or subject to recurrence through natural or man-made causes,” including “any enlargements of said wetland areas resulting from normal or abnormal increased water.” The easements prohibit the owner from draining, filling, leveling or burning the wetlands, but permit farming and other activities whenever the wetlands “are dry of natural causes.” Id., at 14-16; see App. to Juris. Statement 6a-7a.
North Dakota Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.1, as amended (Supp. 1981), provides:
“Federal wildlife area acquisitions — Submission to county commissioners, opportunity for public comment, and impact analysis required. The governor, the game and fish commissioner, or their designees, responsible under federal law for final approval of land, wetland, and water acquisitions by the United States department of the interior, its bureaus or agencies, for waterfowl production areas, wildlife refuges or other wildlife or waterfowl purposes, shall submit the proposed acquisitions to the board of county commissioners of the county or counties in which the land, wetland, and water areas are located for the board’s recommendations. An affirmative recommendation by the board must be obtained prior to final approval of all such proposed acquisitions, whether by transfer of title, lease, easement, or servitude.
“The board of county commissioners of the county affected, or a designee or designees of the board, shall, within twenty-one days of receipt of an acquisition proposal, physically inspect the proposed acquisition areas. The board shall give public notice of the date, hour, and place where the public may comment on the proposed acquisitions. The notice shall be published once each week for two successive weeks in the official newspaper of the county or counties in which the land and water areas are located. The notice shall set forth the substance of the proposed action, and shall include a legal description of the proposed acquisitions. The board of county commissioners shall make its recommendations within sixty days after receipt of an acquisition proposal.
“A detailed impact analysis from the federal agency involved shall be included with the acquisition proposal for board of county commissioner consideration in making recommendations. Such analysis shall include, but shall not be limited to, the recreational and wildlife impacts. In addition, the county agent of the affected county or counties shall prepare an impact analysis for board of county commissioner consideration which shall include the fiscal, social, and agricultural impacts of the proposed acquisitions. The department of the interior shall reimburse the county or counties for any expenses incurred by the county agent in preparing the analysis. The analyses shall also be forwarded to the state federal aid coordinator office which shall furnish copies to all interested state agencies and political subdivisions, which agencies and political subdivisions shall have thirty days to review the analyses and return their comments to the state federal aid coordinator office. Upon expiration of the thirty-day period, all comments received by the state federal aid coordinator office shall be forwarded to the federal agency involved and to the state official or agency responsible for final acquisition approval. The federal agency may, after consideration of such comments, file a final impact analysis with the governor, the board of county commissioners, and any other state official or agency responsible for final acquisition approval.”
North Dakota Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.2, as amended (Supp. 1981), provides:
“Negotiation of leases, easements, and servitudes for wildlife production purposes. A landowner may negotiate the terms of a lease, easement, or servitude for land, wetland, or water areas sought to be acquired by the United States department of the interior, its bureaus or agencies, with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund [16 U. S. C. 718d] for use as waterfowl production areas, wildlife refuges, or for other wildlife purposes. A landowner may:
“1. Negotiate the time period of the lease, easement, or servitude being sought.
“2. Restrict a lease, easement, or servitude by legal description to the land, wetland, or water areas being sought, and may drain any after-
expanded wetland or water area in excess of the legal description in the lease, easement, or servitude.
“Failure by the department of the interior, its bureaus or agencies, to agree to and comply with the above provisions shall nullify North Dakota’s consent to the federal Act under section 20.1-02-18.”
As originally enacted, §20.1-02-18.2 also provided that any easement would terminate upon death of the landowner or a change in ownership.
1977 N. D. Laws, ch. 204, § 3, p. 463. This provision was repealed by 1981 N. D. Laws, ch. 258, § 1, p. 654.
Section 47-05-02.1 provides in relevant part:
“Regulations governing easements, servitudes, or nonappurtenant restrictions on the use of real property. — Real property easements, servi-tudes, or any nonappurtenant restrictions on the use of real property, which become binding after July 1,1977, shall be subject to the regulations contained in this section. These regulations shall be deemed a part of any agreement for such interests in real property whether or not printed in a document of agreement.
“2. The duration of the easement, servitude, or nonappurtenant restriction on the use of real property shall be specifically set out, and in no case shall the duration of any interest in real property regulated by this section exceed ninety-nine years.”
In 1981, while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, North Dakota added a further provision forbidding any new federal acquisition of land for a migratory bird reservation, and suspending the Governor’s authority to consent to any acquisition from the conservation fund. 1981 N. D. Laws, ch. 258, §2, p. 654, codified as N. D. Cent. Code §20.1-02-18.3 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question to be decided in this case is whether the employees of a mutual ditch company are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as persons employed in agriculture. The company is the Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Company, a Colorado corporation having an authorized capital stock of $1,050,000 and an authorized bonded indebtedness of $850,000, $450,000 of which is presently outstanding in the hands of the public. The company has central offices in Denver. It owns four large and several small reservoirs and a system of canals from 200 to 300 miles long, all in Colorado. The-sole activity of the corporation is the collection, storage and distribution of water for irrigation purposes. The water is diverted from the public streams of Colorado, stored in the company’s reservoirs and distributed to farmers through the company’s canals.
The company is.a mutual one. It does not sell water. It distributes it only to its own stockholders, who are each entitled to a limited quantity for each share of stock held. The income of the company is derived largely from assessments levied on the stockholders annually to pay for the costs of operating the system. ■ There are no profits and no dividends.
The company did not comply with either the record keeping or the wages and hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Administrator sought an injunction directed against continuation of these alleged violations. The company claimed that its employees were not subject to the Act. These employees fall into two categories. First, there are the field employees— ditch riders, lake tenders and maintenance men. Their activity, in general, consists of the physical operation, control and maintenance of the company’s canals, reservoirs, and headgates. The second category comprises the company’s office force in Denver. For purposes of this case it contains only one occupant — the company’s bookkeeper.
The District Court held that the field employees were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, as those terms, are defined in § 3 of the Agfc, but that the bookkeeper was not. It held, however, that all of the company’s employees were exempt under .§ 13 (a) (6) as persons “employed in agriculture.” This second holding was reversed, as to the field employees, by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, one judge dissenting, and, in No. 128, we granted the company’s petition for certiorari on the exemption issue. The Court oí Appeals did not pass on the bookkeeper’s status. It regarded his case as moot because his salary was said by the company, in its brief, to have been raised to $210 per month while the appeal was pending. The court regarded this as sufficient to establish his exemption as an administrative employee under § 13 (a) (1) of the Act and therefore-limited its consideration and its reversal of the District Court to the field employees. In No. 196, we granted the Administrator’s cross-petition with respect to the bookkeeper.
It is conceded here that the courts below were correct in holding that the field emploj'ees are engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The company, however, argues that this requires the conclusion that they are employed in agriculture. This argument rests on the fact that the activities of the company and its employees are entirely confined within the State of Colorado. The company diverts water in Colorado, stores it in Colorado, distributes it in Colorado to farmers who, finally, consume it in Colorado. The only products moving in interstate commerce are the agricultural commodities produced by the farmers who consume the company’s water. Hence, it is said that we can hold that the company’s employees are engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce only if we say that their work in supplying water to the farmers is an integral part of the production of the farm products which are shipped in interstate commerce. But that production is, of course, agriculture. Hence, the company’s employees, if they are engaged in the production of goods for commerce, must be exempt as persons employed in agriculture.
The argument rests on a misconstruction of § 3 (j) of the Fair Labor Standards Act — the section which the courts below relied on in concluding that the field employees of the company are engaged in the production of goods for commerce. Section 3 (j) provides that “for the purposes of this Act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed ... in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof.” From the beginning, this Court has refused either to read this provision out of the Act by limiting the coverage of the Act to those actually engaged in production or, on the other hand, to expand it so as to include every process or occupation affecting production for commerce. We have held that, if an occupation, not itself production for commerce, has “a close and immediate tie” with the process of production, it comes within the provisions of § 3 (j). Applying this standard, the Court of Appeals quite properly held that the field employees here are engaged in an occupation necessary, in the statutory sense, for the production of agricultural commodities shipped in commerce. .
But the conclusion that the work is necessary to agricultural production does not require us to say that it is agricultural production. This distinction between necessity and identity, or, differently phrased, between production in the normal sense and production in the special sense defined in § 3 (j), disposes of the company’s contention. The question here is whether the occupation of the field' employees of the ditch company can itself be termed agriculture. The answer to that question is not predetermined by the fact that the occupation is within the scope of the Act because it has' a necessary connection, in commerce, with agricultural production.
Agriculture, as an occupation, includes more'than the elemental process of planting, growing and harvesting crops. There are,a host of incidental activities which are necessary to that process. ' Whether a párticular type of activity is agricultural depends, in large measure, upon the way in which that activity is organized in a particular society. The determination cannot be made in the abstract. In less advanced societies the agricultural function includes many types of activity which, in others, are not agricultural. The fashioning of tools, the provision of fertilizer, the processing of the product, to mention only a few examples, are functions which, in some societies, are performed on the farm by farmers as part of their normal agricultural routine. Economic progress, however, is characterized by a progressive division of labor and separation of function. Tools are’made by a tool manufacturer, who specializes in that kind of ■work and supplies them to the farmer. The compost heap is replaced by factory-produced fertilizers. Power-is derived from electricity and gasoline rather than supplied by the farmer’s mules. Wheat is gro und at the mill. In this way, functions which are necessary to the total economic process of supplying an agricultural product become, in the process of economic development and specialization, separate and independent productive functions operated in conjunction with the agricultural function but no longer a part of it. Thus, the question as to whether a particular type of activity is agricultural is not determined by the necessity of the activity to agriculture nor by the physical similarity of the activity to that done by farmers in other situations. The question is whether the activity in the particular case is carried on as part of the agricultural function or is separately organized as an independent productive activity. The farmhand who cares for the farmer’s mules or prepares his fertilizer is engaged in agriculture. But the maintenance man in a power plant and the packer in a fertilizer factory are not employed in agriculture, even if their activity is necessary to farmers and replaces work previously done by farmers. The production of power and the manufacture of fertilizer are independent productive functions, not agriculture.
In the absence of a detailed definition of agriculture we should be compelled to determine whether the activity concerned in the present case — the diversion, storage and distribution óf water for irrigation purposes— is carried on as part of the agricultural function or is so separately organized and conducted as to be treated as an. independent, nonagricultural productive function. Fortunately, however, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides a carefully considered definition which is of substantial aid in helping us to make that determination.
The definition is contained in § 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It says:
“Sec. 3 (f). ‘Agriculture’ includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying,' the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities (including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended), the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.”
As can be readily seen, this definition has two distinct branches. First, there is the primary meaning. Agriculture includes farming in all its branches. Certain specific practices such as cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, etc., are listed as being ■ included in this primary meaning. Second, there is the broader meaning. Agriculture is defined to include things other than farming as so illustrated. It includes any practices, whether or not themselves farming practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a farm, incidently to or in conjunction with "such” farming operations.
Dealing with these two branches of the definition in order, it is clear, first, that the occupation in which the company’s employees are engaged is not farming. The company owns no farms and raises no crops. Irrigation, strictly defined — that is the actual watering of the soil— may no doubt be called farming. And the work of the farmers in seeing to it that the water released from the company’s ditches is properly distributed to the growing plants undoubtedly is included in farming as being part of the process of cultivating and tilling the soil. But the .significant fact in this case is that this work is not done , by the company’s employees. There is a clear and definite division of function. The ditch company carries the water in its own canals to the lands of the farmers. When a farmer desires , water so that he can irrigate his fields he notifies the company. . Its employees then operate the headgates, which are located on the company’s canals and which the farmers are forbidden to operate, so that the appropriate quantity of water can pass out of the company’s canals and off the company’s land into the farmer’s irrigation ditches. The responsibility of the company’s employees ceases when they so release the water. The water is supplied-to the farmer at the head-gates and he takes it over there and uses it, in his own laterals, as he sees fit, to irrigate his crops.
The ditch company, then, is not engaged in cultivating or tilling the soil or in growing any agricultural commodity. It is contended, however, that it is nevertheless engaged in farming because of the use, in the definition, of the words “production.... of any agricultural . . . commodities”- in addition to. -the words cultivation, tillage, harvesting, etc. Since produce is defined in § 3 (j) of the Act so as to include, “for purposes of this Act,” any occupation necessary to production, it is argued that production of' agricultural commodities includes any occupation necessary to the production of agricultural commodities. It is thus argued that in the case of agriculture, as distinguished from other exemptions, Congress did provide that the exemption should include not only the occupation named but also all of those other occupations whose work is necessary to it.
If Congress intended to convey that meaning by using the word production in the definition of agriculture, we should, of course, give the definition its intended scope. But we do not “make a fortress out of the dictionary.” And we have, therefore; consistently refused to pervert the process of interpretation by mechanically applying definitions in unintended contexts. . Lawson v. Suwannee S. S. Co., 336 U. S. 198.(1949); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427 (1932). In the present case, the legislative history confirms what a natural reading oHhe language of the agricultural exemption would indica —the word production was not there used in the artificial t*. ' special sense in which it was defined in § 3 (j). Certainly, if it were meant in that sense, it would make surplusage of .the remainder of the carefully wrought definition. And it would hardly have been innocuously placed among such specific terms as “cultivation,” “tillage,” “growing,” and “harvesting.” ■
But we need not speculate on the congressional meaning. The history of the use of the word production is crystal clear. It was added to the definition of agriculture in order to take care of a special situation — the production of turpentine and gum rosins by a process involving the tapping of living trees. There had been indications that such activity would not be considered agriculture, since turpentine is neither cultivated nór grown. And a special amendment, § 15 (g), had been added to the Agricultural Marketing Act specifying that commodities so produced were to be considered agricultural commodities for the purposes of that Act. To insure the inclusion of the process within the agricultural exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the wprd “production” was added to § 3 (f) in conjunction with the words “including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act,, as amended.”
It is unnecessary to decide whether, in view of this history, the word production in the agricultural exemption should be limited to those specific products defined in § 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act or should be given its normal meaning. The only question here is whether the word was used in the special expanded meaning defined in § 3 (j) of the present Act. It is clear that it was not used in this special sense. And it follows that it does not encompass the work of the company’s employees who cannot be said, in any normal use of the term, to be engaged in the production of agricultural commodities. Their work is necessary to agricultural production, but it is not production.
The work of the company’s employees is not, then, farming. But, coming to the second branch of the definition of agriculture, it. is equally clear that it does constitute a practice performed as an incident to or in conjunction with farming. If the Act exempted all such practices, the company would be exempt. But the exemption is limited. Such practices are exempt only if they are performed by a farmer or on a farm.
This language was carefully considered by Congress. As originally introduced, the exemption covered such practices only if performed by a farmer. On the floor of the. Senate it was'objected that this would exclude the threshing of wheat or other functions necessary to the farmer if those functions were not performed by the farmer and his hands, but by separate companies organized for and devoted solely to that particular job. To take care of that situation the words “or on a farm” were added to the definition. Thus, the wheat threshing companies, even though they were separate enterprises, were included in the exemption because their work was incidental to farming and was done on the farm. In the face of this careful use of language, we are required to limit the exemption as Congress intended it should be limited, to practices performed by a farmer or on a farm. In the present case it is clear that the work of the company’s employees is done neither on a farm or by farmers.
Clearly, it is not done on a farm. Nor, we think, is it done “by a farmer.” , Since we have already said that the company’s employees are not engaged in farming, it is perhaps too obvious that the work that they do is-not done by farmers. But an argument to the contrary is made. It is based on the fact that the company is a mutual one, owned by the farmers whom it serves. It is argued that the company is therefore merely a formal conduit or agent, by - which the farmers cooperatively operate their common water supply system and cooperatively employ the men. The men are, therefore, said to be farmers because they are said to be employed by farmers.
Even if it were conceded that the exemption includes the work óf persons who do no farming but are employed by farmers, it still does not include the company’s employees because they are not, in fact, so employed. There is a difference between the hiring of mutual servants by a group of employers and the creation by them of a separate business Organization, with its own officers, property, and bonded indebtedness, which in turn hires working men. Those working men are in no real sense employees of the shareholders of the organization. They' are hired by. the organization, fired by the organization, controlled and directed by the organization, and paid by it. The fact that the organization is. a corporate one adds to the picture, but is not controlling. The controlling fact is that the company has been set up by the farmers as an independent entity to operate an integrated, unitary water supply system. The function of supplying water has thus beén divorced by ihe farmers from the farming operation and set up as a separate and self-contained activity in which the farmers are forbidden, by the.company's by-laws, to interfere. Those employed in that activity are employed by the company, not by the farmers who own the company. The fact that the company is not operated for profit is immaterial. It is nonetheless the employer. Of course, if Congress had intended the absence of profit to be material and had provided that the employees of agricultural cooperatives should be exempted because their work is done for the benefit of the farmers who own the cooperatives, we should honor that provision. But. the legislative history of the existing definition clearly shows that no such result was intended.
We conclude therefore that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the field employees of the company are not exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as persons employed in agriculture.
There remains for consideration the bookkeeper’s case. The Court of Appeals limited its reversal of the District Court to the field employees because it regarded the bookkeeper as exempt, in, any event, as an administrative employee. We need not decide whether it erred in so doing, since the company in this Court disclaims — as it did in the District Court — any reliance on the administrative exemption. And our discussion with regard to the field employees makes it clear that the Court of Appeals decision is, in the absence of any claim of administrative exemption, equally applicable to the bookkeeper. It has been stipulated that his work is a necessary part of the operation of the company’s water supply system. The fact that it is clerical rather than manual is immaterial. Borden Co. v. Borella, 325 U. S. 679 (1945). It follows that his case , is on all fours with that of the field workers and that he is engaged, as they are, in the production of goods for commerce and is not exempt as employed in agriculture. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court and remanding the case to it, should, therefore, be treated as'applicable to both types of employee.
As so modified, the judgment is
Affirmed.
52 Stat. 1060,29 U. S. C. §§ 201-219.
67 F. 2d 911 (1948).
52 Stat. 1061, 29 U. S. C. § 203 (j).
Emphasis added.
Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517, 525 (1942); Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U. S. 126 (1944); Roland Co. v. Walling, 326 U. S. 657, 663 (1946).
“Ne'e.essary” understates the case. The water supplied by the company’s employees is, in this case, an indispensable prerequisite for agricultural production. Cultivation began only with irrigation and it will end if the irrigation ceases. Under such eircurhstances, there can be no doubt of the immediacy of the connection ¡between the production, by the farmers, for commerce and the work of the company’s field employees in providing water for irrigation.
The fallacy of the notion that an exemption carries with it all occupations whose nexus with interstate commerce is the-exempted occupation is demonstrated by authority as well as by logic. In Boutell v. Walling, 327 U. S. 463 (1946), for example, the question was whether men who were employed by a service company to service trucks carrying goods in' interstate commerce were exempt, under § 13 (b) (1), as the employees of an interstate carrier subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Their only connection with commerce was their work on the trucks of the interstate carrier. The Court divided as to whether the employees were themselves employed by the carrier within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act and, therefore, exempt. But there was no suggestion in either of the opinions in the case that, if not employed by the carrier, they were nevertheless exempt because their only connection with interstate commerce was through an enterprise which was itself exempt.
In only one case brought to our attention was a contention pre-r sented similar to that made here. In Dize v. Maddrix, 144 F. 2d 584 (1944), aff’d, 324 U. S. 697 (1945), the local manufacture of boxes was held to be. within the Act because the boxes were used by fishermen to ship their fish in interstate commerce. The fishermen were exempt under-a specific exemption in the Act covering fishing, and it was argued that" the manufacturer of the boxes should therefore be exempt as “fishing” because its only connection with commerce was through fishing. The argument was rejected summarily.
Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Assn. v. Phillips, 158 F. 2d 698 (1946).
McComb v. Super-A Fertilizer Works, 165 F. 2d 824 (1948).
Article VII, § 5 of the Company’s By-Laws provides as follows:
“All headgates in the Company’s canals shall be operated and maintained by and under the exclusive control of this company and no stockholder or any other person shall have the right to interfere with, reconstruct, repair, change, or alter, open or close said headgates or any of them in any manner whatsoever.”
L. Hand, J., in Cabell v. Markham, 148 F. 2d 737, 739 (1945), aff’d, 326 U. S. 404 (1945).
See S. Rep. No. 230, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. (1930).
46 Stat. 1550, 12 U. S. C. § 1141j (g). This language originated in S. 2354, 71st Congress'. That bill was reported to the Senate (S. Rep. No. 230) and passed. • 72 Cong. Rec. 7016 (1930). It did not come to a vote in the House. Its substance was added by the Senáte to H. R. 16836, an. amendment to the oleomargarine tax laws, and in this form became law. See-74 Cong. Rec. 6688, 7196 (1931).
H. R. Rep. No. 2738, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 2. The word “production” was not actually contained in. either the House or Senate bills as originally passed. The Senate bill, S. 2475, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., as passed, contained the reference to § 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act in the following way: “. . . ‘agriculture’ . . . further includes the definition contained in subdivision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act . . . See 81 Cong. Rec. 7659 (1937). This language was faulty, since the section referred to was not a .definition of agriculture but of an agricultural commodity. .The language .was retained in this form when the bill was first debated in the House. See 82 Cong. Rec. 1580, 1690 (1937). The .Housé voted to recommit the bill. Id. at 1835. In committee, the definition of agriculture was completely redrafted and the reference to the Agricultural Marketing Act omitted. See H. R. Rep. No. 2182, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938). The bill passed the House in this form. In conference, it was agreed thajfc the House version of the definition of agriculture should be adopted, with three stated exceptions. Only one of the three is relevant here — the reinsertion of the reference to the Agricultural Marketing Act.' The word “production” was added in conjunction with-that reference and was obviously used only to make the reference grammatically correct. The committee report states the change in this way: “The production of commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act is included within the definition of agriculture . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 2738, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 29 (1938). ■
Although not relevant here, there is the additional requirement that the practices be incidental to “such” farming. Thus, processing on a farm of commodities produced by other farmers is incidental to or in conjunction with the farming operation of the other farmers and not incidental to or in conjunction with the farming operation of the farmer on whose premises the processing is done. Such processing is, therefore, not within the definition of agriculture. Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11 (1941).
“Mr. TYDINGS. ... In the case I visualize . . . the farmer is not performing the service. The man to whom I refer makes a business of doing nothing but threshing. He owns his own machine, and hauls it from farm to farm, and enters into contracts with fanners to thresh' their crops; the point being that while he is dealing with an agricultural commodity, he is not necessarily a farmer, and he is not doing work ordinarily done by a farmer.
. “Mr; BORAH. He is doing the exact work which the farmer did before he took it up.
“Mr. TYDINGS. That is true; but I do not think the bill is drawn in sufficient detail to bring the man to whom I refer under its provisions of exemption.” 81 Cong. Rec. 7653 (1937). See also the comments of Senator Bone, id. at 7659.
81 Cong. Rec. 7888 (1937).
See n. 10, supra.
The debate in both Houses shows a clear awareness that the employees of farmers cooperative associations would not be exempted as employees of farmers'. At various times amendments were offered, and adopted, exempting the employees of certain types of cooperatives. See 81 Cong. Rec. f947 (1937), 82 Cong. Rec. 1783 (1937).- All'such special exemptions were, however, omitted from the bill as it finally became law. See also Interpretative Bulletin, issued by the Administrator, Wage & Hour Division, 29 C. F.-R. 1947 Supp., §§780.81, 780.82".
While it lacks relevance to the question of congressional intention in 1938, Wid may note that the precise question here involved was discussed at length on the Senate floor in 1946 in connection with certain améndments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. It.was clearly, stated, without objection, that employees of an irrigation company which supplied water to farmers were, like the employees of a power company which supplies’ electricity to farmers, hot exempt as employed in agriculture. ’ 92 Cong. Ree. 2318-23Í9 (1946).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
A few years ago Congress created "inter partes review." The new procedure allows private parties to challenge previously issued patent claims in an adversarial process before the Patent Office that mimics civil litigation. Recently, the Court upheld the inter partes review statute against a constitutional challenge. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, --- U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1365, ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----, ante, p. --- -. Now we take up a question concerning the statute's operation. When the Patent Office initiates an inter partes review, must it resolve all of the claims in the case, or may it choose to limit its review to only some of them? The statute, we find, supplies a clear answer: the Patent Office must "issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner." 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (emphasis added). In this context, as in so many others, "any" means "every." The agency cannot curate the claims at issue but must decide them all.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," Congress long ago created a patent system granting inventors rights over the manufacture, sale, and use of their inventions. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ; see 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(1). To win a patent, an applicant must (among other things) file "claims" that describe the invention and establish to the satisfaction of the Patent Office the invention's novelty and nonobviousness. See §§ 102, 103, 112(b), 131; Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2136-2137, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016).
Sometimes, though, bad patents slip through. Maybe the invention wasn't novel, or maybe it was obvious all along, and the patent owner shouldn't enjoy the special privileges it has received. To remedy these sorts of problems, Congress has long permitted parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in federal court. See §§ 282(b)(2)-(3). More recently, Congress has supplemented litigation with various administrative remedies. The first of these was ex parte reexamination. Anyone, including the Director of the Patent Office, can seek ex parte reexamination of a patent claim. §§ 302, 303(a). Once instituted, though, an ex parte reexamination follows essentially the same inquisitorial process between patent owner and examiner as the initial Patent Office examination. § 305. Later, Congress supplemented ex parte reexamination with inter partes reexamination. Inter partes reexamination (since repealed) provided a slightly more adversarial process, allowing a third party challenger to submit comments throughout the proceeding. § 314(b)(2) (2006 ed.) (repealed). But otherwise it too followed a more or less inquisitorial course led by the Patent Office. § 314(a). Apparently unsatisfied with this approach, in 2011 Congress repealed inter partes reexamination and replaced it with inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 - 319 (2012 ed.).
The new inter partes review regime looks a good deal more like civil litigation. At its outset, a party must file "a petition to institute an inter partes review of [a] patent." § 311(a). The petition "may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of [the] patent" on the ground that the claims are obvious or not novel. § 311(b) ; see §§ 102 and 103. In doing so, the petition must identify "each claim challenged," the grounds for the challenge, and the evidence supporting the challenge. § 312(a)(3). The patent owner, in turn, may respond with "a preliminary response to the petition" explaining "why no inter partes review should be instituted." § 313. With the parties' submissions before him, the Director then decides "whether to institute an inter partes review... pursuant to [the] petition." § 314(b). (In practice, the agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board exercises this authority on behalf of the Director, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2017).) Before instituting review, the Director must determine, based on the parties' papers, "that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition." 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Once the Director institutes an inter partes review, the matter proceeds before the Board with many of the usual trappings of litigation. The parties conduct discovery and join issue in briefing and at an oral hearing. §§ 316(a)(5), (6), (8), (10), (13). During the course of the case, the patent owner may seek to amend its patent or to cancel one or more of its claims. § 316(d). The parties may also settle their differences and seek to end the review. § 317. But "[i]f an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed," at the end of the litigation the Board "shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner." § 318(a).
Our case arose when SAS sought an inter partes review of ComplementSoft's software patent. In its petition, SAS alleged that all 16 of the patent's claims were unpatentable for various reasons. The Director (in truth the Board acting on the Director's behalf) concluded that SAS was likely to succeed with respect to at least one of the claims and that an inter partes review was therefore warranted. But instead of instituting review on all of the claims challenged in the petition, the Director instituted review on only some (claims 1 and 3-10) and denied review on the rest. The Director did all this on the strength of a Patent Office regulation that purported to recognize a power of "partial institution," claiming that "[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the [Director] may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some or the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim." 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). At the end of litigation, the Board issued a final written decision finding claims 1, 3, and 5-10 to be unpatentable while upholding claim 4. But the Board's decision did not address the remaining claims on which the Director had refused review.
That last fact led SAS to seek review in the Federal Circuit. There SAS argued that 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) required the Board to decide the patentability of every claim SAS challenged in its petition, not just some. For its part, the Federal Circuit rejected SAS's argument over a vigorous dissent by Judge Newman. SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (2016). We granted certiorari to decide the question ourselves. 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2160, 198 L.Ed.2d 230 (2017).
We find that the plain text of § 318(a) supplies a ready answer. It directs that "[i]f an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the [Board] shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner...." § 318(a) (emphasis added). This directive is both mandatory and comprehensive. The word "shall" generally imposes a nondiscretionary duty. See Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998). And the word "any" naturally carries "an expansive meaning." United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997). When used (as here) with a "singular noun in affirmative contexts," the word "any" ordinarily "refer[s] to a member of a particular group or class without distinction or limitation" and in this way "impl[ies] every member of the class or group." Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed., Mar. 2016), www.oed.com/view/Entry/8973 (OED) (emphasis added) (all Internet materials as last visited Apr. 20, 2018). So when § 318(a) says the Board's final written decision "shall" resolve the patentability of "any patent claim challenged by the petitioner," it means the Board must address every claim the petitioner has challenged.
That would seem to make this an easy case. Where a statute's language carries a plain meaning, the duty of an administrative agency is to follow its commands as written, not to supplant those commands with others it may prefer. Social Security Bd. v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369, 66 S.Ct. 637, 90 L.Ed. 718 (1946). Because SAS challenged all 16 claims of ComplementSoft's patent, the Board in its final written decision had to address the patentability of all 16 claims. Much as in the civil litigation system it mimics, in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint and normally entitled to judgment on all of the claims it raises, not just those the decisionmaker might wish to address.
The Director replies that things are not quite as simple as they seem. Maybe the Board has to decide every claim challenged by the petitioner in an inter partes review. But, he says, that doesn't mean every challenged claim gains admission to the review process. In the Director's view, he retains discretion to decide which claims make it into an inter partes review and which don't. The trouble is, nothing in the statute says anything like that. The Director's claimed "partial institution" power appears nowhere in the text of § 318, or anywhere else in the statute for that matter. And what can be found in the statutory text and context strongly counsels against the Director's view.
Start where the statute does. In its very first provision, the statute says that a party may seek inter partes review by filing "a petition to institute an inter partes review." § 311(a). This language doesn't authorize the Director to start proceedings on his own initiative. Nor does it contemplate a petition that asks the Director to initiate whatever kind of inter partes review he might choose. Instead, the statute envisions that a petitioner will seek an inter partes review of a particular kind-one guided by a petition describing "each claim challenged" and "the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based." § 312(a)(3). From the outset, we see that Congress chose to structure a process in which it's the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceeding. And "[j]ust as Congress' choice of words is presumed to be deliberate" and deserving of judicial respect, "so too are its structural choices." University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 353, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013).
It's telling, too, to compare this structure with what came before. In the ex parte reexamination statute, Congress embraced an inquisitorial approach, authorizing the Director to investigate a question of patentability "[o]n his own initiative, and at any time." § 303(a). If Congress had wanted to give the Director similar authority over the institution of inter partes review, it knew exactly how to do so-it could have simply borrowed from the statute next door. But rather than create (another) agency-led, inquisitorial process for reconsidering patents, Congress opted for a party-directed, adversarial process. Congress's choice to depart from the model of a closely related statute is a choice neither we nor the agency may disregard. See Nassar, supra, at 353-354, 133 S.Ct. 2517.
More confirmation comes as we move to the point of institution. Here the statute says the Director must decide "whether to institute an inter partes review... pursuant to a petition." § 314(b). The Director, we see, is given only the choice "whether" to institute an inter partes review. That language indicates a binary choice-either institute review or don't. And by using the term "pursuant to," Congress told the Director what he must say yes or no to:
an inter partes review that proceeds "[i]n accordance with" or "in conformance to" the petition. OED, www.oed.com/view/Entry/155073. Nothing suggests the Director enjoys a license to depart from the petition and institute a different inter partes review of his own design.
To this the Director replies by pointing to another part of § 314. Section 314(a) provides that the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless he determines "there is a reasonable likelihood" the petitioner will prevail on "at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition." The Director argues that this language requires him to "evaluate claims individually" and so must allow him to institute review on a claim-by-claim basis as well. Brief for Federal Respondent 28. But this language, if anything, suggests just the opposite. Section 314(a) does not require the Director to evaluate every claim individually. Instead, it simply requires him to decide whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on "at least 1" claim. Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn't matter whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims; the Director need not even consider any other claim before instituting review. Rather than contemplate claim-by-claim institution, then, the language anticipates a regime where a reasonable prospect of success on a single claim justifies review of all.
Here again we know that if Congress wanted to adopt the Director's approach it knew exactly how to do so. The ex parte reexamination statute allows the Director to assess whether a request raises "a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim" and (if so) to institute reexamination limited to "resolution of the question." § 304 (emphasis added). In other words, that statute allows the Director to institute proceedings on a claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground basis. But Congress didn't choose to pursue that known and readily available approach here. And its choice to try something new must be given effect rather than disregarded in favor of the comfort of what came before. See Nassar, supra, at 353-354, 133 S.Ct. 2517.
Faced with this difficulty, the Director tries another tack. He points to the fact that § 314(a) doesn't require him to institute an inter partes review even after he finds the "reasonable likelihood" threshold met with respect to one claim. Whether to institute proceedings upon such a finding, he says, remains a matter left to his discretion. See Cuozzo, 579 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140. But while § 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review, it doesn't follow that the statute affords him discretion regarding what claims that review will encompass. The text says only that the Director can decide "whether" to institute the requested review-not "whether and to what extent " review should proceed. § 314(b).
The rest of the statute confirms, too, that the petitioner's petition, not the Director's discretion, is supposed to guide the life of the litigation. For example, § 316(a)(8) tells the Director to adopt regulations ensuring that, "after an inter partes review has been instituted," the patent owner will file "a response to the petition." Surely it would have made little sense for Congress to insist on a response to the petition if, in truth, the Director enjoyed the discretion to limit the claims under review. What's the point, after all, of answering claims that aren't in the proceeding? If Congress had meant to afford the Director the power he asserts, we would have expected it to instruct him to adopt regulations requiring the patent owner to file a response to the Director's institution notice or to the claims on which the Director instituted review. Yet we have nothing like that here. And then and again there is § 318(a). At the end of the proceeding, § 318(a) categorically commands the Board to address in its final written decision "any patent claim challenged by the petitioner." In all these ways, the statute tells us that the petitioner's contentions, not the Director's discretion, define the scope of the litigation all the way from institution through to conclusion.
The Director says we can find at least some hint of the discretion he seeks by comparing § 314(a) and § 318(a). He notes that, when addressing whether to institute review at the beginning of the litigation, § 314(a) says he must focus on the claims found "in the petition"; but when addressing what claims the Board must address at the end of the litigation, § 318(a) says it must resolve the claims challenged "by the petitioner." According to the Director, this (slight) linguistic discrepancy means the claims the Board must address in its final decision are not necessarily the same as those identified in the petition. And the only possible explanation for this arrangement, the Director submits, is that he must enjoy the (admittedly implicit) power to institute an inter partes review that covers fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition.
We just don't see it. Whatever differences they might display, § 314(a) and § 318(a) both focus on the petitioner's contentions and, given that, it's difficult to see how they might be read to give the Director power to decide what claims are at issue. Particularly when there's a much simpler and sounder explanation for the statute's wording. As we've seen, a patent owner may move to "[c]ancel any challenged patent claim" during the course of an inter partes review, effectively conceding one part of a petitioner's challenge. § 316(d)(1)(A). Naturally, then, the claims challenged "in the petition" will not always survive to the end of the case; some may drop out thanks to the patent owner's actions. And in that light it is plain enough why Congress provided that only claims still challenged "by the petitioner" at the litigation's end must be addressed in the Board's final written decision. The statute's own winnowing mechanism fully explains why Congress adopted slightly different language in § 314(a) and § 318(a). We need not and will not invent an atextual explanation for Congress's drafting choices when the statute's own terms supply an answer. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240-241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) ("[A]s long as the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent, there generally is no need for a court to inquire beyond the plain language of the statute").
Moving past the statute's text and context, the Director attempts a policy argument. He tells us that partial institution is efficient because it permits the Board to focus on the most promising challenges and avoid spending time and resources on others. Brief for Federal Respondent 35-36; see also post, at 1360 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); post, at 1363 - 1364 (BREYER, J., dissenting). SAS responds that all patent challenges usually end up being litigated somewhere, and that partial institution creates inefficiency by requiring the parties to litigate in two places instead of one-the Board for claims the Director chooses to entertain and a federal court for claims he refuses. Indeed, SAS notes, the government itself once took the same view, arguing that partial institution " 'undermine[s] the Congressional efficiency goal' " for this very reason. Brief for Petitioner 30. Each side offers plausible reasons why its approach might make for the more efficient policy. But who should win that debate isn't our call to make. Policy arguments are properly addressed to Congress, not this Court. It is Congress's job to enact policy and it is this Court's job to follow the policy Congress has prescribed. And whatever its virtues or vices, Congress's prescribed policy here is clear: the petitioner in an inter partes review is entitled to a decision on all the claims it has challenged.
That leaves the Director to suggest that, however this Court might read the statute, he should win anyway because of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Even though the statute says nothing about his asserted "partial institution" power, the Director says the statute is at least ambiguous on the propriety of the practice and so we should leave the matter to his judgment. For its part, SAS replies that we might use this case as an opportunity to abandon Chevron and embrace the " 'impressive body' " of pre-Chevron law recognizing that " 'the meaning of a statutory term' " is properly a matter for " 'judicial [rather than] administrative judgment.' " Brief for Petitioner 41 (quoting Pittston Stevedoring Corp. v. Dellaventura, 544 F.2d 35, 49 (C.A.2 1976) (Friendly, J.)).
But whether Chevron should remain is a question we may leave for another day. Even under Chevron, we owe an agency's interpretation of the law no deference unless, after "employing traditional tools of statutory construction," we find ourselves unable to discern Congress's meaning. 467 U.S., at 843, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778. And after applying traditional tools of interpretation here, we are left with no uncertainty that could warrant deference. The statutory provisions before us deliver unmistakable commands. The statute hinges inter partes review on the filing of a petition challenging specific patent claims; it makes the petition the centerpiece of the proceeding both before and after institution; and it requires the Board's final written decision to address every claim the petitioner presents for review. There is no room in this scheme for a wholly unmentioned "partial institution" power that lets the Director select only some challenged claims for decision. The Director may (today) think his approach makes for better policy, but policy considerations cannot create an ambiguity when the words on the page are clear. See SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 116-117, 98 S.Ct. 1702, 56 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978). Neither may we defer to an agency official's preferences because we imagine some "hypothetical reasonable legislator" would have favored that approach. Post, at 1364 (BREYER, J., dissenting). Our duty is to give effect to the text that 535 actual legislators (plus one President) enacted into law.
At this point, only one final question remains to resolve. Even if the statute forbids his partial institution practice, the Director suggests we lack the power to say so. By way of support, he points to § 314(d) and our decision in Cuozzo, 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 195 L.Ed.2d 423. Section 314(d) says that the "determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." In Cuozzo, we held that this provision prevented courts from entertaining an argument that the Director erred in instituting an inter partes review of certain patent claims. Id., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2139-2142. The Director reads these authorities as foreclosing judicial review of any legal question bearing on the institution of inter partes review-including whether the statute permits his "partial institution" practice.
But this reading overreads both the statute and our precedent. As Cuozzo recognized, we begin with "the'strong presumption' in favor of judicial review." Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140. To overcome that presumption, Cuozzo explained, this Court's precedents require "clear and convincing indications" that Congress meant to foreclose review. Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140 (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the strength of this presumption and the statute's text, Cuozzo concluded that § 314(d) precludes judicial review only of the Director's "initial determination" under § 314(a) that "there is a'reasonable likelihood' that the claims are unpatentable on the grounds asserted" and review is therefore justified. Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2140 ; see id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2142 (review unavailable "where a patent holder merely challenges the Patent Office's 'determin[ation] that the information presented in the petition... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood' of success 'with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged' "); ibid. (claim that a "petition was not pleaded 'with particularity' under § 312 is little more than a challenge to the Patent Office's conclusion, under § 314(a), that the 'information presented in the petition' warranted review"). In fact, Cuozzo proceeded to emphasize that § 314(d) does not "enable the agency to act outside its statutory limits." Id., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2141. If a party believes the Patent Office has engaged in "'shenanigans' " by exceeding its statutory bounds, judicial review remains available consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, which directs courts to set aside agency action "not in accordance with law" or "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations." Ibid. ; 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (C).
And that, of course, is exactly the sort of question we are called upon to decide today. SAS does not seek to challenge the Director's conclusion that it showed a "reasonable likelihood" of success sufficient to warrant "institut [ing] an inter partes review." 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), (d). No doubt SAS remains very pleased with the Director's judgment on that score. Instead, SAS contends that the Director exceeded his statutory authority by limiting the review to fewer than all of the claims SAS challenged. And nothing in § 314(d) or Cuozzo withdraws our power to ensure that an inter partes review proceeds in accordance with the law's demands.
Because everything in the statute before us confirms that SAS is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged and nothing suggests we lack the power to say so, the judgment of the Federal Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice BREYER, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
Given the Court's wooden reading of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), and with "no mandate to institute [inter partes] review" at all, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2140, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could simply deny a petition containing challenges having no "reasonable likelihood" of success, § 314(a). Simultaneously, the Board might note that one or more specified claims warrant reexamination, while others challenged in the petition do not. Petitioners would then be free to file new or amended petitions shorn of challenges the Board finds unworthy of inter partes review. Why should the statute be read to preclude the Board's more rational way to weed out insubstantial challenges? For the reasons stated by Justice BREYER, the Court's opinion offers no persuasive answer to that question, and no cause to believe Congress wanted the Board to spend its time so uselessly.
Justice BREYER, with whom Justice GINSBURG and Justice SOTOMAYOR join, and with whom Justice KAGAN joins except as to Part III-A, dissenting.
This case requires us to engage in a typical judicial exercise, construing a statute that is technical, unclear, and constitutes a minor procedural part of a larger administrative scheme. I would follow an interpretive technique that judges often use in such cases. Initially, using "traditional tools of statutory construction," INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), I would look to see whether the relevant statutory phrase is ambiguous or leaves a gap that Congress implicitly delegated authority to the agency to fill. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). If so, I would look to see whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Because I believe there is such a gap and because the Patent Office's interpretation of the ambiguous phrase is reasonable, I would conclude that the Patent Office's interpretation is lawful.
I
The majority sets out the statutory framework that establishes "inter partes review." See ante, at 1353 - 1354; 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 - 319. An example will help the reader keep that framework in mind. Suppose the Patent Office issues a patent containing, say, 16 different claims. A challenger, believing the patent is invalid, seeks to invoke the inter partes review procedure.
The statutory chapter entitled "Inter partes review" explains just how this is to be done. See §§ 311 - 319. First, the challenger files a petition requesting "cancel[lation]" of one or more of the patent claims as "unpatentable" because "prior art" shows, for example, that they are not "novel." § 311(b) ; see §§ 102, 103. That petition must detail the grounds for the challenge and the supporting evidence, along with providing certain technical information. § 312. Second, the patent owner may file a "preliminary response" to the petition. § 313.
Third, the Director of the Patent Office will decide whether to "institute" inter partes review. § 314. The statute specifies that the Director "may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines... that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition." § 314(a). Thus, in my example, if the Director determines that none of the 16 challenges in the petition has likely merit, he cannot institute an inter partes review. Even if there is one potentially meritorious challenge, we have said that the statute contains "no mandate to institute review," so the Director still has discretion to deny a petition. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2140, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016). We have also held that the Director's decision whether to institute review is normally not reviewable. Id., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 2141-2142.
The Director, by regulation, has delegated the power to institute review to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2017). And the Director has further provided by regulation that where a petition challenges several patent claims (say, all 16 claims in my example), "the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims." § 42.108(a) (emphasis added). Thus, where some, but not all, of the challenges have likely merit (say, 1 of the 16 has likely merit and the others are close to frivolous), the Board is free to conduct inter partes review only as to the challenge with likely merit.
Fourth, the statute next describes the relation of a petition for review and an instituted review to other proceedings involving the challenged patent. § 315. Fifth, the statute describes what happens once the Board begins its inter partes review, including how the Board is to take evidence and make its decisions, § 316, and the nature and effect of settlements, § 317.
Sixth, the statute sets forth the section primarily at issue here, which describes what happens at the end of the process. It says:
"Final Written Decision. If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d)." § 318(a) (emphasis added).
Finally, the chapter says that a "party dissatisfied with the final written decision... may appeal the decision" to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. § 319 ; see § 141(c).
Thus, going through this process, if a petitioner files a petition challenging 16 claims and the Board finds that the challenges to 15 of the claims are frivolous, the Board may then, as it interprets the statute, begin and proceed through the inter partes review process as to the remaining claim, number 16, but not in respect to the other 15 claims. Eventually the Board will produce a "final written decision" as to the patentability of claim number 16, which decision the challenger (or the patentee) can appeal to the Federal Circuit.
II
Now let us return to the question at hand, the meaning of the phrase "any patent claim challenged by the petitioner" in § 318(a). Do those words unambiguously refer, as the majority believes, to "any patent claim challenged by the petitioner" in the petitioner's original petition? The words "in the petitioner's original petition" do not appear in the statute. And the words that do appear, "any patent claim challenged by the petitioner," could be modified by using different words that similarly do not appear, for example, the words "in the inter partes review proceeding." But without added words, the phrase "challenged by the petitioner" does not tell us whether the relevant challenge is one made in the initial petition or only one made in the inter partes review proceeding itself. And, linguistically speaking, there is as much reason to fill that gap with reference to the claims still being challenged in the proceeding itself as there is to fill it with reference to claims that were initially challenged in the petition but which the Board weeded out before the inter partes review proceeding began.
Which reading we give the statute makes a difference. The first reading, the majority's reading, means that in my example, the Board must consider and write a final, and appealable, see § 319, decision in respect to the challenges to all 16 claims, including the 15 frivolous challenges. The second reading requires the Board to write a final, appealable decision only in respect to the challenge to the claim (number 16 in my example) that survived the Board's initial screening, namely, in my example, the one challenge in respect to which the Board found a "reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail." § 314(a).
I cannot find much in the statutory context to support the majority's claim that the statutory words "claim challenged by the petitioner" refer unambiguously to claims challenged initially in the petition. After all, the majority agrees
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join.
The question in this case is whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a state employee from suing the State in federal court under the Jones Act, ch. 250, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688.
I
The Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation operates a free automobile and passenger ferry between Point Bolivar and Galveston, Texas. Petitioner Jean Welch, an employee of the State Highway Department, was injured while working on the ferry dock at Galveston. Relying on § 33 of the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688, she filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Highway Department and the State of Texas.
The District Court dismissed the action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 533 F. Supp. 403, 407 (1982). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, with each judge writing separately. 739 F. 2d 1034 (1984). On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 780 F. 2d 1268 (1986). The court recognized that Farden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), held that an employee of a state-operated railroad company may bring an action in federal court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60. Farden is relevant to this case because the Jones Act applied the remedial provisions of the FELA to seamen. See 46 U. S. C. § 688(a). The court nevertheless concluded that “the broad sweep of the Farden decision, although it has not been overruled, has overtly been limited by later decisions as its full implications have surfaced.” 780 F. 2d, at 1270. The court relied on our holding that “Congress may abrogate the States’ constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 242 (1985). The Court of Appeals found no unmistakable expression of such an intention in the Jones Act. The court also held that Texas has not consented to suit under the Jones Act. 780 F. 2d, at 1273-1274 (citing Lyons v. Texas A & M University, 545 S. W. 2d 56 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976), writ refused, n.r.e. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 811 (1986), and now affirm.
II
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
The Court has recognized that the significance of the Amendment “lies in its affirmation that the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art. Ill” of the Constitution. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 98 (1984) (Pennhurst II). Accordingly, as discussed more fully in Part V of this opinion, the Court long ago held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit against the citizen’s own State in federal court, even though the express terms of the Amendment refer only to suits by citizens of another State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 (1890). See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 662-663 (1974); Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S. 279, 280 (1973). For the same reason, the Court has held that the Amendment bars suits in admiralty against the States, even though such suits are not, strictly speaking, “suits in law or equity.” Ex parte New York, No. 1, 256 U. S. 490, 497 (1921) (Eleventh Amendment bars in personam actions against a State by its citizens); Ex parte New York, No. 2, 256 U. S. 503 (1921) (Eleventh Amendment bars actions in rem against vessel owned by the State and employed exclusively for governmental purposes). See Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U. S. 670, 683, n. 17 (1982) (plurality opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 706-710 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). See infra, at 488-490.
The Court has recognized certain exceptions to the reach of the Eleventh Amendment. If a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, the suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447 (1883). But, because “[constructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights,” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S., at 673, the Court will find a waiver by the State “only where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Ibid, (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 171 (1909)). Moreover, “[a] State’s constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued.” Pennhurst II, 465 U. S., at 99 (emphasis in original). Thus, a State does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in its own courts. Id., at 99, n. 9.
We also have recognized that the Eleventh Amendment “necessarily [is] limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976). Consequently, Congress can abrogate the Eleventh Amendment without the States’ consent when it acts pursuant to its power “ ‘to enforce, by appropriate legislation’ the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ibid, (quoting U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, § 5). As the Court of Appeals noted in this case, we have required that “Congress must express its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment in unmistakable language in the statute itself.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S., at 243. We have been unwilling to infer that Congress intended to negate the States’ immunity from suit in federal court, given “the vital role of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in our federal system.” Pennhurst II, supra, at 99. Moreover, the courts properly are reluctant to infer that Congress has expanded our jurisdiction. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 17 (1951) (“The jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation”).
Ill
We now apply these principles to the Jones Act. We note that the question whether the State of Texas has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity is not before us. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the State has not consented to Jones Act suits in federal court. The petition for certiorari does not address this issue, and we do not regard it as fairly included in the questions on which certiorari was granted. Indeed, at oral argument counsel for petitioner conceded that the question of express waiver by the State “is not before the Court... Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. We therefore have no occasion to consider petitioner’s argument in her brief on the merits that the Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 6252-19 (Vernon, 1970, as amended 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 50) constitutes an express waiver of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Brief for Petitioner 29-34. We accept the holdings of the Court of Appeals and the District Court that it does not.
Petitioner’s remaining argument is that Congress has abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under the Jones Act. We assume, without deciding or intimating a view of the question, that the authority of Congress to subject unconsenting States to suit in federal court is not confined to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 470 U. S. 226, 252 (1985). Petitioner’s argument fails in any event because Congress has not expressed in unmistakable statutory language its intention to allow States to be sued in federal court under the Jones Act. It is true that the Act extends to “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment,” § 33 (emphasis added). But the Eleventh Amendment marks a constitutional distinction between the States and other employers of seamen. Because of the role of the States in our federal system, “[a] general authorization for suit in federal court is not the kind of unequivocal statutory language sufficient to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, supra, at 246. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332, 342 (1979). See also Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S., at 285. In Scanlon the Court held that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794, which provides remedies for “any recipient of Federal assistance,” does not contain the unmistakable language necessary to negate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. For the same reasons, we hold today that the general language of the Jones Act does not authorize suits against the States in federal court.
IV
In Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), the Court considered whether an employee of a state-owned railroad could sue the State in federal court under the FELA. The Court concluded that the State of Alabama had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id., at 186. It reasoned that Congress evidenced an intention to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by making the FELA applicable to “every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States____” § 1, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U. S. C. § 51. The Court mistakenly relied on cases holding that general language in the Safety Appliance Act, §§ 2, 6, and the Railway Labor Act, § 151 et seq., made those statutes applicable to the States. It reasoned that it “should not presume to say, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, that [Congress] intended to exclude a particular group of [railroad] workers from the benefits conferred by the Act.” Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Dept., supra, at 190. But, as discussed above, the constitutional role of the States sets them apart from other employers and defendants. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S., at 246; Pennhurst II, 465 U. S., at 99; Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S., at 673; Quern v. Jordan, supra, at 342-343; Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, supra. As the dissenting opinion in Parden states:
“It should not be easily inferred that Congress, in legislating pursuant to one article of the Constitution, intended to effect an automatic and compulsory waiver of rights arising under another. Only when Congress has clearly considered the problem and expressly declared that any State which undertakes given regulable conduct will be deemed thereby to have waived its immunity should courts disallow the invocation of this defense.” 377 U. S., at 198-199 (WHITE, J., dissenting).
Although our later decisions do not expressly overrule Parden, they leave no doubt that Parden’& discussion of congressional intent to negate Eleventh Amendment immunity is no longer good law. In Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare the Court emphasized that “Parden was premised on the conclusion that [the State]... had consented to suit in the federal courts....” 411 U. S., at 281, n. 1. The Court refused to extend the reasoning of Parden to “infer that Congress in legislating pursuant to the Commerce Clause, which has grown to vast proportions in its applications, desired silently to deprive the States of an immunity they have long enjoyed under another part of the Constitution.” Id., at 285. In subsequent cases the Court consistently has required an unequivocal expression that Congress intended to override Eleventh Amendment immunity. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, supra, at 242; Pennhurst II, supra, at 99; Quern v. Jordan, supra, at 342-345. Accordingly, to the extent that Parden v. Terminal Railway, supra, is inconsistent with the requirement that an abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity by Congress must be expressed in unmistakably clear language, it is overruled.
V
Today, for the fourth time in little more than two years, see Papasan v. Attain, 478 U. S. 265, 293 (1986) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S. 64, 74 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, supra, at 247 (Brennan, J., dissenting), four Members of the Court urge that we overrule Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), and the long line of cases that has followed it. The rule of law depends in large part on adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis. Indeed, the doctrine is “a natural evolution from the very nature of our institutions.” Lile, Some Views on the Rule of Stare Decisis, 4 Va. L. Rev. 95, 97 (1916). It follows that “any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.” Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984). Although the doctrine is not rigidly observed in constitutional cases, “[w]e should not be... unmindful, even when constitutional questions are involved, of the principle of stare decisis, by whose circumspect observance the wisdom of this Court as an institution transcending the moment can alone be brought to bear on the difficult problems that confront us.” Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 215 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Despite these time-honored principles, the dissenters — on the basis of ambiguous historical evidence — would flatly overrule a number of major decisions of the Court, and cast doubt on others. See n. 27, infra. Once again, the dissenters have placed in issue the fundamental nature of our federal system.
A
The constitutional foundation of state sovereign immunity has been well described by Justice Marshall in his separate opinion in Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S. 279 (1973):
“It had been widely understood prior to ratification of the Constitution that the provision in Art. Ill, § 2, concerning ‘Controversies... between a State and Citizens of another State’ would not provide a mechanism for making States unwilling defendants in federal court. The Court in Chisholm, however, considered the plain meaning of the constitutional provision to be controlling. The Eleventh Amendment served effectively to reverse the particular holding in Chisholm, and, more generally, to restore the original understanding, see, e. g., Hans v. Louisiana.... Thus, despite the narrowness of the language of the Amendment, its spirit has consistently guided this Court in interpreting the reach of the federal judicial power generally, and ‘it has become established by repeated decisions of this court that the entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a State without consent given: not one brought by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign State, because of the Eleventh Amendment; and not even one brought by its own citizens, because of the fundamental rule of which the Amendment is but an exemplification.’” Id., at 291-292 (Marshall, J., concurring in result) (citations omitted).
Although the dissent rejects the Court’s reading of the historical record, there is ample support for the Court’s rationale, which has provided the basis for many important decisions.
1
Justice Brennan has argued at length that “[a] close examination of the historical records” demonstrates that “[tjhere simply is no constitutional principle of state sovereign immunity.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S., at 259 (dissenting opinion). In his dissent today, he repeats and expands this historical argument. Post, at 504-516. The dissent concedes, as it must, that three of the most prominent supporters of the Constitution — Madison, Hamilton, and Marshall — took the position that unconsenting States would not be subject to suit in federal court. The Court has relied on these statements in the past. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S., at 660-662, n. 9; Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 323-325 (1934); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S., at 12-14. Although the dissenters would read these statements to apply only to cases in which no federal question is presented, see post, at 504-509; Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, supra, at 268, 276-278, the statements themselves do not suggest such a limitation. Moreover, the delicate problem of enforcing judgments against the States, that was raised by both Federalists and anti-Federalists, would have arisen in cases presenting a federal question as well as in other cases.
It is true, as the Court observed in Hans, supra, at 14, that opinions on this question differed during the ratification debates. Among those who disagreed with Madison, Hamilton, and Marshall were Edmund Randolph and James Wilson, both of whom supported ratification. Opponents of ratification, including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, feared that the Constitution would make unconsenting States subject to suit in federal court. Despite the strong rhetoric in the dissent, these statements fall far short of demonstrating a consensus that ratification of the Constitution would abrogate the sovereign immunity of the States. Indeed, the representations of Madison, Hamilton, and Marshall that the Constitution did not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity may have been essential to ratification. For example, the New York Convention appended to its ratification resolution a declaration of understanding that "the Judicial Power of the United States in cases in which a State may be a party, does not extend to criminal Prosecutions, or to authorize any Suit by any Person against a State.” 2 Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America 194 (1894). At most, then, the historical materials show that — to the extent this question was debated — the intentions of the Framers and Ratifiers were ambiguous.
2
No one doubts that the Eleventh Amendment nullified the Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793). Chisholm was an original action in assumpsit, filed by the South Carolina executor of a South Carolina estate, to recover money owed to the estate by Georgia. The Court held, over a dissent by Justice Iredell, that it had jurisdiction. The reaction to Chisholm was swift and hostile. The Eleventh Amendment passed both Houses of Congress by large majorities in 1794. Within two years of the Chisholm decision, the Eleventh Amendment was ratified by the necessary 12 States.
The dissent, observing that jurisdiction in Chisholm itself was based solely on the fact that Chisholm was not a citizen of Georgia, argues that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to cases presenting a federal question. The text of the Amendment states that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or SubjectsofanyForeignState.” (Emphasisadded.) Federal-question actions unquestionably are suits “in law or equity”; thus the plain language of the Amendment refutes this argument. Nor does the dissenting opinion offer any satisfactory explanation for the rejection, by an overwhelming margin, of an amendment offered by Senator Gallatin that would have allowed citizens to sue the States for causes of action arising under treaties.
3
The Court’s unanimous decision in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), firmly established that the Eleventh Amendment embodies a broad constitutional principle of sovereign immunity. Hans, a citizen of Louisiana, brought an action against the State in federal court alleging that its failure to pay interest on certain bonds violated the Contract Clause. The Court considered substantially the same historical materials relied on by the dissent and unanimously held that the action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Justice Bradley’s opinion for the Court observed:
“Suppose that Congress, when proposing the Eleventh Amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a State from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States: can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the States? The supposition that it would is almost an absurdity on its face.” Id., at 15.
In a short concurring opinion, Justice Harlan agreed with the other eight Members of the Court that “a suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the State itself consents to be sued.” Id., at 21.
Contrary to the suggestion in the dissent, post, at 519, the fundamental principle enunciated in Hans has been among the most stable in our constitutional jurisprudence. Moreover, the dissent is simply wrong in asserting that the doctrine lacks a clear rationale, post, at 519. Because of the sensitive problems “inherent in making one sovereign appear against its will in the courts of the other,” Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S., at 294 (Marshall, J., concurring in result), the doctrine of sovereign immunity plays a vital role in our federal system. The contours of state sovereign immunity are determined by the structure and requirements of the federal system. The rationale has been set out most completely in the Court’s unanimous opinion, per Chief Justice Hughes, in Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934). First, the United States may sue a State, because that is “inherent in the Constitutional plan.” Id., at 329. Absent such a provision, “‘the permanence of the Union might be endangered.’” Ibid, (quoting Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 581 (1922)). Second, States may sue other States, because a federal forum for suits between States is “essential to the peace of the Union.” Monaco v. Mississippi, supra, at 328. Third, States may not be sued by foreign states, because “[controversies between a State and a foreign State may involve international questions in relation to which the United States has a sovereign prerogative.” 292 U. S., at 331. Fourth, the Eleventh Amendment established “an absolute bar” to suits by citizens of other States or foreign states. Id., at 329. Finally, “[protected by the same fundamental principle [of sovereign immunity], the States, in the absence of consent, are immune from suits brought against them by their own citizens....” Ibid. The Court has never questioned this basic framework set out in Monaco v. Mississippi.
The dissenters offer their unsupported view that the principle of sovereign immunity is “‘pernicious’” because it assertedly protects States from the consequences of their illegal conduct and prevents Congress from “‘tak[ing] steps it deems necessary and proper to achieve national goals within its constitutional authority.’” Post, at 521 (quoting Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S., at 302 (Brennan, J., dissenting)). Of course, the dissent’s assertion that our cases construing the Eleventh Amendment deprive Congress of some of its constitutional power is simply question-begging. Moreover, as noted supra, at 475, Congress clearly has authority to limit the Eleventh Amendment when it acts to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S., at 456. The dissent’s statement that sovereign immunity “protect[s] the States from the consequences of their illegal conduct” erroneously suggests that aggrieved individuals are left with no remedy for harmful state actions. Relief often may be obtained through suits against state officials rather than the State itself, or through injunctive or other prospective remedies. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). Municipalities and other local government agencies may be sued under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978). In addition, the States may provide relief by waiving their immunity from suit in state court on state-law claims. That States are not liable in other circumstances is a necessary consequence of their role in a system of dual sovereignties. Although the dissent denies that sovereign immunity is “‘required by the structure of the federal system,’” post, at 520 (quoting Atascadero, supra, at 302), the principle has been deeply embedded in our federal system from its inception.
B
As a fallback position, the dissent argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application to suits in admiralty against unconsenting States. Post, at 497-504. This argument also is directly contrary to long-settled authority, as well as the Court’s recognition that the Eleventh Amendment affirms “the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity,” Pennhurst II, 465 U. S., at 98; Monaco v. Mississippi, supra, at 329.
1
In Ex parte New York, No. 1, 256 U. S. 490 (1921), a unanimous Court held that unconsenting States are immune from in personam suits in admiralty brought by private citizens. Today the dissent asserts that the Court’s opinion in Ex parte New York, No. 1, “did not attempt to justify its obliteration” of the traditional distinction between admiralty cases and cases in law or equity. Post, at 500. On the contrary, the Court expressly recognized the distinction, see 256 U. S., at 497, and provided a reasoned basis for its holding:
“That a State may not be sued without its consent is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence having so important a bearing upon the construction of the Constitution of the United States that it has become established by repeated decisions of this court that the entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a State without consent given: not one brought by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign State, because of the Eleventh Amendment; and not even one brought by its own citizens, because of the fundamental rule of which the Amendment is but an exemplification.” Ibid, (citations omitted).
The Court has adhered to this rule in subsequent cases. In re New York, No. 2, 256 U. S. 503 (1921), held that a private citizen may not bring an admiralty action in rem against a vessel owned by a State. The Court concluded that “ ‘[t]o permit a creditor to seize and sell [a government-owned vessel] to collect his debt would be to permit him in some degree to destroy the government itself.’” Id., at 511 (quoting Klein v. New Orleans, 99 U. S. 149, 150 (1879)). More recently, in Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U. S. 670 (1982), eight Members of the Court reaffirmed the settled rule that the Eleventh Amendment bars admiralty actions against the State or its officials seeking damages to be paid from the state treasury. Id., at 698-699 (opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 706-710 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). To be sure, Justice Stevens’ opinion states that “we need not decide the extent to which a federal district court exercising admiralty in rem jurisdiction over property before the court may adjudicate the rights of claimants to that property as against sovereigns that did not appear and voluntarily assert any claim that they had to the res.” Id., at 697. Of course, that statement has no application to an action in personam, such as Welch’s suit under the Jones Act.
2
The dissent suggests that In re New York, No. 1, decided in 1921, overruled settled law to the effect that the Constitution does not bar private citizens from bringing admiralty suits against the States. Post, at 500. The dissent concedes that the Court “ ‘did not pass on the applicability of the Eleventh Amendment in admiralty’” prior to 1921. Post, at 499 (citation omitted). It nevertheless asserts that dicta in United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115 (1809), and Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110 (1828), support the “holding” of United States v. Bright, 24 Fed. Cas. 1232 (No. 14,647) (CC Pa. 1809), that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to suits in admiralty. In fact these early cases cast considerable doubt on the dissent’s position.
United States v. Peters was a suit against the heirs of David Rittenhouse, who had served as treasurer of the State of Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War. While Rittenhouse was treasurer, the State had seized a British vessel and sold it as a prize of war. Rittenhouse had deposited most of the proceeds in his own account, and had not turned them over to the State at the time of his death. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court turned on the facts that “the suit was not instituted against the state, or its treasurer, but against the executrixes of David Rittenhouse,” and that the State “had neither possession of, nor right to, the property.” 5 Cranch, at 139-141. Indeed, language in the Court’s opinion suggests that an action against the State would have been barred by the Eleventh Amendment:
“The [eleventh] amendment simply provides, that no suit shall be commenced or prosecuted against a state. The state cannot be made a defendant to a suit brought by an individual; but it remains the duty of the courts of the United States to decide all cases brought before them by citizens of one state against citizens of a different state, where a state is not necessarily a defendant.” Id., at 139.
Thus, Peters does not support the dissenters’ position.
The dissent’s reliance on Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, supra, also is misplaced. Madrazo, a Spanish subject, sued the Governor of Georgia in admiralty to obtain possession of a cargo of slaves or the proceeds from their sale. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment applies “where the chief magistrate of a state is sued, not by his name, but by his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official character.” Id., at 123-124. Although Madrazo argued that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to suits in admiralty, the Court carefully avoided the question. Instead, it held that the District Court where the action was filed had no jurisdiction regardless of whether the Eleventh Amendment applied.
Madrazo then filed an original admiralty proceeding directly against Georgia in this Court. Once again the Court avoided the question whether the Eleventh Amendment applies to suits in admiralty. Instead, the Court concluded that the case was not an admiralty action, but was “a mere personal suit against a state, to recover proceeds in its possession.” Ex parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627, 632 (1833). This rather strained conclusion was contrary to “the assumption of all concerned” that the action was maritime in nature. D. Currie, The Constitution and the Supreme Court, 1789-1888, p. 105, n. 98 (1985).
On balance, the early cases in fact indicate that unconsenting States were immune from suits in admiralty. At the very least, they demonstrate that the dissent errs in suggesting that the amenability of States to suits in admiralty was “settled,” post, at 499. We therefore decline to overrule precedents that squarely reject the dissenters’ position.
C
In deciding yet another Eleventh Amendment case, we do not write on a clean slate. The general principle of state sovereign immunity has been adhered to without exception by this Court for almost a century. The dissent nevertheless urges the Court to ignore stare decisis and overrule the long and unbroken series of precedents reaffirming this principle. If the Court were to overrule these precedents, a number of other major decisions also would have to reconsidered. As we have stated, supra, at 478-479, the doctrine of stare decisis is of fundamental importance to the rule of law. For this reason, “any departure from the doctrine... demands special justification.” Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S., at 212. The arguments made in the dissent fall far short of justifying such a drastic repudiation of this Court’s prior decisions.
VI
For the reasons we have stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 33 of the Jones Act provides in part:
“Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply.... Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.” 46 U. S. C. § 688(a).
The question in Scanlon was whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794, makes state agencies subject to suits for retroactive monetary relief in federal court. The Rehabilitation Act was passed pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 244-245, n. 4 (1985).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 petition for certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction of petitioners, husband and wife, under an information charging them with violating the federal obscenity statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1461 (1964 ed.), by having mailed undeveloped films of each other posing in the nude to an out-of-state firm for developing, and having recéived through the mails the developed negatives and a print of each.
In response to the certiorari petition, the Solicitor General has filed a motion requesting that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit be vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the information. The ground of the motion is that “the initiation of the instant prosecution was not in accord with policies which had previously been formulated within the Department [of Justice] for the guidance of United States Attorneys.” The policies referred to are set forth in a memorandum to United States Attorneys, dated August 31, 1964. The memorandum states, in pertinent part, that prosecution for mailing private correspondence which is allegedly obscene “should be the exception confined to those cases involving repeated offenders or other circumstances which may fairly be characterized as aggravated.” The Solicitor General states that there are no such exceptional circumstances warranting a prosecution of petitioners: “They were not repeated offenders. They had no record of involvement with obscene materials or sex-related offenses and no apparent opportunity for close association with young people. No other aggravating circumstance appears to be present.”
In consideration of the premises and upon an independent examination of the record filed in this Court, the motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly vacated, the cause is remanded to the District Court, and that court is directed to dismiss the information. See Petite v. United States, 361 U. S. 529.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas concur, would reverse this conviction, not because it violates the policy of the Justice Department, but because it violates the Constitution.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1972 Congress amended the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., in substantial part to “extend [the Act’s] coverage to protect additional workers.” S. Rep. No. 92-1125, p. 1 (1972) (hereinafter S. Rep.). In these consolidated cases we must determine whether respondents Caputo and Blundo, injured while working on the New York City waterfront, are entitled to compensation. To answer that question we must determine the reach of the 1972 Amendments.
The sections of the Act relevant to these cases are the ones providing “coverage” and defining “employee.” They provide, with italics to indicate the material added in 1972:
“Compensation shall be payable... in respect of disability or death of an employee but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel)....” 33 U. S. C. § 903 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
“The term 'employee’ means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker, but such term does not include a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net.” 33 U. S. C. § 902 (3) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
Specifically at issue here is whether respondents Caputo and Blundo were “employees” within the meaning of the Act and whether the injuries they sustained occurred on the “navigable waters of the United States.”
I
At the time of his injury respondent Carmelo Blundo had been employed for five years as a “checker” by petitioner International Terminal Operating Co. (ITO) at its facility in Brooklyn, N. Y., known as the 21st Street Pier. As a checker he was responsible for checking and recording cargo as it was loaded onto or unloaded from vessels, barges, or containers. Blundo was assigned his tasks at the beginning of each day and until he arrived at the terminal he did not know whether he would be working on a ship or on shore. He was reassigned during the day if he completed the task to which he was assigned initially. App. 63-69, 112.
On January 8, 1974, ITO assigned Blundo to check cargo being “stripped” or removed from a container on the 19th Street side of the pier. The container Blundo was checking had been taken off a vessel at another pier facility outside of Brooklyn and brought overland unopened by an independent trucking company to the 21st Street Pier. It was Blundo’s job to break the seal that had been placed on the container in a foreign port and show it to United States Customs Agents. After the seal was broken, Blundo was to check the contents of the container against a manifest sheet describing the cargo, the consignees, and the ship on, and port from which, the cargo had been transported. He was to mark each item of cargo with an identifying number. After the checking, the cargo was to be placed on pallets, sorted according to consignees, and put in a bonded warehouse pending customs inspection. Blundo was injured as he was marking the cargo stripped from the container, when he slipped on some ice on the pier. Id., at 69-74, 86-90.
Blundo sought compensation under the LHWCA. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Blundo satisfied the coverage requirements of the Act and the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed.
Respondent Ralph Caputo was a member of a regular longshoring “gang” that worked for Pittston Stevedoring Co. When his gang was not needed, Caputo went to the waterfront hiring hall, where he was hired by the day by other stevedoring companies or terminal operators with work available. He had been hired on some occasions by Northeast Stevedoring Co. to work as a member of a stevedore gang on ships at the 39th Street Pier in Brooklyn; on other occasions he had been hired by petitioner Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. (Northeast), for work in its terminal operations at the same location. App. 8-10,14-16.
On April 16, 1973, Caputo was hired by Northeast to work as a “terminal labor [er].” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 76-444, p. 48a; App. 8, 14. A terminal laborer may be assigned to load and unload containers, lighters, barges, and trucks. Id., at 8; Brief for Petitioners in No. 76-444, p. 4. When he arrived at the terminal, Caputo was assigned, along with a checker and forklift driver, to help consignees’ truckmen load their trucks with cargo that had been discharged from ships at Northeast’s terminal. Caputo was injured while rolling a dolly loaded with cheese into a consignee’s truck. App. 27-40.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Caputo satisfied the requirements of the Act and awarded him compensation. The BRB affirmed.
The employers in both cases filed petitions to review the decisions and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consolidated the cases. After thorough consideration of the language, history, and purposes of the 1972 Amendments, the court held, one judge dissenting, that the injuries of both respondents were compensable under the LHWCA. In view of the conflict over the coverage afforded by the 1972 Amendments, we granted certiorari to consider both cases. 429 U.S. 998 (1976). We affirm.
II
Congress enacted the LHWCA in 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, after this Court had thwarted the efforts of the States and of Congress to provide compensation for maritime workers injured on navigable waters through state compensation programs. In 1917, the Court, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, held that the States were without power to extend a workmen's compensation remedy to longshoremen injured on the gangplank between a ship and a pier. The decision left longshoremen injured on the seaward side of a pier without a compensation remedy while longshoremen injured on the pier were protected by state compensation Acts. State Industrial Comm’n v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U. S. 263 (1922). Dissatisfied with the gap in coverage thus created, and recognizing that the amphibious nature of longshoremen’s work made it desirable to have “one law to cover their whole employment, whether directly part of the process of loading or unloading a ship or not,’’ Congress sought to authorize States to apply their compensation statutes to injuries seaward of the Jensen line. Its attempts to allow such uniform state systems, however, were struck down as unlawful delegations of congressional power. Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S. 219 (1924); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149 (1920). Finally, convinced that the only way to provide workmen’s compensation for longshoremen and harborworkers injured on navigable waters was to enact a federal system, Congress, in 1927, passed the LHWCA.
The Act was, in a sense, a typical workmen’s compensation system, compensating an employee for injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment.” But it was designed simply to be a gapfiller — to fill the void created by the inability of the States to remedy injuries on navigable waters. Thus, it provided coverage only for injuries occurring “upon the navigable waters of the United States” and permitted compensation awards only “if recovery... through workmen’s compensation proceedings [could] not validly be provided by state law.”
Congress’ initial apprehension of the difficulties inherent in the existence of two compensation systems for injuries sustained by amphibious workers proved to be well founded. The courts spent the next 45 years trying to ascertain the respective spheres of coverage of the state and federal systems. As two commentators described it, “the relationship between [LHWCA] and the otherwise applicable State Compensation Act [was] shrouded in impenetrable confusion.” G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty 409 (2d ed. 1975) (Gilmore). It is unnecessary to examine in detail the Court’s efforts to dispel the confusion. Suffice it to say that while the Court permitted recovery under state remedies in particular situations seaward of the Jensen line, see, e. g., Davis v. Washington Labor Dept., 317 U. S. 249 (1942), the Court made it clear that federal coverage stopped at the water’s edge. Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U. S. 212 (1969).
In Nacirema Operating Co., supra, the Court held that the Act did not cover longshoremen killed or injured on a pier while attaching cargo to ships’ cranes for loading onto the ships, even though coverage might have existed had the men been hurled into the water by the accident, Marine Stevedoring Corp. v. Oosting, 238 F. Supp. 78 (ED Va. 1965), aff’d, 398 F. 2d 900 (CA4 1968) (en banc), or been injured on the deck of the ship while performing part of the same operation, Calbeck v. Travelers Ins. Co., 370 U. S. 114 (1962). The dissent protested the incongruity and unfairness of having coverage determined by “where the body falls” and argued that the Act was “status oriented, reaching all injuries sustained by longshoremen in the course of their employment.” 396 U. S. at 224 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Thb majority, however, did not agree.
“There is much to be said for uniform treatment of longshoremen injured while loading or unloading a ship. But even construing the [Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1948, 46 U. S. C. § 740,] to amend the Longshoremen’s Act would not effect this result, since longshoremen injured on a pier by pier-based equipment would still remain outside the Act. And construing the Longshoremen’s Act to coincide with the limits of admiralty jurisdiction — whatever they may be and however they may change — simply replaces one line with another whose uncertain contours can only perpetuate on the landward side of the Jensen line, the same confusion that previously existed on the seaward side. While we have no doubt that Congress had the power to choose either of these paths in defining the coverage of its compensation remedy, the plain fact is that it chose instead the line in Jensen separating water from land at the edge of the pier. The invitation to move that line landward must be addressed to Congress, not to this Court.” Id., at 223-224.”
In 1972, Congress moved the line.
The 1972 Amendments were the first significant effort to reform the 1927 Act and the judicial gloss that had been attached to it. The main concern, of the 1972 Amendments was not with the scope of coverage but with accommodating the desires of three interested groups: (1) shipowners who were discontented with the decisions allowing many maritime workers to use the doctrine of “seaworthiness” to recover full damages from shipowners regardless of fault; (2) employers of the longshoremen who, under another judicially created doctrine, could be required to indemnify shipowners and thereby lose the benefit of the intended exclusivity of the compensation remedy; and (3) workers who wanted to improve the benefit schedule deemed inadequate by all parties. Congress sought to meet these desires by “specifically eliminating suits against vessels brought for injuries to longshoremen under the doctrine of seaworthiness and outlawing indemnification actions and ‘hold harmless’ or indemnity agreements [; continuing] to allow suits against vessels or other third parties for negligence [; and raising] benefits to a level commensurate with present day salaries and with the needs of injured workers whose sole support will be payments under the Act.” S. Rep. 5.
In increasing the benefits, however, Congress recognized that the disparity between the federal compensation rates and the significantly lower state rates would exacerbate the harshness of the already unpopular Jensen line. It also realized that modem technology had moved much of the longshoreman’s work onto the land so that if coverage were not extended, there would be many workers who would be relegated to what Congress deemed clearly inadequate state compensation systems. As both the Senate and House Reports stated:
“[C]overage of the present Act stops at the water’s edge; injuries occurring on land are covered by State Workmen's Compensation laws. The result is a disparity in benefits payable for death or disability for the same type of injury depending on which side of the water’s edge and in which State the accident occurs.
“To make matters worse, most State Workmen’s Compensation laws provide benefits which are inadequate
“It is apparent that if the Federal benefit structure embodied in [the] Committee bill is enacted, there would be a substantial disparity in benefits payable to a permanently disabled longshoreman, depending on which side of the water’s edge the accident occurred, if State laws are permitted to continue to apply to injuries occurring on land. It is also to be noted that with the advent of modern cargo-handling techniques, such as containerization and the use of LASH-type vessels, more of the longshoreman’s work is performed on land than heretofore.”
To remedy these problems, Congress extended the coverage shoreward. It broadened the definition of “navigable waters of the United States” to include “any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel.” At the same time, Congress amended the definition of the persons covered by the Act. Previously, so long as a work-related injury occurred on navigable waters and the injured worker was not a member of a narrowly defined class, the worker would be eligible for federal compensation provided that his or her employer had at least one employee engaged in maritime employment. It was not necessary that the injured employee be so employed. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. O’Rourke, 344 U. S. 334, 340-342 (1953). But with the definition of “navigable waters” expanded by the 1972 Amendments to include such a large geographical area, it became necessary to describe affirmatively the class of workers Congress desired to compensate. It therefore added the requirement that the injured worker be “engaged in maritime employment,” which it defined to include “any longshoreman or other person engaged in long-shoring operations, and any harborworker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker, but... not... a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net.” 33 U. S. C. § 902 (3) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
The 1972 Amendments thus changed what had been essentially only a “situs” test of eligibility for compensation to one looking to both the “situs” of the injury and the “status” of the injured. We must now determine whether respondents Caputo and Blundo satisfied these requirements.
Ill
We turn first to the question whether Caputo and Blundo satisfied the “status” test — that is, whether they were “engaged in maritime employment” and therefore “employees” at the time of their injuries. The question is made difficult by the failure of Congress to define the relevant terms— “maritime employment,” “longshoremen,” “longshoring operations” — in either the text of the Act or its legislative history.
The closest Congress came to defining the key terms is the “typical example” of shoreward coverage provided in the Committee Reports. The example clearly indicates an intent to cover those workers involved in the essential elements of unloading a vessel — taking cargo out of the hold, moving it away from the ship’s side, and carrying it immediately to a storage or holding area. The example also makes it clear that persons who are on the situs but are not engaged in the overall process of loading and unloading vessels are not covered. Thus, employees such as truckdrivers, whose responsibility on the waterfront is essentially to pick up or deliver cargo unloaded from or destined for maritime transportation are not covered. Also excluded are employees who perform purely clerical tasks and are not engaged in the handling of cargo. But while the example is useful for identifying the outer bounds of who is clearly excluded and who is clearly included, it does not speak to all situations. In particular, it is silent on the question of coverage for those people, such as Caputo and Blundo, who are injured while on the situs, see Part IV, infra, and engaged in the handling of cargo as it moves between sea and land transportation after its immediate unloading.
Nevertheless, we are not without guidance in resolving that question. The language of the 1972 Amendments is broad and suggests that we should take an expansive view of the extended coverage. Indeed, such a construction is appropriate for this remedial legislation. The Act “must be liberally construed in conformance with its purpose, and in a way which avoids harsh and incongruous results.” Voris v. Eikel, 346 U. S. 328, 333 (1953). Consideration of the purposes behind the broadened coverage reveals a clear intent to reach persons such as Blundo and Caputo.
One of the primary motivations for Congress’ decision to extend the coverage shoreward was the recognition that “the advent of modern cargo-handling techniques” had moved much of the longshoreman’s work off the vessel and onto land. S. Rep. 13; H. R. Rep. 10. Noted specifically was the impact of containerization. Unlike traditional break-bulk cargo handling, in which each item of cargo must be handled separately and stored individually in the hold of the ship as it waits in port, containerization permits the time-consuming work of stowage and unstowage to be performed on land in the absence of the vessel. The use of containerized ships has reduced the costly time the vessel must be in port and the amount of manpower required to get the cargo onto the vessel. In effect, the operation of loading and unloading has been moved shoreward; the container is a modern substitute for the hold of the vessel. As Judge Friendly observed below, “[s] tripping a container... is the functional equivalent of sorting cargo discharged from a ship; stuffing a container is part of the loading of the ship even though it is performed on shore and not in the ship’s cargo holds.” Pittston Stevedoring Corp. v. Dellaventura, 544 F. 2d 35, 53 (CA2 1976). Congress’ intent to adapt the LHWCA to modern cargo-handling techniques clearly indicates that these tasks, heretofore done on board ship, are included in the category of “longshoring operations.”
It is therefore apparent that respondent Blundo was a statutory “employee” when he slipped on the ice. His job was to check and mark items of cargo as they were unloaded from a container. This task is clearly an integral part of the unloading process as altered by the advent of containerization and was intended to be reached by the Amendments. Indeed, the Committee Reports explicitly state: “[C]heckers, for example, who are directly involved in the loading or unloading functions are covered by the new amendment.” S. Rep. 13; H. R. Rep. 11. We thus have no doubt that Blundo satisfied the status test.
The congressional desire to accommodate the Act to modern technological changes is not relevant to Caputo’s case, since he was injured in the old-fashioned process of putting goods already unloaded from a ship or container into a delivery truck. Another dominant theme underlying the 1972 Amendments, however, assists us in analyzing Caputo’s status. Congress wanted a “uniform compensation system to apply to employees who would otherwise be covered by this Act for part of their activity.” S. Rep. 13; H. R. Rep. 10-11. It wanted a system that did not depend on the “fortuitous circumstance of whether the injury [to the longshoreman] occurred on land or over water.” S. Rep. 13; H. R. Rep. 10. It therefore extended the situs to encompass the waterfront areas where the overall loading and unloading process occurs. It is the view of the respondent Director of the OWCP that a uniform system must reach “all physical cargo handling activity anywhere within an area meeting the situs [test].” Brief for Federal Respondent 20. “[M]aritime employment,” in his view, “include [s] all physical tasks performed on the waterfront, and particularly those tasks necessary to transfer cargo between land and water transportation.” Id.,, at 25. Under this theory, it is clear that the Act would cover someone who, like Caputo, was engaged in the final steps of moving cargo.from maritime to land transportation: putting it in the consignee’s truck.
We need not decide, however, whether the congressional desire for uniformity supports the Director’s view and entities everyone performing a task such as Caputo’s to benefits under the Act. It is clear, at a minimum, that when someone like Caputo performs such a task, he is to be covered. The Act focuses primarily on occupations — longshoreman, harbor worker, ship repairman, shipbuilder, shipbreaker. Both the text and the history demonstrate a desire to provide continuous coverage throughout their employment to these amphibious workers who, without the 1972 Amendments, would be covered only for part of their activity. It seems clear, therefore, that when Congress said it wanted to cover “longshoremen,” it had in mind persons whose employment is such that they spend at least some of their time in indisputably long-shoring operations and who, without the 1972 Amendments, would be covered for only part of their activity.
That Caputo is such a person is readily apparent. As a member of a regular stevedoring gang, he participated on either the pier or the ship in the stowage and unloading of cargo. On the day of his injury he had been hired by petitioner Northeast as a terminal laborer. In that capacity, he could have been assigned to any one of a number of tasks necessary to the transfer of cargo between land and maritime transportation, including stuffing and stripping containers, loading and discharging lighters and barges, and loading and unloading trucks. App. 8. Not only did he have no idea when he set out in the morning which of these tasks he might be assigned, but in fact his assignment could have changed during the day. Thus, had Caputo avoided injury and completed loading the consignee’s truck on the day of the accident, he then could have been assigned to unload a lighter. Id., at 24. Since it is clear that he would have been covered while unloading such a vessel, to exclude him from the Act’s coverage in the morning but include him in the afternoon would be to revitalize the shifting and fortuitous coverage that Congress intended to eliminate.
Petitioners and the NAS seek to avoid these results by proposing a so-called "point of rest” theory. The term “point of rest” is claimed to be a term of art in the industry that denotes the point where the stevedoring operation ends (or, in the case of loading, begins) and the terminal operation function begins (or ends, in the case of loading). Brief for Petitioner in No. 76-454, p. 9. See n. 4, supra. Petitioners contend that the “maritime employment of longshoremen” includes only “the stevedoring activity of the longshore gang (and those directly involved with the gang) which, in the case of unloading, takes cargo out of the hold of the vessel, moves it away from the ship’s side, and carries it to its point of rest on the pier or in a terminal shed.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 74-454, p. 9. Since Caputo and Blundo were handling cargo that had already reached its first point of rest, petitioners argue they are not to be covered.
This contention that Congress intended to use the point of rest as the decisive factor in the “status” determination has several fatal weaknesses. First, the term “point of rest” nowhere appears in the Act or in the legislative history. It is difficult to understand why, if Congress intended to stop coverage at this point, it never used the term. The absence of a term that is claimed to be so well known in the industry is both conspicuous and telling.
But it is not simply the term’s unexplained absence that undermines petitioners’ theory. More fundamentally, the theory is simply too restrictive, failing to accommodate either the language or the intent of the 1972 Amendments. The operations petitioners would cover clearly are "longshoring operations” and are appropriately covered by the Act. But petitioners fail to give effect to the obvious desire to cover longshoremen whether or not their particular task at the moment of injury is clearly a “longshoring operation.” The theory does not comport with the Act’s focus on occupations and its desire for uniformity. As the First Circuit noted: “The evil of the old Act was that it bifurcated coverage for essentially the same employment. The point-of-rest approach would seem to result in the same sort of bifurcation, since the same employee engaged in an activity beyond the point of rest would cease to be covered.” Stockman v. John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Inc., 539 F. 2d 264, 275 (1976). In addition, the theory fails to accommodate the intent to cover those long-shoring operations that modern technology had moved onto the land. Coverage that stops at the point of rest excludes those engaged in loading and unloading the modern functional equivalents of the hold of the ship. As we have indicated, Congress clearly intended to cover such operations.
The only support petitioners can find for their theory is the fact that it is consistent with the “typical example” given in the Committee Reports. See n. 27, supra. But as we have already indicated, supra, at 266-267, the example is equally consistent with a broader view of coverage. Consistency with an illustrative example is clearly not enough to overcome the overwhelming evidence against the theory.
In view of all this, it is not surprising that the “point of rest” limitation has been rejected by all but one of the Circuits that have considered it and by virtually all the commentators. We too reject it. A theory that nowhere appears in the Act, that was never mentioned by Congress during the legislative process, that does not comport with Congress’ intent, and that restricts the coverage of a remedial Act designed to extend coverage is incapable of defeating our conclusion that Blundo and Caputo are “employees.”
IV
Having established that respondents Blundo and Caputo satisfied the “status” test for coverage under the Act, we consider now whether their injuries occurred on a covered “situs” — “the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing or building a vessel).”
There is no dispute with respect to Caputo. The truck he was helping to load was parked inside the terminal area. As petitioner Northeast correctly concedes, this situs “unquestionably met the requirements of § 3 (a) of the Act,... because the terminal adjoins navigable waters of the United States and parts of the terminal are used in loading and unloading ships.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 76-444, p. 3 n. 1.
Blundo’s injury was sustained while he was checking a container being stripped on a pier located within a facility known as the 21st Street Pier. The fenced-in facility was located on the water and ran between 19th and 21st Streets. It included two “finger-piers.” The pier on the 21st Street end was used to berth ships for purposes of loading and unloading them. The one on the 19th Street end was used only for stripping and stuffing containers and storage. See the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in Pet. for Cert, in No. 76-454, pp. 52a-53a. Blundo was working on this latter pier.
Petitioner ITO argues that Blundo was not on a covered situs because the 19th Street Pier was not “customarily used by an employer for loading [or] unloading... a vessel.” The Court of Appeals labeled this argument “halfhearted” and dismissed it in a footnote. 544 F. 2d, at 51 n. 19. We agree that the argument does not merit extended discussion.
First, we agree with the court below that it is not at all clear that the phrase “customarily used” was intended to modify more than the immediately preceding phrase “other areas.” We note that the sponsor of the bill in the House, Representative Daniels, described this section as “expand [ing] the coverage which was limited to the ship in the present law, to the piers, wharves, and terminals.” 118 Cong. Rec. 36381 (1972). There was little concern with respect to how these facilities were used.
Second, even if we assume that the phrase should be read to modify the preceding terms, we agree with the BRB and the Court of Appeals that Blundo satisfied the situs test in the same way that Caputo did — by working in an “adjoining... terminal... customarily used... in loading [and] unloading.” The entire terminal facility adjoined the water and one of its two finger-piers clearly was used for loading and unloading vessels.
Accordingly, we conclude that when Congress sought to expand the situs to avoid anomalies inherent in a system that drew lines at the water’s edge, it intended to include an area such as the one at issue here. Accord, Stockman v. John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Inc., 539 F. 2d, at 271-272; I. T. O. Corp. of Baltimore v. BRB, 529 F. 2d 1080, 1083-1084 (CA4 1975), modified en banc, 542 F. 2d 903 (1976).
Since we find that both Caputo and Blundo satisfied the status and the situs tests, we affirm.
It is so ordered.
86 Stat. 1251, Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1972 (hereinafter 1972 Amendments).
A container is a large metal box resembling a truck trailer without wheels. It can carry large amounts of cargo destined for one or more consignees. If the goods are for a single consignee, the container may be removed from the pier intact and delivered directly to him, but if it carries goods destined for several consignees, it must be unloaded or “stripped” and the goods sorted according to consignee. This operation may be done at the waterfront or inland. The analogous process during the loading phase is called “stuffing.” App. 86-89, 96-98, 101-103, 105-107; Brief for Federal Respondent 7 n. 4; Brief for National Association of Stevedores as Amicus Curiae 30.
Under the 1972 Amendments, contested compensation claims are heard by an administrative law judge. 33 U. S. C. § 919 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Review is then available from the BRB, a three-member board appointed by the Secretary of Labor. The BRB, created by the 1972 Amendments, is empowered “to hear and determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact taken by any party in interest from decisions with respect to claims of employees under [the LHWCA].” 33 U. S. C. §§ 921 (b) (1), (3) (1970 ed., Supp. V); see generally 20 CFR §§ 801-802 (1976). The decisions of the BRB are subject to review in the courts of appeals. 33 U. S. C. § 921 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. V).
Prior to the 1972 Amendments, cases were heard in the first instance by deputy commissioners and review was then available in the district courts. 33 U. S. C. § 921. There was no administrative review procedure for LHWCA claims.
The Benefits Review Board Service (BRBS) is the unofficial reporter of the Board’s decisions. The BRB’s decision in Blundo’s case may be found at 2 BRBS 376 (1975) as well as in App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 76-454, p. 45a. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision is reproduced id., at 49a. A synopsis of it may be found at 1 BRBS 71 (ALJ) (1975).
It is necessary, at this point, to introduce some terminology. “A stevedore or stevedore contractor is responsible for loading or unloading a ship in port by contract with a shipowner, agent, or charter operator.” U. S. Dept, of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs Task Force Report, Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Program 103 (1976). “[A] marine terminal operator, who may own or lease the terminal property, is responsible for the safe handling of the ship, the delivery and receipt of the ship’s cargo, and all movement and handling of that cargo between the point-of-rest and any place on the marine terminal property except to shipside.” Ibid.
Typically, the work of getting the cargo on and off the ship is done by a “gang” of longshoremen “distributed between the ship and the pier so they can move cargo in an uninterrupted flow.” Id., at 104. A member of the gang may be designated by the equipment he operates, e. g., a winchman or hustler operator, or by the area in which he works, e. g., holdman. A typical longshore gang ranges from 12 to 20 workers. Because ship arrivals are irregular, the demand for a gang varies from day to day. Ibid.
A lighter is a closed barge. App. 8. See discussion n. 35, infra.
It is not clear from the record whether loading vessels with "ships’ stores” and laundry for the crew may be assigned to a terminal laborer or whether there is a separate classification called "ship laborer” for this. Compare App. 8, 24-25 with Brief for Federal Respondent 5 n. 3.
It was stipulated that all the cargo handled at this terminal either was going on board a vessel or had come from one. App. 6.
The BRB decision is reported at 3 BRBS 13 (1975). A synopsis of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision appears at 2 BRBS 4 (ALJ) (1975). Both opinions may also be found in Pet. for Cert. in No. 76-444,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this action for injunctive relief against alleged violation by Topeo Associates, Inc. (Topeo), of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. Jurisdiction was grounded in § 4 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 4. Following a trial on the merits, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment for Topeo, 319 F. Supp. 1031, and the United States appealed directly to this Court pursuant to § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted probable jurisdiction, 402 U. S. 905 (1971), and we now reverse the judgment of the District Court.
I
Topeo is a cooperative association of approximately 25 small and medium-sized regional supermarket chains that operate stores in some 33 States. Each of the member chains operates independently; there is no pooling of earnings, profits, capital, management, or advertising resources. No grocery business is conducted under the Topeo name. Its basic function is to serve as a purchasing agent for its members. In this capacity, it procures and distributes to the members more than 1,000 different food and related nonfood items, most of which are distributed under brand names owned by Topeo. The association does not itself own any manufacturing, processing, or warehousing facilities, and the items that it procures for members are usually shipped directly from the packer or manufacturer to the members. Payment is made either to Topeo or directly to the manufacturer at a cost that is virtually the same for the members as for Topeo itself.
All of the stock in Topeo is owned by the members, with the common stock, the only stock having voting rights, being equally distributed. The board of directors, which controls the operation of the association, is drawn from the members and is normally composed of high-ranking executive officers of member chains. It is the board that elects the association’s officers and appoints committee members, and it is from the board that the principal executive officers of Topeo must be drawn. Restrictions on the alienation of stock and the procedure for selecting all important officials of the association from within the ranks of its members give the members complete and unfettered control over the operations of the association.
Topeo was founded in the 1940’s by a group of small, local grocery chains, independently owned and operated, that desired to cooperate to obtain high quality merchandise under private labels in order to compete more effectively with larger national and regional chains. With a line of canned, dairy, and other products, the association began. It added frozen foods in 1950, fresh produce in 1958, more general merchandise equipment and supplies in 1960, and a branded bacon and carcass beef selection program in 1966. By 1964, Topeo’s members had combined retail sales of more than $2 billion; by 1967, their sales totaled more than $2.3 billion, a figure exceeded by only three national grocery chains.
Members of the association vary in the degree of market share that they possess in their respective areas. The range is from 1.5% to 16%, with the average being approximately 6%. While it is difficult to compare these figures with the market shares of larger regional and national chains because of the absence in the record of accurate statistics for these chains, there is much evidence in the record that Topeo members are frequently in as strong a competitive position in their respective areas as any other chain. The strength of this competitive position is due, in some measure, to the success of Topco-brand products. Although only 10% of the total goods sold by Topeo members bear the association’s brand names, the profit on these goods is substantial and their very existence has improved the competitive potential of Topeo members with respect to other large and powerful chains.
It is apparent that from meager beginnings approximately a quarter of a century ago, Topeo has developed into a purchasing association wholly owned and operated by member chains, which possess much economic muscle, individually as well as cooperatively.
II
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides, in relevant part:
“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 . . .
The United States charged that, beginning at least as early as 1960 and continuing up to the time that the complaint was filed, Topeo had combined and conspired with its members to violate § 1 in two respects. First, the Government alleged that there existed:
“a continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action among the co-conspirator member firms acting through Topeo, the substantial terms of which have been and are that each co-conspirator member firm will sell Topco-controlled brands only within the marketing territory allocated to it, and will refrain from selling Topco-controlled brands outside such marketing territory.”
The division of marketing territories to which the complaint refers consists of a number of practices by the association.
Article IX, § 2, of the Topeo bylaws establishes three categories of territorial licenses that members may secure from the association:
“(a) Exclusive — An exclusive territory is one in which the member is licensed to sell all products bearing specified trademarks of the Association, to the exclusion of all other persons.
“(b) Non-exclusive — A non-exclusive territory is one in which a member is licensed to sell all products bearing specified trademarks of the Association, but not to the exclusion of others who may also be licensed to sell products bearing the same trademarks of the Association in the same territory.
“(c) Coextensive — A coextensive territory is one in which two (2) or more members are licensed to sell all products bearing specified trademarks of the Association to the exclusion of all other persons. . .
When applying for membership, a chain must designate the type of license that it desires. Membership must first be approved by the board of directors, and thereafter by an affirmative vote of 75% of the association’s members. If, however, the member whose operations are closest to those of the applicant, or any member whose operations are located within 100 miles of the applicant, votes against approval, an affirmative vote of 85%' of the members is required for approval. Bylaws, Art. I, § 5. Because, as indicated by the record, members cooperate in accommodating each other’s wishes, the procedure for approval provides, in essence, that members have a veto of sorts over actual or potential competition in the territorial areas in which they are concerned.
Following approval, each new member signs an agreement with Topeo designating the territory in which that member may sell Topco-brand products. No member may sell these products outside the territory in which it is licensed. Most licenses are exclusive, and even those denominated “coextensive” or “non-exclusive” prove to be de facto exclusive. Exclusive territorial areas are often allocated to members who do no actual business in those areas on the theory that they may wish to expand at some indefinite future time and that expansion would likely be in the direction of the allocated territory. When combined with each member’s veto power over new members, provisions for exclusivity work effectively to insulate members from competition in Topco-brand goods. Should a member violate its license agreement and sell in areas other than those in which it is licensed, its membership can be terminated under Art. IV, §§ 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the bylaws. Once a territory is classified as exclusive, either formally or de facto, it is extremely unlikely that the classification will ever be changed. See Bylaws, Art. IX.
The Government maintains that this scheme of dividing markets violates the Sherman Act because it operates to prohibit competition in Topco-brand products among grocery chains engaged in retail operations. The Government also makes a subsidiary challenge to Topco’s practices regarding licensing members to sell at wholesale. Under the bylaws, members are not permitted to sell any products supplied by the association at wholesale, whether trademarked or not, without first applying for and receiving special permission from the association to do so. Before permission is granted, other licensees (usually retailers), whose interests may potentially be affected by wholesale operations, are consulted as to their wishes in the matter. If permission is obtained, the member must agree to restrict the sale of Topeo products to a specific geographic area and to sell under any conditions imposed by the association. Permission to wholesale has often been sought by members, only to be denied by the association. The Government contends that this amounts not only to a territorial restriction violative of the Sherman Act, but also to a restriction on customers that in itself is vio-lative of the Act.
Prom the inception of this lawsuit, Topeo accepted as true most of the Government’s allegations regarding territorial divisions and restrictions on wholesaling, although it differed greatly with the Government on the conclusions, both factual and legal, to be drawn from these facts.
Topco’s answer to the complaint is illustrative of its posture in the District Court and before this Court:
“Private label merchandising is a way of economic life in the food retailing industry, and exclusivity is the essence of a private label program; without exclusivity, a private label would not be private. Each national and large regional chain has its own exclusive private label products in addition to the nationally advertised brands which all chains sell. Each such chain relies upon the exclusivity of its own private label line to differentiate its private label products from those of its competitors and to attract and retain the repeat business and loyalty of consumers. Smaller retail grocery stores and chains are unable to compete effectively with the national and large regional chains without also offering their own exclusive private label products.
“The only feasible method by which Topeo can procure private label products and assure the exclusivity thereof is through trademark licenses specifying the territory in which each member may sell such trademarked products.” Answer, App. 11.
Topeo essentially maintains that it needs territorial divisions to compete with larger chains; that the association could not exist if the territorial divisions were anything but exclusive; and that by restricting competition in the sale of Topco-brand goods, the association actually increases competition by enabling its members to compete successfully with larger regional and national chains.
The District Court, considering all these things relevant to its decision, agreed with Topeo. It recognized that the panoply of restraints that Topeo imposed on its members worked to prevent competition in Topco-brand products, but concluded that
“[w]hatever anti-competitive effect these practices may have on competition in the sale of Topeo private label brands is far outweighed by the increased ability of Topeo members to compete both with the national chains and other supermarkets operating in their respective territories.” 319 F. Supp. 1031, 1043 (1970).
The court held that Topco's practices were procompeti-tive and, therefore, consistent with the purposes of the antitrust laws. But we conclude that the District Court used an improper analysis in reaching its result.
Ill
On its face, § 1 of the Sherman Act appears to bar any combination of entrepreneurs so long as it is “in restraint of trade.” Theoretically, all manufacturers, distributors, merchants, sellers, and buyers could be considered as potential competitors of each other. Were § 1 to be read in the narrowest possible way, any commercial contract could be deemed to violate it. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238 (1918) (Brandéis, J.). The history underlying the formulation of the antitrust laws led this Court to conclude, however, that Congress did not intend to prohibit all contracts, nor even all contracts that might in some insignificant degree or attenuated sense restrain trade or competition. In lieu of the narrowest possible reading of § 1, the Court adopted a “rule of reason” analysis for determining whether most business combinations or contracts violate the prohibitions of the Sherman Act. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1 (1911). An analysis of the reasonableness of particular restraints includes consideration of the facts peculiar to the business in which the restraint is applied, the nature of the restraint and its effects, and the history of the restraint and the reasons for its adoption. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, supra, at 238.
While the Court has utilized the “rule of reason” in evaluating the legality of most restraints alleged to be violative of the Sherman Act, it has also developed the doctrine that certain business relationships are per se violations of the Act without regard to a consideration of their reasonableness. In Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5 (1958), Mr. Justice Black explained the appropriateness of, and the need for, per se rules:
“[T]here are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use. This principle of per se unreasonableness not only makes the type of restraints which are proscribed by the Sherman Act more certain to the benefit of everyone concerned, but it also avoids the necessity for an incredibly complicated and prolonged economic investigation into the entire history of the industry involved, as well as related industries, in an effort to determine at large whether a particular restraint has been unreasonable — an inquiry so often wholly fruitless when undertaken.”
It is only after considerable experience with certain business relationships that courts classify them as per se violations of the Sherman Act. See generally Van Cise, The Future of Per Se in Antitrust Law, 50 Va. L. Rev. 1165 (1964). One of the classic examples of a per se violation of § 1 is an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition. Such concerted action is usually termed a .“horizontal” restraint, in contradistinction to combinations of persons at different!' levels of the market structure, e. g,, manufacturers and I distributors, which are termed “vertical” restraints. This i¡ Court has reiterated time and time again that “[h]orizontal territorial limitations . . . are naked restraints off! trade with no purpose except stifling of competition .’’ White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U. S. 253, 263 (1963). Such limitations are per se violations of the Sherman Act. See Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211 (1899), aff’g 85 F. 271 (CA6 1898) (Taft, J.); United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319 (1947); Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 593 (1951); Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, supra; Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131 (1969); United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U. S. 350 (1967); United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365, 390 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Serta Associates, Inc. v. United States, 393 U. S. 534 (1969), aff’g 296 F. Supp. 1121, 1128 (ND Ill. 1968).
We think that it is clear that the restraint in this case is a horizontal one, and, therefore, a per se violation of § 1. The District Court failed to make any determination as to whether there were per se horizontal territorial restraints in this case and simply applied a rule of reason in reaching its conclusions that the restraints were not illegal. See, e. g., Comment, Horizontal Territorial Restraints and the Per Se Rule, 28 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 457, 469 (1971). In so doing, the District Court erred.
United States v. Sealy, Inc., supra, is, in fact, on all fours with this case. Sealy licensed manufacturers of mattresses and bedding to make and sell products using the Sealy trademark. Like Topeo, Sealy was a corporation owned almost entirely by its licensees, who elected the Board of Directors and controlled the business. Just as in this case, Sealy agreed with the licensees not to license other manufacturers or sellers to sell Sealy-brand products in a designated territory in exchange for the promise of the licensee who sold in that territory not to expand its sales beyond the area demarcated by Sealy. The Court held that this was a horizontal territorial restraint, which was per se violative of the Sherman Act.
Whether or not we would decide this case the same way under the rule of reason used by the District Court is irrelevant to the issue before us. The fact is that courts are of limited utility in examining difficult economic problems. Our inability to weigh, in any meaningful sense, destruction of competition in one sector of the economy against promotion of competition in another sector is one important reason we have formulated per se rules.
In applying these rigid rules, the Court has consistently rejected the notion that naked restraints of trade are to be tolerated because they are well intended or because they are allegedly developed to increase competition. E. g., United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U. S. 127, 146-147 (1966); United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U. S. 265 (1942); Fashion Originators’ Guild v. FTC, 312 U. S. 467 (1941).
Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. And the freedom guaranteed each and every business, no matter how small, is the freedom to compete— to assert with vigor, imagination, devotion, and ingenuity whatever economic muscle it can muster. Implicit in such freedom is the notion that it cannot be foreclosed with respect to one sector of the economy because certain private citizens or groups believe that such foreclosure might promote greater competition in a more important sector of the economy. Cf. United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 371 (1963).
The District Court determined that by limiting the freedom of its individual members to compete with each other, Topeo was doing a greater good by fostering competition between members and other large supermarket chains. But, the fallacy in this is that Topeo has no authority under the Sherman Act to determine the respective values of competition in various sectors of the economy. On the contrary, the Sherman Act gives to each Topeo member and to each prospective member the right to ascertain for itself whether or not competition with other supermarket chains is more desirable than competition in the sale of Topco-brand products. Without territorial restrictions, Topeo members may indeed: “[cut] each other’s throats.” Cf. White Motor Co., supra, at 278 (Clark, J., dissenting). But, we have never found this possibility sufficient to warrant condoning horizontal restraints of trade.
The Court has previously noted with respect to price fixing, another per se violation of the Sherman Act, that:
“The reasonable price fixed today may through economic and business changes become the unreasonable price of tomorrow. Once established, it may be maintained unchanged because of the absence of competition secured by the agreement for a price reasonable when fixed.” United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. 392, 397 (1927).
A similar observation can be made with regard to territorial limitations. White Motor Co., supra, at 265 n. 2 (Brennan, J., concurring).
There have been tremendous departures from the notion of a free-enterprise system as it was originally conceived in this country. These departures have been the product of congressional action and the will of the people. If a decision is to be made to sacrifice competition in one portion of the economy for greater competition in another portion, this too is a decision that must be made by Congress and not by private forces or by the courts. Private forces are too keenly aware of their own interests in making such decisions and courts are ill-equipped and ill-situated for such decisionmaking. To analyze, interpret, and evaluate the myriad of competing interests and the endless data that would surely be brought to bear on such decisions, and to make the delicate judgment on the relative values to society of competitive areas of the economy, the judgment of the elected representatives of the people is required.
Just as the territorial restrictions on retailing Topco-brand products must fall, so must the territorial restrictions on wholesaling. The considerations are the same, and the Sherman Act requires identical results.
We also strike down Topco’s other restrictions on the right of its members to wholesale goods. These restrictions amount to regulation of the customers to whom members of Topeo may sell Topco-brand goods. Like territorial restrictions, limitations on customers are intended to limit intra-brand competition and to promote inter-brand competition. For the reasons previously discussed, the arena in which Topeo members compete must be left to their unfettered choice absent a contrary congressional determination. United States v. General Motors Corp., supra; cf. United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., supra; United States v. Masonite Corp., supra; United States v. Trenton Potteries, supra. See also, White Motor Co., supra, at 281-283 (Clark, J., dissenting).
We reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for entry of an appropriate decree.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Topeo, which is referred to at times in this opinion as the "association,” is actually composed of 23 chains of supermarket retailers and two retailer-owned cooperative wholesalers.
In addition to purchasing various items for its members, Topeo performs other related functions: e. g., it insures that there is adequate quality control on the products that it purchases; it assists members in developing specifications on certain types of products (e. g., equipment and supplies); and it also aids the members in purchasing goods through other sources.
The founding members of Topeo were having difficulty competing with larger chains. This difficulty was attributable in some degree to the fact that the larger chains were capable of developing their own private-label programs.
Private-label products differ from other brand-name products in that they are sold at a limited number of easily ascertainable stores. A&P, for example, was a pioneer in developing a series of products that were sold under an A&P label and that were only available in A&P stores. It is obvious that by using private-label products, a chain can achieve significant cost economies in purchasing, transportation, warehousing, promotion, and advertising. These economies may afford the chain opportunities for offering private-label products at lower prices than other brand-name products. This, in turn, provides many advantages of which some of the more important are: a store can offer national-brand products at the same price as other stores, while simultaneously offering a desirable, lower priced alternative; or, if the profit margin is sufficiently high on private-brand goods, national-brand products may be sold at reduced price. Other advantages include: enabling a chain to bargain more favorably with national-brand manufacturers by creating a broader supply base of manufacturers, thereby decreasing dependence on a few, large national-brand manufacturers; enabling a chain to create a “price-mix” whereby prices on special items can be lowered to attract customers while profits are maintained on other items; and creation of general goodwill by offering lower priced, higher quality goods.
The three largest chains are A&P, Safeway, and Kroger.
Topeo was named in the complaint as the sole defendant, but the complaint clearly charged that its members, while not defendants, were coconspirators in Topco’s violation of the Sherman Act.
Article IX, § 8, of the bylaws provides, in relevant part:
“Unless a member’s membership and licensing agreement provides that such member may sell at wholesale, a member may not wholesale products supplied by the Association. If a membership and licensing agreement permits a member to sell at wholesale, such member shall control the resale of products bearing trademarks of the Association so that such sales are confined to the territories granted to the member, and the method of selling shall conform in all respects with the Association’s policies.”
Shortly before trial, Topeo amended this bylaw with an addition that permitted any member to wholesale in the exclusive territories in which it retailed. But the restriction remained the same in all other cases.
It is apparent that this bylaw on its face applies whether or not the products sold are trademarked by Topeo. Despite the fact that Topco’s general manager testified at trial that, in practice, the restriction is confined to Topco-branded products, the District Court found that the bylaw is applied as written. We find nothing clearly erroneous in this finding. Assuming, arguendo, however, that the restriction is confined to products trademarked by Topeo, the result in this ease would not change.
When the Government first raised this point in the District Court, Topeo objected on the ground that it was at variance with the charge in the complaint. The District Court apparently agreed with Topeo that the complaint did not cover customer limitations, but permitted the Government to pursue this line on the basis that if the limitations were proved, the complaint could later be amended. App. 141. Topeo acquiesced in this procedure, and both sides dealt with customer limitations in examining witnesses. The District Court made specific findings and conclusions with respect to the totality of the restraints on wholesaling. In light of these facts, the additional fact that the complaint was never formally amended should not bar our consideration of the issue.
The District Court recognized that “[t]he government has introduced evidence indicating that some applications by Topeo members to expand into territories assigned to other members have been denied,” 319 F. Supp. 1031, 1042, but concluded that these decisions by Topeo did not have an appreciable influence on the decision of members as to whether or not to expand. Topeo expands on this conclusion in its brief by asserting that “the evidence is uneontra-dicted that a member has never failed to build a new store because it was unable to obtain a license.” Brief for Appellee 18 n. 18. The problem with the conclusion of the District Court and the assertion by Topeo is that they are wholly inconsistent with the notion that territorial divisions are crucial to the existence of Topeo, as urged by the association and found by the District Court. From the filing of its answer to the argument before this Court, Topeo has maintained that without a guarantee of an exclusive territory, prospective licensees would not join Topeo and present licensees would leave the association. It is difficult to understand how Topeo can make this argument and simultaneously urge that territorial restrictions are an unimportant factor in the decision of a member on whether to expand its business.
It is true that in Sealy the Court dealt with price fixing as well as territorial restrictions. To the extent that Sealy casts doubt on whether horizontal territorial limitations, unaccompanied by price fixing, are per se violations of the Sherman Act, we remove that doubt today.
There has been much recent commentary on the wisdom of per se rules. See, e. g., Comment, Horizontal Territorial Restraints and the Per Se Rule, 28 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 457 (1971); Averill, Sealy, Schwinn and Sherman One: An Analysis and Prognosis, 15 N. Y. L. F. 39 (1969); Note, Selected Antitrust Problems of the Franchisor: Exclusive Arrangements, Territorial Restrictions, and Franchise Termination, 22 U. Fla. L. Rev. 260, 286 (1969); Sadd, Antitrust Symposium: Territorial and Customer Restrictions After Sealy and Schwinn, 38 U. Cin. L. Rev. 249, 252-253 (1969); Bork, The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept, pt. 1, Price Fixing and Market Division, 74 Yale L. J. 775 (1965).
Without the per se rules, businessmen would be left with little to aid them in predicting in any particular case what courts will find to be legal and illegal under the Sherman Act. Should Congress ultimately determine that predictability is unimportant in this area of the law, it can, of course, make -per se rules inapplicable in some or all cases, and leave courts free to ramble through the wilds of economic theory in order to maintain a flexible approach.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1992, petitioners, a group of probation officers, filed suit against their employer, the State of Maine, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The officers alleged the State had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. Ill), and sought compensation and liquidated damages. While the suit was pending, this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), which made it clear that Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suits commenced or prosecuted in the federal courts. Upon consideration of Seminole Tribe, the District Court dismissed petitioners’ action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Mills v. Maine, 118 F. 3d 37 (CA1 1997). Petitioners then filed the same action in state court. The state trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of sovereign immunity, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court? affirmed. 715 A. 2d 172 (1998).
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision conflicts with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Jacoby v. Arkansas Dept. of Ed., 331 Ark. 508, 962 S. W. 2d 773 (1998), and calls into question the constitutionality of the provisions of the FLSA purporting to authorize private actions against States in their own courts without regard for consent, see 29 U. S. C. §§ 216(b), 203(x). In light of the importance of the question presented and the conflict between the courts, we granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 981 (1998). The United States intervened as a petitioner to defend the statute.
We hold that the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in state courts. We decide as well that the State of Maine has not consented to suits for overtime pay and liquidated damages under the FLSA. On these premises we affirm the judgment sustaining dismissal of the suit.
I
The Eleventh Amendment makes explicit reference to the States’ immunity from suits “commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. We have, as a result, sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as “Eleventh Amendment immunity.” The phrase is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution’s structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit.is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.
A
Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document “specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities.” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) (“[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact”). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States’ continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, §2; Art. IV, §§2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e.g., Art. I, §8; Art. II, §§2-3; Art. III, §2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Priniz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156-159, 177 (1992).
The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the Nation’s primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States “form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation’s rejection of “the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States” in favor of “a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people— who were, in Hamilton’s words, ‘the only proper objects of government.’ ” Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 (“The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States”). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had “exploded on all hands” the “practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
The States thus retain “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the Ml authority, of sovereignty.
B
The generation that designed and adopted our federal system considered immunity from private suits central to sovereign dignity. When the Constitution was ratified, it was well established in English law that the Crown could not be sued without consent in its own courts. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 437-446 (1793) (Iredell, J., dissenting) (surveying English practice); cf. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, 414 (1979) (“The immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries. Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity”). In reeiting the prerogatives of the Crown, Blackstone — whose works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation — underscored the close and necessary relationship understood to exist between sovereignty and immunity from suit:
“And, first, the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty, or pre-eminence.... Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him. For all jurisdiction implies superiority of power....” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 234r-235 (1765).
Although the American people had rejected other aspects of English political theory, the doctrine that a sovereign could not be sued without its consent was universal in the States when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. See Chisholm, supra, at 434-435 (Iredell, J., dissenting) (“I believe there is no doubt that neither in the State now in question, nor in any other in the Union, any particular Legislative mode, authorizing a compulsory suit for the recovery of money against a State, was in being either when the Constitution was adopted, or at the time the judicial act was passed”); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 16 (1890) (“The suability of a State, without its consent, was a thing unknown to the law. This has been so often laid down and acknowledged by courts and jurists that it is hardly necessary to be formally asserted”).
The ratification debates, furthermore, underscored the importance of the States' sovereign immunity to the American people. Grave concerns were raised by the provisions of Article III, which extended the federal judicial power to controversies between States and citizens of other States or foreign nations. As we have explained:
“Unquestionably the doctrine of sovereign immunity was a matter of importance in the early days of independence. Many of the States were heavily indebted as a result of the Revolutionary War. They were vitally interested in the question whether the creation of a new federal sovereign, with courts of its own, would automatically subject them, like lower English lords, to suits in the courts of the ‘higher’ sovereign.” Hall, supra, at 418 (footnote omitted).
The leading advocates of the Constitution assured the people in no uncertain terms that the Constitution would not strip the States of sovereign immunity. One assurance was contained in The Federalist No. 81, written by Alexander Hamilton:
“It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States and the danger intimated must be merely ideal.... [T]here is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident that it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a preexisting right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.” Id., at 487-488 (emphasis in original).
At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison echoed this theme:
“Its jurisdiction in controversies between a state and citizens of another state is much objected to, and perhaps without reason. It is not in the power of individuals to call any state into court....
“... It appears to me that this [clause] can have no operation but this — to give a citizen a right to be heard in the federal courts; and if a state should condescend to be a party, this court may take cognizance of it.” 8 Debates on the Federal Constitution 533 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1854) (hereinafter Elliot’s Debates).
When Madison’s explanation was questioned, John Marshall provided immediate support:
“With respect to disputes between a state and the citizens of another state, its jurisdiction has been decried with unusual vehemence. I hope no gentleman will think that a state will be called at the bar of the federal court. Is there no such ease at present? Are there not many cases in which the legislature of Virginia is a party, and yet the state is not sued? It is not rational to suppose that the sovereign power should be dragged before a court. The intent is, to enable states to recover claims of individuals residing in other states. I contend this construction is warranted by the words. But, say they, there will be partiality in it if a state cannot be defendant.... It is necessary to be so, and cannot be avoided. I see a difficulty in making a state defendant, which does not prevent its being plaintiff.” 3 id., at 555-556 (emphasis in original).
Although the state conventions which addressed the issue of sovereign immunity in their formal ratification documents sought to clarify the point by constitutional amendment, they made clear that they, like Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall, understood the Constitution as drafted to preserve the States’ immunity from private suits. The Rhode Island Convention thus proclaimed that “[i]t is declared by the Convention, that the judicial power of the United States, in eases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state.” 1 id., at 386. The convention sought, in addition, an express amendment “to remove all doubts or controversies respecting the same.” Ibid. In a similar fashion, the New York Convention “declare[d] and ma[d]e known,” 1 id., at 327, its understanding “[t]hat the judicial power of the United States, in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state,” 1 id., at 329. The convention proceeded to ratify the Constitution “[u]nder these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration.” Ibid.
Despite the persuasive assurances of the Constitution’s leading advocates and the expressed understanding of the only state conventions to address the issue in explicit terms, this Court held, just five years after the Constitution was adopted, that Article III authorized a private citizen of another State to sue the State of Georgia without its consent. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793). Each of the four Justices who concurred in the judgment issued a separate opinion. The common theme of the opinions was that the case fell within the literal text of Article III, which by its terms granted jurisdiction over controversies “between a State and Citizens of another State,” and “between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.” U. S. Const., Art. III, §2. The argument that this provision granted jurisdiction only over cases in which the State was a plaintiff was dismissed as inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of “between,” and with the provision extending jurisdiction to “Controversies between two or more States,” which by necessity contemplated jurisdiction over suits to which States were defendants. Two Justices also argued that sovereign immunity was inconsistent with the principle of popular sovereignty established by the Constitution, 2 Dall., at 454-458 (Wilson, J.); id., at 470-472 (Jay, C. J.); although the others did not go so far, they contended that the text of Article III evidenced the States’ surrender of sovereign immunity as to those provisions extending jurisdiction over suits to which States were parties, id., at 452 (Blair, J.); id., at 468 (Cushing, J.).
Justice Iredell dissented, relying on American history, id., at 434-435, English history, id., at 437-446, and the principles of enumerated powers and separate sovereignty, id., at 435-436, 448, 449-450. See generally Hans, 134 U. S., at 12 (“The other justices were more swayed by a close observance of the letter of the Constitution, without regard to former experience and usage.... Justice Iredell, on the contrary, contended that it was not the intention to create new and unheard of remedies, by subjecting sovereign States to actions at the suit of individuals, (which he conclusively showed was never done before,) but only... to invest the federal courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies and cases, between the parties designated, that were properly susceptible of litigation in courts”).
The Court’s decision “fell upon the country with a profound shock.” 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 96 (rev. ed. 1926); accord, Hans, supra, at 11; Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 325 (1934); Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 69. “Newspapers representing a rainbow of opinion protested what they viewed as an unexpected blow to state sovereignty. Others spoke more concretely of prospective raids on state treasuries.” D. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789-1801, p. 196 (1997).
The States, in particular, responded with outrage to the decision. The Massachusetts Legislature, for example, denounced the decision as “repugnant to the first principles of a federal government,” and called upon the Commonwealth’s Senators and Representatives to take all necessary steps to “remove any clause or article of the... Constitution, which can be construed to imply or justify a decision, that, a State is compellable to answer in any suit by an individual or individuals in any Court of the United States.” 15 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 314 (H. Syrett & J. Cooke eds. 1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Georgia’s response was more intemperate: Its House of Representatives passed a bill providing that anyone attempting to enforce the Chisholm decision would be “ ‘guilty of felony and shall suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged/ ” Currie, supra, at 196.
An initial proposal to amend the Constitution was introduced in the House of Representatives the day after Chisholm was announced; the proposal adopted as the Eleventh Amendment was introduced in the Senate promptly following an intervening recess. Currie, supra, at 196. Congress turned to the latter proposal with great dispatch; little more than two months after its introduction it had been endorsed by both Houses and forwarded to the States. 4 Annals of Congress 25, 30, 477, 499 (1794); 1 Stat. 402.
Each House spent but a single day discussing the Amendment, and the vote in each House was close to unanimous. See 4 Annals of Congress, at 30-31, 476-478 (the Senate divided 23 to 2; the House 81 to 9). All attempts to weaken the Amendment were defeated. Congress in succession rejected proposals to limit the Amendment to suits in which “ ‘the cause of action shall have arisen before the ratification of the amendment,’” or even to cases “‘where such State shall have previously made provision in their own Courts, whereby such suit may be prosecuted to effect’ ”; it refused as well to make an exception for “ ‘cases arising under treaties made under the authority of the United States.’ ” 4 id., at 30, 476.
It might be argued that the Chisholm decision was a correct interpretation of the constitutional design and that the Eleventh Amendment represented a deviation from the original understanding. This, however, seems unsupportable. First, despite the opinion of Justice Iredell, the majority failed to address either the practice or the understanding that prevailed in the States at the time the Constitution was adopted. Second, even a casual reading of the opinions suggests the majority suspected the decision would be unpopular and surprising. See, e. g., 2 Dall., at 454-455 (Wilson, J.) (condemning the prevailing conception of sovereignty); id., at 468 (Cushing, J.) (“If the Constitution is found inconvenient in practice in this or any other particular, it is well that a regular mode is pointed out for amendment”); id., at 478-479 (Jay, C. J.) (“[T]here is reason to hope that the people of [Georgia] will yet perceive that [sovereign immunity] would not have been consistent with [republican] equality”); cf. id., at 419-420 (attorney for Chisholm) (“I did not want the remonstrance of Georgia, to satisfy me, that the motion, which I have made is unpopular. Before that remonstrance was read, I had learnt from the acts of another State, whose will must be always dear to me, that she too condemned it”). Finally, two Members of the majority acknowledged that the United States might well remain immune from suit despite Article Ill’s grant of jurisdiction over “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party,” see id., at 469 (Cushing, J.); id., at 478 (Jay, C. J.), and, invoking the example of actions to collect debts incurred before the Constitution was adopted, one raised the possibility of “exceptions,” suggesting the rule of the case might not “extend to all the demands, and to every kind of action,” id., at 479 (Jay, C. J.). These concessions undercut the crucial premise that either the Constitution’s literal text or the principle of popular sovereignty necessarily overrode widespread practice and opinion.
The text and history of the Eleventh Amendment also suggest that Congress acted not to change but to restore the original constitutional design. Although earlier drafts of the Amendment had been phrased as express limits on the judicial power granted in Article III, see, e. g., 3 Annals of Congress 651-652 (1793) (“The Judicial Power of the United States shall not extend to any suits in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States...”), the adopted text addressed the proper interpretation of that provision of the original Constitution, see U. S. Const., Arndt. 11 (“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States.. By its terms, then, the Eleventh Amendment did not redefine the federal judicial power but instead overruled the Court:
“This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. It did not in terms prohibit suits by individuals against the States, but declared that the Constitution should not be construed to import any power to authorize the bringing of such suits.... The Supreme Court had construed the judicial power as extending to such a suit, and its decision was thus overruled.” Hans, 134 U. S., at 11.
The text reflects the historical context and the congressional objective in endorsing the Amendment for ratification. Congress chose not to enact language codifying the traditional understanding of sovereign immunity but rather to address the specific provisions of the Constitution that had raised concerns during the ratification debates and formed the basis of the Chisholm decision. Cf. 15 Papers of Alexander Hamilton, at 314 (quoted supra, at 720). Given the outraged reaction to Chisholm, as well as Congress’ repeated refusal to otherwise qualify the text of the Amendment, it is doubtful that if Congress meant to write a new immunity into the Constitution it would have limited that immunity to the narrow text of the Eleventh Amendment:
“Can we suppose that, when the Eleventh Amendment was adopted, it was understood to be left open for citizens of a State to sue their own state in the federal courts, whilst the idea of suits by citizens of other states, or of foreign states, was indignantly repelled? Suppose that Congress, when proposing the Eleventh Amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a State from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States: can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the States? The supposition that it would is almost an absurdity on its face.” Hans, supra, at 14-15.
The more natural inference is that the Constitution was understood, in light of its history and structure, to preserve the States’ traditional immunity from private suits. As the Amendment clarified the only provisions of the Constitution that anyone had suggested might support a contrary understanding, there was no reason to draft with a broader brush.
Finally, the swiftness and near unanimity with which the Eleventh Amendment was adopted suggest “either that the Court had not captured the original understanding, or that the country had changed its collective mind most rapidly.” D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years: 1789-1888, p. 18, n. 101 (1985). The more reasonable interpretation, of course, is that regardless of the views of four Justices in Chisholm, the country as a whole— which had adopted the Constitution just five years earlier— had not understood the document to strip the States of their immunity from private suits. Cf. Currie, The Constitution in Congress, at 196 (“It is plain that just about everybody in Congress agreed the Supreme Court had misread the Constitution”).
Although the dissent attempts to rewrite history to reflect a different original understanding, its evidence is unpersuasive. The handful of state statutory and constitutional provisions authorizing suits or petitions of right against States only confirms the prevalence of the traditional understanding that a State could not be sued in the absence of an express waiver, for if the understanding were otherwise, the provisions would have been unnecessary. The constitutional amendments proposed by the New York and Rhode Island Conventions undercut rather than support the dissent’s view of history, see supra, at 718-719, and the amendments proposed by the Virginia and North Carolina Conventions do not cast light upon the original understanding of the States’ immunity to suit. It is true that, in the course of all but eliminating federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, see 3 Elliot’s Debates 660-661 (amendment proposed by the Virginia Convention limiting the federal-question jurisdiction to suits arising under treaties and the diversity jurisdiction to suits between parties claiming lands under grants from different States); 4 id., at 246 (identical amendment proposed by the North Carolina Convention), the amendments would have removed the language in the Constitution relied upon by the Chisholm Court. While the amendments do reflect dissatisfaction with the scope of federal jurisdiction as a general matter, there is no evidence that they were directed toward the question of sovereign immunity or that they reflect an understanding that the States would be subject to private suits without consent under Article III as drafted.
The dissent’s remaining evidence cannot bear the weight the dissent seeks to place on it. The views voiced during the ratification debates by Edmund Randolph and James Wilson, when reiterated by the same individuals in their respective capacities as advocate and Justice in Chisholm, were decisively rejected by the Eleventh Amendment, and General Pinkney did not speak to the issue of sovereign immunity at all. Furthermore, Randolph appears to have recognized that his views were in tension with the traditional understanding of sovereign immunity, see 3 Elliot’s Debates 573 (“I think, whatever the law of nations may say, that any doubt respecting the construction that a state may be plaintiff, and not defendant, is taken away by the words where a state shall be a party”), and Wilson and Pinkney expressed a radical nationalist vision of the constitutional design that not only deviated from the views that prevailed at the time but, despite the dissent’s apparent embrace of the position, remains startling even today, see post, at 776 (quoting with approval Wilson’s statement that “ ‘the government of each state ought to be subordinate to the government of the United States’”). Nor do the controversial early suits prosecuted against Maryland and New York reflect a widespread understanding that the States had surrendered their immunity to suit. Maryland’s decision to submit to process in Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2 Dall. 401 (1791), aroused great controversy, see Marcus & Wexler, Suits Against States: Diversity of Opinion in the 1790s, 1993 J. Sup. Ct. History 73, 74-75, and did not go unnoticed by the Supreme Court, see Chisholm, 2 Dall., at 429-430 (Iredell, J., dissenting). In Oswald v. New York, the State refused to respond to the plaintiff’s summons until after the decision in Chisholm had been announced; even then it at first asserted the defense that it was “a free, sovereign and independent State,” and could not be “drawn or compelled” to defend the suit. Marcus & Wexler, supra, at 76-77 (internal quotation marks omitted). And, though the Court’s decision in Chisholm may have had “champions ‘every bit as vigorous in defending their interpretation of the Constitution as were those partisans on the other side of the issue,’ ” post, at 794, the vote on the Eleventh Amendment makes clear that they were decidedly less numerous. See supra, at 721.
In short, the scanty and equivocal evidence offered by the dissent establishes no more than what is evident from the decision in Chisholm — that some members of the founding generation disagreed with Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, Ire-dell, and the only state conventions formally to address the matter. The events leading to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, however, make clear that the individuals who believed the Constitution stripped the States of their immunity from suit were at most a small minority.
Not only do the ratification debates and the events leading to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment reveal the original understanding of the States’ constitutional immunity from suit; they also underscore the importance of sovereign immunity to the founding generation. Simply put, “The Constitution never would have been ratified if the States and their courts were to be stripped of their sovereign authority except as expressly provided by the Constitution itself.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 239, n. 2 (1985); accord, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 660 (1974).
C
The Court has been consistent in interpreting the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment as conclusive evidence “that the decision in Chisholm was contrary to the well-understood meaning of the Constitution,” Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 69, and that the views expressed by Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall during the ratification debates, and by Justice Ire-dell in his dissenting opinion in Chisholm, reflect the original understanding of the Constitution. See, e.g., Hans, 134 U. S., at 12, 14-15, 18-19; Principality of Monaco, 292 U. S., at 325; Edelman, supra, at 660, n. 9; Seminole Tribe, supra, at 70, and nn. 12-13. In accordance with this understanding, we have recognized a “presumption that no anomalous and unheard-of proceedings or suits were intended to be raised up by the Constitution — anomalous and unheard of when the constitution was adopted.” Hans, 134 U. S., at 18; accord, id., at 15. As a consequence, we have looked to “history and experience, and the established order of things,” id., at 14, rather than “[a]dhering to the mere letter” of the Eleventh Amendment, id., at 13, in determining the scope of the States’ constitutional immunity from suit.
Following this approach, the Court has upheld States’ assertions of sovereign immunity in various contexts falling outside the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment. In Hans, the Court held that sovereign immunity barred a citizen from suing his own State under the federal-question head of jurisdiction. The Court was unmoved by the petitioner’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, applied only to suits brought by citizens of other States:
“It seems to us that these views of those great advocates and defenders of the Constitution were most sensible and just; and they apply equally to the present ease as to that then under discussion. The letter is appealed to now, as it was then, as a ground for sustaining a suit brought by an individual against a State. The reason against it is as strong in this ease as it was in that. It is an attempt to strain the Constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of.” Id., at 14-15.
Later decisions rejected similar requests to conform the principle of sovereign immunity to the strict language of the Eleventh Amendment in holding that nonconsenting States are immune from suits brought by federal corporations, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436 (1900), foreign nations, Principality of Monaco, supra, or Indian tribes, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775 (1991), and in concluding that sovereign immunity is a defense to suits in admiralty, though the text of the Eleventh Amendment addresses only suits “in law or equity,” Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921).
These holdings reflect a settled doctrinal understanding, consistent with the views of the leading advocates of the Constitution’s ratification, that sovereign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself. See, e. g., Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 267-268 (1997) (acknowledging “the broader concept of immunity, implicit in the Constitution, which we have regarded the Eleventh Amendment as evidencing and exemplifying”); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 55-56; Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 98-99 (1984); Ex parte New York, supra, at 497. The Eleventh Amendment confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle; it follows that the scope of the States’ immunity from suit is demarcated not by the text of the Amendment alone but by fundamental postulates implicit in the constitutional design. As we explained in Principality of Monaco:
“Manifestly, we cannot rest with a mere literal application of the words of §2 of Article III, or assume that the letter of the Eleventh Amendment exhausts the restrictions upon suits against non-consenting States. Behind the words of the constitutional provisions are postulates which limit and control. There is the essential postulate that the controversies, as contemplated, shall be found to be of a justiciable character. There is also the postulate that States of the Union, still possessing attributes of sovereignty, shall be immune from suits, without their consent, save where there has been ‘a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention.’ ” 292 U. S., at 322-323 (quoting The Federalist No. 81 (footnote omitted).
Or, as we have more recently reaffirmed:
“Although the text of the Amendment would appear to restrict only the Article III diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, ‘we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition... which it confirms.’ Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The writ of habeas corpus has played a great role in the history of human freedom. It has been the judicial method of lifting undue restraints upon personal liberty. But in recent years the increased use of this writ, especially in federal courts, has created many procedural problems which are not easy of solution. This case involves some of those problems. Because of the importance of the writ and the necessity that it not lose its effectiveness in a procedural morass, we have deemed it wise to deal with this case at length and to set forth fully and explicitly the answers to the matters at issue.
In 1938, petitioner was convicted in a federal district court in Michigan under a four-count indictment charging violations of the federal bank robbery statute. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 65 years and was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California. His efforts to prosecute an appeal from his conviction proved futile.
Since his confinement at Alcatraz, petitioner has made four separate applications for writs of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The instant proceeding involves the fourth of these applications. Inasmuch as the problems in this case can best be understood in light of the issues raised in the earlier proceedings, it becomes necessary to examine the various applications in some detail.
1. The first application was prepared and filed in 1940 by petitioner, who is not a lawyer. He sought release mainly on the grounds that certain evidence used against him at the trial had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial judge had improperly refused to disqualify himself upon the filing of an affidavit of prejudice. It is important to note that this application did not allege that the conviction resulted from the prosecution’s knowing use of false testimony. The District Court issued an order to show cause, a return was made, and the petitioner then filed a traverse in the form of a “Motion to overrule Respondent’s return and issue writ.” This motion likewise failed to aver the knowing use of false testimony. But it did call the court's attention to “two different statements” made at the trial by the prosecution’s chief witness, Fred T. Donner, and to the “methods... used to obtain” this change in testimony. There was no indication given as to what those “methods” were. Donner’s testimony at the trial was attached as an exhibit, testimony which revealed that Donner had gone to the office of the District Attorney and talked to him and his assistant during the interval between the allegedly conflicting statements.
The District Court then appointed counsel for petitioner at his request. Several months later, when the matter came on for determination, the court entered an order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition. No hearing was held, the order being entered solely on the basis of the pleadings. And no findings of fact or conclusions of law were made. Nor was an opinion written. Petitioner thereafter proceeded pro se. Among his various legal maneuvers, he moved for a rehearing. He stated, as grounds for the motion, that the court erred in refusing to allow him to appear and testify personally before entering the order and that the court-appointed attorney “blocked your petitioner from filing an amended petition to include additional points so that they could be reviewed on appeal.” This motion was denied.
Petitioner prepared his own appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the points upon which he stated he intended to rely was the claim that he had been denied “a fair and impartial trial” by Donner’s change in testimony after talking with the District Attorney. But the Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming the District Court’s disposition of the habeas corpus petition, made no reference to this point; its opinion was devoted exclusively to the matters raised in the original petition. Price v. Johnston, 125 F. 2d 806.
Included in the numerous claims in his attempt to secure a writ of certiorari in this Court was the reiteration that Donner’s change in testimony deprived him of a fair and impartial trial. According to his written argument, “if this was not perjured it was base contradictory evidence for after this witness had completed all his evidence he was then taken into the private chambers of the United States Attorney... and there was instructed as to what to say, for he came from said office and was recalled to the stand at this second setting he rebutted all his prior testimony. This must be either classed as a conspiracy forcing a witness to change his testimony either of which surely would not be giving the appellant the fair and impartial trial to which he is entitled.” The Government’s memorandum in opposition dealt with this contention in a footnote. It was there said that petitioner’s claim “is refuted by the excerpt from the transcript of the proceedings at the trial introduced as part of petitioner’s pleadings.... The witness did not rebut his prior testimony but merely supplemented it with a few more details and he affirmatively stated that his discussion with the prosecutor did not assist him in his subsequent testimony.” This Court denied the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari. Price v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 677; rehearing denied, 316 U. S. 712.
2. In 1942, several months after the foregoing action by this Court, petitioner prepared and filed in the District Court a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In this petition he sought release on the same grounds set forth in his first petition as well as on two principal additional grounds. The two new claims were that petitioner’s counsel had been absent from the courtroom dur-. ing an important part of the trial and that petitioner had not had counsel at the preliminary hearing before the United States Commissioner. The petition, as amended, contained no allegation that false testimony had been knowingly used at the trial; nor did it refer in any way to Donner’s allegedly inconsistent testimony. Moreover, no mention of such matters was made by petitioner in his testimony at the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus.
The District Court, at the close of the hearing, discharged the writ. Its findings of fact and conclusions of law were subsequently entered and were silent as to any question relating to the knowing use of false testimony. The District Court’s action was affirmed on appeal, the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals being devoted to the matters decided by the District Court. Price v. Johnston, 144 F. 2d 260. This Court then denied a petition for certiorari, a petition which presented no issues differing from those raised in the lower courts. Price v. Johnston, 323 U. S. 789; rehearing denied, 323 U. S. 819.
3. Petitioner’s third petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the District Court on August 22, 1945. This denial was based on the ground that the issues raised were known to petitioner when he filed the earlier petitions, making the third petition an abusive use of the writ of habeas corpus. Price v. Johnston, 61 F. Supp. 995. Leave to appeal was denied. It is not evident, however, what the issues were that petitioner did raise in this proceeding.
4. On January 2, 1946, petitioner filed his fourth application for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that he had been denied a fair and impartial trial in that, on the trial for bank robbery, the jury was confused by the presentation of evidence to show perjury before a notary public, that the court was not justified in imposing a general sentence on the four counts of the indictment, and that the fourth count did not allege an offense. After an order to show cause was issued, petitioner amended his petition to allege “That the government knowingly employed false testimony on the trial, to obtain the conviction.”
The respondent warden, through the United States Attorney, thereupon filed his return to the order to show cause. This return did not deny the allegation that the Government knowingly employed false testimony at the trial. Nor did it question the sufficiency of the allegation or the absence of supporting facts. It simply incorporated by reference the entire record in the three prior habeas corpus proceedings and asked that the fourth petition be' denied on the basis of the District Court’s opinion denying the third application. Petitioner’s traverse stated that the earlier petitions did not contain some of the points presented in the fourth petition. It repeated the allegations in the original petition, though it merely incorporated by reference the allegation of the amended petition that the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony.
The District Court denied the fourth petition without a hearing and without opinion. It is difficult to discover from such action the precise basis of the District Court’s dismissal of the allegation in question. But because of the nature of the warden’s return, we suspect that the court thought that the matter was known to petitioner at the time of filing the first petition and should have been urged at that time. There is nothing whatever to indicate that the dismissal stemmed from the court’s belief that the allegation was insufficient on its face or that it was obviously without merit.
On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered up the original files in petitioner’s three previous applications and directed that petitioner be brought before the court for the argument of his appeal. After the argument, the submission of the cause was set aside and the case was assigned for hearing before the court en banc. Petitioner then moved the court en banc for an order directing his appearance for the reargument. This motion was denied on January 6, 1947. In its written opinion, a majority of the court held that circuit courts of appeals are without power to order the production of a prisoner for the argument of his appeal in person. One judge expressed the view that the court had such power, but concurred in the denial of the motion as a matter of discretion. Two judges dissented, stating that there was power to grant the requested relief; but they did not reach the question of the propriety of exercising that power in this case. 159 F. 2d 234.
The appeal was then considered on the merits on briefs filed by petitioner and respondent and on oral argument by an Assistant United States Attorney. Petitioner was unrepresented at the oral argument. On May 5, 1947, the order of the District Court denying the fourth petition without a hearing was affirmed, two judges dissenting in separate opinions. 161 F. 2d 705.
The majority opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out that, by amending his fourth petition to allege “that the government knowingly employed false testimony on the trial, to obtain conviction,” petitioner had interposed a wholly new ground for discharge. But the specific circumstances of this claim had not been developed in the District Court. The opinion accordingly treated the allegation as though it had incorporated petitioner’s explanatory statement in his appellate brief that the United States Attorney, in the course of the trial, “did take the one and only witness, Donner, that testified that there had been a crime committed, from the witness stand after he had testified that he could not see any guns or pistols during the robbery, to the district attorney’s office, and talked about the evidence and put the witness Donner back on the witness stand to testify that he did see the pistols, and described them, when he could not do so at first.”
So construing the allegation, the court then said: “The records in these several proceedings disclose that throughout his trial appellant was represented by counsel of his own choosing. And since he was himself present at all times he could hardly have been unaware of the described incident or of its implications, nor does he make any such claim. On the face of his showing it is apparent he knew as much about the misconduct at the time it is said to have occurred as he knows now. Yet no reason or excuse is attempted to be advanced for his failure to set it up in one or the other of his prior petitions.” 161 F. 2d at 706-707. And it was further stated that “Where there have been repeated petitions with an apparent husbanding of grounds the onus may properly be cast on the applicant of satisfying the court that an abusive use is not being made of the writ.” Id., at 707. Since petitioner had given no valid excuse for failing to present earlier the allegation in question, the conclusion was reached that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the fourth petition without a hearing. Reference was made in this respect to Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, and Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239.
We issued a writ of certiorari to review the important issues thus raised in the two opinions of the Circuit Court of Appeals. And on petitioner’s motion, we appointed a member of the bar of this Court to serve as his counsel before us.
I.
We hold that power is resident in a circuit court of appeals to command that a prisoner be brought before it so that he may argue his own appeal in a case involving his life or liberty. That power, which may be exercised at the sound discretion of the court, grows out of the portion of § 262 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 377, which provides that “The Supreme Court, the circuit courts of appeals, and the district courts shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
An order requiring the presence of a prisoner before a circuit court of appeals to argue his own appeal is one in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. As such, it clearly falls within the scope of § 262. Basic to the power of a circuit court of appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus under that section, of course, is the pendency of a proceeding of an appellate nature to which the contemplated writ is auxiliary. Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132. The writ cannot be issued by that court as an independent and original proceeding; it can only issue where it may be necessary to the complete exercise of an appellate jurisdiction already existing. Since the occasion for demanding the presence of a prisoner at an oral argument would arise only where there was an appeal already pending before the court, a writ compelling his presence satisfies this basic requirement of § 262.
Moreover, a writ of habeas corpus of this nature can on occasion be “necessary” for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction so as to be authorized by § 262. We have refused to interpret that section to mean that a circuit court of appeals can issue a habeas corpus writ only if “necessary” in the sense that the court could not otherwise physically discharge its appellate duties. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 273. Rather, § 262 has been read so that the writ may be issued where its use is calculated, in the sound judgment of the circuit court of appeals, to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it. In other words, the writ is available in those exceptional cases “where, because of special circumstances, its use as an aid to an appeal over which the court has jurisdiction may fairly be said to be reasonably necessary in the interest of justice.” Id., at 274.
Exceptional situations may arise where a circuit court of appeals might fairly conclude that oral argument by a prisoner in person is “reasonably necessary in the interest of justice.” True, an appeal can always be submitted on written briefs. But oral argument, while not indispensable, is frequently if not usually desired by the parties. And there are occasions when a court deems it essential that oral argument be had; indeed, a court order or request to that effect may be necessary where the parties have previously indicated a willingness to forego the privilege. In such situations where oral argument is slated to take place, fairness and orderly appellate procedure demand that both parties be accorded an equal opportunity to participate in the argument either through counsel or in person. The difficulty, of course, arises when one of the parties is a prisoner who has no lawyer and who desires that none be appointed to represent him, being of the belief that the case is of such a nature that only he himself can adequately discuss the facts and issues. Since ordinarily the court cannot designate counsel for the prisoner without his consent, an arrangement that is made for his presence and participation at the oral argument can be said to be “reasonably necessary in the interest of justice.” Otherwise the court loses the benefits of listening to his contentions, hearing only the arguments of government counsel. Conceivably, the prisoner’s case might be unduly prejudiced by such a one-sided debate. That the argument orally advanced by the prisoner may in fact be less than enlightening to the court does not detract from the fairness or the justness of giving him the opportunity to appear and argue. Thus if a circuit court of appeals is satisfied in other respects that the prisoner should be produced at the argument, a writ designed to effectuate that production is plainly “necessary” within the contemplation of § 262.
It remains to be seen whether a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose under consideration is “agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” as that phrase is used in § 262. At common law there were several variants of the writ of habeas corpus. See 3 Blackstone’s Commentaries *129-132; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 97-98. None of them, however, seems to have been devised for the particular purpose of producing a prisoner to argue his own appeal. Nor does it appear that the courts of England have used or developed the habeas corpus writ for this purpose.
However, we do not conceive that a circuit court of appeals, in issuing a writ of habeas corpus under § 262 of the Judicial Code, is necessarily confined to the precise forms of that writ in vogue at the common law or in the English judicial system. Section 262 says that the writ must be agreeable to the usages and principles of “law,” a term which is unlimited by the common law or the English law. And since “law” is not a static concept, but expands and develops as new problems arise, we do not believe that the forms of the habeas corpus writ authorized by § 262 are only those recognized in this country in 1789, when the original Judiciary Act containing the substance of this section came into existence. In short, we do not read § 262 as an ossification of the practice and procedure of more than a century and a half ago. Rather it is a legislatively approved source of procedural instruments designed to achieve “the rational ends of law.” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, supra, 273.
We accordingly look to the usages and principles which have attached themselves to the writ of habeas corpus down through the years to the present time. The historic and great usage of the writ, regardless of its particular form, is to produce the body of a person before a court for whatever purpose might be essential to the proper disposition of a cause. The most important result of such usage has been to afford a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint upon personal liberty. With that usage, a writ for the purpose under consideration is entirely agreeable and consistent. To order the production of a prisoner before an appellate court to argue his own appeal in a case in which he alleges that he is illegally imprisoned is to perform an act which is intimately and necessarily related to the presentation of the merits of the prisoner’s complaint, a presentation which is essential if relief from the allegedly illegal imprisonment is to be secured. Such production, as we have seen, may in some circumstances be essential to the proper disposition of the case on appeal. Where that is the case, a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to achieve that production is agreeable to the usages of law.
Moreover, the principle has developed that the writ of habeas corpus should be left sufficiently elastic so that a court may, in the exercise of its proper jurisdiction, deal effectively with any and all forms of illegal restraint. The rigidity which is appropriate to ordinary jurisdictional doctrines has not been applied to this writ. The fluidity of the writ is especially desirable in the setting of a statute where Congress has given circuit courts of appeals the power to issue the writ in aid of their appellate jurisdiction wherever “reasonably necessary in the interest of justice.” The ordinary forms and purposes of the writ may often have little relation to the necessities of the appellate jurisdiction of those courts. Justice may on occasion require the use of a variation or a modification of an established writ. It thus becomes essential not to limit appellate courts to the ordinary forms and purposes of legal process. Congress has said as much by the very breadth of its language in § 262. It follows that we should not write in limitations which Congress did not see fit to make.
Formulation of the limitations of § 262 which do exist must await the necessities of appellate jurisdiction in particular cases. It is enough for the present to note that where those necessities are such as to require the presence of a prisoner to argue his own appeal, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for that purpose is “agreeable to the usages and principles of law” so as to be sanctioned by § 262. Only in that way can we give substance in this case to our previous statement that “dry formalism should not sterilize procedural resources which Congress has made available to the federal courts.” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, supra, 274.
We therefore conclude that circuit courts of appeals do have the power under § 262 of the Judicial Code to issue an order in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus commanding that a prisoner be brought to the courtroom to argue his own appeal. That power has heretofore been assumed. Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U. S. 442, 449; and see Goldsmith v. Sanford, 132 F. 2d 126, 127; Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. Law 463, 472, affirmed, 26 N. J. Law 601. We now translate that assumption into an explicit holding.
In so deciding, however, we emphasize that the power of a circuit court of appeals to issue such a writ is discretionary. And this discretion is to be exercised with the best interests of both the prisoner and the government in mind. If it is apparent that the request of the prisoner to argue personally reflects something more than a mere desire to be freed temporarily from the confines of the prison, that he is capable of conducting an intelligent and responsible argument, and that his presence in the courtroom may be secured without undue inconvenience or danger, the court would be justified in issuing the writ. But if any of those factors were found to be negative, the court might well decline to order the prisoner to be produced. Section 262, in other words, does not justify an indiscriminate opening of the prison gates to allow all those who so desire to argue their own appeals.
The discretionary nature of the power in question grows out of the fact that a prisoner has no absolute right to argue his own appeal or even to be present at the proceedings in an appellate court. Schwab v. Berggren, supra. The absence of that right is in sharp contrast to his constitutional prerogative of being present in person at each significant stage of a felony prosecution, see Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, and Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, and to his recognized privilege of conducting his own defense at the trial. Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Among those so limited is the otherwise unqualified right given by § 272 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 394, to parties in all the courts of the United States to “plead and manage their own causes personally.” To the extent that this section permits parties to conduct their own oral arguments before appellate courts, it must be modified in its application to prisoners. Oral argument on appeal is not an essential ingredient of due process and it may be circumscribed as to prisoners where reasonable necessity so dictates.
A prisoner’s right to participate in oral argument on appeal is accordingly to be determined by the exercise of the discretionary power of the circuit court of appeals under § 262. The court below erred in holding that no such power existed. But since the case must go back to the District Court for further proceedings, it is unnecessary here to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals to exercise the discretionary power which rightfully belongs to it.
II.
We hold that petitioner’s fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the knowing use of false testimony to obtain his conviction, was improperly dismissed by the District Court.
The Government argues before us that the allegation in question, as presented to the District Court, is a mere allegation of law unsupported by reference to any specific facts. As such, the allegation is said to be fatally deficient and to warrant summary denial. Reference is made in this respect to Cuddy, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 280, 286; Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, 299; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 261; Collins v. McDonald, 258 U. S. 416, 420-421; Hodge v. Huff, 78 U. S. App. D. C. 329, 331, 140 F. 2d 686, 688; and Long v. Benson, 140 F. 2d 195, 196.
But this proposition was apparently not presented to or passed upon by the District Court; nor was it determined by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The sole complaint made by the Government in the lower courts, and the main one raised before us, relates to petitioner’s alleged abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. A consideration of that factor is preliminary as well as collateral to a decision as to the sufficiency or merits of the allegation itself. We accordingly address ourselves solely to the alleged abuse of the writ, leaving the Government free to press its objections to the adequacy of the allegation after the proceedings are renewed before the District Court.
The Circuit Court of Appeals, as we have noted, treated the bare allegation of the knowing use of false testimony as having incorporated the explanatory statement in petitioner’s appellate brief. Whether such an expanded allegation states a sufficiently specific violation of due process within the meaning of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, is a question which we need not now answer. Nor is it necessary here to decide the propriety of treating a statement in an appellate brief as an amplification of an allegation in the trial court, a practice to which the Government makes objection.
But in dealing with the alleged abuse of the writ of habeas corpus, we find it undenied that the explanatory statement illuminates the allegation made in the District Court. The statement makes clear the incident to which petitioner had reference when he alleged the knowing use of false testimony. In other words, the essence of petitioner’s charge is that the prosecution brought undue pressure to bear on the Government’s chief witness, Donner, to change his testimony and that this altered testimony was knowingly used to obtain petitioner’s conviction. Cf. Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216. The issue now is whether petitioner has so abused the writ of habeas corpus as to bar a consideration of this allegation, whether it be general or specific in form or whether it be supported or unsupported by factual references.
From the facts which we have previously detailed it is evident that this allegation was not properly raised prior to the amendment of the fourth petition. None of the three prior petitions had made this point. In the first proceeding, it is true, petitioner’s traverse to the warden’s return called the court’s attention to the differing statements allegedly made by Donner and claimed that certain undefined “methods” had been used to obtain the change in testimony. Petitioner was apparently trying to raise the due process issue formulated in Mooney v. Holohan, supra. But his effort was without success..A mere claim that a witness gave inconsistent testimony is not enough to charge the prosecution’s knowing use of false testimony; it may well be that the witness’ subsequent statements were true, in which event the claim of inconsistency is not a constitutional objection. Since this due process issue was not properly raised, we cannot assume that the District Court’s action in dismissing the first petition on the pleadings was a determination against petitioner on the merits of the issue.
Further elaboration of the Donner incident was made by petitioner in the course of seeking review of the District Court’s action on the first petition. Both in the Circuit Court of Appeals and in this Court he claimed that he had been denied a fair and impartial trial by Donner’s alleged shift in testimony; and in this Court he stated that there had been a conspiracy to force Donner to change his story. It is noteworthy that the Government did not see fit to deny or controvert petitioner’s claim until the case reached this Court. We need not decide whether the due process issue was properly raised in the review proceedings, inasmuch as petitioner’s failure to make a proper allegation in that respect in the District Court foreclosed any determination of the matter. And as we have noted, the second and third petitions for habeas corpus were completely silent as to this due process issue.
There has thus been no proper occasion prior to the fourth proceeding for a hearing and determination by the District Court as to the allegation that the prosecution knowingly used false testimony to obtain a conviction. That fact renders inapplicable Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, upon which reliance was placed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. It was there held that, while habeas corpus proceedings are free from the res judicata principle, a prior refusal to discharge the prisoner is not without bearing or weight when a later habeas corpus application raising the same issues is considered. But here the three prior applications did not raise the issue now under consideration and the three prior refusals to discharge petitioner can have no bearing or weight on the disposition to be made of the new matter raised in the fourth petition. Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101.
Likewise irrelevant to the instant proceeding is Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U. S. 239. In that case, the petitioner set forth two grounds for discharge in his first petition. At the hearing, he offered no proof in support of the second ground. The.petition was dismissed on the theory that the first ground was not good in law. A subsequent habeas corpus petition relied entirely on the second ground alleged in the first petition. This Court held that the petitioner had had full opportunity to offer proof as to the second point at the hearing on the first petition, proof which was accessible at all times. If he was intending to rely on that ground, good faith required that he produce his proof at the first hearing. “To reserve the proof for use in attempting to support a later petition, if the first failed, was to make an abusive use of the writ of habeas corpus. No reason for not presenting the proof at the outset is offered.” 265 U. S. at 241.
The Wong Doo case thus involved a situation where one has properly raised an issue in an earlier petition, has received a full opportunity at a hearing to present evidence on the point, and has refused to avail oneself of that opportunity. The distinguishing features in the instant case are obvious.
There is one factor in this case that might be thought to justify the dismissal of the fourth petition as an abusive use of the habeas corpus writ. That factor is that petitioner had prior knowledge of the Donner incident which forms the basis, at least in part, of the due process allegation now being made. The record in the first proceeding shows that petitioner’s own lawyer elicited the information from Donner that he had talked with the prosecuting lawyers during the interlude between the allegedly conflicting statements. And petitioner made reference to that information during the course of the first habeas corpus proceeding in the manner heretofore described. Petitioner now utilizes that same information in alleging that the prosecution made a knowing use of false testimony.
In the first place, however, we cannot assume that petitioner has acquired no new or additional information since the time of the trial or the first habeas corpus proceeding that might indicate fraudulent conduct on the part of the prosecuting attorneys. As Judge Denman stated in his dissenting opinion below, 161 F. 2d at 708-709: “The gravamen of the misconduct charged is not the fact that the witness changed his testimony but that the prosecuting attorney knowingly caused the witness to give the false testimony. All the accused and his attorney knew at the trial was that the single prosecuting witness changed his testimony. Obviously this in itself does not warrant a charge of fraud. That it was fraudulently done by persuasion of the prosecuting attorney could only have been learned after conviction and after the convicted man was in the penitentiary.”
Whether petitioner does or does not have any new information is a matter unrevealed by anything before us or before the Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a matter which should be determined in the first instance by the District Court. And it is one on which petitioner is entitled to be heard either at a hearing or through an amendment or elaboration of his pleadings. Appellate courts cannot make factual determinations which may be decisive of vital rights where the crucial facts have not been developed. Cf. Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U. S. 249.
In the second place, even if it is found that petitioner did have prior knowledge of all the facts concerning the allegation in question, it does not necessarily follow that the fourth petition should be dismissed without further opportunity to amend the pleadings or without holding a hearing. If called upon, petitioner may be able to present adequate reasons for not making the allegation earlier, reasons which make it fair and just for the trial court to overlook the delay. The primary purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to make certain that a man is not unjustly imprisoned. And if for some justifiable reason he was previously unable to assert his rights or was unaware of the significance of relevant facts, it is neither necessary nor reasonable to deny him all opportunity of obtaining judicial relief.
Moreover, we do not believe that the burden was on the petitioner of affirmatively alleging in the first instance that he had acquired new information or that he had adequate reasons for not raising sooner the issue of the knowing use of false testimony. It was enough if he presented an allegation and supporting facts which, if borne out by proof, would entitle him to relief. Prisoners are often unlearned in the law and unfamiliar with the complicated rules of pleading. Since they act so often as their own counsel in habeas corpus proceedings, we cannot impose on them the same high standards of the legal art which we might place on the members of the legal profession. Especially is this true in a case like this where the imposition of those standards would have a retroactive and prejudicial effect on the prisoner’s inartistically drawn petition. Cf. Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U. S. 342, 350; Pyle v. Kansas, supra, 216; Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485, 487; Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 791-792.
And so if the Government chooses not to deny the allegation or to question its sufficiency and desires instead to claim that the prisoner has abused the writ of habeas corpus, it rests with the Government to make that claim with clarity and particularity in its return to the order to show cause. That is not an intolerable burden. The Government is usually well acquainted with the facts that are necessary to make such a claim. Once a particular abuse has been alleged, the prisoner has the burden of answering that allegation and of proving that he has not abused the writ. If the answer is inadequate, the court may dismiss the petition without further proceedings. But if there is a substantial conflict, a hearing-may be necessary to determine the actual facts. Appropriate findings and conclusions of law can then be made. In this way an adequate record may be established so that appellate courts can determine the precise basis of the district court’s action, which is often shrouded in ambiguity where a petition is dismissed without an expressed reason. And the prisoner is given a fairer opportunity to meet all possible
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 issue before us is ah important one for the people of our country and their Government. It involves the delicate question of the President’s power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Successive.Presidents for more, than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees, without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court.. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government’s right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen’s right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion.
This case arises from a criminal proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in which the United States charged three defendants with conspiracy to destroy Government property in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371. One of the defendants, Plamondon, was charged with the dynamite bombing of an office of the Central Intelligence Agency in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
During pretrial proceedings, the defendants moved to compel the United States to disclose certain electronic surveillance information and to conduct a hearing to determine whether this information “tainted” the evidence on which the indictment was based or which theGovernment intended to offer at trial. In response, the- Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General, acknowledging that its agents had overheard conversations in which Plamondon had participated. The affidavit also stated that the Attorney General approved the wiretaps “to gather intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.” The logs of the surveillance were filed in a sealed exhibit for in camera, inspection by the District Court. •
On the basis of the Attorney General’s affidavit and the sealed exhibit, the' Government' asserted that the surveillance was lawful, though conducted without prior judicial approval, as a reasonable exercise of- the President’s power (exercised through the Attorney General) to protect the national security. The District Court held that the surveillance violated the Fourth. Amendment, and ordered the Government to'make full, disclosure to Plamondon of his overheard conversations. 321 F. Supp. 1074 (ED Mich. 1971).
The Government then filed in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for-a writ of mandamus to set aside the District Court order, which was stayed pending final disposition of the case...After- concluding that it had jurisdiction, that ‘court held that the surveillance was unlawful and that the District Court had properly.required disclosure of the overheard conversations, 444 F. 2d 651 (1971). We granted certiorari, 403 U. S. 930.
I
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2520, authorizes the use of electronic surveillance for classes of crimes carefully specified in 18 U. S. C. § 2516. Such surveillance is subject to prior court order. Section 2518 sets forth the detailed and particularized application necessary to obtain such an order as well as carefully circumscribed conditions for its use. The Act represents a comprehensive attempt by Congress to promote more effective control of crime while protecting the privacy of individual thought and expression. Much of Title III was drawn to meet the constitutional requirements for electronic surveillance enunciated by this Court in Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967), and Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).
Together with the elaborate surveillance requirements in Title III, there is the following proviso; 18 U. S. C. §2511(3):
“Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U. S. C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign' intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter he deemed to limit the constitutional power, of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Government relies on § 2511 (3). It argues that “in excepting national security surveillances from the Act’s warrant requirement. Congress recognized the President’s authority to conduct such, surveillances without prior, judicial approval.” Brief for United States 7, 28. The section thus is viewed as a recognition or affirmance of a constitutional authority in the President to conduct warrantless domestic security surveillance such as that involved in this case.
We think the language of § 2511 (3), as well as the legislative history of the statute, refutes this-interpretation.. The relevant language is that:
“Nothing contained in this chapter... shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures ás he deems necessary to protect...”
against the dangers specified. At most, this is an implicit recognition that the President does have certain powers in the specified areas. Few would doubt this, as the section refers — among other things — to protection “against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power.” But so far as the use of the President’s electronic surveillance power is concerned, the language is essentially neutral.
Section 2511 (3) certainly confers no power, as the language is wholly inappropriate for such a purpose. It merely provides that the Act shall not be interpreted to limit or disturb such power as the President may have under the Constitution. In short, Congress simply left presidential powers where it found thém. This view is reinforced by the general context of Title III. Section 2511 (1) broadly prohibits the use of electronic surveillance “{ejxcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter.” Subsection (2) thereof contains four specific exceptions. In each of the specified exceptions, the statutory language is as follows:
“It shall not be unlawful... to intercept” the particular type of communication described.
The language of subsection (3), here involved, is to be contrasted with the language of the exceptions set forth in the preceding subsection. Rather than stating that warrantless presidential uses of electronic surveillance “shall not be unlawful” and thus employing the standard language of exception, subsection (3) merely disclaims any intention to “limit the constitutional power of the President.”
The express grant of authority to conduct surveil-lances is found in § 2516, which authorizes the Attorney General to make application to a federal judge when surveillance may provide evidence of certain offenses. These offenses are described with meticulous care and specificity.
Where the Act authorizes surveillance, the procedure to be followed is specified in §2518. Subsection (1) thereof requires application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for a prior order of approval, and states in detail the information réquired in such application. Subsection (3) prescribes the necessary eleménts of probable cause which the.judge must find before issuing an order authorizing an interception. Subsection (4) sets forth the required contents of such an order.. Subsection (5) sets strict time limits on an order. Provision is made in subsection (7) for “an emergency-situation” found to exist by the Attorney General (or by the principal prosecuting attorney of a State) “with respect to conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest.” In such a situation, emergency surveillance may be conducted “if an application for an order approving the interception is made... within forty-eight hours.” If such an order is not obtained, or the application therefor is denied, the interception is deemed to be a violation of the Act.
In view of these and other interrelated provisions delineating permissible interceptions of particular criminal activity upon carefully specified conditions, it would have been incongruous for Congress to have legislated with respect to the important and complex area of national security in a single brief and nebulous paragraph. This would not comport with the sensitivity of the problem involved or with the extraordinary care Congress exercised in drafting other sections of the Act. We therefore think the conclusion inescapable that Congress only intended to make clear that the Act simply did not legislate with respect to national security surveillances.
The legislative history of §2511(3) supports this interpretation. Most relevant is the colloquy between Senators Hart, Holland, and McClellan on the Senate floor:
“Mr.'HOLLAND.... The section [2511(3)] from which the Senator [Hart] has read does not affirmatively give any power.... We are not affirmatively conferring any power upon the President. We are simply saying that nothing herein shall limit such power as the President has under the Constitution.... We certainly do not grant him a thing.
“There is nothing affirmative in this statement.
“Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, we make it understood that we are not trying to take anything away from-him.
“Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is correct.
“Mr. HART. Mr. President, there is no intention • here to expand by this language a constitutional power. Clearly we could not do so.
“Mr. McCLELLAN. Even though intended, we could not do so.
“Mr. HART.... However, we are agreed that this language should not be regarded as intending to grant any authority, including authority to put a bug on, that the President does not have now.
“In addition, Mr. President, as I think our exchange makes clear, nothing in section 2511 (3) even attempts to define the limits of the. President’s national security power under present law, which I have always found extremely vague.....Section 2511(8)'merely says that if the President has such a power, then its exercise is in no way affected by title III.” (Emphasis supplied.)
One could hardly expect a clearer expression of congressional neutrality. The debate above explicitly indicates that nothing in § 2511 (3) was intended to expand or to contract or to define whatever presidential surveillance powers existed in matters affecting the national security. If we could accept the Government's characterization of § 2511 (3) as a congressionally prescribed exception to the general requirement of a warrant, it would be necessary to consider the question of whether the surveillance in this casé came within the exception and, if so, whether the statutory exception was itself constitutionally valid. But viewing § 2511 (3) as a congressional' disclaimer and expression of neutrality, we hold that the statute is not the measure of the executive authority asserted in this case. Rather, we must look to the constitutional powers of the President.
II
It is important at the outset to emphasize the limited nature of the question before the Court. This case raises- no constitutional challenge to electronic surveillance as specifically authorized by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Nor. is there any question or doubt as to the necessity of obtaining a warrant in the surveillance of crimes unrelated to the national security interest. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967). Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. The Attorney General’s affidavit in this case states that, the surveillances were “deemed, necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of Government” (emphasis supplied). There -is no evidence of any involvement, directly or indirectly, of a foreign power.
Our present inquiry, though important, is therefore a narrow one. It addresses a question left open by. Katz, supra, at 358 n. 23:
“Whether safeguards othér than prior authorization by- a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national-security.. 7.”
The determination of this question requires the essential Fourth.Amendment inquiry into.the “reasonableness” of the search and seizure in question, and the way in which that “reasonableness” derives content and meaning through reference to the warrant ulause. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 473-84 (1971).
We begin the inquiry by noting that the President of the United States has the fundamental duty, under Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Implicit in that duty is the power to protect our Government against those who. would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means. In the discharge of this duty, the President — through the Attorney General— may find it necessary to employ electronic surveillance to obtain intelligence information on the plans of those who plot unlawful acts against the Government. The use of such surveillance in internal security cases has been sanctioned more or less continuously by various Presidents and Attorneys General since July 1946. Herbert Brownell, Attorney General under President Eisenhower, urged the use of electronic surveillance both in internal and international security matters on the grounds that those acting against the Government
“turn to the telephone to carry on their intrigue. The success of their plans frequently rests upon piecing together shreds of information received from many sources and many- nests. The participants in the conspiracy are often dispersed and stationed in various strategic positions in government and industry throughout the country.”
Though the Government and respondents debate their seriousness and magnitude, threats and acts of sabotage against the Government exist in sufficent number to justify investigative powers with respect to them. The covertness and complexity of potential unlawful conduct against the Government and the necessary dependency of many conspirators upon the telephone make electronic surveillance an effective investigatory instrument in certain circumstances. The marked acceleration in technological developments and sophistication in their use have resulted in new techniques for the planning, commission, and concealment of criminal activities. It would be contrary to the public interest for Government to deny to itself the prudent and lawful employment of those very techniques which are employed against the Government and its law-abiding citizens.
It has been said that “[t]he most basic' function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 539 (1966) (White, J., dissenting). And unless Government safeguards its own capacity to function and to preserve the security of its people, society itself could become so disordered that all rights' and liberties would be endangered. As Chief Justice Hughes reminded us in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 574 (1941):
“Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained' abuses.”
But a recognition of these elementary truths does not make the employment by Government of electronic surveillance a welcome development — even when employed with restraint' and under judicial supervision. There is, understandably, a deep-seated uneasiness and apprehension that this capability will be used to intrude upon cherished privacy of law-abiding citizens. We look to the Bill of Rights to safeguard this privacy. Though physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed, its broader spirit, now shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance. Katz v. United States, supra; Berger v. New York, supra; Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961). Our decision in Katz refused to lock the Fourth Amendment into • instances of actual physical trespass. Rather, the Amendment governs “not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends'as well to the recording of oral statements... without any ‘technical trespass under... local property law.’ ” Katz, supra, at 353. That decision implicitly recognized that the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards.
National security cases, moreover, often reflect a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values not present in cases of “ordinary” crime. Though the investigative duty of the executive may be stronger in such cases, so also is there greater jeopardy to constitutionally protected speech. “Historically the struggle for freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue of the scope of the search and seizure power,” Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 724 (1961). History abundantly documents the tendency of Government — however benevolent and benign its motives — to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect “domestic security.” Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security, interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. Senator Hart addressed this dilemma in the floor debate on § 2511 (3):
“As I read it — and this is my fear — we are saying that the President, on his motion, could declare— name your favorite poison — draft dodgers, Black Muslims, the Ku Klux Klan, or civil rights activists to be a clear and present danger to. the structure or existence of the Government.”
The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen.dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
Ill
As the Fourth Amendment is not absolute in its terms, our task is to examine and balance the basic values at stake in this case: the duty of Government to protect the domestic security, and the potential danger posed by unreasonable surveillance to individual privacy and free expression. If the legitimate need of Government to. safeguard domestic security requires the use of electronic surveillance, the question is whether the needs of citizens for privacy and free expression may not be better protected by requiring a warrant before such surveillance, is undertaken; We must also ask whether a warrant requirement would unduly frustrate; the. efforts of Government to protect itself from acts of subversion and overthrow, directed against it.
Though the Fourth Amendment speaks broadly of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,” the definition of “reasonableness”' turns, at least in part, on the more specific commands of the warrant clarise. Some have argued that “[t]he relevant'.test is hot whether it is reasonable to procure á search warrant, but whethér the search was reasonable,”. United States v. Rabinowitz, 330 U. S. 56, 66 (1950). This view, however, overlooks the second clause of the Amendment. The warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment is not dead language. Rather, it has been.
“a valued part of our constitutional law for decades, and it has determined the result in scores and scores' of cases in courts all over this country. It is riot an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of, police efficiency. It is, or should -be,- an- important working part of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course to check the - ‘well-intentioned but mistakenly overzealous executive officers’. who are a part of any system of law enforcement.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S., at 481.
See also United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, at 68 (Frankfurter, J.,, dissenting); Davis y. United States, 328 U. S. 582, 604 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting):
Over two centuries ago, Lord Mansfield held that common-law principles prohibited warrants that ordered the' arrest of unnamed individuals who the. officer might conclude were guilty, of seditious libel. “It is not fit,”. said Mansfield, “that the receiving. oi- judging of the. information should be left to the discretion of. the. officer. The magistrate ought to. judge;’ and should. give certain directions to the officer.” Leach v. Three of the King’s Messengers, 19 How. St. Tr. 1001, 1027 (1765).
• Lord Mansfield’s formulation touches' the very heart of the Fourth Amendment directive: that, where practical, a governmental search,and seizure should repre-'sent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of.wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen’s private premises or conversation.' Inherent in the concept of a warrant is its issúance by a “neutral and detached, magistrate.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 453; Katz v. United States, supra, at 356. The further requirement of “probable cause” instructs the magistrate that baseless searches shall not proceed.
These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be' conducted solely.within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of.Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates.. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the- laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (Douglas, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too. readily to pressures to-obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.
It may well be that, in the instant case, the Government’s surveillance of Plamondon’s conversations was a reasonable one which readily would have gained prior judicial approval. But this Court “has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to.find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities, to the least intru-. sive means consistent with that end.” Katz, supra, at 356-35.7. The Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised. This judicial role accords with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through. a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government. Harlan, Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance, 49 A. B. A. J. 943-944 (1963). The independent check upon executive discretion.is not satisfied, as the Government' argues, by “extremely limited” post-surveillance judicial review. Indeed, post-surveillance review would never reach the- surveillances which failed to result in prosecutions. Prior review by a neutral and detached' magistrate is the time-tested means of effectuating Fourth Amendment rights. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96 (1964).
It is true that there have been some exceptions to the warrant requirement. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451 (1948); Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925). But those exceptions are few in number and carefully delineated, Katz, supra, at 357; in general, they serve the legitimate needs of law enforcement officers to protect their own well-being and preserve evidence from destruction. Even while carving out those exceptions, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that the “police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure,” Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20; Chimel v. California, supra, at 762.
The Government argues that the special circumstances applicable to domestic, security, surveillances necessitate a further exception to the warrant requirement. It is urged that the requirement of prior judicial review would obstruct the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty to protect domestic, security. We are told further that these surveillances • are. directed- primarily to the collecting and maintaining of intelligence with respect to subversive forces/ and are not an attempt to gather evidence for specific criminal prosecutions. It is said that this type of surveillance should not be subject to traditional warrant requirements which were established to govern investigation' of criminal activity, not ongoing intelligence gathering. Brief for United States 15-16, 23-24; Reply Brief for United States 2-3.
The Government further insists that courts “as a practical matter would have neither-the knowledge nor the techniques necessary to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that surveillance was necessary to protect national security.”. These security problems, the Government contends, involve “a large number of complex and subtle factors” beyond the competence of courts to evaluate. Reply Brief for United States 4.
As a final reason for exemption from a warrant requirement, the Government believes that disclosure to a magistrate of all or even a significant portion of the information' involved in domestic security surveillances “would create serious potential dangers to -the national security and to the lives of informants and agents.,...' Secrecy is the essential ingredient in intelligence gathering; requiring prior judicial authorization would create a greater 'danger of leaks..., because in addition to the judge, you have the clerk,-.the stenographer and some other officer like a law assistant or bailiff who may be apprised of the nature’ of the surveillance-.” Brief for United States 24-25:
These contentions in behalf.of a complete exemption from the warrant requirement, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in -its domestic implications', merit the most careful consideration. We •certainly do not reject them lightly, especially at a time of worldwide ferment and when civil disorders in this country are more prevalent than iñ the less turbulent periods of our history.' There is, no doubt, pragmatic force to the Government’s position.
But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances, described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis, of the President’s domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case w;e hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.
We cannot accept the Government’s argument that internal security matters are too. subtle and complex for judicial evaluation. Courts regularly deal with the most difficult issues of our society. There is no reason to believe that federal judges will be insensitive to or uncomprehending of the issues involved in domestic security cases. Certainly courts can recognize, that domestic security surveillance involves-different considerations from the surveillance of “ordinary crime.” If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement officers to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance.
Nor do we believe prior judicial approval will fracture the secrecy essential to official intelligence gathering. The- investigation 'of criminal activity has long involved imparting, sensitive information to judicial officers who have respected the confidentialities involved. Judges may be counted upon to. be especially conscious of security requirements in national security cases. Titie III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act already has imposed this responsibility on the judiciary in connection with such crimes as espionage, sabotage, and treason,.§§ 2516 (l.)(a) and (c), each of which may involve domestic as well as foreign security threats. Moreover, a warrant application involves no public or adversary proceedings: it is an ex parte request before a. magistrate or judge; Whatever security dangers clerical and secretarial personnel may pose can be minimized by proper administrative measures, possibly to the point of allowing the Government itself to provide the necessary clerical assistance.
Thus, we conclude that the Government’s concerns do not justify departure in this case from the customary Fourth Amendment requirement of judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance. Although some added burden will be imposed upon the Attorney General, this inconvenience is justified in a free society to protect constitutional values. Nor do we think the Government’s domestic surveillance powers will be impaired to any significant degree. A prior warrant establishes presumptive validity of the surveillance and will minimize the burden of justification in post-surveillance judicial review. By no means of least importance will be the reassurance of the public generally that indiscriminate wiretapping and bugging of law-abiding citizens cannot occur.
IV
We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents. Nor does our decision rest on thé langi^age of § 2511 (3) or any other section of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That Act does not attempt to define or delineate the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security.
Moreover, we do not hold that the same type of standards and procedures prescribed by Title III are necessarily applicable to this case., We recognize that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of “ordinary crime.” The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government’s preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
Given these potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to. consider protective standards for the latter, which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III. Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens. For the warrant application may vary according to the governmental interest to be enforced and the nature of citizen rights deserving protection. As the 'Court said in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 534-535 (1967):
“In cases in which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be. obtained, ‘probable cause’ is the standard by which a particular decision -to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.... In determining whether a particular inspection is reasonable — -and thus in determining whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant for that inspection — the need for. the inspection must be weighed in terms of these reasonable goals of code enforcement.”
It may be that’ Congress, for example, would judge that the application and affidavit showing probable cause need. not follow the exact requirements of § 2518 but should allege other circumstances more appropriate to domestic security cases; that the request for prior court •authorization could, in sensitive cases, be made to. any member of a specially designated court (e. g., the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit); and that the time and reporting requirements need not be so strict as those in § 2518. ■
The above paragraph does not, -of course, attempt to guide the congressional judgment but rather to delineate the present scope of our own opinion. We do not attempt to detail the precise standards for domestic secu-. rity warrants any more than our decision in Katz sought to set the refined requirements for the specified criminal surveillances which now constitute Title III. We do hold, however, that prior judicial approval is required for the type.of domestic security surveillance involved in this case and that such approval may be made in accordance with such reasonable standards as the Congress may prescribe.
V
As the surveillance of Plamondon’s conversations was unlawful, because conducted without prior judicial approval, the courts below correctly held that Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969), is controlling and that it requires disclosure to the accused of his own im-permissibly intercepted conversations. As stated in Alderman, “the trial court.can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of thé materials which they may be entitled to inspect.” 394 U. S., at 185.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice concurs in the result.
Mr, Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See n. 10, infra.
The Attorney General’s affidavit reads as follows:
“JohN N. Mitchell being duly sworn deposes and says:
“1. I ani the Attorney General of the United States.
“2. This affidavit is submitted in connection with the Government’s opposition to the disclosure to the defendant Plamondon of information concerning the overhearing of his conversations which occurred during the course of eléctronic surveillances which the Government contends were legal.
“3. The defendant Plamondon has participated in conversations which were overheard by Government agents who were monitoring wiretaps' which were being employed to gather intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government. The records of the Department of Justice. reflect the installation of these' wiretaps had been expressly approved by the Attorney General. '
“4. Submitted with this affidavit is a sealed exhibit containing the records of the intercepted conversations, a description of the premises that were the subjects of surveillances, and copies of the memoranda reflecting the Attorney General’s express approval of the installation of the surveillances.
“5. I certify that it would prejudice the national interest to disclose the particular facts concerning these surveillances other than to the court in camera. Accordingly, the sealed exhibit referred to herein is being submitted solely for the court’s in camera inspection and a copy of the sealed exhibit is not being furnished to the defendants. I would request, the court, at the conclusion of its hearing on this matter,- to place the sealed exhibit in a sealed envelope and return it to the Department of Justice where it will be retained under seal so that it may be submitted to any appellate court that may review this matter.”
Jurisdiction was challenged before the Court of Appeals on the ground that the District Court’s order was interlocutory and not appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. On this issue, the court correctly held that it did have jurisdiction, relying upon the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, and cases cited in its opinion, 444 F. 2d, at 655-656. No attack was made in this Court as to the appropriateness of the writ of mandamus procedure.
These exceptions relate to certain activities of communication common carriers and the Federal Communications Commission, and to specified situations where a party to the communication has consented to the interception.
Title 18 U. S. C. §2518, subsection (1),
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, pre-empts a tort action brought in state court by a Union member against the Union and its officials to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I
Petitioner Richard T. Hill was a carpenter and a member of Local 25 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Local 25 (Union) operates an exclusive hiring hall for employment referral of carpenters in the Los Angeles area. In 1965, Hill was elected to a three-year term as vice president of the Union. Shortly thereafter sharp disagreement developed between Hill and the Union Business Agent, Earl Daley, and other Union officials over various internal Union policies. According to Hill, the Union then began to discriminate against him in referrals to employers, prompting him to complain about the hiring hall operation within the Union and to the District Council and the International Union. Hill claims that as a result of these complaints he was subjected to a campaign of personal abuse and harassment in addition to continued discrimination in referrals from the hiring hall.
In April 1969 petitioner filed in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles an action for damages against the Union, the District Council and the International with which the Union was affiliated, and certain officials of the Union, including Business Agent Daley. In count two of his amended complaint, Hill alleged that the defendants had intentionally engaged in outrageous conduct, threats, and intimidation, and had thereby caused him to suffer grievous emotional distress resulting in bodily injury. In three other counts, he alleged that the Union had discriminated against him in referrals for employment because of his dissident intra-Union political activities, that the Union had breached the hiring hall provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between it and a contractors association by failing to refer him on a nondiscriminatory basis, and that the failure to comply with the collective-bargaining agreement also constituted a breach of his membership contract with the Union. He sought $500,000 in actual, and $500,000 in punitive, damages.
The Superior Court sustained a demurrer to the allegations of discrimination and breach of contract on the ground that federal law pre-empted state jurisdiction over them, but allowed the case to go to trial on the allegations in count two. Hill attempted to prove that the Union’s campaign against him included “frequent public ridicule,” “incessant verbal abuse,” and refusals to refer him to jobs in accordance with the rules of the hiring hall. The defendants countered with evidence that the hiring hall was operated in a nondiscriminatory manner. The trial court instructed the jury that in order to recover damages Hill had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants intentionally and by outrageous conduct had caused him to suffer severe emotional distress. The court defined severe emotional distress as “any highly unpleasant mental reaction such as fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, or worr[y].” The injury had to be “severe,” which in this context meant
“substantial or enduring, as distinguished from trivial or transitory. It must be of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, annoyances, petty or other trivialities.”
The court also instructed that the National Labor Relations Board would not have jurisdiction to compensate petitioner for injuries such as emotional distress, pain and suffering, and medical expenses, nor would it have authority to award punitive damages. The court refused to give a requested instruction to the effect that the jury could not consider any evidence regarding discrimination with respect to employment opportunities or hiring procedures.
The jury returned a verdict of $7,500 actual damages and $175,000 punitive damages against the Union, the District Council, and Business Agent Daley, and the trial court entered a judgment on the verdict.
The California Court of Appeal reversed. 49 Cal. App. 3d 614, 122 Cal. Rptr. 722. Relying on this Court’s decisions in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274 (1971); Plumbers v. Borden, 373 U. S. 690 (1963); Iron Workers v. Perko, 373 U. S. 701 (1963); and San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), the Court of Appeal held that the state courts had no jurisdiction over the complaint since the “crux” of the action concerned employment relations and involved conduct arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court remanded “with instructions to render judgment for the defendants and dismiss the action.” 49 Cal. App. 3d, at 631, 122 Cal. Rptr., at 732. The California Supreme Court denied review.
We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of the pre-emption doctrine to cases of this nature, 423 U. S. 1086 (1976). For the reasons set forth below we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.
II
The doctrine of pre-emption in labor law has been shaped primarily by two competing interests. On the one hand, this Court has recognized that “the broad powers conferred by Congress upon the National Labor Relations Board to interpret and to enforce the complex Labor Management Relations Act . . . necessarily imply that potentially conflicting ‘rules of law, of remedy, and of administration’ cannot be permitted to operate.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 178-179 (1967), quoting San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, supra, at 242. On the other hand, because Congress has refrained from providing specific directions with respect to the scope of pre-empted state regulation, the Court has been unwilling to “declare pre-empted all local regulation that touches or concerns in any way the complex interrelationships between employees, employers, and unions . . . ." Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, supra, at 289. Judicial experience with numerous approaches to the pre-emption problem in the labor law area eventually led to the general rule set forth in Garmon, supra, at 244, and recently reaffirmed in both Lockridge, supra, at 291, and Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 138-139 (1976):
“When it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield. To leave the States free to regulate conduct so plainly within the central aim of federal regulation involves too great a danger of conflict between power asserted by Congress, and requirements imposed by state law.” 359 U. S., at 244.
But the same considerations that underlie the Garmon rule have led the Court to recognize exceptions in appropriate classes of cases. We have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine to activity that otherwise would fall within the scope of Garmon if that activity “was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act . . . [or] touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” Id., at 243-244. See, e. g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U. S. 634 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). We also have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine “where the particular rule of law sought to be invoked before another tribunal is so structured and administered that, in virtually all instances, it is safe to presume that judicial supervision will not disserve the interests promoted by the federal labor statutes.” Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, supra, at 297-298. See Vaca v. Sipes, supra (duty of fair representation cases).
These exceptions “in no way undermine the vitality of the pre-emption rule.” 386 U. S., at 180. To the contrary, they highlight our responsibility in a case of this kind to determine the scope of the general rule by examining the state interests in regulating the conduct in question and the potential for interference with the federal regulatory scheme.
The nature of the inquiry is perhaps best illustrated by Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, supra. Linn, an assistant manager of Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency, filed a diversity action in federal court against a union, two of its officers, and a Pinkerton employee, alleging that the defendants had circulated a defamatory statement about him in violation of state law. If unfair labor practice charges had been filed, the Board might have found that the union violated § 8 by intentionally circulating false statements during an organizational campaign, or that the issuance of the malicious statements during the campaign had such a significant effect as to require that the election be set aside. Under a formalistic application of Garmon, the libel suit could have been pre-empted.
But a number of factors influenced the Court to depart from the Garmon rule. First, the Court noted that the underlying conduct—the intentional circulation of defamatory material known to be false—was not protected under the Act, 383 U. S., at 61, and there was thus no risk that permitting the state cause of action to proceed would result in state regulation of conduct that Congress intended to protect. Second, the Court recognized that there was “ 'an overriding state interest’ ” in protecting residents from malicious libels, and that this state interest was “ 'deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.’” Id., at 61, 62. Third, the Court reasoned that there was little risk that the state cause of action would interfere with the effective administration of national labor policy. The Board’s § 8 unfair labor practice proceeding would focus only on whether the statements were misleading or coercive; whether the statements also were defamatory would be of no relevance to the Board’s performance of its functions. Id., at 63. Moreover, the Board would lack authority to provide the defamed individual with damages or other relief. Ibid. Conversely, the state-law action would be unconcerned with whether the statements were coercive or misleading in the labor context, and in any event the court would have power to award Linn relief only if the statements were defamatory. Taken together, these factors justified an exception to the pre-emption rule.
The Court was careful, however, to limit the scope of that exception. To minimize the possibility that state libel suits would either dampen the free discussion characteristic of labor disputes or become a weapon of economic coercion, the Court adopted by analogy the standards enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), and held that state damages actions in this context would escape pre-emption only if limited to defamatory statements published with knowledge or reckless disregard of their falsity. The Court also held that a complainant could recover damages only upon proof that the statements had caused him injury, including general injury to reputation, consequent mental suffering, alienation of associates, specific items of pecuniary loss, or any other form of harm recognized by state tort law. The Court stressed the responsibility of the trial judge to assure that damages were not excessive.
Similar reasoning underlies the exception to the pre-emption rule in cases involving violent tortious activity. Nothing in the federal labor statutes protects or immunizes from state action violence or the threat of violence in a labor dispute, Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U. S., at 640; id., at 649 (Warren, C. J., dissenting); Construction Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 U. S. 656, 666 (1954), and thus there is no risk that state damages actions will fetter the exercise of rights protected by the NLRA. On the other hand, our cases consistently have recognized the historic state interest in “such traditionally local matters as public safety and order and the use of streets and highways.” Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Bd., 315 U. S. 740, 749 (1942). And, as with the defamation actions preserved by Linn, state-court actions to redress injuries caused by violence or threats of violence are consistent with effective administration of the federal scheme: Such actions can be adjudicated without regard to the merits of the underlying labor controversy. Automobile Workers v. Russell, supra, at 649 (Warren, C. J., dissenting).
Although cases like Linn and Russell involve state-law principles with only incidental application to conduct occurring in the course of a labor dispute, it is well settled that the general applicability of a state cause of action is not sufficient to exempt it from pre-emption. “[I]t [has not] mattered whether the States have acted through laws of broad general application rather than laws specifically directed towards the governance of industrial relations.” Garmon, 359 U. S., at 244. Instead, the cases reflect a balanced inquiry into such factors as the nature of the federal and state interests in regulation and the potential for interference with federal regulation. As was said in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 180, our cases “demonstrate that the decision to pre-empt federal and state court jurisdiction over a given class of cases must depend upon the nature of the particular interests being asserted and the effect upon the administration of national labor policies of concurrent judicial and administrative remedies.”
III
In count two of his amended complaint, see supra, at 293, Hill alleged that the defendants had intentionally engaged in “outrageous conduct, threats, intimidation, and words” which caused Hill to suffer “grievous mental and emotional distress as well as great physical damage.” In the context of Hill’s other allegations of discrimination in hiring hall referrals, these allegations of tortious conduct might form the basis for unfair labor practice charges before the Board. On this basis a rigid application of the Garmon doctrine might support the conclusion of the California courts that Hill's entire action was pre-empted by federal law. Our cases indicate, however, that inflexible application of the doctrine is to be avoided, especially where the State has a substantial interest in regulation of the conduct at issue and the State’s interest is one that does not threaten undue interference with the federal regulatory scheme., With respect to Hill’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we cannot conclude that Congress intended exclusive jurisdiction to lie in the Board.
No provision of the National Labor Relations Act protects the “outrageous conduct” complained of by petitioner Hill in the second count of the complaint. Regardless of whether the operation of the hiring hall was lawful or unlawful under federal statutes, there is no federal protection for conduct on the part of union officers which is so outrageous that “no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” See supra, at 294. Thus, as in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53 (1966), and Automobile Workers v. Russell, supra, permitting the exercise of state jurisdiction over such complaints does not result in state regulation of federally protected conduct.
The State, on the other hand, has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from the kind of abuse of which Hill complained. That interest is no less worthy of recognition because it concerns protection from emotional distress caused by outrageous conduct, rather than protection from physical injury, as in Russell, or damage to reputation, as in Linn. Although recognition of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a comparatively recent development in state law, see W. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 12, pp. 49-50, 56 (4th ed. 1971), our decisions permitting the exercise of state jurisdiction, in tort actions based on violence or defamation have not rested on the history of the tort at issue, but rather on the nature of the State’s interest in protecting the health and well-being of its citizens.
There is, to be sure, some risk that the state cause of action for infliction of emotional distress will touch on an area of primary federal concern. Hill’s complaint itself highlights this risk. In those counts of the complaint that the trial court dismissed, Hill alleged discrimination against him in hiring hall referrals, which were also alleged to be violations of both the collective-bargaining agreement and the membership contract. These allegations, if sufficiently supported before the National Labor Relations Board, would make out an unfair labor practice and the Superior Court considered them pre-empted by the federal Act. Even in count two of the complaint Hill made allegations of discrimination in “job-dispatching procedures” and “work assignments” which, standing alone, might well be pre-empted as the exclusive concern of the Board. The occurrence of the abusive conduct, with which the state tort action is concerned, in such a context of federally prohibited discrimination suggests a potential for interference with the federal scheme of regulation.
Viewed, however, in light of the discrete concerns of the federal scheme and the state tort law, that potential for interference is insufficient to counterbalance the legitimate and substantial interest of the State in protecting its citizens. If the charges in Hill’s complaint were filed with the Board, the focus of any unfair labor practice proceeding would be on whether the statements or conduct on the part of Union officials discriminated or threatened discrimination against him in employment referrals for reasons other than failure to pay Union dues. See n. 11, supra. Whether the statements or conduct of the respondents also caused Hill severe emotional distress and physical injury would play no role in the Board’s disposition of the case, and the Board could not award Hill damages for pain, suffering, or medical expenses. Conversely, the state-court tort action can be adjudicated without resolution of the “merits” of the underlying labor dispute. Recovery for the tort of emotional distress under California law requires proof that the defendant intentionally engaged in outrageous conduct causing the plaintiff to sustain mental distress. State Rubbish Collectors Assn. v. Siliznoff, 38 Cal. 2d 330, 240 P. 2d 282 (1952); Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., 2 Cal. 3d 493, 468 P. 2d 216 (1970). The state court need not consider, much less resolve, whether a union discriminated or threatened to discriminate against an employee in terms of employment opportunities. To the contrary, the tort action can be resolved without reference to any accommodation of the special interests of unions and members in the hiring hall context.
On balance, we cannot conclude that Congress intended to oust state-court jurisdiction over actions for tortious activity such as that alleged in this case. At the same time, we reiterate that concurrent state-court jurisdiction cannot be permitted where there is a realistic threat of interference with the federal regulatory scheme. Union discrimination in employment opportunities cannot itself form the underlying “outrageous” conduct on which the state-court tort action is based; to hold otherwise would undermine the pre-emption principle. Nor can threats of such discrimination suffice to sustain state-court jurisdiction. It may well be that the threat, or actuality, of employment discrimination will cause a union member considerable emotional distress and anxiety. But something more is required before concurrent state-court jurisdiction can be permitted. Simply stated, it is essential that the state tort be either unrelated to employment discrimination or a function of the particularly abusive manner in which the discrimination is accomplished or threatened rather than a function of the actual or threatened discrimination itself.
Two further limitations deserve emphasis. Our decision rests in part on our understanding that California law permits recovery only for emotional distress sustained as a result of “outrageous” conduct. The potential for undue interference with federal regulation would be intolerable if state tort recoveries could be based on the type of robust language and clash of strong personalities that may be commonplace in various labor contexts. We also repeat that state trial courts have the responsibility in cases of this kind to assure that the damages awarded are not excessive. See Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S., at 65-66.
IV
Although the second count of petitioner’s complaint alleged the intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is clear from the record that the trial of that claim was not in accord with the standards discussed above. The evidence supporting the verdict in Hill’s favor focuses less on the alleged campaign of harassment, public ridicule, and verbal abuse, than on the discriminatory refusal to dispatch him to any but the briefest and least desirable jobs; and no appropriate instruction distinguishing the two categories of evidence was given to the jury. See n. 13, supra. The consequent risk that the jury verdict represented damages for employment discrimination rather than for instances of intentional infliction of emotional distress precludes reinstatement of the judgment of the Superior Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Hill died after the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted. On June 1, 1976, Joy A. Farmer, special administrator of Hill’s estate, was substituted as petitioner. We will refer to Hill as the petitioner.
According to Hill, the Union accomplished this discrimination by removing his name from the top of the out-of-work list and placing it at the bottom, by referring him to jobs of short duration when more desirable work was available, and by referring him to jobs for which he was not qualified.
Hill did not appeal the Superior Court’s ruling sustaining the demurrer with respect to the claims of discrimination and breach of contract, and we thus have no occasion to consider the applicability of the pre-emption doctrine to those counts.
Hill voluntarily dismissed the complaint against the International and one Union official, the trial court dismissed the complaint with respect to another Union official, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of two other Union officials.
“[I]n referring to decisions bolding state laws pre-empted by the NLRA, care must be taken to distinguish pre-emption based on federal protection of the conduct in question . . . from that based predominantly on the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board . . . , although the two are often not easily separable.” Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369, 383 n. 19 (1969). The branch of the pre-emption doctrine most applicable to the instant case concerns the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.
The history of the Garmon doctrine was recently summarized in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 290-291, and in Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm’n, 427 U. S., at 138-139.
“[W]e [cannot] proceed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether each particular final judicial pronouncement does, or might reasonably be thought to, conflict in some relevant manner with federal labor policy. This Court is ill-equipped to play such a role and the federal system dictates that this problem be solved with a rule capable of relatively easy application, so that lower courts may largely police themselves in this regard.” Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, supra, at 289-290.
In addition to the judicially developed exceptions referred to in the text, Congress itself has created exceptions to the Board's exclusive jurisdiction in other classes of cases. Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 158, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 187, authorizes anyone injured in his business or property by activity violative of § 8 (b)(4) of the NLRA, 61 Stat. 140, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4), to recover damages in federal district court even though the underlying unfair labor practices are remediable by the Board. See Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252 (1964). Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U. S. C. § 185, authorizes suits for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement even if the breach is an unfair labor practice within the Board's jurisdiction. See Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962), Section 14 (c)(2) of the NLRA, as added by Title VII, § 701 (a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 541, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (c)(2), permits state agencies and state courts to assert jurisdiction over “labor disputes over which the Board declines, pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, to assert jurisdiction."
In Plumbers v. Borden, 373 U. S. 690 (1963), for example, an employee sued Ms union, which operated a hiring hall, claiming that the union had arbitrarily refused to refer him for employment on one particular occasion. He alleged that the union’s conduct constituted both tortious interference with his right to contract for employment and breach of a promise, implicit in his membership arrangement with the union, not to discriminate unfairly against any member or deny him the right to work. Under these circumstances, concurrent state-court jurisdiction would have impaired significantly the functioning of the federal system. If unfair labor practice charges had been filed, the Board might have concluded that the refusal to refer Borden was due to a lawful hiring hall practice, see Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U. S. 667 (1961). Board approval of various hiring hall practices would be meaningless if state courts could declare those procedures violative of the contractual rights implicit between a member and his union. Accordingly, the state cause of action was pre-empted under Garmon. Similar reasoning prompted the Court to apply the Garmon rule in the companion case of Iron Workers v. Perko, 373 U. S. 701 (1963).
Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617 (1958), established another exception to the general rule of pre-emption for state-law actions alleging expulsion from union membership in violation of the applicable union constitution and bylaws and seeking restoration to membership and damages due to the illegal expulsion. Gonzales was decided prior to this Court's adoption in Garmon of the current pre-emption test, and our decision in Lockridge makes it clear that “the full-blown rationale of Gonzales could not survive the rule of Garmon.” Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 295. At the same time, we stated that “Garmon did not cast doubt upon the result reached in Gonzales,” id., at 295, since Garmon cited Gonzales as an example of the nonapplicability of the normal pre-emption rule “where the activity regulated was a merely peripheral concern of the . . . Act.” 359 U. S., at 243.
Although the Lockridge decision has been the subject of extensive criticism, see, e. g., Bryson, A Matter of Wooden Logic: Labor Law Pre-emption and Individual Rights, 51 Texas L. Rev. 1037, 1050-1058 (1973) ; Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1337, 1368-1377 (1972), the instant ease presents no occasion for us to reconsider the relationship between Lockridge and Gonzales. Whatever the scope of Gonzales after Garmon and Lockridge, the analysis used by the Court in those cases is consistent with the framework discussed in the text above. Lockridge held that the state-court action at issue involved a “real and immediate” potential for conflict with the federal scheme, 403 U. S., at 296, whereas the possibility that the state court in Gonzales “would directly and consciously implicate principles of federal law” was considered “at best tangential and remote.” Ibid.
Discrimination in hiring hall referrals constitutes an unfair labor practice under §§ 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the NLRA. See, e. g., Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 17 (1954); Operating Engineers Local 18, 205 N. L. R. B. 901 (1973), enf’d, 500 F. 2d 48 (CA6 1974).
Prior to the filing of this suit, Hill filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board with respect to one specific instance of alleged discrimination. He alleged that the Union violated §§ 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) by refusing to honor an employer’s request that he be referred for employment on a particular construction job. The Board awarded Hill $2,517 in backpay.
Whether a hiring hall practice is discriminatory and therefore violative of federal law is a determination Congress has entrusted to the Board. See Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U. S. 667 (1961). Whether there is federal pre-emption with respect to allegations of breach of a contractual obligation depends upon the nature of the obligation and the alleged breach. See Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 292-297, 298-301. Casting a complaint in terms of breach of a membership agreement does not necessarily insulate a state-court action from application of the pre-emption doctrine. See n. 9, supra. Allegations of breach of the contract between the union and the employer stand on different ground, since, as noted earlier, § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185, authorizes suits for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement even if the breach is an unfair labor practice within the Board’s jurisdiction. See n. 8, supra.
In view of the potential for interference with the federal scheme of regulation, the trial court should be sensitive to the need to minimize the jury’s exposure to evidence of employment discrimination in cases of this sort. Where evidence of discrimination is necessary to establish the context in which the state claim arose, the trial court should instruct the jury that the fact of employment discrimination (as distinguished from attendant tortious conduct under state law) should not enter into the determination of liability or damages.
Almost the entire section of petitioner’s brief summarizing the trial transcript, see Brief for Petitioner 4-10, is directed at instances of Union discrimination against Hill with respect to employment opportunities. Moreover, counsel for petitioner, who was also petitioner’s trial counsel, indicated at oral argument that the focus of the trial was on employment discrimination rather than the intentional infliction of emotional distress: “We had to show simply two easy issues to the jury: one, what the [hiring hall] rules were; and two, were they fairly applied.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 69. It is plain that those two elements are more relevant to the issue of discriminatory referrals than to the issue of infliction of emotional distress.
Respondents concede that “[t]he allegations made in the plaintiff’s second cause of action . . . sound in the state tort law of intentional infliction of emotional distress,” but contend that the dominant focus of the evidence adduced at trial was on discriminatory hiring hall referrals. Brief for Respondents 28.
We, of course, express no view on the question whether those aspects of the case that are not pre-empted are sufficient under state law to amount to conduct “that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In a series of decisions, this Court has emphasized that the First Amendment generally precludes public universities from denying student organizations access to school-sponsored forums because of the groups’ viewpoints. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981); Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169 (1972). This case concerns a novel question regarding student activities at public universities: May a public law school condition its official recognition of a student group — and the attendant use of school funds and facilities — on the organization’s agreement to open eligibility for membership and leadership to all students?
In the view of petitioner Christian Legal Society (CLS), an accept-all-comers policy impairs its First Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion by prompting it, on pain of relinquishing the advantages of recognition, to accept members who do not share the organization’s core beliefs about religion and sexual orientation. From the perspective of respondent Hastings College of the Law (Hastings or the Law School), CLS seeks special dispensation from an across-the-board open-access requirement designed to further the reasonable educational purposes underpinning the school’s student-organization program.
In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject CLS’s First Amendment challenge. Compliance with Hastings’ all-comers policy, we conclude, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum. In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations. CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.
I
Founded in 1878, Hastings was the first law school in the University of California public school system. Like many institutions of higher education, Hastings encourages students to form extracurricular associations that “contribute to the Hastings community and experience.” App. 349. These groups offer students “opportunities to pursue academic and social interests outside of the classroom [to] further their education” and to help them “develo[p] leadership skills.” Ibid.
Through its “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) program, Hastings extends official recognition to student groups. Several benefits attend this school-approved status. RSOs are eligible to seek financial assistance from the Law School, which subsidizes their events using funds from a mandatory student-activity fee imposed on all students. Id., at 217. RSOs may also use Law-School channels to communicate with students: They may place announcements in a weekly Office-of-Student-Services newsletter, advertise events on designated bulletin boards, send e-mails using a Hastings-organization address, and participate in an annual Student Organizations Fair designed to advance recruitment efforts. Id., at 216-219. In addition, RSOs may apply for permission to use the Law School’s facilities for meetings and office space. Id., at 218-219. Finally, Hastings allows officially recognized groups to use its name and logo. Id., at 216.
In exchange for these benefits, RSOs must abide by certain conditions. Only a “non-commercial organization whose membership is limited to Hastings students may become [an RSO].” App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a. A prospective RSO must submit its bylaws to Hastings for approval, id., at 83a-84a; and if it intends to use the Law School’s name or logo, it must sign a license agreement, App. 219. Critical here, all RSOs must undertake to comply with Hastings’ “Policies and Regulations Applying to College Activities, Organizations and Students.” Ibid.
The Law School’s Policy on Nondiscrimination (Nondiscrimination Policy), which binds RSOs, states:
“[Hastings] is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices. All groups, including administration, faculty, student governments, [Hastings]-owned student residence facilities and programs sponsored by [Hastings], are governed by this policy of nondiscrimination. [Hastings’] policy on nondiscrimination is to comply fully with applicable law-
“[Hastings] shall not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission, access and treatment in Hastings-sponsored programs and activities.” Id., at 220.
Hastings interprets the Nondiscrimination Policy, as it relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all comers: School-approved groups must “allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization, regardless of [her] status or beliefs.” Id., at 221. Other law schools have adopted similar all-comers policies. See, e. g., Georgetown University Law Center, Office of Student Life: Student Organizations, available at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/StudentLife/StudentOrgs/ NewGroup.htm (All Internet materials as visited June 24, 2010, and included in Clerk of Court’s case file) (Membership in registered groups must be “open to all students.”); Hofstra Law School Student Handbook 2009-2010, p. 49, available at http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/StudentLife/Student Affairs/Handbook/stuhb_handbook.pdf (“[Student] organizations are open to all students.”). From Hastings’ adoption of its Nondiscrimination Policy in 1990 until the events stirring this litigation, “no student organization at Hastings... ever sought an exemption from the Policy.” App. 221.
In 2004, CLS became the first student group to do so. At the beginning of the academic year, the leaders of a predecessor Christian organization — which had been an RSO at Hastings for a decade — formed CLS by affiliating with the national Christian Legal Society (CLS-National). Id., at 222-223, 225. CLS-National, an association of Christian lawyers and law students, charters student chapters at law schools throughout the country. Id., at 225. CLS chapters must adopt bylaws that, inter alia, require members and officers to sign a “Statement of Faith” and to conduct their lives in accord with prescribed principles. Id., at 225-226; App. to Pet. for Cert. 101a. Among those tenets is the belief that sexual activity should not occur outside of marriage between a man and a woman; CLS thus interprets its bylaws to exclude from affiliation anyone who engages in “unrepentant homosexual conduct.” App. 226. CLS also excludes students who hold religious convictions different from those in the Statement of Faith. Id., at 227.
On September 17, 2004, CLS submitted to Hastings an application for RSO status, accompanied by all required documents, including the set of bylaws mandated by CLS-National. Id., at 227-228. Several days later, the Law School rejected the application; CLS’s bylaws, Hastings explained, did not comply with the Nondiscrimination Policy because CLS barred students based on religion and sexual orientation. Id., at 228.
CLS formally requested an exemption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, id., at 281, but Hastings declined to grant one. “[T]o be one of our student-recognized organizations,” Hastings reiterated, “CLS must open its membership to all students irrespective of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.” Id., at 294. If CLS instead chose to operate outside the RSO program, Hastings stated, the school “would be pleased to provide [CLS] the use of Hastings facilities for its meetings and activities.” Ibid. CLS would also have access to chalkboards and generally available campus bulletin boards to announce its events. Id., at 219,233. In other words, Hastings would do nothing to suppress CLS’s endeavors, but neither would it lend RSO-level support for them.
Refusing to alter its bylaws, CLS did not obtain RSO status. It did, however, operate independently during the 2004-2005 academic year. CLS held weekly Bible-study meetings and invited Hastings students to Good Friday and Easter Sunday church services. Id., at 229. It also hosted a beach barbeque, Thanksgiving dinner, campus lecture on the Christian faith and the legal practice, several fellowship dinners, an end-of-year banquet, and other informal social activities. Ibid.
On October 22, 2004, CLS filed suit against various Hastings officers and administrators under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Its complaint alleged that Hastings’ refusal to grant the organization RSO status violated CLS’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion. The suit sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of Hastings. The Law School’s all-comers condition on access to a limited public forum, the court held, was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and therefore did not violate CLS’s right to free speech. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-38a.
Nor, in the District Court’s view, did the Law School impermissibly impair CLS’s right to expressive association. “Hastings is not directly ordering CLS to admit [any] studen[t],” the court observed, id., at 42a; “[r]ather, Hastings has merely placed conditions on” the use of its facilities and funds, ibid. “Hastings’ denial of official recognition,” the court added, “was not a substantial impediment to CLS’s ability to meet and communicate as a group.” Id., at 49a.
The court also rejected CLS’s Free Exercise Clause argument. “[T]he Nondiscrimination Policy does not target or single out religious beliefs,” the court noted; rather, the policy “is neutral and of general applicability.” Id., at 63a. “CLS may be motivated by its religious beliefs to exclude students based on their religion or sexual orientation,” the court explained, “but that does not convert the reason for Hastings’ [Nondiscrimination Policy] to be one that is religiously-based.” Id., at 63a-64a.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an opinion that stated, in full:
“The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups — all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Truth v. Kent Sch. Dist., 542 F. 3d 634, 649-50 (9th Cir. 2008).” Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Kane, 319 Fed. Appx. 645, 645-646 (CA9 2009).
We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. 1076 (2009), and now affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
II
Before considering the merits of CLS’s constitutional arguments, we must resolve a preliminary issue: CLS urges us to review the Nondiscrimination Policy as written — prohibiting discrimination on several enumerated bases, including religion and sexual orientation — and not as a requirement that all RSOs accept all comers. The written terms of the Nondiscrimination Policy, CLS contends, “targe[t] solely those groups whose beliefs are based on religion or that disapprove of a particular kind of sexual behavior,” and leave other associations free to limit membership and leadership to individuals committed to the group’s ideology. Brief for Petitioner 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, “[a] political... group can insist that its leaders support its purposes and beliefs,” CLS alleges, but “a religious group cannot.” Id., at 20.
CLS’s assertion runs headlong into the stipulation of facts it jointly submitted with Hastings at the summary-judgment stage. In that filing, the parties specified:
“Hastings requires that registered student organizations allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization, regardless of [her] status or beliefs. Thus, for example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs from becoming members or seeking leadership positions in the organization.” App. 221 (Joint Stipulation ¶ 18) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Under the District Court’s local rules, stipulated facts are deemed “undisputed.” Civil Local Rule 56-2 (ND Cal. 2010). See also Pet. for Cert. 2 (“The material facts of this case are undisputed.”).
Litigants, we have long recognized, “[a]re entitled to have [their] case tried upon the assumption that... facts, stipulated into the record, were established.” H. Hackfeld & Co. v. United States, 197 U. S. 442, 447 (1905). This entitlement is the bookend to a party’s undertaking to be bound by the factual stipulations it submits. See post, at 715 (Alito, J., dissenting) (agreeing that “the parties must be held to their Joint Stipulation”). As a leading legal reference summarizes:
“[Factual stipulations are] binding and conclusive..., and the facts stated are not subject to subsequent variation. So, the parties will not be permitted to deny the truth of the facts stated,... or to maintain a contention contrary to the agreed statement,... or to suggest, on appeal, that the facts were other than as stipulated or that any material fact was omitted. The burden is on the party seeking to recover to show his or her right from the facts actually stated.” 83 C. J. S., Stipulations § 93 (2000) (footnotes omitted).
This Court has accordingly refused to consider a party’s argument that contradicted a joint “stipulation [entered] at the outset of th[e] litigation.” Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 226 (2000). Time and again, the dissent races away from the facts to which CLS stipulated. See, e. g., post, at 707, 708, 710, 711-712, 713, 716, 728-729. But factual stipulations are “formal concessions.. that have the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact. Thus, a judicial admission... is conclusive in the case.” 2 K. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 254, p. 181 (6th ed. 2006) (footnote omitted). See also, e. g., Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 263 (1881) (“The power of the court to act in the disposition of a trial upon facts conceded by counsel is as plain as its power to act upon the evidence produced.”).
In light of the joint stipulation, both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit trained their attention on the constitutionality of the all-comers requirement, as described in the parties’ accord. See 319 Fed. Appx., at 645-646; App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a; id., at 36a. We reject CLS’s unseemly attempt to escape from the stipulation and shift its target to Hastings’ policy as written. This opinion, therefore, considers only whether conditioning access to a student-organization forum on compliance with an all-comers policy violates the Constitution.
Ill
A
In support of the argument that Hastings’ all-comers policy treads on its First Amendment rights to free speech and expressive association, CLS draws on two lines of decisions. First, in a progression of cases, this Court has employed forum analysis to determine when a governmental entity, in regulating property in its charge, may place limitations on speech. Recognizing a State’s right “to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court has permitted restrictions on access to a limited public forum, like the RSO program here, with this key caveat: Any access barrier must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral, e. g., Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. See also, e. g., Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 106-107 (2001); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 392-393 (1993); Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 46 (1983).
Second, as evidenced by another set of decisions, this Court has rigorously reviewed laws and regulations that constrain associational freedom. In the context of public accommodations, we have subjected restrictions on that freedom to close scrutiny; such restrictions are permitted only if they serve “compelling state interests” that are “unrelated to the suppression of ideas” — interests that cannot be advanced “through... significantly less restrictive [means].” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984). See also, e. g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 648 (2000). “Freedom of association,” we have recognized, “plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.” Roberts, 468 U. S., at 623. Insisting that an organization embrace unwelcome members, we have therefore concluded, “directly and immediately affects associational rights.” Dale, 530 U. S., at 659.
CLS would have us engage each line of cases independently, but its expressive-association and free-speech arguments merge: Who speaks on its behalf, CLS reasons, colors what concept is conveyed. See Brief for Petitioner 35 (expressive association in this case is “the functional equivalent of speech itself”). It therefore makes little sense to treat CLS’s speech and association claims as discrete. See Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. Berkeley, 454 U. S. 290, 300 (1981). Instead, three observations lead us to conclude that our limited-public-forum precedents supply the appropriate framework for assessing both CLS’s speech and association rights.
First, the same considerations that have led us to apply a less restrictive level of scrutiny to speech in limited public forums as compared to other environments, see supra, at 679, and n. 11, apply with equal force to expressive association occurring in limited public forums. As just noted, speech and expressive-association rights are closely linked. See Roberts, 468 U. S., at 622 (Associational freedom is “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment.”). When these intertwined rights arise in exactly the same context, it would be anomalous for a restriction on speech to survive constitutional review under our limited-public-forum test only to be invalidated as an impermissible infringement of expressive association. Accord Brief for State Universities et al. as Amici Curiae 37-38. That result would be all the more anomalous in this case, for CLS suggests that its expressive-association claim plays a part auxiliary to speech’s starring role. See Brief for Petitioner 18.
Second, and closely related, the strict scrutiny we have applied in some settings to laws that burden expressive association would, in practical effect, invalidate a defining characteristic of limited public forums — the State may “reserv[e] [them] for certain groups.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. See also Perry Ed. Assn., 460 U. S., at 49 (“Implicit in the concept” of a limited public forum is the State’s “right to make distinctions in access on the basis of... speaker identity.”); Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 806 (“[A] speaker may be excluded from” a limited public forum “if he is not a member of the class of speakers for whose especial benefit the forum was created.”).
An example sharpens the tip of this point: Schools, including Hastings, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a, ordinarily, and without controversy, limit official student-group recognition to organizations comprising only students — even if those groups wish to associate with nonstudents. See, e. g., Volokh, Freedom of Expressive Association and Government Subsidies, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1919, 1940 (2006). The same ground rules must govern both speech and association challenges in the limited-public-forum context, lest strict scrutiny trump a public university’s ability to “confin[e] a [speech] forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. See also Healy, 408 U. S., at 189 (“Associational activities need not be tolerated where they infringe reasonable campus rules.”).
Third, this case fits comfortably within the limited-public-forum category, for CLS, in seeking what is effectively a state subsidy, faces only indirect pressure to modify its membership policies; CLS may exclude any person for any reason if it forgoes the benefits of official recognition. The expressive-association precedents on which CLS relies, in contrast, involved regulations that compelled a group to include unwanted members, with no choice to opt out. See, e. g., Dale, 580 U. S., at 648 (regulation “forc[ed] [the Boy Scouts] to accept members it [did] not desire” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Roberts, 468 U. S., at 623 (“There can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than” forced inclusion of unwelcome participants.).
In diverse contexts, our decisions have distinguished between policies that require action and those that withhold benefits. See, e. g., Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 575-576 (1984); Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 602-604 (1983). Application of the less restrictive limited-public-forum analysis better accounts for the fact that Hastings, through its RSO program, is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition. Cf. Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 463 (1973) (“That the Constitution may compel toleration of private discrimination in some circumstances does not mean that it requires state support for such discrimination.”).
In sum, we are persuaded that our limited-public-forum precedents adequately respect both CLS’s speech and expressive-association rights, and fairly balance those rights against Hastings’ interests as property owner and educational institution. We turn to the merits of the instant dispute, therefore, with the limited-public-forum decisions as our guide.
B
As earlier pointed out, supra, at 667-668, 678-679, we do not write on a blank slate; we have three times before considered clashes between public universities and student groups seeking official recognition or its attendant benefits. First, in Healy, a state college denied school affiliation to a student group that wished to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). 408 U. S., at 170. Characterizing SDS’s mission as violent and disruptive, and finding the organization’s philosophy repugnant, the college completely banned the SDS chapter from campus; in its effort to sever all channels of communication between students and the group, university officials went so far as to disband a meeting of SDS members in a campus coffee shop. Id., at 174-176. The college, we noted, could require “that a group seeking official recognition affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law,” including “reasonable standards respecting conduct.” Id., at 193. But a public educational institution exceeds constitutional bounds, we held, when it “restrict^] speech or association simply because it finds the views expressed by [a] group to be abhorrent.” Id., at 187-188.
We later relied on Healy in Widmar. In that case, a public university, in an effort to avoid state support for religion, had closed its facilities to a registered student group that sought to use university space for religious worship and discussion. 454 U. S., at 264-265. “A university’s mission is education,” we observed, “and decisions of this Court have never denied a university’s authority to impose reasonable regulations compatible.with that mission upon the use of its campus and facilities.” Id., at 268, n. 5. But because the university singled out religious organizations for disadvantageous treatment, we subjected the university’s regulation to strict scrutiny. Id., at 269-270. The school’s interest “in maintaining strict separation of church and State,” we held, was not “sufficiently compelling to justify... [viewpoint] discrimination against... religious speech.” Id., at 270,276 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Most recently and comprehensively, in Rosenberger, we reiterated that a university generally may not withhold benefits from student groups because of their religious outlook. The officially recognized student group in Rosenberger was denied student-activity-fee funding to distribute a newspaper because the publication discussed issues from a Christian perspective. 515 U. S., at 825-827. By “selecting] for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints,” we held, the university had engaged in “viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum’s limitations.” Id., at 831, 830.
In all three cases, we ruled that student groups had been unconstitutionally singled out because of their points of view. “Once it has opened a limited [public] forum,” we emphasized, “the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Id., at 829. The constitutional constraints on the boundaries the State may set bear repetition here: “The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,... nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of... viewpoint." Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
C
We first consider whether Hastings’ policy is reasonable taking into account the RSO forum’s function and “all the surrounding circumstances.” Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 809.
1
Our inquiry is shaped by the educational context in which it arises: “First Amendment rights,” we have observed, “must be analyzed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Widmar, 454 U. S., at 268, n. 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court is the final arbiter of the question whether a public university has exceeded constitutional constraints, and we owe no deference to universities when we consider that question. Cf. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817, 827 (1974) (“Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties.”). Cognizant that judges lack the on-the-ground expertise and experience of school administrators, however, we have cautioned courts in various contexts to resist “substitut[ing] their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 206 (1982). See also, e. g., Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 273 (1988) (noting our “oft-expressed view that the education of the Nation’s youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges”); Healy, 408 U. S., at 180 (“[T]his Court has long recognized The need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.’ ” (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 507 (1969))).
A college’s commission — and its concomitant license to choose among pedagogical approaches — is not confined to the classroom, for extracurricular programs are, today, essential parts of the educational process. See Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U. S. 822, 831, n. 4 (2002) (involvement in student groups is “a significant contributor to the breadth and quality of the educational experience” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Schools, we have emphasized, enjoy “a significant measure of authority over the type of officially recognized activities in which their students participate.” Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 240 (1990). We therefore “approach our task with special caution,” Healy, 408 U. S., at 171, mindful that Hastings’ decisions about the character of its student-group program are due decent respect.
2
With appropriate regard for school administrators’ judgment, we review the justifications Hastings offers in defense of its all-comers requirement. First, the open-access policy “ensures that the leadership, educational, and social opportunities afforded by registered student organizations are available to all students.” Brief for Hastings 32; see Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 11. Just as “Hastings does not allow its professors to host classes open only to those students with a certain status or belief,” so the Law School may decide, reasonably in our view, “that the... educational experience is best promoted when all participants in the forum must provide equal access to all students.” Brief for Hastings 32. RSOs, we count it significant, are eligible for financial assistance drawn from mandatory student-activity fees, see supra, at 669; the all-comers policy ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member.
Second, the all-comers requirement helps Hastings police the written terms of its Nondiscrimination Policy without inquiring into an RSO’s motivation for membership restrictions. To bring the RSO program within CLS’s view of the Constitution’s limits, CLS proposes that Hastings permit exclusion because of belief but forbid discrimination due to status. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. But that proposal would impose on Hastings a daunting labor. How should the Law School go about determining whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in belief-based garb? If a hypothetical Male-Superiority Club barred a female student from running for its presidency, for example, how could the Law School tell whether the group rejected her bid because of her sex or because, by seeking to lead the club, she manifested a lack of belief in its fundamental philosophy?
This case itself is instructive in this regard. CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather “on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.” Brief for Petitioner 35-36 (emphasis deleted). Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” (emphasis added)); id., at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 270 (1993) (“A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”). See also Brief for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 7-20.
Third, the Law School reasonably adheres to the view that an all-comers policy, to the extent it brings together individuals with diverse backgrounds and beliefs, “encourages tolerance, cooperation, and learning among students.” App. 349. And if the policy sometimes produces discord, Hastings can rationally rank among RSO-program goals development of conflict-resolution skills, toleration, and readiness to find common ground.
Fourth, Hastings’ policy, which incorporates — in fact, subsumes — state-law proscriptions on discrimination, conveys the Law School’s decision “to decline to subsidize with public monies and benefits conduct of which the people of California disapprove.” Brief for Hastings 35; id., at 33-34 (citing Cal. Educ. Code Ann. § 66270 (West Supp. 2010) (prohibiting discrimination on various bases)). State law, of course, may not command that public universities take action impermissible under the First Amendment. But so long as a public university does not contravene constitutional limits, its choice to advance state-law goals through the school’s educational endeavors stands on firm footing.
In sum, the several justifications Hastings asserts in support of its all-comers requirement are surely reasonable in light of the RSO forum’s purposes.
3
The Law School’s policy is all the more creditworthy in view of the “substantial alternative channels that remain open for [CLS-student] communication to take place.” Perry Ed. Assn., 460 U. S., at 53. If restrictions on access to a limited public forum are viewpoint discriminatory, the ability of a group to exist outside the forum would not cure the constitutional shortcoming. But when access barriers are viewpoint neutral, our decisions have counted it significant that other available avenues for the group to exercise its First Amendment rights lessen the burden created by those barriers. See ibid.; Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 809; Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 839 (1976); Pell, 417 U. S., at 827-828.
In this case, Hastings offered CLS access to school facilities to conduct meetings and the use of chalkboards and generally available bulletin boards to advertise events. App. 232-233. Although CLS could not take advantage of RSO-specific methods of communication, see supra, at 669-670, the advent of electronic media and social-networking sites reduces the importance of those channels. See App. 114-115 (CLS maintained a Yahoo! message group to disseminate information to students.); Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F. 3d 853, 874 (CA7 2006) (Wood, J., dissenting) (“Most universities and colleges, and most college-aged students, communicate through email, websites, and hosts like MySpace.... If CLS had its own website, any student at the school with access to Google — that is, all of them — could easily have found it.”). See also Brief for Associated Students of the University of California, Hastings College of Law, as Amicus Curiae 14-18 (describing host of ways CL
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners, Ruth. Elizabeth Chapman and Thomas LeRoy Teale, were convicted in a California state court upon a charge that they robbed, kidnaped, and murdered a bartender. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and he to death. At the time of the trial, Art. I, § 13, of the State’s Constitution provided that “in any criminal case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury.” Both petitioners in this-case chose not to testify at their trial, and the State’s attorney prosecuting them took full advantage of his right under the State Constitution to comment upon their failure to testify, filling his argument to the jury from beginning to end with numerous references to their silence and inferences of their guilt resulting therefrom. The trial court also charged the jury that it could draw adverse inferences from pétitioners’ failure to testify. Shortly after the trial, but before petitioners’ cases had been considered on appeal by the California Supreme Court, this Court decided Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, in which we held California’s constitutional provision and practice invalid on the ground that they put a penalty on the exercise of a person’s right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to California and the other States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1. On appeal, the State Supreme Court, 63 Cal. 2d 178, 404 P. 2d 209, admitting that petitioners had been denied a federal constitutional right by the comments on their silence, nevertheless affirmed, applying the State Constitution’s-harmless-error provision, which forbids reversal unless “the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” We granted certiorari limited to these questions:
“Where there is a violation of the rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, (1) can the error be held to be harmless, and (2) if so, was the error harmless in this case?” 383 U. S. 956-957.
In this Court petitioners contend that both these questions are federal ones to be decided under federal law; that under federal law we should hold that denial of a federal constitutional right, no matter how unimportant, should automatically result in reversal of a conviction, without regard to whether the error is considered harmless; and that, if wrong in this, the various comments on petitioners’ silénce cannot, applying a federal standard, be considered harmless here.
I.
Before deciding the two questions here — whether there can ever be harmless constitutional error and whether the error here was harmless — we must first decide whether state or federal law governs. The application of a state harmless-error rule is, of course, a state question where it involves only errors of state procedure or state law. But the error from which these petitioners suffered was a denial of rights guaranteed against invasion by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rights rooted in the Bill of Rights, offered and championed in the Congress by James Madison, who told the Congress that the “independent” federal. courts would be the “guardians of those rights.” Whether a conviction for crime should stand when a State has failed to accord federal constitutionally guaranteed rights is every bit as much of a federal question as what particular federal constitutional provisions themselves mean, what they guarantee, and whether they have been denied. With faithfulness to the constitutional union of the States, we cannot leave to the States the formulation of the authoritative laws, rules, and remedies designed to protect people from infractions by the States of federally guaranteed rights. We havé no hesitation in saying that the right of these petitioners not to be punished for exercising their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be silent — expressly created by the Federal Constitution itself — is a federal right which, in the absence of appropriate congressional action, it is our responsibility to protect by fashioning the necessary rule. #.
II.
We are urged by petitioners to hold that all federal constitutional errors, regardless of the facts and circumstances, must always be deemed harmful. Such a holding, as petitioners correctly point out, would require an automatic reversal of their convictions and make further discussion unnecessary. We decline to adopt any such rule. All 50 States have harmless-error statutes or rules, and the United States long ago through its Congress established for its courts the rule that judgments shall not be reversed for “errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” 28 U. S. C. § 2111. None of these rules on its face distinguishes between federal constitutional errors and errors of state law or federal statutes and rules. All of these rules, state or federal, serve a very useful purpose insofar as they block setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. We conclude that there may be some constitutional errors which in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent- with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.
III.
In- fashioning a harmless-constitutional-error rule, we must recognize that harmless-error rules can work very unfair and mischievous results when, for example, highly • important and persuasive evidence, or argument, though legally forbidden, finds its way into a trial in which the question of guilt or innocence is a close one. What harmless-error rules all aim at is a rule that will save the good in harmless-error practices while avoiding the bad, so far as possible.
The federal rule emphasizes “substantial rights” as do most others. The California constitutional rule emphasizes “a miscarriage of justice,” but the California courts have neutralized this to some extent by emphasis, and perhaps overemphasis, upon the court’s view of “overwhelming evidence.” We prefer the approach of this Court in deciding what was harmless error in our recent case’ of Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85. There we said: “The question is whether there' is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Id., at 86-87. Although our prior cases have indicated that there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error, this statement in Fahy itself belies any belief that all trial errors which violate the Constitution automatically call for reversal. At the same time, however, like the federal harmless-error statute, it emphasizes an intention not to treat as harmless those constitutional errors that “affect substantial rights” of a party. An error in admitting plainly relevant evidence which possibly influenced the jury adversely to a litigant cannot, under Fahy, be conceived of as harmless. Certainly error, constitutional error, in illegally admitting highly prejudicial evidence or comments, casts on someone other than the person prejudiced by it a burden to show that it was harmless. It is for that reason that the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment. There is little, if any, difference between our statement in Fahy v. Connecticut about “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction” and requiring the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy case when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be. able to. declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While appellate courts do not ordinarily have the original task of applying such.a test, it is a familiar standard to all courts, and we believe its adoption' will provide a more workable standard, although achieving the same'result as that aimed at in our Fahy case.
IV.
Applying the foregoing standard, we have no doubt that the error in these cases was not harmless to petitioners. To reach this conclusion one need only glance at the prosecutorial comments compiled from the record by petitioners’ counsel and (with minor omissions) set forth in the Appendix. The California Supreme Court fairly summarized the extent of these comments as follows:
“Such comments went to the motives for the procurement and handling of guns purchased by Mrs. Chapman, funds or the lack thereof in Mr. Teale’s possession immediately prior to the killing, the amount of intoxicating liquors consumed by defendants at the Spot Club and other taverns, the circumstances of the shooting in the automobile and the removal.of the victim’s body therefrom, who fired the fatal shots, why defendants used a false registration at a motel shortly after the killing, the meaning of a letter written by Mrs. Chapman several days after the killing, why Teale had a loaded weapon in his possession when apprehended, the meaning of statements made by. Teale after his apprehension, why certain clothing and articles of personal property were shipped by defendants to Missouri, what clothing Mrs. Chapman wore at the time of the killing, conflicting statements as to Mrs. Chapman’s whereabouts immediately preceding, the killing and, generally, the overall commission of the crime.” 63 Cal. 2d, at 196, 404 P. 2d, at 220.
Thus, the state prosecutor’s argument and the trial judge’s instruction to the jury Continuously and repeatedly. impressed the jury that from the failure of petitioners to testify, to all intents and purposes, the inferences from the facts in evidence had to be drawn in favor of the State — in short, that by their silence petitioners had served as irrefutable witnesses against themselves. And though the case in which this occurred presented a reasonably strong “circumstantial web of evidence” against petitioners, 63 Cal. 2d, at 197, 404 P. 2d, at 220, it was also a case in which, absent the constitutionally forbidden comments, honest, fair-minded jurors might very well have brought in not-guilty verdicts. Under these circumstances, it is completely impossible for us to say that the State has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecutor’s comments and the trial judge’s instruction did not contribute to petitioners’ convictions. Such a machine-gun repetition of a denial of constitutional rights, designed and calculated to make petitioners’ version of the evidence worthless, can no more be considered harmless than the introduction against a defendant of a coerced confession. See, e. g., Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560. Petitioners are entitled to a trial free from the pressure of unconstitutional inferences.
Reversed and remanded.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OP THE COURT.
Argument and Comments by the Prosecutor on the Failure of the Defendants to Take the Witness Stand
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know which one of these weapons was purchased first, I don’t know that it particularly makes any difference, but as you know, we have had no testimony at all in that regard, in fact, I might add that the only person or persons, that could give testimony in that regard, would be, of course, the defendants themselves.
“Now, this, there’s no question about what this represents, or for thé record here, no question in your minds, this is not the weapon that Ruth Elizabeth Chapman purchased in Reno, Nevada, on October the 12th, 1962. I don’t know where that weapon is, ladies and gentlemen, and you don’t know where it is, you’ve heard no testimony from the stand at all, and once again, the only person or persons that could tell us about where the original.22 caliber Vestpocket is today would be one or the other of the defendants or both.
“This would indicate that there was no small struggle — it would indicate that the body, almost lifeless, was dragged or left in some fashion which would cause a shirt or an article of clothing to tear, one or the other. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I wasn’t out there, you were not out there. You heard no testimony on the stand. The only individuals that could give you that information would be the defendants, either one or both of them, Thomas Leroy Teale and Ruth Elizabeth Chapman. And of course you know that you have not heard from them.
“Now, I will comment throughout my entire opening argument to you in reference to the fact that neither one of these defendants has seen fit to go up, raise their right hand, take that witness stand, tell you ladies and gentlemen of the jury exactly what did occur, explain to you any facts or details within their knowledge so that you would know. You would not have to — by His Honor’s instructions you can draw an adverse inference to any fact within their knowledge that they couldn’t testify to, and they have not subjected themselves, either one or both, to cross-examination. Now, that is — so there is no question in your mind, once again with reference to a defendant taking the stand, none — you are — you or I or anyone else is not required under our legal system in these United States and under the Constitution, you can not be made to testify against yourself or for yourself, as far as that goes.
“So, it is a Constitutional right, and both of these defendants have seen fit to avail themselves of that Constitutional right, but I say to you ladies and gentlemen, there are many things in this case, and I will try to point them out to you, at least some,.probably not all, that these defendants are in a position to take that stand and tp testify under oath and give you facts concerning. They have not seen fit to avail themselves of that opportunity.
“Now whether or not Mr. Teale had any other money at the time or was in the'habit of concealing his money in different departments, I don’t know, and ladies and gentlemen, you don’t know, because you have not had any testimony from that witness stand, and the only person that could clear this up for us ladies and gentlemen is the defendant Thomas Leroy Teale. Ladies and gentlemen, he has not seen fit to tell you about that. But certainly we know that bogus checks are being written, and as I recall we know that — I don’t — we may infer, if you wish to believe there is an inference which Mr. Teale could have cleared up, that that was all the money that he had, and he didn’t clear it up, so you may draw an adverse inference from that, that that was all the money he had, or in fact that he — at that time he was in desperate need of funds,, and you know that through, some kind of a discussion between these two defendants in regard to Mr. Teale shooting dice, that this was all he had. ■
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, in reference to the weapons being purchased in Reno, Nevada on October 12th, you have heard, ladies and gentlemen, no testimony, and you will recall clearly, you are going to have some difficulty, you really are in reference to what is and what isn’t evidence in this case, and believe me I have a few comments to say on that a little later on, but if you will-recall as far as evidence is concerned of the truth of anything at all, you don’t have any evidence on why these — why these pistols were purchased. Why did Ruth Elizabeth Chapman buy two weapons? Well, you do recall that she told on one occasion that she had had a pistol stolen from her vehicle, her automobile, when she was taking a little trip across country, you remember that testimony, and you can rely on the testimony that you actually hear, ladies and gentlemen, from the stand. She told that, and of course you can only rely that she told the gentleman that, that she had had another one stolen, and so that she needed one to replace it. But why two, ladies and gentlemen? You don’t need two. If she is going to be attacked she wasn’t going to use one in each hand I assume to defend herself, and there is another area, ladies and gentlemen, besides this that I mentionéd to you before, that since you have no testimony from the stand, you must surmise from all facts and circumstances as to the exact reason why they were purchased, because the only one in this room that could tell you why these guns were purchased is either one or both of the defendants. Certainly the ^defendant Ruth Elizabeth Chapman could tell you, she could tell you under oath, she could subject herself to cross-examination, and she could tell you then and it would be evidence before you. Once again she has not chosen to do this. So any inference you may draw therefrom will be an adverse inference under the circumstances, and under the instructions of the Court....
“So, we know, ladies and gentlemen, that they had the motive, we know that they had the means, we know that they had the opportunity. We also know that they were at that scene, ladies and gentlemen, they were with that man.just a matter of minutes before he was shot in the head three times with a gun similar to People’s Exhibit No. 12. Now, if they weren’t there, and I think the evidence clearly shows they were, scientific evidence, that we'll talk about a little later. Once again, why don't they come up and raise their right hand and tell you about it?
“To me they are charged with serious crimes, ladies and gentlemen. They can come up and testify and then it will be evidence for you to consider in this case. If they had just come up and told you about this, because • they were there. If they left the Spot Club and just went on their way, well, of course they didn’t, the evidence clearly shows they didn’t, but you may draw the adverse inference from their refusal to come before you and raise that right hand and incidentally, of course, subject themselves to cross-examination.
“I think it is not an unreasonable inference to infer at this time if the defendants were drinking beer earlier in the evening in Croce’s, it’s not unreasonable to infer they continued drinking the same thing, therefore the two glasses remaining that had been washed, but not put up were the defendants’. I don’t know, it is an inference, I wasn’t there, we have had no testimony whatsoever as to what they were drinking at the Spot Club, once again, neither one of the defendants have seen their way cléar to come up and tell you what they were drinking if it was beer.
“So you can see that whichever one of these defendants shot him, and once again, ladies and gentlemen, here is an area that I don’t know who shot him, and you don’t know who shot him, because we have had no testimony from that witness stand to tell you who shot him, and the only two persons in this courtroom that could tell you which one of them it was that shot him are the two defendants; but once again, they have both decided that they will not get up and raise their right hand and testify in this regard and subject themselves to cross-examination, so all we know is that one of them shot him.
“We don’t know the time here, it doesn’t say. We don’t have any testimony, ladies and gentlemen, in this regard, and.1 might say once again in reference to this last, the use of the name, T. L. Rosenthal, Mr. and Mrs., we don’t know why, ladies and gentlemen, that name was used. We don’t know why, ladies and gentlemen, that UZY 155 — was 156 originally on here. You don’t know that, and I don’t, because we haven’t had the testimony from the witness stand on it. • Now we know it is in the handwriting of Ruth Elizabeth Chapman, and there is no question about that. She wrote it. It could be evidence, ladies and gentlemen, for you. It could be evidence as to why she wrote that name, :-.nd why that five was changed to a six. We could have it. But we don’t-, because either one or both of the defendants, neither one, have even seen fit to take the stand and to testify in that regard. Then this would be evidence that you can consider. But also ladies and gentlemen; subject to taking the oath and súbject to cross-examination.
“We see Where in Mountain View, the Mountain View Motel, the name of Teale, but we don’t have the testimony of the defendants and ladies and gentlemen, they are the only ones here in this case that could get up there and tell you why they • used a phony name< two hours after the crime and why they.didn’t put the correct license down' and-whatever inference you draw you are permitted to draw since they do not - choose to tell you an adverse interest, and I would say, ladies 'and gentlemen, that it is an adverse interest to the defendants. It shows a consciousness of guilt.
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, what is this — first of all, ‘I thought I’d better let you know that Tom arrived h.ere today and. we!re going sqüth tomorrow’? Now, what does that mean? Well, I think without saying a great deal more about it that each one of you can certainly infer as to what it very readily could mean, especially if one has in fact committed a robbery and kidnapped someone from the premises and that- individual has ended up dead, shot three times in the head. And further, ladies and gentlemen, the only other thing I can say about it is this, who can really tell you and who could have-told you from evidence, from the witness stand, what that letter meant? Well, the only one is Ruth Elizabeth Chapman, ladies and gentlemen. If it didn’t mean what you can reasonably infer that it means, then I say, ladies and' gentlemen, she could have come up here and testified, gotten on the witness chair. We have had many witnesses in this case, no one I would assume more interested than Ruth Elizabeth Chapman, or the co-defendant, neither one took the stand. She in no way, nor has there been any way, ladies and gentlemen, any kind of evidence that has actually been admitted for the truth of the evidence, in.no way is thére any evidence as to why she wrote that letter, and what she meant by ‘Tom is arriving today and we’re going south.’ Once again, she did not choose to tell you. So, we may only infer, and this will be, of course, you will have to in your final analysis draw any inferences from that that you feel are appropriate and are proper—
“He was a fugitive from justice, and he knew he was a fugitive from justice, and he never — let’s face it, there were four F.B.I.. agents and these fellows are professional and they know what they are doing and one of..them had a gun out and he never had an opportunity to use it, and none of us here- will everVknow from all the testimony, from the actual testimony, on the stand.,.why he had the weapon with him fully loaded, because-Mr. Teale has never taken the stand in tfyis case and testified for you. These things are things bnly within his knowledge, ladies and gentlemen. If there is any fact in this case of any relevancy of any importance it is within the knowledge of a defendant, and..they chose not to take the stand and tell you about it, where incidentally they are under oath,and can be\ cioss-examined. You may draw an adverse inference from the fact that they do net take it. I think the inference is very clear, too, why they had this weapon here, and why he never — why it was fully loaded, Remember there was never an opportunity to use it. The weapon was purchased by Ruth Elizabeth Chapman. Now when he is apprehended and fleeing from the State he had it with him and it was fully loaded. Once again, I don't know where the original is here, and you know the only two that can tell us where that is.
“Now, you recall also that when Mr. Basham took him back in, was fingerprinting him, etc., he told him he was wanted in California and no one mentioned anything about Lodi, and he said that he would waive extradition, and he also did say he said, 'They will have a hard time proving I was there.’ And Teale himself did mention Lodi. Well, I don’t know what he meant by that statement. I certainly can draw my own conclusion, and you sure will draw yours as the triers of the facts and the judges of the facts, ladies and gentlemen, but once again Mr. Teale did not take the stand and testify under oath in this case, and Mr.'Teale has not desired to take the stand and explain what he meant by it. He didn’t have to, of course, but once again you can draw whatever inferences you may feel, and the law is clear that you may draw an adverse — where a defendant does not explain and he does not choose to take the stand and explain it to you you can draw an adverse inference.
“Photographs. You’ve seen them, ladies and gentlemen, but as you recall the doctor now is pointing, and this is the picture of the deceased, the back of his head, as to where he was shot in the back of the head, you recall the other one as to where he was shot in the side of the head, right here on the left in the general area of where the glasses would be, I think it’s a most reasonable inference, ladies and gentlemen. Now, once again we have had no testimony except what would seem clearly logical from the experts, the way the body was found, where he’d been shot, what he’d been shot with, and the position of the glasses in relation to the body at the death scene, we had no other testimony. Certainly none from the defendants in this case.
. “... Agent Gilmore has drawn and made some notations in reference to where that blood was located, blood found on these shoes. Now, all we know, ladies and gentlemen, as far as evidence in this case is concerned, is that these shoes belonged to Ruth Elizabeth Chapman and they were in her possession when she was apprehended in St. Joseph, Missouri, and why dó I say that’s all you know? That’s all you may take into consideration, ladies and gentlemen* beca,use we have no other testimony on this witness stand in relation to any of these articles of clothing that are actually admitted into evidence.
“You have two box lids, two of them, and you’ve heard the questions concerning them, they would indicate that they were sent to a Mrs. Howard Smith at 2206 Castle Avenue, St. Joseph, Missouri, and I believe it was on the 11th of October, says from Thomas Teale, 1105 Del Norte, Eureka, California, they both say essentially the same thing, 10-11, there’s no year, but I think we can surely infer it was in 1962, and apparently from Reno.
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, there’s been a lot of talk, suggestion, and whatever you want to call it, I’ll call it a smoke screen, in reference to these two lids that came off, and we’ll assume there was a box underneath them, I don’t think there’s any question about that. Where have you ever heard from that witness stand, ladies and gentlemen, what was ever in those boxes? Now, you’ve heard some self-serving declarations that are not admitted into evidence because they come through someone else who in some fashion gets testimony before you, but no cross-examination of the original party who is giving that kind of testimony, and you can’t consider it.
“Thank you, Your Honor. Counsel has interjected himself into this, and he’ll have every opportunity to make his own comments, and I’m sure he’ll most adequately express himself when the time comes. I’m telling you, ladies and gentlemen, that the only evidence that you have is that you have two box tops. Now,' he’s just suggested to. you, so I’ll answer this ahead of time, but the evidence is clear that Mr. Sperling packed these boxes, but you will recall Mr. Sperling was not at the original scene when they were taken. Maybe it isn’t unusual to infer there may have been clothes, but what I’m getting at is this is what clothing? You don’t even know there was clothing in them when they were shipped. It could have been other household articles. And even if we assume it was clothing, and that’s not unreasonable because basically these are the items we found and brought back with us to Lodi, we don’t know which clothing she shipped at this time. Couldn’t this be cleared up for us, though? It could be cleared up so easily. Ruth Elizabeth Chapman is sitting right over here, she is one of the defendants in this case and she is the one certainly if anyone, if anyone in this room, or in this state knows what was in those boxes she is the one, but once again she did not take the stand, raise her right hand, and tell you about that. She didn’t take the stand at all, ladies and gentlemen, she could have come up and told us exactly what articles were sent, so you may draw any inferences from that that you wish to, as long as they are reasonable.
“Now, anything that — is clearly, and I’m sure you know by now and I don’t have to repeat it too often, anything in this case that Mr. Teale could get up here now, he don’t have to get up here, but all of the things that have been said in this trial and all of the physical evidence and the testimony, he’s right here in Court and could he not get up and if there is anything to be said he has the opportunity to say it. Otherwise, you may draw the adverse inference from the fact that he doesn’t get up there and tell you about it, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is his defense. Mr. Fransen said in the beginning that what happened in this case is not as the prosecution described it. That the facts will show an entirely different version. Well, I haven’t heard any facts, ladies and gentlemen, that &uow an entirely different version.
“We went through a business with a — dress. We held it up, and then we pointed out the one that she’s wearing now, and frankly, ladies and gentlemen, the only one in the Court room that can tell you whether or not it is the same dress is Ruth Elizabeth Chapman, because you know from the evidence no one has ever had an opportunity to examine that dress to see whether it has been dry cleaned, whether or not it was purchased — when it was purchased or the labels on it or anything else. All that has been done in this thing is to wear a blue knit dress, ladies and gentlemen, which is similar to the' one that — she in fact apparently wore on that night.
“So, I suppose that just through the wearing of it, having it in Court, it is hoped that you will draw something from it, which I have heard no testimony on the stand, excépt that it looks like or is similar to it....
“But what she told that doctor is not evidence in this casé, and yet you know, that repeatedly and over and over and over again Mr. Johnson in every, way that he could, he Would get the story again before you. Now, why? You know why. He did it because he hopes that you wouldn’t forget it, although he could put it and make it evidence in this case, which it is not,.and if you put Ruth Elizabeth Chapman up on that stand to testify, so it is one way of doing, ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to be taken in by it, indirectly what you can’t do directly, because there.is no other way that he can get that thing before you without putting her up on that stand.
“But she gave a story on the night of the 17th and early hours of the 18th. She was in San Francisco. Now, why pick on that date so specifically if you are not — if not to bewaré of that date, that, you want to beware. Well, he says, ‘You have given two different stories. Do you have problems with blackouts or excessive drinking’, and she says ‘No.’ And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that anybody, and there is no evidence to the contrary in this case, if you don’t honestly remember what occurred and you know, you are in a situation where there is a fugitive warrant and you have just been arrested and you in all honesty don’t remember where you were, that is the first thing that you are going to say. You’re not going to sit up and trump up excuses and make out a story which you know to be a lie about specific dates and times. And, ladies and gentlemen, there is no legal evidence before you that it is anything to the contrary, because the only one now that can come up and tell you has not seen fit to do so.
“... Mr. Johnson would have you believe that everything she said was the truth. I think there are some instances that indicate already — I have- indicated some, the purpose of the guns, two different ideas there as to why they were purchased, but that is the. only legal purpose for that. So it’s not evidence, although Mr. Johnson again I say argued and referred to it as though it was. We have no evidence from the lips of Mrs. Chapman. Now, as Mr. Ferguson told you, it is their constitutional right, and I won’t go into that again, because I think he handled it very clearly as well as the others, but that is within her right to do as she sees fit. But, you can consider it for the purposes and under the circumstances that Mr. Ferguson indicated a number of times.
“Originally when Dr. Winkler examined her on the 31st, I believe it was, of October, 1962, she told him that she had forgotten after the first shot was fired, after the first shot was fired. Since that time what has happened? The amnesia, or disassociative state, or disasso-ciative reaction, which ever way you want to look at' it, psychiatrieally or otherwise, seems to have backed up from Dillard Road back up to the Spot Club, back up down Highway 99 south to just outside of Croce’s,, and by the time we get through cross-examining Dr. Sheuer-man it even backed in to Croce’s. A vague area. Very interesting. We could havé put it on, put the statement in. It’s evidence? It’s not. Again, the sanctity and worthiness of evidence would have to come from her lips, hers on the stand here. Why? Here again, because witnesses would be under oath again, and I repeat, and I repeat for emphasis, they would have to be under oath subject to cross-examination before your very eyes so that you could evaluate it. Oh yes. She said this and she said that. Who said it? Who said it? Ruth Elizabeth Chapman on the stand? No. Dr. Sheuerman said that she said it. Dr. Winkler said that she said. Mr. Johnson said that she said. Well, it’s an interesting thing that the only witnesses who weren’t here, or weren’t on the stand to be cross-examined, the only witnesses who are alive today to the perpetration of these offenses, are these two defendants. That’s all. They don’t have to take the stand. That’s been gone over many times, but you know it would be a fine thing, very' fine deed if persons who perpetrated offenses gave a story, put a story on by somebody else, have somebody else speak for you — wouldn’t it? It would be a very interesting thing. You would never have the benefit of evaluating their credibility. This is what
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
For four days in September 2013, traffic ground to a halt in Fort Lee, New Jersey. The cause was an unannounced realignment of 12 toll lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge, an entryway into Manhattan administered by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. For decades, three of those access lanes had been reserved during morning rush hour for commuters coming from the streets of Fort Lee. But on these four days-with predictable consequences-only a single lane was set aside. The public officials who ordered that change claimed they were reducing the number of dedicated lanes to conduct a traffic study. In fact, they did so for a political reason-to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to support the New Jersey Governor's reelection bid.
Exposure of their behavior led to the criminal convictions we review here. The Government charged the responsible officials under the federal statutes prohibiting wire fraud and fraud on a federally funded program or entity. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 666(a)(1)(A). Both those laws target fraudulent schemes for obtaining property. See § 1343 (barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"); § 666(a)(1)(A) (making it a crime to "obtain[ ] by fraud ... property"). The jury convicted the defendants, and the lower courts upheld the verdicts.
The question presented is whether the defendants committed property fraud. The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing-deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct. Under settled precedent, the officials could violate those laws only if an object of their dishonesty was to obtain the Port Authority's money or property. The Government contends it was, because the officials sought both to "commandeer" the Bridge's access lanes and to divert the wage labor of the Port Authority employees used in that effort. Tr. of Oral Arg. 58. We disagree. The realignment of the toll lanes was an exercise of regulatory power-something this Court has already held fails to meet the statutes' property requirement. And the employees' labor was just the incidental cost of that regulation, rather than itself an object of the officials' scheme. We therefore reverse the convictions.
I
The setting of this case is the George Washington Bridge. Running between Fort Lee and Manhattan, it is the busiest motor-vehicle bridge in the world. Twelve lanes with tollbooths feed onto the Bridge's upper level from the Fort Lee side. Decades ago, the then-Governor of New Jersey committed to a set allocation of those lanes for the morning commute. And (save for the four days soon described) his plan has lasted to this day. Under the arrangement, nine of the lanes carry traffic coming from nearby highways. The three remaining lanes, designated by a long line of traffic cones laid down each morning, serve only cars coming from Fort Lee.
The case's cast of characters are public officials who worked at or with the Port Authority and had political ties to New Jersey's then-Governor Chris Christie. The Port Authority is a bi-state agency that manages bridges, tunnels, airports, and other transportation facilities in New York and New Jersey. At the time relevant here, William Baroni was its Deputy Executive Director, an appointee of Governor Christie and the highest ranking New Jersey official in the agency. Together with the Executive Director (a New York appointee), he oversaw "all aspects of the Port Authority's business," including operation of the George Washington Bridge. App. 21 (indictment). David Wildstein (who became the Government's star witness) functioned as Baroni's chief of staff. And Bridget Anne Kelly was a Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Christie with special responsibility for managing his relations with local officials. She often worked hand-in-hand with Baroni and Wildstein to deploy the Port Authority's resources in ways that would encourage mayors and other local figures to support the Governor.
The fateful lane change arose out of one mayor's resistance to such blandishments. In 2013, Governor Christie was up for reelection, and he wanted to notch a large, bipartisan victory as he ramped up for a presidential campaign. On his behalf, Kelly avidly courted Democratic mayors for their endorsements-among them, Mark Sokolich of Fort Lee. As a result, that town received some valuable benefits from the Port Authority, including an expensive shuttle-bus service. But that summer, Mayor Sokolich informed Kelly's office that he would not back the Governor's campaign. A frustrated Kelly reached out to Wildstein for ideas on how to respond. He suggested that getting rid of the dedicated Fort Lee lanes on the Bridge's toll plaza would cause rush-hour traffic to back up onto local streets, leading to gridlock there. Kelly agreed to the idea in an admirably concise e-mail: "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." App. 917 (trial exhibit). In a later phone conversation, Kelly confirmed to Wildstein that she wanted to "creat[e] a traffic jam that would punish" Mayor Sokolich and "send him a message." Id. , at 254 (Wildstein testimony). And after Wildstein relayed those communications, Baroni gave the needed sign-off.
To complete the scheme, Wildstein then devised "a cover story"-that the lane change was part of a traffic study, intended to assess whether to retain the dedicated Fort Lee lanes in the future. Id., at 264. Wildstein, Baroni, and Kelly all agreed to use that "public policy" justification when speaking with the media, local officials, and the Port Authority's own employees. Id., at 265. And to give their story credibility, Wildstein in fact told the Port Authority's engineers to collect "some numbers on how[ ] far back the traffic was delayed." Id., at 305. That inquiry bore little resemblance to the Port Authority's usual traffic studies. According to one engineer's trial testimony, the Port Authority never closes lanes to study traffic patterns, because "computer-generated model[ing]" can itself predict the effect of such actions. Id. , at 484 (testimony of Umang Patel); see id., at 473-474 (similar testimony of Victor Chung). And the information that the Port Authority's engineers collected on this singular occasion was mostly "not useful" and "discarded." Id. , at 484-485 (Patel testimony). Nor did Wildstein or Baroni show any interest in the data. They never asked to review what the engineers had found; indeed, they learned of the results only weeks later, after a journalist filed a public-records request. So although the engineers spent valuable time assessing the lane change, their work was to no practical effect.
Baroni, Wildstein, and Kelly also agreed to incur another cost-for extra toll collectors-in pursuit of their object. Wildstein's initial thought was to eliminate all three dedicated lanes by not laying down any traffic cones, thus turning the whole toll plaza into a free-for-all. But the Port Authority's chief engineer told him that without the cones "there would be a substantial risk of sideswipe crashes" involving cars coming into the area from different directions. Id. , at 284 (Wildstein testimony). So Wildstein went back to Baroni and Kelly and got their approval to keep one lane reserved for Fort Lee traffic. That solution, though, raised another complication. Ordinarily, if a toll collector on a Fort Lee lane has to take a break, he closes his booth, and drivers use one of the other two lanes. Under the one-lane plan, of course, that would be impossible. So the Bridge manager told Wildstein that to make the scheme work, "an extra toll collector" would always have to be "on call" to relieve the regular collector when he went on break. Id., at 303. Once again, Wildstein took the news to Baroni and Kelly. Baroni thought it was "funny," remarking that "only at the Port Authority would [you] have to pay a toll collector to just sit there and wait." Ibid. Still, he and Kelly gave the okay.
The plan was now ready, and on September 9 it went into effect. Without advance notice and on the (traffic-heavy) first day of school, Port Authority employees placed traffic cones two lanes further to the right than usual, restricting cars from Fort Lee to a single lane. Almost immediately, the town's streets came to a standstill. According to the Fort Lee Chief of Police, the traffic rivaled that of 9/11, when the George Washington Bridge had shut down. School buses stood in place for hours. An ambulance struggled to reach the victim of a heart attack; police had trouble responding to a report of a missing child. Mayor Sokolich tried to reach Baroni, leaving a message that the call was about an "urgent matter of public safety." Id., at 323. Yet Baroni failed to return that call or any other: He had agreed with Wildstein and Kelly that they should all maintain "radio silence." Id., at 270. A text from the Mayor to Baroni about the locked-in school buses-also unanswered-went around the horn to Wildstein and Kelly. The last replied: "Is it wrong that I am smiling?" Id. , at 990 (Kelly text message). The three merrily kept the lane realignment in place for another three days. It ended only when the Port Authority's Executive Director found out what had happened and reversed what he called their "abusive decision." Id. , at 963 (e-mail of Patrick Foye).
The fallout from the scheme was swift and severe. Baroni, Kelly, and Wildstein all lost their jobs. More to the point here, they all ran afoul of federal prosecutors. Wildstein pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges and agreed to cooperate with the Government. Baroni and Kelly went to trial on charges of wire fraud, fraud on a federally funded program or entity (the Port Authority), and conspiracy to commit each of those crimes. The jury found both of them guilty on all counts. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting Baroni's and Kelly's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. See United States v. Baroni , 909 F.3d 550, 560-579 (2018). We granted certiorari. 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2777, 204 L.Ed.2d 1156 (2019).
II
The Government in this case needed to prove property fraud. The federal wire fraud statute makes it a crime to effect (with use of the wires) "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Construing that disjunctive language as a unitary whole, this Court has held that "the money-or-property requirement of the latter phrase" also limits the former. McNally v. United States , 483 U.S. 350, 358, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). The wire fraud statute thus prohibits only deceptive "schemes to deprive [the victim of] money or property." Id., at 356, 107 S.Ct. 2875. Similarly, the federal-program fraud statute bars "obtain[ing] by fraud" the "property" (including money) of a federally funded program or entity like the Port Authority. § 666(a)(1)(A). So under either provision, the Government had to show not only that Baroni and Kelly engaged in deception, but that an "object of the[ir] fraud [was] 'property.' " Cleveland v. United States , 531 U.S. 12, 26, 121 S.Ct. 365, 148 L.Ed.2d 221 (2000).
That requirement, this Court has made clear, prevents these statutes from criminalizing all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials. Some decades ago, courts of appeals often construed the federal fraud laws to "proscribe[ ] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government." McNally , 483 U.S. at 355, 107 S.Ct. 2875. This Court declined to go along. The fraud statutes, we held in McNally , were "limited in scope to the protection of property rights." Id., at 360, 107 S.Ct. 2875. They did not authorize federal prosecutors to "set[ ] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials." Ibid. Congress responded to that decision by enacting a law barring fraudulent schemes "to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"-regardless of whether the scheme sought to divest the victim of any property. § 1346. But the vagueness of that language led this Court to adopt "a limiting construction," confining the statute to schemes involving bribes or kickbacks. Skilling v. United States , 561 U.S. 358, 405, 410, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). We specifically rejected a proposal to construe the statute as encompassing "undisclosed self-dealing by a public official," even when he hid financial interests. Id., at 409, 130 S.Ct. 2896. The upshot is that federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify. Cf. N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:30-2 (West 2016) (prohibiting the unauthorized exercise of official functions).
Save for bribes or kickbacks (not at issue here), a state or local official's fraudulent schemes violate that law only when, again, they are "for obtaining money or property." 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ; see § 666(a)(1)(A) (similar).
The Government acknowledges this much, but thinks Baroni's and Kelly's convictions remain valid. According to the Government's theory of the case, Baroni and Kelly "used a lie about a fictional traffic study" to achieve their goal of reallocating the Bridge's toll lanes. Brief for United States 43. The Government accepts that the lie itself-i.e., that the lane change was part of a traffic study, rather than political payback-could not get the prosecution all the way home. See id., at 43-44. As the Government recognizes, the deceit must also have had the "object" of obtaining the Port Authority's money or property. Id., at 44. The scheme met that requirement, the Government argues, in two ways. First, the Government claims that Baroni and Kelly sought to "commandeer[ ]" part of the Bridge itself-to "take control" of its "physical lanes." Tr. of Oral Arg. 58-59. Second, the Government asserts that the two defendants aimed to deprive the Port Authority of the costs of compensating the traffic engineers and back-up toll collectors who performed work relating to the lane realignment. On either theory, the Government insists, Baroni's and Kelly's scheme targeted "a 'species of valuable right [or] interest' that constitutes 'property' under the fraud statutes." Brief for United States 22 (quoting Pasquantino v. United States , 544 U.S. 349, 356, 125 S.Ct. 1766, 161 L.Ed.2d 619 (2005) ).
We cannot agree. As we explain below, the Government could not have proved-on either of its theories, though for different reasons-that Baroni's and Kelly's scheme was "directed at the [Port Authority's] property." Brief for United States 44. Baroni and Kelly indeed "plotted to reduce [Fort Lee's] lanes." Id., at 34. But that realignment was a quintessential exercise of regulatory power. And this Court has already held that a scheme to alter such a regulatory choice is not one to appropriate the government's property. See Cleveland , 531 U.S. at 23, 121 S.Ct. 365. By contrast, a scheme to usurp a public employee's paid time is one to take the government's property. But Baroni's and Kelly's plan never had that as an object. The use of Port Authority employees was incidental to-the mere cost of implementing-the sought-after regulation of the Bridge's toll lanes.
Start with this Court's decision in Cleveland , which reversed another set of federal fraud convictions based on the distinction between property and regulatory power. The defendant there had engaged in a deceptive scheme to influence, to his own benefit, Louisiana's issuance of gaming licenses. The Government argued that his fraud aimed to deprive the State of property by altering its licensing decisions. This Court rejected the claim. The State's "intangible rights of allocation, exclusion, and control"-its prerogatives over who should get a benefit and who should not-do "not create a property interest." Ibid. Rather, the Court stated, those rights "amount to no more and no less than" the State's "sovereign power to regulate." Ibid. ; see id., at 20, 121 S.Ct. 365 ("[T]he State's core concern" in allocating gaming licenses "is regulatory "). Or said another way: The defendant's fraud "implicate[d] the Government's role as sovereign" wielding "traditional police powers"-not its role "as property holder." Id., at 23-24, 121 S.Ct. 365. And so his conduct, however deceitful, was not property fraud.
The same is true of the lane realignment. Through that action, Baroni and Kelly changed the traffic flow onto the George Washington Bridge's tollbooth plaza. Contrary to the Government's view, the two defendants did not "commandeer" the Bridge's access lanes (supposing that word bears its normal meaning). They (of course) did not walk away with the lanes; nor did they take the lanes from the Government by converting them to a non-public use. Rather, Baroni and Kelly regulated use of the lanes, as officials responsible for roadways so often do-allocating lanes as between different groups of drivers. To borrow Cleveland 's words, Baroni and Kelly exercised the regulatory rights of "allocation, exclusion, and control"-deciding that drivers from Fort Lee should get two fewer lanes while drivers from nearby highways should get two more. They did so, according to all the Government's evidence, for bad reasons; and they did so by resorting to lies. But still, what they did was alter a regulatory decision about the toll plaza's use-in effect, about which drivers had a "license" to use which lanes. And under Cleveland , that run-of-the-mine exercise of regulatory power cannot count as the taking of property.
A government's right to its employees' time and labor, by contrast, can undergird a property fraud prosecution. Suppose that a mayor uses deception to get "on-the-clock city workers" to renovate his daughter's new home. United States v. Pabey , 664 F.3d 1084, 1089 (CA7 2011). Or imagine that a city parks commissioner induces his employees into doing gardening work for political contributors. See United States v. Delano , 55 F.3d 720, 723 (CA2 1995). As both defendants agree, the cost of those employees' services would qualify as an economic loss to a city, sufficient to meet the federal fraud statutes' property requirement. See Brief for Respondent Baroni 27; Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. No less than if the official took cash out of the city's bank account would he have deprived the city of a "valuable entitlement." Pasquantino , 544 U.S. at 357, 125 S.Ct. 1766.
But that property must play more than some bit part in a scheme: It must be an "object of the fraud." Id. , at 355, 125 S.Ct. 1766 ; see Brief for United States 44; supra, at 1570-1572. Or put differently, a property fraud conviction cannot stand when the loss to the victim is only an incidental byproduct of the scheme. In the home-and-garden examples cited above, that constraint raised no problem: The entire point of the fraudsters' plans was to obtain the employees' services. But now consider the difficulty if the prosecution in Cleveland had raised a similar employee-labor argument. As the Government noted at oral argument here, the fraud on Louisiana's licensing system doubtless imposed costs calculable in employee time: If nothing else, some state worker had to process each of the fraudster's falsified applications. But still, the Government acknowledged, those costs were "[i]ncidental." Tr. of Oral Arg. 63. The object of the scheme was never to get the employees' labor: It was to get gaming licenses. So the labor costs could not sustain the conviction for property fraud. See id., at 62-63.
This case is no different. The time and labor of Port Authority employees were just the implementation costs of the defendants' scheme to reallocate the Bridge's access lanes. Or said another way, the labor costs were an incidental (even if foreseen) byproduct of Baroni's and Kelly's regulatory object. Neither defendant sought to obtain the services that the employees provided. The back-up toll collectors-whom Baroni joked would just "sit there and wait"-did nothing he or Kelly thought useful. App. 303; see supra, at ----. Indeed, those workers came onto the scene only because the Port Authority's chief engineer managed to restore one of Fort Lee's lanes to reduce the risk of traffic accidents. See supra, at 1570. In the defendants' original plan, which scrapped all reserved lanes, there was no reason for extra toll collectors. And similarly, Baroni and Kelly did not hope to obtain the data that the traffic engineers spent their time collecting. By the Government's own account, the traffic study the defendants used for a cover story was a "sham," and they never asked to see its results. Brief for United States 4, 32; see supra, at 1570. Maybe, as the Government contends, all of this work was "needed" to realize the final plan-"to accomplish what [Baroni and Kelly] were trying to do with the [B]ridge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 60. Even if so, it would make no difference. Every regulatory decision (think again of Cleveland , see supra, at 1573 - 1574) requires the use of some employee labor. But that does not mean every scheme to alter a regulation has that labor as its object. Baroni's and Kelly's plan aimed to impede access from Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge. The cost of the employee hours spent on implementing that plan was its incidental byproduct.
To rule otherwise would undercut this Court's oft-repeated instruction: Federal prosecutors may not use property fraud statutes to "set[ ] standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials." McNally , 483 U.S. at 360, 107 S.Ct. 2875 ; see supra, at 1571 - 1572. Much of governance involves (as it did here) regulatory choice. If U.S. Attorneys could prosecute as property fraud every lie a state or local official tells in making such a decision, the result would be-as Cleveland recognized-"a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction." 531 U.S. at 24, 121 S.Ct. 365. And if those prosecutors could end-run Cleveland just by pointing to the regulation's incidental costs, the same ballooning of federal power would follow. In effect, the Federal Government could use the criminal law to enforce (its view of) integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking. The property fraud statutes do not countenance that outcome. They do not "proscribe[ ] schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government." McNally , 483 U.S. at 355, 107 S.Ct. 2875 ; see supra, at 1571. They bar only schemes for obtaining property.
III
As Kelly's own lawyer acknowledged, this case involves an "abuse of power." Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. For no reason other than political payback, Baroni and Kelly used deception to reduce Fort Lee's access lanes to the George Washington Bridge-and thereby jeopardized the safety of the town's residents. But not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime. Because the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property, Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The conspiracy verdicts raise no separate issue. None of the parties doubts that those convictions stand or fall with the substantive offenses. If there was property fraud here, there was also conspiracy to commit it. But if not, not.
Without that rule, as Judge Easterbrook has elaborated, even a practical joke could be a federal felony. See United States v. Walters , 997 F.2d 1219, 1224 (CA7 1993). His example goes: "A [e-mails] B an invitation to a surprise party for their mutual friend C. B drives his car to the place named in the invitation," thus expending the cost of gasoline. Ibid. "But there is no party; the address is a vacant lot; B is the butt of a joke." Ibid. Wire fraud? No. And for the reason Judge Easterbrook gave: "[T]he victim's loss must be an objective of the [deceitful] scheme rather than a byproduct of it." Id., at 1226.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for 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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, American citizens, are taxicab drivers. They were arrested by the Sheriff of San Diego County, California, and charged with driving taxicabs in the unincorporated area of San Diego County without a permit from the Sheriff as required by § 9 of Ordinance 464, the pertinent provisions of which are set forth in the margin. The facts were stipulated without the taking of any evidence. From the stipulation we learn that appellants had picked up passengers across the line in Mexico and were transporting them across the unincorporated area of San Diego County to points not in the unincorporated area when they were arrested. They had made oral requests for permits from the Sheriff, rather than application in writing on the forms provided therefor, as required by § 9 of the ordinance. When these requests were denied, they continued to transport passengers, although upon advice of counsel they did not pick up or discharge any passengers in the unincorporated area. We take their action to mean that they claimed that because they were engaged in foreign commerce, they had either the right to a permit without complying with the other provisions of the ordinance or the right to operate without a permit. Appellants contend that the County had no right to burden that foreign commerce by regulation.
They were found guilty of violating § 9 of the ordinance by the Justice’s Court of National Township, San Diego County. The Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Diego, Appellate Department, affirmed the conviction and allowed an appeal to this Court. 101 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 912, 226 P. 2d 87. We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 gave broad power of regulation over motor vehicles to the Interstate Commerce Commission; but Congress partially excluded taxicabs from such regulation in the following words:
“Nothing in this part, except the provisions of section 204 relative to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation or standards of equipment shall be construed to include ... (2) taxicabs, or other motor vehicles performing a bona fide taxicab service, having a capacity of not more than six passengers and not operated on a regular route or between fixed termini . . . .” 49 Stat. 545, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (b).
The Interstate Commerce Commission, acting under authorization of Congress, has promulgated regulations establishing minimum qualifications for drivers of motor vehicles for carriers, including taxicabs, engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, 49 CFR § 192.2. This does not prevent the state or a subdivision thereof, in the exercise of its police power, from providing additional specifications as to qualifications, not inconsistent or in conflict with the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Especially is this true since the regulations of the Commission are only minimum.
As the ordinance is not in conflict with and may be construed consistently with the federal regulations and in keeping with the latter’s purpose, they may stand together. Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1, 10; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 419; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 539; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 148.
California has a legitimate interest in the kind and character of persons who engage in the taxicab business in the State. The authority to issue permits has been granted by the State to the Board of Supervisors of each county. In re Martinez, 22 Cal. 2d 259, 262, 138 P. 2d 10. Such delegation by the State to the county has been approved by this Court. Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163, 171, 172.
The operation of taxicabs is a local business. For that reason, Congress has left the field largely to the states. Operation of taxiqabs across state lines or international boundaries is so closely related to the local situation that the regulation of all taxicabs operating in the community only indirectly affects those in commerce, and so long as there is no attempt to discriminatorily regulate or directly burden or charge for the privilege of doing business in interstate or foreign commerce, the regulation is valid. The operation is “essentially local,” and in the absence of federal regulation, state regulation is required in the public interest. Panhandle Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 341 U. S. 329, 333. Even if appellants were engaged in foreign commerce at the time of their arrest and did not intend to engage in intrastate commerce, the permit was not required because they were engaged in foreign commerce. Under the permit they were free to engage in both intrastate and foreign commerce. The ordinance requires a written application for a permit, a small fee, and compliance with certain standards relating to the service and to the public safety. Our prior cases would not justify us in holding that the ordinance is an unreasonable burden on foreign commerce in its application to the stipulated facts here. Aero Transit Co. v. Georgia Comm’n, 295 U. S. 285; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U. S. 169; cf. Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, 111.
Thus far we have dealt only with § 9 of the ordinance, which exacts the $1 fee for a driver’s permit. That is all the court we are reviewing passed upon. That is all appellants were tried and convicted for. But it is suggested that the permit may have been denied them because they had violated § 4 of the ordinance by not getting a taxicab operator’s license and paying the $50 fee therefor. But appellants may also have been denied permits under § 9 for the reason that oral requests only were made and not written applications to the Sheriff, as required by the ordinance, or the Sheriff may have found them without knowledge as to the geography of the county and traffic regulations, or that they were persons of bad moral character or had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, all adequate state grounds. In that event, this Court would not take jurisdiction to pass upon the question. Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for the Court in Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52, 54-55, said:
“[I]f it does not appear upon which of two grounds the judgment was based, and the ground independent of a federal question is sufficient in itself to sustain it, this Court will not take jurisdiction.” (Citing numerous cases.)
This Court should not be reaching for constitutional questions to cast doubt upon state legislation not before the Court. The constitutional validity of the $50 requirement is not now before the Court and was not before the lower court.
The judgment of the Superior Court of California is
Affirmed.
“Applicants for such permits shall file applications therefor with the sheriff of the County of San Diego on a form furnished by the sheriff which, when completed, will contain full personal information concerning the applicant.
“Upon obtaining a permit as herein required the holder of such permit shall be entitled to an identification card of such design, and bearing such number as the sheriff may prescribe, upon payment of a fee of $1.00 annually, therefor, which shall be paid by the applicant to the tax collector and shall be due on the 1st day of June of each year. Such card shall be carried by the permittee during all business hours and shall not be transferable.
“Each applicant for a permit shall be examined by the sheriff as to his knowledge of the provisions of this ordinance, the Vehicle Code, traffic regulations and the geography of the county, and if the result of the examination is unsatisfactory he shall be refused a permit. The sheriff may deny the application or having issued the permit may revoke the same if the sheriff shall determine that the applicant or taxicab driver is of bad moral character or is guilty of violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance or of any lawful regulation promulgated pursuant thereto or has been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the question whether fees for services rendered by experts in civil rights litigation may be shifted to the losing party pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1988, which permits the award of “a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
I
Petitioner West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. (WVUH), operates a hospital in Morgantown, W. Va., near the Pennsylvania border. The hospital is often used by Medicaid recipients living in southwestern Pennsylvania. In January 1986, Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare notified WVUH of new Medicaid reimbursement schedules for services provided to Pennsylvania residents by the Mor-gantown hospital. In administrative proceedings, WVUH unsuccessfully objected to the new reimbursement rates on. both federal statutory and federal constitutional grounds. After exhausting administrative remedies, WVUH filed suit in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Named as defendants (respondents here) were Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey and various other Pennsylvania officials.
Counsel for WVUH employed Coopers & Lybrand, a national accounting firm, and three doctors specializing in hospital finance to assist in the preparation of the lawsuit and to testify at trial. WVUH prevailed at trial in May 1988. The District Court subsequently awarded fees pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1988, including over $100,000 in fees attributable to expert services. The District Court found these services to have been “essential” to presentation of the case — a finding not disputed by respondents.
Respondents appealed both the judgment on the merits and the fee award. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed as to the former, but reversed as to the expert fees, disallowing them except to the extent that they fell within the $30-per-day fees for witnesses prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 1821(b). 885 F. 2d 11 (1989). WVUH petitioned this Court for review of that disallowance; we granted certio-rari, 494 U. S. 1003 (1990).
II
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1920 provides:
“A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
“(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
“(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the ease;
“(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
“(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;
“(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
“(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.”
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1821(b) limits the witness fees authorized by § 1920(3) as follows: “A witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $30 per day for each day’s attendance. A witness shall also be paid the attendance fee for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the place of attendance....” In Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437 (1987), we held that these provisions define the full extent of a federal court’s power to shift litigation costs absent express statutory authority to go further. “[W]hen,” we said, “a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limits of § 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary.” Id., at 439. “We will not lightly infer that Congress has repealed §§ 1920 and 1821, either through [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(d) or any other provision not referring explicitly to witness fees.” Id., at 445.
As to the testimonial services of the hospital’s experts, therefore, Crawford Fitting plainly requires, as a prerequisite to reimbursement, the identification of “explicit statutory authority.” WVUH argues, however, that some of the expert fees it incurred in this case were unrelated to expert testimony, and that as to those fees the § 1821(b) limits, which apply only to witnesses in attendance at trial, are of no consequence. We agree with that, but there remains applicable the limitation of § 1920. Crawford Fitting said that we would not lightly find an implied repeal of § 1821 or of § 1920, which it held to be an express limitation upon the types of costs which, absent other authority, may be shifted by federal courts. 482 U. S., at 441. None of the categories of expenses listed in § 1920 can reasonably be read to include fees for services rendered by an expert employed by a party in a nontestimonial advisory capacity. The question before us, then, is — with regard to both testimonial and nontestimo-nial expert fees — whether the term “attorney’s fee” in § 1988 provides the “explicit statutory authority” required by Crawford Fitting.
HH HH HH
The record of statutory usage demonstrates convincingly that attorney’s fees and expert fees are regarded as separate elements of litigation cost. While some fee-shifting provisions, like §1988, refer only to “attorney’s fees,” see, e. g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(k), many others explicitly shift expert witness fees as well as attorney’s fees. In 1976, just over a week prior to the enactment of § 1988, Congress passed those provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 2618(d), 2619(c)(2), which provide that a prevailing party may recover “the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses.” (Emphasis added.) Also in 1976, Congress amended the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 2060(c), 2072(a), 2073, which as originally enacted in 1972 shifted to the losing party “cost[s] of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,” see 86 Stat. 1226. In the 1976 amendment, Congress altered the fee-shifting provisions to their present form by adding a phrase shifting expert witness fees in addition to attorney’s fees. See Pub. L. 94-284, § 10, 90 Stat. 506, 507. Two other significant Acts passed in 1976 contain similar phrasing: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 6972(e) (“costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)”), and the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act Amendments of 1976, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1686(e) (“costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable expert witnesses fees”).
Congress enacted similarly phrased fee-shifting provisions in numerous statutes both before 1976, see, e. g., Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U. S. C. § 1540(g)(4) (“costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)”), and afterwards, see, e. g., Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U. S. C. § 2632(a)(1) (“reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs incurred in preparation and advocacy of [the litigant’s] position”). These statutes encompass diverse categories of legislation, including tax, administrative procedure, environmental protection, consumer protection, admiralty and navigation, utilities regulation, and, significantly, civil rights: The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the counterpart to § 1988 for violation of federal rights by federal employees, states that “‘fees and other expenses’ [as shifted by § 2412(d)(1)(A)] includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses... and reasonable attorney fees.” 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). At least 34 statutes in 10 different titles of the United States Code explicitly shift attorney’s fees and expert witness fees.
The laws that refer to fees for nontestimonial expert services are less common, but they establish a similar usage both before and after 1976: Such fees are referred to in addition to attorney’s fees when a shift is intended. A provision of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. § 3006A(e), directs the court to reimburse appointed counsel for expert fees necessary to the defense of indigent criminal defendants — even though the immediately preceding provision, § 3006A(d), already directs that appointed defense counsel be paid a designated hourly rate plus “expenses reasonably incurred.” WVUH’s position must be that expert fees billed to a client through an attorney are “attorney’s fees” because they are to be treated as part of the expenses of the attorney; but if this were normal usage, they would have been reimbursable under the Criminal Justice Act as “expenses reasonably incurred” — and subsection 3006A(e) would add nothing to the recoverable amount. The very heading of that subsection, “Services other than counsel” (emphasis added), acknowledges a distinction between services provided by the attorney himself and those provided to the attorney (or the client) by a nonlegal expert.
To the same effect is the 1980 EAJA, which provides: “‘fees and other expenses’ [as shifted by §2412(d)(1)(A)] includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party’s case, and reasonable attorney fees.” 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added). If the reasonable cost of a “study” or “analysis” — which is but another way of describing nontestimonial expert services — is by common usage already included in the “attorney fees,” again a significant and highly detailed part of the statute becomes redundant. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 504(b)(1)(A) (added 1980), and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, 26 U. S. C. § 7430(c)(1), contain similar language. Also reflecting the same usage are two railroad regulation statutes, the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 45 U. S. C. §§ 726(f)(9) (“costs and expenses (including reasonable fees of accountants, experts, and attorneys) actually incurred”), and 741(i) (“costs and expenses (including fees of accountants, experts, and attorneys), actually and reasonably incurred”), and the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 45 U. S. C. § 854(g) (“costs and expenses (including fees of accountants, experts, and attorneys) actually and reasonably incurred”).
We think this statutory usage shows beyond question that attorney’s fees and expert fees are distinct items of expense. If, as WVUH argues, the one includes the other, dozens of statutes referring to the two separately become an inexplicable exercise in redundancy.
> I — I
WVUH argues that at least in pre-1976 judicial usage the phrase “attorney’s fees” included the fees of experts. To support this proposition, it relies upon two historical assertions: first, that pre-1976 courts, when exercising traditional equitable discretion in shifting attorney’s fees, taxed as an element of such fees the expenses related to expert services; and second, that pre-1976 courts shifting attorney’s fees pursuant to statutes identical in phrasing to § 1988 allowed the recovery of expert fees. We disagree with these assertions. The judicial background against which Congress enacted § 1988 mirrored the statutory background: Expert fees were regarded not as a subset of attorney’s fees, but as a distinct category of litigation expense.
Certainly it is true that prior to 1976 some federal courts shifted expert fees to losing parties pursuant to various equitable doctrines — sometimes in conjunction with attorney’s fees. But they did not shift them as an element of attorney’s fees. Typical of the courts’ mode of analysis (though not necessarily of their results) is Fey v. Walston & Co., 493 F. 2d 1036, 1065-1056 (CA7 1974), a case brought under the federal securities laws. Plaintiff won and was awarded various expenses: “Included in the... costs awarded by the [district] court were the sum of $1,700 for plaintiff’s expert witness, expenses of an accountant in the amount of $142, and of an illustrator-diagrammer for $50... and attorneys’ fees of $15,660.” The court treated these items separately: The services of the accountant and illustrator (who did not testify at trial) were “costs” which could be fully shifted in the discretion of the District Court; the expert witness fees also could be shifted, but only as limited by § 1821; the attorney’s fees were not costs and could not be shifted at all because the case did not fit any of the traditional equitable doctrines for awarding such fees. Id., at 1056. See also In re Electric Power & Light Corp., 210 F. 2d 585, 587, 591 (CA2 1954) (“[Appellant] applied for an allowance for counsel fees of $35,975 and expenses..., and also for a fee of $2,734.28 for an expert accountant”; court permitted part of the attorney’s fee but disallowed the expert witness fee), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. SEC v. Drexel & Co., 348 U. S. 341 (1955); Kiefel v. Las Vegas Hacienda, Inc., 404 F. 2d 1163, 1170-1171 (CA7 1968) (itemizing attorney’s fee and expert witness fee separately, allowing part of the former and all of the latter permitted by § 1821); Burgess v. Williamson, 506 F. 2d 870, 877-880 (CA5 1975) (applying Alabama law to shift attorney’s fee but not expert witness fee); Henning v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, 387 F. 2d 264, 267-268 (CA5 1968), on appeal after remand, 409 F. 2d 932, 937 (CA5 1969) (applying Louisiana law to shift expert fees but not attorney’s fee); Coughenour v. Campbell Barge Line, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 501, 506 (WD Pa. 1974) (“Plaintiffs’ claim for counsel fees is denied [because defendant acted in good faith and thus equitable shifting is unavailable]. Plaintiff’s claim for costs of medical expert witnesses is deemed proper insofar as they were necessary in establishing the claim...”) (citations omitted).
Even where the courts’ holdings treated attorney’s fees and expert fees the same (i. e., granted both or denied both), their analysis discussed them as separate categories of expense. See, e. g., Wolf v. Frank, 477 F. 2d 467, 480 (CA5 1973) (“The reimbursing of plaintiffs’ costs for attorney’s fees and expert witness fees is supported... by well established equitable principles”) (emphasis added); Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 441 F. 2d 631, 636-637 (CA5 1971) (“[Appellant] argues that the district court erred in awarding costs, including attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees to Humble”); Bebchick v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 216, 233, 318 F. 2d 187, 204 (1963) (“It is also our view that reasonable attorneys’ fees for appellants,... reasonable expert witness fees, and appropriate litigation expenses, should be paid by [appellee]”); Lipscomb v. Wise, 399 F. Supp. 782, 798-801 (ND Tex. 1975) (in separate analyses, finding both attorney’s fees and expert witness fees barred). We have found no support for the proposition that, at common law, courts shifted expert fees as an element of attorney’s fees.
Of arguably greater significance than the courts’ treatment of attorney’s fees versus expert fees at common law is their treatment of those expenses under statutes containing fee-shifting provisions similar to § 1988. WVUH contends that in some cases courts shifted expert fees as well as the statutorily authorized attorney’s fees — and thus must have thought that the latter included the former. We find, however, that the practice, at least in the overwhelming majority of cases, was otherwise.
Prior to 1976, the leading fee-shifting statute was the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15 (shifting “the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee”). As of 1976, four Circuits (six Circuits, if one includes summary affirmances of district court judgments) had held that this provision did not permit a shift of expert witness fees. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Nisley, 300 F. 2d 561, 586-587 (CA10 1961) (accountant’s fees); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Goldwyn, 328 F. 2d 190, 223-224 (CA9 1964) (accounting fees); Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM Corp., 287 F. Supp. 143, 164 (Md. 1968) (accountant’s fees), aff’d, 415 F. 2d 55 (CA4 1969); Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., 297 F. Supp. 924, 930 (Me.) (expert witness fees), aff’d, 421 F. 2d 61 (CA1 1969); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F. 2d 51, 81 (CA2 1971) (expert fees), rev’d on other grounds, 409 U. S. 363 (1973); Ott v. Speedwriting Publishing Co., 518 F. 2d 1143, 1149 (CA6 1975) (expert witness fees); see also Brookside Theater Corp. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 11 F. R. D. 259, 267 (WD Mo. 1951) (expert witness fees). No court had held otherwise. Also instructive is pre-1976 practice under the federal patent laws, which provided, 35 U. S. C. §285, that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Again, every court to consider the matter as of 1976 thought that this provision conveyed no authority to shift expert fees. Specialty Equipment & Machinery Corp. v. Zell Motor Car Co., 193 F. 2d 515, 521 (CA4 1952) (“Congress having dealt with the subject of costs in patent cases and having authorized the taxation of reasonable attorneys fees without making any provision with respect to... fees of expert witnesses must presumably have intended that they be not taxed”); accord, Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., 353 F. Supp. 429, 431, n. 1, 433 (Del. 1973); ESCO Corp. v. Tru-Rol Co., 178 USPQ 332, 333 (Md. 1973); Scaramucci v. Universal Mfg. Co., 234 F. Supp. 290, 291-292 (WD La. 1964); Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 24 F. R. D. 305, 313 (Del. 1959).
WVUH contends that its position is supported by Tasby v. Estes, 416 F. Supp. 644, 648 (ND Tex. 1976), and Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 FEP Cases 244, 246 (CD Cal. 1974). Even if these cases constituted solid support for the proposition advanced by the hospital, they would hardly be sufficient to overcome the weight of authority cited above. But, in any case, we find neither opinion to be a clear example of contrary usage. Without entering into a detailed discussion, it suffices to say, as to Davis (where the expert fee award was in any event uncontested), that the opinion does not cite the statute, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5, as the basis for its belief that the expert fee could be shifted, and considers expert fees in a section separate from that dealing with attorney’s fees. Given what was then the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit, and the District Court’s citation, 8 FEP Cases, at 246, of at least one case that is avowedly an equitable discretion case, see NAACP v. Allen, 340 F. Supp. 703 (MD Ala. 1972), it is likely that the District Court thought the shifting of the fee was authorized under its general equitable powers, or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). As for Tasby, that case unquestionably authorized a shift of expert witness fees pursuant to an attorney’s-fee-shifting statute, 20 U. S. C. § 1617 (1976 ed.). The basis of that decision, however, was not the court’s own understanding of the statutory term “attorney’s fees,” but rather its belief (quite erroneous) that our earlier opinion in Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U. S. 696 (1974), had adopted that interpretation. Thus, WVUH has cited not a single case, and we have found none, in which it is clear (or in our view even likely) that a court understood the statutory term “attorney’s fees” to include expert fees.
In sum, we conclude that at the time this provision was enacted neither statutory nor judicial usage regarded the phrase “attorney’s fees” as embracing fees for experts’ services.
V
WVUH suggests that a distinctive meaning of “attorney’s fees” should be adopted with respect to § 1988 because this statute was meant to overrule our decision in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240 (1975). As mentioned above, prior to 1975 many courts awarded expert fees and attorney’s fees in certain circumstances pursuant to their equitable discretion. In Alyeska, we held that this discretion did not extend beyond a few exceptional circumstances long recognized by common law. Specifically, we rejected the so-called “private attorney general” doctrine recently created by some lower federal courts, see, e. g., La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F. R. D. 94, 98-102 (ND Cal. 1972), which allowed equitable fee shifting to plaintiffs in certain types of civil rights litigation. 421 U. S., at 269. WVUH argues that § 1988 was intended to restore the prq-Alyeska regime — and that, since expert fees were shifted then, they should be shifted now.
Both chronology and the remarks of sponsors of the bill that became § 1988 suggest that at least some members of Congress viewed it as a response to Alyeska. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 94-1011, pp. 4, 6 (1976). It is a considerable step, however, from this proposition to the conclusion the hospital would have us draw, namely, that § 1988 should be read as a reversal of Alyeska in all respects.
By its plain language and as unanimously construed in the courts, § 1988 is both broader and narrower than the pre-Alyeska regime. Before Alyeska, civil rights plaintiffs could recover fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine only if private enforcement was necessary to defend important rights benefiting large numbers of people, and cost barriers might otherwise preclude private suits. La Raza Unida, supra, at 98-101. Section 1988 contains no similar limitation — so that in the present suit there is no question as to the propriety of shifting WVUH’s attorney’s fees, even though it is highly doubtful they could have been awarded under pr e-Alyeska equitable theories. In other respects, however, § 1988 is not as broad as the former regime. It is limited, for example, to violations of specified civil rights statutes — which means that it would not have reversed the outcome of Alyeska itself, which involved not a civil rights statute but the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U. S. C. § 4821 et seq. Since it is clear that, in many respects, § 1988 was not meant to return us precisely to the pre-Alyeska regime, the objective of achieving such a return is no reason to depart from the normal import of the text.
WVUH further argues that the congressional purpose in enacting § 1988 must prevail over the ordinary meaning of the statutory terms. It quotes, for example, the House Committee Report to the effect that “the judicial remedy [must be] full and complete,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 (1976), and the Senate Committee Report to the effect that “[c]itizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate [civil] rights in court,” S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 2. As we have observed before, however, the purpose of a statute includes not only what it sets out to change, but also what it resolves to leave alone. See Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 525-526 (1987). The best evidence of that purpose is the statutory text adopted by both Houses of Congress and submitted to the President. Where that contains a phrase that is unambiguous — that has a clearly accepted meaning in both legislative and judicial practice — we do not permit it to be expanded or contracted by the statements of individual legislators or committees during the course of the enactment process. See United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989) (“[W]here, as here, the statute’s language is plain, ‘the sole function of the court is to enforce it according to its terms’”), quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917). Congress could easily have shifted “attorney’s fees and expert witness fees,” or “reasonable litigation expenses,” as it did in contemporaneous statutes; it chose instead to enact more restrictive language, and we áre bound by that restriction.
WVUH asserts that we have previously been guided by the “broad remedial purposes” of § 1988, rather than its text, in a context resolving an “analogous issue”: In Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U. S. 274, 285 (1989), we concluded that § 1988 permitted separately billed paralegal and law clerk time to be charged to the losing party. The trouble with this argument is that Jenkins did not involve an “analogous issue,” insofar as the relevant considerations are concerned. The issue there was not, as WVUH contends, whether we would permit our perception of the “policy” of the statute to overcome its “plain language.” It was not remotely plain in Jenkins that the phrase “attorney’s fee” did not include charges for law clerk and paralegal services. Such services, like the services of “secretaries, messengers, librarians, janitors, and others whose labor contributes to the work product,” id., at 285, had traditionally been included in calculation of the lawyers’ hourly rates. Only recently had there arisen “the ‘increasingly widespread custom of separately billing for [such] services,”’ id., at 286 (quoting from Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F. 2d 546, 558 (CA10 1983)). By contrast, there has never been, to our knowledge, a practice of including the cost of expert services within attorneys’ hourly rates. There was also no record in Jenkins — as there is a lengthy record here — of statutory usage that recognizes a distinction between the charges at issue and attorney’s fees. We do not know of a single statute that shifts clerk or paralegal fees separately; and even those, such as the EAJA, which comprehensively define the assessable “litigation costs” make no separate mention of clerks or paralegals. In other words, Jenkins involved a respect in which the term “attorney’s fees” (giving the losing argument the benefit of the doubt) was genuinely ambiguous; and we resolved that ambiguity not by invoking some policy that supersedes the text of the statute, but by concluding that charges of this sort had traditionally been included in attorney’s fees and that separate billing should make no difference. The term’s application to expert fees is not ambiguous; and if it were the means of analysis employed in Jenkins would lead to the conclusion that since such fees have not traditionally been included within the attorney’s hourly rate they are not attorney’s fees.
WVUH’s last contention is that, even if Congress plainly did not include expert fees in the fee-shifting provisions of § 1988, it would have done so had it thought about it. Most of the pre-§ 1988 statutes that explicitly shifted expert fees dealt with environmental litigation, where the necessity of expert advice was readily apparent; and when Congress later enacted the EAJA, the federal counterpart of § 1988, it explicitly included expert fees. Thus, the argument runs, the 94th Congress simply forgot; it is our duty to ask how they would have decided had they actually considered the question. See Friedrich v. Chicago, 888 F. 2d 511, 514 (CA7 1989) (awarding expert fees under §1988 because a court should “complete... the statute by reading it to bring about the end that the legislators would have specified had they thought about it more clearly”).
This argument profoundly mistakes our role. Where a statutory term presented to us for the first time is ambiguous, we construe it to contain that permissible meaning which fits most logically and comfortably into the body of both previously and subsequently enacted law. See 2 J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 5201 (3d F. Horack ed. 1943). We do so not because that precise accommodative meaning is what the lawmakers must have had in mind (how could an earlier Congress know what a later Congress would enact?), but because it is our role to make sense rather than nonsense out of the corpus juris. But where, as here, the meaning of the term prevents such accommodation, it is not our function to eliminate clearly expressed inconsistency of policy and to treat alike subjects that different Congresses have chosen to treat differently. The facile attribution of congressional “forgetfulness” cannot justify such a usurpation. Where what is at issue is not a contradictory disposition within the same enactment, but merely a difference between the more parsimonious policy of an earlier enactment and the more generous policy of a later one, there is no more basis for saying that the earlier Congress forgot than for saying that the earlier Congress felt differently. In such circumstances, the attribution of forgetfulness rests in reality upon the judge’s assessment that the later statute contains the better disposition. But that is not for judges to prescribe. We thus reject this last argument for the same reason that Justice Bran-déis, writing for the Court, once rejected a similar (though less explicit) argument by the United States:
“[The statute’s] language is plain and unambiguous. What the Government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function.” Iselin v. United States, 270 U. S. 245, 250-251 (1926).
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that § 1988 conveys no authority to shift expert fees. When experts appear at trial, they are of course eligible for the fee provided by § 1920 and §1821 — which was allowed in the present case by the Court of Appeals.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 provides in relevant part: “In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318..., or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..., the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
Section 1821(b) has since been amended to increase the allowable per diem from $30 to $40. See Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-650, § 314.
Justice Stevens suggests that the expert fees requested here might be part of the “costs” allowed by § 1988 even if they are not part of the “attorney’s fee.” We are aware of no authority to support the counter-intuitive assertion that “[t]he term ‘costs’ has a different and broader meaning in fee-shifting statutes than it has in the cost statutes that apply to ordinary litigation,” post, at 104. In Crmvford Fitting we held that the word “costs” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) is to be read in harmony with the word “costs” in 28 U. S. C. § 1920, see 482 U. S., at 441, 445, and we think the same is true of the word “costs” in § 1988. We likewise see nothing to support Justice Stevens’ speculation that the court below or the parties viewed certain disbursements by the hospital’s attorneys as “costs” within the meaning of the statute. Rather, it is likely that these disbursements (billed directly to the client) were thought subsumed within the phrase “attorney's fee.” See, e. g., Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis Schools, 611 F. 2d 624, 639 (CA6 1979) (“reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incui-red by the attorney” included in § 1988 “attorney’s fee” award).
In addition to the provisions discussed in the text, see Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 504(b)(1)(A) (added 1980) (“reasonable expenses of expert witnesses... and reasonable attorney or agent fees”); Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 57a(h)(l) (added 1975) (“reasonable attorneys’
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
School principals in the public school system of the city of Providence, Rhode Island, are permitted to invite members of the clergy to offer invocation and benediction prayers as part of the formal graduation ceremonies for middle schools and for high schools. The question before us is whether including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, provisions the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable with full force to the States and their school districts.
I
A
Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School, a public school in Providence, at a formal ceremony-in June 1989. She was about 14 years old. For many years it has been the policy of the Providence School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools to permit principals to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at middle school and high school graduations. Many, but not all, of the principals elected to include prayers as part of the graduation ceremonies. Acting for himself and his daughter, Deborah’s father, Daniel Weisman, objected to any prayers at Deborah’s middle school graduation, but to no avail. The school principal, petitioner Robert E. Lee, invited a rabbi to deliver prayers at the graduation exercises for Deborah’s class. Rabbi Leslie Gutterman, of the Temple Beth El in Providence, accepted.
It has been the custom of Providence school officials to provide invited clergy with a pamphlet entitled “Guidelines for Civic Occasions,” prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. The Guidelines recommend that public prayers at nonsectarian civic ceremonies be composed with “inclusiveness and sensitivity,” though they acknowledge that “[pjrayer of any kind may be inappropriate on some civic occasions.” App. 20-21., The principal gave Rabbi Gutterman the pamphlet before the graduation and advised him the invocation and benediction should be nonsee-tarian. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶ 17, id., at 13.
Rabbi Gutterman’s prayers were as follows:
“INVOCATION
“God of the Free, Hope of the Brave:
“For the legacy of America where diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities are protected, we thank You. May these young men and women grow up to enrich it.
"Por the liberty of America, we thank You. May these new graduates grow up to guard it.
"For the political process of America in which all its citizens may participate, for its court system where all may seek justice we thank You. May those we honor this morning always turn to it in trust.
“For the destiny of America we thank You. May the graduates of Nathan Bishop. Middle School so live that they might help to share it.
“May our aspirations for our country and for these young people, who are our hope for the future, be richly fulfilled.
AMEN”
“BENEDICTION
“0 God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity for learning which we have celebrated on this joyous commencement.
“Happy families give thanks for seeing their children achieve an important milestone. Send Your blessings upon the teachers and administrators who helped prepare them.
“The graduates now need strength and guidance for the future, help them to understand that we are not complete with academic knowledge alone. We must each strive to fulfill what You require of us all: To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly.
“We give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion.
AMEN”
Id., at 22-23.
The record in this case is sparse in many respects, and we are unfamiliar with any fixed custom or practice at middle school graduations, referred to by the school district as “promotional exercises.” We are not so constrained with reference to high schools, however. High school graduations are such an integral part of American cultural life that we can with confidence describe their customary features, confirmed by aspects of the record and by the parties’ representations at oral argument. In the Providence school system, most high school graduation ceremonies are conducted away from the school, while most middle school ceremonies are held on school premises. Classical High School, which Deborah now attends, has conducted its graduation ceremonies on school premises. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶ 37, id., at 17. The parties stipulate that attendance at graduation ceremonies is voluntary. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶ 41, id., at 18. The graduating students enter as a group in a processional, subject to the direction of teachers and school officials, and sit together, apart from their families. We assume the clergy’s participation in any high school graduation exercise would be about what it was at Deborah’s middle school ceremony. There the students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance and remained standing during the rabbi’s prayers. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. Even on the assumption that there was a respectful moment of silence both before and after the prayers, the rabbi’s two presentations must not have extended much beyond a minute each, if that. We do not know whether he remained on stage during the whole ceremony, or whether the students received individual diplomas on stage, or if he helped to congratulate them.
The school board (and the United States, which supports it as amicus curiae) argued that these short prayers and others like them at graduation exercises are of profound meaning to many students and parents throughout this country who consider that due respect and acknowledgment for divine guidance and for the deepest spiritual aspirations of our people ought to be expressed at an event as important in life as a graduation. We assume this to be so in addressing the difficult case now before us, for the significance of the prayers lies also at the heart of Daniel and Deborah Weisman’s case.
B
Deborah’s graduation was held on the premises of Nathan Bishop Middle School on June 29, 1989. Four days before the ceremony, Daniel Weisman, in his individual capacity as a Providence taxpayer and as next friend of Deborah, sought a temporary restraining order in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island to prohibit school officials from including an invocation or benediction in the graduation ceremony. The court denied the motion for lack of adequate time to consider it. Deborah and her family attended the graduation, where the prayers were recited. In July 1989, Daniel Weisman filed an amended complaint seeking a permanent injunction barring petitioners, various officials of the Providence public schools, from inviting the clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at future graduations. We find it unnecessary to address Daniel Weisman’s taxpayer standing, for a live and justiciable controversy is before us. Deborah Weisman is enrolled as a student at Classical High School in Providence and from the record it appears likely, if not certain, that an invocation and benediction will be conducted at her high school graduation. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶ 38, App. 17.
The case was submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court held that petitioners' practice of including invocations and benedictions in public school graduations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and it enjoined petitioners from continuing the practice. 728 F. Supp. 68 (1990). The court applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Under that test as described in our past cases, to satisfy the Establishment Clause a governmental practice must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 773 (1973). The District Court held that petitioners' actions violated the second part of the test, and so did not address either the first or the third. The court decided, based on its reading of our precedents, that the effects test of Lemon is violated whenever government action “creates an identification of the state with a religion, or with religion in general,” 728 F. Supp., at 71, or when “the effect of the governmental action is to endorse one religion over another, or to endorse religion in general.” Id., at 72. The court determined that the practice of including invocations and benedictions, even so-called nonsectarian ones, in public school graduations creates an identification of governmental power with religious practice, endorses religion, and violates the Establishment Clause. In so holding the court expressed the determination not to follow Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F. 2d 1406 (1987), in which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, relying on our decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983), held that benedictions and invocations at public school graduations are not always unconstitutional. In Marsh we upheld the constitutionality of the Nebraska State Legislature's practice of opening each of its sessions with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid out of public funds. The District Court in this case disagreed with the Sixth Circuit's reasoning because it believed that Marsh was a narrow decision, “limited to the unique situation of legislative prayer,” and did not have any relevance to school prayer cases. 728 F. Supp., at 74.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The majority opinion by Judge Tor-ruella adopted the opinion of the District Court. 908 F. 2d 1090 (1990). Judge Bownes joined the majority, but wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he decided that the practices challenged here violated all three parts of the Lemon test. Judge Bownes went on to agree with the District Court that Marsh had no application to school prayer cases and that the Stein decision was flawed. He concluded by suggesting that under Establishment Clause rules no prayer, even one excluding any mention of the Deity, could be offered at a public school graduation ceremony. 908 F. 2d, at 1090-1097. Judge Campbell dissented, on the basis of Marsh and Stein. He reasoned that if the prayers delivered were nonsectarian, and if school officials ensured that persons representing a variety of beliefs and ethical systems were invited to present invocations and benedictions, there was no violation of the Establishment Clause. 908 F. 2d, at 1099. We granted certiorari, 499 U. S. 918 (1991), and now affirm.
II
These dominant facts mark and control the confines of our decision: State officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at promotional and graduation ceremonies for secondary schools. Even for those students who object to the religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are in a fair and real sense obligatory, though the school district does not require attendance as a condition for receipt of the diploma.
This case does not require us to revisit the difficult questions dividing us in recent cases, questions of the definition and full scope of the principles governing the extent of permitted accommodation by the State for the religious beliefs and practices of many of its citizens. See County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573 (1989); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38 (1985); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668 (1984). For without reference to those principles in other contexts, the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary public schools compel the holding here that the policy of the city of Providence is an unconstitutional one. We can decide the case without reconsidering the general constitutional framework by which public schools’ efforts to accommodate religion are measured. Thus we do not accept the invitation of petitioners and ami-cus the United States to reconsider our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. The government involvement with religious activity in this case is pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school. Conducting this formal religious observance conflicts with settled rules pertaining to prayer exercises for students, and that suffices to determine the question before us.
The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which “establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” Lynch, supra, at 678; see also County of Allegheny, supra, at 591, quoting Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947). The State’s involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.
That involvement is as troubling as it is undenied. A school official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given; this is a choice attributable to the State, and from a constitutional perspective it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur. The principal chose the religious participant, here a rabbi, and that choice is also attributable to the State. The reason for the choice of a rabbi is not disclosed by the record, but the potential for divisiveness over the choice of a particular member of the clergy to conduct the ceremony is apparent.
Divisiveness, of course, can attend any state decision respecting religions, and neither its existence nor its potential necessarily invalidates the State’s attempts to accommodate religion in all cases. The potential for divisiveness is of particular relevance here though, because it centers around an overt religious exercise in a secondary school environment where, as we discuss below, see infra, at 593-594, subtle coercive pressures exist and where the student had no real alternative which would have allowed her to avoid the fact or appearance of participation.
The State’s role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of a clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the “Guidelines for Civic Occasions,” and advised him that his prayers should be nonseetarian. Through these means the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State’s displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American, people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government,” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421, 425 (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to do.
Petitioners argue, and we find nothing in the case to refute it, that the directions for the content of the prayers were a good-faith attempt by the school to ensure that the sectarianism which is so often the flashpoint for religious animosity be removed from the graduation ceremony. The concern is understandable, as a prayer which uses ideas or images identified with a particular religion may foster a different sort of sectarian rivalry than an invocation or benediction in terms more neutral. The school’s explanation, however, does not resolve the dilemma caused by its participation. The question is not the good faith of the school in attempting to make the prayer acceptable to most persons, but the legitimacy of its undertaking that enterprise at all when the object is to produce a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise which students, for all practical purposes, are obliged to attend.
We are asked to recognize the existence of a practice of nonseetarian prayer, prayer within the embrace of what is known as the Judeo-Christian tradition, prayer which is more acceptable than one which, for example, makes explicit references to the God of Israel, or to Jesus Christ, or to a patron saint. There may be some support, as an empirical observation, to the statement of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, picked up by Judge Campbell’s dissent in the Court of Appeals in this case, that there has emerged in this country a civic religion, one which is tolerated when sectarian exercises are not. Stein, 822 F. 2d, at 1409; 908 F. 2d 1090, 1098-1099 (CA1 1990) (Campbell, J., dissenting) (case below); see also Note, Civil Religion and the Establishment Clause, 95 Yale L. J. 1237 (1986). If common ground can be defined which permits once conflicting faiths to express the shared conviction that there is an ethic and a morality which transcend human invention, the sense of community and purpose sought by all decent societies might be advanced. But though the First Amendment does not allow the government to stifle prayers which aspire to these ends, neither does it permit the government to undertake that task for itself.
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten then, that while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: “[Ejxperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.” Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), in 8 Papers of James Madison 301 (W. Rachal, R. Rutland, B. Ripel, & F. Teute eds. 1973).
These concerns have particular application in the case of school officials, whose effort to monitor prayer will be perceived by the students as inducing a participation they might otherwise reject. Though the efforts of the school officials in this case to find common ground appear to have been a good-faith attempt to recognize the common aspects of religions and not the divisive ones, our precedents do not permit school officials to assist in composing prayers as an incident to a formal exercise for their students. Engel v. Vitale, supra, at 425. And these same precedents caution us to measure the idea of a civic religion against the central meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which is that all creeds must be tolerated and none favored. The suggestion that government may establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds strikes us as a contradiction that cannot be accepted.
The degree of school involvement here made it clear that the graduation prayers bore the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position. We turn our attention now to consider the position of the students, both those who desired the prayer and she who did not.
To endure the speech of false ideas or offensive content and then to counter it is part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society, a society which insists upon open discourse towards the end of a tolerant citizenry. And toler-anee presupposes some mutuality of obligation. It is argued that our constitutional vision of a free society requires confidence in our own ability to accept or reject ideas of which we do not approve, and that prayer at a high school graduation does nothing more than offer a choice. By the time they are seniors, high school students no doubt have been required to attend classes and assemblies and to complete assignments exposing them to ideas they find distasteful or immoral or absurd or all of these. Against this background, students may consider it an odd measure of justice to be subjected during the course of their educations to ideas deemed offensive and irreligious, but to be denied a brief,, formal prayer ceremony that the school offers in return. This argument cannot prevail, however. It overlooks a fundamental dynamic of the Constitution.
The First Amendment protects speech and religion by quite different mechanisms. Speech is protected by ensuring its full expression even when the government participates, for the very object of some of our most important speech is to persuade the government to adopt an idea as its own. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 480-481 (1987); see also Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U. S. 1, 10-11 (1990); Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977). The method for protecting freedom of worship and freedom of conscience in religious matters is quite the reverse. In religious debate or expression the government is not a prime participant, for the Framers deemed religious establishment antithetical to the freedom of all. The Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels in the speech provisions of the First Amendment, but the Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 92-93, and n. 127 (1976) (per curiam). The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed.
The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as in the 18th century when it was written. One timeless lesson is that if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people. To compromise that principle today would be to deny our own tradition and forfeit our standing to urge others to secure the protections of that tradition for themselves.
As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. See, e. g., School Dist of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 307 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987); Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 261-262 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Our decisions in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962), and School Dist. of Abington, supra, recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. See County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S., at 661 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.
We need not look beyond the circumstances of this case to see the phenomenon at work. The undeniable fact is that the school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. This pressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion. Of course, in our culture standing or remaining silent can signify adherence to a view or simple respect for the views of others. And no doubt some persons who have no desire to join a prayer have little objection to standing as a sign of respect for those who do. But for the dissenter of high school age, who has a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow, the injury is no less real. There can be no doubt that for many, if not most, of the students at the graduation, the act of standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation in the rabbi’s prayer. That was the very point of the religious exercise. It is of little comfort to a dissenter, then, to be told that for her the act of standing or remaining in silence signifies mere respect, rather than participation. What matters is that, given our social conventions, a reasonable dissenter in this milieu could believe that the group exercise signified her own participation or approval of it.
Finding no violation under these circumstances would place objectors in the dilemma of participating, with all that implies, or protesting. We do not address whether that choice is acceptable if the affected citizens are mature adults, but we think the State may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, place primary and secondary school children in this position. Research in psychology supports the common assumption that adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity, and that the influence is strongest in matters of social convention. Brit-tain, Adolescent Choices and Parent-Peer Cross-Pressures, 28 Am. Sociological Rev. 385 (June 1963); Ciasen & Brown, The Multidimensionality of Peer Pressure in Adolescence, 14 J. of Youth and Adolescence 451 (Dec. 1985); Brown, Ciasen, & Eicher, Perceptions of Peer Pressure, Peer Conformity Dispositions, and Self-Reported Behavior Among Adolescents, 22 Developmental Psychology 521 (July 1986). To recognize that the choice imposed by the State constitutes an unacceptable constraint only acknowledges that the government may no more use soeial pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.
The injury caused by the government’s action, and the reason why Daniel and Deborah Weisman object to it, is that the State, in a school setting, in effect required participation in a religious exercise. It is, we concede, a brief exercise during which the individual can concentrate on joining its message, meditate on her own religion, or let her mind wander. But the embarrassment and the intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that these prayers, and similar ones to be said in the future, are of a de minimis character. To do so would be an affront to the rabbi who offered them and to all those for whom the prayers were an essential and profound recognition of divine authority. And for the same reason, we think that the intrusion is greater than the two minutes or so of time consumed for prayers like these. Assuming, as we must, that the prayers were offensive to the student and the parent who now object, the intrusion was both real and, in the context of a secondary school, a violation of the objectors’ rights. That the intrusion was in the course of promulgating religion that sought to be civic or nonsectarian rather than pertaining to one sect does not lessen the offense or isolation to the objectors. At best it narrows their number, at worst increases their sense of isolation and affront. See supra, at 593.
There was a stipulation in the District Court that attendance at graduation and promotional ceremonies is voluntary. Agreed Statement of Facts ¶ 41, App. 18. Petitioners and the United States, as amicus, made this a center point of the case, arguing that the option of not attending the graduation excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself. The argument lacks all persuasion. Law reaches past formalism. And to say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that in our society and in our culture high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary,” for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years. Graduation is a time for family and those closest to the student to celebrate success and express mutual wishes of gratitude and respect, all to the end of impressing upon the young person the role that it is his or her right and duty to assume in the community and all of its diverse parts.
The importance of the event is the point the school district and the United States rely upon to argue that a formal prayer ought to be permitted, but it becomes one of the principal reasons why their argument must fail. Their contention, one of considerable force were it not for the constitutional constraints applied to state action, is that the prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because for many persons an occasion of this significance lacks meaning if there is no recognition, however brief, that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. We think the Government’s position that this interest suffices to force students to choose between compliance or forfeiture demonstrates fundamental inconsistency in its argumentation. It fails to acknowledge that what for many of Deborah’s classmates and their parents was a spiritual imperative was for Daniel and Deborah Weisman religious conformance compelled by the State. While in some societies the wishes of the majority might prevail, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is addressed to this contingency and rejects the balance urged upon us. The Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation. This is the calculus the Constitution commands.
The Government’s argument gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by the young student. The essence of the Government’s position is that with regard to a civic, social occasion of this importance it is the objector, not the majority, who must take unilateral and private action to avoid compromising religious scruples, hereby electing to miss the graduation exercise. This turns conventional First Amendment analysis on its head. It is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as the price of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice. To say that a student must remain apart from the ceremony at the opening invocation and closing benediction is to risk compelling conformity in an environment analogous to the classroom setting, where we have said the risk of compulsion is especially high. See supra, at 593-594 Just as in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S., at 430, and School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U. S., at 224-225, where we found that provisions within the challenged legislation permitting a student to be voluntarily excused from attendance or participation in the daily prayers did not shield those practices from invalidation, the fact that attendance at the graduation ceremonies is voluntary in a legal sense does not save the religious exercise.
Inherent differences between the public school system and a session of a state legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983). The considerations we have raised in objection to the invocation and benediction are in many respects similar to the arguments we considered in Marsh. But there are also obvious differences. The atmosphere at the opening of a session of a state legislature where adults are free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important for the student to attend. The influence and force of a formal exercise in a school graduation are far greater than the prayer exercise we condoned in Marsh. The Marsh majority in fact gave specific recognition to this distinction and placed particular reliance on it in upholding the prayers at issue there. 463 U. S., at 792. Today’s case is different. At a high school graduation, teachers and principals must and do retain a high degree of control over the precise contents of the program, the speeches, the timing, the movements, the dress, and the decorum of the students. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 (1986). In this atmosphere the state-imposed character of an invocation and benediction by clergy selected by the school combine to make the prayer a state-sanctioned religious exercise in which the student was left with no alternative but to submit. This is different from Marsh and suffices to make the religious exercise a First Amendment violation. Our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains a delicate and fact-sensitive one, and we cannot accept the parallel relied upon by petitioners and the United States between the facts of Marsh and the ease now before us. Our decisions in Engel v. Vitale, supra, and School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, supra, require us to distinguish the public school context.
We do not hold that every state action implicating religion is invalid if one or a few citizens find it offensive. People may take offense at all manner of religious as well as nonreligious messages, but offense alone does not in every case show a violation. We know too that sometimes to endure social isolation or even anger may be the price of conscience or nonconformity. But, by any reading of our cases, the conformity required of the student in this case was too high an exaction to withstand the test of the Establishment Clause. The prayer exercises in this case are especially improper because the State has in every practical sense compelled attendance and participation in an explicit religious exercise at an event of singular importance to every student, one the objecting student had no real alternative to avoid.
Our jurisprudence in this area is of necessity one of line-drawing, of determining at what point a dissenter’s rights of religious freedom are infringed by the State.
“The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.” School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, supra, at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring).
Our society would be less than true to its heritage if it lacked abiding concern for the values of its young people, and we acknowledge the profound belief of adherents to many faiths that there must be a place in the student’s life for precepts of a morality higher even than the law we today enforce. We express no hostility to those aspirations, nor would our oath permit us to do so. A relentless and all-pervasive attempt to exclude religion from every aspect of public life could itself become inconsistent with the Constitution. See School Dist. of Abington, supra, at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring). We recognize that, at graduation time and throughout the course of the educational process, there will be instances when religious values, religious practices, and religious persons will have some interaction with the public schools and their students. See Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226 (1990). But these matters, often questions of accommodation of religion, are not before us. The sole question presented is whether a religious exercise may be conducted at a graduation ceremony in circumstances where, as we have found, young graduates who object are induced to conform. No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise. That is being done here, and it is forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
For the reasons we have stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
If you spent your career as a state law enforcement officer in West Virginia, you're likely to be eligible for a generous tax exemption when you retire. But if you served in federal law enforcement, West Virginia will deny you the same benefit. The question we face is whether a State may discriminate against federal retirees in that way.
For most of his career, James Dawson worked in the U. S. Marshals Service. After he retired, he began looking into the tax treatment of his pension. It turns out that his home State, West Virginia, doesn't tax the pension benefits of certain former state law enforcement employees. But it does tax the benefits of all former federal employees. So Mr. Dawson brought this lawsuit alleging that West Virginia violated 4 U.S.C. § 111. In that statute, the United States has consented to state taxation of the "pay or compensation" of "officer[s] or employee[s] of the United States," but only if the "taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation." § 111(a).
Section 111 codifies a legal doctrine almost as old as the Nation. In McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), this Court invoked the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to invalidate Maryland's effort to levy a tax on the Bank of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall explained that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and he reasoned that if States could tax the Bank they could "defeat" the federal legislative policy establishing it. Id. , at 431-432. For the next few decades, this Court interpreted McCulloch "to bar most taxation by one sovereign of the employees of another." Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , 489 U.S. 803, 810, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). In time, though, the Court softened its stance and upheld neutral income taxes-those that treated federal and state employees with an even hand. See Helvering v. Gerhardt , 304 U.S. 405, 58 S.Ct. 969, 82 L.Ed. 1427 (1938) ; Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe , 306 U.S. 466, 59 S.Ct. 595, 83 L.Ed. 927 (1939). So eventually the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine came to be understood to bar only discriminatory taxes. It was this understanding that Congress "consciously ... drew upon" when adopting § 111 in 1939. Davis , 489 U.S., at 813, 109 S.Ct. 1500.
It is this understanding, too, that has animated our application of § 111. Since the statute's adoption, we have upheld an Alabama income tax that did not discriminate on the basis of the source of the employees' compensation. Jefferson County v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). But we have invalidated a Michigan tax that discriminated "in favor of retired state employees and against retired federal employees." Davis , 489 U.S., at 814, 109 S.Ct. 1500. We have struck down a Kansas law that taxed the retirement benefits of federal military personnel at a higher rate than state and local government retirement benefits. Barker v. Kansas , 503 U.S. 594, 599, 112 S.Ct. 1619, 118 L.Ed.2d 243 (1992). And we have rejected a Texas scheme that imposed a property tax on a private company operating on land leased from the federal government, but a "less burdensome" tax on property leased from the State. Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School Dist. , 361 U.S. 376, 378, 380, 80 S.Ct. 474, 4 L.Ed.2d 384 (1960).
Mr. Dawson's own attempt to invoke § 111 met with mixed success. A West Virginia trial court found it "undisputed" that "there are no significant differences between Mr. Dawson's powers and duties as a US Marshal and the powers and duties of the state and local law enforcement officers" that West Virginia exempts from income tax. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. In the trial court's judgment, the State's statute thus represented "precisely the type of favoritism" § 111 prohibits. Id. , at 23a. But the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals saw it differently. In reversing, the court emphasized that relatively few state employees receive the tax break denied Mr. Dawson. The court stressed, too, that the statute's "intent ... was to give a benefit to a narrow class of state retirees," not to harm federal retirees. Id. , at 15a. Because cases in this field have yielded inconsistent results, much as this one has, we granted certiorari to afford additional guidance. 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2672, 201 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2018).
We believe the state trial court had it right. A State violates § 111 when it treats retired state employees more favorably than retired federal employees and no "significant differences between the two classes" justify the differential treatment. Davis , 489 U.S., at 814-816, 109 S.Ct. 1500 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); Phillips Chemical Co. , 361 U.S., at 383, 80 S.Ct. 474. Here, West Virginia expressly affords state law enforcement retirees a tax benefit that federal retirees cannot receive. And before us everyone accepts the trial court's factual finding that there aren't any "significant differences" between Mr. Dawson's former job responsibilities and those of the tax-exempt state law enforcement retirees. Given all this, we have little difficulty concluding that West Virginia's law unlawfully "discriminate[s]" against Mr. Dawson "because of the source of [his] pay or compensation," just as § 111 forbids.
The State offers this ambitious rejoinder. Even if its statute favors some state law enforcement retirees, the favored class is very small. Most state retirees are treated no better than Mr. Dawson. And this narrow preference, the State suggests, should be permitted because it affects so few people that it couldn't meaningfully interfere with the operations of the federal government.
We are unpersuaded. Section 111 disallows any state tax that discriminates against a federal officer or employee-not just those that seem to us especially cumbersome. Nor are we inclined to accept West Virginia's invitation to adorn § 111 with a new and judicially manufactured qualification that cannot be found in its text. In fact, we have already refused an almost identical request. In Davis , we rejected Michigan's suggestion that a discriminatory state income tax should be allowed to stand so long as it treats federal employees or retirees the same as "the vast majority of voters in the State." 489 U.S., at 815, n. 4, 109 S.Ct. 1500. We rejected, too, any suggestion that a discriminatory tax is permissible so long as it "does not interfere with the Federal Government's ability to perform its governmental functions." Id. , at 814, 109 S.Ct. 1500. In fact, as long ago as McCulloch , Chief Justice Marshall warned against enmeshing courts in the "perplexing" business, "so unfit for the judicial department," of attempting to delineate "what degree of taxation is the legitimate use, and what degree may amount to the abuse of power." 4 Wheat., at 430.
That's not to say the breadth or narrowness of a state tax exemption is irrelevant. Under § 111, the scope of a State's tax exemption may affect the scope of its resulting duties. So if a State exempts from taxation all state employees, it must likewise exempt all federal employees. Conversely, if the State decides to exempt only a narrow subset of state retirees, the State can comply with § 111 by exempting only the comparable class of federal retirees. But the narrowness of a discriminatory state tax law has never been enough to render it necessarily lawful.
With its primary argument lost, the State now proceeds more modestly. Echoing the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the State argues that we should uphold its statute because it isn't intended to harm federal retirees, only to help certain state retirees. But under the terms of § 111, the "State's interest in adopting the discriminatory tax, no matter how substantial, is simply irrelevant." Davis , 489 U.S., at 816, 109 S.Ct. 1500. We can safely assume that discriminatory laws like West Virginia's are almost always enacted with the purpose of benefiting state employees rather than harming their federal counterparts. Yet that wasn't enough to save the state statutes in Davis , Barker , or Phillips , and it can't be enough here. Under § 111 what matters isn't the intent lurking behind the law but whether the letter of the law "treat[s] those who deal with" the federal government "as well as it treats those with whom [the State] deals itself." Phillips Chemical Co. , 361 U.S., at 385, 80 S.Ct. 474.
If treatment rather than intent is what matters, the State suggests that it should still prevail for other reasons. Section 111 prohibits "discriminat[ion]," something we've often described as treating similarly situated persons differently. See Davis , 489 U.S., at 815-816, 109 S.Ct. 1500 ; Phillips Chemical Co. , 361 U.S., at 383, 80 S.Ct. 474. And before us West Virginia insists that even if retired U. S. Marshals and tax-exempt state law enforcement retirees had similar job responsibilities, they aren't "similarly situated" for other reasons. Put another way, the State contends that the difference in treatment its law commands doesn't qualify as unlawful discrimination because it is "directly related to, and justified by," a lawful and "significant difference" between the two classes. Davis , 489 U.S., at 816, 109 S.Ct. 1500 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
In approaching this argument, everyone before us agrees on at least one thing. Whether a State treats similarly situated state and federal employees differently depends on how the State has defined the favored class. See id. , at 817, 109 S.Ct. 1500. So if the State defines the favored class by reference to job responsibilities, a similarly situated federal worker will be one who performs comparable duties. But if the State defines the class by reference to some other criteria, our attention should naturally turn there. If a State gives a tax benefit to all retirees over a certain age, for example, the comparable federal retiree would be someone who is also over that age.
So how has West Virginia chosen to define the favored class in this case? The state statute singles out for preferential treatment retirement plans associated with West Virginia police, firefighters, and deputy sheriffs. See W. Va. Code Ann. § 11-21-12(c)(6) (Lexis 2017). The distinguishing characteristic of these plans is the nature of the jobs previously held by retirees who may participate in them; thus, a similarly situated federal retiree is someone who had similar job responsibilities to a state police officer, firefighter, or deputy sheriff. The state trial court correctly focused on this point of comparison and found no "significant differences" between Mr. Dawson's former job responsibilities as a U. S. Marshal and those of the state law enforcement retirees who qualify for the tax exemption. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. Nor did the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upset this factual finding. So looking to how the State has chosen to define its favored class only seems to confirm that it has treated similarly situated persons differently because of the source of their compensation.
Of course, West Virginia sees it otherwise. It accepts (for now) that its statute distinguishes between persons based on their former job duties. It accepts, too, the trial court's finding that Mr. Dawson's former job responsibilities are materially identical to those of state retirees who qualify for its tax exemption. But, the State submits, Mr. Dawson's former job responsibilities are also similar to those of other state law enforcement retirees who don't qualify for its tax exemption. And, the State insists, the fact that it treats federal retirees no worse than (some) similarly situated state employees should be enough to save its statute.
But this again mistakes the nature of our inquiry. Under § 111, the relevant question isn't whether federal retirees are similarly situated to state retirees who don't receive a tax benefit; the relevant question is whether they are similarly situated to those who do. So, for example, in Phillips we compared the class of federal lessees with the favored class of state lessees, even though the State urged us to focus instead on the disfavored class of private lessees. 361 U.S., at 381-382, 80 S.Ct. 474. In Davis , we likewise rejected the State's effort to compare the class of federal retirees with state residents who did not benefit from the tax exemption rather than those who did. See 489 U.S., at 815, n. 4, 109 S.Ct. 1500.
At this point the State is left to play its final card. Now, it says, maybe the real distinction its statute draws isn't based on former job duties at all. Maybe its statute actually favors certain state law enforcement retirees only because their pensions are less generous than those of their federal law enforcement counterparts. At the least, the State suggests, we should remand the case to the West Virginia courts to explore this possibility.
The problem here is fundamental. While the State was free to draw whatever classifications it wished, the statute it enacted does not classify persons or groups based on the relative generosity of their pension benefits. Instead, it extends a special tax benefit to retirees who served as West Virginia police officers, firefighters, or deputy sheriffs-and it categorically denies that same benefit to retirees who served in similar federal law enforcement positions. Even if Mr. Dawson's pension turned out to be identical to a state law enforcement officer's pension, the law as written would deny him a tax exemption. West Virginia's law thus discriminates "because of the source of ... compensation or pay" in violation of § 111. Whether the unlawful classification found in the text of a statute might serve as some sort of proxy for a lawful classification hidden behind it is neither here nor there. No more than a beneficent legislative intent, an implicit but lawful distinction cannot save an express and unlawful one.
Our precedent confirms this too. In Davis , Michigan argued that a state law expressly discriminating between federal and state retirees was really just distinguishing between those with more and less generous pensions. Id. , at 816, 109 S.Ct. 1500. We rejected this attempt to rerationalize the statute, explaining that "[a] tax exemption truly intended to account for differences in retirement benefits would not discriminate on the basis of the source of those benefits" but "would discriminate on the basis of the amount of benefits received by individual retirees." Id. , at 817, 109 S.Ct. 1500. The fact is, when States seek to tax the use of a fellow sovereign's property, the Constitution and Congress have always carefully constrained their authority. Id. , at 810-814, 109 S.Ct. 1500. And in this sensitive field it is not too much to ask that, if a State wants to draw a distinction based on the generosity of pension benefits, it enact a law that actually does that.
Because West Virginia's statute unlawfully discriminates against Mr. Dawson, we reverse the judgment of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, including the determination of an appropriate remedy.
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:
|
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.
Mb. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
William Spinelli was convicted under 18 U. S. C. i 1952 of traveling to St. Louis, Missouri, from a nearby Illinois suburb with the intention of conducting gambling activities proscribed by Missouri law. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.360 (1959). At every appropriate stage in the proceedings in the lower courts, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the warrant which authorized the FBI search that uncovered the evidence necessary for his conviction. At each stage, Spinelli’s challenge was treated in a different way. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that Spinelli lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment objection. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected the District Court’s ground, a majority holding further that the warrant was issued without probable cause. After an en banc rehearing, the Court of Appeals sustained the warrant and affirmed the conviction by a vote of six to two. 382 F. 2d 871. Both the majority and dissenting en banc opinions reflect a most conscientious effort to apply the principles we announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), to a factual situation whose basic characteristics have not been at all uncommon in recent search warrant cases. Believing it desirable that the principles of Aguilar should be further explicated, we granted certiorari, 390 U. S. 942, our writ being later limited to the question of the constitutional validity of the search and seizure. 391 U. S. 933. For reasons that follow we reverse.
In Aguilar, a search warrant had issued upon an affidavit of police officers who swore only that they had “received reliable information from a credible person and do believe” that narcotics were being illegally stored on the described premises. While recognizing that the constitutional requirement of probable cause can be satisfied by hearsay information, this Court held the affidavit inadequate for two reasons. First, the application failed to set forth any of the “underlying circumstances” necessary to enable the magistrate independently to judge of the validity of the informant’s conclusion that the narcotics were where he said they were. Second, the affiant-officers did not attempt to support their claim that their informant was “ 'credible’ or his information 'reliable.’ ” The Government is, however, quite right in saying that the FBI affidavit in the present case is more ample than that in Aguilar. Not only does it contain a report from an anonymous informant, but it also contains a report of an independent FBI investigation which is said to corroborate the informant’s tip. We are, then, required to delineate the manner in which Aguilar’s two-pronged test should be applied in these circumstances.
In essence, the affidavit, reproduced in full in the Appendix to this opinion, contained the following allegations:
1. The FBI had kept track of Spinelli’s movements on five days during the month of August 1965. On four of these occasions, Spinelli was seen crossing one of two bridges leading from Illinois into St. Louis, Missouri, between 11 a. m. and 12:15 p. m. On four of the five days, Spinelli was also seen parking his car in a lot used by residents of an apartment house at 1108 Indian Circle Drive in St. Louis, between 3:30 p. m. and 4:45 p. m.
On one day, Spinelli was followed further and seen to enter a particular apartment in the building.
2. An FBI check with the telephone company revealed that this apartment contained two telephones listed under the name of Grace P. Hagen, and carrying the numbers WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4-0136.
3. The application stated that “William Spinelli is known to this affiant and to federal law enforcement agents and local law enforcement agents as a bookmaker, an associate of bookmakers, a gambler, and an associate of gamblers.”
4. Finally, it was stated that the FBI “has been informed by a confidential reliable informant that William Spinelli is operating a handbook and accepting wagers and disseminating wagering information by means of the telephones which have been assigned the numbers WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4-0136.”
There can be no question that the last item mentioned, detailing the informant’s tip, has a fundamental place in this warrant application. Without it, probable cause could not be established. The first two items reflect only innocent-seeming activity and data. Spinelli’s travels to and from the apartment building and his entry into a particular apartment on one occasion could hardly be taken as bespeaking gambling activity; and there is surely nothing unusual about an apartment containing two separate telephones. Many a householder indulges himself in this petty luxury. Finally, the allegation that Spinelli was “known” to the affiant and to other federal and local law enforcement officers as a gambler and an associate of gamblers is but a bald and unilluminating assertion of suspicion that is entitled to no weight in appraising the magistrate’s decision. Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41, 46 (1933).
So much indeed the Government does not deny. Rather, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the Government claims that the informant’s tip gives a suspicious color to the FBI’s reports detailing Spinelli’s innocent-seeming conduct and that, conversely, the FBI’s surveillance corroborates the informant’s tip, thereby entitling it to more weight. It is true, of course, that the magistrate is obligated to render a judgment based upon a common-sense reading of the entire affidavit. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108 (1965). We believe, however, that the “totality of circumstances” approach taken by the Court of Appeals paints with too broad a brush. Where, as here, the informer’s tip is a necessary element in a finding of probable cause, its proper weight must be determined by a more precise analysis.
The informer’s report must first be measured against Aguilar’s standards so that its probative value can be assessed. If the tip is found inadequate under Aguilar, the other allegations which corroborate the information contained in the hearsay report should then be considered. At this stage as well, however, the standards enunciated in Aguilar must inform the magistrate’s decision. He must ask: Can it fairly be said that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar’s tests without independent corroboration? Aguilar is relevant at this stage of the inquiry as well because the tests it establishes were designed to implement the long-standing principle that probable cause must be determined by a “neutral and detached magistrate,” and not by “the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948). A magistrate cannot be said to have properly discharged his constitutional duty if he relies on an informer’s tip which — even when partially corroborated — is not as reliable as one which passes Aguilar’s requirements when standing alone.
Applying these principles to the present case, we first consider the weight to be given the informer’s tip when it is considered apart from the rest of the affidavit. It is clear that a Commissioner could not credit it without abdicating his constitutional function. Though the affi-ant swore that his confidant was “reliable,” he offered the magistrate no reason in support of this conclusion. Perhaps even more important is the fact that Aguilar’s other test has not been satisfied. The tip does not contain a sufficient statement of the underlying circumstances from which the informer concluded that Spinelli was running a bookmaking operation. We are not told how the FBI’s source received his information — it is not alleged that the informant personally observed Spinelli at work or that he had ever placed a bet with him. Moreover, if the informant came by the information indirectly, he did not explain why his sources were reliable. Cf. Jaben v. United States, 381 U. S. 214 (1965). In the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused’s criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.
The detail provided by the informant in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), provides a suitable benchmark. While Hereford, the Government’s informer in that case, did not state the way in which he had obtained his information, he reported that Draper had gone to Chicago the day before by train and that he would return to Denver by train with three ounces of heroin on one of two specified mornings. Moreover, Hereford went on to describe, with minute particularity, the clothes that Draper would be wearing upon his arrival at the Denver station. A magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in a reliable way. Such an inference cannot be made in the present case. Here, the only facts supplied were that Spinelli was using two specified telephones and that these phones were being used in gambling operations. This meager report could easily have been obtained from an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar.
Nor do we believe that the patent doubts Aguilar raises as to the report’s reliability are adequately resolved by a consideration of the allegations detailing the FBI’s independent investigative efforts. At most, these allegations indicated that Spinelli could have used the telephones specified by the informant for some purpose. This cannot by itself be said to support both the inference that the informer was generally trustworthy and that he had made his charge against Spinelli on the basis of information obtained in a reliable way. Once again, Draper provides a relevant comparison. Independent police work in that case corroborated much more than one small detail that had been provided by the informant. There, the police, upon meeting the inbound Denver train on the second morning specified by informer Hereford, saw a man whose dress corresponded precisely to Hereford’s detailed description. It was then apparent that the informant had not been fabricating his report out of whole cloth; since the report was of the sort which in common experience may be recognized as having been obtained in a reliable way, it was perfectly clear that probable cause had been established.
We conclude, then, that in the present case the informant’s tip — even when corroborated to the extent indicated — was not sufficient to provide the basis for a finding of probable cause. This is not to say that the tip was so insubstantial that it could not properly have counted in the magistrate’s determination. Rather, it needed some further support. When we look to the other parts of the application, however, we find nothing alleged which would permit the suspicions engendered by the informant’s report to ripen into a judgment that a crime was probably being committed. As we have already seen, the allegations detailing the FBI’s surveillance of Spinelli and its investigation of the telephone company records contain no suggestion of criminal conduct when taken by themselves — and they are not endowed with an aura of suspicion by virtue of the informer’s tip. Nor do we find that the FBI’s reports take on a sinister color when read in light of common knowledge that bookmaking is often carried on over the telephone and from premises ostensibly used by others for perfectly normal purposes. Such an argument would carry weight in a situation in which the premises contain an unusual number of telephones or abnormal activity is observed, cf. McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 302 (1967), but it does not fit this case where neither of these factors is present. All that remains to be considered is the flat statement that Spinelli was “known” to the FBI and others as a gambler. But just as a simple assertion of police suspicion is not itself a sufficient basis for a magistrate’s finding of probable cause, we do not believe it may be used to give additional weight to allegations that would otherwise be insufficient.
The affidavit, then, falls short of the standards set forth in Aguilar, Draper, and our other decisions that give content to the notion of probable cause. In holding as we have done, we do not retreat from the established propositions that only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause, Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96 (1964); that affidavits of probable cause are tested by much less rigorous standards than those governing the admissibility of evidence at trial, McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 311 (1967); that in judging probable cause issuing magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108 (1965); and that their determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts, Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 270-271 (1960). But we cannot sustain this warrant without diluting important safeguards that assure that the judgment of a disinterested judicial officer will interpose itself between the police and the citizenry.
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.
Me. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant.
I, Robert L. Bender, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as such am authorized to make searches and seizures.
That on August 6, 1965, at approximately 11:44 a. m., William Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation driving a 1964 Ford convertible, Missouri license HC3-649, onto the Eastern approach of the Veterans Bridge leading from East St. Louis, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri.
That on August 11, 1965, at approximately 11:16 a. m., William Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation driving a 1964 Ford convertible, Missouri license HC3-649, onto the Eastern approach of the Eads Bridge leading from East St. Louis, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri.
Further, at approximately 11:18 a. m. on August 11, 1965, I observed William Spinelli driving the aforesaid Ford convertible from the Western approach of the Eads Bridge into St. Louis, Missouri.
Further, at approximately 4:40 p. m. on August 11, 1965, I observed the aforesaid Ford convertible, bearing Missouri license HC3-649, parked in a parking lot used by residents of The Chieftain Manor Apartments, approximately one block east of 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
On August 12, 1965, at approximately 12:07 p. m., William. Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation driving the aforesaid 1964 Ford convertible onto the Eastern approach of the Veterans Bridge from East St. Louis, Illinois, in the direction of St. Louis, Missouri.
Further, on August 12, 1965, at approximately 3:46 p. m., I observed William Spinelli driving the aforesaid 1964 Ford convertible onto the parking lot used by the residents of The Chieftain Manor Apartments approximately one block east of 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
Further, on August 12, 1965, at approximately 3:49 p. m., William Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation entering the front entrance of the two-story apartment building located at 1108 Indian Circle Drive, this building being one of The Chieftain Manor Apartments.
On August 13, 1965, at approximately 11:08 a. m., William Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation driving the aforesaid Ford convertible onto the Eastern approach of the Eads Bridge from East St. Louis, Illinois, heading towards St. Louis, Missouri.
Further, on August 13, 1965, at approximately 11:11 a. m., I observed William Spinelli driving the aforesaid Ford convertible from the Western approach of the Eads Bridge into St. Louis, Missouri.
Further, on August 13, 1965, at approximately 3:45 p. m., I observed William Spijielli driving the aforesaid 1964 Ford convertible onto the parking area used by residents of The Chieftain Manor Apartments, said parking area being approximately one block from 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
Further, on August 13, 1965, at approximately 3:55 p. m., William Spinelli was observed by an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation entering the corner apartment located on the second floor in the southwest corner, known as Apartment F, of the two-story apartment building known and numbered as 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
On August 16, 1965, at approximately 3:22 p. m., I observed William Spinelli driving the aforesaid Ford convertible onto the parking lot used by the residents of The Chieftain Manor Apartments approximately one block east of 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
Further, an Agent of the F. B. I. observed William Spinelli alight from the aforesaid Ford convertible and walk toward the apartment building located at 1108 Indian Circle Drive.
The records of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company reflect that there are two telephones located in the southwest corner apartment on the second floor of the apartment building located at 1108 Indian Circle Drive under the name of Grace P. Hagen. The numbers listed in the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company records for the aforesaid telephones are WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4-0136.
William Spinelli is known to this affiant and to federal law enforcement agents and local law enforcement agents as a bookmaker, an associate of bookmakers, a gambler, and an associate of gamblers.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been informed by a confidential reliable informant that William Spinelli is operating a handbook and accepting wagers and disseminating wagering information by means of the telephones which have been assigned the numbers WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4-0136.
/s/Robert L. Bender,
Robert L. Bender,
Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of August, 1965, at St. Louis, Missouri.
/s/ William R. O’Toole.
The relevant portion of the statute reads:
“(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility in interstate . . . commerce . . . with intent to—
“(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on . . . any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
“(b) As used in this section ‘unlawful activity’ means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling ... in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States . .. .”
We agree with the Court of Appeals that Spinelli has standing to raise his Fourth Amendment claim. The issue arises because at the time the FBI searched the apartment in which Spinelli was alleged to be conducting his bookmaking operation, the petitioner was not on the premises. Instead, the agents did not execute their search warrant until Spinelli was seen to leave the apartment, lock the door, and enter the hallway. At that point, petitioner was arrested, the key to the apartment was demanded of him, and the search commenced. Since petitioner would plainly have standing if he had been arrested inside the apartment, Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 267 (1960), it cannot matter that the agents preferred to delay the arrest until petitioner stepped into the hallway — especially when the FBI only managed to gain entry into the apartment by requiring petitioner to surrender his key.
It is, of course, of no consequence that the agents might have had additional information which could have been given to the Commissioner. “It is elementary that in passing on the validity of a warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate’s attention.” Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 109, n. 1 (emphasis in original). Since the Government does not argue that whatever additional information the agents may have possessed was sufficient to provide probable cause for the arrest, thereby justifying the resultant search as well, we need not consider that question.
No report was made as to Spinelli’s movements during the period between his arrival in St. Louis at noon and his arrival at the parking lot in the late afternoon. In fact, the evidence at trial indicated that Spinelli frequented the offices of his stockbroker during this period.
While Draper involved the question whether the police had probable cause for an arrest without a warrant, the analysis required for an answer to this question is basically similar to that demanded of a magistrate when he considers whether a search warrant should issue.
A box containing three uninstalled telephones was found in the apartment, but only after execution of the search warrant.
In those cases in which this Court has found probable cause established, the showing made was much more substantial than the one made here. Thus, in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 104 (1965), FBI agents observed repeated deliveries of loads of sugar in 60-pound bags, smelled the odor of fermenting mash, and heard “ ‘sounds similar to that of a motor or a pump coming from the direction of Ventresca’s house.” Again, in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 303-304 (1967), the informant reported that McCray “ ‘was selling narcotics and had narcotics on his person now in the vicinity of 47th and Calumet.’ ” When the police arrived at the intersection, they observed McCray engaging in various suspicious activities. 386 U. S., at 302.
In the view we have taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether the search warrant was properly executed, or whether it sufficiently described the things that were seized.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case is a sequel to Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U. S. 130 (1982), in which we held that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe (Tribe) has the power to impose a severance tax on the production of oil and gas by non-Indian lessees of wells located on the Tribe’s reservation. We must now decide whether the State of New Mexico can continue to impose its severance taxes on the same production of oil and gas.
I
All 742,135 acres of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation are located in northwestern New Mexico. Id., at 133. In 1887, President Cleveland issued an Executive Order setting aside this tract of public land “as a reservation for the use and occupation of the Jicarilla Apache Indians.” 1 C. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties 875 (1904). The only qualification contained in the order was a proviso protecting bona fide settlers from defeasance of previously acquired federal rights. Ibid. The land is still owned by the United States and is held in trust for the Tribe.
The Tribe, which consists of approximately 2,500 enrolled members, is organized under the Indian Reorganization Act. 48 Stat. 984, 25 U. S. C. §461 et seq. The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (1938 Act) grants the Tribe authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to execute mineral leases. 52 Stat. 347, 25 U. S. C. § 396a et seq. Since at least as early as 1953, the Tribe has been leasing reservation lands to nonmembers for the production of oil and gas. See Merrion, supra, at 135. Mineral leases now encompass a substantial portion of the reservation and constitute the primary source of the Tribe’s general operating revenues. In 1969, the Secretary approved an amendment to the Tribe’s Constitution authorizing it to enact ordinances, subject to his approval, imposing taxes on nonmembers doing business in the reservation. See Revised Constitution of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Art. XI, § 1(e) (Equity). The Tribe enacted such an ordinance in 1976, imposing a severance tax on “any oil and natural gas severed, saved and removed from Tribal lands.” Oil and Gas Severance Tax, Ordinance No. 77-0-02, Jicarilla Apache Tribal Code (hereinafter J. A. T. C.), Tit. 11, ch. 1 (1987) (Equity); see also Merrion, supra, at 135-136. The Secretary approved the ordinance later that year, and in. 1982 this Court upheld the Tribe’s power to impose a severance tax on pre-existing as well as future leases. See Merrion, supra. Subsequently, the Tribe enacted a privilege tax, which the Secretary also approved. See Oil and Gas Privilege Tax, Ordinance No. 85-0-434, J. A. T. C., Tit. 11, ch. 2 (1985).
In 1976, Cotton Petroleum Corporation (Cotton), a non-Indian company in the business of extracting and marketing oil and gas, acquired five leases covering approximately 15,000 acres of the reservation. There were then 15 operating wells on the leased acreage and Cotton has since drilled another 50 wells. The leases were issued by the Tribe and the United States under the authority of the 1938 Act. Pursuant to the terms of the leases, Cotton pays the Tribe a rent of $125 per acre, plus a royalty of 1214 percent of the value of its production. In addition, Cotton pays the Tribe’s oil and gas severance and privilege taxes, which amount to approximately 6 percent of the value of its production. Thus, Cotton’s aggregate payment to the Tribe includes an acreage rent in excess of $1 million, plus royalties and taxes amounting to about 1814 percent of its production.
Prior to 1982, Cotton paid, without objection, five different oil and gas production taxes to the State of New Mexico. The state taxes amount to about 8 percent of the value of Cotton’s production. The same 8 percent is collected from producers throughout the State. Thus, on wells outside the reservation, the total tax burden is only 8 percent, while Cotton’s reservation wells are taxed at a total rate of 14 percent (8 percent by the State and 6 percent by the Tribe). No state tax is imposed on the royalties received by the Tribe.
At the end of our opinion in Merrion, 455 U. S., at 158-159, n. 26, we added a footnote rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that the tribal tax was invalid as a “multiple tax burden on interstate commerce” because imposed on the same activity already taxed by the State. One of the reasons the argument failed was that the taxpayer had made no attempt to show that the Tribe was “seek[ing] to seize more tax revenues than would be fairly related to the services provided by the Tribe.” Ibid. After making that point, the footnote suggested that the state tax might be invalid under the Commerce Clause if in excess of what “the State’s contact with the activity would justify.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
In 1982, Cotton paid its state taxes under protest and then brought an action in the District Court for Santa Fe County challenging the taxes under the Indian Commerce, Interstate Commerce, Due Process, and Supremacy Clauses of the Federal Constitution. App. 2-15. Relying on the Merrion footnote, Cotton contended that state taxes imposed on reservation activity are only valid if related to actual expenditures by the State in relation to the activity being taxed. Record 421. In support of this theory, Cotton presented evidence at trial tending to prove that the amount of tax it paid to the State far exceeded the value of services that the State provided to it and that the taxes paid by all nonmember oil producers far exceeded the value of services provided to the reservation as a whole. Cotton did not, however, attempt to prove that the state taxes imposed any burden on the Tribe.
After trial, the Tribe sought, and was granted, leave to file a brief amicus curiae. Id., at 128. The Tribe argued that a decision upholding the state taxes would substantially interfere with the Tribe’s ability to raise its own tax rates and would diminish the desirability of on-reservation oil and gas leases. Id., at 124. The Tribe expressed a particular concern about what it characterized as a failure of the State “to provide services commensurate with the taxes collected.” Ibid.
After the Tribe filed its brief, the New Mexico District Court issued a decision upholding the state taxes. App. to Juris. Statement 14. The District Court found that “New Mexico provides substantial services to both the Jicarilla Tribe and Cotton,” and concluded that the State had a valid interest in imposing taxes on non-Indians on the reservation Squarely rejecting Cotton’s theory of the case, the court stated that “[t]he theory of public finance does not require expenditures equal to revenues.” Id., at 17. Turning to the question whether the state taxes were inconsistent with the federal interest in fostering the economic development of Indian tribes, the District Court found that the “economic and legal burden of paying the state taxes falls on Cotton or its buyers” and that “[n]o economic burden falls on the tribe by virtue of the state taxes.” Id., at 15. More specifically, it found that the state taxes had not affected the Tribe’s ability to collect its taxes or to impose a higher tax, and had “not in any way deterred production of oil and gas” on the reservation. Id., at 16-17. It concluded that the taxes had no adverse impact on tribal interests and that they were not pre-empted by federal law. Id., at 17-18. Finally, the District Court held that the taxes were fully consistent with the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the Federal Constitution. Ibid.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed. 106 N. M. 517, 745 P. 2d 1170 (1987). Like the District Court, it was left unpersuaded by Cotton’s contention that the New Mexico taxes are invalid because the State’s expenditures on reservation activity do not equal the revenues collected. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that the Merrion footnote, 455 U. S., at 159, n. 26, “intimate[s] no opinion on the possibility of such a challenge,” but simply suggests that a state tax “might” be invalid if greater than the State’s “contact with the [on-reservation] activity would justify.” 106 N. M., at 520, 745 P. 2d, at 1173. Finding no support for Cotton’s position in Merrion, the Court of Appeals looked instead to our opinion in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U. S. 609 (1981), and concluded that a State’s power to tax an activity connected to interstate commerce is not limited to the value of the services provided in support of that activity. 106 N. M., at 521, 745 P. 2d, at 1174. Agreeing with the trial court that the New Mexico taxes were fairly related to the services provided to Cotton, the Court of Appeals rejected Cotton’s Commerce Clause challenge. Ibid.
The Tribe, again participating as an amicus curiae, urged a different approach to the case. Unlike Cotton, the Tribe argued that the state taxes could not withstand traditional pre-emption analysis. The Tribe conceded that state laws, to the extent they do not interfere with tribal self-government, may control the conduct of non-Indians on the reservation. It maintained, however, that the taxes at issue interfered with its ability to raise taxes and thus with its right to self-government. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument because the record contained no evidence of any adverse impact on the Tribe and, indeed, indicated that the Tribe could impose even higher taxes than it had without adverse effect.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted, but then quashed, a writ of certiorari. 106 N. M. 511, 745 P. 2d 1159 (1987). We then noted probable jurisdiction and invited the parties to brief and argue the following additional question:
“Does the Commerce Clause require that an Indian Tribe be treated as a State for purposes of determining whether a state tax on nontribal activities conducted on an Indian Reservation must be apportioned to account for taxes imposed on those same activities by the Indian Tribe?” 485 U. S. 1005 (1988).
We now affirm the judgment of the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
II
This Court’s approach to the question whether a State may tax on-reservation oil production by non-Indian lessees has varied over the course of the past century. At one time, such a tax was held invalid unless expressly authorized by Congress; more recently, such taxes have been upheld unless expressly or impliedly prohibited by Congress. The changed approach to these taxes is one aspect of the evolution of the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity that we recently discussed in detail in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505 (1988).
During the first third of this century, this Court frequently invalidated state taxes that arguably imposed an indirect economic burden on the Federal Government or its instrumentalities by application of the “intergovernmental immunity” doctrine. That doctrine “was based on the rationale that any tax on income a party received under a contract with the government was a tax on the contract and thus a tax ‘on’ the government because it burdened the government’s power to enter into the contract.” Id., at 518. In a case decided in 1922, the Court applied the intergovernmental immunity doctrine to invalidate a state tax on income derived by a non-Indian lessee from the sale of his interest in oil produced on Indian land. See Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501. Consistently with the view of intergovernmental immunity that then prevailed, the Court stated that “a tax upon such profits is a direct hamper upon the effort of the United States to make the best terms that it can for its wards.” Id., at 506 (citing Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 468 (1829)). The same reasoning was used to invalidate a variety of other state taxes imposed on non-Indian lessees at that time.
Shortly after reaching its zenith in the Gillespie decision, the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity started a long path in decline and has now been “thoroughly repudiated” by modern case law. South Carolina v. Baker, supra, at 520. In 1932, four Members of this Court argued that Gillespie was unsound and should be overruled. See Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 401 (Stone, J., dissenting); id., at 405 (Brandéis, J., dissenting). Five years later, the Court took a substantial step in that direction, rejecting the view that a nondiscriminatory state tax on a private party contracting with the Government is invalid because the economic burden of the tax may fall on the Government. See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937). “With the rationale for conferring a tax immunity on parties dealing with another government rejected, the government contract immunities recognized under prior doctrine were, one by one, eliminated.” South Carolina v. Baker, supra, at 522. Specifically, in Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U. S. 376, 386-387 (1938), the Court squarely overruled Gillespie, supra. Thus, after Mountain Producers Corp., supra, was decided, oil and gas lessees operating on Indian reservations were subject to nondiscriminatory state taxation as long as Congress did not act affirmatively to pre-empt the state taxes. See ibid. See also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342 (1949).
In sum, it is well settled that, absent express congressional authorization, a State cannot tax the United States directly. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). It is also clear that the tax immunity of the United States is shared by the Indian tribes for whose benefit the United States holds reservation lands in trust. See Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S. 759, 764 (1985). Under current doctrine, however, a State can impose a nondiscriminatory tax on private parties with whom the United States or an Indian tribe does business, even though the financial burden of the tax may fall on the United States or tribe. See id., at 765; South Carolina v. Baker, supra, at 523. Although a lessee’s oil production on Indian lands is therefore not “automatically exempt from state taxation,” Congress does, of course, retain the power to grant such immunity. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 150 (1973). Whether such immunity shall be granted is thus a question that “is essentially legislative in character.” Texas Co., supra, at 365-366.
The question for us to decide is whether Congress has acted to grant the Tribe such immunity, either expressly or by plain implication. In addition, we must consider Cotton’s argument that the “multiple burden” imposed by the state and tribal taxes is unconstitutional.
Ill
Although determining whether federal legislation has preempted state taxation of lessees of Indian land is primarily an exercise in examining congressional intent, the history of tribal sovereignty serves as a necessary “backdrop” to that process. Cf. Rice v. Rehner, 463 U. S. 713, 719 (1983) (quoting McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 172 (1973)). As a result, questions of pre-emption in this area are not resolved by reference to standards of preemption that have developed in other areas of the law, and are not controlled by “mechanical or absolute conceptions of state or tribal sovereignty.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 145 (1980). Instead, we have applied a flexible pre-emption analysis sensitive to the particular facts and legislation involved. Each case “requires a particularized examination of the relevant state, federal, and tribal interests.” Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982). Moreover, in examining the pre-emptive force of the relevant federal legislation, we are cognizant of both the broad policies that underlie the legislation and the history of tribal independence in the field at issue. See ibid. It bears emphasis that although congressional silence no longer entails a broad-based immunity from taxation for private parties doing business with Indian tribes, federal pre-emption is not limited to cases in which Congress has expressly — as compared to impliedly — pre-empted the state activity. Finally, we note that although state interests must be given weight and courts should be careful not to make legislative decisions in the absence of congressional action, ambiguities in federal law are, as a rule, resolved in favor of tribal independence. See ibid.
Against this background, Cotton argues that the New Mexico taxes are pre-empted by the “federal laws and policies which protect tribal self-government and strengthen impoverished reservation economies. ” Brief for Appellants 16. Most significantly, Cotton contends that the 1938 Act exhibits a strong federal interest in guaranteeing Indian tribes the maximum return on their oil and gas leases. Moreover, Cotton maintains that the Federal and Tribal Governments, acting pursuant to the 1938 Act, its accompanying regulations, and the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Code, exercise comprehensive regulatory control over Cotton’s on-reservation activity. Cotton describes New Mexico’s responsibilities, in contrast, as “significantly limited.” Brief for Appellants 21. Thus, weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton concludes that the New Mexico taxes unduly interfere with the federal interest in promoting tribal economic self-sufficiency and are not justified by an adequate state interest. We disagree.
The 1938 Act neither expressly permits state taxation nor expressly precludes it, but rather simply provides that “unallotted lands within any Indian reservation or lands owned by any tribe... may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be leased for mining purposes, by authority of the tribal council..., for terms not to exceed ten years and as long thereafter as minerals are produced in paying quantities.” 25 U. S. C. §396a. The Senate and House Reports that accompanied the Act, moreover — even when considered in their broadest possible terms — shed little light on congressional intent concerning state taxation of oil and gas produced on leased lands. See S. Rep. No. 985, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937); H. R. Rep. No. 1872, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938). Both Reports reflect that the proposed legislation was suggested by the Secretary and considered by the appropriate committees, which recommended that it pass without amendment. Beyond this procedural summary, the Reports simply rely on the Secretary’s letter of transmittal to describe the purpose of the Act. That letter provides that the legislation was intended, in light of the disarray of federal law in the area, “to obtain uniformity so far as practicable of the law relating to the leasing of tribal lands for mining purposes,” and, in particular, was designed to “bring all mineral leasing matters in harmony with the Indian Reorganization Act.” Id., at 1, 3; S. Rep. No. 985, supra, at 2, 3. In addition, the letter contains the following passage:
“It is not believed that the present law is adequate to give the Indians the greatest return from their property. As stated, present law provides for locating and taking mineral leases in the same manner as mining locations are made on the public lands of the United States; but there are disadvantages in following this procedure on Indian lands that are not present in applying for a claim on the public domain. For instance, on the public domain the discoverer of a mineral deposit gets extralateral rights and can follow the ore beyond the side lines indefinitely, while on the Indian lands under the act of June 30, 1919, he is limited to the confines of the survey markers not to exceed 600 feet by 1,500 feet in any one claim. The draft of the bill herewith would permit the obtaining of sufficient acreage to remove the necessity for extralateral rights with all of its attending controversies.” Id., at 2; H. R. Rep. No. 1872, supra, at 2 (emphasis added).
Relying on the first sentence in this paragraph, Cotton argues that the 1938 Act embodies a broad congressional policy of maximizing revenues for Indian tribes. Cotton finds support for this proposition in Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S. 759 (1985). That case raised the question whether the 1938 Act authorizes state taxation of a tribe’s royalty interests under oil and gas leases issued to nonmembers. Applying the settled rule that a tribe may only be directly taxed by a State if “Congress has made its intention to [lift the tribe’s exemption] unmistakably clear,” id., at 765, we concluded that “the State may not tax Indian royalty income from leases issued pursuant to the 1938 Act,” id., at 768. In a footnote we added the observation that direct state taxation of Indian revenues would frustrate the 1938 Act’s purpose of “ensur[ing] that Indians receive ‘the greatest return from their property,’ [S. Rep. No. 985, supra, at] 2; H. R. Rep. No. 1872, supra, at 2.” Id., at 767, n. 5.
To the extent Cotton seeks to give the Secretary’s reference to “the greatest return from their property” talismanic effect, arguing that these words demonstrate that Congress intended to guarantee Indian tribes the maximum profit available without regard to competing state interests, it overstates its case. There is nothing remarkable in the proposition that, in authorizing mineral leases, Congress sought to provide Indian tribes with a profitable source of revenue. It is however quite remarkable, indeed unfathomable in our view, to suggest that Congress intended to remove all state-imposed obstacles to profitability by attaching to the Senate and House Reports a letter from the Secretary that happened to include the phrase “the greatest return from their property.” Read in the broadest terms possible, the relevant paragraph suggests that Congress sought to remove “disadvantages in [leasing mineral rights] on Indian lands that are not present in applying for a claim on the public domain.” S. Rep. No. 985, supra, at 2; H. R. Rep. No. 1872, supra, at 2. By 1938, however, it was established that oil and gas lessees of public lands were subject to state taxation. See Mid-Northern Oil Co. v. Walker, 268 U. S. 45 (1925). It is thus apparent that Congress was not concerned with state taxation, but with matters such as the unavailability of extralateral mineral rights on Indian land. Nor do we read the Blackfeet footnote, 471 U. S., at 767, n. 5, to give the Secretary’s words greater effect. We think it clear that the footnote simply stands for the proposition that the Act’s purpose of creating a source of revenue for Indian tribes provides evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize direct state taxation of Indian royalties.
We thus agree that a purpose of the 1938 Act is to provide Indian tribes with badly needed revenue, but find no evidence for the further supposition that Congress intended to remove all barriers to profit maximization. The Secretary’s letter of transmittal, even when read permissively for broad policy goals and even when read to resolve ambiguities in favor of tribal independence, supports no more.
Our review of the legislation that preceded thé 1938 Act provides no additional support for Cotton’s expansive view of the Act’s purpose. This history is relevant in that it supplies both the legislative background against which Congress enacted the 1938 Act and the relevant “backdrop” of tribal independence. Congress first authorized mineral leasing on Indian lands in 1891. See Act of Feb. 28, 1891, §3, 26 Stat. 795, 25 U. S. C. §397 (1891 Act). That legislation, which empowered tribes to enter into grazing and mining leases, only applied to lands “occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for the same,” and was thus interpreted to be inapplicable to Executive Order reservations. See British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization of Montana, 299 U. S. 159, 161-162, 164 (1936). Mineral leasing on reservations created by Executive Order — like the Jicarilla Apache Reservation — was not authorized until almost four decades later. After years of debate concerning whether Indians had any right to share in royalties derived from oil and gas leases in Executive Order reservations, Congress finally enacted legislation in 1927 that authorized such leases. See Indian Oil Act of 1927, 44 Stat. (part 2) 1347, 25 U. S. C. §398a (1927 Act).
While both the 1891 and 1927 Acts were in effect, Gillespie was the prevailing law and, under its expansive view of intergovernmental tax immunity, States were powerless to impose severance taxes on oil produced on Indian reservations unless Congress expressly waived that immunity. Just two years after Gillespie was decided, Congress took such express action and authorized state taxation of oil and gas production in treaty reservations. See Indian Oil Leasing Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 244 (1924 Act), current version at 25 U. S. C. §398. See also British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization, supra (applying 1924 Act to uphold state tax imposed on the production of oil and gas in the Blackfeet Indian Reservation). More significantly for purposes of this case, when Congress first authorized oil and gas leasing on Executive Order reservations in the 1927 Act, it expressly waived immunity from state taxation of oil and gas lessees operating in those reservations. See 44 Stat. (part 2) 1347, 25 U. S. C. § 398c. Thus, at least as to Executive Order reservations, state taxation of nonmember oil and gas lessees was the norm from the very start. There is, accordingly, simply no history of tribal independence from state taxation of these lessees to form a “backdrop” against which the 1938 Act must be read.
We are also unconvinced that the contrast between the 1927 Act’s express waiver of immunity and the 1938 Act’s silence on the subject suggests that Congress intended to repeal the waiver in the 1938 Act and thus to diametrically change course by implicitly barring state taxation. The general repealer clause contained in thé 1938 Act provides that “[a]ll Act[s] or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.” 52 Stat. 348. Although one might infer from this clause that all preceding, nonconflicting legislation in the area, like the 1927 Act’s waiver provision, is implicitly incorporated, we need not go so far to simply conclude that the 1938 Act’s omission demonstrates no congressional purpose to close the door to state taxation. Moreover, the contrast between the 1927 and 1938 Acts is easily explained by the contemporaneous history of the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. In 1927, Gillespie prevailed, and States were only permitted to tax lessees of Indian lands if Congress expressly so provided. By the time the 1938 Act was enacted, however, Gillespie had been overruled and replaced by the modern rule permitting such taxes absent congressional disapproval. Thus, Congress’ approaches to both the 1927 and 1938 Acts were fully consistent with an intent to permit state taxation of nonmember lessees.
Cotton nonetheless maintains that our decisions in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracket, 448 U. S. 136 (1980), and Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U. S. 832 (1982), compel the conclusion that the New Mexico taxes are pre-empted by federal law. In pressing this argument, Cotton ignores the admonition included in both of those decisions that the relevant preemption test is a flexible one sensitive to the particular state, federal, and tribal interests involved. See id., at 838; Bracket, supra, at 145.
In Bracket, we addressed the question whether Arizona could impose its motor carrier license and use fuel taxes on a nonmember logging company’s use of roads located solely within an Indian reservation. Significantly, the roads at issue were “built, maintained, and policed exclusively by the Federal Government, the Tribe, and its contractors,” 448 U. S., at 150, and the State was “unable to identify any regulatory function or service [it] performed... that would justify the assessment of taxes for activities on Bureau and tribal roads within the reservation,” id., at 148-149. See also id., at 174 (Powell, J., concurring) (“The State has no interest in raising revenues from the use of Indian roads that cost it nothing and over which it exercises no control”). Moreover, it was undisputed in Bracket that the economic burden of the taxes ultimately fell on the Tribe. Id., at 151. Based on these facts and on our conclusion that collection of the taxes would undermine federal policy “in a context in which the Federal Government has undertaken to regulate the most minute details” of the Tribe’s timber operations, we held that the taxes were pre-empted. Id., at 149.
Ramah Navajo School Bd. involved a similar factual scenario. In the late 1960’s, New Mexico closed the only public high school that served the Ramah Navajo children. The State then sought to tax two nonmember construction firms hired by the Tribe to build a school in the reservation. As in Bracket, the State asserted no legitimate regulatory interest that might justify the tax. Ramah Navajo School Bd., supra, at 843-846. Also as in Bracket, the economic burden of the tax ultimately fell on the Tribe. And finally, again as in Bracket, we noted that federal law imposed a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Ramah Navajo School Bd., 458 U. S., at 839-842. We concluded: “Having declined to take any responsibility for the education of these Indian children, the State is precluded from imposing an additional burden on the comprehensive federal scheme intended to provide this education — a scheme which has ‘left the State with no duties or responsibilities.’” Id., at 843 (quoting Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685, 691 (1965)).
The factual findings of the New Mexico District Court clearly distinguish this case from both Bracket, supra, and Ramah Navajo School Bd., supra. After conducting a trial, that court found that “New Mexico provides substantial services to both the Jicarilla Tribe and Cotton,” costing the State approximately $3 million per year. App. to Juris. Statement 16. Indeed, Cotton concedes that from 1981 through 1985 New Mexico provided its operations with services costing $89,384, but argues that the cost of these services is disproportionate to the $2,293,953 in taxes the State collected from Cotton. Brief for Appellants 13-14. Neither Bracket, nor Ramah Navajo School Bd., however, imposes such a proportionality requirement on the States. Rather, both cases involved complete abdication or noninvolvement of the State in the on-reservation activity. The present case is also unlike Bracket and Ramah Navajo School Bd., in that the District Court found that “[n]o economic burden falls on the tribe by virtue of the state taxes,” App. to Juris. Statement 15, and that the Tribe could, in fact, increase its taxes without adversely affecting on-reservation oil and gas development, id., at 17. Finally, the District Court found that the State regulates the spacing and mechanical integrity of wells located on the reservation. Id., at 16. Thus, although the federal and tribal regulations in this case are extensive, they are not exclusive, as were the regulations in Bracket and Ramah Navajo School Bd.
We thus conclude that federal law, even when given the most generous construction, does not pre-empt New Mexico’s oil and gas severance taxes. This is not a case in which the State has had nothing to do with the on-reservation activity, save tax it. Nor is this a case in which an unusually large state tax has imposed a substantial burden on the Tribe. It is, of course, reasonable to infer that the New Mexico taxes have at least a marginal effect on the demand for on-reservation leases, the value to the Tribe of those leases, and the ability of the Tribe to increase its tax rate. Any impairment to the federal policy favoring the exploitation of on-reservation oil and gas resources by Indian tribes that might be caused by these effects, however, is simply too indirect and too insubstantial to support Cotton’s claim of pre-emption. To find pre-emption of state taxation in such indirect burdens on this broad congressional purpose, absent some special factor such as those present in Bracket and Ramah Navajo School Bd., would be to return to the pre-1937 doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. Any adverse effect on the Tribe’s finances caused by the taxation of a private party contracting with the Tribe would be ground to strike the state tax. Absent more explicit guidance from Congress, we decline to return to this long-discarded and thoroughly repudiated doctrine.
<J
Cotton also argues that New Mexico’s severance taxes — “insofar as they are imposed without allocation or apportionment on top of Jicarilla Apache tribal taxes” — impose “an unlawful multiple tax burden on interstate commerce.” Brief for Appellants 33. In support of this argument, Cotton relies on three facts: (1) that the State and the Tribe tax the same activity; (2) that the total tax burden on Cotton is higher than the burden on its off-reservation competitors who pay no tribal tax; and (3) that the state taxes generate revenues that far exceed the value of the services it provides on the reservation.
As we pointed out in the Merrion footnote, see n. 5, supra, a multiple taxation issue may arise when more than one State attempts to tax the same activity. If a unitary business derives income from several States, each State may only tax the portion of that income that is attributable to activity within its borders. See, e. g., Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 447 U. S. 207 (1980). Thus, in such a case, an apportionment formula is necessary in order to identify the scope of the taxpayer’s business that is within the taxing jurisdiction of each State. In this case, however, all of Cotton’s leases are located entirely within the borders of the State of New Mexico and also within the borders of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. Indeed, they are also within the borders of the United States. There are, therefore, three different governmental entities, each of which has taxing jurisdiction over all of the non-Indian wells. Cf. Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134 (198
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), the Court reaffirmed the principle that the search of property, without warrant and without probable cause, but with proper consent voluntarily given, is valid under the Fourth Amendment. The question now before us is whether the evidence presented by the United States with respect to the voluntary consent of a third party to search the living quarters of the respondent was legally sufficient to render the seized materials admissible in evidence at the respondent's criminal trial.
I
Respondent Matlock was indicted in February 1971 for the robbery of a federally insured bank in Wisconsin, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113. A week later, he filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by law enforcement officers from a home in the town of Pardeeville, Wisconsin, in which he had been living. Suppression hearings followed. As found by the District Court, the facts were that respondent was arrested in the yard in front of the Pardeeville home on November 12, 1970. The home was leased from the owner by Mr. and Mrs. Marshall. Living in the home were Mrs. Marshall, several of her children, including her daughter Mrs. Gayle Graff, Gayle's three-year-old son, and respondent. Although the officers were aware at the time of the arrest that respondent lived in the house, they did not ask him which room he occupied or whether he would consent to a search. Three of the arresting officers went to the door of the house and were admitted by Mrs. Graff, who was dressed in a robe and was holding her son in her arms. The officers told her they were looking for money and a gun and asked if they could search the house. Although denied by Mrs. Graff at the suppression hearings, it was found that she consented voluntarily to the search of the house, including the east bedroom on the second floor which she said was jointly occupied by Matlock and herself. The east bedroom was searched and the evidence at issue here, $4,995 in cash, was found in a diaper bag in the only closet in the room. The issue came to be whether Mrs. Graff's relationship to the east bedroom was sufficient to make her consent to the search valid against respondent Matlock.
The District Court ruled that before the seized evidence could be admitted at trial the Government'had to prove, first, that it reasonably appeared to the searching officers “just prior to the search, that facts exist which will render the consenter’s consent binding on the putative defendant,” and, second, that “just prior to the search, facts do exist which render the consenter’s consent binding on the putative defendant.” There was no requirement that express permission from respondent to Mrs. Graff to allow the officers to search be shown; it was sufficient to show her authority to consent in her own right, by reason of her relationship to the premises. The first requirement was held satisfied because of respondent’s presence in the yard of the house at the time of his arrest, because of Gayle Graff’s residence in the house for some time and her presence in the house just prior to the search, and because of her statement to the officers that she and ‘ the respondent occupied the east bedroom.
The District Court concluded, however, that the Government had failed to satisfy the second requirement and had not satisfactorily proved Mrs. Graff's actual authority to consent to the search. To arrive at this result, the District Court held that although Gayle Graff’s statements to the officers that she and the respondent occupied the east bedroom were admissible to prove the good-faith belief of the officers, they were nevertheless extrajudicial statements inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts therein averred. The same was true of Mrs. Graff’s additional statements to the officers later on November 12 that she and the respondent had been sleeping together in the east bedroom regularly, including the early morning of November 12, and that she and respondent shared the use of a dresser in the room. There was also testimony that both Gayle Graff and respondent, at various times and places and to various persons, had made statements that they were wife and husband. These statements were deemed inadmissible to prove that respondent and Gayle Graff were married, which they were not, or that they were sleeping together .as a husband and wife might be expected to do. Having excluded these declarations, the District Court then concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove “to a reasonable certainty, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that at the time of the search, and for some period of reasonable length theretofore, Gayle Graff and the defendant were living together in the east bedroom.” The remaining evidence, briefly stated, was that Mrs. Graff and respondent had lived together in a one-bedroom apartment in Florida from April to August 1970; that they lived at the Marshall home in Pardeeville from August to November 12, 1970; that they were several times seen going up or down stairs in the house together; and that the east bedroom, which respondent was shown to have rented from Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, contained evidence that it was also lived in by a man and a woman. The District Court thought these items of evidence created an “inference” or at least a “mild inference” that respondent and Gayle Graff at times slept together in the east bedroom, but it deemed them insufficient to satisfy the Government’s burden of proof. The District Court also rejected the Government’s claim that it was required to prove only that at the time of the search the officers could reasonably have concluded that Gayle Graff’s relationship to the east bedroom was sufficient to make her consent binding on respondent.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in all respects. 476 F. 2d 1083. We granted certiorari, 412 U. S. 917, and now reverse the Court of Appeals.
II
It has been assumed by the parties and the courts below that the voluntary consent of any joint occupant of a residence to search the premises jointly occupied is valid against the co-occupant, permitting evidence discovered in the search to be used against him at a criminal trial. This basic proposition was accepted by the Seventh Circuit in this case, 476 F. 2d, at 1086, as it had been in prior cases, and has generally been applied in similar circumstances by other courts of appeals, and various state courts. This Court left open, in Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313, 317 (1921), the question whether a wife’s permission to search the residence in which she lived with her husband could “waive his constitutional rights,” but more recent authority here clearly indicates that the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 740 (1969), the Court “dismissed rather quickly” the contention that the consent of the petitioner’s cousin to the search of a duffel bag, which was being used jointly by both men and had been left in the cousin’s home, would not justify the seizure of petitioner’s clothing found inside; joint use of the bag rendered the cousin’s authority to consent to its search clear. Indeed, the Court was unwilling to engage in the “metaphysical subtleties” raised by Frazier’s claim that his cousin only had permission to use one compartment within the bag. By allowing the cousin the use of the bag, and by leaving it in his house, Frazier was held to have assumed the risk that his cousin would allow someone else to look inside. Ibid. More generally, in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S., at 245-246, we noted that our prior recognition of the constitutional validity of “third party consent” searches in cases like Frazier and Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 487-490 (1971), supported the view that a consent search is fundamentally different in nature from the waiver of a trial right. These cases at least make clear that when the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. The issue now before us is whether the Government made the requisite showing in this case.
Ill
The District Court excluded from evidence at the suppression hearings, as inadmissible hearsay, the out-of-court statements of Mrs. Graff with respect to her and respondent’s joint occupancy and use of the east bedroom, as well as the evidence that both respondent and Mrs. Graff at various times and to various persons had represented themselves as husband and wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Both courts were in error.
As an initial matter we fail to understand why, on any approach to the case, the out-of-court representations of respondent himself that he and Gayle Graff were husband and wife were considered to be inadmissible against him. Whether or not Mrs. Graff’s statements were hearsay, the respondent’s own out-of-court admissions would surmount all objections based on the hearsay rule both at the suppression hearings and at the trial itself, and would be admissible for whatever inferences the trial judge could reasonably draw concerning joint occupancy of the east bedroom. See 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1048 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1972); C. McCormick, Evidence § 262 (2d ed. 1972).
As for Mrs. Graff’s statements to the searching officers, it should be recalled that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence. In Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949), it was objected that hearsay had been used at the hearing on a challenge to the admissibility of evidence seized when a car was searched and that other evidence used at the hearing was held inadmissible at the trial itself. The Court sustained the trial court’s rulings. It distinguished between the rules applicable to proceedings to determine probable cause for arrest and search and those governing the criminal trial itself— “There is a large difference between the two things to be proved, as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them.” Id., at 173. That certain evidence was admitted in preliminary proceedings but excluded at the trial — and the Court thought both rulings proper- — was thought merely to “illustrate the difference in standards and latitude allowed in passing upon the distinct issues of probable cause and guilt.” Id., at 174.
That the same rules of evidence governing criminal jury trials are not generally thought to govern hearings before a judge to determine evidentiary questions was confirmed on November 20, 1972, when the Court transmitted to Congress the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 104 (a) provides that preliminary questions concerning admissibility are matters for the judge and that in performing this function he is not bound by the Rules of Evidence except those with respect to privileges. Essentially the same language on the scope of the proposed Rules is repeated in Rule 1101 (d)(1). The Rules in this respect reflect the general views of various authorities on evidence. 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1385 (3d ed. 1940); C. McCormick, Evidence §53, p. 122 n. 91 (2d ed. 1972). See also Maguire & Epstein, Rules of Evidence in Preliminary Controversies as to Admissibility, 36 Yale L. J. 1101 (1927).
Search warrants are repeatedly issued on ex parte affidavits containing out-of-court statements of identified and unidentified persons. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108 (1965). An arrest and search without a warrant were involved in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 (1967). At the initial suppression hearing, the police proved probable cause for the arrest by testifying to the out-of-court statements of an unidentified informer. The Government would have been obligated to produce the informer and to put him on the stand had it wanted to use his testimony at defendant's trial, but we sustained the use of his out-of-court statements at the suppression hearing, as well as the Govern-merit’s refusal to identify him. In the course of the opinion, we specifically rejected the claim that defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had in any way been violated. We also made clear that there was no contrary rule governing proceedings in the federal courts.
There is, therefore, much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence, the exclusionary rules, aside from rules of privilege, should not be applicable; and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel. However that may be, certainly there should be no automatic rule against the reception of hearsay evidence in such proceedings, and it seems equally clear to us that the trial judge should not have excluded Mrs. Graff’s statements in the circumstances present here.
In the first place, the court was quite satisfied that the statements had in fact been made. Second, there is nothing in the record to raise serious doubts about the truthfulness of the statements themselves. Mrs. Graff harbored no hostility or bias against respondent that might call her statements into question. Indeed, she testified on his behalf at the suppression hearings. Mrs. Graff responded to inquiry at the time of the search that she and respondent occupied the east bedroom together. A few minutes later, having led the officers to the bedroom, she stated that she and respondent shared the one dresser in the room and that the woman’s clothing in the room was hers. Later the same day, she stated to the officers that she and respondent had slept together regularly in the room, including the early morning of that very day. These statements were consistent with one another. They were also corroborated by other evidence received at the suppression hearings: Mrs. Graff and respondent had lived together in Florida for several months immediately prior to coming to Wisconsin, where they lived in the house in question and where they were seen going upstairs together in the evening; respondent was the tenant of the east bedroom and that room bore every evidence that it was also occupied by a woman; respondent indicated in prior statements to various people that he and Mrs. Graff were husband and wife. Under these circumstances there was no apparent reason for the judge to distrust the evidence and to exclude Mrs. Graff’s declarations from his own consideration for whatever they might be worth in resolving, one way or another, the issues raised at the suppression hearings.
If there is remaining doubt about the matter, it should be dispelled by another consideration: cohabitation out of wedlock would not seem to be a relationship that one would falsely confess. Respondent and Gayle Graff were not married, and cohabitation out of wedlock is a crime in the State of Wisconsin. Mrs. Graff’s statements were against her penal interest and they carried their own indicia of reliability. This was sufficient in itself, we think, to warrant admitting them to evidence for consideration by the trial judge. This is the case even if they would be inadmissible hearsay at respondent's trial either because statements against penal interest are to be excluded under Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, 272-277 (1913), or because, if Rule 804 (b) (4) of the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence becomes the law, such declarations would be admissible only if the declarant is unavailable at the time of the trial.
Finally, we note that Mrs. Graff was a witness for the respondent at the suppression hearings. As such, she was available for cross-examination,-and the risk of prejudice, if there was any, from the use of hearsay was reduced. Indeed, she entirely denied that she either gave consent or made the November 12 statements to the officers that the District Court excluded from evidence. When asked whether in fact she and respondent had lived together, she claimed her privilege against self-incrimination and declined to answer.
IV
It appears to us, given the admissibility of Mrs. Graff’s and respondent’s out-of-court statements, that the Government sustained its burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Graff’s voluntary consent to search the east bedroom was legally sufficient to warrant admitting into evidence the $4,995 found in the diaper bag. But we prefer that the District Court first reconsider the sufficiency of the evidence in the light of this decision and opinion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
There were other seizures in the house and the east bedroom on November 12, but none of them is at issue here.
Mrs. Graff was not advised that she had a right to refuse to consent to the search. The District Court expressed no view as to whether the absence of such advice would render her consent invalid, since it found that her consent, however voluntary, would not bind the respondent with regard to the search of his room. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), has since made clear, of course, that it is not essential for the prosecution to show that the consenter knew of the right to refuse consent in order to establish that the consent was voluntary.
When the officers searched the east bedroom, two pillows were on the double bed, which had been slept in, men’s and women's clothes were in the closet, and men’s and women’s clothes were also in separate drawers of the dresser.
E. g., United States v. Stone, 471 F. 2d 170, 173 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U. S. 931 (1973); United States v. Wixom, 441 F. 2d 623, 624-625 (1971); United States v. Airdo, 380 F. 2d 103, 106-107, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 913 (1967). Each of these cases cited with approval United States v. Sferas, 210 F. 2d 69, 74 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Skally v. United States, 347 U. S. 935 (1954), which expressed the rule "that where two persons have equal rights to the use or occupation of premises, either may give consent to a search, and the evidence thus disclosed can be used against either.”
E. g., United States v. Ellis, 461 F. 2d 962, 967-968 (CA2), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 866 (1972); United States v. Cataldo, 433 F. 2d 38, 40 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 977 (1971); United States ex rel. Cabey v. Mazurkiewicz, 431 F. 2d 839, 842-843 (CA3 1970); United States v. Thompson, 421 F. 2d 373, 375-376 (CA5), vacated on other grounds, 400 U. S. 17 (1970); Gurleski v. United States, 405 F. 2d 253, 260-262 (CA5 1968), cert. denied, 395 U. S. 981 (1969); Wright v. United States, 389 F. 2d 996, 998-999 (CA8 1968); Roberts v. United States, 332 F. 2d 892, 894-898 (CA8 1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 980 (1965); United States v. Wilson, 447 F. 2d 1, 5-6 (CA9 1971); Nelson v. California, 346 F. 2d 73, 77 (CA9), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 964 (1965); Burge v. United States, 342 F. 2d 408, 413 (CA9), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 829 (1965).
E. g., People v. Howard, 166 Cal. App. 2d 638, 651, 334 P. 2d 105, 114 (1958); People v. Gorg, 45 Cal. 2d 776, 783, 291 P. 2d 469, 473 (1955); People v. Haskell, 41 Ill. 2d 25, 28-29, 241 N. E. 2d 430, 432 (1968); People v. Walker, 34 Ill. 2d 23, 27-28, 213 N. E. 2d 552, 555 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. Cabey v. Rundle, 432 Pa. 466, 248 A. 2d 197 (1968); State v. Cairo, 74 R. I. 377, 385-386, 60 A. 2d 841, 845 (1948); Burge v. State, 443 S. W. 2d 720, 722-723 (Ct. Crim. App. Tex.), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 934 (1969).
Common authority is, of course, not to be implied from the mere property interest a third party has in the property. The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, see Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610 (1961) (landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another), Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483 (1964) (night hotel clerk could not validly consent to search of customer’s room) but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.
Rule 801 (d) (2) (A) of the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, approved by the Court on November 20, 1972, and transmitted to Congress, expressly provides that a party’s own statements offered against him at trial are not hearsay.
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U, S. 135, 153-154 (1945), upon which respondent and the Court of Appeals relied, involved the use of hearsay as substantive evidence bearing on the question of Bridges' membership in the Communist Party, a charge upon which a deportation order had been based. In addition to the fact that the use of unsworn, unsigned statements violated the rules of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the evidence was admitted to prove charges which directly jeopardized “the liberty of an individual,” id., at 154, and not for the purpose of determining a preliminary question of admissibility, as in this case.
Rule 104 (a) provides:
“(a) Questions of admissibility generally. Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making his determination he is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.”
Rule 1101 (d)(1) provides:
“Rules inapplicable. The rules (other than those with respect to privileges) do not apply in the following situations:
“(1) Preliminary questions of fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the judge under Rule 104 (a).”
“Should the exclusionary law of evidence, 'the child of the jury system’ in Thayer’s phrase, be applied to this hearing before the judge? Sound sense backs the view that it should not, and that the judge should be empowered to hear any relevant evidence, such as affidavits or other reliable hearsay.” C. McCormick, Evidence §53, p. 122 n. 91 (2d ed. 1972).
Wis. Stat. § 944.20 (1971) provides:
'‘Whoever does any of the following may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year in county jail or both: ... (3) Openly cohabits and associates with a person he knows is not his spouse under circumstances that imply sexual intercourse.”
Accordingly, we do not reach another major contention of the United States in bringing this case here: that the Government in any event had only to satisfy the District Court that the searching officers reasonably believed that Mrs. Graff had sufficient authority over the premises to consent to the search.
The Government also contends that the Court of Appeals imposed an unduly strict standard of proof on the Government by ruling that its case must be proved “to a reasonable certainty, by the great weight of the credible evidence.” But the District Court required only that the proof be by the greater weight of the evidence and the Court of Appeals merely affirmed the District Court's judgment. There was an inadvertence in articulating the applicable burden of proof, but it seems to have been occasioned by a similar inadvertence by the Government in presenting its case. In any event, the controlling burden of proof at suppression hearings should impose no greater burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 488-489 (1972). We do not understand the Government to contend that the standard employed by the District Court was in error, and we have no occasion to consider whether it was.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, Armando Piemonte, while serving a six-year sentence for the sale and possession of heroin, was brought by writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum before a federal grand jury inquiring into narcotics offenses. Having consulted his counsel prior to his appearance, before the grand jury he refused to answer all questions concerning his crime as well as other transactions in narcotics, under the claim of his privilege against self-incrimination. Three days later, the United States Attorney petitioned for an order directing Piemonte to answer the questions put to him. The petition stated that the grand jury was conducting an investigation of illegal narcotics activities, that Piemonte’s testimony was required for the investigation in the public interest, that having been questioned on matters relating to narcotics Piemonte claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, wherefore request was made that Piemonte be required to testify pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 1406. That provision of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 gives immunity from future prosecution to any witness who is compelled by court order to testify before a federal court or grand jury concerning violations of the narcotics laws. The section's breadth and constitutionality were considered earlier this Term in Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507.
The district judge, having granted Piemonte immunity from “prosecution which might arise from any answers that you give to this Grand Jury concerning the matter of their investigation,” ordered him to testify “relative to the aforementioned inquiry of said Grand Jury . . . .” Piemonte was granted an opportunity to consult his lawyer and his duty to appear before the grand jury was delayed for a day. The next morning he renewed his refusal to answer the questions propounded to him about narcotics activities and again invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege.
That afternoon he was taken back before the District Court to answer an order to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for deliberately disobeying the previous order to testify. He was represented by his counsel at this proceeding. Having examined the transcript of the grand jury’s morning proceedings, the judge asked petitioner if he persisted in refusing to answer the questions, to which Piemonte replied in the affirmative. The judge gave Piemonte’s counsel four days to prepare for a plenary hearing of the charge of contumacy, but denied Piemonte’s motion for a jury trial.
At the subsequent hearing, the Government stood on its case based on the grand jury transcripts and the court’s order to testify. The judge again asked Piemonte if he persisted in his refusal to obey the court’s order. Piemonte took the stand in his own behalf, and made the following explanation for his refusal to testify:
“Well, I am doing time in the penitentiary. I fear for my life. I fear for the life of my wife, my two stepchildren, and my family. I can’t do something like that. I want to live, too.”
After his counsel’s elaboration of this argument, the judge again asked Piemonte if he would testify. Upon his refusal, the judge declared him guilty of contempt of court for willful failure to obey a lawful order. After hearing argument on the sentence, the judge once again offered to give petitioner the opportunity to answer the questions. The refusal having been made definitive, sentence was fixed at eighteen months, to commence at the termination of the imprisonment he was serving.
The contempt judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 276 F. 2d 148, and we granted certiorari, 364 U. S. 811.
This record surely evinces the utmost solicitude by the trial court for the defendant’s interests. His only claim for reversal here is based upon alleged defects in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction of criminal contempt.
Petitioner’s first claim is that he was subjected to so many differing interpretations of whether he had a privilege to refrain from testifying as to certain questions that the order commanding him to answer lacked sufficient clarity. This is a sheer afterthought. Neither Piemonte nor his counsel ever claimed confusion in the District Court as a basis for his refusal to testify. Nor do the facts reveal that petitioner could have been misled by the out-of-cont'ext statements he pieces together for purposes of review.
The first morning before the grand jury, the government attorney asked petitioner:
“Didn’t your lawyer advise you, Mr. Piemonte, on those matters that you pleaded guilty to in the indictment that you have no Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination?”
However, the Government, in order to avoid any argumentative opportunities as to the scope of the area for which it sought immunity, did not attempt to secure an order directing answers for the particular questions relating to matters involved in his former conviction. It requested a broad order of immunity to cover the entire scope of what was under investigation by the grand jury. The United States Attorney told the district judge in seeking the order compelling testimony:
“[S]o that the Court would not have any misconception of the idea of the Government counsel on this matter, we, too, think that the constitutional privilege claimed by the witness is well taken in this matter.”
Petitioner plainly must have known — and gave every indication that he knew — that he was required to answer all questions put to him by the grand jury in return for equivalent, compensating immunity. We find no merit in an argument which is contradicted by petitioner’s own assertion, supported by his counsel’s argument, that he refused to testify solely because of fear.
Secondly, petitioner argues that the oral grant of immunity by the district judge was null and void, because the judge said “this Court now grants you immunity from prosecution . . .” and “I now grant you immunity from such prosecution . . . ,” when in reality the statute, not the court, grants the immunity. The puerility of this contention is emphasized by petitioner’s disregard of the judge’s introductory basis of his pronouncement as “in accordance with the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act.”
The remaining contentions of petitioner are of even less substantiality, and accordingly the judgment below is
Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas concurs, dissenting.
This case represents another long step in the constantly expanding use by the federal district judges of their summary contempt power to mete out severe prison sentences without according the defendants the benefit of a jury trial and the other rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In an ordinary case of this nature, I would content myself with saying that the conviction should be reversed on the ground that a federal district judge has no power to impose such punishment in a summary proceeding. See Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193 (dissenting opinion); Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507, 515 (dissenting opinion). However, the facts of this case are so disquieting that I am compelled to add a few additional comments.
In 1958, the petitioner was convicted of selling and possessing narcotics in violation of the federal narcotics laws and was sentenced by a Federal District Court to six years’ imprisonment. In 1959, while serving his sentence at the Leavenworth Penitentiary, the petitioner was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury conducting an investigation of possible narcotics offenses. He was asked to indicate where he had obtained the narcotics which he was convicted of having possessed and sold. Invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the petitioner refused to answer the question. He was then asked whether he knew several named individuals and whether he had obtained the narcotics from any of those individuals. Still relying upon his Fifth Amendment privilege, the petitioner refused to answer each of the questions. On petition of the Government, the District Court authorized the granting of immunity to the petitioner pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 1406 and instructed him to answer the questions asked by the grand jury. Upon being recalled before the grand jury, the petitioner again invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to identify those from whom he had obtained the narcotics which constituted the basis for his 1958 conviction. In response to a subsequent order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, the petitioner asserted, as an additional reason for not answering, that the lives of his wife and children, as well as his own life, would be endangered were he to answer the questions. Having denied the petitioner’s request for a jury trial, the district judge summarily found the petitioner guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment, to be served after the completion of the six-year sentence imposed in 1958.
In my opinion, the Government has subjected the petitioner to unjustifiable harassment. The petitioner has been convicted for his admittedly illegal conduct and is presently paying his debt to society for that conduct. However, not being satisfied with this punishment, the Government sought to extract from the petitioner, under the threat of a contempt conviction, testimony which it could not have compelled at the original trial in 1958, and which it knows might well endanger petitioner’s life and the lives of his loved ones. In my view, the Government’s attempt to compel the petitioner to testify about conduct for which he has already been punished, and the District Court’s imposition of an additional term in the penitentiary for petitioner’s refusal to testify about such conduct represents the type of harassment which violates the spirit of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 196 (separate opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan) ; Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U. S. 571, 573 (dissenting opinion). I think it can fairly be said that the treatment which the petitioner has received from the Government and the District Court falls far short of that fundamental fairness which the Constitution guarantees and to which even the basest prisoner in the penitentiary is entitled. Therefore, even if the Court is unwilling to recognize that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of punishment in a summary proceeding, it ought to exercise its supervisory power over the lower federal courts to rectify the abuse of the summary contempt power which the record in this case makes manifest. See Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11.
“Whenever in the judgment of a United States attorney the testimony of any witness, or the production of books, papers, or other evidence by any witness, in any case or proceeding before any grand jury or court of the United States involving any violation of—
“(1) any provision of part I or part II of subchapter A of chapter 39 of the Internal Revenue Cod.e of 1954 the penalty for which is provided in subsection (a) or (b) of section 7237 of such Code,
“(2) subsection (c), (h), or (i) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, as amended (21 U. S. C., sec. 174), or
“(3) the Act of July 11, 1941, as amended (21 U. S. C., sec. 184a), is necessary to the public interest, he, upon the approval of the Attorney General, shall make application to the court that the witness shall be instructed to testify or produce evidence subject to the provisions of this section, and upon order of the court such witness shall not be excused from testifying or from producing books, papers, or other evidence on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no such witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding (except prosecution described in the next sentence) against him in any court. No witness shall be exempt under this section from prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony or producing evidence under compulsion as provided in this section.”
Neither before the Court of Appeals nor here was fear for himself or his family urged by Piemonte as a valid excuse from testifying. Nor would this be a legal excuse. Every citizen of course owes to his society the duty of giving testimony to aid in the enforcement of the law. See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 600. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke’s pithy phrase cannot be too often recalled: “[T]he public has a right to every man’s evidence.” 12 Hansard’s Debates 693; 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), p. 64, § 2192.
If two persons witness an offense — one being an innocent bystander and the other an accomplice who is thereafter imprisoned for his participation — the latter has no more right to keep silent than the former. The Government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens from harm. But fear of reprisal offers an immunized prisoner no more dispensation from testifying than it does any innocent bystander without a record.
Only in the last few years has it become the fashion for district judges to use the summary contempt power as a device for imposing long terms of imprisonment. See, e. g., Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507 (two years’ imprisonment); Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41 (fifteen months’ imprisonment); Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165 (three years’ imprisonment); Collins v. United States, 269 F. 2d 745 (three years’ imprisonment); Tedesco v. United States, 255 F. 2d 35 (two years’ imprisonment); Corona v. United States, 250 F. 2d 578 (two years’ imprisonment). Prior to this recent trend, the summary contempt power was seldom used to impose more than a nominal fine or a short term of imprisonment. See Brown v. United States, supra, at 58-59 (dissenting opinion).
“Q. You are now incarcerated in the penitentiary, are you not, Mr. Piemonte?
“A. That’s right.
“Q. Which one?
“A. Leavenworth Penitentiary.
“Q. You are serving a term of six years?
“A. Six years.
“Q. And that is for the sale and possession of heroin?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Mr. Piemonte, that sale and possession of heroin, there were two sales, were there not, one ounce and 95 grains of heroin that you sold for $3100.00, and another sale — the first one was on November 23, 1957, and the second one was on November 27, 1957, when you sold eight ounces 354 grains for $3,000.00 to Agent Davis; those were the charges in the indictment?
“A. Right.
“Q. Now, Mr. Piemonte, our information is that you were in the narcotic business — Strike that question.
“These two sales of heroin, the first one for $3100.00, and the second one for $3,000.00, on November 23, 1957, and November 27, 1957, will you tell the Grand Jury, please, where you got the heroin?
“A. Sir, I am taking the 5th Amendment. I decline to answer any questions under the Constitution, the 5th Amendment.”
“Q. Now I am going to go over some of those questions that you claimed your privilege on and repeat them to you.
“Now you were convicted in the Federal Court here in Chicago for the sale of heroin on November 23, 1957 that you got $3100 for and another sale on the 27th day of November 1957 that you got $3,000 for.
“Now those were the two sales upon which you were convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary at Leavenworth, is that right?
“A. Right.
“Q. Now the question:
“These two sales of heroin, the first one for $3100 and the second one for $3,000 on November 23, 1957 and November 27, 1957, will you tell the Grand Jury, please, where you got that heroin?
“A. I stand on the Fifth Amendment. I decline to answer as it may tend to incriminate me.”
I do not mean to imply that a person who is incarcerated may, for that reason alone, be excused from testifying before a grand jury. However, I do believe that he cannot be compelled to testify concerning the illegal activity for which he has been incarcerated.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (FEGLIA), 5 U.S.C. § 8701 et seq., establishes a life insurance program for federal employees. FEGLIA provides that an employee may designate a beneficiary to receive the proceeds of his life insurance at the time of his death. § 8705(a). Separately, a Virginia statute addresses the situation in which an employee's marital status has changed, but he did not update his beneficiary designation before his death. Section 20-111.1(D) of the Virginia Code renders a former spouse liable for insurance proceeds to whoever would have received them under applicable law, usually a widow or widower, but for the beneficiary designation. Va.Code Ann. § 20-111.1(D) (Lexis Supp. 2012). This case presents the question whether the remedy created by § 20-111.1(D) is pre-empted by FEGLIA and its implementing regulations. We hold that it is.
I
A
In 1954, Congress enacted FEGLIA to "provide low-cost group life insurance to Federal employees." H.R.Rep. No. 2579, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1954). The program is administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 5 U.S.C. § 8716. Pursuant to the authority granted to it by FEGLIA, OPM entered into a life insurance contract with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. See § 8709; 5 CFR § 870.102 (2013). Individual employees enrolled in the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program receive coverage through this contract. The program is of substantial size. In 2010, the total amount of FEGLI insurance coverage in force was $824 billion. GAO, Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance: Retirement Benefit and Retained Asset Account Disclosures Could Be Improved 1 (GAO-12-94, 2011).
FEGLIA provides that, upon an employee's death, life insurance benefits are paid in accordance with a specified "order of precedence." 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a). The proceeds accrue "[f]irst, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the employee in a signed and witnessed writing received before death." Ibid. "[I]f there is no designated beneficiary," the benefits are paid "to the widow or widower of the employee." Ibid. Absent a widow or widower, the benefits accrue to "the child or children of the employee and descendants of [the] deceased children"; "the parents of the employee" or their survivors; the "executor or administrator of the estate of the employee"; and last, to "other next of kin." Ibid.
To be effective, the beneficiary designation and any accompanying revisions to it must be in writing and duly filed with the Government. See ibid. ("[A] designation, change, or cancellation of beneficiary in a will or other document not so executed and filed has no force or effect"). An OPM regulation provides that an employee may "change [a] beneficiary at any time without the knowledge or consent of the previous beneficiary," and makes clear that "[t]his right cannot be waived or restricted." 5 CFR § 870.802(f). Employees are informed of these requirements through materials that OPM disseminates in connection with the program. See, e.g., OPM, FEGLI Program Booklet 21-22 (rev. Aug. 2004) (setting forth the order of precedence and stating that OPM "will pay benefits" "[f]irst, to the beneficiary [the employee] designate[s]"). The order of precedence is also described on the form that employees use to designate a beneficiary. See Designation of Beneficiary, FEGLI Program, SF 2823 (rev. Mar. 2011) (Back of Part 2). And the enrollment form advises employees to update their designations if their "[i]ntentions [c]hange" as a result of, for example, "marriage [or] divorce." Ibid.
In 1998, Congress amended FEGLIA to create a limited exception to an employee's right of designation. The statute now provides that "[a]ny amount which would otherwise be paid to a person determined under the order of precedence... shall be paid (in whole or in part) by [OPM] to another person if and to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation" or related settlement, but only in the event the "decree, order, or agreement" is received by OPM or the employing agency before the employee's death. 5 U.S.C. § 8705(e)(1)-(2).
FEGLIA also includes an express pre-emption provision. That provision states in relevant part that "[t]he provisions of any contract under [FEGLIA] which relate to the nature or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any law of any State..., which relates to group life insurance to the extent that the law or regulation is inconsistent with the contractual provisions." § 8709(d)(1).
This case turns on the interaction between these provisions of FEGLIA and a Virginia statute. Section 20-111.1(A) (Section A) of the Virginia Code provides that a divorce or annulment "revoke[s]" a "beneficiary designation contained in a then existing written contract owned by one party that provides for the payment of any death benefit to the other party." A "death benefit" includes "payments under a life insurance contract." § 20.111.1(B).
In the event that Section A is pre-empted by federal law, § 20-111.1(D) (Section D) of the Virginia Code applies. Section D provides as follows:
"If [ Va.Code Ann. § 20-111.1 ] is preempted by federal law with respect to the payment of any death benefit, a former spouse who, not for value, receives the payment of any death benefit that the former spouse is not entitled to under [ § 20-111.1 ] is personally liable for the amount of the payment to the person who would have been entitled to it were [§ 20.111.1] not preempted."
In other words, where Section A is pre-empted, Section D creates a cause of action rendering a former spouse liable for the principal amount of the insurance proceeds to the person who would have received them had Section A continued in effect.
B
Warren Hillman (Warren) and respondent Judy Maretta were married. In 1996, Warren named Maretta as the beneficiary of his FEGLI policy. Warren and Maretta divorced in 1998 and, four years later, he married petitioner Jacqueline Hillman. Warren died unexpectedly in 2008. Because Warren had never changed the named beneficiary under his FEGLI policy, it continued to identify Maretta as the beneficiary at the time of his death despite his divorce and subsequent remarriage to Hillman.
Hillman filed a claim for the proceeds of Warren's life insurance, but the FEGLI administrator informed her that the proceeds would accrue to Maretta, because she had been named as the beneficiary. Maretta filed a claim for the benefits with OPM and collected the FEGLI proceeds in the amount of $124,558.03. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a.
Hillman then filed a lawsuit in Virginia Circuit Court, arguing that Maretta was liable to her under Section D for the proceeds of her deceased husband's FEGLI policy. The parties agreed that Section A, which directly reallocates the benefits, is pre-empted by FEGLIA. Id., at 36a. Maretta contended that Section D is also pre-empted by federal law and that she should keep the insurance proceeds. The Circuit Court rejected Maretta's argument and granted summary judgment to Hillman, finding Maretta liable to Hillman under Section D for the proceeds of Warren's policy. Id., at 58a.
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed and entered judgment for Maretta. 283 Va. 34, 46, 722 S.E.2d 32, 38 (2012). The court found that FEGLIA clearly instructed that the insurance proceeds should be paid to a named beneficiary. Id., at 44-46, 722 S.E.2d, at 36-38. The court reasoned that "Congress did not intend merely for the named beneficiary in a FEGLI policy to receive the proceeds, only then to have them subject to recovery by a third party under state law." Id., at 44, 722 S.E.2d, at 37. It therefore concluded that Section D is pre-empted by FEGLIA, because it "stand[s] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Id., at 45, 722 S.E.2d, at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted certiorari, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 928, 184 L.Ed.2d 718 (2013), to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts over whether FEGLIA pre-empts a rule of state law that automatically assigns an interest in the proceeds of a FEGLI policy to a person other than the named beneficiary or grants that person a right to recover such proceeds. We now affirm.
II
Under the Supremacy Clause, Congress has the power to pre-empt state law expressly. See Brown v. HotelEmployees, 468 U.S. 491, 500-501, 104 S.Ct. 3179, 82 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984). Although FEGLIA contains an express pre-emption provision, see § 8709(d)(1), the court below considered only whether Section D is pre-empted under conflict pre-emption principles. We limit our analysis here to that holding. State law is pre-empted "to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute." Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000) (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66-67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941) ). Such a conflict occurs when compliance with both federal and state regulations is impossible, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963), or when the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines, 312 U.S., at 67, 61 S.Ct. 399. This case raises a question of purposes and objectives pre-emption.
The regulation of domestic relations is traditionally the domain of state law. See In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). There is therefore a "presumption against pre-emption" of state laws governing domestic relations, Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 151, 121 S.Ct. 1322, 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001), and "family and family-property law must do'major damage' to 'clear and substantial' federal interests before the Supremacy Clause will demand that state law will be overridden," Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). But family law is not entirely insulated from conflict pre-emption principles, and so we have recognized that state laws " governing the economic aspects of domestic relations... must give way to clearly conflicting federal enactments." Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 55, 102 S.Ct. 49, 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981).
A
To determine whether a state law conflicts with Congress' purposes and objectives, we must first ascertain the nature of the federal interest. Crosby, 530 U.S., at 372-373, 120 S.Ct. 2288.
Hillman contends that Congress' purpose in enacting FEGLIA was to advance administrative convenience by establishing a clear rule to dictate where the Government should direct insurance proceeds. See Brief for Petitioner 25. There is some force to Hillman's argument that a significant legislative interest in a large federal program like FEGLIA is to enable its efficient administration. If Hillman is correct that administrative convenience was Congress' only purpose, then there might be no conflict between Section D and FEGLIA: Section D's cause of action takes effect only after benefits have been paid, and so would not necessarily impact the Government's distribution of insurance proceeds. Cf. Hardy v. Hardy, 963 N.E.2d 470, 477-478 (Ind.2012).
For her part, Maretta insists that Congress had a more substantial purpose in enacting FEGLIA: to ensure that a duly named beneficiary will receive the insurance proceeds and be able to make use of them. Brief for Respondent 21-22. If Maretta is correct, then Section D would directly conflict with that objective, because its cause of action would take the insurance proceeds away from the named beneficiary and reallocate them to someone else. We must therefore determine which understanding of FEGLIA's purpose is correct.
We do not write on a clean slate. In two previous cases, we considered federal insurance statutes requiring that insurance proceeds be paid to a named beneficiary and held they pre-empted state laws that mandated a different distribution of benefits. The statutes we addressed in these cases are similar to FEGLIA. And the impediments to the federal interests in these prior cases are analogous to the one created by Section D of the Virginia statute.
These precedents accordingly govern our analysis of the relationship between Section D and FEGLIA in this case.
In Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 70 S.Ct. 398, 94 L.Ed. 424 (1950), we considered whether the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 (NSLIA), 54 Stat. 1008, pre-empted a rule of state marital property law. Congress had enacted NSLIA to "affor[d] a uniform and comprehensive system of life insurance for members and veterans of the armed forces of the United States." Wissner, 338 U.S., at 658, 70 S.Ct. 398. A California court granted the decedent's widow, who was not the named beneficiary, an interest in the insurance proceeds as community property under state law. Id., at 657, 70 S.Ct. 398.
We reversed, holding that NSLIA pre-empted the widow's state-law action to recover the proceeds. Id., at 658, 70 S.Ct. 398. In pertinent part, NSLIA provided that the insured "'shall have the right to designate the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the insurance [within a designated class],... and shall... at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries.' " Ibid. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 802(g) (1946 ed.) ). We reasoned that "Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to the named beneficiary and no other." 338 U.S., at 658, 70 S.Ct. 398. The California court's decision could not stand, we found, because it "substitute[d] the widow for the mother, who was the beneficiary Congress directed shall receive the insurance money." Id., at 659, 70 S.Ct. 398.
In Ridgway, we considered a similar question regarding the federal Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Act of 1965 (SGLIA), Pub.L. 89-214, 79 Stat. 880, another insurance scheme for members of the armed services. 454 U.S., at 50-53, 102 S.Ct. 49. A Maine court imposed a constructive trust on insurance proceeds paid to a servicemember's widow, who was the named beneficiary, and ordered they be paid to the decedent's first wife as required by the terms of a divorce decree. Id., at 49-50, 102 S.Ct. 49.
In holding the constructive trust pre-empted, we explained that the issue was "controlled by Wissner." Id., at 55, 102 S.Ct. 49. As in Wissner, the applicable provisions of SGLIA made clear that "the insured service member possesses the right freely to designate the beneficiary and to alter that choice at any time by communicating the decision in writing to the proper office." 454 U.S., at 56, 102 S.Ct. 49 (citing Wissner, 338 U.S., at 658, 70 S.Ct. 398). We also noted that SGLIA established an " 'order of precedence,' " which provided that the benefits would be first paid to "such 'beneficiary or beneficiaries as the member... may have designated by [an appropriately filed] writing received prior to death.' " 454 U.S., at 52, 102 S.Ct. 49 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 770(a) (1976 ed.) ). Notwithstanding "some small differences" between SGLIA and NSLIA, we concluded that SGLIA's "unqualified directive to pay the proceeds to the properly designated beneficiary clearly suggest[ed] that no different result was intended by Congress." 454 U.S., at 57, 102 S.Ct. 49.
B
Our reasoning in Wissner and Ridgway applies with equal force here. The statutes we considered in these earlier cases are strikingly similar to FEGLIA. Like NSLIA and SGLIA, FEGLIA creates a scheme that gives highest priority to an insured's designated beneficiary. 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a). Indeed, FEGLIA includes an "order of precedence" that is nearly identical to the one in SGLIA: Both require that the insurance proceeds be paid first to the named beneficiary ahead of any other potential recipient. Compare ibid. with 38 U.S.C. § 770(a) (1976 ed.) (now § 1970(a) (2006 ed.)). FEGLIA's implementing regulations further underscore that the employee's "right" of designation "cannot be waived or restricted." 5 CFR § 843.205(e). In FEGLIA, as in these other statutes, Congress "'spok[e] with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to the named beneficiary and no other.' " Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 55, 102 S.Ct. 49 (quoting Wissner, 338 U.S., at 658, 70 S.Ct. 398; emphasis added).
Section D interferes with Congress' scheme, because it directs that the proceeds actually "belong" to someone other than the named beneficiary by creating a cause of action for their recovery by a third party. Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 55, 102 S.Ct. 49; see Va.Code Ann. § 20-111.1(D). It makes no difference whether state law requires the transfer of the proceeds, as Section A does, or creates a cause of action, like Section D, that enables another person to receive the proceeds upon filing an action in state court. In either case, state law displaces the beneficiary selected by the insured in accordance with FEGLIA and places someone else in her stead. As in Wissner, applicable state law "substitutes the widow" for the "beneficiary Congress directed shall receive the insurance money," 338 U.S., at 659, 70 S.Ct. 398, and thereby "frustrates the deliberate purpose of Congress" to ensure that a federal employee's named beneficiary receives the proceeds. Ibid.
One can imagine plausible reasons to favor a different policy. Many employees perhaps neglect to update their beneficiary designations after a change in marital status.
As a result, a legislature could have thought that a default rule providing that insurance proceeds accrue to a widow or widower, and not a named beneficiary, would be more likely to align with most people's intentions. Or, similarly, a legislature might have reasonably believed that an employee's will is more reliable evidence of his intent than a beneficiary designation form executed years earlier.
But that is not the judgment Congress made. Rather than draw an inference about an employee's probable intent from a range of sources, Congress established a clear and predictable procedure for an employee to indicate who the intended beneficiary of his life insurance shall be. Like the statutes at issue in Ridgway and Wissner, FEGLIA evinces Congress' decision to accord federal employees an unfettered "freedom of choice" in selecting the beneficiary of the insurance proceeds and to ensure the proceeds would actually "belong" to that beneficiary.
Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 56, 102 S.Ct. 49. An employee's ability to name a beneficiary acts as a "guarantee of the complete and full performance of the contract to the exclusion of conflicting claims." Wissner, 338 U.S., at 660, 70 S.Ct. 398. With that promise comes the expectation that the insurance proceeds will be paid to the named beneficiary and that the beneficiary can use them.
There is further confirmation that Congress intended the insurance proceeds be paid in accordance with FEGLIA's procedures. Section 8705(e)(1) of FEGLIA provides that "[a]ny amount which would otherwise be paid... under the order of precedence" shall be paid to another person "if and to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation." This exception, however, only applies if the "decree, order, or agreement... is received, before the date of the covered employee's death, by the employing agency." § 8705(e)(2). This provision allows the proceeds to be paid to someone other than the named beneficiary, but if and only if the requisite documentation is filed with the Government, so that any departure from the beneficiary designation is managed within, not outside, the federal system.
We have explained that "[w]here Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent." Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-617, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980). Section 8705(e) creates a limited exception to the order of precedence. If States could make alternative distributions outside the clear procedure Congress established, that would transform this narrow exception into a general license for state law to override FEGLIA. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28-29, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001).
In short, where a beneficiary has been duly named, the insurance proceeds she is owed under FEGLIA cannot be allocated to another person by operation of state law. Section D does exactly that. We therefore agree with the Virginia Supreme Court that it is pre-empted.
III
We are not persuaded by Hillman's additional arguments in support of a different result.
Hillman contends that Ridgway and Wissner can be distinguished because, unlike the statutes we considered in those cases, FEGLIA does not include an "anti-attachment provision." Brief for Petitioner 38-41. The anti-attachment provisions in NSLIA and SGLIA were identical, and each broadly prohibited the "attachment, levy, or seizure" of insurance proceeds by any legal process. 38 U.S.C. § 454a (1946 ed.) (incorporated by reference in § 816); § 770(g) (1976 ed.). In Wissner and Ridgway, we found that the relevant state laws violated these provisions and that this further conflict supported our conclusion that the state laws were pre-empted.
These discussions of the anti-attachment provisions, however, were alternative grounds to support the judgment in each case, and not necessary components of the holdings. See Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 60-61, 102 S.Ct. 49 (describing separately the anti-attachment provision and noting that the state law "also" conflicted with it); id., at 60, 102 S.Ct. 49 (noting that in Wissner we found an "anti-attachment provision... as an independent ground for the result reached in that case" (emphasis added)); see also Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 631, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987) (describing Wissner's treatment of the anti-attachment provision as "clearly an alternative holding"). The absence of an anti-attachment provision in FEGLIA does not render Ridgway's and Wissner's primary holdings any less applicable here.
Next, Hillman suggests that Wissner and Ridgway can be set aside because FEGLIA contains an express pre-emption provision and that conflict pre-emption principles ordinarily do not apply when that is so. Brief for Petitioner 45-47. As noted, the court below did not pass on the parties' express pre-emption arguments, and thus we similarly address only conflict pre-emption. See supra, at 1950. And we need not consider whether Section D is expressly pre-empted, because Hillman is incorrect to suggest that FEGLIA's express pre-emption provision renders conflict pre-emption inapplicable. Rather, we have made clear that the existence of a separate pre-emption provision " 'does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles.' " Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 65, 123 S.Ct. 518, 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2504-2505, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012).
Hillman further argues that Ridgway is not controlling because a provision of FEGLIA specifically authorizes an employee to assign a FEGLI policy, whereas SGLIA's implementing regulations prohibit such an assignment. See 5 U.S.C. § 8706(f)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. V); 38 CFR § 9.6 (2012). The premise of Hillman's argument is that FEGLIA's assignment provision suggests that an employee has a less substantial interest in who ultimately receives the proceeds. But an employee's ability to assign a FEGLI policy in fact highlights Congress' intent to allow an employee wide latitude to determine how the proceeds should be paid, whether that is to a named beneficiary that he selects, or indirectly through the assignment of the policy itself to someone else.
Finally, Hillman attempts to distinguish Ridgway and Wissner because Congress enacted the statutes at issue in those cases with the goal of improving military morale. Brief for Petitioner 47-51. Congress' aim of increasing the morale of the armed services, however, was not the basis of our pre-emption analysis in either case. See Wissner, 338 U.S., at 658-659, 70 S.Ct. 398; Ridgway, 454 U.S., at 53-56, 102 S.Ct. 49.
* * *
Section D is in direct conflict with FEGLIA because it interferes with Congress' objective that insurance proceeds belong to the named beneficiary. Accordingly, we hold that Section D is pre-empted by federal law. The judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.
The Court correctly concludes that § 20-111.1(D) of the Virginia Code (Section D) is pre-empted by the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (FEGLIA), 5 U.S.C. § 8701 et seq. But I cannot join the "purposes and objectives" framework that the majority uses to reach this conclusion. Ante, at 1949 - 1950. That framework is an illegitimate basis for finding the pre-emption of state law, see Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 583, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment), and is entirely unnecessary to the result in this case, because the ordinary meanings of FEGLIA and Section D directly conflict. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, cl. 2. "Where state and federal law 'directly conflict,' state law must give way." PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2577, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011) (quoting Wyeth, 555 U.S., at 583, 129 S.Ct. 1187). As I have noted before, courts assessing whether state and federal law conflict should not engage in a freewheeling inquiry into whether state law undermines supposed federal purposes and objectives. Id., at 588, 129 S.Ct. 1187. Such an approach looks beyond the text of enacted federal law and thereby permits the Federal Government to displace state law without satisfying an essential precondition to pre-emption, namely, the Bi-cameral and Presentment Clause. Id., at 586-587, 129 S.Ct. 1187. Pre-emption analysis should, therefore, instead hew closely to the text and structure of the provisions at issue, and a court should find pre-emption only when the " 'ordinary meaning' " of duly enacted federal law "effectively repeal[s] contrary state law." PLIVA,supra, at ---- - ----, ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2579-2580, 2580-2581.
Applying these principles, it is clear that the ordinary meaning of FEGLIA directly conflicts with Section D. FEGLIA provides that life insurance benefits are paid according to a particular "order of precedence." 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a) ; see also 5 CFR § 870.801(a) (2013). The benefits are distributed first to "the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the employee in a signed and witnessed writing received before death." 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a). If the insured fails to designate a beneficiary, FEGLIA provides a specific order in which benefits must be distributed: next to "the widow or widower of the employee"; absent a widow or widower, to "the child or children of the employee and descendants of [the] deceased children"; and so on. Ibid. ; ante, at 1947 - 1948. The insured has the right to change his beneficiary designation "at any time without the knowledge or consent of the previous beneficiary," and "[t]his right cannot be waived or restricted." 5 CFR § 870.802(f).
Section D directly conflicts with this statutory scheme, because it nullifies the insured's statutory right to designate a beneficiary. The right to designate a beneficiary encompasses a corresponding right in the named beneficiary not only to receive the proceeds, but also to retain them.
Indeed, the "right" to designate a beneficiary-as well as the term "beneficiary" itself-would be meaningless if the only effect of a designation were to saddle the nominal beneficiary with liability under state law for the full value of the proceeds. But Section D accomplishes exactly that: It transforms the designated beneficiary into a defendant in state court, a defendant who is now liable to the individual the State has designated as the true beneficiary. While Hillman does not insist that the insurer should have mailed the check to her (as opposed to Maretta, the designated beneficiary), Section D requires, in effect, this very result. See ante, at 1952 ("[Section D] displaces the beneficiary selected by the insured in accordance with FEGLIA and places someone else in her stead"). If the right to designate a beneficiary means anything, we must conclude that Section D directly conflicts with FEGLIA's order of precedence.
The direct conflict between Section D and FEGLIA is also evident in the fact that Section D's only function is to accomplish what Section A would have achieved, had Section A not been pre-empted. Section A provides that,
"upon the entry of a decree of annulment or divorce from the bond of matrimony..., any revocable beneficiary designation contained in a then existing written contract owned by one party that provides for the payment of any death benefit to the other party is revoked. A death benefit prevented from passing to a former spouse by this section shall be paid as if the former spouse had predeceased the decedent." Va.Code Ann. § 20-111.1(A) (Lexis Cum. Supp. 2012).
Both parties agree that FEGLIA pre-empts this provision. Brief for Petitioner 4-5; Brief for Respondent 2; see also 283 Va. 34, 52, 722 S.E.2d 32, 35 (2012). And for good reason: if an insured has designated his former spouse as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, Section A purports to "revok[e]" that designation in the event of divorce or annulment. By purporting to so alter FEGLIA's statutory order of precedence, Section A is clearly pre-empted by federal law. Tellingly, it is precisely in this context-and only in this context-that Section D operates. See § 20-111.1(D). Of course, Section D does not preclude the direct payment of benefits to the designated beneficiary; however, it accomplishes the same prohibited result by transforming the designated party into little more than a passthrough for the true beneficiary. This cannot be squared with FEGLIA. Consequently, Section D must yield.
* * *
For these reasons, I agree with the Court's conclusion that Section D is pre-empted and, therefore, concur in the judgment.
Justice ALITO, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment. Because one of the purposes of the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (FEGLIA) is to implement the expressed wishes of the insured, I would hold that a state law is pre-empted if it effectively overrides an insured's actual, articulated choice of beneficiary. The challenged provision of Virginia law has that effect.
By way of background, Va.Code Ann. § 20-111.1(A) (Lexis Supp. 2012) provides that the entry of a divorce decree automatically revokes an insured's prior designation of his or her former spouse as the beneficiary of the policy. And where, as in this case, the insured remar
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pee Curiam.
On July 14, 1976, criminal complaints were issued against petitioners charging them with disseminating obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2907.32 (1975). The Municipal Court granted petitioners’ motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that petitioners had been subjected to selective and discriminatory prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support petitioners’ allegations of selective and discriminatory prosecution. The case was remanded for trial. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. 63 Ohio St. 2d 132, 407 N. E. 2d 15 (1980). We granted certiorari. 449 U. S. 1033 (1980). Because the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court was not a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257, we dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction.
Consistent with the relevant jurisdictional statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1257, the Court’s jurisdiction to review a state-court decision is generally limited to a final judgment rendered by the highest court of the State in which decision may be had. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 476-477 (1975). In general, the final-judgment rule has been interpreted “to preclude reviewability . . . where anything further remains to be determined by a State court, no matter how dissociated from the only federal issue that has finally been adjudicated by the highest court of the State.” Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 124 (1945). Applied in the context of a criminal prosecution, finality is normally defined by the imposition of the sentence. Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 518 (1956); Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937); see also Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545, 547 (1967). Here there has been no finding of guilt and no sentence imposed.
The Court has, however, in certain circumstances, treated state-court judgments as final for jurisdictional purposes although there were further proceedings to take place in the state court. Cases of this kind were divided into four categories in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, supra, and each category was described. We do not think that the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court is a final judgment within any of the four exceptions indentified in Cox.
In the first place, we observed in Cox that in most, if not all, of the cases falling within the four exceptions, not only was there a final judgment on the federal issue for purposes of state-court proceedings, but also there were no other federal issues to be resolved. There was thus no probability of piecemeal review with respect to federal issues. Here, it appears that other federal issues will be involved in the trial court, such as whether or not the publication at issue is obscene.
Second, it is not even arguable that the judgment involved here falls within any of the first three categories identified in the Cox opinion, and the argument that it is within the fourth category, although not frivolous, is unsound. The cases falling within the fourth exception were described as those situations:
“[w]here the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action rather than merely controlling the nature and character of, or determining the admissibility of evidence in, the state proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for purposes of the state litigation.” 420 U. S., at 482-483.
Here, it is apparent that if we reversed the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court on the federal defense of selective enforcement, there would be no further proceedings in the state courts in this case. But the question remains whether delaying review until petitioners are convicted, if they are, would seriously erode federal policy within the meaning of our prior cases. We are quite sure that this would not be the case and that we do not have a final judgment before us.
The cases which the Cox opinion listed as falling in the fourth category involved identifiable federal statutory or constitutional policies which would have been undermined by the continuation of the litigation in the state courts. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); Mercantile National Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555 (1963); Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542 (1963). Here there is no identifiable federal policy that will suffer if the state criminal proceeding goes forward. The question presented for review is whether on this record the decision to prosecute petitioners was selective or discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The resolution of this question can await final judgment without any adverse effect upon important federal interests. A contrary conclusion would permit the fourth exception to swallow the rule. Any federal issue finally decided on an interlocutory appeal in the state courts would qualify for immediate review. That this case involves an obscenity prosecution does not alter the conclusion. Obscene material, properly defined, is beyond the protection of the First Amendment. Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 23-24 (1973). As this case comes to us, we are confronted only with a state effort to prosecute an unprotected activity, the dissemination of obscenity. The obscenity issue has not yet been decided in the state courts, and no federal policy bars a trial on that question. There is no reason to treat this selective prosecution claim differently than we would treat any other claim of selective prosecution.
Accordingly, the writ is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., prohibits the manufacture and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana. In this ease, we must decide whether there is a medical necessity exception to these prohibitions. We hold that there is not.
I
In November 1996, California voters enacted an initiative measure entitled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Attempting “[t]o ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes,” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2001), the statute creates an exception to California laws prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana. These prohibitions no longer apply to a patient or his primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient’s medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician. Ibid. In the wake of this voter initiative, several groups organized “medical cannabis dispensaries” to meet the needs of qualified patients. United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (ND Cal. 1998). Respondent Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative is one of these groups.
The Cooperative is a not-for-profit organization that operates in downtown Oakland. A physician serves as medical director, and registered nurses staff the Cooperative during business hours. To become a member, a patient must provide a written statement from a treating physician assenting to marijuana therapy and must submit to a screening interview. If accepted as a member, the patient receives an identification card entitling him to obtain marijuana from the Cooperative.
In January 1998, the United States sued the Cooperative and its executive director, respondent Jeffrey Jones (together, the Cooperative), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Seeking to enjoin the Cooperative from distributing and manufacturing marijuana, the United States argued that, whether or not the Cooperative’s activities are legal under California law, they violate federal law. Specifically, the Government argued that the Cooperative violated the Controlled Substances Act’s prohibitions on distributing, manufacturing, and possessing with the intent to distribute or manufacture a controlled substance. 21 U. S. C. § 841(a). Concluding that the Government had established a probability of success on the merits, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a-40a; 5 F. Supp. 2d, at 1105.
The Cooperative did not appeal the injunction but instead openly violated it by distributing marijuana to numerous persons, App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a-23a. To terminate these violations, the Government initiated contempt proceedings. In defense, the Cooperative contended that any distributions were medically necessary. Marijuana is the only drug, according to the Cooperative, that can alleviate the severe pain and other debilitating symptoms of the Cooperative’s patients. Id., at 29a. The District Court rejected this defense, however, after determining there was insufficient evidence that each recipient of marijuana was in actual danger of imminent harm without the drug. Id., at 29a-32a. The District Court found the Cooperative in contempt and, at the Government’s request, modified the preliminary injunction to empower the United States Marshal to seize the Cooperative’s premises. Id., at 37a. Although recognizing that “human suffering” could result, the District Court reasoned that a court’s “equitable powers [do] not permit it to ignore federal law.” Ibid. Three days later, the District Court summarily rejected a motion by the Cooperative to modify the injunction to permit distributions that are medically necessary.
The Cooperative appealed both the contempt order and the denial of the Cooperative’s motion to modify. Before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case, however, the Cooperative voluntarily purged its contempt by promising the District Court that it would comply with the initial preliminary injunction. Consequently, the Court of Appeals determined that the appeal of the contempt order was moot. 190 F. 3d 1109,1112-1113 (1999).
The denial of the Cooperative’s motion to modify the injunction, however, presented a live controversy that was ap-pealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1). Reaching the merits of this issue, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. According to the Court of Appeals, the medical necessity defense was a “legally cognizable defense” that likely would apply in the circumstances. 190 F. 3d, at 1114. Moreover, the Court of Appeals reasoned, the District Court erroneously “believed that it had no discretion to issue an injunction that was more limited in scope than the Controlled Substances Act itself.” Id., at 1114-1115. Because, according to the Court of Appeals, district courts retain “broad equitable discretion” to fashion injunctive relief, the District Court could have, and should have, weighed the “public interest” and considered factors such as the serious harm in depriving patients of marijuana. Ibid. Remanding the case, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to consider “the criteria for a medical necessity exemption, and, should it modify the injunction, to set forth those criteria in the modification order.” Id., at 1115. Following these instructions, the District Court granted the Cooperative’s motion to modify the injunction to incorporate a medical necessity defense.
The United States petitioned for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision that medical necessity is a legally cognizable defense to violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Because the decision raises significant questions as to the ability of the United States to enforce the Nation’s drug laws, we granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 1010 (2000).
II
The Controlled Substances Act provides that, “[ejxcept as authorized by this subehapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U. S. C. 1841(a)(1). The subehapter, in turn, establishes exceptions. For marijuana (and other drugs that have been classified as “schedule I” controlled substances), there is but one express exception, and it is available only for Government-approved research projects, § 823(f). Not conducting such a project, the Cooperative eannot, and indeed does not, claim this statutory exemption.
The Cooperative contends, however, that notwithstanding the apparently absolute language of § 841(a), the statute is subject to additional, implied exceptions, one of which is medical necessity. According to the Cooperative, because necessity was a defense at common law, medical necessity should be read into the Controlled Substances Act. We disagree.
As an initial matter, we note that it is an open question whether federal courts ever have authority to recognize a necessity defense not provided by statute. A necessity defense “traditionally covered the situation where physical forces beyond the actor’s control rendered illegal conduct the lesser of two evils.” United States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394, 410 (1980). Even at common law, the defense of necessity was somewhat controversial. See, e. g., Queen v. Dudley & Stephens, 14 Q. B. 273 (1884). And under our constitutional system, in which federal crimes are defined by statute rather, than by common law, see United States v. Hudson, 7 Craneh 32, 34 (1812), it is especially so. As we have stated: “Whether, as a policy matter, an exemption should be created is a question for legislative judgment, not judicial inference.” United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 559 (1979). Nonetheless, we recognize that this Court has discussed the possibility of a necessity defense without altogether rejecting it. See, e. g., Bailey, supra, at 415.
We need not decide, however, whether necessity can ever be a defense when the federal statute does not expressly provide for it. In this ease, to resolve the question presented, we need only recognize that a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act. The statute, to be sure, does not explicitly abrogate the defense. But its provisions leave no doubt that the defense is unavailable.
Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a “determination of values.” 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.4, p. 629 (1986). In the ease of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a Government-approved research project). Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U. S. C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana. Indeed, for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use” at all. §812.
The structure of the Act supports this conclusion. The statute divides drugs into five schedules, depending in part on whether the particular drug has a currently accepted medical use. The Act then imposes restrictions on the manufacture and distribution of the substance according to the schedule in which it has been placed. Schedule I is the most restrictive schedule. The Attorney General can include a drug in schedule I only if the drug “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” “has a high potential for abuse,” and has “a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.” §§ 812(b)(l)(A)-(C). Under the statute, the Attorney General could not put marijuana into schedule I if marijuana had any accepted medical use.
The Cooperative points out, however, that the Attorney General did not place marijuana into schedule I. Congress put it there, and Congress was not required to find that a drug lacks an accepted medical use before including the drug in schedule I. We are not persuaded that this distinction has any significance to our inquiry. Under the Cooperative’s logic, drugs that Congress places in schedule I could be distributed when medically necessary whereas drugs that the Attorney General places in schedule I could not. Nothing in the statute, however, suggests that there are two tiers of schedule I narcotics, with drugs in one tier more readily available than drugs in the other. On the contrary, the statute consistently treats all schedule I drugs alike. See, e. g., § 823(a) (providing criteria for Attorney General to consider when determining whether to register an applicant to manufacture schedule I controlled substances), § 828(b) (providing criteria for Attorney General to consider when determining whether to register an applicant to distribute schedule I controlled substances), § 823(f) (providing procedures for becoming a government-approved research project), §826 (establishing production quotas for schedule I drugs). Moreover, the Cooperative offers no convincing explanation for why drugs that Congress placed on schedule I should be subject to fewer controls than the drugs that the Attorney General placed on the schedule. Indeed, the Cooperative argues that, in placing marijuana and other drugs on schedule I, Congress “wishe[d] to assert the most restrictive level of controls created by the [Controlled Substances Act].” Brief for Respondents 24. If marijuana should be subject to the most restrictive level of controls, it should not be treated any less restrictively than other schedule I drugs.
The Cooperative further argues that use of schedule I drugs generally — whether placed in schedule I by Congress or the Attorney General — can be medically necessary, notwithstanding that they have “no currently accepted medical use.” According to the Cooperative, a drug may not yet have achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment but may nonetheless have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients. We decline to parse the statute in this manner. It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. The statute expressly contemplates that many drugs “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people,” §801(1), but it includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the Cooperative’s argument.
Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should eonstrue the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance.
For these reasons, we hold that medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that medical necessity is a “legally cognizable defense.” 190 F. 3d, at 1114. It further erred when it instructed the District Court on remand to consider “the criteria for a medical necessity exemption, and, should it modify the injunction, to set forth those criteria in the modification order.” Id., at 1115.
Ill
The Cooperative contends that, even if the Controlled Substances Act forecloses the medical necessity defense, there is an alternative ground for affirming the Court of Appeals. This ease, the Cooperative reminds us, arises from a motion to modify an injunction to permit distributions that are medically necessary. According to the Cooperative, the Court of Appeals was correct that the District Court had “broad equitable discretion” to tailor the injunctive relief to account for medical necessity, irrespective of whether there is a legal defense of necessity in the statute. Id., at 1114. To sustain the judgment below, the argument goes, we need only reaffirm that federal courts, in the exercise of their equity jurisdiction, have discretion to modify an injunction based upon a weighing of the public interest.
We disagree. Although district courts whose equity powers have been properly invoked indeed have discretion in fashioning injunctive relief (in the absence of a statutory restriction), the Court of Appeals erred concerning the factors that the district courts may consider in exercising such discretion.
A
As an initial matter, the Cooperative is correct that, when district courts are properly acting as courts of equity, they have discretion unless a statute clearly provides otherwise. For “several hundred years,” courts of equity have enjoyed “sound discretion” to consider the “necessities of the public interest” when fashioning injunctive relief. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330 (1944). See also id., at 329 (“The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it”); Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction”). Such discretion is displaced only by a “clear and valid legislative command.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). See also Romero-Barcelo, supra, at 313 (“Of course, Congress may intervene and guide or control the exercise of the courts’ discretion, but we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles”).
The Cooperative is also correct that the District Court in this case had discretion. The Controlled Substances Act vests district courts with jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 882(a). But a “grant of jurisdiction to issue [equitable relief] hardly suggests an absolute duty to do so under any and all circumstances,” Hecht, supra, at 329 (emphasis deleted). Because the District Court’s use of equitable power is not textually required by any “clear and valid legislative command,” the court did not have to issue an injunction.
TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), does not support the Government’s contention that the District Court lacked discretion in fashioning injunctive relief. In Hill, the Court held that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 required the District Court to enjoin completion of a dam, whose operation would either eradicate the known population of the snail darter or destroy its critical habitat. Id., at 193-195. The District Court lacked discretion because an injunction was the “only means of ensuring compliance.” Romero-Barcelo, supra, at 314 (explaining why the District Court in Hill lacked discretion). Congress’ “order of priorities,” as expressed in the statute, would be deprived of effect if the District Court could choose to deny injunctive relief. Hill, supra, at 194. In effect, the District Court had only a Hob-son’s choice. By contrast, with respect to the Controlled Substances Act, criminal enforcement is an alternative, and indeed the customary, means of ensuring compliance with the statute. Congress’ resolution of the policy issues can be (and usually is) upheld without an injunction.
B
But the mere fact that the District Court had discretion does not suggest that the District Court, when evaluating the motion to modify the injunction, could consider any and all factors that might relate to the public interest or the conveniences of the parties, including the medical needs of the Cooperative’s patients. On the contrary, a court sitting in equity cannot “ignore the judgment' of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation.” Virginian R. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U.S. 515, 551 (1937). A district court cannot, for example, override Congress’ policy choice, articulated in a statute, as to what behavior should be prohibited. “Once Congress, exercising its delegated powers, has decided the order of priorities in a given area, it is... for the courts to enforce them when enforcement is sought.” Hill, 437 U.S., at 194. Courts of equity cannot, in their discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in a statute. Id., at 194-195. Their choice (unless there is statutory language to the contrary) is simply whether a particular means of enforcing the statute should be chosen over another permissible means; their choice is not whether enforcement is preferable to no enforcement at all. Consequently, when a court of equity exercises its discretion, it may not consider the advantages and disadvantages of nonenforcement of the statute, but only the advantages and disadvantages of “employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction,” Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S., at 312, over the other available methods of enforcement. Cf. id., at 816 (referring to “discretion to rely on remedies other than an immediate prohibitory injunction”). To the extent the district court considers the public interest and the conveniences of the parties, the court is limited to evaluating how such interest and conveniences are affected by the selection of an injunction over other enforcement mechanisms.
C
In this case, the Court of Appeals erred by considering relevant the evidence that some people have “serious medical conditions for whom the use of cannabis is necessary in order to treat or alleviate those conditions or their symptoms,” that these people “will suffer serious harm if they are denied cannabis,” and that “there is no legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment of their medical conditions.” 190 P. 3d, at 1115. As explained above, in the Controlled Substances Act, the balance already has been struck against a medical necessity exception. Because the statutory prohibitions cover even those who have what could be termed a medical necessity, the Act precludes consideration of this evidence. It was thus error for the Court of Appeals to instruct the District Court on remand to consider “the criteria for a medical necessity exemption, and, should it modify the injunction, to set forth those criteria in the modification order.” Ibid.
*í- H* H*
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.
The Government requested, and the District Court granted, an injunction that prohibited the possession of marijuana with the intent to manufacture and distribute, as well as the distribution and manufacture of marijuana. For simplicity, in this opinion, we refer to these activities collectively as distributing and manufacturing marijuana. The legal issues are the same for all of these activities.
The amended preliminary injunction reaffirmed that the Cooperative is generally enjoined from manufacturing, distributing, and possessing with the intent to manufacture or distribute marijuana, but it carved out an exception for cases of medical necessity. Specifically, the District Court ordered that “[t]he foregoing injunction does not apply to the distribution of cannabis by [the Cooperative] to patient-members who (1) suffer from a serious medical condition, (2) will suffer imminent harm if the patient-member does not have access to cannabis, (3) need cannabis for the treatment of the patient-member’s medical condition, or need cannabis to alleviate the medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, and (4) have no reasonable legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment or alleviation of the patient-member’s medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition because the patient-member has tried all other legal alternatives to cannabis and the alternatives have been ineffective in treating or alleviating the patient-member’s medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, or the alternatives result in side effects which the patient-member cannot reasonably tolerate.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a-17a.
The United States appealed the District Court’s order amending the preliminary injunction. At the Government’s request, we stayed the order pending the appeal. 580 U. S. 1298 (2000). The Court of Appeals has postponed oral argument pending our decision in this case.
The Cooperative is incorrect to suggest that Bailey has settled the question whether federal courts have authority to recognize a necessity defense not provided'by statute. There, the Court rejected the necessity defense of a prisoner who contended that adverse prison conditions justified his prison escape. The Court held that the necessity defense is unavailable to prisoners, like Bailey, who fail to present evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender as soon as the claimed necessity had lost its coercive force. 444 U. S., at 415. It was not argued, and so there was no occasion to consider, whether the statute might be unable to bear any necessity defense at all. And although the Court noted that Congress “legislates against a background of Anglo-Saxon common law'’ and thus “may” have contemplated a necessity defense, the Court refused to “bal-ane[e] [the] harms,” explaining that “we are construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it.” Id., at 415-416, n. 11.
We reject the Cooperative’s intimation that elimination of the defense requires an “explici[t]” statement. Brief for Respondents 21. Considering that we have never held necessity to be a viable justification for violating a federal statute, see supra, at 490, and n. 3, and that such a defense would entail a social balancing that is better left to Congress, we decline to set the bar so high.
As noted, supra, at 490, the only express exception for schedule I drugs is the Government-approved research project, see 21 U.S.C. § 823(f). Unlike drugs in other schedules, see §829, schedule I drugs cannot be dispensed under a prescription.
The Government argues that the 1998 "sense of the Congress” resolution, 112 Stat. 2681-760 to 2681-761, supports its position that Congress has foreclosed the medical necessity defense. Entitled “Not Legalizing Marijuana for Medicinal Use,” the resolution declares that “Congress continues to support the existing Federal legal process for determining the safety and efficacy of drugs and opposes efforts to circumvent this process by legalizing marijuana, and other Schedule I drugs, for medicinal use without valid scientific evidence and the approval of the Food and Drug Administration.” Because we conclude that the Controlled Substances Act cannot sustain the medical necessity defense, we need not consider whether the 1998 “sense of the Congress resolution” is additional evidence of a legislative determination to eliminate the defense.
Lest there be any confusion, we clarify that nothing in our analysis, or the statute, suggests that a distinction should be drawn between the prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing and the other prohibitions in the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, the very point of our holding is that there is no medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is “seriously ill” and lacks alternative avenues for relief Indeed, it is the Cooperative’s argument that its patients are “seriously ill,” see, e. g., Brief for Respondents 11,13,17, and lacking "alternatives,” see, e. g., id., at 13. We reject the argument that these factors warrant a medical necessity exception. If we did not, we would be affirming instead of reversing the Court of Appeals.
Finally, we share Justice Stevens’ concern for “showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union.” Post, at 502 (opinion concurring in judgment). However, we are “construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it.” United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 415, n. 11 (1980). Because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it. Nor are we passing today on a constitutional question, such as whether the Controlled Substances Act exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.
Notwithstanding Justice Stevens’ concerns, post, at 502-503, it is appropriate for us to address this issue because this case arises from a motion to modify the injunction, because the Court of Appeals held that the District Court misconstrued its equitable discretion, and because the Cooperative offers this conclusion as an alternative ground for affirmance.
Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944), for example, held that the District Court was not required to issue an injunction to restrain violations of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and regulations thereunder when “some ‘other order’ might be more appropriate, or at least so appear to the court.” Id., at 328 (quoting statutory provision that enabled district court to issue an injunction, a restraining order, “or other order”). Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982), held that a District Court had discretion not to issue an injunction precluding the United States Navy from releasing ordnance into water, but to rely on other means of ensuring compliance, including ordering the Navy to obtain a permit. Id., at 314-318. See also Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 544-546 (1987) (holding that a District Court did not err in declining to issue an injunction to bar exploratory drilling on Alaskan publie lands, because the District Court’s decision “did not undermine” the policy of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U. S. C. §3120, and because the Secretary of the Interior had other means of meaningfully complying with the statute).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.