instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDYdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Following a jury trial, a class of employees recovered $2.9 million in compensatory damages from their employer for a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.The employees' primary grievance was that they did not receive statutorily mandated overtime pay for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment.
The employer seeks to reverse the judgment. It makes two arguments. Both relate to whether it was proper to permit the employees to pursue their claims as a class. First, the employer argues the class should not have been certified because the primary method of proving injury assumed each employee spent the same time donning and doffing protective gear, even though differences in the composition of that gear may have meant that, in fact, employees took different amounts of time to don and doff. Second, the employer argues certification was improper because the damages awarded to the class may be distributed to some persons who did not work any uncompensated overtime.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded there was no error in the District Court's decision to certify and maintain the class. This Court granted certiorari. 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2806, 192 L.Ed.2d 846 (2015).
I
Respondents are employees at petitioner Tyson Foods' pork processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa. They work in the plant's kill, cut, and retrim departments, where hogs are slaughtered, trimmed, and prepared for shipment. Grueling and dangerous, the work requires employees to wear certain protective gear. The exact composition of the gear depends on the tasks a worker performs on a given day.
Until 1998, employees at the plant were paid under a system called "gang-time." This compensated them only for time spent at their workstations, not for the time required to put on and take off their protective gear. In response to a federal-court injunction, and a Department of Labor suit to enforce that injunction, Tyson in 1998 began to pay all its employees for an additional four minutes a day for what it called "K-code time." The 4-minute period was the amount of time Tyson estimated employees needed to don and doff their gear. In 2007, Tyson stopped paying K-code time uniformly to all employees. Instead, it compensated some employees for between four and eight minutes but paid others nothing beyond their gang-time wages. At no point did Tyson record the time each employee spent donning and doffing.
Unsatisfied by these changes, respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleging violations of the FLSA. The FLSA requires that a covered employee who works more than 40 hours a week receive compensation for excess time worked "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). In 1947, nine years after the FLSA was first enacted, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarified that compensable work does not include time spent walking to and from the employee's workstation or other "preliminary or postliminary activities." § 254(d). The FLSA, however, still requires employers to pay employees for activities "integral and indispensable" to their regular work, even if those activities do not occur at the employee's workstation. Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 249, 255, 76 S.Ct. 330, 100 L.Ed. 267 (1956). The FLSA also requires an employer to "make, keep, and preserve... records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment." § 211(c).
In their complaint, respondents alleged that donning and doffing protective gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that petitioner's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the FLSA. Respondents also raised a claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. This statute provides for recovery under state law when an employer fails to pay its employees "all wages due," which includes FLSA-mandated overtime. Iowa Code § 91A.3(2013); cf. Anthony v. State, 632 N.W.2d 897, 901-902 (Iowa 2001).
Respondents sought certification of their Iowa law claims as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23permits one or more individuals to sue as "representative parties on behalf of all members" of a class if certain preconditions are met. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a). Respondents also sought certification of their federal claims as a "collective action" under 29 U.S.C. § 216. Section 216is a provision of the FLSA that permits employees to sue on behalf of "themselves and other employees similarly situated." § 216(b).
Tyson objected to the certification of both classes on the same ground. It contended that, because of the variance in protective gear each employee wore, the employees' claims were not sufficiently similar to be resolved on a classwide basis. The District Court rejected that position. It concluded there were common questions susceptible to classwide resolution, such as "whether the donning and doffing of [protective gear] is considered work under the FLSA, whether such work is integral and [in]dispensable, and whether any compensable work is de minim[i]s." 564 F.Supp.2d 870, 899 (N.D.Iowa 2008). The District Court acknowledged that the workers did not all wear the same protective gear, but found that "when the putative plaintiffs are limited to those that are paid via a gang time system, there are far more factual similarities than dissimilarities." Id., at 899-900. As a result, the District Court certified the following classes:
"All current and former employees of Tyson's Storm Lake, Iowa, processing facility who have been employed at any time from February 7, 2004 [in the case of the FLSA collective action and February 7, 2005, in the case of the state-law class action], to the present, and who are or were paid under a 'gang time' compensation system in the Kill, Cut, or Retrim departments." Id., at 901.
The only difference in definition between the classes was the date at which the class period began. The size of the class certified under Rule 23, however, was larger than that certified under § 216. This is because, while a class under Rule 23includes all unnamed members who fall within the class definition, the "sole consequence of conditional certification [under § 216] is the sending of court-approved written notice to employees... who in turn become parties to a collective action only by filing written consent with the court." Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1530, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013). A total of 444 employees joined the collective action, while the Rule 23class contained 3,344 members.
The case proceeded to trial before a jury. The parties stipulated that the employees were entitled to be paid for donning and doffing of certain equipment worn to protect from knife cuts. The jury was left to determine whether the time spent donning and doffing other protective equipment was compensable; whether Tyson was required to pay for donning and doffing during meal breaks; and the total amount of time spent on work that was not compensated under Tyson's gang-time system.
Since the employees' claims relate only to overtime, each employee had to show he or she worked more than 40 hours a week, inclusive of time spent donning and doffing, in order to recover. As a result of Tyson's failure to keep records of donning and doffing time, however, the employees were forced to rely on what the parties describe as "representative evidence." This evidence included employee testimony, video recordings of donning and doffing at the plant, and, most important, a study performed by an industrial relations expert, Dr. Kenneth Mericle. Mericle conducted 744 videotaped observations and analyzed how long various donning and doffing activities took. He then averaged the time taken in the observations to produce an estimate of 18 minutes a day for the cut and retrim departments and 21.25 minutes for the kill department.
Although it had not kept records for time spent donning and doffing, Tyson had information regarding each employee's gang-time and K-code time. Using this data, the employees' other expert, Dr. Liesl Fox, was able to estimate the amount of uncompensated work each employee did by adding Mericle's estimated average donning and doffing time to the gang-time each employee worked and then subtracting any K-code time. For example, if an employee in the kill department had worked 39.125 hours of gang-time in a 6-day workweek and had been paid an hour of K-code time, the estimated number of compensable hours the employee worked would be: 39.125 (individual number of gang-time hours worked) + 2.125 (the average donning and doffing hours for a 6-day week, based on Mericle's estimated average of 21.25 minutes a day) - 1 (K-code hours) = 40.25. That would mean the employee was being undercompensated by a quarter of an hour of overtime a week, in violation of the FLSA. On the other hand, if the employee's records showed only 38 hours of gang-time and an hour of K-code time, the calculation would be: 38 + 2.125 - 1 = 39.125. Having worked less than 40 hours, that employee would not be entitled to overtime pay and would not have proved an FLSA violation.
Using this methodology, Fox stated that 212 employees did not meet the 40-hour threshold and could not recover. The remaining class members, Fox maintained, had potentially been undercompensated to some degree.
Respondents proposed to bifurcate proceedings. They requested that, first, a trial be conducted on the questions whether time spent in donning and doffing was compensable work under the FLSA and how long those activities took to perform on average; and, second, that Fox's methodology be used to determine which employees suffered an FLSA violation and how much each was entitled to recover. Petitioner insisted upon a single proceeding in which damages would be calculated in the aggregate and by the jury. The District Court submitted both issues of liability and damages to the jury.
Petitioner did not move for a hearing regarding the statistical validity of respondents' studies under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), nor did it attempt to discredit the evidence with testimony from a rebuttal expert. Instead, as it had done in its opposition to class certification, petitioner argued to the jury that the varying amounts of time it took employees to don and doff different protective equipment made the lawsuit too speculative for classwide recovery. Petitioner also argued that Mericle's study overstated the average donning and doffing time. The jury was instructed that nontestifying members of the class could only recover if the evidence established they "suffered the same harm as a result of the same unlawful decision or policy." App. 471-472.
Fox's calculations supported an aggregate award of approximately $6.7 million in unpaid wages. The jury returned a special verdict finding that time spent in donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of the day was compensable work but that time during meal breaks was not. The jury more than halved the damages recommended by Fox. It awarded the class about $2.9 million in unpaid wages. That damages award has not yet been disbursed to the individual employees.
Tyson moved to set aside the jury verdict, arguing, among other things, that, in light of the variation in donning and doffing time, the classes should not have been certified. The District Court denied Tyson's motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and the award.
The Court of Appeals recognized that a verdict for the employees "require[d] inference"
from their representative proof, but it held that "this inference is allowable under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-688, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946)." 765 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir.2014). The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for similar reasons, holding that, under the facts of this case, the jury could have drawn "a'reasonable inference' of class-wide liability." Id., at 799(quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946)). Judge Beam dissented, stating that, in his view, the class should not have been certified.
For the reasons that follow, this Court now affirms.
II
Petitioner challenges the class certification of the state-law claims and the certification of the FLSA collective action. The parties do not dispute that the standard for certifying a collective action under the FLSA is no more stringent than the standard for certifying a class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This opinion assumes, without deciding, that this is correct. For purposes of this case then, if certification of respondents' class action under the Federal Rules was proper, certification of the collective action was proper as well.
Furthermore, as noted above, Iowa's Wage Payment Collection Law was used in this litigation as a state-law mechanism for recovery of FLSA-mandated overtime pay. The parties do not dispute that, in order to prove a violation of the Iowa statute, the employees had to do no more than demonstrate a violation of the FLSA. In this opinion, then, no distinction is made between the requirements for the class action raising the state-law claims and the collective action raising the federal claims.
A
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)requires that, before a class is certified under that subsection, a district court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." The "predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. "Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). This calls upon courts to give careful scrutiny to the relation between common and individual questions in a case. An individual question is one where "members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member," while a common question is one where "the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing [or] the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof." 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:50, pp. 196-197 (5th ed. 2012)(internal quotation marks omitted). The predominance inquiry "asks whether the common, aggregation-enabling, issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregation-defeating, individual issues." Id., § 4:49, at 195-196. When "one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3)even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members." 7AA C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1778, pp. 123-124 (3d ed. 2005)(footnotes omitted).
Here, the parties do not dispute that there are important questions common to all class members, the most significant of which is whether time spent donning and doffing the required protective gear is compensable work under the FLSA. Cf. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (2005)(holding that time spent walking between the locker room and the production area after donning protective gear is compensable work under the FLSA). To be entitled to recovery, however, each employee must prove that the amount of time spent donning and doffing, when added to his or her regular hours, amounted to more than 40 hours in a given week. Petitioner argues that these necessarily person-specific inquiries into individual work time predominate over the common questions raised by respondents' claims, making class certification improper.
Respondents counter that these individual inquiries are unnecessary because it can be assumed each employee donned and doffed for the same average time observed in Mericle's sample. Whether this inference is permissible becomes the central dispute in this case. Petitioner contends that Mericle's study manufactures predominance by assuming away the very differences that make the case inappropriate for classwide resolution. Reliance on a representative sample, petitioner argues, absolves each employee of the responsibility to prove personal injury, and thus deprives petitioner of any ability to litigate its defenses to individual claims.
Calling this unfair, petitioner and various of its amici maintain that the Court should announce a broad rule against the use in class actions of what the parties call representative evidence. A categorical exclusion of that sort, however, would make little sense. A representative or statistical sample, like all evidence, is a means to establish or defend against liability. Its permissibility turns not on the form a proceeding takes-be it a class or individual action-but on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action. See Fed. Rules Evid. 401, 403, and 702.
It follows that the Court would reach too far were it to establish general rules governing the use of statistical evidence, or so-called representative evidence, in all class-action cases. Evidence of this type is used in various substantive realms of the law. Brief for Complex Litigation Law Professors as Amici Curiae 5-9; Brief for Economists et al. as Amici Curiae 8-10. Whether and when statistical evidence can be used to establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose for which the evidence is being introduced and on "the elements of the underlying cause of action," Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 809, 131 S.Ct. 2179, 180 L.Ed.2d 24 (2011).
In many cases, a representative sample is "the only practicable means to collect and present relevant data" establishing a defendant's liability. Manual of Complex Litigation § 11.493, p. 102 (4th ed. 2004). In a case where representative evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim is brought on behalf of a class. To so hold would ignore the Rules Enabling Act's pellucid instruction that use of the class device cannot "abridge... any substantive right." 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b).
One way for respondents to show, then, that the sample relied upon here is a permissible method of proving classwide liability is by showing that each class member could have relied on that sample to establish liability if he or she had brought an individual action. If the sample could have sustained a reasonable jury finding as to hours worked in each employee's individual action, that sample is a permissible means of establishing the employees' hours worked in a class action.
This Court's decision in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens explains why Mericle's sample was permissible in the circumstances of this case. In Mt. Clemens, 7 employees and their union, seeking to represent over 300 others, brought a collective action against their employer for failing to compensate them for time spent walking to and from their workstations. The variance in walking time among workers was alleged to be upwards of 10 minutes a day, which is roughly consistent with the variances in donning and doffing times here. 328 U.S., at 685, 66 S.Ct. 1187.
The Court in Mt. Clemens held that when employers violate their statutory duty to keep proper records, and employees thereby have no way to establish the time spent doing uncompensated work, the "remedial nature of [the FLSA] and the great public policy which it embodies... militate against making" the burden of proving uncompensated work "an impossible hurdle for the employee." Id., at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187; see also Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 173, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989)("The broad remedial goal of the statute should be enforced to the full extent of its terms"). Instead of punishing "the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work," the Court held "an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference." 328 U.S., at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Under these circumstances, "[t]he burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee's evidence." Id., at 687-688, 66 S.Ct. 1187.
In this suit, as in Mt. Clemens, respondents sought to introduce a representative sample to fill an evidentiary gap created by the employer's failure to keep adequate records. If the employees had proceeded with 3,344 individual lawsuits, each employee likely would have had to introduce Mericle's study to prove the hours he or she worked. Rather than absolving the employees from proving individual injury, the representative evidence here was a permissible means of making that very showing.
Reliance on Mericle's study did not deprive petitioner of its ability to litigate individual defenses. Since there were no alternative means for the employees to establish their hours worked, petitioner's primary defense was to show that Mericle's study was unrepresentative or inaccurate. That defense is itself common to the claims made by all class members. Respondents' "failure of proof on th[is] common question" likely would have ended "the litigation and thus [would not have] cause[d] individual questions... to overwhelm questions common to the class." Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1196, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013). When, as here, "the concern about the proposed class is not that it exhibits some fatal dissimilarity but, rather, a fatal similarity-[an alleged] failure of proof as to an element of the plaintiffs' cause of action-courts should engage that question as a matter of summary judgment, not class certification." Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 97, 107 (2009).
Petitioner's reliance on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), is misplaced. Wal-Mart does not stand for the broad proposition that a representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing classwide liability.
Wal-Mart involved a nationwide Title VII class of over 1 ½ million employees. In reversing class certification, this Court did not reach Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance prong, holding instead that the class failed to meet even Rule 23(a)'s more basic requirement that class members share a common question of fact or law. The plaintiffs in Wal-Mart did not provide significant proof of a common policy of discrimination to which each employee was subject. "The only corporate policy that the plaintiffs' evidence convincingly establishe[d was] Wal-Mart's 'policy' of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment matters"; and even then, the plaintiffs could not identify "a common mode of exercising discretion that pervade[d] the entire company." Id., at 355-356, 131 S.Ct. 2541(emphasis deleted).
The plaintiffs in Wal-Mart proposed to use representative evidence as a means of overcoming this absence of a common policy. Under their proposed methodology, a "sample set of the class members would be selected, as to whom liability for sex discrimination and the backpay owing as a result would be determined in depositions supervised by a master." Id., at 367, 131 S.Ct. 2541. The aggregate damages award was to be derived by taking the "percentage of claims determined to be valid" from this sample and applying it to the rest of the class, and then multiplying the "number of (presumptively) valid claims" by "the average backpay award in the sample set." Ibid. The Court held that this "Trial By Formula" was contrary to the Rules Enabling Act because it " 'enlarge[d]' " the class members' "'substantive right[s]' " and deprived defendants of their right to litigate statutory defenses to individual claims. Ibid.
The Court's holding in the instant case is in accord with Wal-Mart. The underlying question in Wal-Mart, as here, was whether the sample at issue could have been used to establish liability in an individual action. Since the Court held that the employees were not similarly situated, none of them could have prevailed in an individual suit by relying on depositions detailing the ways in which other employees were discriminated against by their particular store managers. By extension, if the employees had brought 1 ½million individual suits, there would be little or no role for representative evidence. Permitting the use of that sample in a class action, therefore, would have violated the Rules Enabling Act by giving plaintiffs and defendants different rights in a class proceeding than they could have asserted in an individual action.
In contrast, the study here could have been sufficient to sustain a jury finding as to hours worked if it were introduced in each employee's individual action. While the experiences of the employees in Wal-Mart bore little relationship to one another, in this case each employee worked in the same facility, did similar work, and was paid under the same policy. As Mt. Clemens confirms, under these circumstances the experiences of a subset of employees can be probative as to the experiences of all of them.
This is not to say that all inferences drawn from representative evidence in an FLSA case are "just and reasonable." Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S., at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Representative evidence that is statistically inadequate or based on implausible assumptions could not lead to a fair or accurate estimate of the uncompensated hours an employee has worked. Petitioner, however, did not raise a challenge to respondents' experts' methodology under Daubert ; and, as a result, there is no basis in the record to conclude it was legal error to admit that evidence.
Once a district court finds evidence to be admissible, its persuasiveness is, in general, a matter for the jury. Reasonable minds may differ as to whether the average time Mericle calculated is probative as to the time actually worked by each employee. Resolving that question, however, is the near-exclusive province of the jury. The District Court could have denied class certification on this ground only if it concluded that no reasonable juror could have believed that the employees spent roughly equal time donning and doffing. Cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The District Court made no such finding, and the record here provides no basis for this Court to second-guess that conclusion.
The Court reiterates that, while petitioner, respondents, or their respective amici may urge adoption of broad and categorical rules governing the use of representative and statistical evidence in class actions, this case provides no occasion to do so. Whether a representative sample may be used to establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose for which the sample is being introduced and on the underlying cause of action. In FLSA actions, inferring the hours an employee has worked from a study such as Mericle's has been permitted by the Court so long as the study is otherwise admissible. Mt. Clemens, supra, at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187; see also Fed. Rules Evid. 402and 702. The fairness and utility of statistical methods in contexts other than those presented here will depend on facts and circumstances particular to those cases.
B
In its petition for certiorari petitioner framed its second question presented as whether a class may be certified if it contains "members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages." Pet. for Cert. i. In its merits brief, however, petitioner reframes its argument. It now concedes that "[t]he fact that federal courts lack authority to compensate persons who cannot prove injury does not mean that a class action (or collective action) can never be certified in the absence of proof that all class members were injured." Brief for Petitioner 49. In light of petitioner's abandonment of its argument from the petition, the Court need not, and does not, address it.
Petitioner's new argument is that, "where class plaintiffs cannot offer" proof that all class members are injured, "they must demonstrate instead that there is some mechanism to identify the uninjured class members prior to judgment and ensure that uninjured members (1) do not contribute to the size of any damage award and (2) cannot recover such damages." Ibid. Petitioner contends that respondents have not demonstrated any mechanism for ensuring that uninjured class members do not recover damages here.
Petitioner's new argument is predicated on the assumption that the damages award cannot be apportioned so that only those class members who suffered an FLSA violation recover. According to petitioner, because Fox's mechanism for determining who had worked over 40 hours depended on Mericle's estimate of donning and doffing time, and because the jury must have rejected Mericle's estimate when it reduced the damages award by more than half, it will not be possible to know which workers are entitled to share in the award.
As petitioner and its amici stress, the question whether uninjured class members may recover is one of great importance. See, e.g., Brief for Consumer Data Industry Association as Amicus Curiae. It is not, however, a question yet fairly presented by this case, because the damages award has not yet been disbursed, nor does the record indicate how it will be disbursed.
Respondents allege there remain ways of distributing the award to only those individuals who worked more than 40 hours. For example, by working backwards from the damages award, and assuming each employee donned and doffed for an identical amount of time (an assumption that follows from the jury's finding that the employees suffered equivalent harm under the policy), it may be possible to calculate the average donning and doffing time the jury necessarily must have found, and then apply this figure to each employee's known gang-time hours to determine which employees worked more than 40 hours.
Whether that or some other methodology will be successful in identifying uninjured class members is a question that, on this record, is premature. Petitioner may raise a challenge to the proposed method of allocation when the case returns to the District Court for disbursal of the award.
Finally, it bears emphasis that this problem appears to be one of petitioner's own making. Respondents proposed bifurcating between the liability and damages phases of this proceeding for the precise reason that it may be difficult to remove uninjured individuals from the class after an award is rendered. It was petitioner who argued against that option and now seeks to profit from the difficulty it caused. Whether, in light of the foregoing, any error should be deemed invited, is a question for the District Court to address in the first instance.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Chief Justice ROBERTS, with whom Justice ALITOjoins as to Part II, concurring.
Petitioner Tyson Foods presents two primary arguments. First, it claims that class certification was improper because each individual plaintiff spent different amounts of time donning and doffing protective gear. Therefore, according to Tyson, whether and to what extent it owed damages to each individual employee for uncompensated overtime was not a question capable of resolution on a class-wide basis. Second, Tyson argues that the verdict cannot stand because, while no one disputes that the class as certified contains hundreds of uninjured employees, the plaintiffs have not come up with any way to ensure that those employees do not recover damages from the jury's lump-sum award.
The Court rejects the first argument and leaves the second for initial resolution by the lower courts. I join the Court's opinion in full. I write separately to explain my understanding of the Court's resolution of the case and to express my concern that the District Court may not be able to fashion a method for awarding damages only to those class members who suffered an actual injury.
I
A class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)only if "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." A common question is one in which "the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof." Ante, at 1045 (quoting 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:50, pp. 196-197 (5th ed. 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To prove liability and damages, respondents had to establish the amount of compensable (but uncompensated) donning and doffing time for each individual plaintiff. The Court properly concludes that despite the differences in donning and doffing time for individual class members, respondents could adequately prove the amount of time for each individual through generalized, class-wide proof. That proof was Dr. Mericle's representative study. As the Court observes, "each class-member could have relied on that [study] to establish liability if he or she had brought an individual action." Ante, at 1046. And when representative evidence would suffice to prove a plaintiff's individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim is brought as part of a class action. See ante, at 1046 - 1047.
I agree with Justice THOMAS that our decision in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), does not provide a "special, relaxed rule authorizing plaintiffs to use otherwise inadequate representative evidence in FLSA-based cases." Post, at 1056 (dissenting opinion). But I do not read the Court's opinion to be inconsistent with that conclusion. Rather, I take the Court to conclude that Dr. Mericle's study constituted sufficient proof from which the jury could find
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
Respondents were nontenured administrators in the Puerto Rico Department of Education during the 1976-1977 school year. On dates prior to June 18, 1977, each respondent was notified by letter that his appointment would terminate at a specified date between June 30 and August 8, 1977. On June 19, 1978, Rafael Rivera Fernandez filed a complaint alleging that the terminations violated 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the action had accrued on the date the employees received the letters and that the claims were therefore barred by the applicable 1-year statute of limitations, P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 31, § 5298(2) (1968). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed on the ground that the limitations period did not begin running until respondents’ appointments ended. 648 F. 2d 765 (1981).
The decision below is contrary to a recent decision of this Court: Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250 (1980). In that case, Ricks filed suit alleging that the denial of tenure at a state college deprived him of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. And we held that the applicable limitations periods began to run when Ricks was denied tenure, rather than on the date his employment terminated. His action was, therefore, time-barred.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit distinguished Ricks on the ground that Ricks had alleged that denial of tenure was the “unlawful employment practice,” whereas here respondents allege that termination of their employment as administrators was the “unlawful employment practice.” We think Ricks is indistinguishable. When Ricks was denied tenure, he was given a 1-year “terminal” contract. Thus, in each case, the operative decision was made — and notice given — in advance of a designated date on which employment terminated.
In Ricks, we held that the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful. 449 U. S., at 258. The fact of termination is not itself an illegal act. In Ricks, the alleged illegal act was racial discrimination in the tenure decision. Id., at 259. Here, respondents allege that the decision to terminate was made solely for political reasons, violative of First Amendment rights. There were no other allegations, either in Ricks or in these cases, of illegal acts subsequent to the date on which the decisions to terminate were made. As we noted in Ricks, “[m]ere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment discrimination.” Id., at 257. In the cases at bar, respondents were notified, when they received their letters, that a final decision had been made to terminate their appointments. The fact that they were afforded reasonable notice cannot extend the period within which suit must be filed. We therefore grant certiorari. The judgments entered below on May 8, 1981, and June 11, 1981, are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Reversed and remanded.
Petitioners request a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to review a total of 14 judgments entered in favor of 36 respondents. The published decision, discussed in text, represents one judgment in a suit brought by 23 respondents; that decision was issued May 8, 1981. See 648 F. 2d 765 (1981). Identical individual judgments in favor of the other 13 respondents were issued on June 11, 1981. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a (unpublished orders).
Delaware State College had a policy of giving a final 1-year contract to teachers who were denied tenure. Only when that contract expired, did the “employment relationship en[d].” 449 U. S., at 253. Apparently, the practice of the Puerto Rico Department of Education was similar in principle. Following a decision to terminate, the actual ending of employment was deferred to a designated date. Advance notice of termination is a customary and reasonable employment practice which affords the employee an opportunity to find another job.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
An employee seeking a remedy for an alleged breach of the collective-bargaining agreement between his union and employer must attempt to exhaust any exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures established by that agreement before he may maintain a suit against his union or employer under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 652-653 (1965); see Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554, 563 (1976); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 184 (1967). The question presented by these eases is whether, and in what circumstances, an employee alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation in processing his grievance, and that his employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement, must also attempt to exhaust the internal union appeals procedures established by his union’s constitution before he may maintain his suit under §301.
I
After eight years in the employ of ITT Gilfillan, Clifford E. Clayton, a member of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and a shop steward of its Local 509, was dismissed for violating a plant rule prohibiting defined misbehavior. Pursuant to the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure established by the collective-bargaining agreement between ITT and Local 509, Clayton asked his union representative to file a grievance on his behalf on the ground that his dismissal was not for just cause. The union investigated Clayton’s charges, pursued his grievance through the third step of the grievance procedure, and made a timely request for arbitration. It then withdrew the request, choosing not to proceed to arbitration. Clayton was notified of the union’s decision after the time for requesting arbitration had expired.
The UAW requires every union member “who feels aggrieved by any action, decision, or penalty imposed upon him” by the union to exhaust internal union appeals procedures before seeking redress from a "civil court or governmental agency.” UAW Constitution, Art. 33, § 12. These procedures, established by Arts. 32 and 33 of the UAW Constitution and incorporated into Art. IY of Local 509’s bylaws, direct the employee first to seek relief from the membership of his local. Art. 33, § 3. If not satisfied with the result obtained there, the employee may further appeal to the International Executive Board of the UAW, and eventually to either the Constitutional Convention Appeals Committee or to a Public Review Board composed of "impartial persons of good public repute” who are not members or employees of the union. Arts. 32, 33, §§ 3-11.
Clayton did not file a timely internal appeal from his local’s decision not to seek arbitration of his grievance. Instead, six months after the union’s withdrawal of its request for arbitration, Clayton filed this action under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), in the District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged that the union had breached its duty of fair representation by arbitrarily refusing to pursue his grievance past the third step of the grievance procedure, and that the employer had breached the collective-bargaining agreement by discharging him without just cause.
Both the union and the employer pleaded as an affirmative defense Clayton’s failure to exhaust the internal union appeals procedures. App. 12, 18. The District Court sustained this defense, finding that Clayton had failed to exhaust the internal appeals procedures; that those procedures were adequate as a matter of law; that Clayton had been advised of their existence; and that his failure to exhaust could not be excused as futile. Record 397-404. Accordingly, the court dismissed Clayton’s suit against both the union and the employer.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Clayton’s suit against the union and reversed the dismissal of his suit against the employer. 623 F. 2d 563 (1980). Focusing on the adequacy of the relief available under the internal union appeals procedures the Court of Appeals held that Clayton’s failure to exhaust was fatal to his claim against the union, because by filing an internal appeal Clayton might have received money damages, the relief he sought in his § 301 suit against the union. Id., at 566. However, the Court held that Clayton’s failure to exhaust did not bar his suit against the employer, because the internal appeals procedures could not result in either reinstatement of his job, which was the relief Clayton sought from the employer under § 301, or in reactivation of his grievance. Id., at 569-570.
In No. 80-5049, Clayton argues that his § 301 claim against the UAW and Local 509 should be allowed to proceed despite his failure to exhaust internal union procedures. In No. 80-54, ITT Gilfillan argues that if Clayton’s failure to exhaust bars his suit against the union, it must also bar his suit against the employer.
The Courts of Appeals are divided over whether an employee should be required to exhaust internal union appeals procedures before bringing suit against a union or employer under § 301. Some hold that the employee’s failure to exhaust internal union procedures may not be asserted as a defense by an employer. Others permit the defense to be asserted by an employer if the internal appeals procedures could result in reactivation of the grievance. With respect to a union, some courts hold that the employee’s failure to exhaust is excused if union officials would be so hostile to an employee that he could not hope to obtain a fair hearing. Others would also excuse the employee’s failure to exhaust if the substantive relief available through the internal procedures would be less than that available in his § 301 action.
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 449 U. S. 950 (1980). We reverse the dismissal of Clayton’s suit against the union and affirm the reversal of the dismissal of his suit against the employer. We hold that where an internal union appeals procedure cannot result in reactivation of the employee’s grievance or an award of the complete relief sought in his § 301 suit, exhaustion will not be required with respect to either the suit against the employer or the suit against the union.
II
In Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965), we were asked to decide whether an employee alleging a violation of the collective-bargaining agreement between his union and employer must attempt to exhaust exclusive contractual grievance and arbitration procedures before bringing-suit under §301 (a). In deciding that issue we looked to principles of federal common law. See Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 457 (1957). Two considerations influenced our decision to require exhaustion. First, Congress had “expressly approved contract grievance procedures as a preferred method for settling disputes and stabilizing the 'common law’ of the plant.” 379 U. S., at 653. Second, a contrary rule, allowing an employee to bring suit under § 301 without attempting to exhaust the contractual grievance procedures, would “deprive employer and union of the ability to establish a uniform and exclusive method for orderly settlement of employee grievances.” Ibid, The rule established by Republic Steel was thus intended to protect the integrity of the collective-bargaining process and to further that aspect of national labor policy that encourages private rather than judicial resolution of disputes arising over the interpretation and application of collective-bargaining agreements. See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S., at 567, 570-571.
The contractual procedures we required the employee to exhaust in Republic Steel are significantly different from the procedures at issue here. In these cases, the Court is asked to require exhaustion of internal union procedures. These procedures are wholly a creation of the UAW Constitution. They were not bargained for by the employer and union and are nowhere mentioned in the collective-bargaining agreement that Clayton seeks to have judicially enforced. Nonetheless, Clayton’s employer and union contend that exhaustion of the UAW procedures, like exhaustion of contractual grievance and arbitration procedures, will further national labor policy and should be required as a matter of federal common law. Their argument, in brief, is that an exhaustion requirement will enable unions to regulate their internal affairs without undue judicial interference and that it will also promote the broader goal of encouraging private resolution of disputes arising out of a collective-bargaining agreement.
We do not agree that the policy of forestalling judicial interference with internal union affairs is applicable to these cases. This policy has been strictly limited to disputes arising over internal union matters such as those involving the interpretation and application of a union constitution. As we stated in NLRB v. Marine Workers, 391 U. S. 418 (1968), the policy of deferring judicial consideration of internal union matters does not extend to issues “in the public domain and beyond the internal affairs of the union.” Id., at 426, n. 8. Here, Clayton’s dispute against his union is based upon an alleged breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. This allegation raises issues rooted in statutory policies extending far beyond internal union interests. See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, ante, at 66, and n. 2 (Stewart, J., concurring); Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra, at 562; Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 182; Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335 (1964).
Our analysis, then, focuses on that aspect of national labor policy that encourages private rather than judicial resolution of disputes arising over collective-bargaining agreements. Concededly, a requirement that aggrieved employees exhaust internal remedies might lead to non judicial resolution of some contractual grievances. For example, an employee who exhausts internal union procedures might decide not to pursue his § 301 action in court, either because the union offered him a favorable settlement, or because it demonstrated that his underlying contractual claim was without merit. However, we decline to impose a universal exhaustion requirement lest employees with meritorious § 301 claims be forced to exhaust themselves and their resources by submitting their claims to potentially lengthy internal union procedures that may not be adequate to redress their underlying grievances.
As we stated in NLRB v. Marine Workers, supra, at 426, and n. 8, courts have discretion to decide whether to require exhaustion of internal union procedures. In exercising this discretion, at least three factors should be relevant: first, whether union officials are so hostile to the employee that he could not hope to obtain a fair hearing on his claim; second, whether the internal union appeals procedures would be inadequate either to reactivate the employee’s grievance or to award him the full relief he seeks under § 301; and third, whether exhaustion of internal procedures would unreasonably delay the employee’s opportunity to obtain a judicial hearing on the merits of his claim. If any of these factors are found to exist, the court may properly excuse the employee’s failure to exhaust.
Clayton has not challenged the finding of the lower courts that the UAW internal appeals procedures are fair and reasonable. He concedes that he could have received an impartial hearing on his claim had he exhausted the internal union procedures. See Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 393 U. S. 324, 330-331 (1969). Accordingly, our inquiry turns to the second factor, whether the relief available through the union’s internal appeals procedures is adequate.
In his suit under § 301, Clayton seeks reinstatement from his employer and monetary relief from both his employer and his union. Although, the UAW Constitution does not indicate on its face what relief is available through the internal union appeals procedures, the parties have stipulated that the Public Review Board can award backpay in an appropriate case, Tr. 35-36, and the two decisions of the Public Review Board reprinted in the joint appendix both resulted in awards of backpay. App. 89-109. It is clear, then, that at least some monetary relief may be obtained through the internal appeals procedures.
It is equally clear that the union can neither reinstate Clayton in his job, see n. 15, supra, nor reactivate his grievance. Article IX of the collective-bargaining agreement between Local 509 and ITT Gilfillan provides that the union may obtain arbitration of a grievance only if it gives “notice ... to the Company in writing within fifteen (15) working days after the date of the Company’s decision at Step 3 of the Grievance Procedure.” By the time Clayton learned of his union’s decision not to pursue the grievance to arbitration, this 15-day time limit had expired. See n. 2, supra. Accordingly, the union could not have demanded arbitration even if the internal appeal had shown Clayton’s claim to be meritorious. The union was bound by its earlier decision not to pursue Clayton’s grievance past the third stage of the grievance and arbitration procedure. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that these restrictions on the relief available through the internal UAW procedures render those procedures inadequate.
Where internal union appeals procedures can result in either complete relief to an aggrieved employee or reactivation of his grievance, exhaustion would advance the national labor policy of encouraging private resolution of contractual labor disputes. In such cases, the internal union procedures are capable of fully resolving meritorious claims short of the judicial forum. Thus, if the employee received the full relief he requested through internal procedures, his § 301 action would become moot, and he would not be entitled to a judicial hearing. Similarly, if the employee obtained reactivation of his grievance through internal union procedures, the policies underlying Republic Steel would come into play, and the employee would be required to submit his claim to the collectively bargained dispute-resolution procedures. In either case, exhaustion of internal remedies could result in final resolution of the employee’s contractual grievance through private rather than judicial avenues.
By contrast, where an aggrieved employee cannot obtain either the substantive relief he seeks or reactivation of his grievance, national labor policy would not be served by requiring exhaustion of internal remedies. In such cases, exhaustion would be a useless gesture: it would delay judicial consideration of the employee’s § 301 action, but would not eliminate it. The employee would still be required to pursue judicial means to obtain the relief he seeks under § 301. Moreover, exhaustion would not lead to significant savings in judicial resources, because regardless of the outcome of the internal appeal, the employee would be required to prove de novo in his § 301 suit that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement. As we recently stated, one of the important federal policies underlying § 301 is the “ ‘relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes.’ ” United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, ante, at 63, quoting Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 707 (1966). This policy is undermined by an exhaustion requirement unless the internal procedures are capable of either reactivating the employee’s grievance or of redressing it.
In reliance upon the Court of Appeals’ opinion in these cases, the UAW contends that even if exhaustion is not required with respect to the employer, it should be required with re-speet to the union, because the relief Clayton seeks against the union in his § 301 suit is available through internal union procedures. But cf. n. 17, supra. We disagree. While this argument might have force where the employee has chosen to bring his § 301 suit only against the union, the defense should not be available where, as here, the employee has filed suit against both the union and the employer. A trial court requiring exhaustion with respect to the suit against the union, but not with respect to the suit against the employer, would be faced with two undesirable alternatives. If it stayed the action against the employer pending resolution of the internal appeals procedures, it would effectively be requiring exhaustion with respect to the suit against the employer, a result we have held would violate national labor policy. Yet if it permitted the action against the employer to proceed, and tolled the running of the statute of limitation in the suit against the union until the internal procedures had been exhausted, it could very well find itself with two separate § 301 suits, based on the same facts, proceeding at different paces in its courtroom. As we suggested in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 197, this is a result that should be avoided if possible. The preferable approach is for the court to permit the employee’s § 301 action to proceed against both defendants, despite the employee’s failure to exhaust, unless the internal union procedures can reactivate the grievance or grant the relief that would be available in the employee’s § 301 suit against both defendants.
Ill
In contrast to contractual grievance and arbitration procedures, which are negotiated by the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement and are generally designed to provide an exclusive method for resolving disputes arising under that agreement, internal union appeals procedures are created by the union constitution and are designed to settle disputes between an employee and his union that arise under that constitution. Because of this distinction, the policies underlying Republic Steel, encouraging private resolution of grievances arising out of the collective-bargaining process, are not directly applicable to the issue whether to require exhaustion of internal union procedures.
We conclude that the policies underlying Republic Steel are furthered by an exhaustion requirement only where the internal union appeals procedures can either grant the aggrieved employee full relief or reactivate his grievance. For only in those circumstances is there a reasonable possibility that the employee’s claim will be privately resolved. If the internal procedures are not adequate to.effect that relief, the employee should not be required to expend time and resources seeking a necessarily incomplete resolution of his claim prior to pursuing judicial relief. If the internal procedures are inadequate, the employee’s failure to exhaust should be excused, and he should be permitted to pursue his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of the collective-bargaining agreement in court under § 301.
In this case, the internal union appeals panels cannot reactivate Clayton’s grievance and cannot grant Clayton the reinstatement relief he seeks under § 301. We therefore hold that Clayton should not have been required to exhaust internal union appeals procedures prior to bringing suit against his union and employer under § 301.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
The collective-bargaining agreement between Local 509 and ITT Gil-fillan establishes a four-step grievance procedure, with binding arbitration as the fourth step. Article IX of the agreement provides that if the union wishes to request arbitration, it must do so within 15 working days after completion of the third step of the grievance procedure. App. 31-36.
Clayton was notified of the union’s decision by a letter written by the International Representative responsible for servicing Local 509. Id., at 78-79. Neither the union nor the employer contests Clayton’s allegation that he received this letter more than 15 working days after completion of the third step of the grievance procedure. See id., at 7; Tr. 88-99.
Under Art. 33, § 3, of the UAW Constitution, Clayton had 30 days from the date the union withdrew its request for arbitration to initiate the internal union appeals procedures.
To prevail in an action under § 301 against either the employer or the union, an employee must ordinarily establish both that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554, 570-571 (1976).
See, e. g., Johnson v. General Motors, 641 F. 2d 1075, 1083 (CA2 1981) ; Geddes v. Chrysler Corp., 608 F. 2d 261, 264 (CA6 1979); Petersen v. Rath Packing Co., 461 F. 2d 312, 315 (CA8 1972); Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel and Elevator Operators Union, 453 F. 2d 1018, 1027, n. 16 (CA9 1972).
See, e. g., Varra v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 615 F. 2d 1315, 1317-1318 (CA10 1980); Baldini v. Local Union No. 1095, 581 F. 2d 145, 150 (CA7 1978); Winter v. Local Union No. 639, 186 U. S. App. D. C. 315, 319-320, 569 F. 2d 146, 150-151 (1977); Harrison v. Chrysler Corp., 558 F. 2d 1273, 1278 (CA7 1977).
See, e. g., Fizer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 586 F. 2d 182, 183-184 (CA10 1978); Winter v. Local Union No. 639, supra, at 318, 569 F. 2d, at 149; Imel v. Zohn Mfg. Co., 481 F. 2d 181, 184 (CA10 1973), cert., denied, 415 U. S. 915 (1974).
See, e. g., Tinsley v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 635 F. 2d 1288, 1290 (CA7 1980); Geddes v. Chrysler Corp., supra, at 264; Baldini v. Local Union No. 1095, supra, at 149; Buzzard v. Local Lodge 1040, 480 F. 2d 35, 41 (CA9 1973). These cases compare the relief available through internal procedures with the relief available against the union under §301.
Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), provides:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
Section 203 (d) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 153, 29 U. S. C. §173 (d), provides that “[f]inal adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.”
We also noted that exhaustion would serve the interests of both the union and the employer:
“[It] complements the union’s status as exclusive bargaining representative by permitting [the union] to participate actively in the continuing administration of the contract. In addition, conscientious handling of grievance claims will enhance the union’s prestige with employees. Employer interests, for their part, are served by limiting the choice of remedies available to aggrieved employees.” 379 U. S., at 653.
Moreover, exhaustion would not adversely affect the employee:
“[I]t cannot be said, in the normal situation, that contract grievance procedures are inadequate to protect the interests of an aggrieved employee until the employee has attempted to implement the procedures and found them so.” Ibid.
We concluded that since an employee bringing a § 301 claim is asserting rights created by a collective-bargaining agreement, he should also be required to pursue the dispute-resolution procedures created by that agreement. See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S., at 562-563; Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 184 (1967).
Indeed, the parties concede that Clayton has exhausted the grievance and arbitration procedures that were expressly created by the collective-bargaining agreement.
This policy has its statutory roots in § 101 (a) (4) of the Landrum-Griffin Act, 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(4), which is part of the subchapter of that Act entitled “Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations.” Section 101(a)(4) provides:
“No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court, . . . Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before instituting legal . . . proceedings against such organizations or any officer thereof . . . .”
In NLRB v. Marine Workers, we held that respondent union could not discipline one of its members for failing to exhaust internal appeals procedures before filing an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, because the unfair labor practices charge was “in the public domain and beyond the internal affairs of the union.” 391 U. S., at 425. “A proceeding by the [NLRB] is not to adjudicate private rights but to effectuate a public policy,” and “[a]ny coercion used to discourage, retard, or defeat . . . access [to those proceedings] is beyond the legitimate interests of a labor organization.” Id., at 424. Moreover, “[t]here cannot be any justification to make the public processes wait until the union member exhausts internal procedures plainly inadequate to deal with all phases of the complex problem concerning employer, union, and employee member. If the member becomes exhausted, instead of the remedies, the issues of public policy are never reached and an airing of the grievance never had.” Id., at 425. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 17899 (1959) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy) (§ 101 (a) (4) not intended “to eliminate existing'grievance procedures established by union constitutions for redress of alleged violations of their internal governing laws”).
App. 8-9. Reinstatement is available only from the employer, because the union has no power to order reinstatement under the collective-bargaining agreement. Damages, however, can be assessed against both the employer and the union. As we stated in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 197-198, an employee who establishes that the union breached its duty of fair representation in processing his grievance, and that the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement, may be entitled to an award of damages “apportion [ed] . . . between the employer and the union according to the damage caused by the fault of each. Thus, damages attributable solely to the employer’s breach of contract should not be charged to the union, but increases if any in those damages caused by the union’s refusal to process the grievance should not be charged to the employer.”
The UAW Constitution states only that the Constitution Convention Appeals Committee has “the authority to consider and decide all appeals submitted to it,” Art. 33, § 8, and that the Public Review Board has the “authority and duty to make final and binding decisions on all cases appealed to it,” Art. 32, §3 (b), and to “dispose of all facets of the appeal.” Art. 33, § 11.
The record does not indicate whether this monetary relief includes backpay only, or whether it also may include prospective monetary relief and incidental or punitive damages, relief that Clayton is apparently seeking in his § 301 action. See App. 9.
The parties stipulated at trial that once Local 509 withdrew its request for arbitration, that “was the end of the road so far as remedies under the contract were concerned.” Tr. 109; see also id., at 260, 268. That stipulation is consistent with the collective-bargaining agreement. Although Art. VIII, § 5, which establishes time limits for processing grievances, states that “[t]he time limits contained herein may be extended by mutual agreement in writing by the parties concerned,” there is no comparable waiver provision in Art. IX, which establishes the 15-day time limit for requesting arbitration. See also Tinsley v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 635 F. 2d, at 1292; Baldini v. Local Union No. 1095, 581 F. 2d, at 150; Harrison v. Chrysler Corp., 558 F. 2d., at 1279.
Although most collective-bargaining agreements contain similarly strict time limits for seeking arbitration of grievances, there are some exceptions. The UAW informs us that “[s]ome employers and unions have, through collective bargaining, agreed to allow the reinstatement of withdrawn grievances where a union tribunal reverses the union’s initial decision. This is true, for example, in the current UAW contracts with the major automobile and agricultural implement manufacturers.” Brief for Respondents in No. 80-5049, p. 18, n. 40. In such cases, the relief available through the union’s internal appeal procedures would presumably be adequate.
Accordingly, we need not discuss the third factor, whether exhaustion of the union’s otherwise adequate internal appeals procedures would unreasonably delay the employee’s opportunity to obtain a judicial hearing on the merits of his claim.
Allowing a defendant in a § 301 action to demand exhaustion of internal union procedures when those procedures could lead to reactivation of a stalled grievance is wholly consistent with Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965). In Republic Steel, we held that an employer may rely on a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement requiring its employees to submit all contractual grievances to arbitration prior to bringing suit under § 301. If a provision in the collective-bargaining agreement also permits reactivation of a grievance after an internal union appeal, an employer or union should also be able to rely on that provision and thus defend the § 301 suit on the ground that the employee failed to exhaust internal union procedures.
In addition, by reactivating the grievance, the union might be able to rectify the very wrong of which the employee complains — a breach of the duty of fair representation caused by the union’s refusal to seek arbitration — and the employee would then be unable to satisfy the precondition to a § 301 suit against the employer.
Of course exhaustion might deplete the employee’s energy and resources to the point where he chooses not to pursue his § 301 claim in court, but that result is surely inconsistent with federal policy.
Even if the union admitted during the internal appeals procedures that it had breached its duty of fair representation, an admission the UAW has- apparently made only once in the 20 years preceding 1977, see Klein, Enforcement of the Right to Fair Representation: Alternative Forums, The Duty of Fair Representation 103 (1977), the employee would still not be saved the time and expense of proving that breach in his § 301 suit. While a union’s admission that it breached its duty of fair representation is certainly evidence a court can consider, an employer defending a § 301 suit would still be entitled to prove that no such breach had occurred. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 186-187.
We are also not persuaded by the Court of Appeals’ assumption that exhaustion would narrow and focus the issues for ultimate judicial determination. The Court of Appeals stated:
“The UAW’s liability (if any) for breach of its duty of fair representation would depend on the reasons for the union’s withdrawal of the arbitration request. There is little in the record to indicate why the local official changed his mind and withdrew the arbitration request. But the missing motive is 'precisely the sort of information that an appellate body within the union would have elicited, compiling a record that would greatly assist the court now.” 623 F. 2d, at 566 (emphasis added).
There are three reasons why we are not persuaded by this analysis. First, the record does indicate why the union withdrew its request for arbitration of Clayton’s grievance. The letter from Local 509’s International Representative to Clayton, informing him that the union had withdrawn its request for arbitration, listed five reasons in support of the union’s decision. See n. 2, supra. Second, since the UAW Constitution does not on its face require any of the decisionmaking panels of the union to explain the reasons underlying their disposition of an employee’s internal union appeal, there is no guarantee that exhaustion will result in a useful interpretation of union rules. Third, in many eases the union tribunal is not permitted to consider certain allegations the employee could assert under § 301. In these cases, for example, Clayton alleges that the union “acted arbitrarily . . . and discriminatorily” in refusing to seek arbitration of his grievance. App. 6 (emphasis added). The UAW Constitution, however, states that the Public Review Board can only consider allegations that the employee’s grievance “was improperly handled [by the union] because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management.” Art. 33, § 8 (b) (emphasis added). This standard offers the aggrieved employee less protection than the “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith” standard for breach of the duty of fair representation that we developed in Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 190. As the General Counsel to the Public Review Board has stated:
“The UAW acknowledges that it has a duty of fair representation to its members. Moreover, it acknowledges that its members may assert a claim for a breach of the duty of fair representation within the system of internal remedies. It does not concede to its members, however, that arbitrary, perfunctory, or negligent conduct amounts to a breach of the duty of fair representation, -nor does it permit them even to assert this type of claim before the PRB, since the standard of review is jurisdictional. That is, unless the requisite claim is made (fraud, discrimination, or collusion) the board may not entertain it.” Klein, supra, at 99.
See also Johnson v. General Motors, 641 F. 2d, at 1081. Of course, if an allegation cannot be considered by the Public Review Board, no record helpful to a court will be made with respect to that issue. In sum, we conclude that the prospect that exhaustion would create a record helpful to a court in a subsequent § 301 action is too speculative to be given much weight.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a controversy that started in 1956 between petitioner Local 165 and the Worcester Telegram and between petitioner Local 38 and the Haverhill Gazette. The two unions insisted that the collective bargaining agreements that were being negotiated contain clauses or provisions to which each employer objected. The controversy as it reaches here is reduced to two clauses: first, that the hiring for the composing room be in the hands of the foreman; that he must be a member of the union; but that the union “shall not discipline the foreman for carrying out written instructions of the publisher or his representatives authorized by this Agreement” ; and second, that the General Laws of the International Typographical Union shall govern the relations between the parties if they are “not in conflict with state or federal law.” The unions’ demand that these clauses be included in the agreement led to a deadlock in the negotiations which in turn resulted in a strike.
The employers filed charges with the Board, complaints were issued, the cases consolidated, and hearings held. The Board concluded that the demands for the two clauses and the strikes supporting them were violations of the Act. It found that a demand for a contract that included those clauses was a refusal to bargain collectively within the meaning of § 8 (b) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 136,140-141,29 U. S. C. §158 (b) (3). It found that striking to force acceptance of those clauses was an attempt to make the employers discriminate in favor of union members contrary to the command of § 8 (b) (2) of the Act. It also found that striking for the “foreman clause” was restraining and coercing the employers in the selection of their representatives for the adjustment of grievances in violation of §8 (b)(1)(B) of the Act. 123 N. L. R. B. 806. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board’s order apart from features not material here. 278 F. 2d 6. The case is here on certiorari, 364 U. S. 878.
What we have said in Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., decided this day, ante, p. 695, is dispositive of the clause which incorporates the General Laws of the parent union “not in conflict with state or federal law.” On that phase of the case the judgment below must be reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal challenges a three-judge District Court’s construction and application of §5 of the Voting Rights Act, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. That section provides that certain jurisdictions, including the one in which this case arose, may not implement any election practices different from those in force on November 1, 1964, without first obtaining approval from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, alternatively, from the Attorney General. The statute further provides that once a proposed change has been submitted to the Attorney General, he has 60 days in which to object. If an objection is interposed, the submitting authority may request reconsideration. 28 CFR § 51.44 (1984). Such a request triggers another 60-day period for the Attorney General to decide whether to continue or withdraw his objection. § 51.47. The District Court held that §5 did not require the changes in election practices involved here to be cleared by the Attorney General prior to their implementation. We noted probable jurisdiction, 467 U. S. 1250 (1984), and now reverse that judgment.
I — I
As of November 1, 1964, the Hampton County, South Carolina, public schools were governed by appointed officials and an elected Superintendent of Education. The county comprises two school districts, School District No. 1, where the vast majority of white students live, and School District No. 2, which is predominantly black. Each District was governed by a separate six-member Board of Trustees. These trustees were appointed by a six-member County Board of Education, which in turn was appointed by the county legislative delegation.
On February 18, 1982, apparently in an attempt to facilitate consolidation of these two School Districts, the South Carolina General Assembly enacted Act No. 547. This statute provided that, beginning in 1983, the six members of the County Board of Education were to be elected at large rather than appointed. The first election for the new Board was to be held simultaneously with the general election in November 1982, and prospective candidates were required to file with the Election Commission at least 45 days before the election. Pursuant ter §5 of the Voting Rights Act, the State submitted Act No. 547 for the approval of the Attorney General, who received it on February 27. On April 28, the Attorney General informed the State that he had no objection to the change in question.
On April 9, however, before the Attorney General had approved Act No. 547, the Governor of South Carolina signed Act No. 549, which was designed to supersede Act No. 547. Act No. 549 abolished the County Board of Education and the County Superintendent, devolving their duties upon the District Boards of Trustees, which were to be elected separately by each District. Like Act No. 547, Act No. 549 scheduled the first trustee election to coincide with the November 1982 general election. Candidates were required to file between August 16 and August 31. Implementation of the Act was made contingent upon approval in a referendum to be held in May 1982.
The State did not submit Act No. 549 to the Attorney General for clearance until June 16, 1982, 22 days after it was approved in the referendum and 68 days after it had been enacted. As of August 16 — the opening date of the filing period under Act No. 549 — no response had yet been received from the Attorney General. Nevertheless, the County Election Commission began accepting filings for elections to be held under Act No. 549. On August 23, the Attorney General interposed an objection. He informed the State that it had not sustained its burden of showing that the proposal to eliminate the County Board of Education did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. The Attorney General noted that “the county board has been particularly responsive to the interests and needs of the black community in Hampton County and consistently has appointed bi-racial representation on the local boards of trustees for both School District 1 and School District 2.”
Because the State was contemplating requesting the Attorney General to reconsider this objection, the County Election Commission continued to accept filings under Act No. 549 through the end of the designated filing period, August 31. On that date, the State officially requested reconsideration. At the same time, the Election Commission began accepting filings under Act No. 547, in case the Attorney General refused to withdraw his objection to Act No. 549. On November 2, the date of the general election, the Attorney General had not yet responded to the request for reconsideration, and elections for County Board members were held pursuant to Act No. 547. No elections were held pursuant to Act No. 549.
On November 19, the Attorney General withdrew his objection to Act No. 549. The objection had been based primarily on the possibility that the County Board, which the Act would abolish, might have consolidated the two School Districts, but, upon reappraising South Carolina law, the Attorney General concluded that the Board lacked authority to approve such a consolidation. Therefore, its elimination would not have a potentially discriminatory impact.
The effect of the Attorney General’s clearance of Act No. 549 was to render Act No. 547 — and the November elections held pursuant to it — null and void. In response to a request for advice, the South Carolina Attorney General informed the County Election Commission in January that Act No. 549 was now in effect and that an election for school district trustees should be held “as soon as possible.” The State Attorney General further opined that there was no reason to reopen the filing period, “as only the date of the election has changed.” Accordingly, the Commission set March 15, 1983, as election day.
On March 11, appellants, two civil rights organizations and several residents of Hampton County, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina seeking to enjoin the election as illegal under §5 of the Voting Rights Act. The defendants were the County Election Commission, the two School Districts, and various county officials. The complaint identified a number of alleged “changes” in election procedure, including the scheduling of an election at a time other than that specified in the statute, and the use of the August filing period for the March election. A preliminary injunction was denied, and the election took place as scheduled. Subsequently, a three-judge panel denied a permanent injunction and declaratory relief, holding that no violation of §5 of the Voting Rights Act had occurred. The court reasoned that, although Act No. 549 itself was a “change” under the Act, the scheduling of the election and the filing period were simply “ministerial acts necessary to accomplish the statute’s purpose . . . , and thus did not require preclearance.” App. to Juris. Statement 9a. In the alternative, the court held that even if these acts did constitute “changes,” they had now been “precleared along with the remaining provisions of Act No. 549.” Ibid. That this “preclearance” did not occur until after the filing period had been held was not considered dispositive. The court interpreted Berry v. Doles, 438 U. S. 190 (1978), to stand for the proposition that after-the-fact federal approval under §5 might retroactively validate a change in voting procedures.
II
Appellants contend that the opening of the August filing period before preclearance, and the scheduling of an election in March after the Attorney General had approved only a November election date, are changes that come within the scope of § 5. Appellees, echoing the rationale of the District Court, maintain that opening the filing period as required by Act No. 549 — albeit before the Act had been approved — was merely a preliminary step in its implementation. If the Attorney General had ultimately disapproved Act No. 549, the county would not have held an election under it, and the filing period would have become a nullity. Because Act No. 549 was in fact cleared, the filing period it specified was necessarily cleared as well. The alteration of the date of the election, according to appellees, was merely an “unfreezing” of a process that had been temporarily suspended by the operation of the Voting Rights Act. Although appellees concede that a legislatively enacted change in the date of an election is covered by the Act, they distinguish the change at issue here because it was required only by the Attorney General’s failure to approve Act No. 549 before the scheduled election date, and because it was undertaken only to effect the initial implementation of the statute.
We need not decide whether a jurisdiction covered by § 5 may ever open a filing period under a statute that has not yet been precleared. In this case, Hampton County not only opened the filing period for School District trustees before preclearance, but it also scheduled the election for a date four months later than that approved by the Attorney General. Thus the county effectively altered the filing deadline from a date approximately two months before the election to one that was almost six months before the election.
These changes cannot fairly be characterized as “ministerial” in light of the sweeping objectives of the Act. The Voting Rights Act was aimed at “the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 565 (1969). Our precedents recognize that to effectuate the congressional purpose, §5 is to be given broad scope. Id., at 567; see also Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 38 (1978). Also, far from exempting alterations that might be perceived as minor, Congress failed to adopt such a suggestion when it was proposed in debates on the original Act.
Developments since the passage of the Act provide no basis for concluding that our cases had misinterpreted the intent of Congress. On the contrary, the legislative history of the most recent extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982 reveals that the congressional commitment to its continued enforcement is firm. The Senate Committee found “virtual unanimity among those who [had] studied the record,” S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 9 (1982), that §5 should be extended. And, as it had in previous extensions of the Act, Congress specifically endorsed a broad construction of the provision.
Although this Court has never addressed itself to alterations in voting procedures that exactly parallel those at issue in this case, we have twice held that the rescheduling of a candidate qualifying period is a “change” that comes within the scope of § 5. Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U. S. 358, 365-366 (1969); Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 551, 570. Of course, there was no alteration in the filing period itself in this case; it was held between August 16 and August 31, exactly as Act No. 549 required. But a filing period cannot be considered in isolation from the election of which it forms a part. As we have recognized in an analogous context, issues that provoke responses from the electorate and from potential candidates are most likely to arise shortly before election time. Under appellees’ approach, a filing period held years before an election would serve as well as one held on election eve. But clearly, the former has a much greater potential for hindering voter participation than the latter. Furthermore, the August filing period was held at a time when the Attorney General still had an outstanding objection to Act No. 549. Potential candidates who considered the opening of the filing period illegal in these circumstances may have deliberately stayed away.
Appellees do not seriously dispute that a change in the date of an election, if effected by statute, requires approval by the Attorney General under § 5. Rather, they argue that because the rescheduling in this case was merely an administrative effort to comply with a statute that had already received clearance, it was not a change of such magnitude as to trigger the requirements of § 5. But plainly, the form of a change in voting procedures cannot determine whether it is within the scope of § 5. That section reaches informal as well as formal changes, such as a bulletin issued by a state board of elections. Allen, supra. If it were otherwise, States could evade the requirements of § 5 merely by implementing changes in an informal manner. Neither is it determinative that an alteration in scheduling is unlikely to be repeated, as it would be if it were embodied in a statute or rule. The Voting Rights Act reaches changes that affect even a single election. As we have noted, the change in the election date in this instance extended the gap between the filing period and the election, possibly preventing relative latecomers from entering the race. In addition, an election in March is likely to draw significantly fewer voters than an election held simultaneously with a general election in November.
Any doubt that these changes are covered by §5 is resolved by the construction placed upon the Act by the Attorney General, which is entitled to considerable deference. Under Department of Justice regulations:
“Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, even though it ostensibly expands voting rights, or even though it is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change; must meet the Section 5 preclearance requirement.” 28 CFR §51.11 (1984).
Among the specific examples of changes listed in the regulations is “[a]ny change affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates.” §51.12. Pursuant to these regulations, the Attorney General has, since 1980, reviewed approximately 58 changes in election dates and approximately 10 changes in dates for candidate filing periods. In none of these instances did the Attorney General advise the covered jurisdiction that its submission was not a “change,” and on several occasions objections were interposed.
Appellees argue that these changes in voting procedures were exempt from preclearance because literal compliance with § 5 was impossible. The Attorney General did not approve the November election date until after that date had passed; hence, it was necessary to schedule another election date. Also, it is said that if the legislature had passed a statute setting a March election date and submitted it to the Attorney General, preclearance might not have been obtained by the date of the March election. In that event, yet another amendment would have been necessary, requiring yet another submission. The process might have continued ad infinitum.
To the extent that appellees found themselves in a dilemma, however, it was largely of their own making. Rather than submitting Act No. 549 shortly after its passage, which would have allowed ample time for preclearance before the scheduled opening of the filing period, the State delayed this action for two months. Even after Act No. 549 received clearance too late to allow the election to be held in November, appellees might still have submitted the new election date without encountering significant inconvenience. Because the Attorney General must respond to any submission within 60 days after he receives the necessary information, appellees need only have selected an election date sufficiently far in the future to allow preclearance.
Appellees would have us hold that the changes here at issue did not require preclearance because they were undertaken in good faith, were merely an attempt to implement a statute that had already been approved by the Attorney General, and were therefore an improvement over prior voting procedures. But the Attorney General’s approval of Act No. 549 signified only that it was not discriminatory, not that it was an improvement over Act No. 547, which had also been approved. Furthermore, neither the absence of discriminatory purpose nor a good-faith implementation of a change removes the potential for discriminatory effects.
More fundamentally, it is not our province, nor that of the District Court below, to determine whether the changes at issue in this case in fact resulted in impairment of the right to vote, or whether they were intended to have that effect. That task is reserved by statute to the Attorney General or to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Our inquiry is limited to whether the challenged alteration has the potential for discrimination. The changes effected here did have such potential and therefore should have been precleared under § 5.
Ill
Relying on Berry v. Doles, 438 U. S. 190 (1978), the District Court held as an alternative ground that these changes were implicitly approved when the Attorney General withdrew his objection to Act No. 549. Berry involved changes in voting procedures that were implemented without first being submitted to the Attorney General. In a decision rendered after the election had already taken place, a three-judge District Court held that the changes should have been submitted under §5 and enjoined further enforcement of the statute, but refused to set aside the election. We held that the appropriate remedy was to allow the covered jurisdiction 30 days in which to apply for approval of the change. We further stated:
“If approval is obtained, the matter will be at an end. If approval is denied, appellants are free to renew to the District Court their request for [a new election.]” Id., at 193.
From this, the District Court drew the conclusion that “a retroactive validation of an election law change under Section 5 could be achieved by after-the-fact federal approval.”
Regardless of whether this is a fair characterization of the holding of Berry, it clearly has no application to the facts of this case. The changes we have identified here — the retention of an August filing period in conjunction with a March election, and the scheduling of the March election — had not even been decided upon by state authorities at the time the Attorney General approved Act No. 549. That statute provided for an August filing period and a November election, which, as we have demonstrated, is quite another matter. Even an informal submission of a change in voting procedures does not satisfy the requirements of §5: the change must be submitted “in some unambiguous and recordable manner.” Allen, 393 U. S., at 571. See also McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236 (1984); United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 136 (1978). A change that was never submitted at all does not meet this standard. The Attorney General cannot be said to have validated these changes, retroactively or otherwise, because they were never before him.
í — I <1
Appellees’ use of an August filing period in conjunction with a March election, and the setting of the March election date itself, were changes that should have been submitted to the Attorney General under §5. These changes cannot be said to have been approved along with Act No. 549. As in Berry v. Doles, supra, it is appropriate in these circumstances for the District Court to enter an order allowing appellees 30 days in which to submit these changes to the Attorney General for approval. 438 U. S., at 192-193. If appellees fail to seek this approval, or if approval is not forthcoming, the results of the March 1983 election should be set aside. If, however, the Attorney General determines that the changes had no discriminatory purpose or effect, the District Court should determine, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, whether the results of the election may stand.
We therefore reverse the District Court’s judgment that § 5 was not violated by appellees’ failure to secure approval of these changes, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist concur in the judgment.
Section 5, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, provides in pertinent part:
“Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, . . . such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification . . . does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification . . . : Provided, That such qualification . . . may be enforced without such proceedings if the qualification . . . has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General’s failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification .... In the event that the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional information comes to'his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.”
The option of obtaining preclearance from the Attorney General, rather than from the District Court for the District of Columbia, was added to the original legislation “ ‘to provide a speedy alternative method of compliance to covered States.’ ” McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S. 236, 246 (1984) (quoting Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491, 503 (1977)).
According to appellants’ complaint filed in the District Court, the county as a whole is 47% white and 53% black. School District No. 1 contains 91% of the white student population, and its schools are 46% white. School District No. 2 is 92% black. App. 8a-10a.
According to the court below, it was thought that an elected board, as opposed to an appointed one, would “be responsive to consolidating School Districts One and Two.” App. to Juris. Statement 3a (order of United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Sept. 9, 1983).
See id., at 17a.
See App. 52a (letter of Gerald W. Jones to C. Havird Jones, Jr.).
Ibid.
App. to Juris. Statement 19a-21a. In their complaint in the court below and in their brief in this Court, appellants alleged that Act No. 549 was enacted in response to pressure from white citizens of Hampton County who feared that Act No. 547 might lead to consolidation of the two School Districts. The complaint alleged that white residents of School District No. 1 circulated a petition calling for the abolition of the County Board of Education and the County Superintendent, thus severing the connection between School District No. 1 and School District No. 2. Brief for Appellants 5.
App. to Juris. Statement 4a (order of United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Sept. 9, 1983).
Id., at 59a.
Id., at 63a-64a (letter of C. Havird Jones, Jr., to William Bradford Reynolds).
Of the six Board members elected in the November election, three were black and three were white. Brief for Appellants 9.
App. to Juris. Statement 65a-66a (letter of William Bradford Reynolds to C. Havird Jones, Jr.).
Id., at 67a-69a (letter of Treva Ashworth to Randolph Murdaugh III).
The complaint also alleged two other “changes.” One of these was the failure to certify the results of the May referendum to the State Code Commissioner as required by state law. Appellants have not raised this claim in this Court. Appellants also argued in the District Court, and in their brief in this Court, that Act No. 549 had effectively shortened the term of the County Superintendent of Education. Appellants stated at oral argument that they no longer wished to pursue this claim. In addition, the complaint alleged that the abolition of the Board of Education violated § 2 of the Votings Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. App. 22a-23a. These claims are the subject of continuing litigation in the District Court. Brief for Appellants 13, n. 3.
Id., at 13-14. Black candidates were elected to all five seats on the District No. 2 Board on March 15. Four whites and one black won seats on the District No. 1 Board. App. to Juris. Statement 7a, n. 2.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provides that “[a]ny action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of Title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
App. to Juris. Statement 8a-lla.
Brief for Appellee School Districts 27.
We note, however, that a prime concern of Congress when it extended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 was the prevalence of changes that were implemented without preclearance and, in some cases, were not submitted to the Attorney General until years later. See S. Rep. No. 97-417, pp. 12, 14, n. 43 (1982); H. R. Rep. No. 97-227, p. 13 (1981). The Senate Report stated:
“Timely submission of proposed changes before their implementation is the crucial threshold element of compliance with the law. The Supreme Court has recognized that enforcement of the Act depends upon voluntary and timely submission of changes subject to preclearance.
“The extent of non-submission documented in both the House hearings and those of this Committee remains surprising and deeply disturbing. There are numerous instances in which jurisdictions failed to submit changes before implementing them and submitted them only, if at all, many years after, when sued or threatened with suit.
“Put simply, such jurisdictions have flouted the law and hindered the protection of minority rights in voting.” S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra, at 47-48.
Generally, statutes that are subject to § 5 are ineffective as laws until they have been cleared by federal authorities. Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam).
In Allen, the Court noted that the Attorney General stated in hearings in the House that two or three types of changes, such as changing from paper ballots to voting machines, could be specifically excluded from § 5 without undermining its purpose. We found it significant that “Congress chose not to include even these minor exceptions in § 5, thus indicating an intention that all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to § 5 scrutiny.” 393 U. S., at 568.
S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra, at 6-7, and n. 8; see also H. R. Rep. No. 97-227, supra, at 34-35 (rejecting proposal to limit §5 to cover only those changes that had produced the most objections; “‘[t]he discriminatory potential in seemingly innocent or insignificant changes can only be determined after the specific facts of the change are analyzed in context’ ”) (quoting testimony of Drew Days, former U. S. Assistant Attorney General).
See also Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 82, 43 (1978), where we held that a Board of Education rule requiring employees to take unpaid leaves of absence while campaigning for elective political office was a barrier to candidacy “as formidable as the filing date changes at issue in” Hadnott and Allen. In other contexts, we have interpreted § 5 broadly to require preclearanee of changes in residence requirements for candidates, City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 160-161 (1980); alterations of municipal boundaries, Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 (1975); reapportionment and redistricting plans, Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973); and the location of polling places, Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971).
See Steelworkers v. Usery, 429 U. S. 305 (1977) (recognizing, in union democracy context, potential adverse impact of requiring candidates to qualify long before election).
Only one black candidate filed for election as a trustee of District No. 1 during the August filing period. He was ultimately elected to the post, along with four white candidates. Brief for Appellants 27, and n. 12. That other potential candidates were prevented from filing is not mere speculation. Appellants alleged in their complaint that three black citizens of Hampton County, including appellant Benjamin Brooks, attempted to have their names placed on the ballot for trustee positions in February, but were told that the filing period had ended the previous August. App. 16a-17a.
See swpra, at 174.
See also Dougherty County, supra (rule promulgated by County Board of Education).
See H. R. Rep. 97-227, at 35 (rejecting proposal that §5 should be limited to changes that produce most objections; “[wjhile some changes may adversely affect a greater number of people, others may have precisely the type of discriminatory impact which Congress sought to prevent, even though the numbers involved are smaller”).
Appellants state that over 6,000 Hampton County voters participated in the November 1982 general election, whereas less than half that number voted in the March 1983 special election. Brief for Appellants 23-24.
See, e. g., United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 131 (1978) (deference should be accorded to Attorney General’s construction of the Act, especially in light of the extensive role played by the Attorney General in drafting the statute and explaining its operation to Congress); Dougherty County, supra, at 39.
Brief for United States as'Amicus Curiae 13-14; and n. 7.
Appellees imply that they were unable to submit Act No. 549 until after it had been approved in the May referendum. But the Department’s regulations explicitly provide for submission of statutes before such ratification has been obtained. See 28 CFR § 51.20 (1984). Thus, the Act could have been submitted as soon as it was signed into law on April 9, a full 129 days before the filing period opened on August 16.
See 28 CFR §§51.8, 51.35, 51.37 (1984).
See S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 12, n. 31 (“even when changes are made for valid reasons, for example, reapportionment or home rule, ‘jurisdictions may not always take care to avoid discriminating against minority voters in the process’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-295, p. 18 (1975)). See also Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S., at 565, n. 29 (that a change was undertaken in an attempt to comply with the Act does not exempt it from § 5; “[t]o hold otherwise would mean that legislation, allegedly passed to meet the requirements of the Act, would be exempted from § 5 coverage— even though it would have the effect of racial discrimination”).
See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U. S., at 250; Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S., at 42; Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S., at 534; Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S., at 383-385; Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 555, n. 19, 570.
App. to Juris. Statement 10a.
In Berry, we stated that if the Attorney General gave his after-the-fact approval to the challenged alterations in voting procedure, “the matter will be at an end.” 438 U. S., at 193. In that case, however, the District Court had previously acknowledged that the changes were covered by § 5 and had reached the question of an appropriate remedy. In this ease, however, the District Court erroneously concluded that the changes were outside the scope of §5 and never engaged in the equitable weighing process necessary to determine whether failure to submit a covered change for preclearance requires that an election be set aside. The factors to be weighed include “the nature of the changes complained of, and whether it was reasonably clear at the time of the election that the changes were covered by § 5.” Perkins v. Matthews, supra, at 396.
The determination whether a change has a discriminatory purpose or effect, which is committed by statute to the Attorney General, is distinct from the determination whether failure to submit the change requires that the election be set aside. The latter determination must be made by the District Court, after the Attorney General has passed on the substantive nature of the change.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor join.
Lying was his habit. Xavier Alvarez, the respondent here, lied when he said that he played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings and that he once married a starlet from Mexico. But when he lied in announcing he held the Congressional Medal of Honor (or Medal), respondent ventured onto new ground; for that lie violates a federal criminal statute, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. 18 U. S. C. § 704.
In 2007, respondent attended his first public meeting as a board member of the Three Valley Water District Board. The board is a governmental entity with headquarters in Claremont, California. He introduced himself as follows: “‘I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. ’ ” 617 F. 3d 1198, 1200 (CA9 2010). None of this was true. For all the record shows, respondent’s statements were but a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him. The statements do not seem to have been made to secure employment or financial benefits or admission to privileges reserved for those who had earned the Medal.
Respondent was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act for lying about the Congressional Medal of Honor at the meeting. The United States District Court for the Central District of California rejected his claim that the statute is invalid under the First Amendment. Respondent pleaded guilty to one count, reserving the right to appeal on his First Amendment claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision by a divided panel, found the Act invalid under the First Amendment and reversed the conviction. Id., at 1218. With further opinions on the issue, and over a dissent by seven judges, rehearing en banc was denied. 638 F. 3d 666 (2011). This Court granted certiorari. 565 U. S. 962 (2011).
After certiorari was granted, and in an unrelated case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, also in a decision by a divided panel, found the Act constitutional. United States v. Strandlof, 667 F. 3d 1146 (2012). So there is now a conflict in the Courts of Appeals on the question of the Act’s validity.
This is the second case in two Terms requiring the Court to consider speech that can disparage, or attempt to steal, honor that belongs to those who fought for this Nation in battle. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443 (2011) (hateful protests directed at the funeral of a serviceman who died in Iraq). Here the statement that the speaker held the Medal was an intended, undoubted lie.
It is right and proper that Congress, over a century ago, established an award so the Nation can hold in its highest respect and esteem those who, in the course of carrying out the “supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation,” Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 390 (1918), have acted with extraordinary honor. And it should be uncontested that this is a legitimate Government objective, indeed a most valued national aspiration and purpose. This does not end the inquiry, however. Fundamental constitutional principles require that laws enacted to honor the brave must be consistent with the precepts of the Constitution for which they fought.
The Government contends the criminal prohibition is a proper means to further its purpose in creating and awarding the Medal. When content-based speech regulation is in question, however, exacting scrutiny is required. Statutes suppressing or restricting speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First Amendment. By this measure, the statutory provisions under which respondent was convicted must be held invalid, and his conviction must be set aside.
I
Respondent’s claim to hold the Congressional Medal of Honor was false. There is no room to argue about interpretation or shades of meaning. On this premise, respondent violated § 704(b); and, because the lie concerned the Congressional Medal of Honor, he was subject to an enhanced penalty under subsection (c). Those statutory provisions are as follows:
“(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.—Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
“(c) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Congressional Medal of Honor.—
“(1) In General.—If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Respondent challenges the statute as a content-based suppression of pure speech, speech not falling within any of the few categories of expression where content-based regulation is permissible. The Government defends the statute as necessary to preserve the integrity and purpose of the Medal, an integrity and purpose it contends are compromised and frustrated by the false statements the statute prohibits. It argues that false statements “have no First Amendment value in themselves,” and thus “are protected only to the extent needed to avoid chilling fully protected speech.” Brief for United States 18, 20. Although the statute covers respondent’s speech, the Government argues that it leaves breathing room for protected speech, for example, speech which might criticize the idea of the Medal or the importance of the military. The Government’s arguments cannot suffice to save the statute.
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660 (2004).
In light of the substantial and expansive threats to free expression posed by content-based restrictions, this Court has rejected as “startling and dangerous” a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage . . . [based on] an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 470 (2010). Instead, content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few “‘historic and traditional categories [of expression] long familiar to the bar.’” Id., at 468 (quoting Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)). Among these categories are advocacy intended, and likely, to incite imminent lawless action, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969) (per curiam); obscenity, see, e. g., Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); defamation, see, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) (providing substantial protection for speech about public figures); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974) (imposing some limits on liability for defaming a private figure); speech integral to criminal conduct, see, e. g., Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490 (1949); so-called “fighting words,” see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942); child pornography, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982); fraud, see Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976); true threats, see Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705 (1969) (per curiam); and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the government has the power to prevent, see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 716 (1931), although a restriction under the last category is most difficult to sustain, see New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam). These categories have a historical foundation in the Court’s free speech tradition. The vast realm of free speech and thought always protected in our tradition can still thrive, and even be furthered, by adherence to those categories and rules.
Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee. See Sullivan, supra, at 271 (“Th[e] erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate”).
The Government disagrees with this proposition. It cites language from some of this Court’s precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. See also Brief for Eugene Volokh et al. as Amici Curiae 2-11. These isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government’s submission that false statements, as a general rule, are beyond constitutional protection. That conclusion would take the quoted language far from its proper context. For instance, the Court has stated “[f]alse statements of fact are particularly valueless [because] they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas,” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 52 (1988), and that false statements “are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements,” Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U. S. 45, 60-61 (1982). See also, e. g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, supra, at 771 (“Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake”); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153, 171 (1979) (“Spreading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials”); Gertz, supra, at 340 (“[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 75 (1964) (“[T]he knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection”).
These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18-19. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. See Sullivan, supra, at 280 (prohibiting recovery of damages for a defamatory falsehood made about a public official unless the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”); see also Garrison, supra, at 73 (“[E]ven when the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression . . . preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood”); Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U. S. 600, 620 (2003) (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”).
The Government thus seeks to use this principle for a new purpose. It seeks to convert a rule that limits liability even in defamation cases where the law permits recovery for tor-tious wrongs into a rule that expands liability in a different, far greater realm of discourse and expression. That inverts the rationale for the exception. The requirements of a knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth as the condition for recovery in certain defamation cases exists to allow more speech, not less. A rule designed to tolerate certain speech ought not blossom to become a rationale for a rule restricting it.
The Government then gives three examples of regulations on false speech that courts generally have found permissible: first, the criminal prohibition of a false statement made to a Government official, 18 U. S. C. § 1001; second, laws punishing perjury; and third, prohibitions on the false representation that one is speaking as a Government official or on behalf of the Government, see, e. g., § 912; § 709. These restrictions, however, do not establish a principle that all proscriptions of false statements are exempt from exacting First Amendment scrutiny.
The federal statute prohibiting false statements to Government officials punishes “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government . . . makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” § 1001. Section 100Ts prohibition on false statements made to Government officials, in communications concerning official matters, does not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context.
The same point can be made about what the Court has confirmed is the “unquestioned constitutionality of perjury statutes,” both the federal statute, § 1623, and its state-law equivalents. United States v. Grayson, 438 U. S. 41, 54 (1978). See also Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 49-50, n. 10 (1961). It is not simply because perjured statements are false that they lack First Amendment protection. Perjured testimony “is at war with justice” because it can cause a court to render a “judgment not resting on truth.” In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, 227 (1945). Perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments that are the basis of the legal system. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U. S. 87, 97 (1993) (“To uphold the integrity of our trial system . . . the constitutionality of perjury statutes is unquestioned”)- Unlike speech in other contexts, testimony under oath has the formality and gravity necessary to remind the witness that his or her statements will be the basis for official governmental action, action that often affects the rights and liberties of others. Sworn testimony is quite distinct from lies not spoken under oath and simply intended to puff up oneself.
Statutes that prohibit falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or that prohibit impersonating a Government officer, also protect the integrity of Government processes, quite apart from merely restricting false speech. Title 18 U. S. C. § 912, for example, prohibits impersonating an officer or employee of the United States. Even if that statute may not require proving an “actual financial or property loss” resulting from the deception, the statute is itself confined to “maintain[ing] the general good repute and dignity of... government... service itself.” United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U. S. 702, 704 (1943) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The same can be said for prohibitions on the unauthorized use of the names of federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a manner calculated to convey that the communication is approved, see § 709, or using words such as “Federal” or “United States” in the collection of private debts in order to convey that the communication has official authorization, see § 712. These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here.
As our law and tradition show, then, there are instances in which the falsity of speech bears upon whether it is protected. Some false speech may be prohibited even if analogous true speech could not be. This opinion does not imply that any of these targeted prohibitions are somehow vulnerable. But it also rejects the notion that false speech should be in a general category that is presumptively unprotected.
Although the First Amendment stands against any “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment,” Stevens, 559 U. S., at 473, the Court has acknowledged that perhaps there exist “some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected . . . but have not yet been specifically identified or discussed ... in our case law.” Ibid. Before exempting a category of speech from the normal prohibition on content-based restrictions, however, the Court must be presented with “persuasive evidence that a novel restriction on content is part of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of proscription,” Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S. 786, 792 (2011). The Government has not demonstrated that false statements generally should constitute a new category of unprotected speech on this basis.
III
The probable, and adverse, effect of the Act on freedom of expression illustrates, in a fundamental way, the reasons for the law’s distrust of content-based speech prohibitions.
The Act by its plain terms applies to a false statement made at any time, in any place, to any person. It can be assumed that it would not apply to, say, a theatrical performance. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U. S. 1, 20 (1990) (recognizing that some statements nominally purporting to contain false facts in reality “cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Still, the sweeping, quite unprecedented reach of the statute puts it in conflict with the First Amendment. Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home. The statute seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. See San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U. S. 522, 539-540 (1987) (prohibiting a nonprofit corporation from exploiting the “commercial magnetism” of the word “Olympic” when organizing an athletic competition (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. See G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) (Centennial ed. 2003). Were this law to be sustained, there could be an endless list of subjects the National Government or the States could single out. Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say, offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. See, e. g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 771 (noting that fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of the First Amendment). But the Stolen Valor Act is not so limited in its reach. Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment, cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.
IV
The previous discussion suffices to show that the Act conflicts with free speech principles. But even when examined within its own narrow sphere of operation, the Act cannot survive. In assessing content-based restrictions on protected speech, the Court has not adopted a freewheeling approach, see Stevens, supra, at 470 (“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits”), but rather has applied the “most exacting scrutiny,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 642 (1994). Although the objectives the Government seeks to further by the statute are not without significance, the Court must, and now does, find the Act does not satisfy exacting scrutiny.
The Government is correct when it states military medals “serve the important public function of recognizing and expressing gratitude for acts of heroism and sacrifice in military service,” and also “‘foste[r] morale, mission accomplishment and esprit de corps’ among service members.” Brief for United States 37, 38. General George Washington observed that an award for valor would “cherish a virtuous ambition in . . . soldiers, as well as foster and encourage every species of military merit.” General Orders of George Washington Issued at Newburgh on the Hudson, 1782-1783 (Aug. 7, 1782), p. 30 (E. Boynton ed. 1883). Time has not diminished this idea. In periods of war and peace alike public recognition of valor and noble sacrifice by men and women in uniform reinforces the pride and national resolve that the military relies upon to fulfill its mission.
These interests are related to the integrity of the military honors system in general, and the Congressional Medal of Honor in particular. Although millions have served with brave resolve, the Medal, which is the highest military award for valor against an enemy force, has been given just 3,476 times. Established in 1861, the Medal is reserved for those who have distinguished themselves “conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.” 10 U. S. C. §§ 3741 (Army), 6241 (Navy and Marine Corps), 8741 (Air Force), 14 U. S. C. § 491 (Coast Guard). The stories of those who earned the Medal inspire and fascinate, from Dakota Meyer who in 2009 drove five times into the midst of a Taliban ambush to save 36 lives, see Curtis, President Obama Awards Medal of Honor to Dakota Meyer, The White House Blog (Sept. 15, 2011) (all Internet materials as visited June 25, 2012, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); to Desmond Doss who served as an army medic on Okinawa and on June 5, 1945, rescued 75 fellow soldiers, and who, after being wounded, gave up his own place on a stretcher so others could bé taken to safety, see America’s Heroes 88-90 (J. Willbanks ed. 2011); to William Carney who sustained multiple gunshot wounds to the head, chest, legs, and arm, and yet carried the flag to ensure it did not touch the ground during the Union army’s assault on Fort Wagner in July 1863, id., at 44-45. The rare acts of courage the Medal celebrates led President Truman to say he would “rather have that medal round my neck than . . . be president of the United States.” Truman Gives No. 1 Medal to 15 Army Heroes, Washington Post, Oct. 13, 1945, p. 5. The Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question.
But to recite the Government’s compelling interests is not to end the matter. The First Amendment requires that the Government’s chosen restriction on the speech at issue be “actually necessary” to achieve its interest. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S., at 799. There must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. See ibid. The link between the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the military honors system and the Act’s restriction on the false claims of liars like respondent has not been shown. Although appearing to concede that “an isolated misrepresentation by itself would not tarnish the meaning of military honors,” the Government asserts it is “common sense that false representations have the tendency to dilute the value and meaning of military awards,” Brief for United States 49, 54. It must be acknowledged that when a pretender claims the Medal to be his own, the lie might harm the Government by demeaning the high purpose of the award, diminishing the honor it confirms, and creating the appearance that the Medal is awarded more often than is true. Furthermore, the lie may offend the true holders of the Medal. From one perspective it insults their bravery and high principles when falsehood puts them in the unworthy company of a pretender.
Yet these interests do not satisfy the Government’s heavy burden when it seeks to regulate protected speech. See United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000). The Government points to no evidence to support its claim that the public’s general perception of military awards is diluted by false claims such as those made by Alvarez. Cf. Entertainment Merchants Assn., supra, at 799-800 (analyzing and rejecting the findings of research psychologists demonstrating the causal link between violent video games and harmful effects on children). As one of the Government’s amici notes, “there is nothing that charlatans such as Xavier Alvarez can do to stain [the Medal recipients’] honor.” Brief for Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States et al. as Amici Curiae 1. This general proposition is sound, even if true holders of the Medal might experience anger and frustration.
The lack of a causal link between the Government’s stated interest and the Act is not the only way in which the Act is not actually necessary to achieve the Government’s stated interest. The Government has not shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech would not suffice to achieve its interest. The facts of this case indicate that the dynamics of free speech, of counterspeech, of refutation, can overcome the lie. Respondent lied at a public meeting. Even before the FBI began investigating him for his false statements “Alvarez was perceived as a phony,” 617 F. 3d, at 1211. Once the lie. was made public, he was ridiculed online, see Brief for Respondent 3, his actions were reported in the press, see Ortega, Alvarez Again Denies Claim, Ontario, Cal., Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Sept. 27, 2007), and a fellow board member called for his resignation, see, e. g., Bigham, Water District Rep Requests Alvarez Resign in Wake of False Medal Claim, San Bernardino Cty., Cal., The Sun (May 21, 2008). There is good reason to believe that a similar fate would befall other false claimants. See Brief for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. as Amici Curiae 30-33 (listing numerous examples of public exposure of false claimants). Indeed, the outrage and contempt expressed for respondent’s lies can serve to reawaken and reinforce the public’s respect for the Medal, its recipients, and its high purpose. The acclaim that recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor receive also casts doubt on the proposition that the public will be misled by the claims of charlatans or become cynical of those whose heroic deeds earned them the Medal by right. See, e. g., Well Done, Washington Post, Feb. 5, 1943, p. 8 (reporting on President Roosevelt’s awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to Maj. Gen. Alexander Vandegrift); Devroy, Medal of Honor Given to 2 Killed in Somalia, Washington Post, May 24, 1994, p. A6 (reporting on President Clinton’s awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to two special forces soldiers killed during operations in Somalia).
The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandéis, J., concurring) (“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence”)- The theory of our Constitution is “that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.
Expressing its concern that counterspeeeh is insufficient, the Government responds that because “some military records have been lost... some claims [are] unverifiable,” Brief for United States 50. This proves little, however; for without verifiable records, successful criminal prosecution under the Act would be more difficult in any event. So, in cases where public refutation will not serve the Government's interest, the Act will not either. In addition, the Government claims that “many [false claims] will remain unchallenged.” Id., at 55. The Government provides no support for the contention. And in any event, in order to show that public refutation is not an adequate alternative, the Government must demonstrate that unchallenged claims undermine the public’s perception of the military and the integrity of its awards system. This showing has not been made.
It is a fair assumption that any true holders of the Medal who had heard of Alvarez’s false claims would have been fully vindicated by the community’s expression of outrage, showing as it did the Nation’s high regard for the Medal. The same can be said for the Government’s interest. The American people do not need the assistance of a government prosecution to express their high regard for the special place that military heroes hold in our tradition. Only a weak society needs government protection or intervention before it pursues its resolve to preserve the truth. Truth needs neither handcuffs nor a badge for its vindication.
In addition, when the Government seeks to regulate protected speech, the restriction must be the “least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives.” Ashcroft, 542 U. S., at 666. There is, however, at least one less speech-restrictive means by which the Government could likely protect the integrity of the military awards system. A Government-created database could list Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. Were a database accessible through the Internet, it would be easy to verify and expose false claims. It appears some private individuals have already created databases similar to this, see Brief for Respondent 25, and at least one database of past recipients is online and fully searchable, see Congressional Medal of Honor Society, Full Archive, http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-archive.php. The Solicitor General responds that although Congress and the Department of Defense investigated the feasibility of establishing a database in 2008, the Government “concluded that such a database would be impracticable and insufficiently comprehensive.” Brief for United States 55. Without more explanation, it is difficult to assess the Government’s claim, especially when at least one database of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients already exists.
The Government may have responses to some of these criticisms, but there has been no clear showing of the necessity of the statute, the necessity required by exacting scrutiny.
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
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:
|
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.
In 2004, voters in the State of Washington passed an initiative changing the State’s primary election system. The People’s Choice Initiative of 2004, or Initiative 872 (1-872), provides that candidates for office shall be identified on the ballot by their self-designated “party preference”; that voters may vote for any candidate; and that the top two votegetters for each office, regardless of party preference, advance to the general election. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 1-872 facially invalid as imposing an unconstitutional burden on state political parties’ First Amendment rights. Because 1-872 does not on its face impose a severe burden on political parties’ associational rights, and because respondents’ arguments to the contrary rest on factual assumptions about voter confusion that can be evaluated only in the context of an as-applied challenge, we reverse.
I
For most of the past century, Washington voters selected nominees for state and local offices using a blanket primary. From 1935 until 2003, the State used a blanket primary that placed candidates from all parties on one ballot and allowed voters to select a candidate from any party. See 1935 Wash. Laws §§1-5, pp. 60-64. Under this system, the candidate who won a plurality of votes within each major party became that party’s nominee in the general election. See 2003 Wash. Laws § 919, p. 775.
California used a nearly identical primary in its own elections until our decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567 (2000). In Jones, four political parties challenged California’s blanket primary, arguing that it unconstitutionally burdened their associational rights by forcing them to associate with voters who did not share their beliefs. We agreed and struck down the blanket primary as inconsistent with the First Amendment. In so doing, we emphasized the importance of the nomination process as “ ‘the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community.’” Id., at 575 (quoting Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 216 (1986)). We observed that a party’s right to exclude is central to its freedom of association, and is never “more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.” 530 U. S., at 575. California’s blanket primary, we concluded, severely burdened the parties’ freedom of association because it forced them to allow nonmembers to participate in selecting the parties’ nominees. That the parties retained the right to endorse their preferred candidates did not render the burden any less severe, as “[t]here is simply no substitute for a party’s selecting its own candidates.” Id., at 581.
Because California’s blanket primary severely burdened the parties’ associational rights, we subjected it to strict scrutiny, carefully examining each of the state interests offered by California in support of its primary system. We rejected as illegitimate three of the asserted interests: “producing elected officials who better represent the electorate,” “expanding candidate debate beyond the scope of partisan concerns,” and ensuring “the right to an effective vote” by allowing nonmembers of a party to vote in the majority party’s primary in “ ‘safe’ ” districts. Id., at 582-584. We concluded that the remaining interests — promoting fairness, affording voters greater choice, increasing voter participation, and protecting privacy — were not compelling on the facts of the case. Even if they were, the partisan California primary was not narrowly tailored to further those interests because a nonpartisan blanket primary, in which the top two votegetters advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation, would accomplish each of those interests without burdening the parties’ associational rights. Id., at 585-586. The nonpartisan blanket primary had “all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters [were] not choosing a party’s nominee.” Ibid.
After our decision in Jones, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down Washington’s primary as “materially indistinguishable from the California scheme.” Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed, 343 F. 3d 1198, 1203 (2003). The Washington State Grange promptly proposed 1-872 as a replacement. It passed with nearly 60% of the vote and became effective in December 2004.
Under 1-872, all elections for “partisan offices” are conducted in two stages: a primary and a general election. To participate in the primary, a candidate must file a “declaration of candidacy” form, on which he declares his “major or minor party preference, or independent status.” Wash. Rev. Code §29A.24.030 (Supp. 2005). Each candidate and his party preference (or independent status) is in turn designated on the primary election ballot. A political party cannot prevent a candidate who is unaffiliated with, or even repugnant to, the party from designating it as his party of preference. See App. 396-397, 595 (declaration of James K. Pharris, Exhibit C: Ruling Order, May 18, 2005, Wash. Admin. Code §434-215-015). In the primary election, voters may select “any candidate listed on the ballot, regardless of the party preference of the candidates or the voter.” Id., at 606, §434-262-012.
The candidates with the highest and second-highest vote totals advance to the general election, regardless of their party preferences. Ibid. Thus, the general election may pit two candidates with the same party preference against one another. Each candidate’s party preference is listed on the general election ballot, and may not be changed between the primary and general elections. See id., at 601, § 434-230-040.
Immediately after the State enacted regulations to implement 1-872, the Washington State Republican Party filed suit against a number of county auditors challenging the law on its face. The party contended that the new system violates its associational rights by usurping its right to nominate its own candidates and by forcing it to associate with candidates it does not endorse. The Washington State Democratic Central Committee and Libertarian Party of Washington State joined the suit as plaintiffs. The Washington State Grange joined as a defendant, and the State of Washington was substituted for the county auditors as defendant. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the political parties’ motions for summary judgment and enjoined the implementation of 1-872. See Washington State Republican Party v. Logan, 377 F. Supp. 2d 907, 932 (2005).
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 460 F. 3d 1108, 1125 (CA9 2006). It held that the 1-872 primary severely burdens the political parties’ associational rights because the party-preference designation on the ballot creates a risk that primary winners will be perceived as the parties’ nominees and produces an “impression of associatio[n]” between a candidate and his party of preference even when the party does not associate, or wish to be associated, with the candidate. Id., at 1119. The Court of Appeals noted a “constitutionally significant distinction between ballots and other vehicles for political expression,” reasoning that the risk of perceived association is particularly acute when ballots include party labels because such labels are typically used to designate candidates’ views on issues of public concern. Id., at 1121. And it determined that the State’s interests underlying 1-872 were not sufficiently compelling to justify the severe burden on the parties’ association. Concluding that the provisions of 1-872 providing for the party-preference designation on the ballot were not severable, the court struck down 1-872 in its entirety.
We granted certiorari, 549 U. S. 1251 (2007), to determine whether 1-872, on its face, violates the political parties’ associational rights.
II
Respondents object to 1-872 not in the context of an actual election, but in a facial challenge. Under United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739 (1987), a plaintiff can only succeed in a facial challenge by “establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,” i. e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications. Id., at 745. While some Members of the Court have criticized the Salerno formulation, all agree that a facial challenge must fail where the statute has a “‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 739-740, and n. 7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgments). Washington’s primary system survives under either standard, as we explain below. In determining whether a law is facially invalid, we must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about “hypothetical” or “imaginary” cases. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 22 (1960) (“The delicate power of pronouncing an Act of Congress unconstitutional is not to be exercised with reference to hypothetical cases thus imagined”). The State has had no opportunity to implement 1-872, and its courts have had no occasion to construe the law in the context of actual disputes arising from the electoral context, or to accord the law a limiting construction to avoid constitutional questions. Cf. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217, 220 (1912) (“How the state court may apply [a statute] to other cases, whether its general words may be treated as more or. less restrained, and how far parts of it may be sustained if others fail are matters upon which we need not speculate now”). Exercising judicial restraint in a facial challenge “frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy.” Raines, supra, at 22.
Facial challenges are disfavored for several reasons. Claims of facial invalidity often rest on speculation. As a consequence, they raise the risk of “premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually barebones records.” Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 609 (2004) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Facial challenges also run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither “ ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it’ ” nor “ ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’” Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (quoting Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885)). Finally, facial challenges threaten to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution. We must keep in mind that “ ‘[a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people.’ ” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 329 (2006) (quoting Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion)). It is with these principles in view that we turn to the merits of respondents’ facial challenge to 1-872.
A
The States possess a “‘broad power to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” Art. I, § 4, cl. 1, which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices.’ ” Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U. S. 581, 586 (2005) (quoting Tashjian, 479 U. S., at 217); Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 358 (1997) (same). This power is not absolute, but is “subject to the limitation that [it] may not be exercised in a way that violates . . . specific provisions of the Constitution.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 29 (1968). In particular, the State has the “ ‘responsibility to observe the limits established by the First Amendment rights of the State’s citizens,’ ” including the freedom of political association. Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 222 (1989) (quoting Tashjian, supra, at 217).
Election regulations that impose a severe burden on associational rights are subject to strict scrutiny, and we uphold them only if they are “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Clingman, supra, at 586; see also Rhodes, supra, at 31 (“ ‘[0]nly a compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate can justify limiting First Amendment freedoms’ ” (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963))). If a statute imposes only modest burdens, however, then “the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” on election procedures. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788 (1983). “Accordingly, we have repeatedly upheld reasonable, politically neutral regulations that have the effect of channeling expressive activity at the polls.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428, 438 (1992).
The parties do not dispute these general principles; rather, they disagree about whether 1-872 severely burdens respondents’ associational rights. That disagreement begins with Jones. Petitioners argue that the 1-872 primary is indistinguishable from the alternative Jones suggested would be constitutional. In Jones we noted that a nonpartisan blanket primary, where the top two votegetters proceed to the general election regardless of their party, was a less restrictive alternative to California’s system because such a primary does not nominate candidates. 530 U. S., at 585-586 (The nonpartisan blanket primary “has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee”). Petitioners are correct that we assumed that the nonpartisan primary we described in Jones would be constitutional. But that is not dispositive here because we had no occasion in Jones to determine whether a primary system that indicates each candidate’s party preference on the ballot, in effect, chooses the parties’ nominees.
That question is now squarely before us. Respondents argue that 1-872 is unconstitutional under Jones because it has the same “constitutionally crucial” infirmity that doomed California’s blanket primary: It allows primary voters who are unaffiliated with a party to choose the party’s nominee. Respondents claim that candidates who progress to the general election under 1-872 will become the de facto nominees of the parties they prefer, thereby violating the parties’ right to choose their own standard bearers, see Timmons, supra, at 359, and altering their messages. They rely on our statement in Jones reaffirming “the special place the First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party ‘select[s] a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.’” Jones, 530 U.S., at 575 (quoting Eu, supra, at 224).
The flaw in this argument is that, unlike the California primary, the 1-872 primary does not, by its terms, choose parties’ nominees. The essence of nomination — the choice of a party representative — does not occur under 1-872. The law never refers to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor does it treat them as such. To the contrary, the election regulations specifically provide that the primary “does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election.” App. 606, Wash. Admin. Code §434-262-012. The top two candidatés from the primary election proceed to the general election regardless of their party preferences. Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because 1-872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations.
Respondents counter that, even if the 1-872 primary does not actually choose parties’ nominees, it nevertheless burdens their associational rights because voters will assume that candidates on the general election ballot are the nominees of their preferred parties. This brings us to the heart of respondents’ case — and to the fatal flaw in their argument. At bottom, respondents’ objection to 1-872 is that voters will be confused by candidates’ party-preference designations. Respondents’ arguments are largely variations on this theme. Thus, they argue that even if voters do not assume that candidates on the general election ballot are the nominees of their parties, they will at least assume that the parties associate with, and approve of, them. This, they say, compels them to associate with candidates they do not endorse, alters the messages they wish to convey, and forces them to engage in counterspeech to disassociate themselves from the candidates and their positions on the issues.
We reject each of these contentions for the same reason: They all depend, not on any facial requirement of 1-872, but on the possibility that voters will be confused as to the meaning of the party-preference designation. But respondents’ assertion that voters will misinterpret the party-preference designation is sheer speculation. It “depends upon the belief that voters can be ‘misled’ by party labels. But ‘[o]ur cases reflect a greater faith in the ability of individual voters to inform themselves about campaign issues.’” Tashjian, 479 U. S., at 220 (quoting Anderson, swpra, at 797). There is simply no basis to presume that a well-informed electorate will interpret a candidate’s party-preference designation to mean that the candidate is the party’s chosen nominee or representative or that the party associates with or approves of the candidate. See New York State Clubn Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 13-14 (1988) (rejecting a facial challenge to a law regulating club membership and noting that “[w]e could hardly hold otherwise on the record before us, which contains no specific evidence on the characteristics of any club covered by the [l]aw”). This strikes us as especially true here, given that it was the voters of Washington themselves, rather than their elected representatives, who enacted 1-872.
Of course, it is possible that voters will misinterpret the candidates’ party-preference designations as reflecting endorsement by the parties. But these cases involve a facial challenge, and we cannot strike down 1-872 on its face based on the mere possibility of voter confusion. See Yazoo, 226 U. S., at 219 (“[T]his court must deal with the case in hand and not with imaginary ones”); Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 26 (1914) (A statute “is not to be upset upon hypothetical and unreal possibilities, if it would be good upon the facts as they are”). Because respondents brought their suit as a facial challenge, we have no evidentiary record against which to assess their assertions that voters will be confused. See Timmons, 520 U. S., at 375-376 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (rejecting judgments based on “imaginative theoretical sources of voter confusion” and “entirely hypothetical” outcomes). Indeed, because 1-872 has never been implemented, we do not even have ballots indicating how party preference will be displayed. It stands to reason that whether voters will be confused by the party-preference designations will depend in significant part on the form of the ballot. The Court of Appeals assumed that the ballot would not place abbreviations like “ ‘D’ ” and “ ‘R,’ ” or “ ‘Dem.’ ” and “‘Rep.’” after the names of candidates, but would instead “clearly state that a particular candidate ‘prefers’ a particular party.” 460 F. 3d, at 1121, n. 20. It thought that even such a clear statement did too little to eliminate the risk of voter confusion.
But we see no reason to stop there. As long as we are speculating about the form of the ballot — and we can do no more than speculate in this facial challenge — we must, in fairness to the voters of the State of Washington who enacted 1-872 and in deference to the executive and judicial officials who are charged with implementing it, ask whether the ballot could conceivably be printed in such a way as to eliminate the possibility of widespread voter confusion and with it the perceived threat to the First Amendment. See Ayotte, 546 U. S., at 329 (noting that courts should not nullify more of a state law than necessary so as to avoid frustrating the intent of the people and their duly elected representatives); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 795-796 (1989) (“ ‘[I]n evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must... consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered’ ” (quoting Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 494, n. 5 (1982))).
It is not difficult to conceive of such a ballot. For example, petitioners propose that the actual 1-872 ballot could include prominent disclaimers explaining that party preference reflects only the self-designation of the candidate and not an official endorsement by the party. They also suggest that the ballots might note preference in the form of a candidate statement that emphasizes the candidate’s personal determination rather than the party’s acceptance of the candidate, such as “my party preference is the Republican Party.” Additionally, the State could decide to educate the public about the new primary ballots through advertising or explanatory materials mailed to voters along with their ballots. We are satisfied that there are a variety of ways in which the State could implement 1-872 that would eliminate any real threat of voter confusion. And without the specter of widespread voter confusion, respondents’ arguments about forced association and compelled speech fall flat.
Our conclusion that these implementations of 1-872 would be consistent with the First Amendment is fatal to respondents’ facial challenge. See Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 264 (1984) (a facial challenge fails where “at least some” constitutional applications exist). Each of their arguments rests on factual assumptions about voter confusion, and each fails for the same reason: In the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that Washington’s voters will be misled. See Jones, 530 U. S., at 600 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[A]n empirically debatable assumption ... is too thin a reed to support a credible First Amendment distinction” between permissible and impermissible burdens on association). That factual determination must await an as-applied challenge. On its face, 1-872 does not impose any severe burden on respondents’ associational rights.
B
Because we have concluded that 1-872 does not severely burden respondents, the State need not assert a compelling interest. See Clingman, 544 U. S., at 593 (“When a state electoral provision places no heavy burden on associational rights, ‘a State’s important regulatory interests will usually be enough to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions’ ” (quoting Timmons, 520 U. S., at 358)). The State’s asserted interest in providing voters with relevant information about the candidates on the ballot is easily sufficient to sustain 1-872. See Anderson, 460 U. S., at 796 (“There can be no question about the legitimacy of the State’s interest in fostering informed and educated expressions of the popular will in a general election”).
Ill
Respondents ask this Court to invalidate a popularly enacted election process that has never been carried out. Immediately after implementing regulations were enacted, respondents obtained a permanent injunction against the enforcement of 1-872. The First Amendment does not require this extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people. Because 1-872 does not on its face provide for the nomination of candidates or compel political parties to associate with or endorse candidates, and because there is no basis in this facial challenge for presuming that candidates’ party-preference designations will confuse voters, 1-872 does not on its face severely burden respondents’ associational rights. We accordingly hold that 1-872 is facially constitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The term “blanket primary” refers to a system in which “any person, regardless of party affiliation, may vote for a party’s nominee.” California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567, 576, n. 6 (2000). A blanket primary is distinct from an “open primary,” in which a person may vote for any party’s nominees, but must choose among that party’s nominees for all offices, ibid., and the more traditional “closed primary,” in which “only persons who are members of the political party . . . can vote on its nominee,” id., at 570.
The Washington State Grange is a fraternal, social, and civic organization chartered by the National Grange in 1889. Although originally formed to represent the interests of farmers, the organization has advocated a variety of goals, including women’s suffrage, rural electrification, protection of water resources, and universal telephone service. The State
Grange also supported the Washington constitutional amendment establishing initiatives and referendums and sponsored the 1934 blanket primary initiative.
Respondents make much of the fact that the promoters of 1-872 presented it to Washington voters as a way to preserve the primary system in place from 1935 to 2003. But our task is not to judge 1-872 based on its promoters’ assertions about its similarity, or lack thereof, to the unconstitutional primary; we must evaluate the constitutionality of 1-872 on its own terms. Whether the language of 1-872 was purposely drafted to survive a Jones-type constitutional challenge is irrelevant to whether it has successfully done so.
“ ‘Partisan office’ means a public office for which a candidate may indicate a political party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy and have that preference appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name.” Wash. Rev. Code §29A.04.110 (Supp. 2005).
This is not a hypothetical outcome. The Court of Appeals observed that, had the 1996 gubernatorial primary been conducted under the L-872 system, two Democratic candidates and no Republican candidate would have advanced from the primary to the general election. See 460 F. 3d 1108,1114, n. 8 (CA9 2006).
Our eases recognize a second type of facial challenge in the First Amendment context under which a law may be overturned as impermissibly overbroad because a “substantial number” of its applications are unconstitutional, ‘“judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769-771 (1982) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615 (1973)). We generally do not apply the “‘strong medicine’” of overbreadth analysis where the parties fail to describe the instances of arguable overbreadth of the contested law. See New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 14 (1988).
It is true that parties may no longer indicate their nominees on the ballot, but that is unexceptionable: The First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 362-363 (1997) (“We are unpersuaded, however, by the party’s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidate”). Parties do not gain such a right simply because the State affords candidates the opportunity to indicate their party preference on the ballot. “Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression.” Id., at 363.
Washington counties have broad authority to conduct elections entirely by mail ballot rather than at in-person polling places. See Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.48.010. As a result, over 90% of Washington voters now vote by mail. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11.
Respondents rely on Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995) (holding that a State may not require a parade to include a group if the parade’s organizer disagrees with the group’s message), and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts’ freedom of expressive association was violated by a state law requiring the organization to admit a homosexual scoutmaster). In those cases, actual association threatened to distort the groups’ intended messages. We are aware of no case in which the mere impression of association was held to place a severe burden on a group’s First Amendment rights, but we need not decide that question here.
Relying on Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1 (1986) (holding that a state agency may not require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope), respondents argue that the threat of voter confusion will force them to speak to clarify their positions. Because 1-872 does not actually force the parties to speak, however, Pacific Gas & Elec, is inapposite. 1-872 does not require the parties to reproduce another’s speech against their will; nor does it co-opt the parties’ own conduits for speech. Rather, it simply provides a place on the ballot for candidates to designate their party preferences. Facilitation of speech to which a political party may choose to respond does not amount to forcing the political party to speak. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 64-65 (2006).
Respondent Libertarian Party of Washington argues that 1-872 is unconstitutional because of its implications for ballot access, trademark protection of party names, and campaign finance. We do not consider the ballot access and trademark arguments as they were not addressed below and are not encompassed by the question on which we granted certiorari: “Does Washington’s primary election system .. . violate the associational rights of political parties because candidates are permitted to identify their political party preference on the ballot?” Pet. for Cert, in No. 06-730, p. i. The campaign finance issue also was not addressed below and is more suitable for consideration on remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action for a declaratory judgment on a question of federal constitutional law was prosecuted in the state courts of New Jersey. It sought to declare invalid a statute of that State which provides for the reading, without comment, of five verses of the Old Testament at the Opening of each public-school day. N. J. Rev. Stat., 1937, 18:14-77. No issue was raised under the State Constitution, but the Act was claimed to violate the clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting establishment of religion.
No trial was held and we have no findings of fact, but the trial court denied relief on the merits on the basis of the pleadings and a pretrial conference, of which the record contains meager notes. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, on appeal, rendered its opinion that the Act does not violate the Federal Constitution, in spite of jurisdictional doubts which it pointed out but condoned as follows:
“No one is before us asserting that his religious practices have been interfered with or that his right to worship in accordance with the dictates of l\is conscience has been suppressed. . No religious sect is a party to the cause. No representative of, or spokesman for, a religious body has attacked the statute here or below. One of the plaintiffs is 'a citizen and taxpayer;’ the only interest he asserts is just that and in those words, set forth in the complaint and not followed by specification or proof. It is conceded that he is a citizen and a taxpayer, but it is not charged and it is neither conceded nor proved that the brief interruption in the day’s schooling caused by complir anee with the statute adds cost to the school expenses or varies by more than an incomputable scintilla the economy of the day’s work. The other plaintiff, in addition to being a citizen and a taxpayer, has a daughter, aged seventeen, who is a student of the school. Those facts are asserted, but, as in the case of the co-plaintiff, no violated rights are urged. It is not charged that the practice required by the statute conflicts with the convictions of either mother or daughter. Apparently the sole purpose and the only function of plaintiffs is that they shall assume the role of actors so that there may be a suit which will invoke a court ruling upon the constitutionality of the statute. Respondents urge that under the circumstances the question is' moot as to the plaintiffs-appellants and that our declaratory judgment statute may not properly be used in justification of such a proceeding. Cf. New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Parsons, 3 N. J. 235; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, at 488, 43 Sup. Ct. 597, 67 L. Ed. 1078, at 1085 (1923). The point has'substance but we have nevertheless concluded to dispose of the appeal on its merits.” 5 N. J. 435, 439, 75 A. 2d 880, 881-882 (1950).
Upon appeal to this Court, we considered appellants’ jurisdictional statement but, instead of noting probable jurisdiction, ordered that “Further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court in this case and of the motion to dismiss or affirm is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.” On further study, the doubts thus indicated ripen into a conviction that we should dismiss the appeal without reaching the constitutional question.
The view of the facts taken by the court below, though it is entitled to respect, does not bind us and we may make an independent examination of the record. Doing so, we find nothing more substantial in support of jurisdiction than did the court below. Appellants, apparently seeking to bring themselves within Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, assert a challenge to the Act in two capacities — one as parent of a child subject to it, and both as taxpayers burdened because of its requirements.
In support of the parent-and-school-child relationship, the complaint alleged that appellant Klein was parent of a seventeen-year-old pupil in Hawthorne High School, where Bible reading was practiced pursuant to the Act. That is all. There is no assertion that she was injured or even offended thereby or that she was compelled to accept, approve or confess agreement with any dogma or creed or even to listen when the Scriptures were read. On the contrary, there was a pretrial stipulation that any student, at his own or his parents’ request, could be excused during Bible reading and that in this case no such excuse was asked. However, it was agreed upon argument here that this child had graduated from the public schools before this appeal was taken to this Court. Obviously no decision we could render now would protect any rights she may once have had, and this Court does not sit to decide arguments after events have put them to rest. United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U. S. 113, 116.
The complaint is similarly niggardly of facts to support a taxpayer’s grievance. Doremus is' alleged to be a citizen and taxpayer of the State of New Jersey and of the Township of Rutherford, but any relation of that Township to the litigation is not disclosed to one not familiar with local geography. Klein is set out as a citizen and taxpayer of the Borough of Hawthorne in the State of New Jersey, and it is alleged that Hawthorne has a high school supported by public funds. In this school the Bible is read, according to statute. There is no allegation that this, activity is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school. No information is given as to what kind of taxes are paid by appellants and there is no averment that the Bible reading increases any tax they do pay or that as taxpayers they •are, will; or possibly can be out of pocket because of it.
The State raised the defense that appellants showed no standing to maintain the action but, on pretrial conference, perhaps with premonitions of success, waived it and acquiesced in a determination of the federal constitutional question. Whether such facts amount to a justiciable case or controversy is decisive of our jurisdiction.
This Court has held that the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the preventive powers of the Court over their manner - of expenditure. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464, 478-479; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 486 et seq. The latter case recognized, however, that “The interest of a taxpayer of a municipality in the application of its moneys is direct and immediate and the remedy by injunction to prevent their misuse is not inappropriate.” 262 U. S. at 486. Indeed, a number of states provide for it by statute or decisional law and such causes have been entertained in federal courts. Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601, 609. See Massachusetts v. Mellon, supra, at 486. Without disparaging the availability of the remedy by taxpayer’s action to restrain unconstitutional acts which result in direct pecuniary injury, we reiterate what the Court said of a federal statute as equally true when a state Act is assailed:. “The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in, danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Massachusetts v. Mellon, supra, at 488.
It is true that this Court found a justiciable controversy in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1. But Everson showed a measurable appropriation or disbursement of school-district funds occasioned solely by the activities complained of. This complaint does not.
We do not undertake to say that a state court may not render an opinion on a federal constitutional question even under such circumstances that it can be regarded only as advisory. But, because our own jurisdiction is cast in terms of “case or controversy,” we cannot accept as the basis for review, nor as the basis for conclusive dis- . position of an issue of federal law without' review, any procedure which does not constitute such.
The taxpayer’s action can meet this test, but only when it is a good-faith pocketbook action. It is apparent that the, grievance which it is sought to litigate here is not a direct dollars-and-cents injury but is a religious difference. If appellants established the requisite special injury necessary to a taxpayer’s case or controversy, it would not matter that their dominant inducement to action was more religious than mercenary. It is not a question of motivation but of possession of the requisite financial interest that is, or is threatened to be, injured by the unconstitutional conduct. We find no such direct and particular financial interest here. If the Act may give rise to a legal case or controversy on some behalf, the appellants cannot obtain a decision from this Court by a feigned issue of taxation.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed.
The Chief Justice would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm.
Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The primary question presented by this appeal is whether the Constitution prevents Congress from providing that holders of unpatented mining claims who fail to comply with the annual filing requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U. S. C. § 1744, shall forfeit their claims.
I
From the enactment of the general mining laws in the 19th century until 1976, those who sought to make their living by locating and developing minerals on federal lands were virtually unconstrained by the fetters of federal control. The general mining laws, 30 U. S. C. §22 et seq., still in effect today, allow United States citizens to go onto unappropriated, unreserved public land to prospect for and develop certain minerals. “Discovery” of a mineral deposit, followed by the minimal procedures required to formally “locate” the deposit, gives an individual the right of exclusive possession of the land for mining purposes, 30 U. S. C. § 26; as long as $100 of assessment work is performed annually, the individual may continue to extract and sell minerals from the claim without paying any royalty to the United States, 30 U. S. C. §28. For a nominal sum, and after certain statutory conditions are fulfilled, an individual may patent the claim, thereby purchasing from the Federal Government the land and minerals and obtaining ultimate title to them. Patenting, however, is not required, and an unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory interest. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U. S. 334, 335 (1963).
By the 1960’s, it had become clear that this 19th-century laissez-faire regime had created virtual chaos with respect to the public lands. In 1975, it was estimated that more than 6 million unpatented mining claims existed on public lands other than the national forests; in addition, more than half the land in the National Forest System was thought to be covered by such claims. S. Rep. No. 94-583, p. 65 (1975). Many of these claims had been dormant for decades, and many were invalid for other reasons, but in the absence of a federal recording system, no simple way existed for determining which public lands were subject to mining locations, and whether those locations were valid or invalid. Ibid. As a result, federal land managers had to proceed slowly and cautiously in taking any action affecting federal land lest the federal property rights of claimants be unlawfully disturbed. Each time the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed a sale or other conveyance of federal land, a title search in the county recorder’s office was necessary; if an outstanding mining claim was found, no matter how stale or apparently abandoned, formal administrative adjudication was required to determine the validity of the claim.
After more than a decade of studying this problem in the context of a broader inquiry into the proper management of the public lands in the modern era, Congress in 1976 enacted FLPMA, Pub. L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (codified at 43 U. S. C. §1701 et seq.). Section 314 of the Act establishes a federal recording system that is designed both to rid federal lands of stale mining claims and to provide federal land managers with up-to-date information that allows them to make informed land management decisions. For claims located before FLPMA’s enactment, the federal recording system imposes two general requirements. First, the claims must initially be registered with the BLM by filing, within three years of FLPMA’s enactment, a copy of the official record of the notice or certificate of location. 90 Stat. 2743, § 314(b), 43 U. S. C. § 1744(b). Second, in the year of the initial recording, and “prior to December 31” of every year after that, the claimant must file with state officials and with BLM a notice of intention to hold the claim, an affidavit of assessment work performed on the claim, or a detailed reporting form. 90 Stat. 2743, § 314(a), 43 U. S. C. § 1744(a). Section 314(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with either of these requirements “shall be deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment of the mining claim... by the owner.” 43 U. S. C. § 1744(c).
The second of these requirements — the annual filing obligation — has created the dispute underlying this appeal. Appellees, four individuals engaged “in the business of operating mining properties in Nevada,” purchased in 1960 and 1966 10 unpatented mining claims on public lands near Ely, Nevada. These claims were major sources of gravel and building material: the claims are valued at several million dollars, and, in the 1979-1980 assessment year alone, appel-lees’ gross income totaled more than $1 million. Throughout the period during which they owned the claims, appellees complied with annual state-law filing and assessment work requirements. In addition, appellees satisfied FLPMA’s initial recording requirement by properly filing with BLM a notice of location, thereby putting their claims on record for purposes of FLPMA.
At the end of 1980, however, appellees failed to meet on time their first annual obligation to file with the Federal Government. After allegedly receiving misleading information from a BLM employee, appellees waited until December 31 to submit to BLM the annual notice of intent to hold or proof of assessment work performed required under § 314(a) of FLPMA, 43 U. S. C. § 1744(a). As noted above, that section requires these documents to be filed annually “prior to December 31.” Had appellees checked, they further would have discovered that BLM regulations made quite clear that claimants were required to make the annual filings in the proper BLM office “on or before December 30 of each calendar year.” 43 CFR §3833.2-1(a) (1980) (current version at 43 CFR §3833.2-1(b)(1) (1984)). Thus, appellees’ filing was one day too late.
This fact was brought painfully home to appellees when they received a letter from the BLM Nevada State Office informing them that their claims had been declared abandoned and void due to their tardy filing. In many cases, loss of a claim in this way would have minimal practical effect; the claimant could simply locate the same claim again and then rerecord it with BLM. In this case, however, relocation of appellees’ claims, which were initially located by appellees’ predecessors in 1952 and 1954, was prohibited by the Common Varieties Act of 1955, 30 U. S. C. §611; that Act prospectively barred location of the sort of minerals yielded by appellees’ claims. Appellees’ mineral deposits thus es-cheated to the Government.
After losing an administrative appeal, appellees filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Their complaint alleged, inter alia, that § 314(c) effected an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation and denied them due process. On summary judgment, the District Court held that § 314(c) did indeed deprive appellees of the process to which they were constitutionally due. 573 F. Supp. 472 (1983). The District Court reasoned that § 314(c) created an impermissible irrebuttable presumption that claimants who failed to make a timely filing intended to abandon their claims. Rather than relying on this presumption, the Government was obliged, in the District Court’s view, to provide individualized notice to claimants that their claims were in danger of being lost, followed by a post-filing-deadline hearing at which the claimants could demonstrate that they had not, in fact, abandoned a claim. Alternatively, the District Court held that the 1-day late filing “substantially complied” with the Act and regulations.
Because a District Court had held an Act of Congress unconstitutional in a civil suit to which the United States was a party, we noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252. 467 U. S. 1225 (1984). We now reverse.
I — I I — I
Appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1252 brings before this Court not merely the constitutional question decided below, but the entire case. McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S. 21, 31 (1975); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 27, n. 7 (1960). The entire case includes nonconstitutional questions actually decided by the lower court as well as nonconstitutional grounds presented to, but not passed on, by the lower court. United States v. Clark, 445 U. S. 23, 27-28 (1980). These principles are important aids in the prudential exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, for when a case arrives here by appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, this Court will not pass on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress if a construction of the Act is fairly possible, or some other nonconstitutional ground fairly available, by which the constitutional question can be avoided. See Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U. S. 728, 741-744 (1984); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 366-367 (1974); cf. United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U. S. 106, 110 (1948) (appeals under former Criminal Appeals Act); see generally Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Thus, we turn first to the nonconstitutional questions pressed below.
III
A
Before theDistrict Court, appellees asserted that the § 314(a) requirement of a filing “prior to December 31 of each year” should be construed to require a filing “on or before December 31.” Thus, appellees argued, their December 31 filing had in fact complied with the statute, and the BLM had acted ultra vires in voiding their claims.
Although the District Court did not address this argument, the argument raises a question sufficiently legal in nature that we choose to address it even in the absence of lower court analysis. See, e. g., United States v. Clark, supra. It is clear to us that the plain language of the statute simply cannot sustain the gloss appellees would put on it. As even counsel for appellees conceded at oral argument, § 314(a) “is a statement that Congress wanted it filed by December 30th. I think that is a clear statement....” Tr. of Oral Arg. 27; see also id., at 37 (“A literal reading of the statute would require a December 30th filing...”). While we will not allow a literal reading of a statute to produce a result “demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters,” Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 571 (1982), with respect to filing deadlines a literal reading of Congress’ words is generally the only proper reading of those words. To attempt to decide whether some date other than the one set out in the statute is the date actually “intended” by Congress is to set sail on an aimless journey, for the purpose of a filing deadline would be just as well served by nearly any date a court might choose as by the date Congress has in fact set out in the statute. “Actual purpose is sometimes unknown,” United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 180 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring), and such is the case with filing deadlines; as might be expected, nothing in the legislative history suggests why Congress chose December 30 over December 31, or over September 1 (the end of the assessment year for mining claims, 30 U. S. C. §28), as the last day on which the required filings could be made. But “[deadlines are inherently arbitrary,” while fixed dates “are often essential to accomplish necessary results.” United States v. Boyle, 469 U. S. 241, 249 (1984). Faced with the inherent arbitrariness of filing deadlines, we must, at least in a civil case, apply by its terms the date fixed by the statute. Cf. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, supra, at 179.
Moreover, BLM regulations have made absolutely clear since the enactment of FLPMA that “prior to December 31” means what it says. As the current version of the filing regulations states:
“The owner of an unpatented mining claim located on Federal lands... shall have filed or caused to have been filed on or before December SO of each calendar year... evidence of annual assessment work performed during the previous assessment year or a notice of intention to hold the mining claim.” 43 CFR § 3833.2-1(b)(1) (1984) (emphasis added).
See also 43 CFR § 3833.2-1(a) (1982) (same); 43 CFR § 3833.2-1(a) (1981) (same); 43 CFR §3833.2-1(a) (1980) (same); 43 CFR § 3833.2-1(a) (1979) (same); 43 CFR §3833.2-1(a)(1) (1978) (“prior to” Dec. 31); 43 CFR §3833.2-1(a)(1) (1977) (“prior to” Dec. 31). Leading mining treatises similarly inform claimants that “[i]t is important to note that the filing of a notice of intention or evidence of assessment work must be done prior to December 31 of each year, i. e., on or before December 30.” 2 American Law of Mining § 7.23D, p. 150.2 (Supp. 1983) (emphasis in original); see also 23 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute 25 (1977) (same). If appellees, who were businessmen involved in the running of a major mining operation for more than 20 years, had any questions about whether a December 31 filing complied with the statute, it was incumbent upon them, as it is upon other businessmen, see United States v. Boyle, supra, to have checked the regulations or to have consulted an attorney for legal advice. Pursuit of either of these courses, rather than the submission of a last-minute filing, would surely have led appellees to the conclusion that December 30 was the last day on which they could file safely.
In so saying, we are not insensitive to the problems posed by congressional reliance on the words “prior to December 31.” See post, p. 117 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But the fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. “There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625 (1978). Nor is the Judiciary licensed to attempt to soften the clear import of Congress’ chosen words whenever a court believes those words lead to a harsh result. See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U. S. 77, 98 (1981). On the contrary, deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill, generally requires us to assume that “the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.” Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962). “Going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent is ‘a step to be taken cautiously’ even under the best of circumstances.” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 75 (1982) (quoting Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1, 26 (1977)). When even after taking this step nothing in the legislative history remotely suggests a congressional intent contrary to Congress’ chosen words, and neither appellees nor the dissenters have pointed to anything that so suggests, any further steps take the courts out of the realm of interpretation and place them in the domain of legislation. The phrase “prior to” may be clumsy, but its meaning is clear. Under these circumstances, we are obligated to apply the “prior to December 31” language by its terms. See, e. g., American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, supra, at 68; Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980).
The agency’s regulations clarify and confirm the import of the statutory language by making clear that the annual filings must be made on or before December 30. These regulations provide a conclusive answer to appellees’ claim, for where the language of a filing deadline is plain and the agency’s construction completely consistent with that language, the agency’s construction simply cannot be found “sufficiently unreasonable” as to be unacceptable. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S. 27, 39 (1981).
We cannot press statutory construction “to the point of disingenuous evasion” even to avoid a constitutional question. Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U. S. 373, 379 (1933) (Cardozo, J.). We therefore hold that BLM did not act ultra vires in concluding that appellees’ filing was untimely.
B
Section 314(c) states that failure to comply with the filing requirements of §§ 314(a) and 314(b) “shall be deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment of the mining claim.” We must next consider whether this provision expresses a congressional intent to extinguish all claims for which filings have not been made, or only those claims for which filings have not been made and for which the claimants have a specific intent to abandon the claim. The District Court adopted the latter interpretation, and on that basis concluded that § 314(c) created a constitutionally impermissible irrebut-table presumption of abandonment. The District Court reasoned that, once Congress had chosen to make loss of a claim turn on the specific intent of the claimant, a prior hearing and findings on the claimant’s intent were constitutionally required before the claim of a nonfiling claimant could be extinguished.
In concluding that Congress was concerned with the specific intent of the claimant even when the claimant had failed to make the required filings, the District Court began from the fact that neither § 314(c) nor the Act itself defines the term “abandonment” as that term appears in § 314(c). The District Court then noted correctly that the common law of mining traditionally has drawn a distinction between “abandonment” of a claim, which occurs only upon a showing of the claimant’s intent to relinquish the claim, and “forfeiture” of a claim, for which only noncompliance with the requirements of law must be shown. See, e. g., 2 American Law of Mining §8.2, pp. 195-196 (1983) (relied upon by the District Court). Given that Congress had not expressly stated in the statute any intent to depart from the term-of-art meaning of “abandonment” at common law, the District Court concluded that § 314(c) was intended to incorporate the traditional common-law distinction between abandonment and forfeiture. Thus, reasoned the District Court, Congress did not intend to cause a forfeiture of claims for which the required filings had not been made, but rather to focus on the claimant’s actual intent. As a corollary, the District Court understood the failure to file to have been intended to be merely one piece of evidence in a factual inquiry into whether a claimant had a specific intent to abandon his property.
This construction of the statutory scheme cannot withstand analysis. While reference to common-law conceptions is often a helpful guide to interpreting open-ended or undefined statutory terms, see, e. g., NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322, 329 (1981); Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 59 (1911), this principle is a guide to legislative intent, not a talisman of it, and the principle is not to be applied in defiance of a statute’s overriding purposes and logic. Although § 314(c) is couched in terms of a conclusive presumption of “abandonment,” there can be little doubt that Congress intended § 314(c) to cause a forfeiture of all claims for which the filing requirements of §§ 314(a) and 314(b) had not been met.
To begin with, the Senate version of § 314(c) provided that any claim not properly recorded “shall be conclusively presumed to be abandoned and shall be void.” S. 507, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., §311 (1975). The Committee Report accompanying S. 507 repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with the filing requirements would make a claim “void.” See S. Rep. No. 94-583, pp. 65, 66 (1975). The House legislation and Reports merely repeat the statutory language without offering any explanation of it, but it is clear from the Conference Committee Report that the undisputed intent of the Senate — to make “void” those claims for which proper filings were not timely made — was the intent of both Chambers. The Report stated: “Both the Senate bill and House amendments provided for recordation of mining claims and for extinguishment of abandoned claims.” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1724, p. 62 (1976) (emphasis added).
In addition, the District Court’s construction fails to give effect to the “deemed conclusively” language of § 314(c). If the failure to file merely shifts the burden to the claimant to prove that he intends to keep the claim, nothing “conclusive” is achieved by § 314(c). The District Court sought to avoid this conclusion by holding that § 314(c) does extinguish automatically those claims for which initial recordings, as opposed to annual filings, have not been made; the District Court attempted to justify its distinction between initial recordings and annual filings on the ground that the dominant purpose of § 314(c) was to avoid forcing BLM to the “awesome task of searching every local title record” to establish initially a federal recording system. 573 F. Supp., at 477. Once this purpose had been satisfied by an initial recording, the primary purposes of the “deemed conclusively” language, in the District Court’s view, had been met. But the clear language of § 314(c) admits of no distinction between initial recordings and annual filings: failure to do either “shall be deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment.” And the District Court’s analysis of the purposes of § 314(c) is also misguided, for the annual filing requirements serve a purpose similar to that of the initial recording requirement; millions of claims undoubtedly have now been recorded, and the presence of an annual filing obligation allows BLM to keep the system established in §314 up to date on a yearly basis. To put the burden on BLM to keep this system current through its own inquiry into the status of recorded claims would lead to a situation similar to that which led Congress initially to make the federal recording system self-executing. The purposes of a self-executing recording system are implicated similarly, if somewhat less substantially, by both the annual filing obligation and the initial recording requirement, and the District Court was not empowered to thwart these purposes or the clear language of § 314(c) by concluding that § 314(c) was actually concerned with only initial recordings.
For these reasons, we find that Congress intended in § 314(c) to extinguish those claims for which timely filings were not made. Specific evidence of intent to abandon is simply made irrelevant by § 314(c); the failure to file on time, in and of itself, causes a claim to be lost. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F. 2d 618, 628 (CA9 1981).
C
A final statutory question must be resolved before we turn to the constitutional holding of the District Court. Relying primarily on Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., 400 U. S. 48 (1970), the District Court held that, even if the statute required a filing on or before December 30, appellees had “substantially complied” by filing on December 31. We cannot accept this view of the statute.
The notion that a filing deadline can be complied with by filing sometime after the deadline falls due is, to say the least, a surprising notion, and it is a notion without limiting principle. If 1-day late filings are acceptable, 10-day late filings might be equally acceptable, and so on in a cascade of exceptions that would engulf the rule erected by the filing deadline; yet regardless of where the cutoff line is set, some individuals will always fall just on the other side of it. Filing deadlines, like statutes of limitations, necessarily operate harshly and arbitrarily with respect to individuals who fall just on the other side of them, but if the concept of a filing deadline is to have any content, the deadline must be enforced. “Any less rigid standard would risk encouraging a lax attitude toward filing dates,” United States v. Boyle, 469 U. S., at 249. A filing deadline cannot be complied with, substantially or otherwise, by filing late — even by one day. Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., supra, does not support a contrary conclusion. Hickel suggested, although it did not hold, that failure to meet the annual assessment work requirements of the general mining laws, 30 U. S. C. §28, which require that “not less than $100 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year,” would not render a claim automatically void. Instead, if an individual complied substantially but not fully with the requirement, he might under some circumstances be able to retain possession of his claim.
These suggestions in Hickel do not afford a safe haven to mine owners who fail to meet their filing obligations under any federal mining law. Failure to comply fully with the physical requirement that a certain amount of work be performed each year is significantly different from the complete failure to file on time documents that federal law commands be filed. In addition, the general mining laws at issue in Hickel do not clearly provide that a claim will be lost for failure to meet the assessment work requirements. Thus, it was open to the Court to conclude in Hickel that Congress had intended to make the assessment work requirement merely an indicium of a claimant’s specific intent to retain a claim. Full compliance with the assessment work requirements would establish conclusively an intent to keep the claim, but less than full compliance would not by force of law operate to deprive the claimant of his claim. Instead, less than full compliance would subject the mine owner to a case-by-case determination of whether he nonetheless intended to keep his claim. See Hickel, supra, at 56-57.
In this case, the statute explicitly provides that failure to comply with the applicable filing requirements leads automatically to loss of the claim. See Part II-B, supra. Thus, Congress has made it unnecessary to ascertain whether the individual in fact intends to abandon the claim, and there is no room to inquire whether substantial compliance is indicative of the claimant’s intent — intent is simply irrelevant if the required filings are not made. Hickel’s discussion of substantial compliance is therefore inapposite to the statutory scheme at issue here. As a result, Hickel gives miners no greater latitude with filing deadlines than other individuals have.
> HH
Much of the District Court’s constitutional discussion necessarily falls with our conclusion that § 314(c) automatically deems forfeited those claims for which the required filings are not timely made. The District Court’s invalidation of the statute rested heavily on the view that § 314(c) creates an “irrebuttable presumption that mining claims are abandoned if the miner fails to timely file” the required documents — that the statute presumes a failure to file to signify a specific intent to abandon the claim. But, as we have just held, § 314(c) presumes nothing about a claimant’s actual intent; the statute simply and conclusively deems such claims to be forfeited. As a forfeiture provision, § 314(c) is not subject to the individualized hearing requirement of such irrebuttable presumption cases as Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973), or Cleveland Bd. of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974), for there is nothing to suggest that, in enacting § 314(c), Congress was in any way concerned with whether a particular claimant’s tardy filing or failure to file indicated an actual intent to abandon the claim.
There are suggestions in the District Court’s opinion that, even understood as a forfeiture provision, § 314(c) might be unconstitutional. We therefore go on to consider whether automatic forfeiture of a claim for failure to make annual filings is constitutionally permissible. The framework for analysis of this question, in both its substantive and procedural dimensions, is set forth by our recent decision in Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U. S. 516 (1982). There we upheld a state statute pursuant to which a severed mineral interest that had not been used for a period of 20 years automatically lapsed and reverted to the current surface owner of the property, unless the mineral owner filed a statement of claim in the county recorder’s office within 2 years of the statute’s passage.
A
Under Texaco, we must first address the question of affirmative legislative power: whether Congress is authorized to “provide that property rights of this character shall be extinguished if their owners do not take the affirmative action required by the” statute. Id., at 525. Even with respect to vested property rights, a legislature generally has the power to impose new regulatory constraints on the way in which those rights are used, or to condition their continued retention on performance of certain affirmative duties. As long as the constraint or duty imposed is a reasonable restriction designed to further legitimate legislative objectives, the legislature acts within its powers in imposing such new constraints or duties. See, e. g., Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty, Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926); Turner v. New York, 168 U. S. 90, 94 (1897); Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514, 517 (1883); Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 (1877). “[Ljegis-lation readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations.” Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1, 16 (1976) (citations omitted).
This power to qualify existing property rights is particularly broad with respect to the “character” of the property rights at issue here. Although owners of unpatented mining claims hold fully recognized possessory interests in their claims, see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U. S. 334, 335 (1963), we have recognized that these interests are a “unique form of property.” Ibid. The United States, as owner of the underlying fee title to the public domain, maintains broad powers over the terms and conditions upon which the public lands can be used, leased, and acquired. See, e. g., Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 589 (1976).
“A mining location which has not gone to patent is of no higher quality and no more immune from attack and investigation than are unpatented claims under the homestead and kindred laws. If valid, it gives to the claimant certain exclusive possessory rights, and so do homestead and desert claims. But no right arises from an invalid claim of any kind. All must conform to the law under which they are initiated; otherwise they work an unlawful private appropriation in derogation of the rights of the public.” Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450, 460 (1920).
Claimants thus must take their mineral interests with the knowledge that the Government retains substantial regulatory power over those interests. Cf. Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U. S. 400, 413 (1983). In addition, the property right here is the right to a flow of income from production of the claim. Similar vested economic rights are held subject to the Government’s substantial power to regulate for the public good the conditions under which business is carried out and to redistribute the benefits and burdens of economic life. See, e. g., National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 470 U. S. 451, 468-469 (1985); Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., supra; see generally Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U. S. 300, 315 (1920) (“[I]n the interest of the community, [government may] limit one [right] that others may be enjoyed”).
Against this background, there can be no doubt that Congress could condition initial receipt of an unpatented mining claim upon an agreement to perform annual assessment work and make annual filings. That this requirement was applied to claims already located by the time FLPMA was enacted and thus applies to vested claims does not alter the analysis, for any “retroactive application of [FLPMA] is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means.” Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 729 (1984). The purposes of applying FLPMA’s filing provisions to claims located before the Act was passed — to rid federal lands of stale mining claims and to provide for centralized collection by federal land managers of comprehensive and up-to-date information on the status of recorded but unpatented mining claims — are clearly legitimate. In addition, § 314(c) is a reasonable, if severe, means of furthering these goals; sanctioning with loss of their claims those claimants who fail to file provides a powerful motivation to comply with the filing requirement, while automatic invalidation for noncompliance enables federal land managers to know with certainty and ease whether a claim is currently valid. Finally, the restriction attached to the continued retention of a mining claim imposes the most minimal of burdens on claimants; they must simply file a paper once a year indicating that the required assessment work has been performed or that they intend to hold the claim. Indeed, appellees could have fully protected their interests against the effect of the statute by taking the minimal additional step of-patenting the claims. As a result, Congress was well within its affirmative powers in enacting the filing requirement, in imposing the penalty of extinguishment set forth in § 314(c), and in applying the requirement and sanction to claims located before FLPMA was passed.
B
We look next to the substantive effect of § 314(c) to determine whether Congress is nonetheless barred from enacting it because it works an impermissible intrusion on constitutionally protected rights. With respect to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal concerns the power of the State of Oklahoma to levy an inheritance tax on the estate of a restricted Osage Indian. Specifically, the problem is whether property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indian may be included within the taxable estate.
Charles West, Jr., was a restricted, full-blood, unallot-ted, adult Osage Indian. He died intestate in 1940, a resident of Oklahoma. No certificate of competency was ever issued to him. Surviving him was his. mother, appellant herein, who is a restricted, full-blood Osage Indian. The entire estate passed to her as the sole heir at law.
The Oklahoma Tax Commission entered an order levying a tax on the transfer of the net estate, valued at $111,219.18. With penalties, the total tax imposed was $5,313.35. Appellant made timely objection to the inclusion of certain items in the taxable estate. These items formed the bulk of the estate and had been held in trust for the decedent by the United States, acting through the Secretary of the Interior. Act of June 28, 1906, 34 Stat. 539, as amended, 41 Stat. 1249, 45 Stat. 1478, 52 Stat. 1034. The trust properties involved were as follows:
(1) One and 915/2520ths Osage mineral headrights. This item represented the decedent's undivided interest in the oil, gas, coal and other minerals under the lands in Osage County, Oklahoma, said minerals having been reserved to the use of the Osage Tribe by the Act of June 28,1906.
(2) Surplus funds in the United States Treasury, representing accruals of income to the decedent from the headrights.
(3) Stocks and bonds purchased by and in the name of the United States and held for the decedent by the Secretary of the Interior. These purchases were made with the surplus funds accruing from the headrights.
(4) Trust funds in the hands of the Treasurer of the United States, representing decedent’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the Osage Tribe’s lands in Kansas.
(5) Personal property purchased with surplus funds.
Appellant claimed that these properties were immune from state taxation by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States; hence the Oklahoma Inheritance and Transfer Tax Act of 1939 (§§ 989-989t, Title 68, Okla. Stat. 1941) which authorized the assessment on the properties was invalid in this respect. The Oklahoma Tax Commission rejected this contention and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed. 200 Okla. —, 193 P. 2d 1017.
It is essential at the outset to understand the history and nature of the arrangement whereby the United States holds in trust the properties involved in this case. See Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1945) 446-455. In 1866, the United States and the Cherokee Nation of Indians executed a comprehensive treaty covering their various relationships. 14 Stat. 799. It was there agreed that the United States might settle friendly Indians in certain areas of Cherokee territory, including what is now Osage County, Oklahoma; these areas had previously been conveyed by the United States to the Cherokees. The treaty further provided that the areas in question were to be conveyed in fee simple to the tribes settled by the United States "to be held in common or by their members in severalty as the United States may decide.”
The Osage Indians subsequently moved to the Indian Territory and settled in what is now Osage County. In 1883, pursuant to the 1866 treaty, the Cherokees conveyed this area to the United States “in trust nevertheless and for the use and benefit of the said Osage and Kansas Indians.” It is significant that fee simple title to the land was not conveyed at this time to the Osages; instead, the United States received that title as trustee for the Osages. Nor was any distinction here made between the land and the minerals thereunder, legal title to both being transferred to the United States.
On June 28, 1906, the Osage Allotment Act, providing for the distribution of Osage lands and properties, became effective. 34 Stat. 539. See Levindale Lead Co. v. Coleman, 241 U. S. 432. Provision was there made for the allotment to each tribal member of a 160-acre homestead, plus certain additional surplus lands. These allotted lands, said § 7, were to be set aside “for the sole use and benefit of the individual members of the tribe entitled thereto, or to their heirs, as herein provided.” The homestead was to be inalienable and nontaxable for 25 years or during the life of the allottee. The surplus lands, however, were to be inalienable for 25 years and nontaxable for 3 years, except that th.e Secretary of the Interior might issue a certificate of competence to an adult, authorizing him to sell all of his surplus lands; upon the issuance of such a certificate, or upon the death of the allottee, the surplus lands were to become immediately taxable. §2, Seventh; Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691.
Section 3 of the Act stated that the minerals covered by these lands were to be reserved to the Osage Tribe for a period of 25 years and that mineral leases and royalties were to be approved by the United States. Section 4 then provided that all money due or to become due to the tribe was to be held in trust by the United States for 25 years; but these funds were to be segregated and credited pro rata to the individual members or their heirs, with interest accruing and being payable quarterly to the members. Royalties from the mineral leases were to be placed in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the tribal members and distributed to the individual members in the same manner and at the same time as interest payments on other moneys held in trust. In this connection, it should be noted that quarterly payments of interest and royalties became so large that Congress later limited the amount of payments that could be made to those without certificates of competence; provision was also made for investing the surplus in bonds, stocks, etc.
According to § 5 of this 1906 statute, at the end of the 25-year trust period “the lands, mineral interests, and moneys, herein provided, for and held in trust by the United States shall be the absolute property of the individual members of the Osage tribe, according to the role herein provided for, or their heirs, as herein provided, and deeds to said lands shall be issued to said members, or to their heirs, as herein provided, and said moneys shall be distributed to said members, or to their heirs, as herein provided, and said members shall have full control of said lands, moneys, and mineral interests, except as here-inbefore provided.” It was also stated in § 2, Seventh, that the minerals upon the allotted lands “shall become the property of the individual owner of said land” at the expiration of 25 years, unless otherwise provided by Congress.
Moreover, § 6 provided that the lands, moneys and mineral interests of any deceased member of the Osage Tribe “shall descend to his or her legal heirs, according to the laws of the Territory of Oklahoma.” Congress subsequently provided, in § 8 of the Act of April 18, 1912, 37 Stat. 86, 88, that any adult member of the tribe who was not mentally incompetent could by will dispose of “any or all of his estate, real, personal, or mixed, including trust funds, from which restrictions as to alienation have not been removed,” in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Such wills could not be probated, however, unless approved by the Secretary of the Interior before the death of the testator.
The 25-year trust period established by the 1906 statute has been extended several times by Congress, first to 1946 (41 Stat. 1249), then to 1958 (45 Stat. 1478), and finally to 1984 (52 Stat. 1034). The last extension provided that the “lands, moneys, and other properties now or hereafter held in trust or under the supervision of the United States for the Osage Tribe of Indians, the members thereof, or their heirs and assigns, shall continue subject to such trusts and supervision until January 1, 1984, unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress.”
Application of the foregoing provisions to the estate in issue produces this picture: Legal title to the mineral interests, the funds and the securities constituting the corpus of the trust estate is in the United States as trustee. The United States received legal title to the mineral interests in 1883, when it took what is now Osage County from the Cherokees in trust for the Osages; and that title has not subsequently been transferred. Legal title to the various funds and securities adhered to the United States as the pertinent trusts were established and developed. Beneficial title to these properties was vested in the decedent and is now held by his sole heir, the appellant. The beneficiary at all times has been entitled to at least a limited amount of interest and royalties arising out of the corpus. And the beneficiary has a reversionary interest in the corpus, an interest that will materialize only when the legal title passes from the United States at the end of the trust period. But until that period ends, the beneficiary has no control over the corpus. See Globe Indemnity Co. v. Bruce, 81 F. 2d 143, 150.
Since 1819, when McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, was decided, it has been established that the property of the United States is immune from any form of state taxation, unless Congress expressly consents to the imposition of such liability. Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151; United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174. This tax immunity grows out of the supremacy of the Federal Government and the necessity that it be able to deal with its own property free from any interference or embarrassment that state taxation might impose. McCulloch v. Maryland, supra; Wisconsin Railroad Co. v. Price County, 133 U. S. 496.
In United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, the same rule was held to apply where the United States holds legal title to land in trust for an Indian or a tribe. The United States there held legal title to certain lands in trust for a band of Sioux Indians which was in actual possession of the lands. This Court held that neither the lands nor the permanent improvements thereon were subject to state or local ad valorem taxes. It was emphasized that the fee title remained in the United States in obvious execution of its protective policy toward its wards, the Sioux Indians. To tax these lands and the improvements thereon, without congressional consent, would be to tax a means employed by the Government to accomplish beneficent objects relative to a dependent class of individuals. Moreover, the United States had agreed to convey the lands to the allottees in fee at the end of the trust period "free of all charge or incumbrances whatsoever.” If the tax in question were assessed and unpaid, the lands could be sold by the tax authorities. The United States would thus be so burdened that it could not discharge its obligation to convey unencumbered land without paying the taxes imposed from year to year.
Further application of the tax immunity rule to land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indians was made in McCurdy v. United States, 264 U. S. 484. That case involved surplus lands that had been allotted to members of the Osage Tribe. It will be recalled that the Osage Allotment Act of June 28,1906, had made these surplus lands expressly taxable after three years or at the death of the allottee. The allottees in the Mc-Curdy case died within the three-year period but before deeds to their allotted lands had been executed and delivered to them. Oklahoma sought to place a tax on the lands, the taxable date being within the three-year period and before the execution and delivery of the deeds to the heirs of the allottees. This Court held that legal title to the lands in issue was still in the United States as trustee on the taxable date, title not passing until the execution and delivery of the deeds. In reliance on the Rickert case, the conclusion was reached that the lands were not taxable while held in trust by the United States. See also United States v. Board of Comm’rs of Fremont County, Wyo., 145 F. 2d 329; United States v. Thurston County, 143 F. 287.
Since the property here involved is all held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the decedent and his heirs, it is thought to be immune from any form of state taxation under the decisions in the Rickert and McCurdy cases. Reference is made to certain provisions of the Oklahoma Inheritance and Transfer Tax Act which indicate that the inheritance tax in issue might have a very real and direct effect upon the property to which the United States holds title, an effect similar to that which was emphasized in the Rickert case. The Act applies, of course, to the transfer of estates held in trust. § 989. Specific provision is then made in § 989i that “Taxes levied under this Act shall be and remain a lien upon all the property transferred until paid.” Provision is also made for the sale of estate property if necessary to satisfy the tax. §§ 989í and 989L It is therefore possible that if the tax were unpaid Oklahoma might try to place a lien upon the property which is being transferred, property as to which the United States holds legal title. Complications might arise as to the validity of such a lien. And the United States would be burdened to the extent of opposing the imposition of the lien or seeing that the tax was paid so as to avoid the lien.
Moreover, insofar as the inheritance tax is paid out of the surplus and trust funds held by the United States, there is a depletion of the corpus to which the United States holds legal title. Such depletion makes that much smaller the estate which the Government has seen fit to hold in trust for the decedent’s heirs. If the estate is to be tapped repeatedly by Oklahoma until 1984 by the deaths of the various heirs, the result may be a substantial decrease in the amount then available for distribution.
But our decision in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U. S. 598, has foreclosed an application of the Rickert and McCurdy cases to the estate and inheritance tax situation. Among the properties involved in the Oklahoma Tax Commission case were restricted cash and securities, which could not be freely alienated or used by the Indians without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. We held that the restriction, without more, was not the equivalent of a congressional grant of estate tax immunity for the transfer of the cash and securities. Moreover, express repudiation was made of the concept that these restricted properties were federal in-strumentalities and therefore constitutionally exempt from estate tax consequences. See also Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U. S. 376. The very foundation upon which the Rickert case rested was thus held to be inapplicable.
We fail to see any substantial difference for estate tax purposes between restricted property and trust property. The power of Congress over both types of property is the same. Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705, 717; United States v. Ramsey, 271 U. S. 467, 471. Both devices have the common purpose of protecting those who have been found by Congress to be unable yet to assume a fully independent status relative to property. The effect which an estate or inheritance tax may have is the same in both instances; liens may be placed on both restricted and trust properties and lead to complications; and both types of property may of necessity be depleted to assure payment of the tax. The fact that the United States holds legal title as to trust property but not as to restricted property affords no distinguishing characteristic from the standpoint of an estate tax. In addition, Congress has given no indication whatever that trust properties in general are to be given any greater tax exemption than restricted properties. Hence the Oklahoma Tax Commission case must control our disposition of this proceeding.
Implicit in this Court’s refusal to apply the Rickert doctrine to an estate or inheritance tax situation is a recognition that such a tax rests upon a basis different from that underlying a property tax. An inheritance or estate tax is not levied on the property of which an estate is composed. Rather it is imposed upon the shifting of economic benefits and the privilege of transmitting or receiving such benefits. United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U. S. 57, 60; Whitney v. Tax Commission, 309 U. S. 530, 538. In this case, for example, the decedent had a vested interest in his Osage headright; and he had the right to receive the annual income from the trust properties and to receive all the properties at the end of the trust period. At his death, these interests and rights passed to his heir. It is the transfer of these incidents, rather than the trust properties themselves, that is the subject of the inheritance tax in question. In this setting, refinements of title are immaterial. Whether legal title to the properties is in the United States or in the decedent and his heir is of no consequence to the taxability of the transfer.
The result of permitting the imposition of the inheritance tax on the transfer of trust properties may be, as we have noted, to deplete the trust corpus and to create lien difficulties. But those are normal and intended consequences of the inheritance tax. And until Congress has in some affirmative way indicated that these burdens require that the transfer be immune from the inheritance tax liability, the Oklahoma Tax Commission case permits that liability to be imposed. But that case also makes clear that should any of the properties transferred be exempted by Congress from direct taxation they cannot be included in the estate for inheritance tax purposes. No such properties are here involved, however.
We have considered the other points raised by the appellant but deem them to be without merit. The judgment below is therefore
Affirmed:
The Chief Justice, MR. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.
The decedent was also survived by a widow. But she was prohibited by law from inheriting any part of- the estate unless she was of Indian blood, a matter which was in dispute. A settlement was reached whereby the widow received a certain amount from the estate, apparently in return for giving up her claim as an heir.
An Osage headlight has been defined by one court as “the interest that a member of the tribe has in the Osage tribal trust estate, and the trust consists of the oil, gas, and mineral rights, and the funds which were placed to the credit of the Osage tribe, all fully set out in the above act [Act of June 28,1906, 34 Stat. 539]In re Denison, 38 F. 2d 662, 664. Another court has made this definition: “The right to receive the trust funds and the mineral interests at the end of the trust period, and during that period to participate in the distribution of the bonuses and royalties arising from the mineral estates and the interest on the trust funds, is an Osage headright.” Globe Indemnity Co. v. Bruce, 81 F. 2d 143, 148-149. Headrights are not transferable and do not pass to a trustee in bankruptcy. Taylor v. Tayrien, 51 F. 2d 884; Taylor v. Jones, 51 F. 2d 892.
The trust under which these funds were to be held was established in 1865 by treaty between the United States and the Great and Little Osage Indians, 14 Stat. 687. By the terms of this treaty, the proceeds of the sale of Osage lands in Kansas were to be placed in the United States Treasury to the credit of the tribe. Provisions for carrying out the terms of this treaty were made by Congress in 1880, 21 Stat. 291.
By the Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat. 1249, Congress provided that so long as the income should be sufficient the adult Osage Indian without a certificate of competency should be paid $1,000 quarterly. See also Act of Feb. 27, 1925, 43 Stat. 1008. In the Act of June 24, 1938, 52 Stat. 1034, it was provided that where the restricted Osage had surplus funds in excess of $10,000 he was to be paid $1,000 quarterly, but if he had surplus funds of less than $10,000 he was to receive quarterly only his current income, not to exceed $1,000 quarterly.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding "all their land, East of the Mississippi river," the U. S. government agreed by treaty that "[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians." Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24, 1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and "permanent home to the whole Creek nation," located in what is now Oklahoma. Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that "[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves." 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368.
Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.
I
At one level, the question before us concerns Jimcy McGirt. Years ago, an Oklahoma state court convicted him of three serious sexual offenses. Since then, he has argued in postconviction proceedings that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation. A new trial for his conduct, he has contended, must take place in federal court. The Oklahoma state courts hearing Mr. McGirt's arguments rejected them, so he now brings them here.
Mr. McGirt's appeal rests on the federal Major Crimes Act (MCA). The statute provides that, within "the Indian country," "[a]ny Indian who commits" certain enumerated offenses "against the person or property of another Indian or any other person" "shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a). By subjecting Indians to federal trials for crimes committed on tribal lands, Congress may have breached its promises to tribes like the Creek that they would be free to govern themselves. But this particular incursion has its limits-applying only to certain enumerated crimes and allowing only the federal government to try Indians. State courts generally have no jurisdiction to try Indians for conduct committed in "Indian country." Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 102-103, 113 S.Ct. 1119, 122 L.Ed.2d 457 (1993).
The key question Mr. McGirt faces concerns that last qualification: Did he commit his crimes in Indian country? A neighboring provision of the MCA defines the term to include, among other things, "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation." § 1151(a). Mr. McGirt submits he can satisfy this condition because he committed his crimes on land reserved for the Creek since the 19th century.
The Creek Nation has joined Mr. McGirt as amicus curiae. Not because the Tribe is interested in shielding Mr. McGirt from responsibility for his crimes. Instead, the Creek Nation participates because Mr. McGirt's personal interests wind up implicating the Tribe's. No one disputes that Mr. McGirt's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute. But, in seeking to defend the state-court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today.
At another level, then, Mr. McGirt's case winds up as a contest between State and Tribe. The scope of their dispute is limited; nothing we might say today could unsettle Oklahoma's authority to try non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians on the lands in question. See United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1882). Still, the stakes are not insignificant. If Mr. McGirt and the Tribe are right, the State has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed in a portion of Northeastern Oklahoma that includes most of the city of Tulsa. Responsibility to try these matters would fall instead to the federal government and Tribe. Recently, the question has taken on more salience too. While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896, 907-909, 966 (2017). We granted certiorari to settle the question. 589 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2026, 201 L.Ed.2d 27 (2018).
II
Start with what should be obvious: Congress established a reservation for the Creeks. In a series of treaties, Congress not only "solemnly guarantied" the land but also "establish[ed] boundary lines which will secure a country and permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians." 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368; 1833 Treaty, preamble, 7 Stat. 418. The government's promises weren't made gratuitously. Rather, the 1832 Treaty acknowledged that "[t]he United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi" and, in service of that goal, required the Creeks to cede all lands in the East. Arts. I, XII, 7 Stat. 366, 367. Nor were the government's promises meant to be delusory. Congress twice assured the Creeks that "[the] Treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the United States." 1832 Treaty, Art. XV, id., at 368; see 1833 Treaty, Art. IX, 7 Stat. 420 ("agreement shall be binding and obligatory" upon ratification). Both treaties were duly ratified and enacted as law.
Because the Tribe's move west was ostensibly voluntary, Congress held out another assurance as well. In the statute that precipitated these negotiations, Congress authorized the President "to assure the tribe... that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them... the country so exchanged with them." Indian Removal Act of 1830, § 3, 4 Stat. 412. "[A]nd if they prefer it," the bill continued, "the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same; Provided always, that such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same." Ibid. If agreeable to all sides, a tribe would not only enjoy the government's solemn treaty promises; it would hold legal title to its lands.
It was an offer the Creek accepted. The 1833 Treaty fixed borders for what was to be a "permanent home to the whole Creek nation of Indians." 1833 Treaty, preamble, 7 Stat. 418. It also established that the "United States will grant a patent, in fee simple, to the Creek nation of Indians for the land assigned said nation by this treaty." Art. III, id., at 419. That grant came with the caveat that "the right thus guaranteed by the United States shall be continued to said tribe of Indians, so long as they shall exist as a nation, and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned to them." Ibid. The promised patent formally issued in 1852. See Woodward v. De Graffenried, 238 U.S. 284, 293-294, 35 S.Ct. 764, 59 L.Ed. 1310 (1915).
These early treaties did not refer to the Creek lands as a "reservation"-perhaps because that word had not yet acquired such distinctive significance in federal Indian law. But we have found similar language in treaties from the same era sufficient to create a reservation. See Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 405, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d 697 (1968) (grant of land " 'for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held,' " established a reservation). And later Acts of Congress left no room for doubt. In 1866, the United States entered yet another treaty with the Creek Nation. This agreement reduced the size of the land set aside for the Creek, compensating the Tribe at a price of 30 cents an acre. Treaty Between the United States and the Creek Nation of Indians, Art. III, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 786. But Congress explicitly restated its commitment that the remaining land would "be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation," which it now referred to as "the reduced Creek reservation." Arts. III, IX, id., at 786, 788. Throughout the late 19th century, many other federal laws also expressly referred to the Creek Reservation. See, e.g., Treaty Between United States and Cherokee Nation of Indians, Art. IV, July 19, 1866, 14 Stat. 800 ("Creek reservation"); Act of Mar. 3, 1873, ch. 322, 17 Stat. 626; (multiple references to the "Creek reservation" and "Creek India[n] Reservation"); 11 Cong. Rec. 2351 (1881) (discussing "the dividing line between the Creek reservation and their ceded lands"); Act of Feb. 13, 1891, 26 Stat. 750 (describing a cession by referencing the "West boundary line of the Creek Reservation").
There is a final set of assurances that bear mention, too. In the Treaty of 1856, Congress promised that "no portion" of the Creek Reservation "shall ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State." Art. IV, 11 Stat. 700. And within their lands, with exceptions, the Creeks were to be "secured in the unrestricted right of self-government," with "full jurisdiction" over enrolled Tribe members and their property. Art. XV, id., at 704. So the Creek were promised not only a "permanent home" that would be "forever set apart"; they were also assured a right to self-government on lands that would lie outside both the legal jurisdiction and geographic boundaries of any State. Under any definition, this was a reservation.
III
A
While there can be no question that Congress established a reservation for the Creek Nation, it's equally clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of its promises to the Tribe. Not least, the land described in the parties' treaties, once undivided and held by the Tribe, is now fractured into pieces. While these pieces were initially distributed to Tribe members, many were sold and now belong to persons unaffiliated with the Nation. So in what sense, if any, can we say that the Creek Reservation persists today?
To determine whether a tribe continues to hold a reservation, there is only one place we may look: the Acts of Congress. This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 566-568, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903). But that power, this Court has cautioned, belongs to Congress alone. Nor will this Court lightly infer such a breach once Congress has established a reservation. Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161, 79 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).
Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did. A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the "supreme Law of the Land." Art. I, § 8 ; Art. VI, cl. 2. It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them.
Likewise, courts have no proper role in the adjustment of reservation borders. Mustering the broad social consensus required to pass new legislation is a deliberately hard business under our Constitution. Faced with this daunting task, Congress sometimes might wish an inconvenient reservation would simply disappear. Short of that, legislators might seek to pass laws that tiptoe to the edge of disestablishment and hope that judges-facing no possibility of electoral consequences themselves-will deliver the final push. But wishes don't make for laws, and saving the political branches the embarrassment of disestablishing a reservation is not one of our constitutionally assigned prerogatives. "[O]nly Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries." Solem, 465 U.S., at 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161. So it's no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federal government has already broken. If Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so.
History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the will. Sometimes, legislation has provided an "[e]xplicit reference to cession" or an "unconditional commitment... to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land." Ibid. Other times, Congress has directed that tribal lands shall be "'restored to the public domain.' " Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 412, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994) (emphasis deleted).
Likewise, Congress might speak of a reservation as being " 'discontinued,' " " 'abolished,' " or " 'vacated.' " Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 504, n. 22, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973). Disestablishment has "never required any particular form of words," Hagen, 510 U.S., at 411, 114 S.Ct. 958. But it does require that Congress clearly express its intent to do so, "[c]ommon[ly with an] '[e]xplicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests.' " Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct. 1072, 1079, 194 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016).
B
In an effort to show Congress has done just that with the Creek Reservation, Oklahoma points to events during the so-called "allotment era." Starting in the 1880s, Congress sought to pressure many tribes to abandon their communal lifestyles and parcel their lands into smaller lots owned by individual tribe members. See 1 F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 1.04 (2012) (Cohen), discussing General Allotment Act of 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388. Some allotment advocates hoped that the policy would create a class of assimilated, landowning, agrarian Native Americans. See Cohen § 1.04; F. Hoxie, A Final Promise: The Campaign To Assimilate 18-19 (2001). Others may have hoped that, with lands in individual hands and (eventually) freely alienable, white settlers would have more space of their own. See id., at 14-15; cf. General Allotment Act of 1887, § 5, 24 Stat. 389-390.
The Creek were hardly exempt from the pressures of the allotment era. In 1893, Congress charged the Dawes Commission with negotiating changes to the Creek Reservation. Congress identified two goals: Either persuade the Creek to cede territory to the United States, as it had before, or agree to allot its lands to Tribe members. Act of Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 209, § 16, 27 Stat. 645-646. A year later, the Commission reported back that the Tribe "would not, under any circumstances, agree to cede any portion of their lands." S. Misc. Doc. No. 24, 53d Cong., 3d Sess., 7 (1894). At that time, before this Court's decision in Lone Wolf, Congress may not have been entirely sure of its power to terminate an established reservation unilaterally. Perhaps for that reason, perhaps for others, the Commission and Congress took this report seriously and turned their attention to allotment rather than cession.
The Commission's work culminated in an allotment agreement with the Tribe in 1901. Creek Allotment Agreement, ch. 676, 31 Stat. 861. With exceptions for certain pre-existing town sites and other special matters, the Agreement established procedures for allotting 160-acre parcels to individual Tribe members who could not sell, transfer, or otherwise encumber their allotments for a number of years. §§ 3, 7, id., at 862-864 (5 years for any portion, 21 years for the designated "homestead" portion). Tribe members were given deeds for their parcels that "convey[ed] to [them] all right, title, and interest of the Creek Nation." § 23, id., at 867-868. In 1908, Congress relaxed these alienation restrictions in some ways, and even allowed the Secretary of the Interior to waive them. Act of May 27, 1908, ch. 199, § 1, 35 Stat. 312. One way or the other, individual Tribe members were eventually free to sell their land to Indians and non-Indians alike.
Missing in all this, however, is a statute evincing anything like the "present and total surrender of all tribal interests" in the affected lands. Without doubt, in 1832 the Creek "cede[d]" their original homelands east of the Mississippi for a reservation promised in what is now Oklahoma. 1832 Treaty, Art. I, 7 Stat. 366. And in 1866, they "cede[d] and convey[ed]" a portion of that reservation to the United States. Treaty With the Creek, Art. III, 14 Stat. 786. But because there exists no equivalent law terminating what remained, the Creek Reservation survived allotment.
In saying this we say nothing new. For years, States have sought to suggest that allotments automatically ended reservations, and for years courts have rejected the argument. Remember, Congress has defined "Indian country" to include "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation... notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including any rights-of-way running through the reservation." 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a). So the relevant statute expressly contemplates private land ownership within reservation boundaries. Nor under the statute's terms does it matter whether these individual parcels have passed hands to non-Indians. To the contrary, this Court has explained repeatedly that Congress does not disestablish a reservation simply by allowing the transfer of individual plots, whether to Native Americans or others. See Mattz, 412 U.S., at 497, 93 S.Ct. 2245 ("[A]llotment under the... Act is completely consistent with continued reservation status"); Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351, 356-358, 82 S.Ct. 424, 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962) (holding that allotment act "did no more than open the way for non-Indian settlers to own land on the reservation"); Parker, 577 U. S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1079-1080 ("[T]he 1882 Act falls into another category of surplus land Acts: those that merely opened reservation land to settlement.... Such schemes allow non-Indian settlers to own land on the reservation" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
It isn't so hard to see why. The federal government issued its own land patents to many homesteaders throughout the West. These patents transferred legal title and are the basis for much of the private land ownership in a number of States today. But no one thinks any of this diminished the United States's claim to sovereignty over any land. To accomplish that would require an act of cession, the transfer of a sovereign claim from one nation to another. 3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property *521-*524. And there is no reason why Congress cannot reserve land for tribes in much the same way, allowing them to continue to exercise governmental functions over land even if they no longer own it communally. Indeed, such an arrangement seems to be contemplated by § 1151(a)'s plain terms. Cf. Seymour, 368 U.S., at 357-358, 82 S.Ct. 424.
Oklahoma reminds us that allotment was often the first step in a plan ultimately aimed at disestablishment. As this Court explained in Mattz, Congress's expressed policy at the time "was to continue the reservation system and the trust status of Indian lands, but to allot tracts to individual Indians for agriculture and grazing." 412 U.S. at 496, 93 S.Ct. 2245. Then, "[w]hen all the lands had been allotted and the trust expired, the reservation could be abolished." Ibid. This plan was set in motion nationally in the General Allotment Act of 1887, and for the Creek specifically in 1901. No doubt, this is why Congress at the turn of the 20th century "believed to a man" that "the reservation system would cease" "within a generation at most." Solem, 465 U.S., at 468, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Still, just as wishes are not laws, future plans aren't either. Congress may have passed allotment laws to create the conditions for disestablishment. But to equate allotment with disestablishment would confuse the first step of a march with arrival at its destination.
Ignoring this distinction would run roughshod over many other statutes as well. In some cases, Congress chose not to wait for allotment to run its course before disestablishing a reservation. When it deemed that approach appropriate, Congress included additional language expressly ending reservation status. So, for example, in 1904, Congress allotted reservations belonging to the Ponca and Otoe Tribes, reservations also lying within modern-day Oklahoma, and then provided "further, That the reservation lines of the said... reservations... are hereby abolished." Act of Apr. 21, 1904, § 8, 33 Stat. 217-218 (emphasis deleted); see also DeCoteau v. District County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425, 439-440, n. 22, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975) (collecting other examples). Tellingly, however, nothing like that can be found in the nearly contemporary 1901 Creek Allotment Agreement or the 1908 Act. That doesn't make these laws special. Rather, in using the language that they did, these allotment laws tracked others of the period, parceling out individual tracts, while saving the ultimate fate of the land's reservation status for another day.
C
If allotment by itself won't work, Oklahoma seeks to prove disestablishment by pointing to other ways Congress intruded on the Creek's promised right to self-governance during the allotment era. It turns out there were many. For example, just a few years before the 1901 Creek Allotment Agreement, and perhaps in an effort to pressure the Tribe to the negotiating table, Congress abolished the Creeks' tribal courts and transferred all pending civil and criminal cases to the U. S. Courts of the Indian Territory. Curtis Act of 1898, § 28, 30 Stat. 504-505. Separately, the Creek Allotment Agreement provided that tribal ordinances "affecting the lands of the Tribe, or of individuals after allotment, or the moneys or other property of the Tribe, or of the citizens thereof " would not be valid until approved by the President of the United States. § 42, 31 Stat. 872.
Plainly, these laws represented serious blows to the Creek. But, just as plainly, they left the Tribe with significant sovereign functions over the lands in question. For example, the Creek Nation retained the power to collect taxes, operate schools, legislate through tribal ordinances, and, soon, oversee the federally mandated allotment process. §§ 39, 40, 42, id., at 871-872; Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947, 949-950, 953-954 (C.A.8 1905). And, in its own way, the congressional incursion on tribal legislative processes only served to prove the power: Congress would have had no need to subject tribal legislation to Presidential review if the Tribe lacked any authority to legislate. Grave though they were, these congressional intrusions on pre-existing treaty rights fell short of eliminating all tribal interests in the land.
Much more ominously, the 1901 allotment agreement ended by announcing that the Creek tribal government "shall not continue" past 1906, although the agreement quickly qualified that statement, adding the proviso "subject to such further legislation as Congress may deem proper." § 46, 31 Stat. 872. Thus, while suggesting that the tribal government might end in 1906, Congress also necessarily understood it had not ended in 1901. All of which was consistent with the Legislature's general practice of taking allotment as a first, not final, step toward disestablishment and dissolution.
When 1906 finally arrived, Congress adopted the Five Civilized Tribes Act. But instead of dissolving the tribal government as some may have expected, Congress "deem[ed] proper" a different course, simply cutting away further at the Tribe's autonomy. Congress empowered the President to remove and replace the principal chief of the Creek, prohibited the tribal council from meeting more than 30 days a year, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to assume control of tribal schools. §§ 6, 10, 28, 34 Stat. 139-140, 148. The Act also provided for the handling of the Tribe's funds, land, and legal liabilities in the event of dissolution. §§ 11, 27, id., at 141, 148. Despite these additional incursions on tribal authority, however, Congress expressly recognized the Creek's "tribal existence and present tribal governmen[t]" and "continued [them] in full force and effect for all purposes authorized by law." § 28, id., at 148.
In the years that followed, Congress continued to adjust its arrangements with the Tribe. For example, in 1908, the Legislature required Creek officials to turn over all "tribal properties" to the Secretary of the Interior. Act of May 27, 1908, § 13, 35 Stat. 316. The next year, Congress sought the Creek National Council's release of certain money claims against the U. S. government. Act of Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 263, 35 Stat. 781, 805. And, further still, Congress offered the Creek Nation a one-time opportunity to file suit in the federal Court of Claims for "any and all legal and equitable claims arising under or growing out of any treaty or agreement between the United States and the Creek Indian Nation." Act of May 24, 1924, ch. 181, 43 Stat. 139; see, e.g., United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 681, 79 L.Ed. 1331 (1935). But Congress never withdrew its recognition of the tribal government, and none of its adjustments would have made any sense if Congress thought it had already completed that job.
Indeed, with time, Congress changed course completely. Beginning in the 1920s, the federal outlook toward Native Americans shifted "away from assimilation policies and toward more tolerance and respect for traditional aspects of Indian culture." 1 Cohen § 1.05. Few in 1900 might have foreseen such a profound "reversal of attitude" was in the making or expected that "new protections for Indian rights," including renewed "support for federally defined tribalism," lurked around the corner. Ibid. ; see also M. Scherer, Imperfect Victories: The Legal Tenacity of the Omaha Tribe, 1945-1995, pp. 2-4, (1999). But that is exactly what happened. Pursuant to this new national policy, in 1936, Congress authorized the Creek to adopt a constitution and bylaws, see Act of June 26, 1936, § 3, 49 Stat. 1967, enabling the Creek government to resume many of its previously suspended functions. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439, 1442-1447 (C.A.D.C. 1988).
The Creek Nation has done exactly that. In the intervening years, it has ratified a new constitution and established three separate branches of government. Ibid. ; see Muscogee Creek Nation (MCN) Const., Arts. V, VI, and VII. Today the Nation is led by a democratically elected Principal Chief, Second Chief, and National Council; operates a police force and three hospitals; commands an annual budget of more than $350 million; and employs over 2,000 people. Brief for Muscogee (Creek) Nation as Amicus Curiae 36-39. In 1982, the Nation passed an ordinance reestablishing the criminal and civil jurisdiction of its courts. See Hodel, 851 F.2d at 1442, 1446-1447 (confirming Tribe's authority to do so). The territorial jurisdiction of these courts extends to any Indian country within the Tribe's territory as defined by the Treaty of 1866. MCN Stat. 27, § 1-102(A). And the State of Oklahoma has afforded full faith and credit to its judgments since at least 1994. See Barrett v. Barrett, 878 P.2d 1051, 1054 (Okla. 1994) ; Full Faith and Credit of Tribal Courts, Okla. State Cts. Network (Apr. 18, 2019), https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=458214.
Maybe some of these changes happened for altruistic reasons, maybe some for other reasons. It seems, for example, that at least certain Members of Congress hesitated about disestablishment in 1906 because they feared any reversion of the Creek lands to the public domain would trigger a statutory commitment to hand over portions of these lands to already powerful railroad interests. See, e.g., 40 Cong. Rec. 2976 (1906) (Sen. McCumber); Id., at 3053 (Sen. Aldrich). Many of those who advanced the reorganization efforts of the 1930s may have done so more out of frustration with efforts to assimilate Native Americans than any disaffection with assimilation as the ultimate goal. See 1 Cohen § 1.05; Scherer, Imperfect Victories, at 2-4. But whatever the confluence of reasons, in all this history there simply arrived no moment when any Act of Congress dissolved the Creek Tribe or disestablished its reservation. In the end, Congress moved in the opposite direction.
D
Ultimately, Oklahoma is left to pursue a very different sort of argument. Now, the State points to historical practices and demographics, both around the time of and long after the enactment of all the relevant legislation. These facts, the State submits, are enough by themselves to prove disestablishment. Oklahoma even classifies and categorizes how we should approach the question of disestablishment into three "steps." It reads Solem as requiring us to examine the laws passed by Congress at the first step, contemporary events at the second, and even later events and demographics at the third. On the State's account, we have so far finished only the first step; two more await.
This is mistaken. When interpreting Congress's work in this arena, no less than any other, our charge is usually to ascertain and follow the original meaning of the law before us. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 532, 538-539, 202 L.Ed.2d 536 (2019). That is the only "step" proper for a court of law. To be sure, if during the course of our work an ambiguous statutory term or phrase emerges, we will sometimes consult contemporaneous usages, customs, and practices to the extent they shed light on the meaning of the language in question at the time of enactment. Ibid. But Oklahoma does not point to any ambiguous language in any of the relevant statutes that could plausibly be read as an Act of disestablishment. Nor may a court favor contemporaneous or later practices instead of the laws Congress passed. As Solem explained, "[o]nce a block of land is set aside for an Indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise." 465 U.S. at 470, 104 S.Ct. 1161 (citing United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, 285, 30 S.Ct. 93, 54 L.Ed. 195 (1909) ).
Still, Oklahoma reminds us that other language in Solem isn't so constrained. In particular, the State highlights a passage suggesting that "[w]here non-Indian settlers flooded into the opened portion of a reservation and the area has long since lost its Indian character, we have acknowledged that de facto, if not de jure, diminishment may have occurred." 465 U.S. at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. While acknowledging that resort to subsequent demographics was "an unorthodox and potentially unreliable method of statutory interpretation," the Court seemed nonetheless taken by its "obvious practical advantages." Id., at 472, n. 13, 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161.
Out of context, statements like these might suggest historical practices or current demographics can suffice to disestablish or diminish reservations in the way Oklahoma envisions. But, in the end, Solem itself found these kinds of arguments provided "no help" in resolving the dispute before it. Id., at 478, 104 S.Ct. 1161. Notably, too, Solem suggested that whatever utility historical practice or demographics might have was "demonstrated" by this Court's earlier decision in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 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.
Me. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 16 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 gave priority preferences to veterans in the purchase of surplus war materials. 58 Stat. 765. Section 26 authorized the United States to recover damages against any person who obtains such property from the Government by “fraudulent trick, scheme, or device . . . .” The complaint in this case charged that respondent Hougham, a non veteran, combined with the other respondents, who are veterans, and obtained for his own business purposes hundreds of items of surplus property, including trucks, trailers and other equipment, by fraudulent use of the veteran respondents’ priority certificates. After hearings, the District Court found respondents guilty of fraud as charged and awarded damages in the amount of $8,000. Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting both the Government’s contention that the damages awarded were inadequate and the respondents’ contentions that the finding of fraud was clearly erroneous and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. 270 F. 2d 290. Because the case raises important questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Surplus Property Act, we granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 361 U. S. 958.
The respondents first contend that the entire controversy here has been settled, is therefore moot, and that the Government is estopped from further pressing claims against them. This contention rests upon the fact — set out in respondents’ brief and not disputed by the Government — that after the trial court judgment was entered and before it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Government accepted from respondents promissory notes totalling $8,000, the amount of the trial court judgment. The contention is that this fact alone renders the case moot or at least creates some sort of estoppel against the Government. We disagree. It is a generally accepted rule of law that where a judgment is appealed on the ground that the damages awarded are inadequate, acceptance of payment of the amount of the unsatisfactory judgment does not, standing alone, amount to an accord and satisfaction of the entire claim. See, for example, Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172, 183-184. This case provides a perfect example of the good sense underlying that rule. For here it was the respondents themselves who proposed payment of the $8,000, asserting expressly as their purpose in so doing the obtaining of a “Full Release of Judgment Liens” filed in the Counties of Los Angeles and Kern. The Government did nothing more in the entire transaction than accept the notes and execute the requested release. Since that release was expressly denominated only as a “Full Release of Judgment Liens” for the Counties of Los Angeles and Kern, it simply is not and cannot properly be interpreted to constitute a full release of all the Government’s claims against respondents. Moreover, since the. transfer of the notes occurred prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals, it is clear that neither of the parties regarded that transfer as an accord and satisfaction of the entire controversy for both pursued their appeals in that court. Thus respondents’ contention here is totally inconsistent with their position in the Court of Appeals where they sought to avoid all liability to the Government, including liability for the $8,000 they had already paid. For that position must necessarily have been predicated upon the view that the payment was without-prejudice to the rights of either party as those rights might come to be established by subsequent judicial decree. Under such circumstances, the contention that the Government has lost its right to press its claim for the full amount of damages it believes due is wholly untenable.
We find it unnecessary to discuss at length respondents’ second contention — that the claims asserted by the Government are barred by the statute of limitations. It is sufficient to say that the courts below were entirely correct in rejecting that contention for, resting as it does upon the assumption that recoveries under § 26 (b) are penalties, it is inconsistent with our holding in Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 148.
We therefore proceed to the principal controversy — the question of the adequacy of the damages awarded to the Government. Section 26 (b) provides in relevant part that those who obtain property by the kind of fraud established here:
“(1) shall pay to the United States the sum of $2,000 for each such act, and double the amount of any damage which the United States may have sustained by reason thereof, together with the costs of suit; or
“(2) shall, if the United States shall so elect, pay to the United States, as liquidated damages, a sum equal to twice the consideration agreed to be given by such person to the United States or any Government agency; or
“(3) shall, if the United States shall so elect, restore to the United States the property thus secured and obtained and the United States shall retain as liquidated damages any consideration given to the United States or any Government agency for such property.”
In its complaint as originally filed, the Government claimed recovery as authorized by §26 (b)(1) — $2,000 for each fraudulent act plus double the amount of any actual damages. Subsequently, the Government attempted to file a First Amended Complaint claiming liquidated damages under § 26 (b) (2). Upon indication of the trial judge that the claim in the original complaint under § 26 (b)(1) amounted to an irrevocable election of remedies, but without any formal ruling to that effect, the Government withdrew the First Amended Complaint and filed a Second Amended Complaint in which it reverted to its original claim under § 26 (b)(1). Still later, however, following pretrial proceedings under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district judge, with the approval of counsel for both parties, entered a pretrial conference order which provided, “[Tjhis order shall supplement the pleadings and govern the course of the trial of this cause, unless modified to prevent manifest injustice.” And the order expressly enumerated the “issues of law” that remained “to be litigated upon the trial.” One of the issues so reserved was the legal correctness of the Government’s argument that it was entitled to recover “double the amount of the sales price of the vehicles described in the Second Amended Complaint,” that it was “entitled to make its election [as between § 26 (b)(1) and § 26 (b)(2)] at any time prior to judgment” and that it did then elect “in the event of judgment in its favor, to receive as liquidated damages a sum equal to twice the consideration agreed to be given to the United States.” The District Court ultimately decided this legal issue against the Government, holding that the original complaint constituted an irrevocable election, and proceeded to award damages of $8,000 under §26 (b)(1). The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment on a different ground. It held that the refusal of the District Court to permit recovery under § 26 (b) (2) was within its power to determine the appropriate remedy under § 26 (b), asserting that no issue as to election of remedies was even involved in the case. 270 F. 2d, at 293.
The Government contends that denial of recovery under § 26 (b) (2) cannot be justified on either of the theories adopted below. Respondents contend that the Government waived its right to urge this contention-by voluntarily proceeding to judgment on the Second Amended Complaint. This contention is predicated upon the failure of the Government to get a formal ruling on its First Amended Complaint before withdrawing it and filing the Second Amended Complaint. But, as shown above, the pretrial order and the conclusions of law of the District Court both show that the Government urged its right to change its election up to the time judgment was rendered. That pretrial order, as authorized by Rule 16, conclusively established the issues of fact and law in the case and declared that the issues so established should “supplement the pleadings and govern the course of the trial . . . .” One of these supplementary issues was the Government’s contention that it was entitled to recover under §26 (b)(2), rather than under §26 (b)(1) as claimed in the Second Amended Complaint. Thus the pretrial order changed the claim in that complaint from § 26 (b)(1) to § 26 (b)(2) insofar as the Government had the power to change its election, and posed an issue which required adjudication by the District Court. That such was the effect of the order is clear from the language of Rule 16 which provides that the court, after pretrial conference, “shall make an order which recites . . . the amendments allowed to the pleadings . . . and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice.” Since the pretrial order here reserved the legal question as to the Government’s right to change its election and since the court expressly decided that question against the Government, the question most certainly was not waived and must here be determined.
Thus, we come to the question whether the courts below were correct in holding that the Government was not entitled to damages under § 26 (b) (2). With respect to the theory adopted by the District Court that the Government’s original complaint constituted an irrevocable election of remedies, we can find nothing either in the language of § 26 (b) or in its legislative history which lends the slightest support to such a construction. This fact leads naturally to the conclusion that the ordinary liberal rules governing the amendment of pleadings are applicable. The applicable rule is Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was designed to facilitate the amendment of pleadings except where prejudice to the opposing party would result. Despite respondents’ argument to the contrary, we see this case as one where there plainly was no such prejudice. In such a situation, acceptance of respondents’ contention on this point would subvert the basic purpose of the Rule. “The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 48. We therefore conclude that under the circumstances of this case the Government had a right to amend its pleadings and that the District Court erred in refusing to permit such amendment.
The alternative theory of the Court of Appeals appears, upon examination, to be equally untenable. The Court of Appeals interpreted § 26 (b) as placing power in the District Court to determine, according to the evidence presented in any particular case, which of the three subsections would be most appropriate and to require the Government to accept judgment under that subsection. That interpretation collides with the express language of § 26 (b) which provides for recovery under any one of the three subsections “if the United States shall so elect.” (Emphasis supplied.) Since the language of the section is conclusive on this point, the theory adopted by the Court of Appeals must also be rejected.
The respondents’ final contention is that in any event they are entitled to a new trial. Obviously, there need be no new trial on the fraud issue. But respondents also urge that there is no support in the record for a judgment fixing the Government’s recovery under § 26 (b) (2) at “twice the consideration agreed to be given” for the vehicles. There was no consideration “agreed to be given,” the argument proceeds, because all the transactions involved cash sales at a price fixed by the Government. This argument, while ingenious, is not sound. Cash sales, like others, must follow an agreement of the parties with regard to consideration “to be given.” Respondents’ contention to the contrary would, if accepted, allow any purchaser from the Government to effectively avoid liability under § 26 (b) (2) simply by being careful to make all of its fraudulent dealings in cash. Plainly, however, the Government suffers just as much from a fraudulent cash sale as from a fraudulent credit sale. An interpretation of § 26 (b) (2) which allows recovery for the one but not for the other cannot be accepted. The respondents’ contention for a new trial must be rejected.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgment for the United States under § 26 (b) (2).
It is so ordered.
The language of the trial judge on this point was unequivocal: “This Court rules that the plaintiff United States can only receive liquidated damages under the provisions of Section 26 (b) (2) if it elects to receive only such damages originally in the action; that since the United States sought damages under the provisions of Section 26 (b) (1) in the original complaint, that such is an irrevocable election; that the plaintiff United States cannot thereafter amend its complaint to seek liquidated damages under the provisions of Section 26 (b) (2), or otherwise elect to receive liquidated damages under the provisions of Section 26 (b) (2), but that the United States is thereafter limited as the measure of its recovery for liquidated damages to those liquidated damages set forth in Section 26 (b) (1).”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 1, 1985, Grand Gulf Unit 1, a major nuclear power-plant located in Port Gibson, Mississippi, began commercial operations. An order entered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) required Mississippi Power and Light Company (MP&L) to purchase 33% of the plant’s output at rates determined by FERC to be just and reasonable. The Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) subsequently granted MP&L an increase in its retail rates to enable it to recover the cost of its purchases of Grand Gulf power. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that it was error to grant an increase in retail rates without first examining the prudence of the management decisions that led to the construction and completion of Grand Gulf 1. The question presented to us is whether the FERC proceedings have pre-empted such a prudence inquiry by the State Commission. For reasons similar to those set forth in Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U. S. 953 (1986), we conclude that the state proceedings are pre-empted and therefore reverse.
I
MP&L is one of four operating companies whose voting stock is wholly owned by Middle South Utilities (MSU), a public utility holding company. The four companies are engaged both in the wholesale sale of electricity to each other and to companies outside the MSU system and in the retail sale of electricity in separate service areas in Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi. Through MSU the four companies operate as an integrated power pool, with all energy in the entire system being distributed by a single dispatch center located in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Wholesale transactions among the four operating companies historically have been governed by a succession of three “System Agreements,” which were filed with FERC in 1951, 1973, and 1982. The System Agreements have provided the basis for planning and operating the companies’ generating units on a single-system basis and for equalizing cost imbalances among the four companies.
The retail sales of each of the operating companies are regulated by one or more local regulatory agencies. For example, Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) sells in both Arkansas and Missouri and therefore is regulated by both the Arkansas Public Service Commission and the Missouri Public Service Commission. MP&L’s retail rates are subject to the jurisdiction of the MPSC.
Through the 1950’s and into the 1960’s, most of the MSU system’s generating plants were fueled with oil or gas. In the late 1960’s, the MSU system sought to meet projected increases in demand and to diversify its fuel base by adding coal and nuclear generating units. It was originally contemplated that each of the four operating companies would finance and construct a nuclear power facility. Consistent with this scheme, MP&L was assigned to construct two nuclear power facilities at Port Gibson, Mississippi, Grand Gulf 1 and 2. The Grand Gulf project, however, proved too large for one operating company to finance. MSU therefore formed a new subsidiary, Middle South Energy, Inc. (MSE), to finance, own, and operate Grand Gulf. MSE acquired full title to Grand Gulf, but hired MP&L to design, construct, and operate the facilities.
In April 1974, MSE and MP&L applied to MPSC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction of the plant. The State Commission granted the certificate, noting that MP&L was part of “an integrated electric system” and that “the Grand Gulf Project [would] serve as a major source of baseload capacity for the company and the entire Middle South System pooling arrangement.” App. to Motion to Dismiss 36-37.
By the late 1970’s it became apparent that systemwide demand in the ensuing years would be lower than had been forecast, making Grand Gulf’s capacity unnecessary. Moreover, regulatory delays, additional construction requirements, and severe inflation frustrated the project. Management decided to halt construction of Grand Gulf 2, but to complete Grand Gulf 1, largely on the assumption that the relatively low cost of nuclear fuel would make the overall cost of Grand Gulf power per kilowatt hour lower than that of alternative energy sources. As it turned out, however, the cost of completing Grand Gulf construction was about six times greater than had been projected. Consequently, the wholesale cost of Grand Gulf’s power greatly exceeds that of power produced in other system facilities.
The four operating companies considered various methods of allocating the cost of Grand Gulf’s power. In 1982 MSU filed two agreements with FERC. The first was a new System Agreement, which set forth the terms and conditions for coordinated operations and wholesale transactions among the four companies, including a scheme of “capacity equalization payments,” which were designed to ensure that each company contribute proportionately to the total costs of generating power on the system. Transactions related to the purchase of power from Grand Gulf 1, however, were not included in the 1982 System Agreement. The second agreement filed with FERC was the Unit Power Sales Agreement (UPSA), which provided wholesale rates for MSE’s sale of Grand Gulf 1 capacity and energy. Under the UPSA, AP&L was not obligated to purchase any of Grand Gulf’s capacity; LP&L was obligated to purchase 38.57%, NOPSI 29.8%, and MP&L 31.63%.
The FERC Proceedings
FERC assigned the agreements to two different Administrative Law Judges, who were charged with the task of determining whether the agreements were “just and reasonable” within the meaning of the Federal Power Act. Extensive hearings were held by each ALJ, in which numerous parties representing consumer interests and the various state regulatory agencies participated. Both judges concluded that because Grand Gulf was designed to serve the needs of the entire MSU system, the failure to distribute the costs associated with Grand Gulf among all members of the system rendered the agreements unduly discriminatory and that costs should be allocated in proportion to each company’s relative system demand. Middle South Services, Inc., 30 FERC ¶ 63,030, pp. 65,170-66,173 (1985) (1982 System Agreement); Middle South Energy, Inc., 26 FERC ¶63,044, pp. 65,105-65,108 (1984) (UPSA).
FERC consolidated the decisions of the Administrative Law Judges for review and issued its decision in June 1985. Middle South Energy, Inc., 31 FERC ¶61,305. The Commission acknowledged that it had before it difficult cost allocation issues and that there were “no easy answers.” After extensive review, FERC concluded that the most equitable result would be to adopt ALJ Liebman’s formula for allocating Grand Gulf costs.
The Commission affirmed and adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judges that MSU is a highly integrated and coordinated power pool. It concluded that the result of this integration and coordination was “planning, construction, and operations which [were] conducted primarily for the system as a whole.” Id., at 61,645. Because it found that nuclear units on the System had been “planned to meet overall System needs and objectives,” it concluded “that some form of equalization of nuclear plant costs [was] necessary to achieve just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates among the MSU operating companies.” Id., at 61,655. The Commission agreed with the judges that the 1982 System Agreement and the UPSA as filed would not together produce proper cost allocation, but concluded that the 1982 System Agreement in conjunction with ALJ Liebman’s allocation of capacity costs associated with Grand Gulf would “achieve just and reasonable results.” Ibid. Thus FERC affirmed the allocation of 33% of Grand Gulf’s capacity costs to MP&L as just and reasonable. Although it did not expressly discuss the “prudence” of constructing Grand Gulf and bringing it on line, FERC implicitly accepted the uncontroverted testimony of the MSU executives who explained why they believed the decisions to construct and to complete Grand Gulf 1 were sound, and approved the finding that “continuing construction of Grand Gulf Unit No. 1 was prudent because Middle South’s executives believed Grand Gulf would enable the Middle South system to diversify its base load fuel mix and, it was projected, at the same time, produce power for a total cost (capacity and energy) which would be less than existing alternatives on the system.” 26 FERC, at 65,112-65,113; see 31 FERC, at 61,666 (affirming ALJ Liebman’s decision to the extent not modified).
The Commission later clarified certain aspects of its previous order in the course of considering several petitions for rehearing. It rejected contentions that its exercise of jurisdiction would destroy effective state regulation of retail rates. Specifically, FERC rejected claims that it could not exercise jurisdiction because such action would result in States being “precluded from judging the prudence of Grand Gulf costs and denied any say in the rate of return imposed as part of these costs” and “imping[e] on the State’s paramount authority in certification decisions regarding need, type, and costs of construction of new generating facilities.” Middle South Energy, Inc., 32 FERC ¶61,425, p. 61,951 (1985). FERC asserted that its opinion was “the result of a careful balancing of the state and Federal interests involved” and that it had paid “careful heed to the impact [its] decision would have on the states.” Id., at 61,951-61,952. FERC went on to reject the argument that allocation of Grand Gulf costs should be based on whether individual companies needed Grand Gulf capacity. Since Grand Gulf had been constructed to meet the needs and serve the goals of the entire system, FERC reasoned that “the allocation of Grand Gulf power must rest not on the ‘needs’ of an individual company, but rather on the principles of just, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and non-preferential rates.” Id., at 61,958. FERC emphasized that the parties had entered the pooling agreement voluntarily and that its decision did no more than “alter in as limited a means as possible the agreed-upon cost scheme, in order to achieve just, reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-preferential rates.” Id., at 61,961.
On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed FERC’s order that the four operating companies share the cost of the system’s investment in nuclear energy in proportion to their relative demand for energy generated by the system as a whole. The court first rejected various challenges to FERC’s authority to restructure the parties’ agreed-upon allocations, holding that the Federal Power Act (FPA) gave FERC the necessary authority. The court then affirmed FERC’s allocation of-Grand Gulf capacity and costs as both rational and within the Commission’s range of discretion to remedy unduly discriminatory rates. Mississippi Industries v. FERC, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 244, 285, 808 F. 2d 1525, 1566 (1987).
The State Proceedings
On November 16, 1984, before the FERC proceedings were completed, MP&L filed an application for a substantial increase in its retail rates. The major portion of the requested increase was based on the assumption that MP&L would be required to purchase 31.63% of the high-cost Grand Gulf power when the unit began operating on July 1, 1985, in accordance with the terms of the UPSA. After public hearings, on June 14, 1985, the Mississippi Commission entered an order allowing MP&L certain additional revenues, but denying MP&L any retail rate relief associated with Grand Gulf Unit 1. App. to Juris. Statement 33a.
On June 27, 1985, MP&L applied for rehearing of the order insofar as it denied any rate relief associated with Grand Gulf. As expected, Grand Gulf went on line on July 1, 1985, and MP&L became obligated consistent with FERC’s allocation to make net payments of about $27 million per month for Grand Gulf capacity. After public hearings on the rehearing petition, the MPSC found that MP&L would become insolvent if relief were not granted and allowed a rate increase to go into effect to recover a projected annual revenue deficiency of about $327 million. The increase was predicated entirely on the company’s need for revenues to cover the purchased power expenses associated with Grand Gulf 1. See id., at 39a.
In its order the MPSC noted that petitions for rehearing were pending before FERC, in which the MPSC was continuing to challenge the allocation of 33% of Grand Gulf’s power to MP&L. Id., at 28a. It stated that it intended “to vigorously pursue every available legal remedy challenging the validity and fairness of the FERC allocation to MP&L,” id., at 51a, and that appropriate rate adjustments would be made if that allocation was changed. The order made no reference to the prudence of the investment in Grand Gulf.
The Attorney General of Mississippi and certain other parties representing Mississippi consumers appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Under Mississippi law, the MPSC has authority to establish just and reasonable rates which will lead to a fair rate of return for the utility. Miss. Code Ann. §77-3-39 (Supp. 1987). “A fair return is one which, under prudent and economical management, is just and reasonable to both the public and the utility.” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Mississippi Public Service Comm’n, 237 Miss. 157, 241, 113 So. 2d 622, 656 (1959); Mississippi Public Service Comm’n v. Mississippi Power Co., 429 So. 2d 883 (Miss. 1983). The appealing parties charged, inter alia, that the MPSC had exceeded the scope of its authority by adopting “retail rates to pay Grand Gulf expenses without first determining that the expenses were prudently incurred.” Mississippi ex rel. Pittman v. Mississippi Public Service Comm’n, 506 So. 2d 978, 979 (Miss. 1987). The State Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the argument that requiring the MPSC to review the prudence of incurring costs associated with Grand Gulf would violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The court concluded that MP&L and its sister and parent companies were “using the jurisdictional relationship between state and federal regulatory agencies to completely evade a prudency review of Grand Gulf costs” by either state or federal agencies and remanded the case to the MPSC for further proceedings.. The court held that FERC’s determination that MP&L’s assumption of a 33% share of the costs associated with Grand Gulf would be fair to its sister operating companies did not obligate the State to approve a pass-through of those costs to state consumers without a prudence review.
The court rejected MP&L’s argument that the decision of this Court in Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U. S. 953 (1986), which barred the State of North Carolina from setting retail rates that did not take into account FERC’s allocation of power between two related utility companies, foreclosed a state prudence review. Nantahala, the state court concluded, simply did not force the “MPSC to set rates based on the construction and operation of a plant (nuclear or otherwise) that generates power that is not needed at a price that is not prudent.” 506 So. 2d, at 985. The court assumed that only the fact that Grand Gulf was owned by an out-of-state corporation as opposed to MP&L created a question whether a state prudence determination was preempted and concluded that that fact was not enough to rob it of authority. The court distinguished Nantahala because that case concerned an agreement allocating low-cost power, and the prudence of purchasing the available low-cost hydroelectric power was never at issue.
The state court adopted the view that in determining whether a particular aspect of state regulation was preempted by FERC action, the state court should “‘examine those matters actually determined, whether expressly or impliedly, by the FERC.’” 506 So. 2d, at 986 (quoting Appeal of Sinclair Machine Products, Inc., 126 N. H. 822, 833, 498 A. 2d 696, 704 (1985)). It concluded that “ ‘[a]s to those matters not resolved by the FERC, State regulation is not preempted provided that regulation would not contradict or undermine FERC determinations and federal interests, or impose inconsistent obligations on the utility companies involved.’” 506 So. 2d, at 986. The court then noted that FERC “was never presented with the question of whether the completion of Grand Gulf, or its continued operation, was prudent” ibid., and that the Court of Appeals in affirming FERC’s allocation had “made no finding with regard to prudency because the issue was not presented.” Id., at 987 (emphasis in original). Consistent with this analysis, the Mississippi Supreme Court remanded the case to the MPSC “for a review of the prudency of the Grand Gulf investment.” The court specified that this review should “determine whether MP&L, [MSE] and MSU acted reasonably when they constructed Grand Gulf 1, in light of the change in demand for electric power in this state and the sudden escalation of costs.” Ibid. Thus the MPSC was directed to examine the prudence of the investment of both domestic and foreign corporations in Grand Gulf “in light of local conditions.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
Appellant MP&L contends that our decision in Nantahala, the FPA, and the Commerce Clause require the MPSC in setting retail electric rates to recognize that expenses incurred under FERC wholesale rate decisions that allocate interstate wholesale costs are reasonably incurred operating expenses. In essence appellant asserts that FERC’s allocation of Grand Gulf power pre-empts the jurisdiction of state regulatory agencies to set retail rates that do not recognize the costs associated with that allocation as reasonable. Ap-pellees contend that the Supremacy Clause does not preclude review of MP&L’s managerial prudence and that the effect of pre-emption would be to create a regulatory gap not contemplated by Congress, the Constitution, or this Court.
II
We hold that our decision in Nantahala rests on a foundation that is broad enough to support the order entered by FERC in this case and to require the MPSC to treat MP&L’s FERC-mandated payments for Grand Gulf costs as reasonably incurred operating expenses for the purpose of setting MP&L’s retail rates. The Mississippi Supreme Court’s judgment ordering the MPSC to conduct proceedings to determine whether some or all of the costs were not prudently incurred is pre-empted by federal law and must be reversed.
In Nantahala we considered the pre-emptive' effect of a FERC order that reallocated the respective shares of two affiliated companies’ entitlement to low-cost power. Under an agreement between the two affiliated companies, Nan-tahala, a public utility selling to both retail and wholesale customers in North Carolina, had been allocated 20% of the low-cost power purchased from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), while 80% was reserved for the affiliate whose only customer was their common parent. FERC found that the agreement was unfair to Nantahala and ordered it to file a new wholesale rate schedule based on an entitlement to 22.5% of the low-cost power purchased from TVA. Subsequently, in a retail rate proceeding, the North Carolina Regulatory Commission reexamined the issue and determined that any share less than 24.5% was unfair and therefore ordered Nantahala to calculate its costs for retail ratemaking purposes as though it had received 24.5% of the low-cost power. The effect of the State Commission’s order was to force Nantahala to calculate its retail rates as though FERC had allocated it a greater share of the low-cost power and to deny Nantahala the right to recover a portion of the costs it had incurred in paying rates that FERC had determined to be just and reasonable. Although the North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale rates, it held that the State Commission’s de facto reallocation of low-cost power was “‘well within the field of exclusive state rate making authority engendered by the “bright line” between state and federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act.’” Nantahala, 476 U. S., at 961 (quoting State ex rel. Utilities Comm’n v. Nantahala Power & Light Co., 313 N. C. 614, 687-688, 332 S. E. 2d 397, 440-441 (1985)). The state court emphasized that its order did not require Nantahala to violate the FERC order and that it was not expressly contradicting a FERC finding. We rejected these arguments. The reasoning that led to our decision in Nantahala applies with equal force here and compels the same conclusion — States may not alter FERC-ordered allocations of power by substituting their own determinations of what would be just and fair. FERC-mandated allocations of power are binding on the States, and States must treat those allocations as fair and reasonable when determining retail rates.
Our decision in Nantahala relied on fundamental principles concerning the pre-emptive impact of federal jurisdiction over wholesale rates on state regulation. First, FERC has exclusive authority to determine the reasonableness of wholesale rates. It is now settled that “ ‘the right to a reasonable rate is the right to the rate which the Commission files or fixes, and,... except for review of the Commission’s orders, [a] court can assume no right to a different one on the ground that, in its opinion, it is the only or the more reasonable one.’” Nantahala, 476 U. S., at 963-964 (quoting Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U. S. 246, 251-252 (1951)). This principle binds both state and federal courts and is in the former respect mandated by the Supremacy Clause. 476 U. S., at 963. Second, FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction applies not only to rates but also to power allocations that affect wholesale rates. Id., at 966. Third, States may not bar regulated utilities from passing through to retail consumers FERC-mandated wholesale rates. “The filed rate doctrine ensures that sellers of wholesale power governed by FERC can recover the costs incurred by their payment of just and reasonable FERC-set rates. When FERC sets a rate between a seller of power and a wholesaler-as-buyer, a State may not exercise its undoubted jurisdiction over retail sales to prevent the wholesaler-as-seller from recovering the costs of paying the FERC-approved rate.... Such a ‘trapping’ of costs is prohibited.” Id., at 970. These principles led us to hold in Nantahala that the North Carolina Utilities Commission’s order “trapping” federally mandated costs was pre-empted. Today they compel us to hold that the MPSC may not enter an order “trapping” the costs MP&L is mandated to pay under the FERC order allocating Grand Gulf power or undertake a “prudence” review for the purpose of deciding whether to enter such an order.
The facts of this case and Nantahala are not distinguishable in any way that has relevance to the operation of the principles stated above. Both cases concern FERC orders adjusting in the interest of fairness voluntary allocations of power among related entities. Nantahala involved a FERC order fixing the utility’s right to acquire low-cost power; this case involves a FERC order fixing MP&L’s obligation to acquire high-cost power. In Nantahala FERC had “determined that Nantahala’s average cost of power obtained from TVA should be based on a. particular allocation of entitlements power, and no other,” id., at 971 (emphasis added); in this case FERC has determined that MP&L’s cost of power obtained from Grand Gulf should be based on a particular allocation, and no other. In Nantahala the state court attempted to approve retail rates based on the assumption that Nantahala was entitled to more low-cost power than FERC had allocated to it. Here the state court seeks to permit the State to set rates based on an assumption that MP&L is obligated to purchase less Grand Gulf power than FERC has ordered it to purchase.
In this case as in Nantahala we hold that “a state utility commission setting retail prices must allow, as reasonable operating expenses, costs incurred as a result of paying a FERC-determined wholesale price.... Once FERC sets such a rate, a State may not conclude in setting retail rates that the FERC-approved wholesale rates are unreasonable. A State must rather give effect to Congress’ desire to give FERC plenary authority over interstate wholesale rates, and to ensure that the States do not interfere with this authority.” Nantahala, 476 U. S., at 965, 966. Thus we conclude that the Supremacy Clause compels the MPSC to permit MP&L to recover as a reasonable operating expense costs incurred as the result of paying a FERC-determined wholesale rate for a FERC-mandated allocation of power.
Appellees seek to characterize this case as falling within facts distinguished in Nantahala. Without purporting to determine the issue, we stated in Nantahala: “[W]e may assume that a particular quantity of power procured by a utility from a particular source could be deemed unreasonably excessive if lower-cost power is available elsewhere, even though the higher-cost power actually purchased is obtained at a FERC-approved, and therefore reasonable, price.” Id., at 972 (emphasis in original). As we assumed, it might well be unreasonable for a utility to purchase unnecessary quantities of high-cost power, even at FERC-approved rate's, if it had the legal right to refuse to buy that power. But if the integrity of FERC regulation is to be preserved, it obviously cannot be unreasonable for MP&L to procure the particular quantity of high-priced Grand Gulf power that FERC has ordered it to pay for. Just as Nantahala had no legal right to obtain any more low-cost TVA power than the amount allocated by FERC, it is equally clear that MP&L may not pay for less Grand Gulf power than the amount allocated by FERC.
The Mississippi Supreme Court erred in adopting the view that the pre-emptive effect of FERC jurisdiction turned on whether a particular matter was actually determined in the FERC proceedings. See 506 So. 2d, at 986. We have long rejected this sort of “‘case-by-case analysis of the impact of state regulation upon the national interest’ ” in power regulation cases. Nantahala, 476 U. S., at 966 (quoting FPC v. Southern California Edison Co., 376 U. S. 205, 215-216 (1964)). Congress has drawn a bright line between state and federal authority in the setting of wholesale rates and in the regulation of agreements that affect wholesale rates. States may not regulate in areas where FERC has properly exercised its jurisdiction to determine just and reasonable wholesale rates or to insure that agreements affecting wholesale rates are reasonable. FERC’s jurisdiction to adjust the allocations of Grand Gulf power in the UPSA has been established. Mississippi, therefore, may not consistent with the Supremacy Clause conduct any proceedings that, challenge the reasonableness of FERC’s allocation.
The reasonableness of rates and agreements regulated by FERC may not be collaterally attacked in state or federal courts. The only appropriate forum for such a challenge is before the Commission or a court reviewing the Commission’s order. The Mississippi Supreme Court attached considerable significance to the fact that the prudence of investing in Grand Gulf and bringing it on line was not discussed either in the proceedings before FERC or on review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The question of prudence was not discussed, however, because no party raised the issue, not because it was a matter beyond the scope of FERC’s jurisdiction. The Mississippi Supreme Court characterized the conduct of MP&L and its sister companies as an effort to “us[e] the jurisdictional relationship between state and federal regulatory agencies to completely evade a prudency review of Grand Gulf costs by either agency.” 506 So. 2d, at 979. The facts of this case, however, offer no evidence of such subterfuge. The very parties who are appellees here and who urged the Mississippi Supreme Court to order the MPSC to conduct a prudence review were also participants in the proceedings before FERC. The parties to the FERC proceedings recognized the impact that FERC's order would have on the jurisdiction of the state regulatory agencies. See Middle South Energy, Inc., 32 FERC, at 61,951-61,952. Despite that recognition, appellees failed to raise the matter of the prudence of the investment in Grand Gulf before FERC though it was a matter FERC easily could have considered in determining whether to permit MSE to recoup 100% of the costs of Grand Gulf in the wholesale rates it charged to the four operating companies and in allocating Grand Gulf power. See New England Power Co., 31 FERC ¶ 61,047, pp. 61,081-61,084 (1985), enf’d, 800 F. 2d 280 (CA1 1986).
In fact, FERC did consider and reject some aspects of the prudence review the Mississippi Supreme Court directed the MPSC to conduct. The state court emphasized that the MPSC was to determine whether “MSU and its subsidiaries made reasonable decisions in light of local conditions.” 506 So. 2d, at 987. FERC rejected, however, the argument that decisions about the allocation of Grand Gulf costs should be made in light of the needs of any one of the operating companies. It emphasized that “the Middle South companies appropriately approach power planning on a systemwide basis, whereby the individual companies’ needs are the component parts of the System power plan [and that] [implementation of the System plan... require[d] that the individual companies’ needs be subsumed by the greater interests of the entire System.” 32 FERC, at 61,958. Thus FERC’s order specifically bars a state regulatory agency from evaluating the prudence of Grand Gulf “in light of local conditions” alone. The state court also directed a “complete review of the transactions between MP&L, [MSE], and MSU, and their effect on Grand Gulf expense.” These transactions, however, comprise the very System Agreements between MSU and the operating companies and UPS A evaluated by FERC in the exercise of its jurisdiction over wholesale rates. The MPSC lacks jurisdiction to reevaluate the reasonableness of those transactions. The MPSC cannot evaluate either the prudence of MSU’s decision to invest in Grand Gulf and bring it on line or the prudence of MP&L’s decision to be a party to agreements to construct and operate Grand Gulf without traversing matters squarely within FERC’s jurisdiction.
There “can be no divided authority over interstate commerce... the acts of Congress on that subject are supreme and exclusive.” Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Stroud, 267 U. S. 404, 408 (1925). Consequently, a state agency’s “efforts to regulate commerce must fall when they conflict with or interfere with federal authority over the same activity.” Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U. S. 311, 318-319 (1981). Mississippi’s effort to invade the province of federal authority must be rejected. The judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The other operating companies owned by MSU are Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L), New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI), and Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L).
Prior to the events that gave rise to the instant controversy, each generating unit on the system was owned, financed, constructed, and operated by a single operating company despite the fact that new generating units were planned and constructed in accordance with the needs of the system as a whole, not merely the needs of the particular operating company. Middle South Energy, Inc., 31 FERC ¶61,305, p. 61,653 (1985).
Originally, AP&L was assigned to build and operate two nuclear facilities in Arkansas, ANO 1 and ANO 2; LP&L undertook the construction of Waterford 3 and 4; MP&L was assigned to build and operate Grand Gulf 1; and NOPSI was to construct a unit near New Orleans. Although the two ANO units were completed without incident, regulatory delays, additional construction requirements, and severe inflation led to serious problems in the construction of the remaining units. Plans to construct Waterford 4 quickly failed and severe costs overruns marred the completion of Waterford 3. The site for the NOPSI facility proved unsuitable and responsibility for construction of that unit, Grand Gulf 2, was transferred to MP&L.
The MPSC’s Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity reflected the MPSC’s appreciation of the interstate dimensions of the MSU system. It stated, in part:
“Middle South Utilities, Inc. (‘Middle South’) is a holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It owns all of the outstanding common stock of each of its principal operating subsidiaries: Arkansas Power & Light Company (Arkansas), Arkansas-Missouri Power Company (Ark-Mo), Louisiana Power & Light Company (Louisiana), [MP&L], and New Orleans Public Service Inc. (NOPSI).... Middle South and all of its subsidiaries constitute the Middle South Utilities System (Middle South System). The electric properties of the System operating companies constitute an integrated public utility system.
“The generating facilities of the Middle South System have been strategically located with a reference to the availability of fuel, protection of local loads and other controlling economic factors. The size of these units has been determined basically by the projected load growth of the Middle South System. [MP&L’s] present rate and capital structure obviously cannot support construction of this magnitude.
“In order to finance this construction on a basis that will be in the best interests of both its investors and the investors in its subsidiaries, and to insure adequate and dependable electric service to the customers and service areas of its subsidiaries, including Company, and without unnecessarily complicating its financial structure, Middle South [Middle South Energy, Inc.] has been organized.” App. to Motion to Dismiss 27-28, 30-31.
It was originally estimated that the cost per kilowatt of capacity would be about $500; by the time commercial operations began, that cost amounted to $2,933. The original estimate for the cost of two nuclear units at Port Gibson was approximately $1.2 billion. Regulatory delays, additional construction requirements imposed after the Three Mile Island disaster, and severe inflation, however, ran up Grand Gulf costs to more than $3 billion for the single unit.'See Mississippi Industries v. FERC, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 244, 250, 808 F. 2d 1525, 1531 (1987).
Section 205 of the Federal Power Act declares unlawful any rate charged in any transaction within FERC’s jurisdiction that is not just and reasonable. 49 Stat. 851, as amended, 16 U. S. C. §824d(a). Section 206 of the Act provides that when FERC determines after a hearing that “any rate, charge, or classification, demanded, observed, charged, or collected by any public utility for any transmission or sale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or that any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting such rate, charge, or classification is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pee Cukiam
and Supplemental Deceee.
The United States of America, Intervenor, State of Arizona, Complainant, the California Defendants (State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, County of San Diego), and State of Nevada, Intervenor, pursuant to Art. VI of the Decree entered in the case on March 9, 1964, at 376 U. S. 340, and amended on February 28, 1966, at 383 U. S. 268, have agreed to the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State and their priority dates as set forth herein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the joint motion of the United States, the State of Arizona, the California Defendants, and the State of Nevada to enter a supplemental decree is granted and that said present perfected rights in each State and their priority dates are determined to be as set forth below, subject to the following:
(1) The following listed present perfected rights relate to the quantity of water which may be used by each claimant and the list is not intended to limit or redefine the type of use otherwise set forth in said Decree.
(2) This determination shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determinations relating to settlement of Indian reservation boundaries referred to in Art. II (D) (5) of said Decre^.
(3) Article IX of said Decree is not affected by this list of present perfected rights.
(4) Any water right listed herein may be exercised only for beneficial uses.
(5) In the event of a determination of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy present perfected rights pursuant to Art. II (B) (3) of said Decree, the Secretary of the Interior shall, before providing for the satisfaction of any of the other present perfected rights except for those listed herein as “MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS” (rights numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) in the order of their priority dates without regard to State lines, first provide for the satisfaction in full of all rights of the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, Cocopah Indian Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation as set forth in Art. II (D)(l)-(5) of said Decree, provided that the quantities fixed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II (D) of said Decree shall continue to be subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined. Additional present perfected rights so adjudicated by such adjustment shall be in annual quantities not to exceed the quantities of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of the practicably irrigable acres which are included within any area determined to be within a reservation by such final determination of a boundary and for the satisfaction of related uses. The quantities of diversions are to be computed by determining net practicably irrigable acres within each additional area using the methods set forth by the Special Master in this case in his Report to this Court dated December 5, 1960, and by applying the unit diversion quantities thereto, as listed below:
Unit Diversion Quantity Acre-Feet Indian Reservation Per Irrigable Acre
Cocopah 6.37
Colorado River 6.67
Chemehuevi 5.97
Ft. Mojave 6.46
Ft. Yuma 6.67
The foregoing reference to a quantity of water necessary to supply consumptive use required for irrigation, and as that provision is included within paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II (D) of said Decree, shall constitute the means of determining quantity of adjudicated water rights but shall not constitute a restriction of the usage of them to irrigation or other agricultural application. If all or part of the adjudicated water rights of any of the five Indian Reservations is used other than for irrigation or other agricultural application, the total consumptive use, as that term is defined in Art. I (A) of said Decree, for said Reservation shall not exceed the consumptive use that would have resulted if the diversions listed in subparagraph (i) of paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II (D) of said Decree and the equivalent portions of any supplement thereto had been used for irrigation of the number of acres specified for that Reservation in said paragraphs and supplement and for the satisfaction of related uses. Effect shall be given to this paragraph notwithstanding the priority dates of the present perfected rights as listed below. However, nothing in this paragraph (5) shall affect the order in which such rights listed below as “MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS” (numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) shall be satisfied. Furthermore, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to determine the order of satisfying any other Indian water rights claims not herein specified.
I
ARIZONA
A. Federal Establishments’ Present Perfected Rights
The federal establishments named in Art. II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of the Decree entered March 9, 1964, in this case, such rights having been decreed in Art. II:
Defined Area of Land Annual Diversions Net Priority (acre-feet) Acres1 Date
1) Cocopah Indian Reservation 2,744 431 Sept. 27, 1917
2) Colorado River Indian Reservation 358,400 53,768 Mar. 3, 1865 252,016 37,808 Nov. 22, 1873 51,986 7,799 Nov. 16, 1874
3) Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 27,969 4,327 Sept. 18, 1890 68,447 10,589 Feb. 2, 1911
B. Water Projects’ Present Perfected Rights
(4) The Valley Division, Yuma Project in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 254,200 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 43,562 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1901.
(5) The Yuma Auxiliary Project, Unit B in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 6,800 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,225 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8, 1905.
(6) The North Gila Valley Unit, Yuma Mesa Division, Gila Project in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 24,500 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 4,030 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8, 1905.
C. Miscellaneous Present Perfected Rights
1. The following miscellaneous present perfected rights in Arizona in annual quantities of water not to exceed the listed acre-feet of diversion from the mainstream to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation and the satisfaction of related uses within the boundaries of the land described and with the priority dates listed :
Defined Area of Land Annual Diversions Priority (acre-feet) Date
7) 160 acres in Lots 21, 24, and 25, Sec. 29 and Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18, and the SW% of the SE^, Sec. 30, T.16S., R.22E., San Bernardino Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona. (Powers) 2 960 1915
8) Lots 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22 and SVs of SW%, Sec. 30, T.16S., R.22E., San Bernardino Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona. (United States) 1,140 1915
Footnotes to table items 7 through 25 are on p. 428.
Defined Area of Land Annual Diversions (acre-feet) Priority-Date
9) 60 acres within Lot 2, Sec. 15 and Lots 1 and 2, Sec. 22, T.10N., R.19W, G&SRBM. (Graham) 2 360 1910
10) 180 acres within the N% of the S% and the S% of the N% of See. 13 and the SW% of the NE14 of Sec. 14, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. (Hulet)2 1,080 1902
11) 45 acres within the NE% of the SW1^, the SW% of the SW% and the SE% of the SW% of Sec. 11, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. 80 acres within the N% of the SW% of Sec. 11, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. 10 acres within the NW% of the NE% of the NE% of Sec. 15, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. 40 acres within the SE% of the SE^4 of Sec. 15, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. (Hursehler) 1,050 1902
12) 40 acres within Sec. 13, T.17N., R.22W., G&SRBM. (Mifier)2 240 1902
13) 120 acres within Sec. 27, T.18N., R.21W.,) G&SRBM. 15 acres within the NW14 of the NW%, Sec. 23, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. (McKellips and Granite Reef Farms) 810 1902
14) 180 acres within the NW% of the NE^, the SW^ of the NE(4, the NE% of the SW%, the NW% of the SE%, the NE% of the SE%, and the SW*4 of the SE%, and the SE% of the SE^, Sec. 31, T.18N., R.21W., G&SRBM. (Sherrill & Lafollette) 4 1,080 1902
Defined Area of Land Annual Diversions (acre-feet) Priority Date
16) 53.89 acres as follows: Beginning at a point 995.1 feet easterly of the NW comer of the NE% of Sec. 10, T.8S., R.22W., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian; on the northerly boundary of the said NE%, which is the true point of beginning, then in a southerly direction to a point on the southerly boundary of the said NE% which is 991.2 feet E. of the SW comer of said NE% thence easterly along the S. line of the NE%, a distance of 807.3 feet to a point, thence N. 0°7' W., 768.8 feet to a point, thence E. 124.0 feet to a point, thence northerly 0°14' W., 1,067.6 feet to a point, thence E. 130 feet to a point, thence northerly 0°20' W., 405.2 feet to a point, thence northerly 63° 10' W., 506.0 feet to a point, thence northerly 90° 15' W., 562.9 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of the said NE^, thence easterly along the said northerly boundary of the said NE^, 116.6 feet to the true point of the beginning containing 53.89 acres. All as more particularly described and set forth in that survey executed by Thomas A. Yowell, Land Surveyor on June 24, 1969. (Molina) 4 318 1928
16) 60 acres within the NW1/^ of the NW% and the north half of the SW% of the NW^A of Sec. 14, T.8S., R.22W., G&SRBM. 70 acres within the S% of the SW^A of the ’ SW^, and the W% of the SW%, Sec. 14, T.8S., R.22W., G&SRBM. (Sturges) 4 780 1925
17) 120 acres within the N% NE^, NE% NW%, Section 23, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM. (Zozaya) 4 720 1912
Defined Area of Laud Annual Diversions Priority (acre-feet) Date
18) 40 acres in the W% of the NE% of Section 30, and 60 acres in the W% of the SE% of Section 30, and 60 acres in the E% of the NW% of Section 31, comprising a total of 160 acres all in Township 18 North, Range 21 West of the G&SRBM. (Swan) 4 960 1902
19) 7 acres in the East 300 feet of the W% of Lot 1 (Lot 1, being the SE1^ SE1^, 40 acres mofe or less), Section 28, Township 16 South, Range 22 East, San Bernardino Meridian, lying North of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation levee right of way. EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the United States of America by instrument recorded in Docket 417, page 150 EXCEPTING any portion of the East 300 feet of W% of Lot 1 within the natural bed of the Colorado River below the line of ordinary high water and also EXCEPTING any artificial accretions water-ward of said line of ordinary high water, all of which comprises approximately seven (7) acres. (Milton and Jean Phillips) 4 42 1900
2. The following miscellaneous present perfected rights in Arizona in annual quantities of water not to exceed the listed number of acre-feet of (i) diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use, whichever of (i) or (ii) is. less, for domestic, municipal, and industrial purposes within the boundaries of the land described and with the priority dates listed:
Annual Annual Consumptive Diversions Use Priority Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Date
20) City of Parker2 t-i CD O Ox O O O CO CD
21) City of Yuma2 f — i QO CD ÜO OO t*CO CO CO <N
II
CALIFORNIA
A. Federal Establishments’ Present Perfected Rights
The federal establishments named in Art. II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) of the Decree entered March 9, 1964, in this case such rights having been decreed by Art. II:
Annual Diversions Net Priority Defined Area of Land _ (acre-feet) Acres5 Date
1,900 Feb. 2,1907 22) Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 11,340
7,743 Jam. 9,1884 23) Yuma Indian Reservation 51,616
Nov. 22,1873 Nov. 16,1874 May 15,1876 24) Colorado River Indian Reservation 10,745 40,241 3,760 Qi 1 — i Ox W0 'Oi Q CO H lil Nl W
2119 Sept. 18,1890 25) Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 13,698
B. Water Districts' and Projects’ Present Perfected Rights
26) The Palo Verde Irrigation District in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 219,780 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 33,604 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1877.
27) The Imperial Irrigation District in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 2,600,000 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 424,145 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1901.
28) The Reservation Division, Yuma Project, California (non-Indian portion) in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 38,270 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 6,294 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8, 1905.
C. Miscellaneous Present Perfected Rights
1. The following miscellaneous present perfected rights in California in annual quantities of water not to exceed the listed number of acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation and the satisfaction of related uses within the boundaries of the land described and with the priority dates listed: ■
Annual Diversions Priority Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Date
29) 130 acres within Lots 1, 2, and 3, SE(4 of 780 1856 NE*4 of Section 27, T.16S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Wavers)6
Footnotes to table items 29 through 80 are on p. 435.
Annual Diversions Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Priority Date
30) 40 acres within W%, W% of E% of Section 1, 240 T.9N., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Stephenson) 8 1923
31) 20 acres within Lots 1 and 2, Sec. 19, T.13S., 120 R.23E., and Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Sec. 24, T.13S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Mendivil)6 1893
32) 30 acres within NW% of SE%, S% of SE^, 180 Sec. 24, and NW% of NE%, Sec. 25, all in T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Grannis)6 1928
33) 25 acres within Lot 6, Sec. 5; and Lots 1 and 2, 150 SW% of NEÜ, and NE% of SE% of Sec. 8, and Lots 1 & 2 of Sec. 9, all in T.13S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Morgan)6 1913
34) 18 acres within E% of NW% and W% of 108 NE% of Sec. 14, T.10S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Milpitas) 6 1918
35) 10 acres within of NE%, SE% of NE%, 60 and NE% of SE*4, Sec. 30, T.9N., R.23E., S.B.B. & M. (Simons) 6 1889
36) 16 acres within E% of NW% and N% of 96 SW14, See. 12, T.9N., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Colo. R. Sportsmen’s League) 8 1921
37) 11.5 acres within E% of NW1^, Sec. 1, T.10S., 69 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Milpitas) 8 1914
38) 11 acres within S% of SW%, Sec. 12, T.9N., 66 R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Andrade) 8 1921
39) 6 acres within Lots 2, 3, and 7 and NE% of 36 SW%, Sec. 19, T.9N., R.23E., S.B.B. & M. (Reynolds)8 1904
Defined Area of Land Annual Diversions Priority (acre-feet) Date
40) 10 acres within N% of NE%, SE% of NE^ 60 1905 and NE% of SE%, Sec. 24, T.9N., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Cooper)6
41) 20 acres within SW% of SW% (Lot 8), Sec. 19, 120 1925 T.9N., R.23E., S.B.B. & M. (Chagnon) 7
42) 20 acres within NE& of SW%, NV2 of SE%, 120 1915 SWA of SE&, Sec. 14, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Lawrence) 7
2. The following miscellaneous present perfected rights in California in annual quantities of water not to exceed the listed number of acre-feet of (i) diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, for domestic, municipal, and industrial purposes within the boundaries of the land described and with the priority dates listed:
Annual Annual Consumptive Diversions Use Priority Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Date
43) City of Needles 1,500 950 1885
44) Portions of: Secs. 5, 6, 7 & 8, T.7N., 1,260 273 1896 R.24E.; Sec. 1, T.7N., R.23E.; Secs. 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 35, & 36, T.8N., R.23E.; Secs. 19, 29, 30, 32 & 33, T.9N., R.23E., S.B.B. & M. (Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.) 6
45) Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & SW% NW±4 of 1.0 0.6 1921 Sec. 5, T.13S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Conger)7
Annual Annual Consumptive Diversions Use Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Priority Date
46) Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 of Sec. 32, T.11S., R.22E., 1.0 S.B.B. & M. (G. Draper) 7 0.6 1923
47) Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and SE% SW% of Sec. 1.0 20, T.11S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (McDonough) 7 0.6 1919
48) SW*4 of See. 25, T.8S., R.22E., S.B.B. 1.0 & M. (Faubion) 7 0.6 1925
49) Wy2 NW% of Sec. 12, T.9N., R.22E., 1.0 S.B.B. & M. (Dudley) 7 0.6 1922
50) N% SEy, and Lots 1 and 2 of Sec. 13, 1.0 T.8S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Douglas) 7 0.6 1916
51) N% SWÁ, NW% SE%, Lots 6 and 7, 1.0 Sec. 5, T.9S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Beauchamp) 7 0.6 1924
52) NE*4 SE%, SE% NE%, and Lot 1, 1.0 Sec. 26, T.8S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Clark) 7 0.6 1916
53) N% SW%, NW% SEyé, SW% NE%, 1.0 Sec. 13, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Lawrence) 7 0.6 1915
54) N% NE%, W/z NWVi, Sec. 13, T.9S., 1.0 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (J. Graham) 7 0.6 1914
55) SE%, Sec. 1, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. 1.0 (Geiger)7 0.6 1910
Annual Diversions Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Annual Consumptive Use (acre-feet) Priority-Date
56) Fractional of SW% (Lot 6) Sec. 1.0 6, T.9S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Schneider) 7 0.6 1917
57) Lot 1, See. 15; Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 14; 1.0 Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 23; all in T.13S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Martinez) 7 0.6 1895
58) NE14, Sec. 22, T.9S., R.21E, S.B.B. & 1.0 M. (Earle) 7 0.6 1925
59) NE& SE%, Sec. 22, T.9S., R.21E., 1.0 S.B.B. & M. (Diehl)7 0.6 1928
60) N% NW%, Ni/2 NE%, Sec. 23, T.9S., 1.0 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Reid)7 0.6 1912
61) Wy2 SW%, Sec. 23, T.9S., R.‘2lE., 1.0 S.B.B. & M. (Graham)7 0.6 1916
62) Sy2 NW%, NE% SW%, SW% NE%, 1.0 Sec. 23, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Cate)7 0.6 1919
63) SE% NE%, Ny2 SE%, SE% SEPA, 1.0 Sec. 23, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (McGee)7 0.6 1924
64) SW% SEPA, SE% SW%, Sec. 23, NE% 1.0 NW%, NW% NE%, Sec. 26; afi in T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Stafiard) 7 0.6 1924
65) W2 SEPA, SE% SE%, Sec. 26, T.9S., 1.0 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Randolph)7 0.6 1926
Annual Diversions Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Annual Consumptive Use (acre-feet) Priority Date
66) E% NE%, SW% NE%, SE% NW%, 1-0 Sec. 26, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Stallard)7 0.6 1928
67) S% SWJ4, See. 13, N% NW%, Sec. 1.0 24; all in T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Keefe)7 0.6 1926
68) SE14 NW%, NW% SE%, Lots 2, 3 & 1.0 4, Sec. 25, T.13S., R.23E., S.B.B. & M. (C. Ferguson)7 0.6 1903
69) Lots 4 & 7, Sec. 6; Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 7; 1.0 all in T.14S., R.24E., S.B.B. & M. (W. Ferguson)7 0.6 1903
70) SW(4 SE}4, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Sec. 24, 1.0 T.12S., R.21E., Lot 2, Sec. 19, T.12S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Vaulin)7 0.6 1920
71) Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sec. 25, T.12S., 1.0 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Salisbury)7 0.6 1920
72) Lots 2, 3, SE% SE%, Sec. 15, NE% 1.0 NE%, Sec. 22; all in T.13S., R.22E., 5.B.B. & M. (Hadlock)7 0.6 1924
73) SW% NE%, SE(4 NW)4, and Lots 7 1.0 & 8, Sec. 6, T.9S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Streeter) 7 0.6 1903
74) Lot 4, Sec. 5; Lots 1 & 2, Sec. 7; Lots 1.0 1 & 2, Sec. 8; Lot 1, Sec. 18; all in T.12S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (J. Draper) 7 0.6 1903
Defined Area of Land Annual Annual Consumptive Diversions Use (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Priority-Date
75) SW% NW%, Sec. 5; SE% NE% and 1.0 Lot 9, Sec. 6; all in T.9S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Fitz) ^ 0.6 1912
76) NW% NE%, Sec. 26; Lots 2 & 3, 1.0 W/2 SE%, Sec. 23; all in T.8S., R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Williams)7 0.6 1909
77) Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Sec. 25, T.8S., 1.0 R.22E., S.B.B. & M. (Estrada)7 0.6 1928
78) S% NW%, Lot 1, frac. NE% SW%, 1.0 Sec. 25, T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Whittle)7 0.6 1925
79) W/z NW%, See. 25; S% SW%, Sec. 1.0 24; all in T.9S., R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Corington)7 0.6 1928
80) Sy2 NW%, N% SW%, See. 24, T.9S., 1.0 R.21E., S.B.B. & M. (Tolliver) 0.6 1928
III
NEVADA
A. Federal Establishments’ Present Perfected Rights
The federal establishments named in Art. II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Decree entered on March 9, 1964, in this case, such rights having been decreed by Art. II:
Annual Diversions Net Priority-Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Acres Date
81) 12,534 1,939 s Sept. 18,1890 Fort Mojave Indian Reservation
300 May 3, 1929 82) Lake Mead National Recreation 500 Area (The Overton Area of Lake Mead N.R.A. provided in Executive Order 5105)
It is ordered that Judge Elbert P. Tuttle be appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.
The Master shall be allowed his actual expenses. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct.
It is further ordered that if the position of Special Master in this case becomes vacant during a recess of the Court, The Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the Court.
It is further ordered that the motion of Fort Mojave Indian Tribe et al. for leave to intervene, insofar as it seeks intervention to oppose entry of the supplemental decree, is denied. In all other respects, this motion and the motion of Colorado River Indian Tribes et al. for leave to intervene are referred to the Special Master.
Mb. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The quantity of water in each instance is measured by (i) diversions or (ii
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here decide that the timeliness provision in the federal habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d). We also consider its application in this case. In the Court of Appeals’ view, when a petitioner seeks to excuse a late filing on the basis of his attorney’s unprofessional conduct, that conduct, even if it is “negligent” or “grossly negligent,” cannot “rise to the level of egregious attorney misconduct” that would warrant equitable tolling unless the petitioner offers “proof of bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment or so forth.” 539 F. 3d 1334, 1339 (CA11 2008) (per euriam). In our view, this standard is too rigid. See Irwin v. Department of Vet erans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 96 (1990); see also Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U. S. 327, 336 (2007). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
I
AEDPA states that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” § 2244(d)(1). It also says that “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction... review” is “pending shall not be counted” against the 1-year period. § 2244(d)(2).
On January 19, 2006, Albert Holland filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Both Holland (the petitioner) and the State of Florida (the respondent) agree that, unless equitably tolled, the statutory limitations period applicable to Holland’s petition expired approximately five weeks before the petition was filed. See Brief for Respondent 9, and n. 7; Brief for Petitioner 5, and n. 4. Holland asked the District Court to toll the limitations period for equitable reasons. We shall set forth in some detail the record facts that underlie Holland’s claim.
A
In 1997, Holland was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. Holland v. State, 773 So. 2d 1065 (2000). On October 1, 2001, this Court denied Holland’s petition for certiorari. 534 U. S. 834. And on that date — the date that our denial of the petition ended further direct review of Holland’s conviction — the 1-year AEDPA limitations clock began to run. See 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U. S. 113, 119 (2009).
Thirty-seven days later, on November 7, 2001, Florida appointed attorney Bradley Collins to represent Holland in all state and federal postconvietion proceedings. Cf. Fla. Stat. §§27.710, 27.711(2) (2007). By September 19, 2002 — 316 days after his appointment and 12 days before the 1-year AEDPA limitations period expired — Collins, acting on Holland's behalf, filed a motion for postconviction relief in the state trial court. Cf. Brief for Respondent 9, n. 7. That filing automatically stopped the running of the AEDPA limitations period, § 2244(d)(2), with, as we have said, 12 days left on the clock.
For the next three years, Holland's petition remained pending in the state courts. During that time, Holland wrote Collins letters asking him to make certain that all of his claims would be preserved for any subsequent federal habeas corpus review. Collins wrote back, stating, “I would like to reassure you that we are aware of state time-limitations and federal exhaustion requirements.” App. 55. He also said that he would “presen[t]... to the... federal courts” any of Holland's claims that the state courts denied. Ibid. In a second letter Collins added, “should your Motion for Post-Conviction Relief be denied” by the state courts, “your state habeas corpus claims will then be ripe for presentation in a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court.” Id., at 61.
In mid-May 2003, the state trial court denied Holland relief, and Collins appealed that denial to the Florida Supreme Court. Almost two years later, in February 2005, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. See 539 F. 3d, at 1337. But during that 2-year period, relations between Collins and Holland began to break down. Indeed, between April 2003 and January 2006, Collins communicated with Holland only three times — each time by letter. See No. l:06-cv-20182-PAS (SD Fla., Apr. 27, 2007), p. 7, n. 6 (hereinafter District Court opinion), App. 91, n. 6.
Holland, unhappy with this lack of communication, twice wrote to the Florida Supreme Court, asking it to remove Collins from his case. In the second letter, filed on June 17, 2004, he said that he and Collins had experienced “a complete breakdown in communication.” App. 160. Holland informed the court that Collins had “not kept [him] updated on the status of [his] capital case” and that Holland had “not seen or spoken to” Collins “since April 2003.” Id., at 150. He wrote, “Mr. Collins has abandoned [me]” and said, “[I have] no idea what is going on with [my] capital ease on appeal.” Id., at 152. He added that “Collins has never made any reasonable effort to establish any relationship of trust or confidence with [me],” id., at 155, and stated that he “does not trust” or have “any confidence in Mr. Collin’s ability to represent [him],” id., at 152. Holland concluded by asking that Collins be “dismissed (removed) off his capital case” or that he be given a hearing in order to demonstrate Collins’ deficiencies. Id., at 155, 161. The State responded that Holland could not file any pro se papers with the court while he was represented by counsel, including papers seeking new counsel. Id., at 42-45. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and denied Holland’s requests. Id., at 46.
During this same period Holland wrote various letters to the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court. In the last of these he wrote, “[I]f I had a competent, conflict-free, postconviction, appellate attorney representing me, I would not have to write you this letter. I’m not trying to get on your nerves. I just would like to know exactly what is happening with my case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.” Id., at 147. During that same time period, Holland also filed a complaint against Collins with the Florida Bar Association, but the complaint was denied. Id., at 65-67.
Collins argued Holland’s appeal before the Florida Supreme Court on February 10, 2005. 539 F. 3d, at 1337. Shortly thereafter, Holland wrote to Collins emphasizing the importance of filing a timely petition for habeas corpus in federal court once the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling. Specifically, on March 3, 2005, Holland wrote:
“Dear Mr. Collins, P. A.:
“How are you? Fine I hope.
“I write this letter to ask that you please write me back, as soon as possible to let me know what the status of my case is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.
“If the Florida Supreme Court denies my [postconviction] and State Habeas Corpus appeals, please file my 28 U S. C. 2254 writ of Habeas Corpus petition, before my deadline to file it runs out (expires).
“Thank you very much.
“Please have a nice day.” App. 210 (emphasis added).
Collins did not answer this letter.
On June 15, 2005, Holland wrote again:
“Dear Mr. Collins:
“How are you? Fine I hope.
“On March 3, 2005 I wrote you a letter, asking that you let me know the status of my case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.
“Also, have you begun preparing my 28 U. S. C. §2254 writ of Habeas Corpus petition? Please let me know, as soon as possible.
“Thank you.” Id., at 212 (emphasis added).
But again, Collins did not reply.
Five months later, in November 2005, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision denying Holland relief. Holland v. State, 916 So. 2d 750 (per curiam). Three weeks after that, on December 1, 2005, the court issued its mandate, making its decision final. 539 F. 3d, at 1337. At that point, the AEDPA federal habeas clock again began to tick — with 12 days left on the 1-year meter. See Coates v. Byrd, 211 F. 3d 1225 (CA11 2000) (per curiam) (AEDPA clock restarts when state court completes postconviction review); Lawrence, 549 U. S. 327 (same). Twelve days later, on December 13, 2005, Holland’s AEDPA time limit expired.
B
Four weeks after the AEDPA time limit expired, on January 9, 2006, Holland, still unaware of the Florida Supreme Court ruling issued in his case two months earlier, wrote Collins a third letter:
“Dear Mr. Bradley M. Collins:
“How are you? Fine I hope.
“I write this letter to ask that you please let me know the status of my appeals before the Supreme Court of Florida. Have my appeals been decided yet?
“Please send me the [necessary information]... so that I can determine when the deadline will be to file my 28 U. S. C. Rule 2254 Federal Habeas Corpus Petition, in accordance with all United States Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit case law and applicable ‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act/ if my appeals before the Supreme Court of Florida are denied.
“Please be advised that I want to preserve my privilege to federal review of all of my state convictions and sentences.
“Mr. Collins, would you please also inform me, as to which United States District Court my 28 U. S. C. Rule 2254 Federal Habeas Corpus Petition will have to be timely filed in and that court’s address?
“Thank you very much.” App. 214.
Collins did not answer.
Nine days later, on January 18, 2006, Holland, working in the prison library, learned for the first time that the Florida Supreme Court had issued a final determination in his case and that its mandate had issued — five weeks prior. 589 F. 3d, at 1337. He immediately wrote out his own pro se federal habeas petition and mailed it to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida the next day. Ibid. The petition begins by stating,
“Comes now Albert R. Holland, Jr., a Florida death row inmate and states that court appointed counsel has failed to undertake timely action to seek Federal Review in my case by filing a 28 U. S. C. Rule 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on my behalf.” App. 181.
It then describes the various constitutional claims that Holland hoped to assert in federal court.
The same day that he mailed that petition, Holland received a letter from Collins telling him that Collins intended to file a petition for certiorari in this Court from the State Supreme Court’s most recent ruling. Holland answered immediately:
“Dear Mr. Bradley M. Collins:
“Since recently, the Supreme Court of Florida has denied my [postconviction] and state writ of Habeas Corpus Petition. I am left to understand that you are planning to seek certiorari on these matters.
“It’s my understanding that the AEDPA time limitations is not tolled during discretionary appellate reviews, such as certiorari applications resulting from denial of state post conviction proceedings.
“Therefore, I advise you not to file certiorari if doing so affects or jeopardizes my one year grace period as prescribed by the AEDPA.
“Thank you very much.” Id., at 216 (some emphasis deleted).
Holland was right about the law. See Coates, supra, at 1226-1227 (AEDPA not tolled during pendency of petition for certiorari from judgment denying state postconviction review); accord, Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F. 3d 1221, 1225 (CA11 2005), aff’d, 549 U. S., at 331-336.
On January 26, 2006, Holland tried to call Collins from prison. But he called collect and Collins’ office would not accept the call. App. 218. Five days later, Collins wrote to Holland and told him for the very first time that, as Collins understood AEDPA law, the limitations period applicable to Holland’s federal habeas application had in fact expired in 2000 — before Collins had begun to represent Holland. Specifically, Collins wrote:
“Dear Mr. Holland:
“I am in receipt of your letter dated January 20,2006 concerning operation of AEDPA time limitations. One hurdle in our upcoming efforts at obtaining federal ha-beas corpus relief will be that the one-year statutory time frame for filing such a petition began to run after the case was affirmed on October 5, 2000 [when your] Judgment and Sentence... were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. However, it was not until November 7, 2001, that I received the Order appointing me to the case. As you can see, I was appointed about a year after your case became final....
“[T]he AEDPA time-period [thus] had run before my appointment and therefore before your [postconviction] motion was filed.” Id., at 78-79 (emphasis added).
Collins was wrong about the law. As we have said, Holland’s 1-year limitations period did not begin to run until this Court denied Holland’s petition for certiorari from the state courts’ denial of relief on direct review, which occurred on October 1, 2001. See 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Jimenez, 555 U. S., at 119; Bond v. Moore, 309 F. 3d 770, 774 (CA11 2002). And when Collins was appointed (on November 7, 2001) the AEDPA clock therefore had 328 days left to go.
Holland immediately wrote back to Collins, pointing this out.
“Dear Mr. Collins:
“I received your letter dated January 31, 2006. You are incorrect in stating that ‘the one-year statutory time frame for filing my 2254 petition began to run after my case was affirmed on October 5, 2000, by the Florida Supreme Court.’ As stated on page three of [the recently filed] Petition for a writ of certiorari, October 1, 2001 is when the United States Supreme Court denied my initial petition for writ of certiorari and that is when my ease became final. That meant that the time would be tolled once I filed my [postconviction] motion in the trial court.
“Also, Mr. Collins you never told me that my time ran out (expired). I told you to timely file my 28 U. S. C. 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition before the deadline, so that I would not be time-barred.
“You never informed me of oral arguments or of the Supreme Court of Florida’s November 10, 2005 decision denying my postconviction appeals. You never kept me informed about the status of my case, although you told me that you would immediately inform me of the court’s decision as soon as you heard anything.
“Mr. Collins, I filed a motion on January 19, 2006 [in federal court] to preserve my rights, because I did not want to be time-barred. Have you heard anything about the aforesaid motion? Do you know what the status of aforesaid motion is?
“Mr. Collins, please file my 2254 Habeas Petition immediately. Please do not wait any longer, even though it will be untimely filed at least it will be filed without wasting anymore time, (valuable time).
“Again, please file my 2254 Petition at once.
“Your letter is the first time that you have ever mentioned anything to me about my time had run out, before you were appointed to represent me, and that my one-year started to run on October 5, 2000.
“Please find out the status of my motion that I filed on January 19, 2006 and let me know.
“Thank you very much.” App. 222-223.
Collins did not answer this letter. Nor did he file a federal habeas petition as Holland requested.
On March 1,2006, Holland filed another complaint against Collins with the Florida Bar Association. See Record, Doc. 41, Exh. 1, p. 8. This time the bar asked Collins to respond, which he did, through his own attorney, on March 21. Id., at 2. And the very next day, over three months after Holland’s AEDPA statute of limitations had expired, Collins mailed a proposed federal habeas petition to Holland, asking him to review it. See id., Doc. 20, Exh. W.
But by that point Holland had already filed a pro se motion in the District Court asking that Collins be dismissed as his attorney. App. 192. The State responded to that request by arguing once again that Holland could not file a pro se motion seeking to have Collins removed while he was represented by counsel, i. e., represented by Collins. See id., at 47-51. But this time the court considered Holland’s motion, permitted Collins to withdraw from the case, and appointed a new lawyer for Holland. See Record, Docs. 9-10, 17-18, 22. And it also received briefing on whether the circumstances of the case justified the equitable tolling of the AEDPA limitations period for a sufficient period of time (approximately five weeks) to make Holland’s petition timely.
C
After considering the briefs, the Federal District Court held that the facts did not warrant equitable tolling and that consequently Holland’s petition was untimely. The court, noting that Collins had prepared numerous filings on Holland’s behalf in the state courts, and suggesting that Holland was a difficult client, intimated, but did not hold, that Collins’ professional conduct in the case was at worst merely “negligent.” See District Court opinion 7-8, App. 90-93. But the court rested its holding on an alternative rationale: It wrote that, even if Collins’ “behavior could be characterized as an ‘extraordinary circumstance,’” Holland “did not seek any help from the court system to find out the date [the] mandate issued denying his state habeas petition, nor did he seek aid from ‘outside supporters.’” Id., at 8, App. 92. Hence, the court held, Holland did not “demonstrate” the “due diligence” necessary to invoke “equitable tolling.” Ibid.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that Holland’s habeas petition was untimely. The Court of Appeals first agreed with Holland that “ ‘[ejquitable tolling can be applied to... AEDPA’s statutory deadline.’ ” 539 F. 3d, at 1338 (quoting Helton v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 259 F. 3d 1310, 1312 (CA11 2001)). But it also held that equitable tolling could not be applied in a ease, like Holland’s, that involves no more than “[pjure professional negligence” on the part of a petitioner’s attorney because such behavior can never constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.” 539 F. 3d, at 1339. The court wrote:
“We will assume that Collins’s alleged conduct is negligent, even grossly negligent. But in our view, no allegation of lawyer negligence or of failure to meet a lawyer’s standard of care — in the absence of an allegation and proof of bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment or so forth on the lawyer’s part— can rise to the level of egregious attorney misconduct that would entitle Petitioner to equitable tolling.” Ibid.
Holland made “no allegation” that Collins had made a “knowing or reckless factual misrepresentation,” or that he exhibited “dishonesty,” “divided loyalty,” or “mental impairment.” Ibid. Hence, the court held, equitable tolling was per se inapplicable to Holland’s habeas petition. The court did not address the District Court’s ruling with respect to Holland’s diligence.
Holland petitioned for certiorari. Because the Court of Appeals’ application of the equitable tolling doctrine to instances of professional misconduct conflicts with the approach taken by other Circuits, we granted the petition. Compare 539 F. 3d 1334 (case below) with, e. g., Baldayaque v. United States, 338 F. 3d 145, 152-153 (CA2 2003) (applying a less categorical approach); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F. 3d 796, 801-802 (CA9 2003) (same).
II
We have not decided whether AEDPA’s statutory limitations period may be tolled for equitable reasons. See Lawrence, 549 U. S., at 336; Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408, 418, n. 8 (2005). Now, like all 11 Courts of Appeals that have considered the question, we hold that § 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. See Neverson v. Farquharson, 366 F. 3d 32, 41 (CA1 2004); Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F. 3d 13, 17 (CA2 2000) (per curiam); Miller v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 145 F. 3d 616, 617 (CA3 1998); Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F. 3d 325, 329-330 (CA4 2000); Davis v. Johnson, 158 F. 3d 806, 810 (CA5 1998); McClendon v. Sherman, 329 F. 3d 490, 492 (CA6 2003); Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F. 3d 597, 598 (CA7 1999); Moore v. United States, 173 F. 3d 1131, 1134 (CA8 1999); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for Central Dist. of Cal., 128 F. 3d 1283, 1289 (CA9 1997); Miller v. Marr, 141 F. 3d 976, 978 (CA10 1998); Sandvik v. United States, 177 F. 3d 1269, 1272 (CA11 1999) (per curiam).
We base our conclusion on the following considerations. First, the AEDPA “statute of limitations defense... is not ‘jurisdictional.’” Day v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 198, 205 (2006). It does not set forth “an inflexible rule requiring dismissal whenever” its “clock has run.” Id., at 208. See also id., at 213 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“We have repeatedly stated that the enactment of time-limitation periods such as that in § 2244(d), without further elaboration, produces defenses that are nonjurisdictional and thus subject to waiver and forfeiture” (citing cases)); Brief for Respondent 22 (describing AEDPA limitations period as “non-jurisdictional”).
We have previously made clear that a nonjurisdictional federal statute of limitations is normally subject to a “rebut-table presumption” in favor “of equitable tolling.” Irwin, 498 U. S., at 95-96; see also Young v. United States, 535 U. S. 43, 49 (2002) (“It is hornbook law that limitations periods are 'customarily subject to “equitable tolling” ’ ” (quoting Irwin, swpra, at 95)).
In the case of AEDPA, the presumption’s strength is reinforced by the fact that '"equitable principles’” have traditionally “ 'governed’ ” the substantive law of habeas corpus, Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S. 674, 693 (2008), for we will “not construe a statute to displace courts’ traditional equitable authority absent the 'clearest command,’ ” Miller v. French, 530 U. S. 327, 340 (2000) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 705 (1979)). The presumption’s strength is yet further reinforced by the fact that Congress enacted AEDPA after this Court decided Irwin and therefore was likely aware that courts, when interpreting AEDPA’s timing provisions, would apply the presumption. See, e. g., Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633, 648 (2010).
Second, the statute here differs significantly from the statutes at issue in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347 (1997), and United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38 (1998), two cases in which we held that Irwin’s presumption had been overcome. In Brockamp, we interpreted a statute of limitations that was silent on the question of equitable tolling as foreclosing application of that doctrine. But in doing so we emphasized that the statute at issue (1) “se[t] forth its time limitations in unusually emphatic form”; (2) used “highly detailed” and “technical” language “that, linguistically speaking, cannot easily be read as containing implicit exceptions”; (3) “reiterate[d] its limitations several times in several different ways”; (4) related to an “underlying subject matter,” nationwide tax collection, with respect to which the practical consequences of permitting tolling would have been substantial; and (5) would, if tolled, “require tolling, not only procedural limitations, but also substantive limitations on the amount of recovery — a kind of tolling for which we... found no direct precedent.” 519 U. S., at 350-352. And in Beg-gerly we held that Irwin’s presumption was overcome where (1) the 12-year statute of limitations at issue was “unusually generous” and (2) the underlying claim “deal[t] with ownership of land” and thereby implicated landowners’ need to “know with certainty what their rights are, and the period during which those rights may be subject to challenge.” 524 U. S., at 48-49.
By way of contrast, AEDPA’s statute of limitations, unlike the statute at issue in Brockamp, does not contain language that is “unusually emphatic,” nor does it “reiterat[e]” its time limitation. Neither would application of equitable tolling here affect the “substance” of a petitioner’s claim. Moreover, in contrast to the 12-year limitations period at issue in Beggerly, AEDPA’s limitations period is not particularly long. And unlike the subject matters at issue in both Brockamp and Beggerly — tax collection and land claims— AEDPA’s subject matter, habeas corpus, pertains to an area of the law where equity finds a comfortable home. See Munaf, supra, at 693. In short, AEDPA’s 1-year limit reads like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill statute of limitations. See Calderon, supra, at 1288.
Respondent, citing Brockamp, argues that AEDPA should be interpreted to foreclose equitable tolling because the statute sets forth “explicit exceptions to its basic time limits” that do “not include 'equitable tolling.’ ” 519 U. S., at 351; see Brief for Respondent 27. The statute does contain multiple provisions relating to the events that trigger its running. See § 2244(d)(1); Clay v. United States, 537 U. S. 522, 529 (2003); see also Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F. 2d 446, 450 (CA7 1990) (“We must... distinguish between the accrual of the plaintiff’s claim and the tolling of the statute of limitations... ”); Wims v. United States, 225 F. 3d 186, 190 (CA2 2000) (same); Wolin v. Smith Barney Inc., 83 F. 3d 847, 852 (CA7 1996) (same). And we concede that it is silent as to equitable tolling while containing one provision that expressly refers to a different kind of tolling. See § 2244(d)(2) (stating that “[t]he time during which” a petitioner has a pending request for state postconviction relief “shall not be counted toward” his “period of limitation” under AEDPA). But the fact that Congress expressly referred to tolling during state collateral review proceedings is easily explained without rebutting the presumption in favor of equitable tolling. A petitioner cannot bring a federal habeas claim without first exhausting state remedies— a process that frequently takes longer than one year. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982); § 2254(b)(1)(A). Hence, Congress had to explain how the limitations statute accounts for the time during which such state proceedings are pending. This special need for an express provision undermines any temptation to invoke the interpretive maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (to include one item (i. e., suspension during state-court collateral review) is to exclude other similar items (i. e., equitable tolling)). See Young, supra, at 53 (rejecting claim that an “express tolling provision, appearing in the same subsection as the [limitations] period, demonstrates a statutory intent not to toll the [limitations] period”).
Third, and finally, we disagree with respondent that equitable tolling undermines AEDPA’s basic purposes. We recognize that AEDPA seeks to eliminate delays in the federal habeas review process. See Day, 547 U. S., at 205-206; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322, 337 (2003). But AEDPA seeks to do- so without undermining basic habeas corpus principles and while seeking to harmonize the new statute with prior law, under which a petition’s timeliness was always determined under equitable principles. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 483 (2000) (“AEDPA’s present provisions... incorporate earlier habeas corpus principles”); see also Day, 547 U. S., at 202, n. 1; id., at 214 (Scalia, J., dissenting); 2 R. Hertz & J. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure §24.2, pp. 1123-1136 (5th ed. 2005). When Congress codified new rules governing this previously judicially managed area of law, it did so without losing sight of the fact that the “writ of habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights.” Slack, 529 U. S., at 483. It did not seek to end every possible delay at all costs. Cf. id., at 483-488. The importance of the Great Writ, the only writ explicitly protected by the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, along with congressional efforts to harmonize the new statute with prior law, counsels hesitancy before interpreting AEDPA’s statutory silence as indicating a congressional intent to close courthouse doors that a strong equitable claim would ordinarily keep open.
For these reasons we conclude that neither AEDPA’s textual characteristics nor the statute’s basic purposes “rebut” the basic presumption set forth in Irwin. And we therefore join the Courts of Appeals in holding that § 2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling.
Ill
We have previously made clear that a “petitioner” is “entitled to equitable tolling” only if he shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way” and prevented timely filing. Pace, 544 U. S., at 418 (emphasis deleted). In this case, the “extraordinary circumstances” at issue involve an attorney’s failure to satisfy professional standards of care. The Court of Appeals held that, where that is so, even attorney conduct that is “grossly negligent” can never warrant tolling absent “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment or so forth on the lawyer’s part.” 539 F. 3d, at 1339. But in our view, the Court of Appeals’ standard is too rigid.
We have said that courts of equity “must be governed by rules and precedents no less than the courts of law.” Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U. S. 314, 323 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). But we have also made clear that often the “exercise of a court’s equity powers... must be made on a case-by-case basis.” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375 (1964). In emphasizing the need for “flexibility,” for avoiding “mechanical rules,” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 396 (1946), we have followed a tradition in which courts of equity have sought to “relieve hardships which, from time to time, arise from a hard and fast adherence” to more absolute legal rules, which, if strictly applied, threaten the “evils of archaic rigidity,” Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238, 248 (1944). The “flexibility” inherent in “equitable procedure” enables courts “to meet new situations [that] demand equitable intervention, and to accord all the relief necessary to correct... particular injustices.” Ibid, (permitting postdeadline filing of bill of review). Taken together, these cases recognize that courts of equity can and do draw upon decisions made in other similar cases for guidance. Such courts exercise judgment in light of prior precedent, but with awareness of the fact that specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case.
We recognize that, in the context of procedural default
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have for review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reversing petitioner’s recovery of an $80,000 judgment against the respondent railroad based on an alleged violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Petitioner was a member of a crew engaged in classifying, or sorting, a number of railroad cars in the respondent’s yards. Twenty-four cars had been coupled together on one track. The twenty-fifth, a Rock Island car, was kicked eastward down the track to couple with the others. It did so, its east end joining the other cars. A Pennsylvania car was the next car kicked eastward down the track, but it and the Rock Island car failed to couple together. After three or four other cars had been added, the Rock Island car and the twenty-four others to which it was attached began rolling down the track. Petitioner ran after the moving train of cars in an attempt to board and stop them, as was his duty. His leg was lost as he fell under a car in this attempt.
The trial was to a jury, petitioner contending that the failure of the Pennsylvania car to join the Rock Island car on impact was in itself a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, resulting in the separation and his injury. Respondent took the position that the criterion of the Act is, “were they [the cars] equipped with efficient couplers?” and not “did they [the couplers] in fact fail to couple?”; and that if there was a violation of the Act, it was not the proximate cause of the injury. The jury returned a verdict for $95,000 which, upon remittitur, was reduced to $80,000. A judgment in this amount was entered. 79 F. Supp. 365 (1948). On appeal the judgment was reversed. 174 F. 2d 486 (1949). We granted certiorari. 338 U. S. 813 (1949).
The Court of Appeals determined the issue of proximate cause favorably to petitioner, and respondent admits that the “problem of causal connection vel non in the Affolder case is legally identical with the same problem in the Carter case. [Carter v. Atlanta & Saint Andrews Bay R. Co., 338 U. S. 430 (1949).]” We agree and consequently hold the issue correctly determined below.
Nor do we think that any question regarding the normal efficiency of the couplers is involved in an action under the Safety Appliance Acts. As we said in O’Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., 338 U. S. 384 (1949), and the Carter case, supra, the duty under the Acts is not based on the negligence of the carrier but is an absolute one requiring performance “on the occasion in question.”
The Court of Appeals based its disposition of the case on the reasoning that the charge given the jury contained “no explanation of the legal effect” of the direct proof of the separation of the cars “and the permissible use which the jury could make of it . . . .” We think the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that the jury could find for the plaintiff only if it inferred “bad condition of the couplers and consequent violation of defendant’s statutory duty . . . .” This was the same error the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit made in O’Donnell, supra, in an opinion relied upon by respondent in the present cause. In subsequently reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we held that the plaintiff did not have to show a “bad” condition of the coupler; she was entitled to a peremptory instruction that to equip a car with a coupler which failed to perform properly “in the switching operation was a violation of the Act, which rendered defendant liable for injuries proximately resulting therefrom, and that neither evidence of negligence nor of diligence and care was to be considered on the question of this liability.” Further, we said, “a failure of equipment to perform as required by the Safety Appliance Act is in itself an actionable wrong . . . .”
Of course this assumes that the coupler was placed in a position to operate on impact. Thus, if “the failure of these two cars to couple on impact was because the coupler on the Pennsylvania car had not been properly opened,” the railroad had a good defense. The Court of Appeals also found fault with the charge on the ground that it deprived defendant of this defense. We cannot agree. The trial court directed the jury at least three times that it was for them to determine the reason why the cars separated and specifically called their attention to the testimony of the head switchman, thus emphasizing the possibility that his failure, if any, to open the coupler was the cause of the separation. Likewise, the argument of counsel, both for plaintiff and defendant, clearly reveals that the sole question with regard to this issue was whether, after the couplers were placed in open or proper position, they failed to couple automatically on impact. The jury, by its verdict, resolved the question against the respondent.
We think the charge, taken as a whole, sufficiently informed the jury of the relevant legal rules.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the amount of damages awarded by the District Court’s judgment is not monstrous in the circumstances of this case. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550 (1886). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the District Court affirmed.
Reversed.
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.” 27 Stat. 531, 45 U. S. C. § 2.
35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60.
The trial court’s charge is set out at length in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 174 F. 2d 486, 488-491.
Defendant had introduced in evidence a small model of the coupler involved and an expert had demonstrated its workings to the jury. Counsel for defendant argued to the jury: “He [plaintiff’s counsel] says it is only necessary to show that there was no coupling. I say he is wrong. I say he must show that there was a failure to couple because the car was not equipped with couplers coupling automatically on impact. If they did not couple, and if they did not couple because of some other reason . . . then there is no liability in this case.” Defendant’s counsel, in using the model, explained his position: If “this lock was held up so that the knuckle would not lock back, it was closed, tell me, ladies and gentlemen, would this knuckle be opened or closed following the accident? Well, obviously, if the failure of the coupling to make was because the knuckle was not locked closed, it would have to be open following the accident, and Millikan testified that the knuckle [an hour after the accident] was not only closed . . . but the pin was seated, the lock was down .... Now, the answer to that, ladies and gentlemen, is the only possible answer . . . this knuckle was closed when the Pennsylvania car was kicked down on to the Rock Island car.”
Plaintiff’s counsel countered:
“I don’t say, and never told you, never will, nor will the Court, that if there is merely separation of cars, plaintiff shall recover. I simply told you, if there is a separation of cars after those devices were put in operation and- did not operate, then they failed to perform their duty, regardless of how they operated before or since, and that we do not have to prove — and the Court will tell you that emphatically — any defect.”
As to whether the knuckle was opened, there was this argument by plaintiff’s counsel:
“Now, let me ask you, did Tielker [the head switchman] open that knuckle or not open it? He says that when he went to open that knuckle, he had difficulty in opening it — he had to push it three times, when it failed to open the first time, showing something was stuck.
“This bad-order card — remember this is on the front end of it— and that is car Pennsylvania 727512. . . . they find that bent operating lever rod, or bent operating lever bracket, don’t they? They find that themselves. This is their card, this is their record.
“What does this card do then that I have in my hand ? What does it do ? It confirms Tielker, doesn’t it ?”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Certiorari was granted in these cases to review federal issues respecting the administration of frozen alien property. 339 U. S. 902.
The cases arose from suits brought by claimants Singer and Banque Mellie Iran to collect from a statutory bank liquidator claims allegedly entitled to a preference under New York Banking Law § 606, arising from transactions with a Japanese corporation, blocked under Executive Orders Nos. 8389, 5 Fed. Reg. 1400; 8832, 6 Fed. Reg. 3715. The New York Court of Appeals held that the transactions gave rise to a preferred claim in the liquidation but that payment by the liquidator must await specific licensing by the Alien Property Custodian of the transactions underlying the claims. Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 293 N. Y. 542, 58 N. E. 2d 726, 299 N. Y. 113, 85 N. E. 2d 894; Banque Mellie Iran v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 299 N. Y. 139, 85 N. E. 2d 906.
Those opposed to the judgments urge that, as a matter of federal law, the freezing order prevented the creation of any claim recognizable under § 606 of the New York Banking Law.
Oral argument and study of the record have convinced us that the judgments of the New York Court of Appeals are not inconsistent with the First War Powers Act of 1941, § 301, 55 Stat. 839, or the above Executive Orders. We accept the New York court’s determination that under New York law these claims arose from transactions in New York and were entitled to a preference. Since the New York court conditioned enforcement of the claims upon licensing by the Alien Property Custodian, federal control over alien property remains undiminished. Our decision in Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, does not require a contrary conclusion. There the liquidator claimed title to frozen assets adversely to the Custodian, and sought to deny the Custodian’s paramount power to vest the alien property in the United States. No such result follows from the New York court’s judgments in the present cases.
Since we further agree that, at the time the New York judgments were entered, no licenses had been issued to these claimants, we affirm the judgments below.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the opinion that since the federal question in Nos. 513 and 528 has been eliminated by the license granted by the Director, Office of Alien Property, no jurisdiction to review remains in this Court. Therefore, the writs of certiorari in these two cases should be dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Eighth Amendment, this Court has held, prohibits the execution of a prisoner whose mental illness prevents him from "rational[ly] understanding" why the State seeks to impose that punishment. Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 959, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007). In this case, Vernon Madison argued that his memory loss and dementia entitled him to a stay of execution, but an Alabama court denied the relief. We now address two questions relating to the Eighth Amendment's bar, disputed below but not in this Court. First, does the Eighth Amendment forbid execution whenever a prisoner shows that a mental disorder has left him without any memory of committing his crime? We (and, now, the parties) think not, because a person lacking such a memory may still be able to form a rational understanding of the reasons for his death sentence. Second, does the Eighth Amendment apply similarly to a prisoner suffering from dementia as to one experiencing psychotic delusions? We (and, now, the parties) think so, because either condition may-or, then again, may not-impede the requisite comprehension of his punishment. The only issue left, on which the parties still disagree, is what those rulings mean for Madison's own execution. We direct that issue to the state court for further consideration in light of this opinion.
I
A
This Court decided in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986), that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments precludes executing a prisoner who has "lost his sanity" after sentencing. Id., at 406, 106 S.Ct. 2595. While on death row, Alvin Ford was beset by "pervasive delusion[s]" associated with "[p]aranoid [s]chizophrenia." Id., at 402-403, 106 S.Ct. 2595. Surveying both the common law and state statutes, the Court found a uniform practice against taking the life of such a prisoner. See id., at 406-409, 106 S.Ct. 2595. Among the reasons for that time-honored bar, the Court explained, was a moral "intuition" that "killing one who has no capacity" to understand his crime or punishment "simply offends humanity." Id., at 407, 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ; see id., at 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (citing the "natural abhorrence civilized societies feel" at performing such an act). Another rationale rested on the lack of "retributive value" in executing a person who has no comprehension of the meaning of the community's judgment. Ibid. ; see id., at 421, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (stating that the death penalty's "retributive force[ ] depends on the defendant's awareness of the penalty's existence and purpose"). The resulting rule, now stated as a matter of constitutional law, held "a category of defendants defined by their mental state" incompetent to be executed. Id., at 419, 106 S.Ct. 2595.
The Court clarified the scope of that category in Panetti v. Quarterman by focusing on whether a prisoner can "reach a rational understanding of the reason for [his] execution." 551 U.S. at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842. Like Alvin Ford, Scott Panetti suffered from "gross delusions" stemming from "extreme psychosis." Id., at 936, 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842. In reversing a ruling that he could still be executed, the Panetti Court set out the appropriate "standard for competency." Id., at 957, 127 S.Ct. 2842. Ford, the Court now noted, had not provided "specific criteria." 551 U.S. at 957, 127 S.Ct. 2842. But Ford had explored what lay behind the Eighth Amendment's prohibition, highlighting that the execution of a prisoner who cannot comprehend the reasons for his punishment offends moral values and "serves no retributive purpose." 551 U.S. at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842. Those principles, the Panetti Court explained, indicate how to identify prisoners whom the State may not execute. The critical question is whether a "prisoner's mental state is so distorted by a mental illness" that he lacks a "rational understanding" of "the State's rationale for [his] execution." Id., at 958-959, 127 S.Ct. 2842. Or similarly put, the issue is whether a "prisoner's concept of reality" is "so impair[ed]" that he cannot grasp the execution's "meaning and purpose" or the "link between [his] crime and its punishment." Id., at 958, 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842.
B
Vernon Madison killed a police officer in 1985 during a domestic dispute. An Alabama jury found him guilty of capital murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death. He has spent most of the ensuing decades on the State's death row.
In recent years, Madison's mental condition has sharply deteriorated. Madison suffered a series of strokes, including major ones in 2015 and 2016. See Tr. 19, 46-47 (Apr. 14, 2016). He was diagnosed as having vascular dementia, with attendant disorientation and confusion, cognitive impairment, and memory loss. See id., at 19-20, 52-54. In particular, Madison claims that he can no longer recollect committing the crime for which he has been sentenced to die. See Tr., Pet. Exh. 2, p. 8.
After his 2016 stroke, Madison petitioned the trial court for a stay of execution on the ground that he had become mentally incompetent. Citing Ford and Panetti, he argued that "he no longer understands" the "status of his case" or the "nature of his conviction and sentence." Pet. for Suspension in No. CC-85-1385.80 (C. C. Mobile Cty., Ala., Feb. 12, 2016), pp. 11, 14. And in a later filing, Madison emphasized that he could not "independently recall the facts of the offense he is convicted of." Brief Pursuant to Order (Apr. 21, 2016), p. 8. Alabama countered that Madison had "a rational understanding of [the reasons for] his impending execution," as required by Ford and Panetti, even assuming he had no memory of committing his crime. Brief on Madison's Competency (April 21, 2016), pp. 4-5, 8. And more broadly, the State claimed that Madison could not possibly qualify as incompetent under those two decisions because both "concerned themselves with '[g]ross delusions' "-which all agree Madison does not have. Id., at 2; see ibid. (Madison "failed to implicate" Ford and Panetti because he "does not suffer from psychosis or delusions").
Expert reports from two psychologists largely aligned with the parties' contending positions. Dr. John Goff, Madison's expert, found that although Madison "underst[ood] the nature of execution" in the abstract, he did not comprehend the "reasoning behind" Alabama's effort to execute him. Tr., Pet. Exh. 2 (Apr. 14, 2016), p. 8; see id., at 9. Goff stated that Madison had "Major Vascular Neurological Disorder"-also called vascular dementia-which had caused "significant cognitive decline." Ibid. And Goff underscored that Madison "demonstrate[d] retrograde amnesia" about his crime, meaning that he had no "independent recollection[ ]" of the murder. Id., at 8; see id., at 9. For his part, Dr. Karl Kirkland, the court-appointed expert, reported that Madison "was able to discuss his case" accurately and "appear[ed] to understand his legal situation." Tr., Ct. Exh. 1, pp. 10-11. Although Kirkland acknowledged that Madison's strokes had led to cognitive decline, see id., at 10, the psychologist made no mention of Madison's diagnosed vascular dementia. Rather, Kirkland highlighted that "[t]here was no evidence of psychosis, paranoia, or delusion." Id., at 9; see ibid. (Madison "did not seem delusional at all").
At a competency hearing, Alabama similarly stressed Madison's absence of psychotic episodes or delusions. The State asked both experts to affirm that Madison was "neither delusional [n]or psychotic." Tr. 56; see id., at 22. And its closing argument focused on their agreement that he was not. As the State summarized: "He's not psychotic. He's not delusional." Id., at 81. On the State's view, that fact answered the competency question because "[t]he Supreme Court is looking at whether someone's delusions or someone's paranoia or someone's psychosis is standing in the way of" rationally understanding his punishment. Id., at 82. Madison's counsel disputed that point. "[T]he State would like to say, well, he's not delusional, he's not psychotic," the attorney recapped. Id., at 83. But, she continued, "[t]hat's not really the criteria" under Panetti. Tr. 83. Rather, the Court there barred executing a person with any mental illness-"dementia" and "brain injuries" no less than psychosis and delusions-that prevents him from comprehending "why he is being executed." Ibid.
The trial court found Madison competent to be executed. Its order first recounted the evidence given by each expert witness. The summary of Kirkland's report and testimony began by stating that the psychologist had "found no evidence of paranoia[,] delusion [or] psychosis." Order (Apr. 29, 2016), p. 5 (2016 Order). The court then noted Kirkland's view that Madison could "give details of the history of his case" and "appear[ed] to understand his legal situation." Ibid. Turning to the Goff report, the court noted the expert's finding that Madison was "amnesic" and could not recollect his crime. Id., at 6; see id., at 7. In a single, final paragraph, the court provided both its ruling and its reasoning. Madison had failed to show, the court wrote, that he did not "rationally understand the punishment he is about to suffer and why he is about to suffer it." Id., at 10. The court "accept[ed] the testimony of Dr. Kirkland as to the understanding Madison has concerning the situation." Ibid. "Further," the court concluded, "the evidence does not support that Mr. Madison is delusional." Ibid.
Madison next sought habeas relief in federal court, where he faced the heavy burden of showing that the state-court ruling "involved an unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established federal law" or rested on an "unreasonable determination of the facts." Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). The District Court rejected his petition, but the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Madison had demonstrated both kinds of indisputable error. See Madison v. Commissioner, 851 F.3d 1173 (2017). This Court then summarily reversed the appeals court's decision. See Dunn v. Madison, 583 U. S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 9, 199 L.Ed.2d 243 (2017) (per curiam ). We explained, contrary to the Eleventh Circuit's principal holding, that "[n]either Panetti nor Ford 'clearly established' that a prisoner is incompetent to be executed" because of a simple failure to remember his crime. Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 11-12. And we found that the state court did not act unreasonably-otherwise put, did not err "beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement"-when it found that Madison had the necessary understanding to be executed. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). But we made clear that our decision was premised on AEDPA's "demanding" and "deferential standard." Id., at ----, ----, 138 S.Ct., at 11, 11-12. "We express[ed] no view" on the question of Madison's competency "outside of the AEDPA context." Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 11-12.
When Alabama set an execution date in 2018, Madison returned to state court to argue again that his mental condition precluded the State from going forward. In his petition, Madison reiterated the facts and arguments he had previously presented to the state court. But Madison also claimed that since that court's decision (1) he had suffered further cognitive decline and (2) a state board had suspended Kirkland's license to practice psychology, thus discrediting his prior testimony. See Pet. to Suspend Execution in No. CC-85-1385.80 (C. C. Mobile Cty., Ala., Dec. 18, 2017), pp. 1-2, 16-19. Alabama responded that nothing material had changed since the court's first competency hearing. See Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 20, 2017), p. 9. The State also repeated its argument that Panetti permits executing Madison, pointing to the experts' agreement that he is "not delusional or psychotic" and asserting that neither "memory impairment [n]or dementia [could] suffice to satisfy the Panetti and Ford standards" without "an expansion" of those decisions. Motion to Dismiss 4, 10. A week before the scheduled execution, the state court again found Madison mentally competent. Its brief order stated only that Madison "did not provide a substantial threshold showing of insanity[ ] sufficient to convince this Court to stay the execution." App. A to Pet. for Cert.
Madison then filed in this Court a request to stay his execution and a petition for certiorari. We ordered the stay on the scheduled execution date and granted the petition a few weeks later. See 583 U. S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1172, 200 L.Ed.2d 314 (2018). Because the case now comes to us on direct review of the state court's decision (rather than in a habeas proceeding), AEDPA's deferential standard no longer governs. (And for that reason-contrary to the dissent's suggestion, post, at -----our decision on Madison's habeas petition cannot help resolve the questions raised here.)
II
Two issues relating to Panetti's application are before us. Recall that our decision there held the Eighth Amendment to forbid executing a prisoner whose mental illness makes him unable to "reach a rational understanding of the reason for [his] execution." 551 U.S. at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; see supra, at ---- - ----. The first question presented is whether Panetti prohibits executing Madison merely because he cannot remember committing his crime. The second question raised is whether Panetti permits executing Madison merely because he suffers from dementia, rather than psychotic delusions. In prior stages of this case, as we have described, the parties disagreed about those matters. See supra, at ---- - ----. But at this Court, Madison accepted Alabama's position on the first issue and Alabama accepted Madison's on the second. See, e.g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 36. And rightly so. As the parties now recognize, the standard set out in Panetti supplies the answers to both questions. First, a person lacking memory of his crime may yet rationally understand why the State seeks to execute him; if so, the Eighth Amendment poses no bar to his execution. Second, a person suffering from dementia may be unable to rationally understand the reasons for his sentence; if so, the Eighth Amendment does not allow his execution. What matters is whether a person has the "rational understanding" Panetti requires-not whether he has any particular memory or any particular mental illness.
A
Consider initially a person who cannot remember his crime because of a mental disorder, but who otherwise has full cognitive function. The memory loss is genuine: Let us say the person has some kind of amnesia, which has produced a black hole where that recollection should be. But the person remains oriented in time and place; he can make logical connections and order his thoughts; and he comprehends familiar concepts of crime and punishment. Can the State execute him for a murder? When we considered this case before, using the deferential standard applicable in habeas, we held that a state court could allow such an execution without committing inarguable error. See Madison, 583 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 11-12 (stating that no prior decision had "clearly established" the opposite); supra, at ----. Today, we address the issue straight-up, sans any deference to a state court. Again, is the failure to remember committing a crime alone enough to prevent a State from executing a prisoner?
It is not, under Panetti's own terms. That decision asks about understanding, not memory-more specifically, about a person's understanding of why the State seeks capital punishment for a crime, not his memory of the crime itself. And the one may exist without the other. Do you have an independent recollection of the Civil War? Obviously not. But you may still be able to reach a rational-indeed, a sophisticated-understanding of that conflict and its consequences. Do you recall your first day of school? Probably not. But if your mother told you years later that you were sent home for hitting a classmate, you would have no trouble grasping the story. And similarly, if you somehow blacked out a crime you committed, but later learned what you had done, you could well appreciate the State's desire to impose a penalty. Assuming, that is, no other cognitive impairment, loss of memory of a crime does not prevent rational understanding of the State's reasons for resorting to punishment. And that kind of comprehension is the Panetti standard's singular focus.
The same answer follows from the core justifications Panetti offered for framing its Eighth Amendment test as it did. Echoing Ford, Panetti reasoned that execution has no retributive value when a prisoner cannot appreciate the meaning of a community's judgment. See 551 U.S. at 958-959, 127 S.Ct. 2842 (citing 477 U.S. at 407-408, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ); supra, at ----. But as just explained, a person who can no longer remember a crime may yet recognize the retributive message society intends to convey with a death sentence. Similarly, Ford and Panetti stated that it "offends humanity" to execute a person so wracked by mental illness that he cannot comprehend the "meaning and purpose of the punishment." 477 U.S. at 407, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ; 551 U.S. at 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; see id., at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842. But that offense to morality must be much less when a person's mental disorder causes nothing more than an episodic memory loss. Moral values do not exempt the simply forgetful from punishment, whatever the neurological reason for their lack of recall.
But such memory loss still may factor into the "rational understanding" analysis that Panetti demands. If that loss combines and interacts with other mental shortfalls to deprive a person of the capacity to comprehend why the State is exacting death as punishment, then the Panetti standard will be satisfied. That may be so when a person has difficulty preserving any memories, so that even newly gained knowledge (about, say, the crime and punishment) will be quickly forgotten. Or it may be so when cognitive deficits prevent the acquisition of such knowledge at all, so that memory gaps go forever uncompensated. As Panetti indicated, neurologists, psychologists, and other experts can contribute to a court's understanding of issues of that kind. See id., at 962, 127 S.Ct. 2842. But the sole inquiry for the court remains whether the prisoner can rationally understand the reasons for his death sentence.
B
Next consider a prisoner who suffers from dementia or a similar disorder, rather than psychotic delusions. The dementia, as is typical, has compromised this prisoner's cognitive functions. But it has not resulted in the kind of delusional beliefs that Alvin Ford and Scott Panetti held. May the prisoner nonetheless receive a stay of execution under Ford and Panetti? Or instead, is a delusional disorder a prerequisite to declaring a mentally ill person incompetent to be executed? We did not address that issue when we last considered this case, on habeas review; in that sense, the question is one of first impression. See supra, at ----, n. 1.
But here too, Panetti has already answered the question. Its standard focuses on whether a mental disorder has had a particular effect : an inability to rationally understand why the State is seeking execution. See supra, at ---- - ----. Conversely, that standard has no interest in establishing any precise cause : Psychosis or dementia, delusions or overall cognitive decline are all the same under Panetti, so long as they produce the requisite lack of comprehension. To be sure, Panetti on occasion spoke of "gross delusions" in explaining its holding. 551 U.S. at 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842. And similarly, Ford talked about the "insane," which sometimes refers to persons holding such irrational beliefs. See, e.g., 477 U.S. at 401, 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595. But those references are no more than a predictable byproduct of the two cases' facts. At the same time (and interchangeably), Panetti used more inclusive terms, such as "mental illness," "mental disorder," and "psychological dysfunction." 551 U.S. at 936, 959, 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; see Ford, 477 U.S. at 408-409, n. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (referring to prisoners with "mental illness"). And most important, Panetti framed its test, as just described, in a way utterly indifferent to a prisoner's specific mental illness. The Panetti standard concerns, once again, not the diagnosis of such illness, but a consequence-to wit, the prisoner's inability to rationally understand his punishment.
And here too, the key justifications Ford and Panetti offered for the Eighth Amendment's bar confirm our conclusion about its reach. As described above, those decisions stated that an execution lacks retributive purpose when a mentally ill prisoner cannot understand the societal judgment underlying his sentence. See Panetti, 551 U.S. at 958-959, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; Ford, 477 U.S. at 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ;
supra, at ---- - ----. And they indicated that an execution offends morality in the same circumstance. See 551 U.S. at 958, 960, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; 477 U.S. at 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ; supra, at ---- - ----. Both rationales for the constitutional bar thus hinge (just as the Panetti standard deriving from them does) on the prisoner's "[in]comprehension of why he has been singled out" to die. 477 U.S. at 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595 ; see supra, at ---- - ----. Or said otherwise, if and when that failure of understanding is present, the rationales kick in-irrespective of whether one disease or another (say, psychotic delusions or dementia ) is to blame.
In evaluating competency to be executed, a judge must therefore look beyond any given diagnosis to a downstream consequence. As Ford and Panetti recognized, a delusional disorder can be of such severity-can "so impair the prisoner's concept of reality"-that someone in its thrall will be unable "to come to grips with" the punishment's meaning. Panetti, 551 U.S. at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842 ; Ford, 477 U.S. at 409, 106 S.Ct. 2595. But delusions come in many shapes and sizes, and not all will interfere with the understanding that the Eighth Amendment requires. See Panetti, 551 U.S. at 962, 127 S.Ct. 2842 (remanding the case to consider expert evidence on whether the prisoner's delusions did so). And much the same is true of dementia. That mental condition can cause such disorientation and cognitive decline as to prevent a person from sustaining a rational understanding of why the State wants to execute him. See supra, at ---- - ----. But dementia also has milder forms, which allow a person to preserve that understanding. Hence the need-for dementia as for delusions as for any other mental disorder-to attend to the particular circumstances of a case and make the precise judgment Panetti requires.
III
The only question left-and the only one on which the parties now disagree-is whether Madison's execution may go forward based on the state court's decision below. Madison's counsel says it cannot because that ruling was tainted by legal error-specifically, the idea that only delusions, and not dementia, can support a finding of mental incompetency. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 21, 25, 27. Alabama counters that the state court did not rely on that (concededly) incorrect view of the law. See id., at 37-41. But we come away at the least unsure whether that is so-especially given Alabama's evidence and arguments in the state court.
As noted earlier, the 2018 ruling we review today contains only one sentence of explanation. See supra, at ---- - ----. It states that Madison "did not provide a substantial threshold showing of insanity[ ] sufficient to convince this Court to stay the execution." App. A to Pet. for Cert. If the state court used the word "insanity" to refer to a delusional disorder, then error occurred: The court would have denied a stay on the ground that Madison did not have that specific kind of mental illness. And the likelihood that the court made that mistake is heightened by the State's emphasis, at that stage of the proceedings (as at others), that Madison was "not delusional or psychotic" and that "dementia" could not suffice to bar his execution absent "an expansion of Ford and Panetti." Motion to Dismiss 4, 10; see supra, at ---- - ----; but see post, at ---- - ----, and n. 4 (disregarding those arguments). Alabama argues, however, that the court spoke of "insanity" only because the state statute under which Madison sought relief uses that term. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37; Ala. Code § 15-16-23 (2011) (allowing a stay of execution "on account of the [convict's] insanity"). But even if so, that does not advance the State's view that the state court properly understood the Eighth Amendment bar when assessing Madison's competency. Alabama told this Court in opposing certiorari that its statute covers only those with delusional disorders, and not those with dementia. See Brief in Opposition 12 ("[T]he sole question to be answered under the state statute was whether Madison was insane, not whether he suffered from dementia"). The state court's (supposed) echoing of statutory language understood in that way cannot provide assurance that the court knew a person with dementia might receive a stay of execution; indeed, it suggests exactly the opposite. The court's 2018 order thus calls out for a do-over.
Alabama further contends, however, that we should look past the state court's 2018 decision to the court's initial 2016 determination of competency. (The dissent similarly begins with the 2016 ruling, see post, at ---- - ----, even though that is not the decision under review here.) According to the State, nothing material changed in the interim period, see supra, at ----; thus, we may find the meaning of the later ruling in the earlier one, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-37. And, the State continues, the 2016 opinion gets the law right. Alabama's proof is that the court, after summarizing the psychologists' testimony, found that "Madison has a rational[ ] understanding, as required by Panetti," concerning the "punishment he is about to suffer and why he is about to suffer it." 2016 Order, at 10; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 39; supra, at ---- - ----. (The dissent quotes the same passage. See post, at ----.)
But the state court's initial decision does not aid Alabama's cause. First, we do not know that the court in 2018 meant to incorporate everything in its prior opinion. The order says nothing to that effect; and though it came out the same way as the earlier decision, it need not have rested on all the same reasoning. Second, the 2016 opinion itself does not show that the state court realized that persons suffering from dementia could satisfy the Panetti standard. True enough, as Alabama says, that the court accurately stated that standard in its decision. But as described above, Alabama had repeatedly argued to the court (over Madison's objection) that only prisoners suffering from delusional disorders could qualify as incompetent under Panetti. See, e.g., Brief on Madison's Competency 2 (Madison "failed to implicate" Ford and Panetti because he "does not suffer from psychosis or delusions"); Tr. 82 ("The Supreme Court [in Panetti ] is looking at whether someone's delusions or someone's paranoia or someone's psychosis is standing in the way of" rationally understanding his punishment); see also supra, at ---- - ----; but see post, at ---- - ----, and n. 4 (disregarding those arguments). And Alabama relied on the expert opinion of a psychologist who highlighted Madison's lack of "psychosis, paranoia, or delusion," while never mentioning his dementia. Tr., Ct. Exh. 1 (Apr. 14, 2016), p. 9. That too-limited understanding of Panetti's compass is reflected in the court's 2016 opinion. In its single paragraph of analysis, the court "accept[ed] the testimony" of the State's preferred psychologist. And the court further found that "the evidence does not support that Mr. Madison is delusional"-without ever considering his undisputed dementia. 2016 Order, at 10.
For those reasons, we must return this case to the state court for renewed consideration of Madison's competency (assuming Alabama sets a new execution date). See, e.g., Kindred Nursing Centers L. P. v. Clark, 581 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1429, 197 L.Ed.2d 806 (2017) (remanding when "uncertain" whether "an impermissible taint occurred"); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 751-752, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990) (similar). In that proceeding, two matters disputed below should now be clear. First, under Ford and Panetti, the Eighth Amendment may permit executing Madison even if he cannot remember committing his crime. Second, under those same decisions, the Eighth Amendment may prohibit executing Madison even though he suffers from dementia, rather than delusions. The sole question on which Madison's competency depends is whether he can reach a "rational understanding" of why the State wants to execute him. Panetti, 551 U.S. at 958, 127 S.Ct. 2842. In answering that question-on which we again express no view, see supra, at -----the state court may not rely on any arguments or evidence tainted with the legal errors we have addressed. And because that is so, the court should consider whether it needs to supplement the existing record. Some evidence in that record, including portions of the experts' reports and testimony, expressly reflects an incorrect view of the relevance of delusions or memory; still other evidence might have implicitly rested on those same misjudgments. The state court, we have little doubt, can evaluate such matters better than we. It must do so as the first step in assessing Madison's competency-and ensuring that if he is to be executed, he understands why.
We accordingly vacate the judgment of the state court and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS and Justice GORSUCH join, dissenting.
What the Court has done in this case makes a mockery of our Rules.
Petitioner's counsel convinced the Court to stay his client's execution and to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari for the purpose of deciding a clear-cut constitutional question: Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of a murderer who cannot recall committing the murder for which the death sentence was imposed? The petition strenuously argued that executing such a person is unconstitutional.
After persuading the Court to grant review of this question, counsel abruptly changed course. Perhaps because he concluded (correctly) that petitioner was unlikely to prevail on the question raised in the petition, he conceded that the argument advanced in his petition was wrong, and he switched to an entirely different argument, namely, that the state court had rejected petitioner's claim that he is incompetent to be executed because the court erroneously thought that dementia, as opposed to other mental conditions, cannot provide a basis for such a claim. See Brief for Petitioner 16.
This was not a question that the Court agreed to hear; indeed, there is no mention whatsoever of this argument in the petition-not even a hint. Nor is this question fairly included within those on which the Court granted review. On the contrary, it is an entirely discrete and independent question.
Counsel's tactics flagrantly flouted our Rules. Our Rules make it clear that we grant certiorari to decide the specific question or questions of law set out in a petition for certiorari. See this Court's Rule 14.1(a) ("Only the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court"). Our whole certiorari system would be thrown into turmoil if we allowed counsel to obtain review of one question and then switch to an entirely different question after review is granted. In the past when counsel have done this, we have dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See, e.g., Visa, Inc. v. Osborn, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 289, 196 L.Ed.2d 396 (2016) ; City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U. S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015). We should do that here.
Instead, the majority rewards counsel's trick. It vacates the judgment below because it is unsure whether the state court committed the error claimed in petitioner's merits brief. But not only was there no trace of this argument in the petition, there is nothing in the record showing that the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a nonfiduciary who knowingly participates in the breach of a fiduciary duty imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq., is liable for losses that an employee benefit plan suffers as a result of the breach.
I
According to the complaint, the allegations of which we take as true, petitioners represent a class of former employees of the Kaiser Steel Corporation (Kaiser) who participated in the Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, a qualified pension plan under ERISA. Respondent was the plan’s actuary in 1980, when Kaiser began to phase out its steelmaking operations, prompting early retirement by a large number of plan participants. Respondent did not, however, change the plan’s actuarial assumptions to reflect the additional costs imposed by the retirements. As a result, Kaiser did not adequately fund the plan, and eventually the plan’s assets became insufficient to satisfy its benefit obligations, causing the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to terminate the plan pursuant to 29 U. S. C. § 1341. Petitioners now receive only the benefits guaranteed by ERISA, see § 1322, which are in general substantially lower than the fully vested pensions due them under the plan.
Petitioners sued the fiduciaries of the failed plan, alleging breach of fiduciary duties. See Mertens v. Black, 948 F. 2d 1105 (CA9 1991) (per curiam) (affirming denial of summary judgment). They also commenced this action against respondent, alleging that it had caused the losses by allowing Kaiser to select the plan’s actuarial assumptions, by failing to disclose that Kaiser was one of its clients, and by failing to disclose the plan’s funding shortfall. Petitioners claimed that these acts and omissions violated ERISA by effecting a breach of respondent’s “professional duties” to the plan, for which they sought, inter alia, monetary relief. In opposing respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioners fleshed out this claim, asserting that respondent was liable (1) as an ERISA fiduciary that committed a breach of its own fiduciary duties, (2) as a nonfidueiary that knowingly participated in the plan fiduciaries’ breach of their fiduciary duties, and (8) as a non-fiduciary that committed a breach of nonfiduciary duties imposed on actuaries by ERISA. The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint, App. to Pet. for Cert. A17, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, 948 F. 2d 607 (1991).
Petitioners sought certiorari only on the question whether ERISA authorizes suits for money damages against nonfiduciaries who knowingly participate in a fiduciary’s breach of fiduciary duty. We agreed to hear the case. 506 U. S. 812 (1992).
II
ERISA is, we have observed, a “comprehensive and reticulated statute,” the product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation’s private employee benefit system. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361 (1980). The statute provides that not only the persons named as fiduciaries by a benefit plan, see 29 U. S. C. § 1102(a), but also anyone else who exercises discretionary control or authority over the plan’s management, administration, or assets, see § 1002(21)(A), is an ERISA “fiduciary.” Fiduciaries are assigned a number of detailed duties and responsibilities, which include “the proper management, administration, and investment of [plan] assets, the maintenance of proper records, the disclosure of specified information, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.” Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134, 142-143 (1985); see 29 U. S. C. § 1104(a). Section 409(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1109(a), makes fiduciaries liable for breach of these duties, and specifies the remedies available against them: The fiduciary is personally liable for damages (“to make good to [the] plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach”), for restitution (“to restore to [the] plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary”), and for “such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate,” including removal of the fiduciary. Section 502(a)(2), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(2) — the second of ERISA’s “six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions,” Russell, supra, at 146— allows the Secretary of Labor or any plan beneficiary, participant, or fiduciary to bring a civil action “for appropriate relief under section [409].”
The above described provisions are, however, limited by their terms to fiduciaries. The Court of Appeals decided that respondent was not a fiduciary, see 948 F. 2d, at 610, and petitioners do not contest that holding. Lacking equivalent provisions specifying rawfiduciaries as potential defendants, or damages as a remedy available against them, petitioners have turned to § 502(a)(3), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3), which authorizes a plan beneficiary, participant, or fiduciary to bring a civil action:
“(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of [ERISA] or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of [ERISA] or the terms of the plan ....”
See also § 502(a)(5), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(5) (providing, in similar language, for civil suits by the Secretary based upon violation of ERISA provisions). Petitioners contend that requiring respondent to make the Kaiser plan whole for the losses resulting from its alleged knowing participation in the breach of fiduciary duty by the Kaiser plan’s fiduciaries would constitute “other appropriate equitable relief” within the meaning of § 502(a)(3).
We note at the outset that it is far from clear that, even if this provision does make money damages available, it makes them available for the actions at issue here. It does not, after all, authorize “appropriate equitable relief” at large, but only “appropriate equitable relief” for the purpose of “redressing any] violations or . . . enforcing] any provisions” of ERISA or an ERISA plan. No one suggests that any term of the Kaiser plan has been violated, nor would any be enforced by the requested judgment. And while ERISA contains various provisions that can be read as imposing obligations upon nonftduciaries, including actuaries, no provision explicitly requires them to avoid participation (knowing or unknowing) in a fiduciary’s breach of fiduciary duty. It is unlikely, moreover, that this was an oversight, since ERISA does explicitly impose “knowing participation” liability on eofiduciaries. See § 405(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1105(a). That limitation appears all the more deliberate in light of the fact that “knowing participation” liability on the part of both cotrustees and third persons was well established under the common law of trusts. See 3 A. Scott & W. Fratcher, Law of Trusts §224.1, p. 404 (4th ed. 1988) (hereinafter Scott & Fratcher) (cotrustees); 4 Scott & Fratcher § 326, p. 291 (third persons). In Bussell we emphasized our unwillingness to infer causes of action in the ERISA context, since that statute’s carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme provides “strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.” 473 U. S., at 146-147. All of this notwithstanding, petitioners and their amicus the United States seem to assume that respondent’s alleged action (or inaction) violated ERISA, and address their arguments almost exclusively to what forms of relief are available. And respondent, despite considerable prompting by its amici, expressly disclaims reliance on this preliminary point. See Brief for Respondent 18, n. 15; Tr. of Oral Arg. 46. Thus, although we acknowledge the oddity of resolving a dispute over remedies where it is unclear that a remediable wrong has been alleged, we decide this case on the narrow battlefield the parties have chosen, and reserve decision of that antecedent question.
Petitioners maintain that the object of their suit is “appropriate equitable relief” under § 502(a)(3) (emphasis added). They do not, however, seek a remedy traditionally viewed as “equitable,” such as injunction or restitution. (The Court of Appeals held that restitution was unavailable, see 948 F. 2d, at 612, and petitioners have not challenged that.) Although they often dance around the word, what petitioners in fact seek is nothing other than compensatory damages — monetary relief for all losses their plan sustained as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Money damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 196 (1974); Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558, 570-571 (1990); D. Dobbs, Remedies §1.1, p. 3 (1973). And though we have never interpreted the precise phrase “other appropriate equitable relief,” we have construed the similar language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (before its 1991 amendments) — “any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g)—to preclude “awards for compensatory or punitive damages.” United States v. Burke, 504 U. S. 229, 238 (1992).
Petitioners assert, however, that this reading of “equitable relief” fails to acknowledge ERISA’s roots in the common law of trusts, see Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 110-111 (1989). “[A]lthough a beneficiary’s action to recover losses resulting from a breach of duty superficially resembles an action at law for damages,” the Solicitor General suggests, “such relief traditionally has been obtained in courts of equity” and therefore “is, by definition, 'equitable relief/ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-14. It is true that, at common law, the courts of equity had exclusive jurisdiction over virtually all actions by beneficiaries for breach of trust. See Lessee of Smith v. McCann, 24 How. 398, 407 (1861); 3 Scott & Fratcher § 197, p. 188. It is also true that money damages were available in those courts against the trustee, see United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 226 (1983); G. Bogert & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 701, p. 198 (rev. 2d ed. 1982) (hereinafter Bogert & Bogert), and against third persons who knowingly participated in the trustee’s breach, see Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 296-297 (1942); Scott, Participation in a Breach of Trust, 34 Harv. L. Rev. 454 (1921).
At common law, however, there were many situations— not limited to those involving enforcement of a trust — in which an equity court could “establish purely legal rights and grant legal remedies which would otherwise be beyond the scope of its authority.” 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 181, p. 257 (5th ed. 1941). The term “equitable relief” can assuredly mean, as petitioners and the Solicitor General would have it, whatever relief a court of equity is empowered to provide in the particular ease at issue. But as indicated by the foregoing quotation — which speaks of “legal remedies” granted by an equity court — “equitable relief” can also refer to those categories of relief that were typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages). As memories of the divided bench, and familiarity with its technical refinements, recede further into the past, the former meaning becomes, perhaps, increasingly unlikely; but it remains a question of interpretation in each case which meaning is intended.
In the context of the present statute, we think there can be no doubt. Since all relief available for breach of trust could be obtained from a court of equity, limiting the sort of relief obtainable under § 502(a)(3) to “equitable relief” in the sense of “whatever relief a common-law court of equity could provide in such a case” would limit the relief not at all. We will not read the statute to render the modifier superfluous. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 36 (1992); Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1990). Regarding “equitable” relief in § 502(a)(3) to mean “all relief available for breach of trust at common law” would also require us either to give the term a different meaning there than it bears elsewhere in ERISA, or to deprive of all meaning the distinction Congress drew between “equitable” and “remedial” relief in § 409(a), and between “equitable” and “legal” relief in the very same section of ERISA, see 29 U. S. C. § 1132(g)(2)(E); in the same subehapter of ERISA, see § 1024(a)(5)(C); and in the ERISA subehapter dealing with the PBGC, see §§ 1303(e)(1), 1451(a)(1). Neither option is acceptable. See Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 479 (1992); cf. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 583 (1978). The authority of courts to develop a “federal common law” under ERISA, see Firestone, 489 U. S., at 110, is not the authority to revise the text of the statute.
Petitioners point to ERISA §502(1), which was added to the statute in 1989, see Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA), Pub. L. 101-239, §2101, 103 Stat. 2123, and provides as follows:
“(1) In the ease of—
“(A) any breach of fiduciary responsibility under (or other violation of) part 4 by a fiduciary, or
“(B) any knowing participation in such a breach or violation by any other person,
“the Secretary shall assess a civil penalty against such fiduciary or other person in an amount equal to 20 percent of the applicable recovery amount.” 29 U. S. C. §1132(0(1) (1988 ed., Supp. III).
The Secretary may waive or reduce this penalty if he believes that “the fiduciary or other person will [otherwise] not be able to restore all losses to the plan without severe financial hardship.” § 1132(Z)(3)(B). “[AJpplieable recovery amount” is defined (in § 502(l)(2)(B)) as “any amount . . . ordered by a court to be paid by such fiduciary or other person to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries in a judicial proceeding instituted by the Secretary under [§§ 502](a)(2) or (a)(5).” It will be recalled that the latter subsection, § 502(a)(5), authorizes relief in actions by the Secretary on the same terms (“appropriate equitable relief”) as in the private-party actions authorized by § 502(a)(3). Petitioners argue that § 502(1) confirms that § 502(a)(5) — and hence, since it uses the same language, § 502(a) (3) — allows actions for damages, since otherwise there could be no “applicable recovery amount” against some “other person” than the fiduciary, and the Secretary would have no occasion to worry about whether any such “other person” would be able to “restore all losses to the plan” without financial hardship.
We certainly agree with petitioners that language used in one portion of a statute (§ 502(a)(3)) should be deemed to have the same meaning as the same language used elsewhere in the statute (§ 502(a)(5)). Indeed, we are even more zealous advocates of that principle than petitioners, who stop short of applying it directly to the term “equitable relief.” We cannot agree, however, that §502(1) establishes the existence of a damages remedy under § 502(a)(5) — i. e., that it is otherwise so inexplicable that we must give the term “equitable relief” the expansive meaning “all relief available for breach of trust.” For even in its more limited sense, the “equitable relief” awardable under § 502(a)(5) includes restitution of ill-gotten plan assets or profits, providing an “applicable recovery amount” to use to calculate the penalty, which the Secretary may waive or reduce if paying it would prevent the restoration of those gains to the plan; and even assuming nonfiduciaries are not liable at all for knowing participation in a fiduciary’s breach of duty, see supra, at 253-254, eofidueiaries expressly are, see § 405(a), so there are some “other person[s]” than fiduciaries-in-breach liable under § 502(1)(1)(B). These applications of § 502(1) give it meaning and scope without resort to the strange interpretation of “equitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) that petitioners propose. The Secretary’s initial interpretation of §502(1) accords with our view. The prologue of the proposed regulation implementing §502(1), to be codified at 29 CFR §2560.5021-1, states that when a court awards “equitable relief” — as opposed to “monetary damages” — a §502(1) penalty will be assessed only if the award involves the transfer to the plan of money or property. 55 Fed. Reg. 25288, 25289, and n. 9 (1990).
In the last analysis, petitioners and the United States ask us to give a strained interpretation to § 502(a)(3) in order to achieve the “purpose of ERISA to protect plan participants and beneficiaries.” Brief for Petitioners 31. They note, as we have, that before ERISA nonfidueiaries were generally liable under state trust law for damages resulting from knowing participation in a trustees’s breach of duty, and they assert that such actions are now pre-empted by ERISA’s broad pre-emption clause, § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), see Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 139-140 (1990). Thus, they contend, our construction of § 502(a)(3) leaves beneficiaries like petitioners with less protection than existed before ERISA, contradicting ERISA’s basic goal of “promot[ing] the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans,” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 90 (1983). See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, supra, at 114.
Even assuming (without deciding) that petitioners are correct about the pre-emption of previously available state-court actions, vague notions of a statute’s “basic purpose” are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration. See Pen sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 646-647 (1990). This is especially true with legislation such as ERISA, an'enormously complex and detailed statute that resolved innumerable disputes between powerful competing interests — not all in favor of potential plaintiffs. See, e. g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 54-56 (1987). The text that we have described is certainly not nonsensical; it allocates liability for plan-related misdeeds in reasonable proportion to respective actors’ power to control and prevent the misdeeds. Under traditional trust law, although a beneficiary could obtain damages from third persons for knowing participation in a trustee’s breach of fiduciary duties, only the trustee had fiduciary duties. See 1 Scott & Fratcher §2.5, p. 43. ERISA, however, defines “fiduciary” not in terms of formal trusteeship, but in functional terms of control and authority over the plan, see 29 U. S. C. § 1002(21)(A), thus expanding the universe of persons subject to fiduciary duties — and to damages — under § 409(a). Professional service providers such as actuaries become liable for damages when they cross the line from adviser to fiduciary; must disgorge assets and profits obtained through participation as parties-in-interest in transactions prohibited by §406, and pay related civil penalties, see § 502(i), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(i), or excise taxes, see 26 U. S. C. § 4975; and (assuming nonfiduciaries can be sued under § 502(a)(3)) may be enjoined from participating in a fiduciary’s breaches, compelled to make restitution, and subjected to other equitable decrees. All that ERISA has eliminated, on these assumptions, is the common law’s joint and several liability, for all direct and consequential damages suffered by the plan, on the part of persons who had no real power to control what the plan did. Exposure to that sort of liability would impose high insurance costs upon persons who regularly deal with and offer advice to ERISA plans, and hence upon ERISA plans themselves. There is, in other words, a “tension between the, primary [ERISA] goal of benefiting employees and the subsidiary goal of containing pension costs.” Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 515 (1981); see also Russell, 473 U. S., at 148, n. 17. We will not attempt to adjust the balance between those competing goals that the text adopted by Congress has struck.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The complaint also named as defendants the plan and the PBGC, in its capacity as the plan’s statutory trustee. The District Court's dismissal of these defendants was not appealed, nor was its dismissal of the PBGC’s cross-claim demanding that any recovery by petitioners be paid to it.
Petitioners also claimed that respondent’s activities constituted a party-in-interest transaction prohibited by ERISA and professional malpractice under state law. The District Court's dismissal of the former claim was not appealed, but the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the pendent claim on state-law grounds. Petitioners also sought declaratory and injunctive relief, which the District Court deemed irrelevant, given that the plan had been terminated and with it respondent’s position as the plan’s actuary. The Court of Appeals did not address this point.
Section 502(a) reads in its entirety:
“(a) Persons empowered to bring a civil action
“A civil action may be brought—
“(1) by a participant or beneficiary—
“(A) for the relief provided for in subsection (e) of this section, or
“(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan;
“(2) by the Secretary, or by a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary for appropriate relief under section 1109 of this title;
“(3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subehapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subehapter or the terms of the plan;
“(4) by the Secretary, or by a participant, or beneficiary for appropriate relief in the case of a violation of [section] 1025(c) of this title;
“(5) except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, by the Secretary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violation or (ii) to enforce any provision of this sub-chapter; or
“(6) by the Secretary to collect any civil penalty under subsection (c)(2) or (i) or (l) of this section.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. III).
For example, a person who provides services to a plan is a “party in interest,” 29 U. S. C. § 1002(14)(B), and may not offer his services or engage in certain other transactions with the plan, § 1106(a), for more than reasonable compensation, § 1108(b)(2). See also § 1023(d)(8) (annual reports must include certification by enrolled actuary); § 1082(c)(3) (minimum funding standards for plan to be based on “reasonable” actuarial assumptions).
The dissent expresses its certitude that “the statute clearly does not bar such a suit.” Post, at 265, n. 1. That, of course, is not the issue. The issue is whether the statute affirmatively authorizes such a suit. To meet that requirement, it is not enough to observe that “trust beneficiaries clearly had such a remedy [against nonfiduciaries who actively assist in the fiduciary’s breach] at common law.” Ibid. They had such a remedy because nonfiduciaries had a duty to the beneficiaries not to assist in the fiduciary’s breach. A similar duty is set forth in ERISA; but as we have noted, only some common-law “nonfiduciaries” are made subject to it, namely, those who fall within ERISA’s artificial definition of “fiduciary.”
The only exceptions were actions at law to obtain payment of money or transfer of chattels immediately and unconditionally due the beneficiary, see 3 Scott & Fratcher § 198 — and even then the courts were divided over whether equivalent actions could also be brought in equity, see id., § 198.3.
The dissent argues that it would limit the relief by rendering punitive damages unavailable. Post, at 270-272. The notion that concern about punitive damages motivated Congress is a classic example of projecting current attitudes upon the helpless past. Unlike the availability of money damages, which always has been a central concern of courts and legislatures in fashioning causes of action, the availability of punitive damages is a major issue today, but was not in 1974, when ERISA was enacted. See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 61-62 (1991) (O’Connor, J., dissenting); P. Huber, Liability 127 (1988); Ellis, Fairness and Efficiency in the Law of Punitive Damages, 56 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1, 2-3 (1982). That is particularly so for breach-of-trust cases. The 1988 edition of Scott & Fratcher cites no pre-ERISA case on the issue of punitive damages, see 3 Scott & Fratcher §205, p. 239, n. 2; the 1982 edition of Bogert & Bogert cites two, see Bogert & Bogert § 862, p. 41, n. 12. The 1992 supplements to these treatises, however, each cite more than a dozen eases on the issue from the 1980's.
But even if Congress had been concerned about “extracompensatory forms of relief,” post, at 270, it would have been foolhardy to believe that excluding “legal” relief was the way to prohibit them (while still permitting other forms of monetary relief) in breach-of-trust cases. The dissent’s confident assertion that punitive damages “were not available” in equity, ibid., simply does not correspond to the state of the law when ERISA was enacted. A year earlier, a major treatise on remedies was prepared to say only that “a majority of courts that have examined the point probably still refuse to grant punitive damages in equity cases.” D. Dobbs, Remedies §3.9, p. 211 (1973). That, of course, was speaking of equity cases in general. It would have been even riskier to presume that punitive damages were unavailable in that subclass of equity cases in which law-type damages were routinely awarded, namely, breach-of-trust cases. The few trust cases that did allow punitive damages were not exclusively actions at law. See Rivero v. Thomas, 86 Cal. App. 2d 225, 194 P. 2d 538 (1948). The two decisions upon which the dissent relies, Fleishman v. Krause, Lindsay & Nahstoll, 261 Ore. 505, 495 P. 2d 268 (1972), and Dixon v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 297 F. Supp. 485 (Minn. 1969), see post, at 271, held only that the breach-of-trust actions at issue could be brought at law, thus entitling the plaintiffs to a jury trial. While both decisions noted in passing that the plaintiffs sought punitive as well as compensatory damages, neither said that those damages could be obtained, much less that they could be obtained only at law.
The dissent's claim that the Courts of Appeals have adopted its theory that “equitable relief” was used in ERISA to exclude punitive damages, see post, at 272, n. 6, is also unfounded. The only opinion the dissent cites that permits punitive damages when an “equitable relief” limitation does not exist (viz., under § 502(a)(2), which permits not only “equitable,” but also “remedial,” relief) is Kuntz v. Reese, 760 F. 2d 926 (CA9 1985). That opinion (a) was based on the Ninth Circuit precedent we subsequently reversed in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134 (1985), see Kuntz, supra, at 938; (b) was formally withdrawn after being vacated on other grounds, see 785 F. 2d 1410 (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 916 (1986); and (c) has never been relied upon again, even by the Ninth Circuit.
We agree with the dissent, see post, at 269, n. 4, that the distinction between “equitable” and “remedial” relief is artless, but do not agree that we are therefore free to consider it meaningless. “Equitable” relief must mean something less than all relief Congress has, it may be noted, used the same language (“other equitable or remedial relief”) elsewhere. See 5 U. S. C. § 8477(e)(1)(A).
The dissent postulates that Congress used the “legal or equitable relief” language only where the cause of action it was authorizing lacked “any discernible analogue in the common law of trusts,” as a means of indicating that the courts are "free to craft whatever relief is most appropriate.” Post, at 268-269. That is demonstrably not so. Administrative accounting requirements like the ones enforced through 29 U. S. C. § 1024(a)(5)(C) (which uses the “legal or equitable” formulation) were not unheard-of before ERISA, see 2A Scott & Fratcher § 172, p. 456, and they have an “analogue” in the basic duty of trustees to keep and render accounts upon demand by the beneficiary, see id., § 172; Bogert & Bogert §861, pp. 7-9. Moreover, in a 1986 amendment to the subchapter-dealing with the PBGC, Congress created a cause of action to enforce the provisions governing termination of single-employer plans, using the same “other appropriate equitable relief” language as appears in § 502(a)(3). See 29 U. S. C. § 1370(a)(2). That cause of action no more reflects some common-law “analogue” than do those created by the other PBGC provisions referred to in text (which employ the “legal or equitable” formulation).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code (Title 28, United States Code) extends the doctrine of jorum non conveniens to antitrust suits. The Government’s complaint in this civil suit alleged that respondent corporations have conspired to obtain control of local transportation companies in at least 44 cities in 16 states in different sections of the country, in order to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in busses and the petroleum and other supplies incident thereto, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2.
This is the second time that an order of the court below, the. United States District Court for the Southern District of California, attempting to effectuate a transfer of the case from Los Angeles to Chicago, has been before this Court. When respondents’ motion was first granted, the District Court dismissed the action, 7 F. R. D. 456 (1947), inasmuch as the federal courts-then lacked.statutory power to transfer cases. We reversed, holding that jorum non conveniens was not applicable in antitrust suits. United States v. National City Lines, 334 U. S. 573 (June 7, 1948). After September 1, 1948, the effective date of the present Judicial Code, respondents filed a new motion under the doctrine of jorum non conveniens, citing § 1404 (a), which reads as follows: “For the comvenieneé of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court'may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” Again the District Court below granted the motion. It ordered the case transferred. 80 F. Supp. 734 (1948). The Government thereupon submitted in this Court a motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari. We assigned the case for hearing on this motion. ' 335 U. S. 897 (1948).
In taking the position that the District Court- lacked authority to enter its order of transfer, the Government has advanced many of the arguments which we have already considered today — and rejected — in Ex parte Collett, ante, p. 55, and Kilpatrick v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., ante, p. 75, in which we held that actions under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act were now subject to the doctrine of jorum non conveniens. The Government contends, for example, that Congress intended § 1404 (a) to apply only to actions the venue provisions of which were formerly contained .in Title 28, rather than to. “any civil action” (the venue requirements in antitrust cases, are defined in 15 U. S! C. § 22; in Liability Act cases, 45 U. S. C. § 56); and that the legislative history establishes very clearly that Congress had no desire substantially to change the law — indeed, the Government urges us to disregard the reviser’s notes which were printed in the House Reports. We cannot accept this position for the reasons discussed in our previous decisions today. The reviser’s notes are so obviously authoritative in perceiving the meaning of the Code that the Government itself, in discussing a section other than § 1404 (a), refers to them in its brief in this case. And we have already had occasion to look to the reviser’s notes. Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 376, n. 12 (1949),
It is true that the reviser’s notes to § 1404 (á), although citing a Federal Employers’ Liability Act decision, make no reference to the antitrust laws or to our previous decision in this litigation. The Government therefore urges that our disposition of the Liability Act cases is not conclusive. We disagree. The notes cite the Liability Act decision “As an example of the need of such a provision.” Obviously, an example is not a complete catalogue. The use of an example implies no purpose to restrict the meaning of the statutory phrase “any civil action” precisely to the illustration selected. Quite the contrary, the particular example noted demonstrates that Congress intended to effectuate changes ,in the law, irr order to expand the transferability of cases. And the change in antitrust practice seems no more radical than the change in Federal Employers’ Liability Act practice: Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U. S. 44 (1941), cited in the reviser’s note, was decided over six years before oür initial decision in this case, 334 U. S. 573 (1948), which was the first ruling by this Court that jorum non conveniens was inapplicable in antitrust suits.
Although no explanation is needed for the lack of Congressional reference to our former decision, simple chronology may be consulted. The reviser’s notes appeared in House Report No. 308, 80th Congress, 1st Sess., which was published in April; 1947. The Code revision was initially passed by the House in July, 1947. With amendments, the revision was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1948, and by the House on June 16, 1948. Our decision in the first National City Lines case, 334 U. S. 573, was handed down on June 7, 1948.» Clearly, the failure of Congress expressly to consider this decision proves nothing.
Nor was there anything in our decision which required unique Congressional discussion, in the face of the unmistakable statutory language and reviser’s notes. We expressly held' that “Congress’ mandate regarding venue and the exercise of jurisdiction is binding upon the federal courts,” 334 U. S. at 588-89, and that decision in this field must rest on “the legislative purpose and the effect of the language used . ; .,” supra, at 597. Nothing in our previous opinion intimates that we could fail to respect whatever modification of the law Congress might enact.
Moreover, this change' in the law must have been known to the Government in time for it to have addressed the protests which we have heard to the Congress. This was admitted on the oral argument; it could not possibly have been denied. When this litigation was previously before us, National City’s brief, at pp. 25-26 and 45, expressly called attention to the imminent probability that § 1404 (a) would be enacted and would be held applicable to antitrust suits. This brief was filed here on April 26, 1948. Not until June 7, 1948, was the final hearing on the Judicial Code revision held before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Furthermore, the Code proposals were extensively publicized. See Ex parte Collett, ante, at pp. 67-68. The Department of Justice in particular was informed: each United States Attorney received a copy of the drafts; a Department spokesman testified at the House hearing; the Attorney General was asked for an opinion by the Congressional Committee. The plain inference is either that the Government took no action with respect to the forthcoming alteration of the rule that jorum non conveniens was inapplicable to antitrust suits, or that a protest was made which Congress disregarded. Neither alternative would offer the slightest justification for overriding the unequivocal words of § 1404 (a) and the legislative history which establishes that Congress indeed meant what it said.
For these reasons, we can find no distinction between this case and the others decided today. We hold that § 1404 (a) is applicable here. The motion is
Denied.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge concurring in the result, see ante, p. 72.]
Act of June-25,1948,62 Stat. 869, 992, § 38.
There has been apparently but one other reported case dealing with the instant issue. It is in accord with the holding below. United States v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 83 F. Supp. 233 (1949).
See, generally, Note, Venue in Antitrust Cases: Applicability of the New Discretionary Transfer Provision, 58 Yale L. J. 482 (1949).
The note to § 1404 (a) appears at H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. A132 (1947) and H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. A127 (1946). It reads as follows: “Subsection (a) was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even though the venue is proper. As an example of the need of such a provision, see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 1941, 62 S. Ct. 6, 314 U. S. 44, 86 L. Ed. 28, which was prosecuted under the Federal Employer’s [sic] Liability Act in New York, although the accident occurred and-the employee resided in Ohio. The new subsection requires the court to determine that ihe transfer is necessary for conveniencé' of the . parties and witnesses, and further, that it is in the interest of justice-to do so ”
93 Cong. Rec. 8392 (1947).
94 Cong. Rec. 7930 (1948).
94 Cong. Rec. 8501 (1948).
Hearings before House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 1600 and H. R. 2055,80th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1947).
Statement of Special Assistant to the Attorney General Baynton, Ibid., 33-34. “With respect to the bill to codify title 28, the Department has been gathering memoranda from all its various divisions and from United States attorneys with the hope of making a comprehensible report on that bill. We have that material.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 34.
Letter from Attorney General Tom C. Clark to Congressman Michener, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 1947, H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1947). The letter declares that the objectives of the revision áre “commendable and desirable,” and continues as follows: “You will remember the discussions between members of the staff of the Committee and of the Department last month at which the Department made some suggestions with reference to minor corrections of errors and omissions then in the draft of the bill being considered by your committee.
“I am advised that this conference agreed upon a number of corrections. and changes and that these corrections and changes have now been incorporated in the bill with the one exception of the [Tax Court] portion . . . .” See 93 Cong. Rec. 8385 (1947).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied. U. S. Const., Amend. XXI, § 2; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U. S. 391; Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U. S. 395; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401; State Board of California v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
K
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action for damages brought by plaintiff, petitioner here, in the District Court of Woodbury County, Iowa, to compensate her for mental suffering claimed to flow from defendant cemetery's refusal to bury her husband, a Winnebago Indian, after services had been conducted at the grave site and the burial party had disbanded. Plaintiff founded her action, so far as here relevant, on breach of a contract whereby defendant had undertaken to afford plaintiff ‘‘Right of Sepulture” in a specified lot of its cemetery. The contract of sale of the burial lot also provided that
“burial privileges accrue only to members of the Caucasian race.”
Plaintiff asserted that this provision was void under both the Iowa and the United States Constitutions and that recognition of its validity would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. By an amendment to the complaint, plaintiff also claimed a violation of the United Nations Charter. The defense was anchored in the validity of the clause as a bar to this action.
After an abortive attempt to remove the case to the federal courts, 102 F. Supp. 658, defendants moved to dismiss the amended petition in the state court. This motion was denied, except that insofar as the amendment to the petition had relied on the United Nations Charter, the amendment was dismissed. Following Iowa procedure, the trial court entertained motions by both parties requesting it to adjudicate prior to trial points of law relating to the effect of the restrictive covenant. The Iowa court ruled that the clause was not void but was unenforceable as a violation of the Constitutions and public policy of Iowa and the United States. Nevertheless, it held that the clause “may be relied upon as a defense” and that “the action of a State or Federal court in permitting a defendant to stand upon the terms of its contract and to defend this action in court would not constitute state or federal action” contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It again ruled that the United Nations Charter was irrelevant, and the case was finally dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed, reasoning that the decision of this Court in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, when considered in conjunction with the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, did not require a state court to ignore such a provision in a contract when raised as a defense and in effect to reform the contract by enforcing it without regard to the clause. The court further ruled that the provisions of the United Nations Charter “have no bearing on the case” and that none of the grounds based on local law sustained the action. 245 Iowa 147, 60 N. W. 2d 110. We granted certiorari, 347 U. S. 942.
The basis for petitioner’s resort to this Court was primarily the Fourteenth Amendment, through the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Only if a State deprives any person or denies him enforcement of a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment can its protection be invoked. Such a claim involves the threshold problem whether, in the circumstances of this case, what Iowa, through its courts, did amounted to “state action.” This is a complicated problem which for long has divided opinion in this Court. See, e. g., Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20; Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1; Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461. See also, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249. Were this hurdle cleared, the ultimate substantive question, whether in the circumstances of this case the action complained of was condemned by the Fourteenth Amendment, would in turn present no easy constitutional problem.
The case was argued here and the stark fact is that the Court was evenly divided. 348 U. S. 880. In accordance with undeviating practice, no indication was given regarding the grounds of this division.
In addition to the familiar though vexing problems of constitutional law, there was reference in the opinions of the Iowa courts and in the briefs of counsel to the United Nations Charter. The Iowa courts dismissed summarily the claim that some of the general and hortatory language of this Treaty, which so far as the United States is concerned is itself an exercise of the treaty-making power under the Constitution, constituted a limitation on the rights of the States and of persons otherwise reserved to them under the Constitution. It is a redundancy to add that there is, of course, no basis for any inference that the division of this Court reflected any diversity of opinion on this question.
Following our affirmance by necessity of the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, a petition was filed for a rehearing before a full Court. In our consideration of this petition our attention has now been focused upon an Iowa statute enacted since the commencement of this litigation. Though it was in existence at the time the case first came here, it was then not seen in proper focus because blanketed by the issues of “state action” and constitutional power for which our interest was enlisted. This Iowa statute bars the ultimate question presented in this case from again arising in that State. In light of this fact and the standards governing the exercise of our discretionary power of review upon writ of certiorari, we have considered anew whether this case is one in which “there are special and important reasons” for granting the writ of certiorari, as required by Supreme Court Rule 19.
This Rule, formulated thirty years ago, embodies the criteria, developed ever since the Evarts Act of 1891, by which the Court determines whether a particular case merits consideration, with due regard to the proper functioning of the limited reviewing power to which this Court is confined, decisively restricted through the creation of the intermediate Courts of Appeals and more largely confined by the Judiciary Act of 1925. In illustrating the character of reasons which may be deemed “special and important,” the Rule refers to cases
“Where a state court has decided a federal question of substance not theretofore determined by this court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of this court.”
A federal question raised by a petitioner may be “of substance” in the sense that, abstractly considered, it may present an intellectually interesting and solid problem. But this Court does not sit to satisfy a scholarly interest in such issues. Nor does it sit for the benefit of the particular litigants. (Magnum Import Co. v. Coty, 262 U. S. 159, 163; see also Address of Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, before the American Bar Association, Sept. 7, 1949, 69 Sup. Ct. v, vi; Address of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, before the American Law Institute, May 10, 1934, XI Proc. Am. Law Inst. 313.) “Special and important reasons” imply a reach to a problem beyond the academic or the episodic. This is especially true where the issues involved reach constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the Court’s duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion. Cf. the classic rules for such avoidance stated by Mr. Justice Brandéis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341.
In the present case, certiorari was granted, according to our practice, because at least four members of the Court deemed that despite the rather unique circumstances of this case Iowa’s willingness to enforce this restrictive covenant rendered it “special and important.” We were unmindful at the time of Iowa’s corrective legislation and of its implications. While that statute had been cited in the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court, without quotation, in tangential support of a substantive argument, and while similar passing references appear in respondent’s briefs in opposition to the petition and on the merits, it was not even suggested as a ground for opposing the grant. Its importance was not put in identifying perspective, and it did not emerge to significance in the sifting process through which the annual hundreds of petitions for certiorari pass. Argument at the Bar was concerned with other issues and the even division of the Court forestalled that intensive study attendant upon opinion-writing which might well have revealed the crucial relevance of the statute.
These oversights should not now be compounded by further disregard of the impact of this enactment when viewed in the light of settled Iowa law, not previously brought to our attention, concerning its effect upon private litigation. The statute provides:
“Section 1. Any corporation or other form of organization organized or engaging in the business under the laws of the state of Iowa, or wheresoever organized and engaging in the business in the state of Iowa, of the ownership, maintenance or operation of a cemetery . . . except . . . churches or religious or established fraternal societies, or incorporated cities or towns or other political subdivisions of the state of Iowa . . . shall be subject to the provisions of this’ chapter.
“Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for any organization subject to the provisions of this chapter to deny the privilege of interment of the remains of any deceased person in any cemetery . . . solely because of the race or color of such deceased person. Any contract, agreement, deed, covenant, restriction or charter provision at any time entered into, or by-law, rule or regulation adopted -or put in force, either subsequent or prior to the effective date of this chapter, authorizing, permitting or requiring any organization subject to the provisions of this chapter to deny such privilege of interment because of race or color of such deceased person is hereby declared to be null and void and in conflict with the public policy of this state. . . .
“Sec. 9. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter, shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100.00).
“Sec. 12. Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the rights of any parties to any pending litigation.
“Approved April 21, 1953.” Iowa Laws 1953, c. 84; Iowa Code Ann. (1954 Cum. Supp.) § 566A. 1-11.
As a result of this Act, in any other case arising under similar circumstances not only would the statutory penalties be applicable, but also, under Iowa law, one in • petitioner’s position would be entitled to recover damages in a civil action based on a violation of the statute. See Humburd v. Crawford, 128 Iowa 743, 105 N. W. 330; Brown v. J. H. Bell Co., 146 Iowa 89, 123 N. W. 231, 124 N. W. 901; Amos v. Prom, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 615 (D. C. N. D. Iowa).
Had the statute been properly brought to our attention and the case thereby put into proper focus, the case would have assumed such an isolated significance that it would hardly have been brought here in the first instance. Any adjudication of the constitutional claims pressed by petitioner would now be an adjudication under circumstances not promotive of the very social considerations which evidently inspired the Iowa Legislature to provide against the kind of discrimination of which complaint is here made. On the one hand, we should hesitate to pass judgment on Iowa for unconstitutional action, were such to be found, when it has already rectified any possible error. On the other hand, we should not unnecessarily discourage such remedial action by possible condonation of this isolated incident. Moreover, the evident difficulties of the case suggest that, in the absence of compelling reason, we should not risk inconclusive and divisive disposition of a case when time may further illumine or completely outmode the issues in dispute.
Such factors are among the many which must be weighed in the exercise of that “sound judicial discretion” which Rule 19 requires. We have taken this opportunity to explain their relevance, when normally, for obvious reasons in view of our volume of business, no opinion accompanies dismissal of a writ as improvidently granted, because of the apt illustration here provided of the kinds of considerations, beyond those listed by Rule 19 as illustrative but not exhaustive, which preclude adjudication on the merits of cases which may have the surface appearance of public importance.
We are therefore of the opinion that this Court’s order of November 15, 1954, affirming by an equally divided Court the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, must be vacated and the writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. There is nothing unique about such dismissal even after full argument. There have been more than sixty such cases and on occasion full opinions have accompanied the dismissal. The circumstances of this case may be different and more unusual. But this impressive practice proves that the Court has not hesitated to dismiss a writ even at this advanced stage where it appears on further deliberation, induced by new considerations, that the case is not appropriate for adjudication. In the words of Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court:
“If it be suggested that as. much effort and time as we have given to the consideration of the alleged conflict would have enabled us to dispose of the case before us on the merits, the answer is that it is very important that we be consistent in not granting the writ of certiorari except in cases involving principles the settlement of which is of importance to the public as distinguished from that of the parties, and in cases where there is a real and embarrassing conflict of opinion and authority between the circuit courts of appeal.” Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387, 393.
The petition for rehearing is granted. The order of this Court of November 15, 1954, affirming by necessity the judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is vacated and the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cf. District of Columbia v. Sweeney, 310 U. S. 631, where cer-tiorari was denied “in view of the fact that the tax is laid under a statute which has been repealed and the question is therefore not of public importance.”
United States v. Rimer, 220 U. S. 547; Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430; Tyrrell v. District of Columbia, 243 U. S. 1; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387; Southern Rower Co. v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U. S. 508; Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co., 264 U. S. 314; Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182; Erie R. Co. v. Kirkendall, 266 U. S. 185; Southern California Edison Co. v. Herminghaus, 275 U. S. 486; Mellon v. McKinley, 275 U. S. 492; Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. v. Texas, 275 U. S. 494; Ellison v. Koswig, 276 U. S. 598; Johnson v. Thornburgh, 276 U. S. 601; Carter Oil Co. v. Eli, 277 U. S. 573; Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Commissioners, 278 U. S. 558; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Johnson, 278 U. S. 576; New York, Chicago & St. L. R. Co. v. Granfell, ibid.; Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Saunders, 278 U. S. 581; Virginian R. Co. v. Kirk, 278 U. S. 582; Wallace v. Motor Products Corp., 279 U. S. 859; Sutter v. Midland Valley R. Co., 280 U. S. 521; Anglo & London-Paris Nat. Bank v. Consolidated Nat. Bank, 280 U. S. 526; Gulf, Mobile & N. R. Co. v. Williams, ibid.; Wisconsin Electric Co. v. Dumore Co., 282 U. S. 813; Adam v. New York Trust Co., 282 U. S. 814; Director of Lands v. Villa-Abrille, 283 U. S. 785; Sanchez v. Borras, 283 U. S. 798; Elgin, Joliet & E. R. Co. v. Churchill, 284 U. S. 589; Snowden v. Red River Drainage Dist., 284 U. S. 592; Lang v. United States, 286 U. S. 523; Franklin-American Trust Co. v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 286 U. S. 533; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Parker, 287 U. S. 569; Sevier Commission Co. v. Wallowa Nat. Bank, 287 U. S. 575; Fort Smith Sub. R. Co. v. Kansas City So. R. Co., 288 U. S. 587; Boynton v. Hutchinson Gas Co., 292 U. S. 601; Lynch v. New York, 293 U. S. 52; Hunt v. Western Casualty Co., 293 U. S. 530; Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 294 U. S. 696; State Automobile Ins. Assn. v. Glick, 294 U. S. 697; Moor v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 297 U. S. 101; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Neill, 302 U. S. 645; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 302 U. S. 652; Tax Commission v. Wilbur, 304 U. S. 544; Goodman v. United States, 305 U. S. 578; Goins v. United States, 306 U. S. 622; McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp., 309 U. S. 2; Utilities Ins. Co. v. Potter, 312 U. S. 662; Harris v. Zion’s Savings Bank, 313 U. S. 541; Jones v. Opelika, 315 U. S. 782; Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98; McCullough v. Kammerer Corp., 323 U. S. 327; McCarthy v. Bruner, 323 U. S. 673; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U. S. 431; Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806; Superior Court v. Lillefloren, 335 U. S. 906; Loftus v. Illinois, 337 U. S. 935; Parker v. Los Angeles, 338 U. S. 327; Hammerstein v. Superior Court, 341 U. S. 491; Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U. S. 541; Edelman v. California, 344 U. S. 357; Bentsen v. Blackwell, 347 U. S. 925; California ex rel. Brown v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 U. S. 932. This list is not to be deemed comprehensive.
Only in the light of argument on the merits did it become clear in these numerous cases that the petitions for certiorari should not have been granted. In some instances an asserted conflict turned out to be illusory; in others, a federal question was wanting or decision could be rested on a non-federal ground; in a number, it became manifest that the question was of importance merely to the litigants and did not present an issue of immediate public significance.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners assaulted an undercover United States Secret Service agent with a loaded pistol, in an attempt to rob him of $1,800 of Government “flash money” that the agent was using to buy counterfeit currency from them. They were convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. § 2114, which proscribes the assault and robbery of any custodian of “mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed petitioners’ convictions, over their contention that § 2114 is limited to crimes involving the Postal Service. 718 F. 2d 1528 (1983). We granted certiorari, 466 U. S. 926 (1984), to resolve a split in the Circuits concerning the reach of § 2114, and we affirm.
Agent K. David Holmes of the United States Secret Service posed as someone interested in purchasing counterfeit currency. He met petitioners Jose and Francisco Garcia in a park in Miami, Fla. Petitioners agreed to sell Holmes a large quantity of counterfeit currency, and asked that he show them the genuine currency he intended to give in exchange. He “flashed” the $1,800 of money to which he had been entrusted by the United States, and they showed him a sample of their wares — a counterfeit $50 bill.
Wrangling over the terms of the agreement began, and Jose Garcia leapt in front of Holmes brandishing a semiautomatic pistol. He pointed the pistol at Holmes, assumed a combat stance, chambered a round into the pistol, and demanded the money. While Holmes slowly raised his hands over his head, three Secret Service agents who had been watching from afar raced to the scene on foot. Jose Garcia dropped the pistol and surrendered, but Francisco Garcia seized the money belonging to the United States and fled. The agents arrested Jose Garcia on the spot, and pursued and later arrested Francisco Garcia as well.
Petitioners were convicted in a jury trial of violating 18 U. S. C. §2114 by assaulting a lawful custodian of Government money, Agent Holmes, with intent to “rob, steal, or purloin” the money. That section states in full:
“Whoever assaults any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or robs any such person of mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, shall for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he wounds the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or puts his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years.”
Both petitioners were sentenced to the 25-year prison term mandated by § 2114 when the assault puts the custodian’s life in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction. The only issue before us on certiorari is whether the language “any money, or other property of the United States” in § 2114 includes the $1,800 belonging to the United States and entrusted to Agent Holmes as “flash money” in this case.
Section 2114 prohibits the assault with intent to rob of “any person having lawful charge, control or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States . . . .” (emphasis supplied). Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the reach of this language, Congress intended that only the robbery of “postal” money or property was to be covered by the statute.
The enacted language of the statute is contrary to petitioners’ argument. The language protects custodians of any mail matter, custodians of any United States money, and, in a catchall phrase, custodians of any other United States property. As in our recent case of Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), “[n]othing on the face of the statute suggests a congressional intent to limit its coverage to persons [employed by the Postal Service].” Id., at 60.
The three classes of property protected by § 2114 are each separated by the conjunction “or.” Canons of construction indicate that terms connected in the disjunctive in this manner be given separate meanings. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 739-740 (1978). In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330 (1979), we refused to ignore the statutory meaning which would be presumed from similar disjunctive language, stating that the use of the term “or” indicates an intent to give the nouns their separate, normal meanings. Id., at 339. In our case, Congress separated “mail matter,” “money,” and “other property” from one another by use of a disjunctive, and we think this means that the word “money” must be given its ordinary, separate meaning; it does not mean “postal money” or “money in the custody of postal employees.”
Petitioners contend that the language of the statute is ambiguous, and in support of this contention offer what seems to us a rather labyrinthine explanation of the statutory language. Petitioners first claim that the conjunction “or” cannot properly be read to totally separate the three types of property listed in the prohibition; for if the word “or” indeed strictly separates the three types of property, the statute would proscribe assaults on custodians of any “money,” whether or not it was money belonging to the United States, because the term “money” would not be modified or restricted by the term “of the United States” which follows the word “property.” Thus Congress would have enacted a law, say petitioners, proscribing assaults on custodians of money by whomever owned, and “Congress would then have enacted a Federal robbery statute without any jurisdictional basis.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 8. Because Congress could not have intended this absurd result, petitioners contend, there is an ambiguity in the statutory language. This contention, however, totally ignores the word “other” which follows “money” and shows that the money referred to, like the property referred to, is money belonging to the United States.
Petitioners then develop their argument by invoking the principle of ejusdem generis to resolve the ambiguity which their analysis creates. Under that principle, of course, where general words follow an enumeration of specific terms, the general words are read to apply only to other items like those specifically enumerated. See Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 588 (1980). Petitioners thus urge that “mail matter” is a specific term, and therefore the general terms “money” and “other property” which follow it must be read in the specific, restricted postal context. They conclude that “money” was intended to mean “postal money” and “other property of the United States” was intended to mean “other postal property.”
We said in Harrison that “‘“the rule of ejusdem generis, while firmly established, is only an instrumentality for ascertaining the correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty.””’ Ibid., quoting United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 91 (1975), in turn quoting Gooch v. United States, 297 U. S. 124, 128 (1936). We are not persuaded that petitioners’ analysis of the statutory language creates any ambiguity in the plain meaning of the words, and even if it did we do not think that the particular language here lends itself to the application of the ejusdem generis rule. We have previously noted that the terms in question are made separate and distinct from one another by Congress’ use of the disjunctive; in addition, the term “mail matter” is no more specific a term — and is probably less specific — than “money.”
Notwithstanding petitioners’ argument to the contrary, we are satisfied that the statutory language with which we deal has a plain and unambiguous meaning. While we now turn to the legislative history as an additional tool of analysis, we do so with the recognition that only the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions from those data would justify a limitation on the “plain meaning” of the statutory language. When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in “‘rare and exceptional circumstances,’” TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 187, n. 33 (1978), quoting Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U. S. 55, 60 (1930).
Section 2114 had its genesis as a law to protect mail carriers from assault and robbery of mail matter. The forerunner to §2114 was 18 U. S. C. §320 (1934 ed., Supp. V). It proscribed assault and robbery of “any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter.” Section 320 had been placed in Chapter 8 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Chapter 8 was entitled “Offenses Against Postal Service.” In 1935, however, the 74th Congress amended § 320 by appending after the term “mail matter” the clause “or of any money or other property of the United States.” Section 320 as amended retained its place in Chapter 8 of Title 18 until 1948, when it was transferred to Chapter 103, which is entitled “Robbery and Burglary” and contains all of the federal statutes covering those crimes. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat.. 797. Section 320 was then renumbered as §2114; with the exception of minor particulars the text of the statute has remained unchanged since the 1935 amendment.
Petitioners contend that the 1935 amendment to § 320 was not intended to expand the reach of that statute beyond postal crimes. In support of this they rely on some short colloquies from the House floor which they describe as “snippets.”
In surveying legislative history we have repeatedly stated that the authoritative source for finding the Legislature’s intent lies in the Committee Reports on the bill, which “represent] the considered and collective understanding of those Congressmen involved in drafting and studying proposed legislation.” Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 186 (1969). We have eschewed reliance on the passing comments of one Member, Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U. S. 25, 35 (1982), and casual statements from the floor debates. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 385 (1968); Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). In O’Brien, supra, at 385, we stated that Committee Reports are “more authoritative” than comments from the floor, and we expressed a similar preference in Zuber, supra, at 187.
The Committee Reports on this bill show no intent on the part of the 74th Congress to limit the amended §320 to less than the normal reach of its words. The House Report on the bill to amend § 320 is entitled “SAFEGUARDING CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS AND PROPERTY” and states that “[t]he purpose of the pending bill is to bring, within the provisions of the Penal Code the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys.” H. R. Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). The Senate Report on the 1935 amendment is entitled “PROVIDING FOR PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBING OR ATTEMPTING TO ROB CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS OR PROPERTY,” and the Senate Report states the purpose of the bill exactly like the House Report. S. Rep. No. 1440, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). Nowhere do the Committee Reports state that the amended statute required a “postal nexus” or was limited to postal crimes.
Petitioners make a good deal of the fact that both Reports contain the letter from the Postmaster General, requesting enactment of the bill. That official’s letter, however, says nothing about limiting the broad language of the bill to postal crimes, but instead speaks simply of “custodian[s] of Government funds,” not of Government “mail.” H. R. Rep. No. 582, supra, at 1; S. Rep. No. 1440, supra, at 1. In two places the Postmaster General’s letter states that the bill was designed to punish the crime of “robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys.” Ibid. Thus the Committee Reports show that the Postmaster, and the two Committees responsible for the legislation, gave no evidence of their belief that the statute was limited to postal crimes.
Petitioners rely heavily on the statement of Representative Dobbins, whom the dissent identifies as the floor manager, made on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 24, 1935. Representative Dobbins stated:
“The only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials. . . . [L]et me say there are many custodians of postal stations who have a great amount of money in their custody but little mail____” 79 Cong. Rec. 8205 (1935).
We find a number of flaws in petitioners’ argument that Representative Dobbins’ statement is clear proof of Congress’ intent. First, this snippet quotes Representative Dobbins out of context. The above-quoted statement was made in response to an objection from another Member concerning the mandatory 25-year penalty in the proposed statute. As one in favor of the bill, Representative Dobbins’ attempt to limit the scope of the statute is best read in light of this objection. See ibid. To permit such colloquies to alter the clear language of the statute undermines the intent of Congress. Regan v. Wald, 468 U. S. 222, 237 (1984). See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16 (1983). Isolated statements such as Representative Dobbins’ are “not impressive legislative history.” Zuber, supra, at 187. If they were, a statement of Representative Wolcott earlier in the same colloquy to the effect that “[tjhis bill is confined to assaults on Federal law-enforcement officers,” 79 Cong. Rec., at 8205, would seem to counterbalance the import of Representative Dobbins’ statement. Thus petitioners would lose even if we were to adopt some type of reverse parol evidence rule, where oral statements were elevated above enacted language in determining the meaning of the statute.
We think probably the strongest argument that may be made for limitation on the coverage of § 2114, although petitioners do not themselves make it as such, is that set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Reid, 517 F. 2d 953 (1975), and amplified by our dissenting colleagues today. This argument is certainly not without persuasive power, and it would perhaps be controlling if there were substantial ambiguity in the language Congress had enacted. But there is nó such ambiguity. We are not willing to narrow the plain meaning of even a criminal statute on the basis of a gestalt judgment as to what Congress probably intended.
As a final argument petitioners assert that they are vindicated by the Solicitor General’s earlier stipulation in United States v. Hanahan, 442 F. 2d 649 (CA7 1971), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 807 (1973). In that case we were faced with the identical issue presented here, but we vacated and remanded in light of the Solicitor General’s concession that §2114 only applied to postal crimes. The Solicitor General now states that his concession in Hanahan was unwarranted. As we noted in NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U. S. 335, 351 (1978), a governmental agency “is not disqualified from changing its mind” concerning the construction of a statute. See also Barrett v. United States, 423 U. S. 212, 222 (1976). Moreover, private agreements between litigants, especially those disowned, cannot relieve this Court of performance of its judicial function. It is our responsibility to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting §2114, irrespective of petitioners’ or respondent’s prior or present views. “[T]he proper administration of the criminal law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of [the] parties.” Young v. United States, 315 U. S. 257, 259 (1942). We agree that the Solicitor General’s prior concession was ill-advised, but it does not control this case.
Petitioners seek to clip §2114 despite its plain terms, but “[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way.” Russello, 464 U. S., at 23. Instead, Congress selected language that penalized assaults or robberies of anyone who is a custodian of “any money or other property of the United States.” It is beyond question that by using a pistol in an effort to rob Agent Holmes, petitioners fell squarely within the prohibitions of the statute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
See United States v. Reid, 517 F. 2d 953 (CA2 1975); United States v. Rivera, 513 F. 2d 519 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 948 (1975); United States v. Fernandez, 497 F. 2d 730 (CA9 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 990 (1975).
Petitioners were also convicted of other crimes. See 718 F. 2d 1528 (1983).
As Justice Jackson stated:
“Resort to legislative history is only justified where the face of the Act is inescapably ambiguous, and then I think we should not go beyond Committee reports, which presumably are well considered and carefully prepared. . . . [T]o select casual statements from floor debates, not always distinguished for candor or accuracy, as a basis for making up our minds what law Congress intended to enact is to substitute ourselves for the Congress in one of its important functions.” Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 395-396 (1951) (concurring).
Despite the Solicitor General’s view, Government prosecutors had relied on § 2114 outside of the postal context. See, e. g., United States v. O’Neil, 436 F. 2d 571 (CA9 1970) (Customs Service employee); United States v. Sherman, 421 F. 2d 198 (CA4) (military money custodian), cert. denied, 398 U. S. 914 (1970); Peek v. United States, 321 F. 2d 934 (CA9 1963) (same).
We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that §2114 as we have read it does not fit well with other federal statutes, especially §2112. The statutes are related but not duplicitous. Section 2112 prohibits only consummated robberies of any person — whether lawful custodian or not— possessing any type of personal property of the United States. The difference between § 2112 and § 2114 is that the latter is specifically directed to authorized custodians, and protects them against assaults accompanying both attempted and completed robberies. Thus the statutes complement each other.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN or Act), 102 Stat. 890, 29 U. S. C. § 2101 et seq., obliges covered employers to give employees or their union 60 days notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. These consolidated eases raise the issue of the proper source of the limitations period for civil actions brought to enforce the Act. For actions brought in Pennsylvania, and generally, we hold it to be state law.
I
With some exceptions and conditions, WARN forbids an employer of 100 or more employees to “order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order.” 29 U. S. C. § 2102(a). The employer is supposed to notify, among others, “each affected employee” or “each representative of the affected employees.” 29 U. S. C. § 2102(a)(1). An employer who violates the notice provisions is liable for penalties by way of a civil action that may be brought “in any district court of the United States for any district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, or in which the employer transacts business.” § 2104(a)(5). The class of plaintiffs includes aggrieved employees (or their unions, as representatives), ibid., who may collect “back pay for each day of violation,” § 2104(a)(1)(A), “up to a maximum of 60 days,” § 2104(a)(1). While the terms of the statute are specific on other matters, WARN does not provide a limitations period for the civil actions authorized by §2104.
In Crown Cork, respondent United Steelworkers of America brought a WARN claim in Federal District Court in Pennsylvania, charging Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., with laying off 85 employees at its Perry, Georgia, plant in September 1991, without giving the required 60-day notice. Crown Cork moved for summary judgment, claiming that the statute of limitations had run. The District Court denied the motion, holding the source of the limitations period for WARN suits to be Pennsylvania state law and the union’s suit timely under any of the arguably applicable state statutes. 833 F. Supp. 467 (ED Pa. 1993). The District Court nevertheless certified the question of the limitations period for immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292.
The North Star respondents are former, nonunion employees of petitioner North Star Steel Company who filed a WARN claim against the company (also in a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania) alleging that the company laid off 270 workers at a Pennsylvania plant without giving the 60-day advance notice. Like Crown Cork, and for like reasons, North Star also moved for summary judgment. But North Star was successful, the District Court holding the suit barred under the 6-month limitations period for unfair labor practice claims borrowed from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b), a statute believed by the court to be “more analogous” to WARN than anything in state law. 838 F. Supp. 970, 974 (MD Pa. 1993).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit consolidated the cases and held that a period of limitations for WARN should be borrowed from state, not federal, law, reversing in North Star and affirming in Crown Cork. 32 F. 3d 53 (1994). Like the District Court in Crown Cork, the Court of Appeals did not pick from among the several Pennsylvania statutes of limitations that might apply to WARN, since none of them would have barred either of the actions before it.
The Third Circuit’s decision deepened a split among the Courts of Appeals on the issue of WARN’s limitations period. See United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Specialty Paperboard, Inc., 999 F. 2d 51 (CA2 1993) (applying state-law limitations period); Halkias v. General Dynamics Corp., 31 F. 3d 224 (CA5) (applying NLRA limitations period), rehearing en banc granted, 9 IER Cases 1754 (CA5 1994); United Mine Workers of America v. Peabody Coal Co., 38 F. 3d 850 (CA6 1994) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve it, 513 U. S. 1072 (1995), and now affirm.
II
A
A look at this Court’s docket in recent years will show how often federal statutes fail to provide any limitations period for the causes of action they create, leaving courts to borrow a period, generally from state law, to limit these claims. See, e. g., Reed v. Transportation Union, 488 U. S. 319 (1989) (claims under § 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(2), governed by state personal injury statutes); Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143 (1987) (civil actions under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1964, governed by 4-year statute of limitations of the Clayton Act, 69 Stat. 283, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15b); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261 (1985) (civil rights claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 governed by state statutes of limitations for personal injury actions); DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983) (hybrid suit by employee against employer for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement and against union for breach of a duty of fair representation governed by NLRA limitations period). Although these examples show borrowing from federal law as well as state, our practice has left no doubt about the lender of first resort. Since 1830, “state statutes have repeatedly supplied the periods of limitations for federal causes of action” when the federal legislation made no provision, Automobile Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 703-704 (1966), and in seeking the right state rule to apply, courts look to the state statute “ ‘most closely analogous’ ” to the federal Act in need, Reed, supra, at 323, quoting DelCostello, supra, at 158. Because this penchant to borrow from analogous state law is not only “longstanding,” Agency Holding Corp., supra, at 147, but “settled,” Wilson, supra, at 266, “it is not only appropriate but also realistic to presume that Congress was thoroughly familiar with [our] precedents . . . and that it expect[s] its enactment[s] to be interpreted in conformity with them,” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 699 (1979). See Agency Holding Corp., supra, at 147.
There is, of course, a secondary lender, for we have recognized “a closely circumscribed . . . [and] narrow exception to the general rule,” Reed, supra, at 324, based on the common sense that Congress would not wish courts to apply a limitations period that would only stymie the policies underlying the federal cause of action. So, when the state limitations periods with any claim of relevance would “ ‘frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies,’ ” Del-Costello, supra, at 161, quoting Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 367 (1977), or be “at odds with the purpose or operation of federal substantive law,” DelCos-tello, supra, at 161, we have looked for a period that might be provided by analogous federal law, more in harmony with the objectives of the immediate cause of action. See, e. g., Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 362 (1991); Agency Holding Corp., supra, at 153, 156; DelCostello, supra, at 171-172. But the reference to federal law is the exception, and we decline to follow a state limitations period “only ‘when a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provides a closer analogy than available state statutes, and when the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make that rule a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking.’ ” Reed, supra, at 324, quoting DelCostello, supra, at 172.
B
These cases fall squarely inside the rule, not the exception. The presumption that state law will be the source of a missing federal limitations period was already “longstanding,” Agency Holding Corp., 483 U. S., at 147, when WARN was passed in 1988, justifying the assumption that Congress “intend[ed] by its silence that we borrow state law,” ibid. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals identified four Pennsylvania statutes of limitations that might apply to WARN claims: the 2-year period for enforcing civil penalties generally, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, §5524(5) (Purdon 1981 and 1994 Supp.); the 3-year' period for claims under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 43, § 260.9a(g) (Purdon 1992); the 4-year period for breach of an implied contract, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, § 5525(4) (Purdon 1981); and the six years under the residual statute of limitations, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, § 5527 (Purdon 1981 and 1994 Supp.). See 32 F. 3d, at 61. Since the complaints in both Crown Cork and North Star were timely even under the shortest of these, there is no need to go beyond the decision of the Court of Appeals to choose the best of four, and it is enough to say here that none of these potentially applicable statutes would be “at odds” with WARN’s “purpose or operation,” or “ ‘frustrate or interfere with’ ” the intent behind it. DelCostello, 462 U. S., at 161.
The contrast with DelCostello is clear. There the Court declined to borrow state limitations periods for so-called “hybrid” claims brought by an employee against both his employer and his union, for the reason that the state-law candidates “typically provide[d] very short times” for suit (generally 90 days) and thus “fail[ed] to provide an aggrieved employee with a satisfactory opportunity to vindicate his rights.” Id., at 166, and n. 16. Here, the shortest of the arguably usable state periods, however, is two years, which is not short enough to frustrate an employee seeking relief under WARN. At the other end, even the longest of the periods, six years, is not long enough to frustrate the interest in “a relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes.” See Automobile Workers, supra, at 707 (borrowing a 6-year state limitations period for claims brought under §301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act).
We do not take petitioners to disagree seriously, for the heart of their argument is not that the state periods are too long or too short. They submit instead that, if we look to state law, WARN litigation presents undue risks of forum shopping, such that we ought to pick a uniform federal rule for all claims (with the NLRA, and its 6-month limitations period for unfair labor practices claims, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b), being the federal Act most analogous to WARN). But even taking petitioners on their own terms, they make no case for choosing the exception over the rule. They are right, of course, that the practice of adopting state statutes of limitations for federal causes of action can result in different limitations periods in different States for the same federal action, and correct that some plaintiffs will canvass the variations and shop around for a forum. But these are just the costs of the rule itself, and nothing about WARN makes them exorbitant.
It is, indeed, true that “practicalities of litigation” influenced our rationale for adopting a uniform federal rule for civil actions under RICO. Agency Holding Corp., supra, at 153. But WARN’s obligations are triggered by a “plant closing” or a “mass layoff” at a “single site of employment,” 29 U. S. C. §§ 2101(a)(2)—(3), and so, unlike RICO violations, do not “commonly involve interstate transactions.” Agency Holding Corp., 483 U. S., at 153. WARN thus fails to share the “multistate nature” of RICO, id., at 154, and is so relatively simple and narrow in its scope, see id., at 149 (listing the many categories of crimes that can be predicate acts for a RICO violation), that “no [comparable] practicalities of litigation compel us to search beyond state law for a more analogous statute of limitations,” Reed, 488 U. S., at 327. Since, then, a state counterpart provides a limitations period without frustrating consequences, it is simply beside the point that even a perfectly good federal analogue exists.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The expectation is reversed for statutes passed after December 1,1990, the effective date of 28 U. S. C. § 1658 (1988 ed., Supp. V), which supplies a general, 4-year limitations period for any federal statute subsequently enacted without one of its own.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The proceedings below were brought to challenge an order by respondent who, in a criminal trial, barred the press and public from publishing the names and addresses of jurors. Respondent also prohibited the parties from sketching, photographing, televising, and videotaping the jurors during their service in the criminal proceedings and from handling trial exhibits without permission of the court. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. However, it was denied without opinion. Petitioners, arguing that they have been denied their federal constitutional rights, now urge us to grant certiorari.
As matters now stand, the record does not disclose whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania passed on petitioners’ federal claims or whether it denied their petition for a writ of prohibition on an adequate and independent state ground. For this reason, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate to clarify the record. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U. S. 241 (1978) (per curiam); California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972) (per curiam).
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This income tax refund suit involves the statutory percentage depletion allowance to which respondent, an integrated miner-manufacturer of burnt clay products from fire clay and shale, is entitled under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
The percentage granted by the statute is on respondent’s “gross income from mining.” It defines “mining” to include the “ordinary treatment processes normally applied by mine owners ... to obtain the commercially marketable mineral product or products.” Respondent claimed that its first “commercially marketable mineral product” is sewer pipe and other vitrified articles. Alternatively, it contended that depletion should be based on the price of 80 tons of ground fire clay and shale actually sold during the tax year in question. The District Court agreed with respondent’s first claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that respondent could not profitably sell its raw fire clay and shale without processing it into finished products, and that its statutory percentage depletion was therefore properly based on its gross sales of the latter. 268 F. 2d 334. The Government contends that the product from which “gross income from mining” is computed is an industry-wide test and cannot be reduced to a particular operation that a taxpayer might find profitable. The Government further argues that, while the statute permits ordinary treatment processes normally applied by miners to the raw product of their mines to produce a commercially marketable mineral product, it does not embrace the fabrication of the mineral product into finished articles. In view of the importance of the question to taxpayers as well as to the Government, we granted certiorari. 361 U. S. 923. We disagree with respondent’s contention that the issue is not presented by this record, and we therefore reach the merits. We have concluded that, under the mandate of the statute, respondent’s “gross income from mining” under the findings here is the value of its raw fire clay and shale, after the application of the ordinary treatment processes normally applied by nonintegrated miners engaged in the recovery of those minerals.
I.
During the tax year ending November 30, 1951, the respondent owned and operated an underground mine from which it produced fire clay and shale in proportions of 60% fire clay and 40% shale. It transported the raw mineral product by truck to its plant at Cannelton, Indiana, about one and one-half miles distant. There it processed and fabricated the fire clay and shale into vitrified sewer pipe, flue lining and related products. In this process, the clay and shale is first ground into a pulverized form about as'fine as talcum powder. The powder is then mixed with water in a pug mill and becomes a plastic mass, which is formed by machines into the shape of the finished ware desired. The ware is then placed in dryers where heat of less than 212° is applied to remove all of the water. This process takes from 12 hours to 3 weeks, depending on the size of the ware. Thereafter the ware is vitrified in kilns at 2,200° Fahrenheit, requiring from 60 to 210 hours. It is then cooled, graded and either shipped or stored.
Not all clays and shales are suitable for respondent’s operations. They must have plasticity, special drying qualities and be able to withstand high temperatures. Respondent’s clay, known as Cannelton clay, is the deepest clay mined in Indiana and, respondent says, yields the best sewer pipe. Its cost of removing and delivering the same to its plant was $2,418 per ton in 1951. Respondent used some 38,473 tons of clay and shale in its operations that year and sold approximately 80 tons of ground fire clay and shale in bags at a price of $22.88 per ton. Net sales of its finished wares amounted to approximately one and a half million dollars.
In connection with its tax assessment for the year in question, respondent filed a document in which it stated that “we used as a basis for calculating the gross income from our mining operations of shale and fire clay the point in our manufacturing operations at which we first arrive with a commercially marketable product, which is ground fire clay. This product arrives after the raw mineral is crushed and granulated to such extent that by the addition of water it can be made into a mortar for use in laying or setting fire or refractory brick. This ground fire clay has a definite market and an ascertainable market value at any particular time and is the same product from which our end product, sewer tile, is made simply by the addition of water and the necessary baking process.” In this return it based the value of the ground fire clay at $22.81 per ton, the price for which it sold some 80 tons of that material in bags during 1951. At this figure the depletion allowance would have been slightly above $2 per ton. Thereafter respondent claimed error and asserted that its mineral product, rather than being commercially marketable when it reached the stage of ground fire clay, only became commercially marketable when it became a finished product, e. g., sewer pipe. On this basis, the depletion allowance on petitioner’s gross income would be approximately $4 per ton, since the mineral would have a value of about $40 per ton. On the other hand, if the mineral it used in 1951 was valued at $1.60 to $1.90 per ton, the going price elsewhere in Indiana, the depletion allowance would be approximately 200 per ton.
The record shows and the District Court found that in 1951 there were substantial sales of raw fire clay and shale in Indiana, mostly in the vicinity of Brazil, about 140 miles from Cannelton. The average price there was $1.60 to $1.90 per ton for fire clay and $1 per ton for shale. Transportation costs from Brazil to Cannelton ran from $4.58 to $5.50 per ton. In Kentucky, across the river from respondent’s plant, it appears that fire clay and shale of the same grade were mined and sold before, during and subsequent to 1951. In fact, since 1957 respondent has secured all of its mineral requirements from this source on a lease basis under which the lessor mines and delivers the raw material to its plant. The exact cost is not shown, but the haul in 1957 from pit to plant, including the ferry crossing, was some seven miles.
II.
We have carefully studied the legislative history of the depletion allowance, including the voluminous materials furnished by the parties, not only in their briefs but in the exhaustive appendices and the record. We shall not burden this opinion with its repetition.
In summary, mineral depletion for tax purposes is an allowance from income for the exhaustion of capital assets. Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404 (1940). In addition, it is based on the belief that its allowance encourages extensive exploration and increasing discoveries of additional minerals to the benefit of the economy and strength of the Nation. We are not concerned with the validity of this theory or with the statutory policy. Our sole function is application of the congressional mandate. A study of the materials indicates that percentage depletion first came into the tax structure in 1926, when the Congress granted it to oil and gas producers. The percentage allowed was based on “gross income from the property,” which was described as “the gross receipts from the sale of oil and gas as it is delivered from the property.” Preliminary Report, Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, Vol. I, Part 2 (1927). The report continued that, as to the integrated operator, the gross income from the property must be computed from the production and posted price of oil, as the gross receipts from a refined and transported product can not be used in determining the income as relating to an individual tract or lease.” The Treasury Regulations confirmed this understanding. Treas. Reg. 74 (1929 ed.), Arts. 221 (i), 241.
Thereafter, in 1932, percentage depletion was extended to metal mines, coal, and sulphur. The mining engineer of the Joint Committee, Alex. R. Shepherd, urged in a report to the Congress that depletion for metal mines be computed, as in the oil and gas industry, on a percentage-of-income basis, and the Revenue Act of 1932 was so drawn. The Shepherd Report pointed out that the percentage basis for oil and gas depletion had been in force for over a year and had “functioned satisfactorily both from economical and administrative viewpoints and without loss of revenue.” It added that “careful study of this method as applied to metal mines indicates that the same results will be attained in practice as in the case of oil and gas,” but that, because of varied practices in the mining industry, it would be necessary to determine “the point in accounting at which” gross income from the property mined could be calculated. It recommended that “it is logical to peg 'gross income from the property’ f. o. b. cars at mine,” i. e., net smelter returns, recognizing that processing beyond this point should not be included in calculating “gross income from the property.” While as to certain metals, viz., gold, silver, or copper, the report suggested that gross income should be based on receipts from “the sale of the crude, partially beneficiated or refined” product, this was but to make provision for the specific operations of miners in those metals. In this regard the report also proposed that the depletion base “in the case of all other, metals, coal and oil and gas, [should be] the competitive market receipts, or its equivalent, received from the sale of the crude products, or concentrates on an f. o. b. mine, mill, or well basis.”
The Congress in fashioning the 1932 Act took into account these recommendations. It incorporated a provision in the Act allowing percentage depletion for coal and metal mines and sulphur, based on the “gross income from the property.” § 114 (b)(4), Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169. On the following February 10, 1933, the Treasury issued its Regulations 77, which defined “gross income from the property” as “the amount for which the taxpayer sells (a) the crude mineral product of the property or (b) the product derived therefrom, not to exceed in the case of (a) the representative market or field price ... or in the case of (b) the representative market or field price ... of a product of the kind and grade from which the product sold was derived, before the application of any processes . . . with the exception of those listed . . . .” Treas. Reg. 77, Art. 221 (g). These exceptions listed processes normally in use in the mining industry for preparing the mineral as a marketable shipping product. The regulation was of unquestioned validity and, in 1943, at the instance of the industry, the Congress substantially embodied it into the statute itself, 58 Stat. 21, 44, including the basic definition of the term “gross income from the property.” Since that time the section on percentage depletion — § 114 (b)(4)(B) of the 1939 Code — has remained basically the same. Additional minerals have been added from time to time — shale and fire clay in 195.1 — until practically all minerals are included.
As now enacted, the section provides that “mining” includes “not merely the extraction of the ores or minerals from the ground but also the ordinary treatment processes normally applied by mine owners or operators in order to obtain the commercially marketable mineral product or products,” plus transportation from the place of extraction to the “plants or mills in which the ordinary treatment processes are applied thereto,” not exceeding 50 miles. It then defines “ordinary treatment processes” by setting out specifically in four categories those covering some 17 named minerals. Fire clay and shale are not within these specific enumerations. The Government, however, contends that they should come within clause (iii) of the section, which provides that, “in the case of iron ore, bauxite, ball and sagger clay, rock asphalt, and minerals which are customarily sold in the form of a crude mineral product — sorting, concentrating, and sintering to bring to shipping grade and form, and loading for shipment . . .” are included in “ordinary treatment processes.” (Italics added.) Clause (iv) lists specific metals such as lead, zinc, copper, etc., “and ores which are not customarily sold in the form of crude mineral product,” and specifically excludes from the permissible processes certain ones used in connection with these metals. To recapitulate, the section contains four categories of “ordinary treatment processes”: the first enumerating those permissible as to the mining of coal; the second, as to sulphur; the third, as to minerals customarily sold in the form of the crude mineral product; and the fourth, as to those ores not customarily so sold. We note that the Congress even states the steps in each permissible process, and in addition specifically declares some processes not to be “ordinary treatment” ones, viz., “electrolytic deposition, roasting, thermal or electric smelting, or refining.” Furthermore, none of the permissible processes destroy the physical or chemical identity of the minerals or permit them to be transformed into new products.
From this legislative history, we conclude that Congress intended to grant miners a depletion allowance based on the constructive income from the raw mineral product, if marketable in that form, and not on the value of the finished articles.
III.
The findings are that three-fifths of the fire clay produced in Indiana in 1951 was sold in its raw state. This indicates a substantial market for the raw mineral. In addition, large sales of raw fire clay and shale were made across the river in Kentucky. This indicates that fire clay and shale were “commercially marketable” in their raw state unless that phrase also implies marketability at a profit. We believe it does not. Proof of these sales is significant not because it reveals an ability to sell profitably — which the respondent could not do — but because the substantial tonnage being sold in a raw state provides conclusive proof that, when extracted from the mine, the fire clay and shale are in such a state that they are ready for industrial use or consumption — in short, they have passed the “mining” state on which the depletion principle operates. It would be strange, indeed, to ascribe to the Congress an intent to permit each miner to adopt processes peculiar to his individual operation. Depletion, as we have said, is an allowance for the exhaustion of capital assets. It is not a subsidy to manufacturers or the high-cost mine operator. The value of respondent’s vitrified clay products, obtained by expensive manufacturing processes, bears little relation to the value of its minerals. The question in depletion is what allowance is necessary to permit tax-free recovery of the capital value of the minerals.
Respondent insists that its miner-manufacturer status makes some difference. We think not. It is true that the integrated miners in Indiana outnumbered the noninte-grated ones. But in each of the three basic percentage depletion Acts the Congress indicated that integrated operators should not receive preferred treatment. Furthermore, in Regulations 77, discussed above, the Treasury specifically provided that depletion was allowable only on the crude mineral product. And, as we have said, this regulation was substantially enacted into the 1943 Act. We need not tarry to deal with any differences which are said to have existed in administrative interpretation, for here we have authoritative congressional action itself. Ever since the first percentage depletion statute, the cut-off point where “gross income from mining” stopped has been the same, i. e., where the ordinary miner shipped the product of his mine. Respondent’s formula would not only give it a preference over the ordinary nonintegrated miner, but also would grant it a decided competitive advantage over its nonintegrated manufacturer competitor. Congress never intended that depletion create such a discriminatory situation. As we see it, the miner-manufacturer is but selling to himself the crude mineral that he mines, insofar as the depletion allowance is concerned.
IV.
We now reach what “ordinary treatment processes” are available to respondent under the statute. As the principal industry witness put it at hearings before the Congress: “Obviously it was not the intent of Congress that those processes which would take your products and make them into different products having very different uses should be considered, as- the basis of depletion.” But respondent says .that the processes it uses are the ordinary ones applied in the industry. As to the miner-manufacturer, that is true. But they are not the “ordinary” normal ones applied by the nonintegrated miner, it was he whom the Congress made the object of the allowance. The fabrication processes used by respondent in manufacturing sewer pipe would not be employed by the run-of-the-mill miner — only an integrated miner-manufacturer would have occasion to use them.
Respondent further contends, however, that it must utilize these processes in order to obtain a “commercially marketable mineral product or products.” It points out that its underground method of mining prevents it from selling its raw fire clay and shale. This position leads to the conclusion that respondent’s mineral product has no value to it in the ground. If this be true, then there could be no depletion. One cannot deplete nothing. On the other hand, respondent alleges that its minerals yield “the best sewer pipe which is made in Indiana.” If this be true, then respondent’s problem is one purely of cost of recovery, an item which, as we have said, has nothing to do with value in the depletion formulae. Depletion, as we read the legislative history, was designed not to recompense for costs of recovery but for exhaustion of mineral assets alone. If it were extended as respondent asks, the miner-manufacturer would enjoy, in addition to a depletion allowance on his minerals, a similar allowance on his manufacturing costs, including depreciation on his manufacturing plant, machinery and facilities. Nor do we read the use by the Congress of the plural word “products” in the “commercially marketable” phrase as indicating that normal processing techniques might include the fabrication of different products from the same mineral. We believe that the Congress was only recognizing- that in mining operations often more than one mineral product was recovered in its raw state.
In view of the finding that substantial quantities — in fact, the majority — of the tonnage production of fire clay and shale were sold in their raw state, we believe that respondent’s mining activity during the year in question would come under clause (iii) of the section here involved. That clause includes “minerals which are customarily sold in the form of a crude mineral product.” We believe that the Congress intended integrated mining-manufacturing operations to be treated as if the operator were selling the mineral mined to himself for fabrication. It would, of course, be permissible for such an operator to calculate his “gross income from mining” at the point where “ordinary” miners — not integrated — disposed of their product. All processes used by the nonintegrated miner before shipping the raw fire clay and shale would under such a formula be available to the integrated miner-manufacturer to the same extent but no more.'
Nor do we believe that the District Court and Court of Appeals cases involving percentage depletion and cited by respondent are apposite here. We do not, however, indicate any approval of their holdings. It is sufficient to say that on their facts they are all distinguishable.
In view of these considerations, neither of respondent’s alternate claims for depletion allowance is appropriate. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The applicable provisions of the Code are § 23 (m) and §114 (b)(4). In general, they provide for a depletion allowance based on a percentage of “gross income from mining,” which is specifically defined. See note 8, infra. The percentage permitted on shale is 5%, and on fire clay, 15%.
The quantity of ground and bagged fire clay and shale actually sold is too negligible to furnish an appropriate basis for computing depletion.
The evidence indicates that, for $60, Owensboro Sewer Pipe Company bought from L. R. Chapman five acres of ground under which the shale and clay deposits lay. Contemporaneously it made a contract with L. R. Chapman, Inc., to mine and deliver shale and fire clay from this tract to the Owensboro plant for $1.40 per ton. Chapman also testified that in addition he furnished shale and fire clay to other manufacturers in the same area in Kentucky. The arrangements varied. Some were similar to the Owensboro agreement, while others were leases on a royalty basis with a contemporaneous agreement to mine and deliver the clay at a set price. The exact year or years are not clear, but appear to have been between 1949 and 1956. Respondent began using shale and fire clay from thé same source by lease arrangement in 1957. The reason for lease arrangements and paper transfer of title is not shown. However, Chapman testified that the manufacturers “didn’t seem to want to do the prospecting or the sampling until they were sure they could get either a lease or a deed.”
The briefs cover 294 pages and the appendices an additional 685, not including 10 charts. The record is 276 pages.
Preliminary Report on Depletion, Staff Reports to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (1930), Appendix XXXI (Shepherd Report).
See, e. g., Hearings before Senate Committee on Finance on H. R. 3687, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 528; S. Rep. No. 627, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 23-24; Hearings before House Committee on Ways and Means on Revenue Revisions, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., part 3, at 1857; Hearings before Senate Committee on Finance on H. R. 8920, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 771; S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 53-54.
The present statute, § 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, is essentially unchanged.
Internal Revenue Code of 1939, § 114 (b) (4) (B):
“Definition of Gross Income from Property. — As used in this paragraph the term ‘gross income from the property’ means the gross income from mining. The term ‘mining’ as used herein shall be considered to include not merely the extraction of the ores or minerals from the ground but also the ordinary treatment processes normally applied by mine owners or operators in order to obtain the commercially marketable mineral product or products, and so much of the transportation of ores or minerals (whether or not by common carrier) from the point of extraction from the ground to the plants or mills in which the ordinary treatment processes are applied thereto as is not in excess of 50 miles unless the Secretary finds that the physical and other requirements are such that the ore or mineral must be transported a greater distance to such plants or mills. The term ‘ordinary treatment processes,’ as used herein, shall include the following: (i) In the case of coal — cleaning, breaking, sizing, and loading for shipment; (ii) in the case of sulphur — pumping to vats, cooling, breaking, and loading for shipment; (iii) in the case of iron ore, bauxite, ball and sagger clay, rock asphalt, and minerals which are customarily sold in the form of a crude mineral product — sorting, concentrating, and sintering to bring to shipping grade and form, and loading for shipment; and (iv) in the case of lead, zinc, copper, gold, silver, or fluorspar ores, potash, and ores which are not customarily sold in the form of crude mineral product — crushing, grinding, and beneficiation by concentration (gravity, flotation, amalgamation, electrostatic, or magnetic), eyanidation, leaching, crystallization, precipitation (but not including as an ordinary treatment process electrolytic deposition, roasting, thermal or electric smelting, or refining), or by substantially equivalent processes or combination of processes used in the separation or extraction of the product or products from the ore, including the furnacing of quicksilver ores. The principles of this subparagraph shall also be applicable in determining gross income attributable to mining for the purposes of sections 450 and 453.” 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 114.
Robert M. Searls, Attorney, San Francisco, Hearings before the Senate Special Committee on the Investigation of Silver, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 764.
Respondent’s eases are based on United States v. Cherokee Brick & Tile Co., 218 F. 2d 424 (adhered to in United States v. Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co., 242 F. 2d 708), which went off on factual concessions not present here. They have been pyramided into a. statistically imposing number of cases, predicated upon one another. Close analysis indicates that they either go off on concessions or findings not present here, or deal with controversies over particular treatment processes claimed as “ordinary” in the industry involved. For our purposes, we need not reach the question of whether in those cases the minerals in place had any “value” to be depleted. Other than the decision here under review, only two of the Court of Appeals cases cited by respondent, both from the same Circuit (Commissioner v. Iowa Limestone Co., 269 F. 2d 398; Bookwalter v. Centropolis Crusher Co., 272 F. 2d 391), adopt the profitability test, which we find unacceptable.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue here is the exclusive and plenary authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to approve a transaction in which Pacific Greyhound Lines, a motor carrier subsidiary of the Greyhound Corporation, would transfer its operations in the San Francisco Bay area to Golden Gate Transit Lines, a subsidiary of Pacific Greyhound organized by it for that purpose. Pacific Greyhound would receive all Golden Gate capital stock in exchange for the operating rights, certain equipment, and an amount in cash. Appellants, two counties in the area and their respective commuter associations, opposed the transaction and challenged the power of the Commission to authorize it, but the Commission asserted jurisdiction and, on certain terms and conditions, approved the plan on the merits. 65 M. C. C. 347. A three-judge District Court, in- which appellants sought to set aside the order, held that the Commission had jurisdiction under § 5 (2) (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act. 150 F. Supp. 619. In view of the importance of the jurisdictional question and its impact on federal-state relations, we noted probable jurisdiction. 355 U. S. 866 (1957). We conclude that the proposed transaction is beyond the scope of Commission power under § 5 (2) (a).
At the time of the application, Pacific Greyhound was a motor common carrier of passengers in seven western and southwestern States under certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In combination with members of the Greyhound system and other lines, it provided joint through service to and from more distant areas of the country. In California, the extensive services of Pacific Greyhound included the operations in the San Francisco Bay area which are involved here. These routes are within 25 or 30 miles of the city, extending north into Marin County, east into Contra Costa County, and south on the Peninsula. Measured in terms of revenue, only 5.7% of the trafile is in interstate movement; 94.3% is intrastate, largely commuter.
The corporate transaction for which Commission approval was sought was conceived in an environment of financial difficulties plaguing the Bay area operations. The service consistently was operated at a loss, and Pacific Greyhound to some extent blamed the rate-making practices and policies of the California Public Utilities Commission. In proceedings for commutation rate increases over these routes, for example, the State Commission had held that Pacific Greyhound’s applications should be determined in light of total revenues from all intrastate operations in California. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Fares, 50 Cal. P. U. C. 650. This the company deemed to be an unjustified subsidization of the local losses with profits from unrelated operations.
The transfer in question admittedly was designed to escape, upon approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the practices and policies of the State Commission. Golden Gate was incorporated in 1953, but had engaged, in no business activity and was not a carrier. Under the agreement, arrived at early in 1954, Pacific Greyhound would transfer to Golden Gate substantially all interstate and intrastate operating rights in the Bay area, $150,000 in cash, and certain equipment. Golden Gate would in turn issue all of its capital stock to Pacific Greyhound. The result is obvious: for rate-making purposes before the State Commission, the deficit-ridden local operation, after the split-up of operating rights into separate corporations, would be forced to stand on its own — or collapse.
Although it did not formally intervene, the State Commission filed its views regarding the transaction with the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was stated that the proposed transfer of “locar’ operations was wholly unnecessary, would create questionable expense, and would tend to inject confusion into intrastate rate fixing. Further, the State Commission feared that Golden Gate’s resulting capital structure would be of “questionable soundness.”
The Interstate Commerce Commission conditioned its approval of the proposal on an increase in the cash consideration to $250,000, after the hearing officer had recommended disapproval of the plan in its entirety.
The congressional purpose in the sweeping revision of § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1940, enacting § 5 (2) (a) in its present form, was to facilitate merger and consolidation in the national transportation system. In the Transportation Act of 1920 the Congress had directed the Commission itself to take the initiative in developing a plan “for the consolidation of the railway properties of the continental United States into a limited number of systems,” 41 Stat. 481, but after 20 years of trial the approach appeared inadequate. The Transportation Act of 1940 extended § 5 to motor and water carriers, and relieved the Commission of its responsibility to initiate the unifications. “Instead, it authorized approval by the Commission of carrier-initiated, voluntary plans of merger or consolidation if, subject to such terms, conditions and modifications as the Commission might prescribe, the proposed transactions met with certain tests of public interest, justice and reasonableness . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U. S. 182, 193 (1948). In order to avoid the delays incident to approval by each State through which a company operated, the Congress provided for effectuation of Commission-approved plans “without invoking any approval under State authority.” In short, the result of the Act was a change in the means, while the end remained the same. The very language of the amended “unification section” expresses clearly the desire of the Congress that the industry proceed toward an integrated national transportation system through substantial corporate simplification. Subject to approval and authorization of the Commission, § 5 (2) (a) makes lawful the consolidation or merger of two or more carriers; the purchase or lease of property, or acquisition of control, of one carrier by another; and the acquisition of control of a carrier by a noncarrier.
In determining whether the Commission had jurisdiction in this case, we must examine the proposed transaction in light of the congressional purpose and statutory language. The Commission and the companies regard the transaction as an “acquisition” of Golden Gate by Pacific Greyhound, within the language of § 5 (2) (a) authorizing Commission approval “. . . for any carrier ... to acquire control of another through ownership of its stock or otherwise.” We think it is clear that this contemplates an acquisition, by one carrier, of another carrier. Golden Gate, a mere corporate shell without property or function, can by no stretch of the imagination be deemed a “carrier.” Even if we look beyond Golden Gate’s present status, however, and view the plan at its consummation, we find that the alleged “acquisition” amounts to little more than a paper transaction. In reality the carriers propose a split-up — something beyond the purpose and language of §5 (2)(a). The operating rights which now are solely those of Pacific Greyhound would be divided with Golden Gate; where now there is one carrier, there would be two. Pacific Greyhound’s control would be dissipated and its functions dismembered, in the hope of escaping certain practices of the State Commission.
There may or may not, in fact, be financial or operational justification for the proposed transaction; that question is not before us. We consider only the applicability of § 5 (2) (a) as a ground for Commission jurisdiction, and in so doing the question narrows to “the nature of the change in relations between the companies.” Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co., 353 U. S. 151, 169 (1957). For reasons we have stated, the nature of that change here eliminates this transaction from the “acquisition” language of § 5 (2) (a).
Our holding does not create a vacuum in regulation. In cases where the transaction is not within § 5, the Commission nevertheless may assert jurisdiction over the transfer of interstate operating rights under § 212 (b) of the Act. Although the operations sought to be transferred here were predominantly suburban-commuter in nature, they involved at least some traffic in interstate movement, serviced under certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission; the transfer of these certificates must be Commission-approved. See Atwood’s Transport Line — Lease—John A. Clarke, 52 M. C. C. 97, 105-108, where the Commission discussed the distinction between § 5 and § 212 (b). The transfer of intrastate rights here will, of course, be subject to approval of the State Commission. Far from being a void in regulation, this will invoke the authority of the body most directly concerned with the local operations. This is not to say that the Interstate Commerce Commission could never have jurisdiction over the transfer of intrastate operating rights along with the interstate operations of a carrier. The test is whether the transaction comes within the terms of § 5 (2) (a), authorizing the exercise of exclusive and plenary jurisdiction.
Finally, we are referred to certain cases in the Commission as evidence that prior administrative practice supports the sustaining of § 5 (2) (a) jurisdiction here. Gehlhaus and Hollobinko — Control, 60 M. C. C. 167; Takin—Purchase—Takin Bros. Freight Line, Inc., 37 M. C. C. 626; Consolidated Freightways, Inc. — Control— Consolidated Convoy Co., 36 M. C. C. 358; Columbia Motor Service Co. — Purchase—Columbia Terminals Co., 35 M. C. C. 531. While the interpretation given a statute by those charged with its application and enforcement is entitled to considerable weight, it hardly is conclusive. United States v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 278 U. S. 269, 280 (1929). The Commission practice as evidenced by these cases is, in our opinion, insufficient to outweigh the apparent congressional purpose and the clear language of the statute — especially in this delicate area where the sustaining of federal jurisdiction leads, by statute, to the complete ouster of state authority.
While the original application to the Commission for approval of the transaction is not a part of the record on appeal, it appears from the briefs that such application contained an alternative prayer for approval of the certificate ' transfers under § 212 (b). Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Whittaker would affirm the judgment, substantially for the reasons given in the opinion of the District Court, 150 F. Supp. 619.
A merger of Pacific Greyhound and Greyhound, pending when the instant proceedings were before the Commission, No. MC-F-573, has since been consummated.
Certain divisions of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, representing employees of Pacific Greyhound, also opposed the application, and joined appellants in seeking to set aside the Commission’s order in the District Court. However, the complaint was later dismissed as to the union for reasons not material here.
Section 5 (2) (a): “It shall be lawful, with the approval and authorization of the Commission, as provided in subdivision (b)—
“ (i) 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; or for any carrier, or two or more carriers jointly, to purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties, or any part thereof, of another; or for any carrier, or two or more carriers jointly, to acquire control of another through ownership of its stock or otherwise; or for a person which is not a carrier to acquire control of two or more carriers through ownership of their stock or otherwise; or for a person which is not a carrier and which has control of one or more carriers to acquire control of another carrier through ownership of its stock or otherwise . . . .” 41 Stat. 481, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (a).
Our disposition makes unnecessary any consideration of appellants’ alternative contention, namely, that the District Court abused its discretion in denying a motion by appellants to amend their complaint.
In 1952 Pacific Greyhound unsuccessfully sought approval from the State Commission for the transfer of local operations between San Francisco and Marin County to an operator who offered to invest $200,000 in working capital. The State Commission, finding the proposed transfer “adverse to the public interest,” denied the application. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Certificate Transfer, 52 Cal. P. U. C. 2, 7.
This included 52 buses recently purchased by Pacific Greyhound under conditional sales contracts, 138 other buses in use in the system, and 194 cash fare boxes. Golden Gate was to assume payment of $982,566 on the new buses, and in addition was to pay Pacific Greyhound $173,394 for its equity therein.
See S. Rep. No. 433, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 28-32; H. R. Rep. No. 1217, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 6, 12, 17; H. R. Rep. No. 2016, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 61; H. R. Rep. No. 2832, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 68-69. See the historical outline of the “consolidation” provisions in St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 347 U. S. 298, 315 (1954) (appendix).
Section 5 (11): “The authority conferred by this section shall be exclusive and plenary, and any carrier or corporation participating in or resulting from any transaction approved by the Commission thereunder, shall have full power ... to carry such transaction into effect and to own and operate any properties and exercise any control or franchises acquired through said transaction without invoking any approval under State authority . . . .” 54 Stat. 908, 49 U. S. C. §5(11).
See S. Rep. No. 433, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 28.
See note 3, supra.
Section 212 (b): “Except as provided in section 5, any certificate or permit may be transferred, pursuant to such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe.” 49 Stat. 555, as amended, 54 Stat. 924, 49 U. S. C. § 312 (b).
See note 8, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and III, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and IV, in which Justice Blackmun, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor join.
Petitioner is a black man sentenced to death for the murder of a white storekeeper. The question presented is whether the trial judge committed reversible error at voir dire by refusing petitioner’s request to question prospective jurors on racial prejudice.
I
On July 12, 1978, petitioner entered a jewelry store in Franklin, Virginia, armed with a sáwed-off shotgun. He demanded that the proprietor, W. Jack Smith, Jr., put jewelry and money from the cash register into some jewelry bags. Smith complied with petitioner’s demand, but triggered a silent alarm, alerting the Police Department. When Alan Bain, a police officer, arrived to inquire about the alarm, petitioner surprised him and forced him to surrender his revolver.
Having learned that Smith had triggered a silent alarm, petitioner became agitated. He fired toward the rear wall of the store and stated that if he saw or heard any more police officers, he was going to start killing those in the store. When a police siren sounded, petitioner walked to where Smith was stationed behind a counter and without warning shot him in the head with Bain’s pistol, wounding Smith and causing him to slump incapacitated to the floor.
Officer Bain attempted to calm petitioner, promising to take him anywhere he wanted to go and asking him not to shoot again. Petitioner angrily replied that he was going to kill Smith for “snitching,” and fired two pistol shots into Smith’s chest, fatally wounding him. As petitioner turned away from shooting Smith, Bain was able to disarm him and place him under arrest.
A Southampton County, Virginia, grand jury indicted petitioner on charges of capital murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a murder, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun in the commission of a robbery. Petitioner requested and was granted a change of venue to Northampton County, Virginia, a rural county some 80 miles from the location of the murder.
Prior to the commencement of voir dire, petitioner’s counsel submitted to the trial judge a list of proposed questions, including the following:
“‘The defendant, Willie Lloyd Turner, is a member of the Negro race. The victim, W. Jack Smith, Jr., was a white Caucasian. Will these facts prejudice you against Willie Lloyd Turner or affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict based solely on the evidence?’” Turner v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 513, 522, n. 8, 273 S. E. 2d 36, 42, n. 8 (1980).
The judge declined to ask this question, stating that it “has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.” App. 15. The judge did ask the venire, who were questioned in groups of five in petitioner’s presence, whether any person was aware of any reason why he could not render a fair and impartial verdict, to which all answered “no.” Id., at 17, 78. At the time the question was asked, the prospective jurors had no way of knowing that the murder victim was white.
The jury that was empaneled, which consisted of eight whites and four blacks, convicted petitioner on all of the charges against him. Id., at 97 and Addendum. After a separate sentencing hearing on the capital charge, the jury recommended that petitioner be sentenced to death, a recommendation the trial judge accepted. Id., at 18, 19.
Petitioner appealed his death sentence to the Virginia Supreme Court. Among other points, he argued that the trial judge deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury by refusing to question prospective jurors on racial prejudice. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument. Relying on our decision in Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589 (1976), the court stated that a trial judge’s refusal to ask prospective jurors about their racial attitudes, while perhaps not the wisest decision as a matter of policy, is not constitutionally objectionable in the absence of factors akin to those in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973). Turner v. Commonwealth, supra, at 523, 273 S. E. 2d, at 42. The court held that “[t]he mere fact that a defendant is black and that a victim is white does not constitutionally mandate ... an inquiry [into racial prejudice].” Ibid.
Having failed in his direct appeal, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. App. 97. Again he argued without success that the trial judge’s refusal to ask prospective jurors about their racial attitudes deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Id., at 102-104. The District Court noted that in Ristaino, supra, which involved a crime of interracial violence, we held that inquiry into racial prejudice at voir dire was not constitutionally required because the facts of the case “ ‘did not suggest a significant likelihood that racial prejudice might infect [the defendant’s] trial.’” App. 103 (quoting 424 U. S., at 598). The court found the present case like Ristaino and unlike Ham in that “racial issues [are] not ‘inextricably bound up with the facts at trial.’” App. 103.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief for petitioner. Turner v. Bass, 753 F. 2d 342 (1985). Like the Virginia Supreme Court and the District Court, the Fourth Circuit found no “special circumstances” in this case analogous to those in Ham. The court rejected the idea that “the nature of the crime or punishment itself is ... a special circumstance.” 753 F. 2d, at 345. Relying on Ristaino, the court likewise found no special circumstance in the fact that petitioner is black and his victim white.
We granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision that petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to have potential jurors questioned concerning racial prejudice. 471 U. S. 1098 (1985). We reverse.
II
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion correctly states the analytical framework for evaluating petitioner’s argument: “The broad inquiry in each case must be . . . whether under all of the circumstances presented there was a constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning about racial prejudice, the jurors would not be indifferent as [they stand] unsworne.” 753 F. 2d, at 345-346 (internal quotation omitted). The Fourth Circuit was correct, too, in holding that under Ristaino the mere fact that petitioner is black and his victim white does not constitute a “special circumstance” of constitutional proportions. What sets this case apart from Ristaino, however, is that in addition to petitioner’s being accused of a crime against a white victim, the crime charged was a capital offense.
In a capital sentencing proceeding before a jury, the jury is called upon to make a “highly subjective, ‘unique, individualized judgment regarding the punishment that a particular person deserves.’” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 340, n. 7 (1985) (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 900 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment)). The Virginia statute under which petitioner was sentenced is instructive of the kinds of judgments a capital sentencing jury-must make. First, in order to consider the death penalty, a Virginia jury must find either that the defendant is likely to commit future violent crimes or that his crime was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim.” Va. Code §19.2-264.2 (1983). Second, the jury must consider any mitigating evidence offered by the defendant. Mitigating evidence may include, but is not limited to, facts tending to show that the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional or mental disturbance, or that at the time of the crime the defendant’s capacity “to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired.” § 19.2-262.4(B). Finally, even if the jury has found an aggravating factor, and irrespective of whether mitigating evidence has been offered, the jury has discretion not to recommend the death sentence, in which case it may not be imposed. § 19.2-264.2.
Virginia’s death-penalty statute gives the jury greater discretion than other systems which we have upheld against constitutional challenge. See, e. g., Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976). However, our cases establish that every capital sentencer must be free to weigh relevant mitigating evidence before deciding whether to impose the death penalty, see, e. g., Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 597-609 (1978) (plurality opinion), and that in the end it is the jury that must make the difficult, individualized judgment as to whether the defendant deserves the sentence of death.
Because of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but remain undetected. On the facts of this ease, a juror who believes that blacks are violence prone or morally inferior might well be influenced by that belief in deciding whether petitioner’s crime involved the aggravating factors specified under Virginia law. Such a juror might also be less favorably inclined toward petitioner’s evidence of mental disturbance as a mitigating circumstance. More subtle, less consciously held racial attitudes could also influence a juror’s decision in this case. Fear of blacks, which could easily be stirred up by the violent facts of petitioner’s crime, might incline a juror to favor the death penalty.
The risk of racial prejudice infecting a capital sentencing proceeding is especially serious in light of the complete finality of the death sentence. “The Court, as well as the separate opinions of a majority of the individual Justices, has recognized that the qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny of the capital sentencing determination.” California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 998-999 (1983). We have struck down capital sentences when we found that the circumstances under which they were imposed “created an unacceptable risk that ‘the death penalty [may have been] meted out arbitrarily or capriciously’ or through ‘whim . . . or mistake.’” Caldwell, supra, at 343 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (citation omitted). In the present case, we find the risk that racial prejudice may have infected petitioner’s capital sentencing unacceptable in light of the ease with which that risk could have been minimized. By refusing to question prospective jurors on racial prejudice, the trial judge failed to adequately protect petitioner’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.
Ill
We hold that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias. The rule we propose is minimally intrusive; as in other cases involving “special circumstances,” the trial judge retains discretion as to the form and number of questions on the subject, including the decision whether to question the venire individually or collectively. See Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S., at 527. Also, a defendant cannot complain of a judge’s failure to question the venire on racial prejudice unless the defendant has specifically requested such an inquiry.
IV
The inadequacy of voir dire in this case requires that petitioner’s death sentence be vacated. It is not necessary, however, that he be retried on the issue of guilt. Our judgment in this case is that there was an unacceptable risk of racial prejudice infecting the capital sentencing proceeding. This judgment is based on a conjunction of three factors: the fact that the crime charged involved interracial violence, the broad discretion given the jury at the death-penalty hearing, and the special seriousness of the risk of improper sentencing in a capital case. At the guilt phase of petitioner’s trial, the jury had no greater discretion than it would have had if the crime charged had been noncapital murder. Thus, with respect to the guilt phase of petitioner’s trial, we find this case to be indistinguishable from Ristaino, to which we continue to adhere. See n. 5, supra.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
In addition to Smith and Bain, a store employee and two customers were present at this time.
Whether the trial judge was referring to this Court’s decision in Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U. S. 589 (1976), or to a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, is unclear.
In Ham, a young black man known in his small South Carolina hometown as a civil rights activist was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. We held that the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to honor Ham’s request to question prospective jurors on racial prejudice. In Ristaino, supra, we specified the factors which mandated an inquiry into racial prejudice in Ham:
“Ham’s defense was that he had been framed because of his civil rights activities. His prominence in the community as a civil rights activist, if not already known to veniremen, inevitably would have been revealed to the members of the jury in the course of his presentation of that defense. Racial issues therefore were inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial. Further, Ham’s reputation as a civil rights activist and the defense he interposed were likely to intensify any prejudice that individual members of the jury might harbor.” 424 U. S., at 596-597.
The court also rejected petitioner’s reliance on a statistical study showing that black defendants who kill white victims are sentenced to death with disproportionate frequency. The court stated that the study, which is based on statistics compiled in other States, has little utility in establishing the potential for racial prejudice in Virginia. 221 Va., at 523, n. 9, 273 S. E. 2d, at 42, n. 9.
In Ristaino, the defendant was one of three black men charged with assaulting a white security guard with intent to murder him. The assault occurred in the course of a robbery. 424 U. S., at 590.
To the suggestion that it is a special circumstance that black murderers whose victims are white are executed with disproportionate frequency, the court responded by quoting our opinion in Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U. S. 182 (1981), for the proposition that “‘[t]here is no constitutional presumption of juror bias for or against members of any particular racial or ethnic groups.’” 753 F. 2d, at 345 (quoting 451 U. S., at 190).
In referring to the facts of petitioner’s crime, we do not retreat from our holding in Ristaino. The fact of interracial violence alone is not a “special circumstance” entitling the defendant to have prospective jurors questioned about racial prejudice. It should be clear, though, that our holding in Ristaino was not based on a blind belief that the facts presented in that case could not evoke racial prejudice. As we stated in Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U. S., at 192: “It remains an unfortunate fact in our society that violent crimes perpetrated against members of other racial or ethnic groups often raise [a reasonable possibility that racial prejudice would influence the jury].” Ristaino does not condone this possibility, but simply leaves it to the trial judge’s discretion to decide what measures to take in screening out racial prejudice, absent a showing of “significant likelihood that racial prejudice might infect [the] trial.” 424 U. S., at 598.
Justice Powell’s dissent takes issue with what he terms the “singularly unwise and unjustified presumption that capital jurors harbor latent racial bias.” Post, at 53. This remark fails to distinguish between our recognition that jurors in a capital case may harbor racial bias, and the presumption, which we do not make, that any particular capital jurors are in fact racially prejudiced. Justice Powell implicitly recognizes such a distinction, but only when it suits his purposes; thus, he does not say that in a case like Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973), the jurors are presumed to be prejudiced, but rather that there is “an unacceptable risk that racial prejudice will ‘distort the trial.’ ” Post, at 50.
Once rhetoric is put aside, it is plain that there is some risk of racial prejudice influencing a jury whenever there is a crime involving interracial violence, see n. 7, supra; the only question is at what point that risk becomes constitutionally unacceptable. Notwithstanding Justice Powell’s attempt to minimize the significance of the discretion entrusted to the jury at a capital sentencing hearing, post, at 50-52, we are convinced that such discretion gives greater opportunity for racial prejudice to operate than is present when the jury is restricted to factfinding. This, together with the special seriousness with which we view the risk of racial prejudice influencing a capital sentencing decision, is what distinguishes this case from Ristaino.
The right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by principles of due process. Ristaino, 424 U. S., at 595, n. 6.
Justice Powell contends that inquiry into racial prejudice “in the absence of circumstances that make clear a need for it could well have the negative effect of suggesting to the jurors that race somehow is relevant to the case.” Post, at 48-49, n. 5. Whether such a concern is purely chimerical or not is a decision we leave up to a capital defendant’s counsel. Should defendant’s counsel decline to request voir dire on the subject of racial prejudice, we in no way require or suggest that the judge broach the topic sua sponte.
We find it unnecessary to evaluate the statistical studies which petitioner has introduced in support of the proposition that black defendants who kill whites are executed with disproportionate frequency.
Justice Brennan incorrectly reads into our opinion a suggestion that “the constitutional entitlement to an impartial jury attaches only at the sentencing phase. ” Post, at 43. The real question is not whether there is a constitutional right to an impartial jury throughout a criminal trial, see n. 9, swpra, but what prophylactic rules the Constitution imposes on the States in furtherance of that right. What we held in Ristaino, and reaffirm today, is that absent'“special circumstances” that create a particularly compelling need to inquire into racial prejudice, the Constitution leaves the conduct of voir dire to the sound discretion of state trial judges.
The implication of Justice Brennan’s opinion is that every crime of interracial violence is a “special circumstance.” Over Justice Brennan’s dissent, however, Ristaino squarely rejected this approach. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Justice Brennan’s view that “the opportunity for racial bias to taint the jury process is . . . equally a factor at the guilt [and sentencing] phase[s] of a bifurcated capital trial.” Post, at 41. As we see it, the risk of racial bias at sentencing hearings is of an entirely different order, because the decisions that sentencing jurors must make involve far more subjective judgments than when they are deciding guilt or innocence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, IV, and V, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and III, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Auto join.
We consider a claim that the decision of a State’s court of last resort took property without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied against the States through the Fourteenth, see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 383-384 (1994).
I
A
Generally speaking, state law defines property interests, Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164 (1998), including property rights in navigable waters and the lands underneath them, see United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 319-320 (1917); St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Comm’rs, 168 U. S. 349, 358-359 (1897). In Florida, the State owns in trust for the public the land permanently submerged beneath navigable waters and the foreshore (the land between the low-tide line and the mean high-water line). Fla. Const., Art. X, § 11; Broward v. Mabry, 58 Fla. 398, 407-409, 50 So. 826, 829-830 (1909). Thus, the mean high-water line (the average reach of high tide over the preceding 19 years) is the ordinary boundary between private beachfront, or littoral* property, and state-owned land. See Miller v. Bay-To-Gulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452, 458-460, 193 So. 425, 427-428 (1940) (per curiam); Fla. Stat. §§ 177.27(14)-(15), 177.28(1) (2007).
Littoral owners have, in addition to the rights of the public, certain “special rights” with regard to the water and the foreshore, Broward, 58 Fla., at 410, 50 So., at 830, rights which Florida considers to be property, generally akin to easements, see ibid.; Thiesen v. Gulf, Fla. & Ala. R. Co., 75 Fla. 28, 57, 78, 78 So. 491, 500, 507 (1918) (on rehearing). These include the right of access to the water, the right to use the water for certain purposes, the right to an unobstructed view of the water, and the right to receive accretions and relictions to the littoral property. Id., at 58-59, 78 So., at 501; Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Sand Key Assoc., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936 (Fla. 1987). This is generally in accord with well-established common law, although the precise property rights vary among jurisdictions. Compare Broward, supra, at 409-410, 50 So., at 830, with 1 J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain § 100 (3d ed. 1909); 1 H. Farnham, Law of Waters and Water Rights § 62, pp. 278-280 (1904) (hereinafter Farnham).
At the center of this case is the right to accretions and relictions. Accretions are additions of alluvion (sand, sediment, or other deposits) to waterfront land; relictions are lands once covered by water that become dry when the water recedes. F. Maloney, S. Plager, & F. Baldwin, Water Law and Administration: The Florida Experience §126, pp. 385-386 (1968) (hereinafter Maloney); 1 Farnham § 69, at 320. (For simplicity’s sake, we shall refer to accretions and relictions collectively as accretions, and the process whereby they occur as accretion.) In order for an addition to dry land to qualify as an accretion, it must have occurred gradually and imperceptibly — that is, so slowly that one could not see the change occurring, though over time the difference became apparent. Sand Key, supra, at 936; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46, 66-67 (1874). When, on the other hand, there is a “sudden or perceptible loss of or addition to land by the action of the water or a sudden change in the bed of a lake or the course of a stream,” the change is called an avulsion. Sand Key, supra, at 936; see also 1 Farnham § 69, at 320.
In Florida, as at common law, the littoral owner automatically takes title to dry land added to his property by accretion; but formerly submerged land that has become dry land by avulsion continues to belong to the owner of the seabed (usually the State). See, e. g., Sand Key, supra, at 937; Ma-loney § 126.6, at 392; 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 261-262 (1766) (hereinafter Blackstone). Thus, regardless of whether an avulsive event exposes land previously submerged or submerges land previously exposed, the boundary between littoral property and sovereign land does not change; it remains (ordinarily) what was the mean high-water line before the event. See Bryant v. Peppe, 238 So. 2d 836, 838-839 (Fla. 1970); J. Gould, Law of Waters § 158, p. 290 (1883). It follows from this that, when a new strip of land has been added to the shore by avulsion, the littoral owner has no right to subsequent accretions. Those accretions no longer add to his property, since the property abutting the water belongs not to him but to the State. See Maloney §126.6, at 393; 1 Farnham §71a, at 328.
B
In 1961, Florida’s Legislature passed the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, 1961 Fla. Laws ch. 61-246, as amended, Fla. Stat. §§ 161.011-161.45 (2007). The Act establishes procedures for “beach restoration and nourishment projects,” § 161.088, designed to deposit sand on eroded beaches (restoration) and to maintain the deposited sand (nourishment). § 161.021(3), (4). A local government may apply to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for the funds and the necessary permits to restore a beach, see §§ 161.101(1), 161.041(1). When the project involves placing fill on the State’s submerged lands, authorization is required from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), see §253.77(1), which holds title to those lands, §253.12(1).
Once a beach restoration “is determined to be undertaken,” the Board sets what is called “an erosion control line.” § 161.161(3)-(5). It must be set by reference to the existing mean high-water line, though in theory it can be located seaward or landward of that. See §161.161(5). Much of the project work occurs seaward of the erosion-control line, as sand is dumped on what was once submerged land. See App. 87-88. The fixed erosion-control line replaces the fluctuating mean high-water line as the boundary between privately owned littoral property and state property. § 161.191(1). Once the erosion-control line is recorded, the common law ceases to increase upland property by accretion (or decrease it by erosion). § 161.191(2). Thus, when accretion to the shore moves the mean high-water line seaward, the property of beachfront landowners is not extended to that line (as the prior law provided), but remains bounded by the permanent erosion-control line. Those landowners “continue to be entitled,” however, “to all common-law riparian rights” other than the right to accretions. § 161.201. If the beach erodes back landward of the erosion-control line over a substantial portion of the shoreline covered by the project, the Board may, on its own initiative, or must, if asked by the owners or lessees of a majority of the property affected, direct the agency responsible for maintaining the beach to return the beach to the condition contemplated by the project. If that is not done within a year, the project is canceled and the erosion-control line is null and void. §161.211(2), (3). Finally, by regulation, if the use of submerged land would “unreasonably infringe on riparian rights,” the project cannot proceed unless the local governments show that they own or have a property interest in the upland property adjacent to the project site. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(b) (2009).
C
In 2003, the city of Destín and Walton County applied for the necessary permits to restore 6.9 miles of beach within their jurisdictions that had been eroded by several hurricanes. The project envisioned depositing along that shore sand dredged from further out. See Walton Cty. v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102, 1106 (Fla. 2008). It would add about 75 feet of dry sand seaward of the mean high-water line (to be denominated the erosion-control line). The Department issued a notice of intent to award the permits, App. 27-41, and the Board approved the erosion-control line, id., at 49-50.
Petitioner here, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation formed by people who own beachfront property bordering the project area (we shall refer to them as Members). It brought an administrative challenge to the proposed project, see id., at 10-26, which was unsuccessful; the Department approved the permits. Petitioner then challenged that action in state court under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, Fla. Stat. § 120.68 (2007). The District Court of Appeal for the First District concluded that, contrary to the Act’s preservation of “ ‘all common-law riparian rights,’ ” the order had eliminated two of the Members’ littoral rights: (1) the right to receive accretions to their property; and (2) the right to have the contact of their property with the water remain intact. Save Our Beaches, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 27 So. 3d 48, 58 (2006) (emphasis deleted). This, it believed, would be an unconstitutional taking, which would “unreasonably infringe on riparian rights,” and therefore require the showing under Fla. Admin. Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(b) that the local governments owned or had a property interest in the upland property. It set aside the Department’s final order approving the permits and remanded for that showing to be made. 27 So. 3d, at 60. It also certified to the Florida Supreme Court the following question (as rephrased by the latter court):
“On its face, does the Beach and Shore Preservation Act unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights without just compensation?” 998 So. 2d, at 1105 (footnotes omitted).
The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, and quashed the First District’s remand. Id., at 1121. It faulted the Court of Appeal for not considering the doctrine of avulsion, which it concluded permitted the State to reclaim the restored beach on behalf of the public. Id., at 1116-1118. It described the right to accretions as a future contingent interest, not a vested property right, and held that there is no littoral right to contact with the water independent of the littoral right of access, which the Act does not infringe. Id., at 1112, 1119-1120. Petitioner sought rehearing on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision itself effected a taking of the Members’ littoral rights contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The request for rehearing was denied. We granted certiorari, 557 U. S. 903 (2009).
II
A
Before coining to the parties’ arguments in the present case, we discuss some general principles of our takings jurisprudence. The Takings Clause — “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5 — applies as fully to the taking of a landowner’s riparian rights as it does to the taking of an estate in land. See Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 504 (1871). Moreover, though the classic taking is a transfer of property to the State or to another private party by eminent domain, the Takings Clause applies to other state actions that achieve the same thing. Thus, when the government uses its own property in such a way that it destroys private property, it has taken that property. See United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 261-262 (1946); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 177-178 (1872). Similarly, our doctrine of regulatory takings “aims to identify regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking.” Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U. S. 528, 539 (2005). Thus, it is a taking when a state regulation forces a property owner to submit to a permanent physical occupation, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 425-426 (1982), or deprives him of all economically beneficial use of his property, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1019 (1992). Finally (and here we approach the situation before us), States effect a taking if they recharacterize as public property what was previously private property. See Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 163-165 (1980).
The Takings Clause (unlike, for instance, the Ex Post Facto Clauses, see Art. I, § 9, cl. 3; § 10, cl. 1) is not addressed to the action of a specific branch or branches. It is eon-cerned simply with the act, and not with the governmental actor (“nor shall private property be taken” (emphasis added)). There is no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation. Nor does common sense recommend such a principle. It would be absurd to allow a State to do by judicial decree what the Takings Clause forbids it to do by legislative fiat. See Stevens v. Cannon Beach, 510 U. S. 1207, 1211-1212 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Our precedents provide no support for the proposition that takings effected by the judicial branch are entitled to special treatment, and in fact suggest the contrary. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), involved a decision of the California Supreme Court overruling one of its prior decisions which had held that the California Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press, and of the right to petition the government, did not require the owner of private property to accord those rights on his premises. The appellants, owners of a shopping center, contended that their private-property rights could not “be denied by invocation of a state constitutional provision or by judicial reconstruction of a State’s laws of private property,” id., at 79 (emphasis added). We held that there had been no taking, citing cases involving legislative and executive takings, and applying standard Takings Clause analysis. See id., at 82-84. We treated the California Supreme Court’s application of the constitutional provisions as a regulation of the use of private property, and evaluated whether that regulation violated the property owners’ “right to exclude others,” id., at 80 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our opinion addressed only the claimed taking by the constitutional provision. Its failure to speak separately to the claimed taking by “judicial reconstruction of a State’s laws of private property” certainly does not suggest that a taking by judicial action cannot occur, and arguably suggests that the same analysis applicable to taking by constitutional provision would apply.
Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, supra, is even closer in point. There the purchaser of an insolvent corporation had interpleaded the corporation’s creditors, placing the purchase price in an interest-bearing account in the registry of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, to be distributed in satisfaction of claims approved by a receiver. The Florida Supreme Court construed an applicable statute to mean that the interest on the account belonged to the county, because the account was “considered 'public money,’” Beckwith v. Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, 374 So. 2d 951, 952-953 (1979) (per curiam). We held this to be a taking. We noted that “[t]he usual and general rule is that any interest on an inter-pleaded and deposited fund follows the principal and is to be allocated to those who are ultimately to be the owners of that principal,” 449 U. S., at 162. “Neither the Florida Legislature by statute, nor the Florida courts by judicial decree,” we said, “may accomplish the result the county seeks simply by recharacterizing the principal as 'public money.’” Id., at 164.
In sum, the Takings Clause bars the State from taking private property without paying for it, no matter which branch is the instrument of the taking. To be sure, the manner of state action may matter: Condemnation by eminent domain, for example, is always a taking, while a legislative, executive, or judicial restriction of property use may or may not be, depending on its nature and extent. But the particular state actor is irrelevant. If a legislature or a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, it has taken that property, no less than if the State had physically appropriated it or destroyed its value by regulation. “[A] State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation.” Ibid.
B
Justice Breyer’s concurrence says that we need neither (1) to decide whether the judiciary can ever effect a taking, nor (2) to establish the standard for determining whether it has done so. See post, at 742-743 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The second part of this is surely incompatible with Justice Breyer’s conclusion that the “Florida Supreme Court’s decision in this case did not amount to a ‘judicial taking.’ ” Post, at 745. One cannot know whether a takings claim is invalid without knowing what standard it has failed to meet. Which means that Justice Breyer must either (1) grapple with the artificial question of what would constitute a judicial taking if there were such a thing as a judicial taking (reminiscent of the perplexing question how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?), or (2) answer in the negative what he considers to be the “unnecessary” constitutional question whether there is such a thing as a judicial taking.
It is not true that deciding the constitutional question in this case contradicts our settled practice. To the contrary, we have often recognized the existence of a constitutional right, or established the test for violation of such a right (or both), and then gone on to find that the claim at issue fails. See, e. g., New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 333, 341-343 (1985) (holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by public-school officials, establishing the standard for finding a violation, but concluding that the claim at issue failed); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687, 698-700 (1984) (recognizing a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, establishing the test for its violation, but holding that the claim at issue failed); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, 58-60 (1985) (holding that a Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 313-320, 326 (1979) (recognizing a due process claim based on insufficiency of evidence, establishing the governing test, but concluding that the claim at issue failed); Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 390, 395-397 (1926) (recognizing that block zoning ordinances could constitute a taking, but holding that the challenged ordinance did not do so); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 241, 255-257 (1897) (holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits uncompensated takings, but concluding that the court below made no errors of law in assessing just compensation). In constitutional-tort suits against public officials, we have found the defendants entitled to immunity only after holding that their action violated the Constitution. See, e. g., Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 605-606 (1999). Indeed, up until last Term, we required federal courts to address the constitutional question before the immunity question. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 236 (2009).
“Assuming without deciding” would be less appropriate here than it was in many of those earlier cases, which established constitutional rights quite separate from any that had previously been acknowledged. Compared to Strickland’s proclamation of a right to effective assistance of counsel, for example, proclaiming that a taking can occur through judicial action addresses a point of relative detail.
In sum, Justice Breyer cannot decide that petitioner’s claim fails without first deciding what a valid claim would consist of. His agreement with Part IV of our opinion necessarily implies agreement with the test for a judicial taking (elaborated in Part II-A) which Part IV applies: whether the state court has “deelare[d] that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists,” supra, at 715. Justice Breyer must either agree with that standard or craft one of his own. And agreeing to or crafting a hypothetical standard for a hypothetical constitutional right is sufficiently unappealing (we have eschewed that course many times in the past) that Justice Breyer might as well acknowledge the right as well. Or he could avoid the need to agree with or craft a hypothetical standard by denying the right. But embracing a standard while being coy about the right is, well, odd; and deciding this case while addressing neither the standard nor the right is quite impossible.
Justice Breyer responds that he simply advocates resolving this case without establishing “the precise standard under which a party wins or loses.” Post, at 744 (emphasis added). But he relies upon no standard at all, precise or imprecise. He simply pronounces that this is not a judicial taking if there is such a thing as a judicial taking. The cases he cites to support this Queen-of-Hearts approach provide no precedent. In each of them the existence of the right in question was settled, and we faced a choice between competing standards that had been applied by the courts. We simply held that the right in question had not been infringed under any of them. There is no established right here, and no competing standards.
c
Like Justice Breyer’s concurrence, Justice Kennedy’s concludes that the Florida Supreme Court’s action here does not meet the standard for a judicial taking, while purporting not to determine what is the standard for a judicial taking, or indeed whether such a thing as a judicial taking even exists. That approach is invalid for the reasons we have discussed.
Justice Kennedy says that we need not take what he considers the bold and risky step of holding that the Takings Clause applies to judicial action, because the Due Process Clause “would likely prevent a State from doing by judicial decree what the Takings Clause forbids it to do by legislative fiat,” post, at 737 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted). He invokes the Due Process Clause “in both its substantive and procedural aspects,” post, at 735, not specifying which of his arguments relates to which.
The first respect in which Justice Kennedy thinks the Due Process Clause can do the job seems to sound in procedural due process. Because, he says, “[c]ourts, unlike the executive or legislature, are not designed to make policy decisions” about expropriation, “[t]he Court would be on strong footing in ruling that a judicial decision that eliminates or substantially changes established property rights” violates the Due Process Clause. Post, at 736, 737. Let us be clear what is being proposed here. This Court has held that the separation-of-powers principles that the Constitution imposes upon the Federal Government do not apply against the States. See Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 83-84 (1902). But in order to avoid the bold and risky step of saying that the Takings Clause applies to all government takings, Justice Kennedy would have us use procedural due process to impose judicially crafted separation-of-powers limitations upon the States: Courts cannot be used to perform the governmental function of expropriation. The asserted reasons for the due process limitation are that the legislative and executive branches “are accountable in their political capacity” for takings, post, at 734, and “[e]ourts... are not designed to make policy decisions” about takings, post, at 736. These reasons may have a lot to do with sound separation-of-powers principles that ought to govern a democratic society, but they have nothing whatever to do with the protection of individual rights that is the object of the Due Process Clause.
Of course even taking those reasons at face value, it is strange to proclaim a democracy deficit and lack of special competence for the judicial taking of an individual property right, when this Court has had no trouble deciding matters of much greater moment, contrary to congressional desire or the legislated desires of most of the States, with no special competence except the authority we possess to enforce the Constitution. In any case, our opinion does not trust judges with the relatively small power Justice Kennedy now objects to. It is we who propose setting aside judicial decisions that take private property; it is he who insists that judges cannot be so limited. Under his regime, the citizen whose property has been judicially redefined to belong to the State would presumably be given the Orwellian explanation: “The court did not take your property. Because it is neither politically accountable nor competent to make such a decision, it cannot take property.”
Justice Kennedy’s injection of separation-of-powers principles into the Due Process Clause would also have the ironic effect of preventing the assignment of the expropriation function to the branch of government whose procedures are, by far, the most protective of individual rights. So perhaps even this first respect in which Justice Kennedy would have the Due Process Clause do the work of the Takings Clause pertains to substantive, rather than procedural, due process. His other arguments undoubtedly pertain to that, as evidenced by his assertion that “[i]t is... natural to read the Due Process Clause as limiting the power of courts to eliminate or change established property rights,” post, at 736, his endorsement of the proposition that the Due Process Clause imposes “limits on government’s ability to diminish property values by regulation,” ibid., and his contention that “the Due Process Clause would likely prevent a State from doing by judicial decree what the Takings Clause forbids it to do by legislative fiat,” post, at 737 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The first problem with using substantive due process to do the work of the Takings Clause is that we have held it cannot be done. “Where a particular Amendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing these claims.' ” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 273 (1994) (four-Justice plurality opinion) (quoting Graham, v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 395 (1989)); see also 510 U. S., at 281 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (“I agree with the plurality that an allegation of arrest without probable cause must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment without reference to more general considerations of due process”). The second problem is that we have held for many years (logically or not) that the “liberties” protected by substantive due process do not include economic liberties. See, e. g., Lincoln Fed. Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., 335 U. S. 525, 536 (1949). Justice Kennedy’s language (“If a judicial decision... eliminates an established property right, the judgment could be set aside as a deprivation of property without due process of law,” post, at 735) propels us back to what is referred to (usually deprecatingly) as “the Lochner era.” See Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 56-58 (1905). That is a step of much greater novelty, and much more unpredictable effect, than merely applying the Takings Clause to judicial action. And the third and last problem with using substantive due process is that either (1) it will not do all that the Takings Clause does, or (2) if it does all that the Takings Clause does, it will encounter the same supposed difficulties that Justice Kennedy finds troublesome.
We do not grasp the relevance of Justice Kennedy’s speculation, post, at 739, that the Framers did not envision the Takings Clause would apply to judicial action. They doubtless did not, since the Constitution was adopted in an era when courts had no power to “change” the common law. See 1 Blackstone 69-70 (1765); Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 472-478 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Where the text they adopted is clear, however (“nor shall private property be taken for public use”), what counts is not what they envisioned but what they wrote. Of course even after courts, in the 19th century, did assume the power to change the common law, it is not true that the new “common-law tradition... allows for incremental modifications to property law,” post, at 736, so that “owners may reasonably expect or anticipate courts to make certain changes in property law,” post, at 738. In the only sense in which this could be relevant to what we are discussing, that is an astounding statement. We are talking here about judicial elimination of established private-property rights. If that is indeed a “common-law tradition,” Justice Kennedy ought to be able to provide a more solid example for it than the only one he cites, ibid., a state-court change (from “noxious” to “harmful”) of the test for determining whether a neighbor’s vegetation is a tortious nuisance. Fancher v. Fagella, 274 Va. 549, 555-556, 650 S. E. 2d 519, 522 (2007). But perhaps he does not really mean that it is a common-law tradition to eliminate property rights, since he immediately follows his statement that “owners may reasonably expect or anticipate courts to make certain changes in property law” with the contradictory statement that “courts cannot abandon settled principles,” post, at 738. If no “settled principl[e]” has been abandoned, it is hard to see how property law could have been “change[d],” rather than merely clarified.
Justice Kennedy has added “two additional practical considerations that the Court would need to address before recognizing judicial takings,” post, at 740. One of them is simple and simply answered: the assertion that “it is unclear what remedy a reviewing court could enter after finding a judicial taking,” ibid. Justice Kennedy worries that we may only be able to mandate compensation. That remedy is even rare for a legislative or executive taking, and we see no reason why it would be the exclusive remedy for a judicial taking. If we were to hold that the Florida Supreme Court had effected an uncompensated taking in the present case, we would simply reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act can be applied to the property in question. Justice Kennedy’s other point, ibid. — that we will have to decide when the claim of a judicial taking must be asserted — -hardly presents an awe-inspiring prospect. These, and all the other “difficulties,” post, at 734, “difficult questions,” post, at 737, and “practical considerations” post, at 740, that Justice Kennedy worries may perhaps stand in the way of recognizing a judicial taking, are either nonexistent or insignificant.
Finally, we cannot avoid comment upon Justice Kennedy’s donning of the mantle of judicial restraint — his assertion that it is we, and not he, who would empower the courts and encourage their expropriation of private property. He warns that if judges know that their action is covered by the Takings Clause, they will issue “sweeping new rule[s] to adjust the rights of property owners,” comfortable in the knowledge that their innovations will be preserved upon payment by the State. Post, at 738. That is quite impossible. As we have said, if we were to hold that the Florida Supreme Court had effected an uncompensated taking in this case, we would not validate the taking by ordering Florida to pay compensation. We would simply reverse the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act can be applied to the Members’ property. The power to effect a compensated taking would then reside, where it has always resided, not in the Florida Supreme Court but in the Florida Legislature — which could either provide compensation or acquiesce in the invalidity of the offending features of the Act. Cf. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 817-818 (1989). The only realistic incentive that subjection to the Takings Clause might provide to any court would be the incentive to get reversed, which in our experience few judges value.
Justice Kennedy, however, while dismissive of the Takings Clause, places no other constraints on judicial action. He puts forward some extremely vague applications of substantive due process, and does not even say that they (whatever they are) will for sure apply. (“It is thus natural to read the Due Process Clause as limiting the power of courts to eliminate or change established property rights,” post, at 736; “courts... may not have the power
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
OPINION OF THE COURT
[562 U.S. 30]
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978), this Court held that civil rights plaintiffs
[562 U.S. 31]
suing a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that their injury was caused by a municipal policy or custom. The case before the Court in Monell directly involved monetary damages. The question presented is whether the “policy or custom” requirement also applies when plaintiffs seek prospective relief, such as an injunction or a declaratory judgment. We conclude that it does so apply.
I
The case arises out of the following circumstances: The California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 11164 et seq. (West Rev. Supp. 2010), requires law enforcement and other state agencies to investigate allegations of child abuse. These agencies must report to the California Department of Justice all instances of reported child abuse the agency finds “not unfounded,” even if they are “inconclusive or unsubstantiated.” §§ 11169(a), 11170(a)(3). The statute requires the department to include all these reports in a Child Abuse Central Index (Index), where they remain available to various state agencies for at least 10 years. § 11170(a). The statute also says that if
“a report has previously been filed which subsequently proves to be unfounded, the Department of Justice shall be notified in writing of that fact and shall not retain the report.” § 11169(a).
The statute, however, does not set forth procedures for reviewing whether a previously filed report is unfounded, or for allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion in the Index. Nor, up until the time of this lawsuit, had California or Los Angeles County created any such procedures. But cf. § 11170(a)(2) (“The submitting agencies are responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and retention of the reports described in this section”).
The two plaintiffs in this case were initially accused of child abuse. But they were later exonerated. They sought to have their names removed from the Index. Unable to
[562 U.S. 32]
convince the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to remove them, they filed this § 1983 case against the attorney general of California, the Los Angeles County sheriff, two detectives in the sheriffs department, and the County of Los Angeles. They sought damages, an injunction, and a declaration that the defendants had deprived them of their constitutional rights by failing to create a procedural mechanism through which one could contest inclusion on the Index. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 14; Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to all of the defendants on the ground that California had not deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected “liberty” interest. But on appeal the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Fourteenth Amendment required the State to provide those included on the list notice and “ ‘some kind of hearing.’” 554 F.3d 1170, 1201 (2009). Thus the Circuit held that the plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory relief, and it believed that (on remand) they might prove damages as well. Ibid.
The Ninth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties, thereby entitled to approximately $600,000 in attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (providing for payment of attorney’s fees to parties prevailing on § 1983 claims). See No. 05-56467 (June 22, 2009), App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-4 (hereinafter First Fee Order); No. 05-56467 (Dec. 2, 2009), App. to Reply to Brief in Opposition 1-2 (hereinafter Second Fee Order). The Ninth Circuit wrote that Los Angeles County must pay approximately $60,000 of this amount. First Fee Order 3; Second Fee Order 2.
Los Angeles County denied that it was liable and therefore that it could be held responsible for attorney’s fees. It argued that, in respect to the county, the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. That is because the county is a municipal entity. Under Monell’s holding a municipal entity is liable under § 1983 only if a municipal “policy or custom” caused a
[562 U.S. 33]
plaintiff to be deprived of a federal right. 436 U.S., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). And it was state policy, not county policy, that brought about any deprivation here.
The Ninth Circuit responded to this argument as follows: First, it said that county policy might be responsible for the deprivation. It “is possible,” the Ninth Circuit said, that the county, “[b]y failing to” “creat[e] an independent procedure that would allow” the plaintiffs “to challenge their listing [,] . . . adopted a custom and policy that violated” the plaintiffs’ “constitutional rights.” 554 F.3d, at 1202. Second, it said that “because this issue is not clear based on the record before us on appeal ... we remand to the district court to determine the County’s liability under Monell.” Ibid. Third, it saw no reason to remand in respect to the county’s obligation to pay $60,000 in attorney’s fees. That, it wrote, is because “in our circuit . . . the limitations to liability established, in Monell do not apply to claims for prospective relief” such as the declaratory judgment that the Circuit had ordered entered. First Fee Order 3-4 (citing Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247, 250 (CA9 1989); Truth v. Kent School Dist., 542 F.3d 634, 644 (CA9 2008); emphasis added).
The county then asked us to review this last-mentioned Ninth Circuit holding, namely, the holding that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies only to claims for damages but not to claims for prospective relief. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided on this question, we granted the county’s petition for cer-tiorari. Compare Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 191 (CA2 2007) (holding that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies to claims for prospective relief as well as claims for damages); Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dept., 315 F.3d 65, 71 (CA1 2002) (same); Greensboro Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 3157 v. Greensboro, 64 F.3d 962, 967, n. 6 (CA4 1995) (applying the Monell requirement to a prospective relief claim); Church v. Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1347 (CA11 1994) (same), with
[562 U.S. 34]
Chaloux, supra, at 251 (holding that Monell does not apply to prospective relief claims). See also Gernetzke v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1, 274 F.3d 464, 468 (CA7 2001) (reserving the question but noting the “predominant” view that “Monell’s holding applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought”).
We conclude that Monell’s holding applies to § 1983 claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages.
II
A
We begin with § 1983 itself, which provides:
“Every person who, under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States], shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” (Emphasis added.)
In 1961, in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492, this Court held that municipal entities were not “person[s]” under § 1983. The Court based this conclusion on the history of the Civil Rights Act of 187l’s enactment. It noted that Congress rejected an amendment (called the Sherman amendment) that would have made municipalities liable for damage done by private persons “ ‘riotously and tumultuously assembled.’ ” Id., at 188-190, and n. 38, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (quoting Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 663 (1871)). This rejection, the Court thought, reflected a determination by the 1871 House of Representatives that “ ‘Congress had no constitutional power to impose any obligation upon county and town organizations, the mere instrumentality for the administration of state law.’ ” 365 U.S., at 190, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (quoting Cong. Globe, supra, at 804 (statement of Rep. Poland); emphasis added). The Court concluded that Congress must have doubted its “constitutional
[562 U.S. 35]
power ... to impose civil liability on municipalities.” 365 U.S., at 190, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492. And for that reason, Congress must have intended to exclude municipal corporations as § 1983 defendants. The statute’s key term “person” therefore did not cover municipal entities. Id., at 191, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492.
Sixteen years later, in Monell, the Court reconsidered the question of municipal liability. After reexamining the 1871 legislative history in detail, the Court concluded that Congress had rejected the Sherman amendment, not because it would have imposed liability upon municipalities, but because it would have imposed liability upon municipalities based purely upon the acts of others. That is to say, the rejected amendment would have imposed liability upon local governments “without regard to whether a local government was in any way at fault for the breach of the peace for which it was to be held for damages.” 436 U.S., at 681, n. 40, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). In Monell’s view Congress may have thought that it lacked the power to impose that kind of indirect liability upon municipalities, id., at 679, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, but “nothing said in debate on the Sherman amendment would have prevented holding a municipality liable ... for its own violations of the Fourteenth Amendment,” id., at 683, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). The Court, overruling Monroe, held that municipalities were “persons” under § 1983. 436 U.S., at 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
The Court also concluded that a municipality could not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employed a tortfeasor. The Court’s conclusion rested on “the language of § 1983, read against the background of the same legislative history.” Id., at 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. Section 1983’s causation language imposes liability on a “ ‘person who . . . shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person’ ” to a deprivation of federal rights. Ibid, (quoting 17 Stat. 13; emphasis deleted). That language, the Court observed, could not “be easily read to impose liability vicariously . . . solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee relationship with a tortfeasor.” 436 U.S., at 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. The statute’s legislative history,
[562 U.S. 36]
in particular the constitutional objections that had been raised to the Sherman amendment, supported this conclusion. Id., at 692-694, and n. 57, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
For these reasons, the Court concluded that a municipality could be held liable under § 1983 only for its own violations of federal law. Id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. The Court described what made a violation a municipality’s own violation:
“Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. . . . [They can also be sued for] deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Id., at 690-691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (footnote omitted).
The Court has also included the terms “usage” and “practice” as customs for which liability is appropriate. See ibid. The length of this list of types of municipal action leads us here to use a shorthand term “policy or custom,” but when we do so, we mean to refer to the entire list. See id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (using the shorthand “policy or custom”); see also, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257-258, 129 S. Ct. 788, 172 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2009) (using the phrase “custom, policy, or practice,” to describe municipal liability under § 1983).
In sum, in Monell the Court held that “a municipality cannot be held liable” solely for the acts of others, e.g., “solely because it employs a tort-feasor.” 436 U.S., at 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. But the municipality may be held liable “when execution of a government’s policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury.” Id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added).
B
The language of § 1983 read in light of Monell’s understanding of the legislative history explains why claims for
[562 U.S. 37]
prospective relief, like claims for money damages, fall within the scope of the “policy or custom” requirement. Nothing in the text of § 1983 suggests that the causation requirement contained in the statute should change with the form of relief sought. In fact, the text suggests the opposite when it provides that a person who meets § 1983’s elements “shall be liable ... in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Thus, as Monell explicitly stated, “[l]ocal governing bodies .. . can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes” a policy or custom. 436 U.S., at 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). Monell went on to quote this Court’s statement in a 1973 case, Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 513, 93 S. Ct. 2222, 37 L. Ed. 2d 109, to the effect that the Congress that enacted § 1983 did not intend the “ ‘generic word “person” . . . to have a bifurcated application to municipal corporations depending on the nature of the relief sought against them.’ ” 436 U.S., at 701, n. 66, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). Monell added that “[n]othing we say today affects” this pre-Monell “conclusion.” Ibid-
Monell’s logic also argues against any such relief-based bifurcation. The Monell Court thought that Congress intended potential § 1983 liability where a municipality’s own violations were at issue but not where only the violations of others were at issue. The “policy or custom” requirement rests upon that distinction and embodies it in law. To find the requirement inapplicable where prospective relief is at issue would undermine Monell’s logic. For whether an action or omission is a municipality’s “own” has to do with the nature of the action or omission, not with the nature of the relief that is later sought in court.
C
The Humphrieses’ (hereinafter respondents) arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. Respondents correctly note that by the time Monell reached the Supreme Court only the plaintiffs’ damages claim remained live. See id., at 661, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
[562 U.S. 38]
From this fact they conclude that the Court’s holding applies directly only to claims for monetary damages. A holding, however, can extend through its logic beyond the specific facts of the particular case. It does so here.
Respondents add that not only did Monell involve a damages claim, but its holding rests upon the concern that municipalities might have to pay large damages awards. The Court so suggests when it points out that municipalities should not be liable for an employee’s wrongful acts, simply by applying agency-based principles of respondeat superior. But as we have pointed out, the Court’s rejection of respondeat superior liability primarily rested not on the municipality’s economic needs, but on the fact that liability in such a case does not arise out of the municipality’s own wrongful conduct.
Respondents further claim that, where prospective relief is at issue, Monell is redundant. They say that a court cannot grant prospective relief against a municipality unless the municipality’s own conduct has caused the violation. Hence, where such relief is otherwise proper, the Monell requirement “shouldn’t screen out any case.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 48.
To argue that a requirement is necessarily satisfied, however, is not to argue that its satisfaction is unnecessary. If respondents are right, our holding may have limited practical significance. But that possibility does not provide us with a convincing reason to sow confusion by adopting a bifurcated relief-based approach to municipal liability that the Court has previously rejected.
Finally, respondents make the mirror-image argument that applying Monell’s requirement to prospective relief claims will leave some set of ongoing constitutional violations beyond redress. Despite the fact that four Circuits apply Monell’s requirement to prospective relief, however, respondents have not presented us with any actual or hypothetical example that provides serious cause for concern.
[562 U.S. 39]
For these reasons, we hold that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies in § 1983 cases irrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was crushed between a moving railroad car and a building while working for respondent railroad as an engine foreman in charge of a switching crew. Damages for personal injuries were sought in a Nebraska state court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. Judgment was rendered for petitioner on a jury verdict for $10,000, but on appeal the state Supreme Court reversed for insufficiency of evidence to show negligence, and ordered the complaint dismissed. 146 Neb. 397, 19 N. W. 2d 641; 147 Neb. 18, 22 N. W. 2d 305. We granted certiorari because of an apparent conflict between that decision and Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645.
Petitioner’s evidence tended to show the following: Petitioner, aged 41, had been in the employ of respondent only one year, and had a total railroad experience of two or three years. Just before sunset on March 15, 1943, he was engaged, along with other members of his crew, in backing an engine and box car around a curve on a spur track where visibility was obstructed by a building located on the inside and near the middle of the curve. He was standing on the ground on the same side as the building and to the right of the engine, and was controlling operations by hand signals to the engineer. Engine foremen frequently stand to the right of the engine, on the engineer’s side of the cab. A switchman was located around the curve, out of sight of the engineer, on a loading platform at which the car was to be “spotted.” Petitioner moved between the building and the track in an attempt to be in a central position from which he could receive signals from the switchman and relay them to the engineer. As the car moved past petitioner, it caught and pinned the upper part of his body against the wall of the building, causing serious injuries. The situation was deceptive because the overhang of the car on the curve and its tilt toward the building resulting from a higher outside rail, reduced clearance materially. In fact, the place where petitioner was standing was in the one short segment of the arc of the curve where clearance was insufficient. Petitioner was unfamiliar with the area and its hazards; if there was a sign warning of the danger, he did not see it; no effort was made to warn him personally. The nearness of the track to the building created an unsafe place for work. Though the engineer was an experienced railroad worker thoroughly familiar with this particular spur, and though it was his duty to watch petitioner continuously or stop the engine, he failed either to warn petitioner or to stop in time to avert the tragedy. During the operation the engineer could see the right side of petitioner and when he saw petitioner’s right foot twisted on the ground, he stopped the train.
Respondent’s evidence, on the other hand, tended to establish the following: Petitioner was inconsistent in his statements, and it actually appeared that he had worked around this spur a number of times. The clearance, once adequate, was impaired by a subsequent extension of the building over which the respondent had no control. Neither the overhang of the car nor the pitch of the curve was unusual. Respondent maintained, near the building and some eight feet above the ground, a prominent, legible sign reading “IMPAIRED CLEARANCE.” It was not required or desirable that petitioner stand between the building and the track; he could equally well have performed his functions on the left, or safe, side of the engine. He did not stand where he could see the switchman, and, in fact, it was not necessary for him to relay signals from the switchman since the engineer would be in a position to watch the switchman himself when the car approached the loading platform. The engineer had not worked on the ground and was not aware of the precise hazard; his distance from the petitioner (about 60 feet) and the configuration of the building were such that it was not apparent that the petitioner was in peril. That the engineer was vigilant is somewhat supported by the fact that the train was moving only one or two miles an hour and that he stopped it almost instantly, and within a distance of 12 or 14 inches, when petitioner was pinned between the car and the building.
From this evidence the jury might have concluded that petitioner had a safe place to work but elected to choose a dangerous one, that any duty of warning was fully discharged by the presence of the sign, and that the engineer had not been negligent in any way. In that view of the case the accident would be an unforeseeable, freak event or one caused solely by petitioner’s own negligence. On the other hand, it would not have been unreasonable for the triers of fact to have inferred that it was proper and usual procedure to work on the right side of the engine, that the hazard was not readily apparent and was almost in the nature of a trap, that while the sign was placed so as to be readily visible from a train, it was insufficient warning to a man on the ground, and that consequently petitioner was not furnished a safe place to work. And the jury might have thought that the engineer was negligent in failing to perceive the peril in time to avert the accident by a warning or by stopping the engine. Again, both parties might have been found negligent, in which event it would have been the duty of the jury, as the trial judge charged, to render a verdict based upon the damages caused by respondent’s negligence diminished by the proportion of negligence attributable to petitioner. 45 U. S. C. § 53.
The Act does not make the employer the insurer of the safety of his employees while they are on duty. The basis of his liability is his negligence, not the fact that injuries occur. And that negligence must be “in whole or in part” the cause of the injury. 45 U. S. C. § 51; Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U. S. 476, 484. Whether those standards are satisfied is a federal question, the rights created being federal rights. Brady v. Southern R. Co., supra; Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350.
The choice of conflicting versions of the way the accident happened, the decision as to which witness was telling the truth, the inferences to be drawn from uneontroverted as well as controverted facts, are questions for the jury. Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., 321 U. S. 29; Lavender v. Kurn, supra. Once there is a reasonable basis in the record for concluding that there was negligence which caused the injury, it is irrelevant that fair-minded men might reach a different conclusion. For then it would be an invasion of the jury’s function for an appellate court to draw contrary inferences or to conclude that a different conclusion would be more reasonable. Lavender v. Kurn, supra, p. 652. And where, as here, the case turns on controverted facts and the credibility of witnesses, the case is peculiarly one for the jury. Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 572; Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54, 68.
We think the evidence raised substantial questions for the jury to determine and that there was a reasonable basis for the verdict which it returned.
Reversed.
The engineer was required to have some member of the crew in sight at all times when the engine was in motion. At the time of the accident the undisputed testimony indicated that petitioner was the only member of the crew that the engineer could see. The engineer testified that he watched petitioner continuously.
The duty of the carrier to furnish a safe place to work “is not relieved by the fact that the employee’s work at the place in question is fleeting or infrequent.” Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 353.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On January 7, 1970, the Government filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §§ 7402 (b) and 7604 (a), seeking enforcement of an Internal Revenue summons in connection with an investigation of petitioner’s tax liability from 1964-1968. The summons was directed to petitioner’s accountant for the production of:
“All books, records, bank statements, cancelled checks, deposit ticket copies, workpapers and all other pertinent documents pertaining to the tax liability of the above taxpayer.”
The question is whether the taxpayer may invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to prevent the production of her business and tax records in the possession of her accountant. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held the privilege unavailable. We granted certiorari, 405 U. S. 1038.
Petitioner is the sole proprietress of a restaurant. Since 1955 she had given bank statements, payroll records, and reports of sales and expenditures to her accountant, Harold Shaffer, for the purpose of preparing her income tax returns. The accountant was not petitioner’s personal employee but an independent contractor with his own office and numerous other clients who compensated him on a piecework basis. When petitioner surrendered possession of the records to Shaffer, she, of course, retained title in herself.
During the summer of 1969, Internal Revenue Agent Dennis Groves commenced an investigation of petitioner’s tax returns. After examining her books and records in Shaffer’s office with his permission, Groves found indications of a substantial understatement of gross income. Groves thereupon reported the case to the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
Special Agent Jennings of the Intelligence Division next commenced a joint investigation with Groves to determine petitioner’s correct tax liability, the possibility of income tax fraud and the imposition of tax fraud penalties, and, lastly, the possibility of a recommendation of a criminal tax violation. Jennings first introduced himself to petitioner, gave her Miranda warnings as required by IRS directive, and then issued the summons to Shaffer after the latter refused to let him see, remove, or microfilm petitioner’s records.
When Jennings arrived at Shaffer’s office on September 2, 1969, the return day of the summons, to view the records, he found that Shaffer, at petitioner’s request, had delivered the documents to petitioner’s attorney. Jennings thereupon petitioned the District Court for enforcement of the summons, and petitioner intervened, asserting that the ownership of the records warranted a Fifth Amendment privilege to bar their production.
I
It is now undisputed that a special agent is authorized, pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 7602, to issue an Internal Revenue summons in aid of a tax investigation with civil and possible criminal consequences. In Donaldson v. United States, 400 U. S. 517 (1971), the Court upheld such a summons, noting that:
“Congress clearly has authorized the use of the summons in investigating what may prove to be criminal conduct. . . . There is no statutory suggestion for any meaningful line of distinction, for civil as compared with criminal purposes, at the point of a special agent’s appearance. ... To draw a line where a special agent appears would require the Service, in a situation of suspected but undetermined fraud, to forgo either the use of the summons or the potentiality of an ultimate recommendation for prosecution. We refuse to draw that line and thus to stultify enforcement of federal law.” Id., at 535-536.
The Court in Donaldson noted that the taxpayer there had attempted to intervene, pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (a)(2), to bar production of records “in which the taxpayer has no proprietary interest of any kind, which are owned by the third person, which are in his hands, and which relate to the third person’s business transactions with the taxpayer.” Id., at 523. The Court quite properly concluded that, under those facts, no absolute right to intervene existed. Id., at 530-531. The instant case, however, presents a different question. Here petitioner does own the business records which the Government seeks to review and the courts below did permit her to intervene. The essential inquiry is whether her proprietary interest further enables her to assert successfully a privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to bar enforcement of the summons and production of the records, despite the fact that the records no longer remained in her possession.
II
The importance of preserving inviolate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination has often been stated by this Court and need not be elaborated. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). By its very nature, the privilege is an intimate and personal one. It respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation. Historically, the privilege sprang from an abhorrence of governmental assault against the single individual accused of crime and the temptation on the part of the State to resort to the expedient of compelling incriminating evidence from one’s own mouth. United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698 (1944). The Court has thought the privilege necessary to prevent any “recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality,” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 428 (1956).
In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964), the Court articulated the policies and purposes of the privilege:
“[0]ur unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government ... in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load/ . . . our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life’ . . . .”
It is important to reiterate that the Fifth Amendment privilege is a personal privilege: it adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him. As Mr. Justice Holmes put it: “A party is privileged from producing the evidence but not from its production.” Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457, 458 (1913). The Constitution explicitly prohibits compelling an accused to bear witness “against himself” ; it necessarily does not proscribe incriminating statements elicited from another. Compulsion upon the person asserting it is an important element of the privilege, and “prohibition of compelling a man ... to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him,” Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 252-253 (1910) (emphasis added). It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense' of justice.
In the case before us the ingredient of personal compulsion against an accused is lacking. The summons and the order of the District Court enforcing it are directed against the accountant. He, not the taxpayer, is the only one compelled to do anything. And the accountant makes no claim that he may tend to be incriminated by the production. Inquisitorial pressure or coercion against a potentially accused person, compelling her, against her will, to utter self-condemning words or produce incriminating documents is absent. In the present case, no “shadow of testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused” is involved. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 765 (1966).
The divulgence of potentially incriminating evidence against petitioner is naturally unwelcome. But petitioner’s distress would be no less if the divulgence came not from her accountant but from some other third party with whom she was connected and who possessed substantially equivalent knowledge of her business affairs. The basic complaint of petitioner stems from the fact of divulgence of the possibly incriminating information, not from the manner in which or the person from whom it was extracted. Yet such divulgence, where it does not result from coercion of the suspect herself, is a necessary part of the process of law enforcement and tax investigation.
Ill
Petitioner’s reliance on Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), is misplaced. In Boyd, the person asserting the privilege was in possession of the written statements in question. The Court in Boyd did hold that “any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man’s own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime,” violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Id., at 630. That case did not, however, address or contemplate the divergence of ownership and possession, and petitioner concedes that court decisions applying Boyd have largely been in instances where possession and ownership conjoined, see, e. g., Hill v. Philpott, 445 F. 2d 144 (CA7 1971); United States v. Judson, 322 F. 2d 460, 63-2 USTC ¶ 9658 (CA9 1963). In Boyd, the production order was directed against the owner of the property who, by responding, would have been forced “to produce and authenticate any personal documents or effects that might incriminate him.” United States v. White, 322 U. S., at 698. But we reiterate that in the instant case there was no enforced communication of any kind from any accused or potential accused.
Petitioner would, in effect, have us read Boyd to mark ownership, not possession, as the bounds of the privilege, despite the fact that possession bears the closest relationship to the personal compulsion forbidden by the Fifth Amendment. To tie the privilege against self-incrimination to a concept of ownership would be to draw a meaningless line. It would hold here that the business records which petitioner actually owned would be protected in the hands of her accountant, while business information communicated to her accountant by letter and conversations in which the accountant took notes, in addition to the accountant’s own workpapers and photocopies of petitioner’s records, would not be subject to a claim of privilege since title rested in the accountant. Such a holding would thus place unnecessary emphasis on the form of communication to an accountant and the accountant’s own working methods, while diverting the inquiry from the basic purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s protections.
Other precedents debated by the parties lend no support to petitioner’s contention that ownership of documents should determine the availability of the privilege. In Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7 (1918), the Court held the privilege unavailable to a party seeking to suppress the admission of incriminating documents and exhibits before a grand jury. The movant’s expectations of privacy in the exhibits had, according to the Court, been destroyed when he voluntarily surrendered the exhibits as evidence in a patent infringement case he had earlier brought in Federal District Court. Petitioner’s claims of ownership failed to overcome this fact. The Court noted pertinently:
“But Perlman insists that he owned the exhibits and appears to contend that his ownership exempted them from any use by the Government without his consent. The extent of the insistence is rather elusive of measurement. It seems to be that the owner of property must be considered as having a constructive possession of it wherever it be and in whosesoever hands it be, and it is always, therefore, in a kind of asylum of constitutional privilege. And to be of avail the contention must be pushed to this extreme. It is opposed, however, by all the cited cases. They, as we have said, make the criterion of immunity not the ownership of property but the 'physical or moral compulsion’ exerted.” Id., at 15.
Petitioner argues, nevertheless, that grave prejudice will result from a denial of her claim to equate ownership and the scope of the privilege. She alleges that “[i]f the IRS is able to reach her records the instant those records leave her hands and are deposited in the hands of her retainer whom she has hired for a special purpose then the meaning of the privilege is lost.” That is not, however, the import of today’s decision. We do indeed believe that actual possession of documents bears the most significant relationship to Fifth Amendment protections against governmental compulsions upon the individual accused of crime. Yet situations may well arise where constructive possession is so clear or the relinquishment of possession is so temporary and insignificant as to leave the personal compulsions upon the accused substantially intact. But this is not the case before us. Here there was no mere fleeting divestment of possession: the records had been given to this accountant regularly since 1955 and remained in his continuous possession until the summer of 1969 when the summons was issued. Moreover, the accountant himself worked neither in petitioner’s office nor as her employee. The length of his possession of petitioner’s records and his independent status confirm the belief that petitioner’s divestment of possession was of such a character as to disqualify her entirely as an object of any impermissible Fifth Amendment compulsion.
IV
Petitioner further argues that the confidential nature of the accountant-client relationship and her resulting expectation of privacy in delivering the records protect her, under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, from their production. Although not in itself controlling, we note that no confidential accountant-client privilege exists under federal law, and no state-created privilege has been recognized in federal cases, Falsone v. United States, 205 F. 2d 734 (CA5 1953), cert. denied, 346 U. S. 864; Gariepy v. United States, 189 F. 2d 459, 463-464 (CA6 1951); Himmelfarb v. United States, 175 F. 2d 924, 939 (CA9 1949), cert. denied, 338 U. S. 860; Olender v. United States, 210 F. 2d 795, 806 (CA9 1954). Nor is there justification for such a privilege where records relevant to income tax returns are involved in a criminal investigation or prosecution. In Boyd, a pre-income tax case, the Court spoke of protection of privacy, 116 U. S., at 630, but there can be little expectation of privacy where records are handed to an accountant, knowing that mandatory disclosure of much of the information therein is required in an income tax return. What information is not disclosed is largely in the accountant’s discretion, not petitioner’s. Indeed, the accountant himself risks criminal prosecution if he willfully assists in the preparation of a false return. 26 U. S. C. § 7206 (2). His own need for self-protection would often require the right to disclose the information given him. Petitioner seeks extensions of constitutional protections against self-incrimination in the very situation where obligations of disclosure exist and under a system largely dependent upon honest self-reporting even to survive. Accordingly, petitioner here cannot reasonably claim, either for Fourth or Fifth Amendment purposes, an expectation of protected privacy or confidentiality.
V
The criterion, for Fifth Amendment immunity remains not the ownership of property but the “ ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted.” Perlman, 247 U. S., at 15. We hold today that no Fourth or Fifth Amendment claim can prevail where, as in this case, there exists no legitimate expectation of privacy and no semblance of governmental compulsion against the person of the accused. It is important, in applying constitutional principles, to interpret them in light of the fundamental interests of personal liberty they were meant to serve. Respect for these principles is eroded when they leap their proper bounds to interfere with the legitimate interest of society in enforcement of its laws and collection of the revenues.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Sec. 7402. Jurisdiction op District Courts.
“(b) To enforce summons. If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.”
Sec. 7604. Enforcement op Summons.
“(a) Jurisdiction of district court. If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, the United States district court for the district in which such person resides or is found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, records, or other data.”
App. 59-60.
The District Court held that “[s]ince, at the time the summons was served, the taxpayer, Lillian V. Couch, was not in possession of the books, records and documents described in the summons, she may not assert any Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a bar to the enforcement of the summons.” App. 6, 11. The opinion of the District Court (WD Va.) is not reported.
The Court of Appeals also noted that the answer to petitioner’s Fifth Amendment contentions lay in the fact that “the records were not in the intervenor’s [taxpayer’s] possession but were in the custody of her accountant,” 449 F. 2d 141, 143 (1971).
The summons, which is printed in full in App. 59-60, was issued on August 18, 1969, pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 7602, which provides:
Examination of Books and Witnesses.
“For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized—
“(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person,- or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and
“(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;
“(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.”
Petitioner also claimed that enforcement of the summons would violate her Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. We agree with the Government, however/ that “this claim is not further articulated and does not appear to be independent of her Fifth Amendment argument.” Brief for United States 21-22. See part IV, infra.
There is clearly the joint civil and possibly criminal investigatory purpose in the instant case, see supra, at 324.
Donaldson cautioned only that the summons be issued in good faith and prior to a recommendation for criminal prosecution. 400 U. S., at 536. Neither of those conditions is successfully challenged here.
Technically the order to produce the records was directed to petitioner’s attorney since, after the summons was served upon the accountant, he ignored it and surrendered the records to the attorney. But constitutional rights obviously cannot be enlarged by this kind of action. The rights and obligations of the parties became fixed when the summons was served, and the transfer did not alter them. See United States v. Zakutansky, 401 F. 2d 68, 72 (CA7 1968), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 1021 (1969); United States v. Lyons, 442 F. 2d 1144 (CA1 1971).
A later Court commenting on the Boyd privilege noted that “the papers and effects which the privilege protects must be the private property of the person claiming the privilege, or at least in his possession in a purely personal capacity.” United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 699 (1944). (Emphasis added.)
Brief for Petitioner 13-14.
See also United States v. Cohen, 388 F. 2d 464, 468 (CA9 1967), where the court, in upholding the right of a possessor, nonowner, to assert the privilege, noted that “it is possession of papers sought by the government, not ownership, which sets the stage for exercise of the governmental compulsion which it is the purpose of the privilege to prohibit.” Though the instant case concerns the scope of the privilege for an owner, nonpossessor, the Ninth Circuit’s linkage of possession to the purposes served by the privilege was appropriate.
We do not; of course, decide what qualifies as rightful possession enabling the possessor to assert the privilege.
Brief for Petitioner 11-17.
Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465 (1921), also debated and cited in the briefs, held that the Government may retain for use against their owner in a criminal proceeding incriminating documents which were stolen by private individuals, without any governmental knowledge or complicity, and turned over to the Government. The Court, in denying the owner’s privilege, alluded primarily to the absence of any governmental compulsion against the accused, the precise factor considered in the instant case. It is true, as petitioner argues, that the case turns somewhat on a discussion of governmental versus private compulsion and invasion, but it is equally true that the Court in Burdeau failed to find any impermissible public compulsion on the owner absent his possession:
“We know of no constitutional principle which requires the Government to surrender the papers under such circumstances. Had it learned that such incriminatory papers, tending to show a violation of federal law, were in the hands of a person other than the accused, it having had no part in wrongfully obtaining them, we know of no reason why a subpoena might not issue for the production of the papers as evidence. Such production would require no unreasonable search or seizure, nor would it amount to compelling the accused to testify against himself.” Id., at 476.
In Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457 (1913), the Court held that the books and records of a bankrupt transferred to a trustee in bankruptcy could be used as evidence against the bankrupt in a prosecution for concealing money from the trustee. Unlike the instant case, both title and possession passed in that transfer and the records were, in one sense, “published” by it. But the Court, in denying the privilege, recognized that the transfer also succeeded in removing the important element of personal compulsion against the accused, id., at 459, just as, in this case, the nature of the divestment of possession did.
Brief for Petitioner 13. At oral argument petitioner raised a similar concern:
“The Government goes so far as to contend, I believe, with their theory that any time it is out of your actual physical possession it is subject to subpoena .... If I were helping you across Constitution Avenue by carrying your briefcase, the Government holds that they could hand me a summons in the middle of Constitution Avenue and seize your documents to use against you in a criminal trial.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14.
See, e. g., Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F. 2d 855 (CA8 1956), which involved an attorney’s partially successful motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued in a grand jury proceeding against a corporation where the attorney had stored his office files. See also United States v. Guterma, 272 F. 2d 344 (CA2 1959), concerning the storage of taxpayer’s personal records in a safe in offices of a corporation which the taxpayer had served as Chairman of the Board. Only the taxpayer and an indicted co-defendant knew the combination of the safe, and the corporation had no access to it. The Court of Appeals upheld the taxpayer’s assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege as to his personal records in the face of a grand jury subpoena directed to the corporation.
Petitioner argues these cases support her position (Brief for Petitioner 14-15); the Government argues they can be distinguished from the instant case as involving mere custodial safekeeping of records, not disclosure of their information to a third person (Brief for United States 21). We refrain from judging the merits of such distinctions today.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.
As we noted, supra, at 324, his status is that of an independent contractor. He actually did “very little work for the petitioner,” had many other clients, and was compensated by the job. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8.
This is a significant point. The Government noted in oral argument:
“In the Internal Revenue Service practice, so long as the taxpayer has retained possession of the records and they are being used only by his full-time employees or others on the taxpayer’s premises, without the taxpayer having relinquished possession and control of the records, we ordinarily in those situations issue the summons to the taxpayer, because it is the taxpayer who has the dominion over the records and the authority to return the summons. And if the taxpayer chooses to plead the privilege against self-incrimination, that is up to the taxpayer.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
See n. 6, supra. The summons satisfied the requirements in United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48, 57-58 (1964), and, as explained above, the necessary expectation of privacy to launch a valid Eourth Amendment claim does not exist. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall implies that the Court has created a “bright-line rule that no constitutional right of petitioner is violated by enforcing a summons of papers not in her possession.” Post, at 344. This implication does not reflect accurately the position of the Court. Indeed, it ignores the language of the Court, supra, at 333-335, and nn. 15-18. We do indeed attach constitutional importance to possession, but only because of its close relationship to those personal compulsions and intrusions which the Fifth Amendment forbids. Yet, contrary to any intimation in the dissent, we do not adopt any per se rule. We also decline to conjecture broadly on the significance of possession in cases and circumstances not before 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.
Per Curiam.
On the ground that they challenged only their living conditions and disciplinary measures while confined in maximum security at Missouri State Penitentiary, and did not seek their release, petitioners’ state habeas corpus petitions were dismissed. The Missouri Supreme Court aifirmed. Petitioners then sought federal habeas corpus in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The District Court dismissed the petitions and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, 439 F. 2d 1331. Although petitioners had exhausted state habeas relief the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the requirements of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 had not been satisfied because petitioners had not invoked any of a number of possible alternatives to state habeas including “a suit for injunction, a writ of prohibition, or mandamus or a declaratory judgment in the state courts,” or perhaps other relief under the State Administrative Procedure Act. Id., at 1336.
I
Section 2254 does not erect insuperable or successive barriers to the invocation of federal habeas corpus. The exhaustion requirement is merely an accommodation of our federal system designed to give the State an initial “opportunity to pass upon and correct” alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights. Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 438 (1963). Petitioners are not required to file “repetitious applications” in the state courts. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 449 n. 3 (1953). Nor does the mere possibility of success in additional proceedings bar federal relief. Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40, 42-43 (1967); Coleman v. Maxwell, 351 F. 2d 285, 286 (CA6 1965). Whether the State would have heard petitioners’ claims in any of the suggested alternative proceedings is a matter of conjecture; certainly no available procedure was indicated by the State Supreme Court in earlier cases. See McMichaels v. Hancock, 428 F. 2d 1222, 1223 (CA1 1970). Furthermore, we are not referred to a single instance, regardless of the remedy invoked, in which the Missouri courts have granted a hearing to state prisoners on the conditions of their confinement. In these circumstances § 2254 did not require petitioners to pursue the suggested alternatives as a prerequisite to taking their claims to federal court. As Mr. Justice Rutledge stated in his concurrence in Marino v. Ragen, 332 U. S. 561, 568 (1947):
“The exhaustion-of-state-remedies rule should not be stretched to the absurdity of requiring the exhaustion of . . . separate remedies when at the outset a petitioner cannot intelligently select the proper way, and in conclusion he may find only that none of the [alternatives] is appropriate or effective.”
II
Moreover, although cognizable in federal habeas corpus, see Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969), petitioners’ pleading may also be read to plead causes of action under the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and 1343 (4), for deprivation of constitutional rights by prison officials. As to like actions, in an exhaustive opinion in Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F. 2d 571 (CA8 1968), Mr. Justice (then Judge) Blackmun stated:
“These actions were instituted in 1966 by handwritten petitions employing varying titles [including ‘habeas corpus’]. Each plaintiff asked for the appointment of counsel and permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Those requests were granted. Appointed counsel then filed amended complaints which have been treated by all concerned as petitions for injunctive relief under the civil rights statutes, 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) and (4). We are satisfied as to jurisdiction. We are also satisfied, as were the district judges, that the cases are appropriately to be regarded as class actions within the scope and reach of Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.” Id., at 572-573.
Petitioners were therefore entitled to have their actions treated as claims for relief under the Civil Rights Acts, not subject, on the basis of their allegations, to exhaustion requirements. The remedy provided by these Acts “is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked.” Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183 (1961); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963); Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). State prisoners are not held to any stricter standard of exhaustion than other civil rights plaintiffs. Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U. S. 639 (1968). There an inmate’s challenge to the confiscation of his legal materials without first seeking administrative redress was sustained. Although the probable futility of such administrative appeals was noted, we held that in “any event, resort to these remedies is unnecessary.” Id., at 640. Accordingly, the motions to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun concurs in the judgment of the Court and in Part II of the Court’s per curiam opinion.
It appears that petitioners did seek relief under the civil rights statutes before filing their petitions below, and that these claims were denied after a hearing. The dissent asserts that the petition for certiorari concedes “that almost all of the claims involved in those actions underlie the instant habeas corpus proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied.) We are unable to find that concession in the petition. At page 11 of the petition the following does appear: “Almost all of the complaints presented by [the earlier actions] had been raised in the habeas corpus petitions originally filed in the State courts underlying this Petition.” (Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, petitioners’ counsel in his reply brief disclaims knowledge of what claims were presented in the cases, stating: “As this writer did not participate as counsel in the Civil Rights Act cases and in view of the generalized nature of the claims for relief in the petitions herein, it is not known whether all of the issues intended to be presented by those petitions were presented in the Civil Rights Act eases.” Reply Brief 7. Accordingly, we must conclude that it is not clear from the record whether the issues raised in the earlier eases are the same as those presented here. The effect, if any, of those actions upon the instant eases must therefore be determined on remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, engaged in the business of growing, packing, and marketing in commerce, Florida avocados, brought this action in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to enjoin respondents, state officers of California, from enforcing § 792 of the California Agricultural Code.
Section 792 prohibits, among other things, the importation into or sale in California of avocados containing “less than 8 per cent of oil, by weight of the avocado excluding the skin and seed.” The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the varieties of avocados grown in Florida do not normally, or at least not uniformly, contain at maturity as much as 8% of oil by weight; that in each year since 1954 appellants have shipped in interstate commerce, in full compliance with the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and Florida Avocado Order No. 69 issued under that Act by the Secretary of Agriculture on June 11, 1954, Florida avocados into the State of California and have attempted to sell them there; that appellees, or their agents, have consistently barred the sale of appellants’ avocados in California for failure uniformly to contain not less than 8% of oil by weight, resulting in denial to appellants of access to the California market, and forcing reshipment of the avocados to and their sale in other States, to the injury of appellants, all in violation of the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as of the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and Florida Avocado Order No. 69 issued thereunder.
Inasmuch as the complaint alleged federal unconstitutionality of the California statute, appellants requested the convening of, and there was convened, a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 to hear the case. After hearing, the court concluded that, because appellants had not contested the validity of § 792 nor sought abatement of appellees’ condemnation of the avocados in the California state courts, the case presented “no more than a mere prospect of interference posed by the bare existence of the law in question,” and that it had “no authority to take jurisdiction [and was] left with no course other than to dismiss the action,” which it did. 169 F. Supp. 774, 776. Appellants brought the case here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we postponed the question of our jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 360 U. S. 915.
The first and principal question presented is whether this action is one required by § 2281 to be heard by a District Court of three judges and, hence, whether we have jurisdiction of this direct appeal under § 1253.
Section 2281 provides that an injunction restraining the enforcement of a state statute may not be granted upon the ground of unconstitutionality of such statute “unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges . . . ,” and §• 1253 provides that any order, granting or denying an injunction in any civil action required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a District Court of three judges, may be appealed directly to this Court.
Appellees concede that if the complaint had attacked § 792 solely on the ground of conflict with the United States Constitution, the action would have been one required by § 2281 to be heard and determined by a District Court of three judges. But appellees contend that because the complaint also attacks § 792 on the ground of conflict with the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the Secretary’s Florida Avocado Order No. 69, it is possible that the action could be determined on the statutory rather than the constitutional ground, and, therefore, the action was not required to be heard by a District Court of three judges under § 2281 and, hence, a direct appeal does not lie to this Court under § 1253.
Section 2281 seems rather plainly to indicate a congressional intention to require an application for an injunction to be heard and determined by a court of three judges in any case in which the injunction may be granted on grounds of federal unconstitutionality. The reason for this is quite clear. The impetus behind the first three-judge court statute was the decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), in which it was held that a federal court could enjoin a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, despite the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment concerning suits against a State. Debate was immediately launched in the Senate with regard to cushioning the impact of the Young case, the principal concern being with the power thus activated in one federal judge to enjoin the operation or enforcement of state legislation on grounds of federal unconstitutionality.
The result of the debates on this subject was passage of a three-judge-court statute in 1910, 36 Stat. 557, which was codified as § 266 of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1162.® This statute prohibited the granting of an interlocutory injunction against a state statute upon grounds of federal unconstitutionality unless the application for injunction was heard and determined by a court of three judges.
The statute also contained its own provision for direct appeal to this Court from an order granting or denying an interlocutory injunction. The objective of § 266 was clearly articulated by Mr. Chief Justice Taft in Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 260 U. S. 212:
“The legislation was enacted for the manifest purpose of taking away the power of a single United States Judge, whether District Judge, Circuit Judge or Circuit Justice holding a District Court of the United States, to issue an interlocutory injunction against the execution of a state statute by a state officer or of an order of an administrative board of the State pursuant to a state statute, on the ground of the federal unconstitutionality of the statute. Pending the application for an interlocutory injunction, a single judge may grant a restraining order to be in force until the hearing of the application, but thereafter, so far as enjoining the state officers, his power is exhausted. The wording of the section leaves no doubt that Congress was by provisions ex industria seeking to make interference by interlocutory injunction from a federal court with the enforcement of state legislation, regularly enacted and in course of execution, a matter of the adequate hearing and the full deliberation which the presence of three judges, one of whom should be a Circuit Justice or Judge, was likely to secure. It was to prevent the improvident granting of such injunctions by a single judge, and the possible unnecessary conflict between federal and state authority always to be deprecated.” 260 U. S., at 216.
In 1925, § 266 was amended to require a three-judge court for issuance of a permanent as well as an interlocutory injunction, and § 238 of the Judicial Code (a broad statute governing direct appeals to this Court from District Courts) was amended, so far as here pertinent, to incorporate the provision for direct appeals to this Court from the orders of three-judge courts granting or denying an injunction in a § 266 case. 43 Stat. 938. Such is the present scheme of §§ 2281 and 1253.
With this background, it seems entirely clear that the central concern of Congress in 1910 was to prevent one federal judge from granting an interlocutory injunction against state legislation on grounds of federal unconstitutionality. And the 1925 amendment requiring a court of three judges for issuance of a permanent as well as an interlocutory injunction “was designed to end the anomalous situation in which a single judge might reconsider and decide questions already passed upon by three judges on the application for an interlocutory injunction.” Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 14. Section 2281, read in the light of this background, seems clearly to require that when, in any action to enjoin enforcement of a state statute, the injunctive decree may issue on the ground of federal unconstitutionality of the state statute, the convening of a three-judge court is necessary; and the joining in the complaint of a noncon-stitutional attack along with the constitutional one does not dispense with the necessity to convene such a court. To hold to the contrary would be to permit one federal district judge to enjoin enforcement of a state statute on the ground of federal unconstitutionality whenever a non-constitutional ground of attack was also alleged, and this might well defeat the purpose of § 2281.
Cases in this Court since Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 298 (1913), have consistently adhered to the view that, in an injunction action challenging a state statute on substantial federal constitutional grounds, a three-judge court is required to be convened and has — just as we have on a direct appeal from its action — jurisdiction over all claims raised against the statute. These cases represent an unmistakable recognition of the congressional policy to provide for a three-judge court whenever a state statute is sought to be enjoined on grounds of federal unconstitutionality, and this consideration must be controlling.
Appellees place some reliance on Ex parte Buder, 271 U. S. 461, and Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co., 258 U. S. 50 {Lemke I), in support of their position. Buder held merely that a claim of conflict between a state statute and a federal statute was not a constitutional claim requiring the convening of a three-judge court under § 266, and thus there could be no direct appeal here. Buder did not, however, require that a constitutional claim be the sole claim before the three-judge court. Lemke I held that it was permissible to appeal to the Court of Appeals rather than directly to this Court from the final order of a single district judge in a case in which a state statute was attacked on the grounds that it was both unconstitutional and in conflict with a federal statute. The case was decided under § 238, which, until 1925, was a broad statute calling for a direct appeal to this Court from the action of a District Court “in any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States . . . and in any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.” The breadth of § 238 had led the Court on several occasions to construe this provision to mean that a direct appeal to this Court was required only when the sole ground of District Court jurisdiction was the federal constitutional claim involved, Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318, but if jurisdiction was based both on a constitutional ground and some other federal ground the appeal might properly be taken either to this Court or to the Court of Appeals. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, 407-408; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 293. Lemke I, decided in 1922, merely followed this line of decisions, and was not in any way concerned with a direct appeal to this Court under § 266 from the order of a three-judge court — the question now before us.
The distinction between the scope of our direct appellate jurisdiction under § 238 and § 266 prior to 1925 was effectively illustrated by the differing course of events in Lemke I and Lemke v. Homer Farmers Elevator Co., 258 U. S. 65 (Lemke II). Both cases involved an attack on a state statute on grounds of federal unconstitutionality and conflict with a federal statute. In both, interlocutory injunctions were sought before three-judge courts, and the injunctions were granted. Lemke I, however, also sought a permanent injunction before a single district judge, and, from his order denying the injunction, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals before coming here. Lemke II, on the other hand, was directly appealed to this Court under § 266 from the interlocutory order of the three-judge court. As indicated, this Court held that the final order of the single judge in Lemke 1 was properly appealed to the Court of Appeals under § 238 because of the additional nonconstitutional basis for District Court jurisdiction. But in Lemke II this Court took jurisdiction over all issues presented in the direct appeal under § 266 from the interlocutory order of the three-judge court. See also Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189, a case virtually identical with Lemke II, in which this Court also took jurisdiction over all questions in a § 266 direct appeal from an interlocutory injunction granted by a three-judge court.
The problem was greatly simplified in 1925 when § 266 was amended to require three-judge courts for the granting of both interlocutory and permanent injunctions on grounds of federal unconstitutionality, and § 238, while substantially amended to reduce the scope of our general appellate jurisdiction, so far as here pertinent, merely incorporated the provision for direct appeals to this Court from injunctions granted or denied under § 266. We do not find in these amendments any intention to curtail either the jurisdiction of three-judge courts or our jurisdiction on direct appeal from their orders. Indeed, the cases since 1925 have continued to maintain the view that if the constitutional claim against the state statute, is substantial, a three-judge court is required to be convened and has jurisdiction, as do we on direct appeal, over all grounds of attack against the statute. E. g., Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 393-394; Railroad Comm’n of California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 302 U. S. 388, 391; Public Service Comm’n v. Brashear Freight Lines, 312 U. S. 621, 625, n. 5.
To hold that only one judge may hear and decide an action to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute on both constitutional and nonconstitutional grounds would be to ignore the explicit language and manifest purpose of § 2281, which is to provide for a three-judge court whenever an injunction sought against a state statute may be granted on federal constitutional grounds. Where a complaint seeks to enjoin a state statute on substantial grounds of federal unconstitutionality, then even though nonconstitutional grounds of attack are also alleged, we think the case is one . that is “required by . . . Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.” 28 U. S. C. § 1253. (Emphasis added.) We, therefore, hold that we have jurisdiction of this direct appeal.
We turn now to the merits. The Court is of the view that the District Court was in error in holding that, because appellants had not contested the validity of § 792 nor sought abatement of appellees’ condemnation of their avocados, there was no “existing dispute as to present legal rights,” but only “a mere prospect of interference posed by the bare existence of the law in question [§792],” and in accordingly dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction. As earlier stated, the complaint alleges that, since the issuance of the Secretary’s Florida Avocado Order No. 69 in 1954, appellants have made more than a score of shipments in interstate commerce of Florida avocados to and for sale in California, and appellees, or their agents-, have in effect consistently condemned those avocados for failure to contain 8% or more of oil by weight, thus requiring appellants — to prevent destruction and complete loss of their shipments — to reship the avocados to and sell them in other States, all in violation of the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution as well as the Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. It is therefore evident that there is an existing dispute between the parties as to present legal rights amounting to a justiciable controversy which appellants are entitled to have determined on the merits. In these circumstances, the fact that appellants did not contest the validity of § 792 nor seek abatement of appellees’ condemnation of the avocados in the California state courts — which, because of the time period necessarily involved, would have resulted in the complete spoilage and loss of the product — does not constitute an impediment to their right to seek an injunction in the federal court against enforcement of § 792 on the ground that it violates both the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Douglas joins in the part of the opinion that passes on the merits, the Court having held, contrary to his view, that the case is properly here on direct appeal from a three-judge court.
Deering’s Agricultural Code of the State of California, 1950; c. 2, Div. 5, of West’s Ann. California Agricultural Code.
50 Stat. 246, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq.
28 U. S. C. § 2281 provides:
“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be'granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.”
28 U. S. C. § 1253 provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”
In the Senate debates Senator Overman of North Carolina commented as follows:
“This measure proposes that whenever a petition is presented the circuit judge before whom it is presented shall, before granting the injunction, call in one circuit judge and one district judge or another circuit court judge, making three judges who shall pass upon the question of the injunction.
“We think, sir, that if this could be done it would allay much intense feeling in the States. As was said by Mr. Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opinion in the Minnesota case [Ex parte Young], we have come to a sad day when one subordinate Federal judge can enjoin the officer of a sovereign State from proceeding to enforce the laws of the State passed by the legislature of his own State, and thereby suspending for a time the laws of the State. . . . That being so, there being great feeling among the people of the States by reason of the fact that one Federal judge has tied the hands of a sovereign State and enjoined in this manner the great officer who is charged with the enforcement of the laws of the State, causing almost a revolution, as it did in my State, and in order to allay this feeling, if this substitute is adopted and three judges have to pass upon the question of the constitutionality of a State statute and three great judges say that the statute is unconstitutional, the officers of the State will be less inclined to resist the orders and decrees of our Federal courts. The people and the courts of the State are more inclined to abide by the decision of three judges than they would of one subordinate inferior Federal judge who simply upon petition or upon a hearing should tie the hands of a State officer from proceeding with the enforcement of the laws of his sovereign State. . . 42 Cong. Rec. 4847.
And Senator Bacon of Georgia remarked:
“The purpose of the bill is to throw additional safeguards around the exercise of the enormous powers claimed for the subordinate Federal courts. If these courts are to exercise the power of stopping the operation of the laws of a State and of punishing the officers of a State, then at least let it be done on notice and not hastily, and let there be the judgment of three judges to decide such questions, and not permit such dangerous power to one man.
“The necessity for this legislation is a very grave one. It is a most serious trouble which now exists — that by the action of one judge the machinery of State laws can be arrested. . . .” 42 Cong. Rec. 4853.
Section 266 of the Judicial Code originally provided in pertinent part:
“No interlocutory injunction suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of any statute of a State by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute, shall be issued or granted by any justice of the Supreme Court, or by any district court of the United States, or by any judge thereof, or by any circuit judge acting as district judge, upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute, unless the application for the same shall be presented to a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, or to a circuit or district judge, and shall be heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a justice of the Supreme Court, or a circuit judge, and the other two may be either circuit or district judges, and unless a majority of said three judges shall concur in granting such application. . . . An appeal may be taken direct to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory injunction in such case.” 36 Stat. 1162.
See, e. g., Van Dyke v. Geary, 244 U. S. 39; Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S. 453; Lemke v. Homer Farmers Elevator Co., 258 U. S. 65 (Lemke II); Chicago, Great Western R. Co. v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94; Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189; Herkness v. Irion, 278 U. S. 92; Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; Railroad Comm’n of California v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 302 U. S. 388; Public Service Comm’n v. Brashear Freight Lines, 312 U. S. 621; Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341.
In the Garrett case, the following observations were made by Mr. Justice Hughes:
“Because of the Federal questions raised by the bill the Circuit [District] Court had jurisdiction and was authorized to determine all the questions in the case, local as well as Federal. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 213 U. S. 175, 191. A similar rule must be deemed to govern the application for preliminary injunction under the statute which requires a hearing before three judges, and authorizes an appeal to this court. 36 Stat. 557. This statute applies to cases in which the preliminary injunction is sought in order to restrain the enforcement of a state enactment upon the ground of its ‘unconstitutionality.’ The reference, undoubtedly, is to an asserted conflict with the Federal Constitution, and the question of unconstitutionality, in this sense, must be a substantial one. But, where such a question is presented, the application is within the provision, and this being so, it cannot be supposed that it was the intention of Congress to compel the exclusion of other grounds and thus to require a separate motion for preliminary injunction, and a separate hearing and appeal, with respect to the local questions which are involved in the case and would properly be the subject of consideration in determining the propriety of granting an injunction pending suit. The local questions arising under the state constitution and statutes were therefore before the Circuit [District] Court and the appeal brings them here.” 231 U. S., at 303-304.
In Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, for example, certain state administrative orders were sought to be enjoined on the ground that they violated both the State and Federal Constitutions. The Governor of the State had declared martial law in an effort to enforce the orders, and his action was also challenged on the ground that any statute purporting to confer such authority on him was in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. With regard to the jurisdiction of the three-judge court which had been convened for the purpose of considering an application for injunction, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes said:
“As the validity of provisions of the state constitution and statutes, if they could be deemed to authorize the action of the Governor, was challenged, the application for injunction was properly heard by three judges. Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 282 U. S. 10. The jurisdiction of the District Court so constituted, and of this Court upon appeal, extends to every question involved, whether of state or federal law, and enables the court to rest its judgment on the decision of such of the questions as in its opinion effectively dispose of the case.” 287 U. S., at 393-394.
In Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, it was held that a suit by the United States to enjoin the action of a Governor in interfering with the construction of a state power project using federal funds was not within § 266 because the validity of a state statute or order had not been challenged. Sterling v. Constantin was distinguished on the ground that it involved an attempt to restrain the action of a Governor as part of a main objective to enjoin execution of certain administrative orders as violative of the State and Federal Constitutions. As such, Sterling was said to have been “indubitably within § 266.” 312 U. S., at 253.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a tribal court may assert jurisdiction over civil claims against state officials who entered tribal land to execute a search warrant against a tribe member suspected of having violated state law outside the reservation.
I
Respondent Hicks is one of about 900 members of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada. He resides on the Tribes’ reservation of approximately 8,000 acres, established by federal statute in 1908, ch. 53, 35 Stat. 85. In 1990 Hicks came under suspicion of having killed, off the reservation, a California bighorn sheep, a gross misdemeanor under Nevada law, see Nev. Rev. Stat. §501.376 (1999). A state game warden obtained from state court a search warrant “SUBJECT TO OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE FALLON TRIBAL COURT IN AND FOR THE FALLON PAIUTE-SHOSHONE TRIBES.” According to the issuing judge, this tribal-court authorization was necessary because “[tjhis Court has no jurisdiction on the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation.” App. G to Pet. for Cert. 1. A search warrant was obtained from the tribal court, and the warden, accompanied by a tribal police officer, searched respondent’s yard, uncovering only the head of a Rocky Mountain bighorn, a different (and unprotected) species of sheep.
Approximately one year later, a tribal police officer reported to the warden that he had observed two mounted bighorn sheep heads in respondent’s home. The warden again obtained a search warrant from state court; though this warrant did not explicitly require permission from the Tribes, see App. F to Pet. for Cert. 2, a tribal-court warrant was nonetheless secured, and respondent’s home was again (unsuccessfully) searched by three wardens and additional tribal officers.
Respondent, claiming that his sheep heads had been damaged, and that the second search exceeded the bounds of the warrant, brought suit against the Tribal Judge, the tribal officers, the state wardens in their individual and official capacities, and the State of Nevada in the Tribal Court in and for the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes. (His claims against all defendants except the state wardens and the State of Nevada were dismissed by directed verdict and are not at issue here.) Respondent’s causes of action included trespass to land and chattels, abuse of process, and violation of civil rights — specifically, denial of equal protection, denial of due process, and unreasonable search and seizure, each remediable under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See App. 8-21, 25-29. Respondent later voluntarily dismissed his case against the State and against the state officials in their official capacities, leaving only his suit against those officials in their individual capacities. See id., at 32-35.
The Tribal Court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims, a holding affirmed by the Tribal Appeals Court. The state officials and Nevada then filed an action in Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondent on the issue of jurisdiction, and also held that the state officials would have to exhaust any claims of qualified immunity in the tribal court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the fact that respondent’s home is located on tribe-owned land within the reservation is sufficient to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against nonmembers arising from their activities on that land. 196 F. 3d 1020 (1999). We granted certiorari, 531 U. S. 923 (2000).
II
In this case, which involves claims brought under both tribal and federal law, it is necessary to determine, as to the former, whether the Tribal Court in and for the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes has jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged tortious conduct of state wardens executing a search warrant for evidence of an off-reservation crime; and, as to the latter, whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. We address the former question first.
A
The principle of Indian law central to this aspect of the case is our holding in Stmte v. A-l Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 453 (1997): “As to nonmembers... a tribe’s adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed its legislative jurisdiction... That formulation leaves open the question whether a tribe’s adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmember defendants equals its legislative jurisdiction. We will not have to answer that open question if we determine that the Tribes in any event lack legislative jurisdiction in this case. We first inquire, therefore, whether the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes— either as an exercise of their inherent sovereignty, or under grant of federal authority — can regulate state wardens executing a search warrant for evidence of an off-reservation crime.
Indian tribes’ regulatory authority over nonmembers is governed by the principles set forth in Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544 (1981), which we have called the “path-marking case” on the subject, Strate, supra, at 445. In deciding whether the Crow Tribe could regulate hunting and fishing by nonmembers on land held in fee simple by nonmembers, Montana observed that, under our decision in Oliphant v. Suquamisk Tribe, 435 U. S. 191 (1978), tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers. Although, it continued, “Oliphant only determined inherent tribal authority in criminal matters, the principles on which it relied support the general proposition that the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” 450 U. S., at 565 (footnote omitted). Where nonmembers are concerned, the “exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent status of the tribes, and so, cannot survive without express congressional delegation.” Id., at 564 (emphasis added)..
Both Montana and Strate rejected tribal authority to regulate nonmembers’ activities on land over which the tribe could not “assert a landowner’s right to occupy and exclude,” Strate, supra, at 456; Montana, supra, at 557, 564. Respondents and the United States argue that since Hicks’s home and yard are on tribe-owned land within the reservation, the Tribe may make its exercise of regulatory authority over nonmembers a condition of nonmembers’ entry. Not necessarily. While it is certainly true that the non-Indian ownership status of the land was central to the analysis in both Montana and Strate, the reason that was so was not that Indian ownership suspends the “general proposition” derived from Oliphant that “the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe” except to the extent “necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations.” 450 U. S., at 564-565. Oliphant itself drew no distinctions based on the status of land. And Montana, after announcing the general rule of no jurisdiction over nonmembers, cautioned that “[t]o be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands,” 450 U. S., at 565 — clearly implying that the general rule of Montana applies to both Indian and non-Indian land. The ownership status of land, in other words, is only one factor to consider in determining whether regulation of the activities of nonmembers is “necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations.” It may sometimes be a dispositive factor. Hitherto, the absence of tribal ownership has been virtually conclusive of the absence of tribal civil jurisdiction; with one minor exception, we have never upheld under Montana the extension of tribal civil authority over nonmembers on non-Indian land. Compare, e. g., Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U. S. 130, 137, 142 (1982) (tribe has taxing authority over tribal lands leased by nonmembers), with Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U. S. 645, 659 (2001) (tribe has no taxing authority over nonmembers’ activities on land held by nonmembers in fee); but see Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 492 U. S. 408, 443-444, 458-459 (1989) (opinions of Stevens, J., and Blackmun, J.) (tribe can impose zoning regulation on that 3.1% of land within reservation area closed to public entry that was not owned by the tribe). But the existence of tribal ownership is not alone enough to support regulatory jurisdiction over nonmembers.
We proceed to consider, successively, the following questions: whether regulatory jurisdiction over state officers in the present context is “necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations,” and, if not, whether such regulatory jurisdiction has been congressionally conferred.
B
In Strate, we explained that what is necessary to protect tribal self-government and control internal relations can be understood by looking at the examples of tribal power to which Montana referred: tribes have authority “[to punish tribal offenders,] to determine tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations among members, and to prescribe rules of inheritance for members,” 520.U. S., at 459 (brackets in original), quoting Montana, supra, at 564. These examples show, we said, that Indians have “ ‘the right... to make their own laws and be ruled by them,’ ” 520 U. S., at 459, quoting Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959). See also Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Mont., 424 U. S. 382, 386 (1976) (per curiam) (“In litigation between Indians and non-Indians arising out of conduct on an Indian reservation, resolution of conflicts between the jurisdiction of state and tribal courts has depended, absent a governing Act of Congress, on whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Tribal assertion of regulatory authority over nonmembers must be connected to that right of the Indians to make their own laws and be governed by them. See Merrion, supra, at 137, 142 (“The power to tax is an essential attribute of Indian sovereignty because it is a necessary instrument of self-government,” at least as to “tribal lands” on which the tribe “has... authority over a nonmember”).
Our cases make clear that the Indians’ right to make their own laws and be governed by them does not exclude all state regulatory authority on the reservation. State sovereignty does not end at a reservation’s border. Though tribes are often referred to as “sovereign” entities, it was “long ago” that “the Court departed from Chief Justice Marshall’s view that ‘the laws of [a State] can have no force’ within reservation boundaries. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 561 (1832),” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 141 (1980). “Ordinarily,” it is now clear, “an Indian reservation is considered part of the territory of the State.” U. S. Dept, of Interior, Federal Indian Law 510, and n. 1 (1958), citing Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28 (1885); see also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60, 72 (1962).
That is not to say that States may exert the same degree of regulatory authority within a reservation as they do without. To the contrary, the principle that Indians have the right to make their own laws and be governed by them requires “an accommodation between the interests of the Tribes and the Federal Government, on the one hand, and those of the State, on the other.” Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134,156 (1980); see also id., at 181 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). “When on-reservation conduct involving only Indians is at issue, state law is generally inapplicable, for the State’s regulatory interest is likely to be minimal and the federal interest in encouraging tribal self-government is at its strongest.” Bracker, supra, at 144. When, however, state interests outside the reservation are implicated, States may regulate the activities even of tribe members on tribal land, as exemplified by our decision in Confederated Tribes. In that case, Indians were selling cigarettes on their reservation to nonmembers from off reservation, without collecting the state cigarette tax. We held that the State could require the Tribes to collect the tax from nonmembers, and could “impose at least ‘minimal’ burdens on the Indian retailer to aid in enforcing and collecting the tax,” 447 U. S., at 151. It is also well established in our precedent that States have criminal jurisdiction over reservation Indians for crimes committed (as was the alleged poaching in this case) off the reservation. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 148-149 (1973).
While it is not entirely clear from our precedent whether the last mentioned authority entails the corollary right to enter a reservation (including Indian-fee lands) for enforcement purposes, several of our opinions point in that direction. In Confederated Tribes, we explicitly reserved the question whether state officials could seize cigarettes held for sale to nonmembers in order to recover the taxes due. See 447 U. S., at 162. In Utah & Northern R. Co., however, we observed that “[i]t has... been held that process of [state] courts may run into an Indian reservation of this kind, where the subject-matter or controversy is otherwise within their cognizance,” 116 U. S., at 31. Shortly thereafter, we considered, in United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), whether Congress could enact a law giving federal courts jurisdiction over various common-law, violent crimes committed by Indians on a reservation within a State. We expressed skepticism that the Indian Commerce Clause could justify this assertion of authority in derogation of state jurisdiction, but ultimately accepted the argument that the law
“does not interfere with the process of the State courts within the reservation, nor with the operation of State laws upon white people found there. Its effect is confined to the acts of an Indian of some tribe, of a criminal character, committed within the limits of the reservation.
“It seems to us that this is within the competency of Congress.” Id., at 383.
The Court’s references to “process” in Utah & Northern R. Co. and Kagama, and the Court’s concern in Kagama over possible federal encroachment on state prerogatives, suggest state authority to issue search warrants in cases such as the one before us. (“Process” is defined as “any means used by a court to acquire or exercise its jurisdiction over a person or over specific property,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1084 (5th ed. 1979), and is equated in criminal cases with a warrant, id., at 1085.) It is noteworthy that Kagama recognized the right of state laws to “operat[e]... upon [non-Indians] found” within a reservation, but did not similarly limit to non-Indians or the property of non-Indians the scope of the process of state courts. This makes perfect sense, since, as we explained in the context of federal enclaves, the reservation of state authority to serve process is necessary to “prevent [such areas] from becoming an asylum for fugitives from justice.” Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 533 (1885).
We conclude today, in accordance with these prior statements, that tribal authority to regulate state officers in executing process related to the violation, off reservation, of state laws is not essential to tribal self-government or internal relations — to “the right to make laws and be ruled by them.” The State’s interest in execution of process is considerable, and even when it relates to Indian-fee lands it no more impairs the tribe’s self-government than federal enforcement of federal law impairs state government. Respondents argue that, even conceding the State’s general interest in enforcing its off-reservation poaching law on the reservation, Nevada’s interest in this, suit is minimal, because it is a suit against state officials in their individual capacities. We think, however, that the distinction between individual and official capacity suits is irrelevant. To paraphrase our opinion in Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 263 (1880), which upheld a federal statute permitting federal officers to remove to federal court state criminal proceedings brought against them for their official actions, a State “can act only through its officers and agents,” and if a tribe can “affix penalties to acts done under the immediate direction of the [state] government, and in obedience to its laws,” “the operations of the [state] government may at any time be arrested at the will of the [tribe].” Cf. Anderson v. Creighton, 488 U. S. 635, 638 (1987) (“[Permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties”).
C
The States’ inherent jurisdiction on reservations can of course be stripped by Congress, see Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 240, 242-243 (1896). But with regard to the jurisdiction at issue here that has not occurred. The Government’s assertion that “[a]s a general matter, although state officials have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute crimes on a reservation that exclusively involve non-Indians,... they do not have jurisdiction with respect to crimes involving Indian perpetrators or Indian victims,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-13, n. 7, is misleading. The statutes upon which it relies, see id., at 18-19, show that the last half of the statement, like the first, is limited to “crimes on a reservation.” Sections 1152 and 1153 of Title 18, which give United States and tribal criminal law generally exclusive application, apply only to crimes committed in Indian country; Public Law 280, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1162, which permits some state jurisdiction as an exception to this rule, is similarly limited. And 25 U. S. C. §2804, which permits federal-state agreements enabling state law enforcement agents to act on reservations, applies only to deputizing them for the enforcement of federal or tribal criminal law. Nothing in the federal statutory scheme prescribes, or even remotely suggests, that state officers cannot enter a reservation (including Indian-fee land) to investigate or prosecute violations of state law occurring off the reservation. To the contrary, 25 U. S. C. § 2806 affirms that “the provisions of this chapter alter neither... the law enforcement, investigative, or judicial authority of any... State, or political subdivision or agency thereof....”
III
We ton next to the contention of respondent and the Government that the tribal court, as a court of general jurisdiction, has authority to entertain federal claims under § 1983. It is certainly true that state courts of “general jurisdiction” can adjudicate cases invoking federal statutes, such as § 1983, absent congressional specification to the contrary. “Under [our] system of dual sovereignty, we have consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States,” Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990). That ¿his would be the case was assumed by the Framers, see The Federalist No. 82, pp. 492-493 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Indeed, that state courts could enforce federal law is presumed by Article III of the Constitution, which leaves to Congress the decision whether to create lower federal courts at all. This historical and constitutional assumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction over federal-law cases is completely missing with respect to tribal courts.
Respondents’ contention that tribal courts are courts of “general jurisdiction” i& also quite wrong. A state court’s jurisdiction is general, in that it “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.” Id., at 493. Tribal courts, it should be clear, cannot,be courts of general jurisdiction in this sense, for a tribe’s inherent adjudicative jurisdiction over nonmembers is at most only as broad as its legislative jurisdiction. See supra, at 357-359. It is true that some statutes proclaim tribal-court jurisdiction over certain questions of federal law. See, e. g., 25 U. S. C. § 1911(a) (authority to adjudicate child custody disputes under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978); 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-13(g)(5) (jurisdiction over mortgage foreclosure actions brought by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development against reservation homeowners). But no provision in federal law provides for tribal-court jurisdiction over § 1983 actions.
Furthermore, tribal-court jurisdiction would create serious anomalies, as the Government recognizes, because the general federal-question removal statute refers only to removal from state court, see 28 U. S. C. § 1441. Were § 1983 claims cognizable in tribal court, defendants would inexplicably lack the right available to state-court §1983 defendants to seek a federal forum. The Government thinks the omission of reference to tribal courts in §1441 unproblematic. Since, it argues, “[i]t is doubtful... that Congress intended to deny tribal court defendants the right given state court defendants to elect a federal forum for the adjudication of causes of action under federal law,” we should feel free to create that right by permitting the tribal-court defendant to obtain a federal-court injunction against the action, effectively forcing it to be refiled in federal court. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25-26. The sole support for devising this extraordinary remedy is El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U. S. 473 (1999), where we approved a similar procedure with regard to claims under the Price-Anderson Act brought in tribal court. In Neztsosie, however, the claims were not initially federal claims, but Navajo tort claims that the Price-Anderson Act provided “shall be deemed to be... actionfe] arising under” 42 U. S. C. § 2210; there was little doubt that the tribal court had jurisdiction over such tort claims, see 526 U. S,, at 482, n. 4. And for the propriety of the injunction in Neztsosie, we relied not on § 1441, but on the removal provision of the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2210(n)(2). Although, like §1441, that provision referred only to removal from state courts, in light of the Act’s detailed and distinctive provisions for the handling of “nuclear incident” cases in federal court, see 526 U. S., at 486, we thought it clear Congress envisioned the defendant’s ability to get into federal court in all instances. Not only are there missing here any distinctive federal-court procedures, but in order even to confront the question whether an unspecified removal power exists, we must first attribute to tribal courts jurisdiction that is not apparent. Surely the simpler way to avoid the removal problem is to conclude (as other indications suggest anyway) that tribal courts cannot entertain § 1983 suits.
IV
The last question before us is whether petitioners were required to exhaust their jurisdictional claims in Tribal Court before bringing them in Federal District Court. See National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U. S. 845, 856-857 (1985). In National Farmers Union we recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, where “an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith,... or where the action is patently violative of express jurisdictional prohibitions, or where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of an adequate opportunity to challenge the court’s jurisdiction,” id., at 856, n. 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of these exceptions seems applicable to this case, but we added a broader exception in Strate: “[w]hen... it is plain that no federal grant provides for tribal governance of nonmembers’ conduct on land covered by Montana’s main rule,” so the exhaustion requirement “would serve no purpose other than delay.” 520 U. S., at 459-460, and n. 14. Though this exception too is technically inapplicable, the reasoning behind it is not. Since it is clear, as we have discussed, that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over state officials for causes of action relating to their performance of official duties, adherence to the tribal exhaustion requirement in such cases “would serve no purpose other than delay,” and is therefore unnecessary.
V
Finally, a. few words in response to the concurrence of Justice O’Connor, which is in large part a dissent from the views expressed in this opinion.
The principal point of the concurrence is that our reasoning “gives only passing consideration to the fact that the. state officials’ activities in this case occurred on land owned and controlled by the Tribes,” post, at 392. According to Justice O’Connor, “that factor is not prominent in the Court’s analysis,” post, at 395. Even a cursory reading of our opinion demonstrates that this is not so. To the contrary, we acknowledge that tribal ownership is a factor in the Montana analysis, and a factor significant enough that it “may sometimes be... dispositive,” supra, at 360. We simply do not find it dispositive in the present case, when weighed against the State’s interest in pursuing off-reservation violations of its laws. See supra, at 364 (concluding that “[t]he State’s interest in execution of process is considerable” enough to outweigh the tribal interest in self-government “even when it relates to Indian-fee lands”). The concurrence is of course free to disagree with this judgment; but to say that failure to give tribal ownership determinative effect “fails to consider adequately the Tribe’s inherent sovereign interests in activities on their land,” post, at 401 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), is an exaggeration.
The concurrence marshals no authority and scant reasoning to support its judgment that tribal authority over state officers pursuing, on tribe-owned land, off-reservation violations of state law may be “necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations.” Montana, 450 U. S., at 564-565. Self-government and internal relations are not directly at issue here, since the issue is whether the Tribes’ law will apply, not to their own members, but to a narrow category of outsiders. And the concurrence does not try to explain how allowing state officers to pursue off-reservation violation of state law “threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe,” id., at 566. That the actions of these state officers cannot threaten or affect those interests is guaranteed by the limitations of federal constitutional and statutory law to which the officers are fully subject.
The concurrence exaggerates and distorts the consequences of our conclusion, supra, at 359, n. 3, that the term “other arrangements” in a passage from Montana referred to other “private consensual” arrangements — so that it did not include the state officials’ obtaining of tribal warrants in the present case. That conclusion is correct, as a fuller exposition of the passage from Montana makes clear:
“To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.” 450 U. S., at 565.
The Court (this is an opinion, bear in mind, not a statute) obviously did not have in mind States or state officers acting in their governmental capacity; it was referring to private individuals who voluntarily submitted themselves to tribal regulatory jurisdiction by the arrangements that they (or their employers) entered into. This is confirmed by the fact that all four of the cases in the immediately following citation involved private commercial actors. See Confederated Tribes, 447 U. S., at 152 (nonmember purchasers of cigarettes from tribal outlet); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 217 (general store on the Navajo reservation); Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U. S. 384 (1904) (ranchers grazing livestock and horses on Indian lands “under contracts with individual members of said tribes”); Buster v. Wright, 135 F. 947, 950 (CA8 1905) (challenge to the “permit tax” charged by a tribe to nonmembers for “the privilege... of trading within the borders”).
The concurrence concludes from this brief footnote discussion that we would invalidate express or implied cessions of regulatory authority over nonmembers contained in state-tribal cooperative agreements, including those pertaining to mutual law enforcement assistance, tax administration assistance, and child support and paternity matters. See post, at 393-394. This is a great overreaching. The footnote does not assert that “a consensual relationship [between a tribe and a State] could never exist,” post, at 394 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). It merely asserts that “other arrangements” in the passage from Montana does not include state officers’ obtaining of an (unnecessary) tribal warrant. Whether contractual relations between State and tribe can expressly or impliedly confer tribal regulatory jurisdiction over nonmembers — and whether such conferral can be effective to confer adjudicative jurisdiction as well — are questions that may arise in another case, but are not at issue here.
Another exaggeration is the concurrence’s contention that we “give nonmembers freedom to act with impunity on tribal land based solely on their status as state law enforcement officials,” post, at 401 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). We do not say state officers cannot be regulated; we say they cannot be regulated in the performance of their law enforcement duties. Action unrelated to that is potentially subject to tribal control depending on the outcome of Montana analysis. Moreover, even where the issue is whether the officer has acted unlawfully in the performance of his duties, the tribe and tribe members are of course able to invoke the authority of the Federal Government and federal courts (or the state government and state courts) to vindicate constitutional or other federal- and state-law rights.
We must comment upon the final paragraphs of Part II of the concurrence’s opinion — which bring on stage, in classic fashion, a deus ex machina to extract, from the seemingly insoluble difficulties that the prior writing has created, a happy ending. The concurrence manages to have its cake and eat it too — to hand over state law enforcement officers to the jurisdiction of tribal courts and yet still assure that the officers’ traditional immunity (and hence the State’s law enforcement interest) will be protected — by simply announcing “that in order to protect government officials, immunity claims should be considered in reviewing tribal court jurisdiction.” Post, at 401 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). What wonderful magic. Without so much as a citation (none is available) the concurrence declares the qualified immunity inquiry to be part of the jurisdictional inquiry, thus bringing it within the ken of the federal court at the outset of the case. There are two problems with this declaration. The first is thát it is not true. There is no authority whatever for the proposition that absolute- and qualified-immunity defenses pertain to the court’s jurisdiction — much less to the tribe’s regulatory jurisdiction, which is what is at issue here. (If they did pertain to the court’s jurisdiction, they would presumably be nonwaivable. Cf. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 267 (1997).) And the second problem is that without first determining whether the tribe has regulatory jurisdiction, it is impossible to know which “immunity defenses” the federal court is supposed to consider. The tribe’s law on this subject need not be the same as the State’s; indeed, the tribe may decide (as did the common law until relatively recently) that there is no immunity defense whatever without a warrant. See California v. Acevedo, 500 U. S. 565, 581 (1991) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). One wonders whether, deprived of its deus ex machina, the concurrence would not alter the conclusion it reached in Part I of its opinion, and agree with us that a proper balancing of state and tribal interests would give the Tribes no jurisdiction over state officers pursuing off-reservation violations of state law.
Finally, it is worth observing that the concurrence’s resolution would, for the first time, hold a non-Indian subject to the jurisdiction of a tribal court. The question (which we have avoided) whether tribal regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction are coextensive is simply answered by the concurrence in the affirmative. As Justice Soutee’s sepárate opinion demonstrates, it surely deserves more considered analysis.
* * *
Because the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes lacked legislative authority to restrict, condition, or otherwise regulate the ability of state officials to investigate off-reservation violations of state law, they also lacked adjudicative authority to hear respondent’s claim that those officials violated tribal law in the performance of their duties. Nor can the Tribes identify any authority to adjudicate respondent’s §1988 claim. And since the lack of authority is clear, there is no need to exhaust the jurisdictional dispute in tribal court. State officials operating on a reservation to investigate off-reservation violations of state law are properly held accountable for tortious conduct and civil rights violations in either state or federal court, but not in tribal court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
It is so ordered.
Hereinafter, Hicks will be referred to as “respondent.” The Tribal Court and Judge are also respondents, however, and are included when the term “respondents” is used.
In National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U. S. 845, 855-856 (1985), we avoided the question whether tribes may generally adjudicate against nonmembers claims arising from on-reservation transactions, and we have never held that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant.. Typically, our cases have involved claims brought against tribal defendants. See, e. g., Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959). In Strate v. A-l Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 453 (1997), however, we assumed that “where tribes possess authority to regulate the activities of nonmembers, civil jurisdiction over disputes arising out of such activities presumably lies in the tribal courts,” without distinguishing between nonmember plaintiffs and nonmember defendants. See also Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U. S. 9, 18 (1987). Our holding in this case is limited to the question of tribal-court jurisdiction over state
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been judicially found to have violated the Fifth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in connection with the selection of sites for public housing in the city of Chicago. The issue before us is whether the remedial order of the federal trial court may extend beyond Chicago’s territorial boundaries.
I
This extended litigation began in 1966 when the respondents, six Negro tenants in or applicants for public housing in Chicago, brought separate actions on behalf of themselves and all other Negro tenants and applicants similarly situated against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and HUD. The complaint filed against CHA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleged that between 1950 and 1965 substantially all of the sites for family public housing selected by CHA and approved by the Chicago City Council were “at the time of such selection, and are now,” located “within the areas known as the Negro Ghetto.” The respondents further alleged that CHA deliberately selected the sites to “avoid the placement of Negro families in white neighborhoods” in violation of federal statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. In a companion suit against HUD the respondents claimed that it had “assisted in the carrying on and continues to assist in the carrying on of a racially discriminatory public housing system within the City of Chicago” by providing financial assistance and other support for CHA's discriminatory housing projects.
The District Court stayed the action against HUD pending resolution of the CHA suit. In February 1969, the court entered summary judgment against CHA on the ground that it had violated the respondents' constitutional rights by selecting public housing sites and assigning tenants on the basis of race. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 296 F. Supp. 907. Uncon-tradicted evidence submitted to the District Court established that the public housing system operated by CHA was racially segregated, with four overwhelmingly white projects located in white neighborhoods and with 99%% of the remaining family units located in Negro neighborhoods and 99% of those units occupied by Negro tenants. Id,., at 910. In order to prohibit future violations and to remedy the effects of past unconstitutional practices, the court directed CHA to build its next 700 family units in predominantly white areas of Chicago and thereafter to locate at least 75% of its new family public housing in predominantly white areas inside Chicago or in Cook County. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp. 736, 738-739. In addition, CHA was ordered to modify its tenant-assignment and site-selection procedures and to use its best efforts to increase the supply of dwelling units as rapidly as possible in conformity with the judgment. Id., at 739-741.
The District Court then turned to the action against HUD. In September 1970, it granted HUD’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment for the respondents, holding that HUD had violated both the Fifth Amendment and § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, by knowingly sanctioning and assisting CPIA’s racially discriminatory public housing program. Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F. 2d 731, 739-740.
On remand, the trial court addressed the difficult problem of providing an effective remedy for the racially segregated public housing system that had been created by the unconstitutional conduct of CHA and HUD. The court granted the respondents’ motion to consolidate the CHA and HUD cases and ordered the parties to formulate “a comprehensive plan to remedy the past effects of unconstitutional site selection procedures.” The order directed the parties to “provide the Court with as broad a range of alternatives as seem... feasible” including “alternatives which are not confined in their scope to the geographic boundary of the City of Chicago.” After consideration of the plans submitted by the parties and the evidence adduced in their support, the court denied the respondents’ motion to consider metropolitan area relief and adopted the petitioner’s proposed order requiring HUD to use its best efforts to assist CHA in increasing the supply of dwelling units and enjoining HUD from funding family public housing programs in Chicago that were inconsistent with the previous judgment entered against CHA. The court found that metropolitan area relief was unwarranted because “the wrongs were committed within the limits of Chicago and solely against residents of the City” and there were no allegations that “CHA and HUD discriminated or fostered racial discrimination in the suburbs.”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with one judge dissenting, reversed and remanded the case for “the adoption of a comprehensive metropolitan area plan that will not only disestablish the segregated public housing system in the City of Chicago... but will increase the supply of dwelling units as rapidly as possible.” 503 F. 2d 930, 939. Shortly before the Court of Appeals announced its decision, this Court in Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717, had reversed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that had approved a plan requiring the consolidation of 54 school districts in the Detroit metropolitan area to remedy racial discrimination in the operation of the Detroit public schools. Understanding Milliken “to hold that the relief sought there would be an impractical and unreasonable overresponse to a violation limited to one school district,” the Court of Appeals concluded that the Milliken decision did not bar a remedy extending beyond the limits of Chicago in the present case because of the equitable and administrative distinctions between a metropolitan public housing plan and the consolidation of numerous local school districts. 503 F. 2d, at 935-936. In addition, the appellate court found that, in contrast to Milli-ken, there was evidence of suburban discrimination and of the likelihood that there had been an “extra-city impact” of the petitioner's “intra-city discrimination.” Id., at 936-937, 939-940. The appellate court’s determination that a remedy extending beyond the city limits was both “necessary and equitable” rested in part on the agreement of the parties and the expert witnesses that “the metropolitan area is a single relevant locality for low rent housing purposes and that a city-only remedy will not work.” Id., at 936-937. HUD subsequently sought review in this Court of the permissibility in light of Milliken of “inter-district relief for discrimination in public housing in the absence of a finding of an inter-district violation.” We granted certio-rari to consider this important question. 421 U. S. 962.
II
In Milliken v. Bradley, supra, this Court considered the proper scope of a federal court’s equity decree in the context of a school desegregation case. The respondents in that case had brought an action alleging that the Detroit public school system was segregated on the basis of race as the result of official conduct and sought an order establishing “ 'a unitary, nonracial school system.’ ” 418 U. S., at 723. After finding that constitutional violations committed by the Detroit School Board and state officials had contributed to racial segregation in the Detroit schools, the trial court had proceeded to the formulation of a remedy., Although there had been neither proof of unconstitutional actions on the part of neighboring school districts nor a demonstration that the Detroit violations had produced significant segregative effects in those districts, the court established a desegregation panel and ordered it to prepare a remedial plan consolidating the Detroit school system and 53 independent suburban school districts. Id., at 733-734. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the desegregation order on the ground that, in view of the racial composition of the Detroit school system, the only feasible remedy required “the crossing of the boundary lines between the Detroit School District and adjacent or nearby school districts.” 484 F. 2d 215, 249. This Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the multidistrict remedy contemplated by the desegregation order was an erroneous exercise of the equitable authority of the federal courts.
Although the Milliken opinion discussed the many practical problems that would be encountered in the consolidation of numerous school districts by judicial decree, the Court’s decision rejecting the metropolitan area desegregation order was actually based on fundamental limitations on the remedial powers of the federal courts to restructure the operation of local and state governmental entities. That power is not plenary. It “may be exercised ‘only on the basis of a constitutional violation.’ ” 418 U. S., at 738, quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 16. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362, 377. Once a constitutional violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor “the scope of the remedy” to fit “the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” 418 U. S., at 744; Swann, supra, at 16. In Milliken, there was no finding of unconstitutional action on the part of the suburban school officials and no demonstration that the violations committed in the operation of the Detroit school system had had any significant segregative effects in the suburbs. See 418 U. S., at 745, 748. The desegregation order in Milliken requiring the consolidation of local school districts in the Detroit metropolitan area thus constituted direct federal judicial interference with local governmental entities without the necessary predicate of a constitutional violation by those entities or of the identification within them of any significant segregative effects resulting from the Detroit school officials’ unconstitutional conduct. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the interdistrict decree was impermissible because it was not commensurate with the constitutional violation to be repaired.
Since the Milliken decision was based on basic limitations on the exercise of the equity power of the federal courts and not on a balancing of particular considerations presented by school desegregation cases, it is apparent that the Court of Appeals erred in finding Milliken inapplicable on that ground to this public housing case. The school desegregation context of the Milliken case is nonetheless important to an understanding of its discussion of the limitations on the exercise of federal judicial power. As the Court noted, school district lines cannot be “casually ignored or treated as a mere administrative convenience” because they separate independent governmental entities responsible for the operation of autonomous public school systems. 418 U. S., at 741-743. The Court’s holding that there had to be an interdistrict violation or effect before a federal court could order the crossing of district boundary lines reflected the substantive impact of a consolidation remedy on separate and independent school districts. The District Court’s desegregation order in Milliken was held to be an impermissible remedy not because it envisioned relief against a wrongdoer extending beyond the city in which the violation occurred but because it contemplated a judicial decree restructuring the operation of local governmental entities that were not implicated in any constitutional violation.
Ill
The question presented in this case concerns only the authority of the District Court to order HUD to take remedial action outside the city limits of Chicago. HUD does not dispute the Court of Appeals’ determination that it violated the Fifth Amendment and § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by knowingly funding CHA’s racially discriminatory family public housing program, nor does it question the appropriateness of a remedial order designed to alleviate the effects of past segregative practices by requiring that public housing be developed in areas that will afford respondents an opportunity to reside in desegregated neighborhoods. But HUD contends that the Milliken decision bars a remedy affecting its conduct beyond the boundaries of Chicago for two reasons. First, it asserts that such a remedial order would constitute the grant of relief incommensurate with the constitutional violation to be repaired. And, second, it claims that a decree regulating HUD’s conduct beyond Chicago’s boundaries would inevitably have the effect of “ consolidating] for remedial purposes” governmental units not implicated in HUD’s and CHA’s violations. We address each of these arguments in turn.
A
We reject the contention that, since HUD’s constitutional and statutory violations were committed in Chicago, Milliken precludes an order against HUD that will affect its conduct in the greater metropolitan area. The critical distinction between HUD and the suburban school districts in Milliken is that HUD has been found to have violated the Constitution. That violation provided the necessary predicate for the entry of a remedial order against HUD and, indeed, imposed a duty on the District Court to grant appropriate relief. See 418 U. S., at 744. Our prior decisions counsel that in the event of a constitutional violation “all reasonable methods be available to formulate an effective remedy,” North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43, 46, and that every effort should be made by a federal court to employ those methods "to achieve the greatest possible degree of [relief], taking into account the practicalities of the situation.” Davis v. School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 402 U. S. 33, 37. As the Court observed in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education: "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.” 402 U. S., at 15.
Nothing in the Milliken decision suggests a per se rule that federal courts lack authority to order parties found to have violated the Constitution to undertake remedial efforts beyond the municipal boundaries of the city where the violation occurred. As we noted in Part II, supra, the District Court’s proposed remedy in Milliken was impermissible because of the limits on the federal judicial power to interfere with the operation of state political entities that were not implicated in unconstitutional conduct. Here, unlike the desegregation remedy found erroneous in Milliken, a judicial order directing relief beyond the boundary lines of Chicago will not necessarily entail coercion of uninvolved governmental units, because both CHA and HUD have the authority to operate outside the Chicago city limits.
In this case, it is entirely appropriate and consistent with Milliken to order CHA and HUD to attempt to create housing alternatives for the respondents in the Chicago suburbs. Here the wrong committed by HUD confined the respondents to segregated public housing. The relevant geographic area for purposes of the respondents’ housing options is the Chicago housing market, not the Chicago city limits. That HUD recognizes this reality is evident in its administration of federal housing assistance programs through “housing market areas” encompassing “the geographic area 'within which all dwelling units...’ are in competition with one another as alternatives for the users of housing.” Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Techniques of Housing Market Analysis 8 (Jan. 1970), quoting the Institute for Urban Land Use and Housing Studies, Housing Market Analysis: A Study of Theory and Methods, c. 2 (1953). The housing market area “usually extends beyond the city limits” and in the larger markets “may extend into several adjoining counties.” FHA Techniques of Housing Market Analysis, supra, at 12. An order against HUD and CHA regulating their conduct in the greater metropolitan area will do no more than take into account HUD’s expert determination of the area relevant to the respondents’ housing opportunities and will thus be wholly commensurate with the “nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” 418 U. S., at 744. To foreclose such relief solely because HUD’s constitutional violation took place within the city limits of Chicago would transform Milliken’s principled limitation on the exercise of federal judicial authority into an arbitrary and mechanical shield for those found to have engaged in unconstitutional conduct.
B
The more substantial question under Milliken is whether an order against HUD affecting its conduct beyond Chicago’s boundaries would impermissibly interfere with local governments and suburban housing authorities that have not been implicated in HUD’s unconstitutional conduct. In examining this issue, it is important to note that the Court of Appeals’ decision did not endorse or even discuss “any specific metropolitan plan” but instead left the formulation of the remedial plan to the District Court on remand. 503 F. 2d, at 936. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals characterized its remand order as one calling “for additional evidence and for further consideration of the issue of metropolitan area relief in light of this opinion and that of the Supreme Court in Milliken v. Bradley.” Id., at 940. In the current posture of the case, HUD’s contention that any remand for consideration of a metropolitan area order would be impermissible as a matter of law must necessarily be based on its claim at oral argument “that court-ordered metropolitan relief in this case, no matter how gently it’s gone about, no matter how it’s framed, is bound to require HUD to ignore the safeguards of local autonomy and local political processes” and therefore to violate the limitations on federal judicial power established in Milliken. In addressing this contention we are not called upon, in other words, to evaluate the validity of any specific order, since no such order has yet been formulated.
HUD’s position, we think, underestimates the ability of a federal court to formulate a decree that will grant the respondents the constitutional relief to which they may be entitled without overstepping the limits of judicial power established in the Milliken case. HUD’s discretion regarding the selection of housing proposals to assist with funding as well as its authority under a recent statute to contract for low-income housing directly with private owners and developers can clearly be directed toward providing relief to the respondents in the greater Chicago metropolitan area without preempting the power of local governments by undercutting the role of those governments in the federal housing assistance scheme.
An order directing HUD to use its discretion under the various, federal housing programs to foster projects located in white areas of the Chicago housing market would be consistent with and supportive of well-established federal housing policy. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in federally assisted programs including, of course, public housing programs. Based upon this statutory prohibition, HUD in 1967 issued site-approval rules for low-rent housing designed to avoid racial segregation and expand the opportunities of minority group members “to locate outside areas of [minority] concentration.” Department of Housing and Urban Development, Low-Rent Housing Manual, §205.1, ¶4g (Feb. 1967 rev.). Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 expressly directed the Secretary of HUD to “administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further" the Act's fair housing policy. 82 Stat. 85, 42 U. S. C. §3608 (d)(5).
Among the steps taken by HUD to discharge its statutory duty to promote fair housing was the adoption of project-selection criteria for use in “eliminating clearly unacceptable proposals and assigning priorities in funding to assure that the best proposals are funded first.” HUD Evaluation of Rent Supplement Projects and Low-Rent Housing Assistance Applications, 37 Fed. Reg. 203. (1972). In structuring the minority housing opportunity component of the project-selection criteria, HUD attempted “to assure that building in minority areas goes forward only after there, truly exist housing opportunities for minorities elsewhere” in the housing market and to avoid encouraging projects located in substantially racially mixed areas. Id., at 204. See 24 CFR § 200.710 (1975). See generally Maxwell, HUD's Project Selection Criteria — A Cure for “Impermissible Color Blindness”?, 48 Notre Dame Law. 92 (1972). More recently, in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Congress emphasized the importance of locating housing so as to promote greater choice of housing opportunities and to avoid undue concentrations of lower income persons. See 88 Stat. 633, 42 U. S. C. §§ 5301 (c) (6), 5304 (a) (4) (A), (C) (ii) (1970 ed., Supp. IY); H. R. Rep. No. 93-1114, p. 8 (1974).
A remedial plan designed to insure that HUD will utilize its funding and administrative powers in a manner consistent with affording relief to the respondents need not abrogate the role of local governmental units in the federal housing-assistance programs. Under the major housing programs in existence at the time the District Court entered its remedial order pertaining to HUD, local housing authorities and municipal governments had to make application for funds or approve the use of funds in the locality before HUD could make housing-assistance money available. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1415 (7)(b), 1421b (a)(2). An order directed solely to HUD would not force unwilling localities to apply for assistance under these programs but would merely reinforce the regulations guiding HUD’s determination of which of the locally authorized projects to assist with federal funds.
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, amending the United States Housing Act of 1937, 88 Stat. 653, 42 U. S. C. § 1437 et seg. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), significantly enlarged HUD’s role in the creation of housing opportunities. Under the § 8 Lower-Income Housing Assistance program, which has largely replaced the older federal low-income housing programs, HUD may contract directly with private owners to make leased housing units available to eligible lower income persons. As HUD has acknowledged in this case, “local governmental approval is no longer explicitly required as a condition of the program’s applicability to a locality.” Brief for Petitioner 33-34. Regulations governing the § 8 program permit HUD to select “the geographic area or areas in which the housing is to be constructed,” 24 CFR § 880.203 (b) (1975), and direct that sites be chosen to “promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid undue concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income persons.” §§ 880.112 (d), 883.209 (a)(3). See §§ 880.112 (b), (c), 883.209 (a)(2), (b)(2). In most cases the Act grants the unit of local government in which the assistance is to be provided the right to comment on the application and, in certain specified circumstances, to preclude the Secretary of HUD from approving the application. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1439 (a)-(c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Use of the § 8 program to expand low-income housing opportunities outside areas of minority concentration would not have a coercive effect on suburban municipalities. For under the program, the local governmental units retain the right to comment on specific assistance proposals, to reject certain proposals that are inconsistent with their approved housing-assistance plans, and to require that zoning and other land-use restrictions be adhered to by builders.
In sum, there is no basis for the petitioner’s claim that court-ordered metropolitan area relief in this case would be impermissible as a matter of law under the Milliken decision. In contrast to the desegregation order in that case, a metropolitan area relief order directed to HUD would not consolidate or in any way restructure local governmental units. The remedial decree would neither force suburban governments to submit public housing proposals to HUD nor displace the rights and powers accorded local government entities under federal or state housing statutes or existing land-use laws. The order would have the same effect on the suburban governments as a discretionary decision by HUD to use its statutory powers to provide the respondents with alternatives to the racially segregated Chicago public housing system created by CHA and HUD.
Since we conclude that a metropolitan area remedy in this case is not impermissible as a matter of law, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals remanding the case to the District Court “for additional evidence and for further consideration of the issue of metropolitan area relief.” 503 F. 2d, at 940. Our determination that the District Court has the authority to direct HUD to engage in remedial efforts in the metropolitan area outside the city limits of Chicago should not be interpreted as requiring a metropolitan area order. The nature and scope of the remedial decree to be entered on remand is a matter for the District Court in the exercise of its equitable discretion, after affording the parties an opportunity to present their views.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals remanding this case to the District Court is affirmed, but further proceedings in the District Court are to be consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The original complaint named the Housing Assistance Administration, then a corporate agency of HUD, as the defendant. Although the petitioner in this case is the current Secretary of HUD, this opinion uses the terms “petitioner” and “HUD” interchangeably.
The complaint sought to enjoin HUD from providing funds for 17 projects that had been proposed by CHA in 1965 and 1966 and from making available to CHA any other financial assistance to be used in connection with the racially discriminatory aspects of the Chicago public housing system. In addition, the respondents requested that they be granted “such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.”
Before the stay of the action against HUD, the District Court had certified the plaintiff class in the CHA action and had rejected CHA's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the counts of the complaint alleging that CHA had intentionally selected public housing sites to avoid desegregating housing patterns. 265 F. Supp. 582.
CHA admitted that it had followed a policy of informally clearing proposed family public housing sites with the alderman in whose ward the proposed site was located and of eliminating each site opposed by the alderman. 296 F. Supp. 907, 910, 913. This procedure had resulted in the rejection of 99%% of the units proposed for sites in white areas which had been initially selected as suitable for public housing by CHA. Id., at 912.
With regard to tenant assignments, the court found that CHA had established a racial quota to restrict the number of Negro families residing in the four CHA family public housing projects located in white areas in Chicago. The projects, all built prior to 1944, had Negro tenant populations of 7%, 6%, 4%, and 1% despite the fact that Negroes composed about 90% of the tenants of CHA family housing units and a similar percentage of the waiting list. A CHA official testified that until 1968 the four projects located in white areas were listed on the Authority’s tenant-selection form as suitable for white families only. Id., at 909.
In July 1968, CHA had in operation or development 54 family housing projects with a total of 30,848 units. Statistics submitted to the District Court established that, aside from the four overwhelmingly white projects discussed in n. 4, supra, 92% of all of CHA’s family housing units were located in neighborhoods that were at least 75% Negro and that two-thirds of the units were situated in areas with more than 95% Negro residents. Id., at 910.
The District Court's remedial decree divided Cook County into a “General Public Housing Area” and a “Limited Public Housing Area.” The “Limited Public Housing Area” consisted of the area within census tracts having a 30% or more nonwhite population or within one mile of the boundary of any such census tract. The remainder of Cook County was included in the “General Public Housing Area.” 304 F. Supp., at 737. Following the commencement of construction of at least 700 family units in the General Public Housing Area of the city of Chicago, CHA was permitted by the terms of the order to locate up to one-third of its General Public Housing Area units in the portion of Cook County outside of Chicago. See id., at 738-739.
The Court of Appeals found that "HUD retained a large amount of discretion to approve or reject both site selection and tenant assignment procedures of the local housing authority” and that the Secretary had exercised those powers "in a manner which perpetuated a racially discriminatory housing system in Chicago.” 448 F. 2d, at 739. Although the appellate court stated that it was “fully sympathetic” with the “very real ‘dilemma’ ” presented by the need for public housing in Chicago, it ruled that the demand for housing did not justify “the Secretary’s past actions [which] constituted racially discriminatory conduct in their own right.” Ibid.
The court’s July 1969 order directing CHA to use its best efforts to increase public housing opportunities in white areas as rapidly as possible had not resulted in the submission of a single housing site to the Chicago City Council. A subsequent order directing the submission of sites for 1,600 units by September 20, 1970, had eventually prompted CHA to submit proposed sites in the spring of 1971, but inaction by the City Council had held up the approval of the sites required for their development. See Gautreaux v. Romney, 332 F. Supp. 366, 368.
The District Court subsequently took additional measures in an attempt to implement the remedial orders entered against CHA. In May 1971, the city of Chicago and HUD agreed to a letter of intent that provided that the city would process sites suitable for use by CHA to permit the Authority to commence acquisition of sites for 1,700 units in accordance with a specified timetable. HUD then released certain Model Cities funds on the condition that the City Council and CHA continue to show progress toward meeting the goals set forth in the May letter. After the city fell far behind schedule, the District Court granted the respondents’ request for an injunction directing HUD to withhold $26 million in Model Cities funds until the city remedied its existing deficit under the timetable. See id., at 368-370. The Court of Appeals reversed the injunction, holding that the District Court had abused its discretion in ordering funding cut off. 457 F. 2d 124.
Between July 1971 and April 1972, the City Council failed to conduct any hearings with respect to acquisition of property for housing sites and did not approve land acquisition for any sites. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 342 F. Supp. 827, 829. Following the filing of a supplemental complaint naming the mayor and the members of the City Council as defendants, the District Court found that their inaction had prevented CHA from providing relief in conformity with the court’s prior orders. In a further effort to effectuate relief, the court ruled that the provision of Illinois law requiring City Council approval of land acquisition by CHA “shall not be applicable to CHA’s actions... taken for the purpose of providing Dwelling Units.” Id., at 830. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Gautreaux v. City of Chicago, 480 F. 2d 210.
Although CHA participated in the proceeding before the Court of Appeals, it did not seek review of that court's decision and has not participated in the proceedings in this Court.
Although the trial court’s desegregation order in Milliken did not direct the adoption of a specific metropolitan area plan, it did contain detailed guidelines for the panel appointed to draft the desegregation plan. 345 F. Supp. 914 (ED Mich.). The framework for the plan called for the division of the designated 54-school-district desegregation area into 15 clusters, each containing a part of the Detroit school system and two or more suburban districts. Within this framework, the court charged the panel with the responsibility for devising a plan that would produce the maximum actual desegregation. Id., at 918, 928-929. See 418 U. S., at 733-734.
The Court of Appeals interpreted the Milliken opinion as limited to a determination that, in view of the administrative complexities of school district consolidation and the deeply rooted tradition of local control of public schools, the balance of equitable factors weighed against metropolitan area school desegregation remedies. See 503 F. 2d, at 935-936. But the Court’s decision in Milliken was premised on a controlling principle governing the permissible scope of federal judicial power, a principle not limited to a school desegregation context. See 418 U. S., at 744.
In addition, the Court of Appeals surmised that either an inter-district violation or an interdistrict segregative effect may have been present in this case. There is no support provided for either conclusion. The sole basis of the appellate court’s discussion, of alleged suburban discrimination was the respondents’ Exhibit 11 illustrating the location of 12 public housing projects within the portion of the Chicago Urbanized Area outside the city limits of Chicago. That exhibit showed that 11 of the 12 projects were located in areas that, at the time of the hearing in November 1972, were within one mile of the boundary of a census tract with less than a 70% white population. The exhibit was offered to illustrate the scarcity of integrated public housing opportunities for the plaintiff class and for lower income white families and to indicate why the respondents did not "expect cooperation from the suburban areas” in providing housing alternatives in predominately white areas. In discussing the data underlying the exhibit, counsel for the respondents in the trial court expressly attempted to avoid the “possible misconception” that he was then asserting that the suburban municipalities and housing authorities were “guilty of any discrimination or wrongdoing.” In view of the purpose for which the exhibit was offered and the District Court’s determination that “the wrongs were committed within the limits of Chicago,” it is apparent that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in supposing that the exhibit constitutes evidence of suburban discrimination justifying metropolitan area relief.
In its brief opinion on rehearing, the Court of Appeals asserted that “it is reasonable to conclude from the record” that the intra-city violation “may well have fostered racial paranoia and encouraged the ‘white flight’ phenomenon which has exacerbated the problems of achieving integration.” 503 F. 2d, at 939-940. The Court of Appeals’ speculation about the effects of the discriminatory site selection in Chicago is contrary both to expert testimony in the record and the conclusions of the District Court. Such unsupported speculation falls far short of the demonstration of a “significant segregative effect in another district” discussed in the Milliken opinion. See 418 U. S., at 745.
The Court in Milliken required either a showing of an inter-district violation or a significant segregative effect “[b]efore the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside by consolidating the separate units for remedial purposes.” Id., at 744. In its amicus memorandum in Milliken, the United States argued that an interdistrict remedy in that case would require “the restructuring of state or local government entities” and result in “judicial interference with state prerogatives concerning the organization of local governments.”
Although the State of Michigan had been found to have committed constitutional violations contributing to racial segregation in the Detroit schools, 418 U. S., at 734-735, n. 16, the Court in Milliken concluded that the interdistrict order was a wrongful exercise of judicial power because prior cases had established that such violations are to be dealt with in terms of "an established geographic and administrative school system,” id., at 746, and because the State's educational structure vested substantial independent control over school affairs in the local school districts. See id., at 742-744. In Milliken, a consolidation order directed against the State would of necessity have abrogated the rights and powers of the suburban school districts under Michigan law. See id., at 742 n. 20. Here, by contrast, a metropolitan area remedy involving HUD need not displace the rights and powers accorded suburban governmental entities under federal or state law. See Part III-B, infra.
Illinois statutes permit a city housing authority to exercise its powers within an “area of operation” defined to include the territorial boundary of the city and all of the area within three miles beyond the city boundary that is not located within the boundaries of another city, village, or incorporated town. In addition, the housing authority may act outside its area of operation by contract with another housing authority or with a state public body not within the area of operation of another housing authority. Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 671/2, §§ 17 (b), 27c (1973).
Although the state officials in Milliken had the authority to operate across
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought in the Nebraska courts by employees of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. against that company and labor organizations representing various groups of employees of the railroad to enjoin the application and enforcement of a union shop agreement entered into between the railroad company and the labor organizations. Plaintiffs are not members of any of the defendant labor organizations and desire not to join. Under the terms of the union shop agreement all employees of the railroad, as a condition of their continued employment, must become members of the specified union within 60 days and thereafter maintain that membership. It is alleged that failure on their part to join the union will mean the loss of their employment together with seniority, retirement, pension, and other rights.
The employees claim that the union shop agreement violates the “right to work” provision of the Nebraska Constitution (Art. XV, § 13), which provides:
“No person shall be denied employment because of membership in or affiliation with, or resignation or expulsion from a labor organization or because of refusal to join or affiliate with a labor organization; nor shall any individual or corporation or association of any kind enter into any contract, written or oral, to exclude persons from employment because of membership in or nonmembership in a labor organization.”
They ask for an injunction restraining the railroad company from enforcing and applying the union shop agreement.
The answers deny that the Nebraska Constitution and laws control and allege that the union shop agreement is authorized by § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh, which provides that, notwithstanding the law of “any State,” a carrier and a labor organization may make an agreement requiring all employees within a stated time to become members of the labor organization, provided there is no discrimination against any employee and provided that membership is not denied nor terminated “for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.''
The Nebraska trial court issued an injunction. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed. It held that the union shop agreement violates the First Amendment in that it deprives the employees of their freedom of association and violates the Fifth Amendment in that it requires the members to pay for many things besides the cost of collective bargaining. The Nebraska Supreme Court, therefore, held that there is no valid federal law to supersede the “right to work” provision of the Nebraska Constitution. 160 Neb. 669, 71 N. W. 2d 526. The case is here by appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (1) and (2). We noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 910.
The union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act was written into the law in 1951. Prior to that date the Railway Labor Act prohibited union shop agreements. 48 Stat. 1186, 45 U. S. C. § 152, Fourth and Fifth; 40 Op. Atty. Gen. 254. Those provisions were enacted in 1934 when the union shop was being used by employers to establish and maintain company unions, “thus effectively depriving a substantial number of employees of their right to bargain collectively.” S. Rep. No. 2262, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3. By 1950, company unions in this field had practically disappeared. Id. Between 75 and 80% of railroad employees were members of labor organizations. H. R. Rep. No. 2811, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 4. While nonunion members got the benefits of the collective bargaining of the unions, they bore “no share of the cost of obtaining such benefits.” Id., at 4. As Senator Hill, who managed the bill on the floor of the Senate, said, “The question in this instance is whether those who enjoy the fruits and the benefits of the unions should make a fair contribution to the support of the unions.” 96 Cong. Rec., Pt. 12, p. 16279.
The union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act is only permissive. Congress has not compelled nor required carriers and employees to enter into union shop agreements. The Supreme Court of Nebraska nevertheless took the view that justiciable questions under the First and Fifth Amendments were presented since Congress, by the union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act, sought to strike down inconsistent laws in 17 States. Cf. Hudson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 242 N. C. 650, 89 S. E. 2d 441; Otten v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 205 F. 2d 58. The Supreme Court of Nebraska said, “Such action on the part of Congress is a necessary part of every union shop contract entered into on the railroads as far as these 17 States are concerned for without it such contracts could not be enforced therein.” 160 Neb., at 698, 71 N. W. 2d, at 547. We agree with that view. If private rights are being invaded, it is by force of an agreement made pursuant to federal law which expressly declares that state law is superseded. Cf. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 663. In other words, the federal statute is the source of the power and authority by which any private rights are lost or sacrificed. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 198-199, 204; Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768; Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 462. The enactment of the federal statute authorizing union shop agreements is the governmental action on which the Constitution operates, though it takes a private agreement to invoke the federal sanction.
As already noted, the 1951 amendment, permitting the negotiation of union shop agreements, expressly allows those agreements notwithstanding any law “of any State.” § 2, Eleventh. A union agreement made pursuant to the Railway Labor Act has, therefore, the imprimatur of the federal law upon it and, by force of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, could not be made illegal nor vitiated by any provision of the laws of a State.
We come then to the merits.
In the absence of conflicting federal legislation, there can be no doubt that it is within the police power of a State to prohibit the union or the closed shop. We so held in Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525, and in American Federation of Labor v. American Sash Co., 335 U. S. 538, against the challenge that local “right to work” laws, including Nebraska’s, violated the requirements of due process. But the power of Congress to regulate labor relations in interstate industries is likewise well-established. Congress has authority to adopt all appropriate measures to “facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes which threaten the service of the necessary agencies of interstate transportation.” Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 570. These measures include provisions that will encourage the settlement of disputes “by inducing collective bargaining with the true representative of the employees and by preventing such bargaining with any who do not represent them” (Virginian R. Co. v. Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 548), and that will protect the employees against discrimination or coercion which would interfere with the free exercise of their right to self-organization and representation. Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U. S. 1, 33. Industrial peace along the arteries of commerce is a legitimate objective; and Congress has great latitude in choosing the methods by which it is to be obtained.
The choice by the Congress of the union shop as a stabilizing force seems to us to be an allowable one. Much might be said pro and con if the policy issue were before us. Powerful arguments have been made here that the long-run interests of labor would be better served by the development of democratic traditions in trade unionism without the coercive element of the union or the closed shop. Mr. Justice Brandéis, who had wide experience in labor-management relations prior to his appointment to the Court, wrote forcefully against the closed shop. He feared that the closed shop would swing the pendulum in the opposite extreme and substitute “tyranny of the employee” for “tyranny of the employer.” But the question is one of policy with which the judiciary has no concern, as Mr. Justice Brandéis would have been the first to concede. Congress, acting within its constitutional powers, has the final say on policy issues. If it acts unwisely, the electorate can make a change. The task of the judiciary ends once it appears that the legislative measure adopted is relevant or appropriate to the constitutional power which Congress exercises. The ingredients of industrial peace and stabilized labor-management relations are numerous and complex. They may well vary from age to age and from industry to industry. What would be needful one decade might be anathema the next. The decision rests with the policy makers, not with the judiciary.
It is said that the right to work, which the Court has frequently included in the concept of “liberty” within the meaning of the Due Process Clauses (see Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission, 334 U. S. 410), may not be denied by the Congress. The question remains, however, whether the long-range interests of workers would be better served by one type of union agreement or another. That question is germane to the exercise of power under the Commerce Clause— a power that often has the quality of police regulations. See Cleveland v. United States, 329 U. S. 14, 19. One would have to be blind to history to assert that trade unionism did not enhance and strengthen the right to work. See Webb, History of Trade Unionism; Gregory, Labor and the Law. To require, rather than to induce, the beneficiaries of trade unionism to contribute to its costs may not be the wisest course. But Congress might well believe that it would help insure the right to work in and along the arteries of interstate commerce. No more has been attempted here. The only conditions to union membership authorized by § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act are the payment of “periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments.” The assessments that may be lawfully imposed do not include “fines and penalties.” The financial support required relates, therefore, to the work of the union in the realm of collective bargaining. No more precise allocation of union overhead to individual members seems to us to be necessary. The prohibition of “fines and penalties” precludes the imposition of financial burdens for disciplinary purposes. If “assessments” are in fact imposed for purposes not germane to collective bargaining, a different problem would be presented.
Wide-ranged problems are tendered under the First Amendment. It is argued that the union shop agreement forces men into ideological and political associations which violate their right to freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of thought protected by the Bill of Rights. It is said that once a man becomes a member of these unions he is subject to vast disciplinary control and that by force of the federal Act unions now can make him conform to their ideology.
On the present record, there is no more an infringement or impairment of First Amendment rights than there would be in the case of a lawyer who by state law is required to be a member of an integrated bar. It is argued that compulsory membership will be used to impair freedom of expression. But that problem is not presented by this record. Congress endeavored to safeguard against that possibility by making explicit that no conditions to membership may be imposed except as respects “periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments.” If other conditions are in fact imposed, or if the exaction of dues, initiation fees, or assessments is used as a cover for forcing ideological conformity or other action in contravention of the First Amendment, this judgment will not prejudice the decision in that case. For we pass narrowly on § 2, Eleventh of the Railway Labor Act. We only hold that the requirement for financial support of the collective-bargaining agency by all who receive the benefits of its work is within the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause and does not violate either the First or the Fifth Amendments. We express no opinion on the use of other conditions to secure or maintain membership in a labor organization operating under a union or closed shop agreement.
Reversed.
This constitutional provision is implemented by Neb. Rev. Stat., 1943, § 48-217, which provides:
“Labor organizations; no denial of employment; closed shop not permitted. To make operative the provisions of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Article 15 of the Constitution of Nebraska, no person shall be denied employment because of membership in or affiliation with, or resignation or expulsion from a labor organization or because of refusal to join or affiliate with a labor organization; nor shall any individual or corporation or association of any kind enter into any contract, written or oral, to exclude persons from employment because of membership in or nonmembership in a labor organization.”
Section 2, Eleventh reads as follows:
“Eleventh. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, or of any other statute or law of the United States, or Territory thereof, or of any State, any carrier or carriers as defined in this Act and a labor organization or labor organizations duly designated and. authorized to represent employees in accordance with the requirements of this Act shall be permitted—
“(a) to make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that within sixty days following the beginning of such employment, or the effective date of such agreements, whichever is the later, all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class: Provided, That no such agreement shall require such condition of employment with respect to employees to whom membership is not available upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member or with respect to employees to whom membership was denied or terminated for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
“(b) to make agreements providing for the deduction by such carrier or carriers from the wages of its or their employees in a craft or class and payment to the labor organization representing the craft or class of such employees, of any periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly'- required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership: Provided, That no such agreement shall be effective with respect to any individual employee until he shall have furnished the employer with a written assignment to the labor organization of such membership dues, initiation fees, and assessments, which shall be revocable in writing after the expiration of one year or upon the termination date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner.
“(c) The requirement of membership in a labor organization in an agreement made pursuant to subparagraph (a) shall be satisfied, as to both a present or future employee in engine, train, yard, or hostling service, that is, an employee engaged in any of the services or capacities covered in section 3, First (h) of this Act defining the jurisdictional scope of the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, if said employee shall hold or acquire membership in any one of the labor organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance with this Act and admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services; and no agreement made pursuant to subparagraph (b) shall provide for deductions from his wages for periodic dues, initiation fees, or assessments payable to any labor organization other than that in which he holds membership: Provided, however, That as to an employee in any of said services on a particular carrier at the effective date of any such agreement on a carrier, who is not a member of any one of the labor organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance with this Act and admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services, such employee, as a condition of continuing his employment, may be required to become a member of the organization representing the craft in which he is employed on the effective date of the first agreement applicable to him: Provided, further, That nothing herein or in any such agreement or agreements shall prevent an employee from changing membership from one organization to another organization admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services.
“(d) Any provisions in paragraphs Fourth and Fifth of section 2 of this Act, in conflict herewith are to the extent of such conflict amended.”
The union shop is a variant of the closed shop, since union membership is required of every employee after the 60-day period designated in the Act.
In 1954 the Bureau of Labor Statistics made an analysis of 1,716 collective-bargaining agreements in effect in industries not regulated by the Railway Labor Act. Of the 7,405,000 workers covered by the agreements studied, 64% were employed under union shop provisions. 78 Monthly Labor Review, No. 6, 649.
Once courts enforce the agreement the sanction of government is, of course, put behind them. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249.
The parallel provision in § 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act (61 Stat. 151, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (b)) makes the union shop agreement give way before a state law prohibiting it.
See Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life (1946), pp. 303-304, which quotes a letter of February 26, 1912, from Brandéis to Lincoln Steffens:
“. . . But the American people should not, and will not, accept unionism if it involves the closed shop. They will not consent to the exchange of the tyranny of the employer for the tyranny of the employee. Unionism therefore cannot make a great advance until it abandons the closed shop; and it cannot accept the open shop as an alternative. The open shop means the destruction of the union.
“The advance of unionism demands therefore some relation between the employer and the employee other than either the closed or open shop, and I feel confident that we have found a solution in the preferential union shop.”
A number of appellant unions have broad powers to levy assessments for unspecified purposes. For example, the bylaws of the Railroad Yardmasters of America authorize the Executive Board to "levy assessments upon all the members affected when in its opinion such assessments are necessary.” §26. And §27 provides: “Local lodges may levy such assessments upon their respective memberships as may be found necessary . . . .” The General Committee of a Subordinate Division of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers is authorized “to levy such assessments upon the members employed upon the transportation company over which it has jurisdiction as may be necessary to carry on its work.” Subordinate Division Statutes, § 42 (H). And see Constitution of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, Art. I, § 6; Constitution of the American Railway Supervisors Association, Art. XVI, § 7.
The constitutions and bylaws of several appellant unions place restrictions on the individual members.
A. Some disqualify persons from membership for their political views and associations. Art. XIII, § 4, of the Constitution of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes bars from membership anyone who is a member of the Communist Party. Another constitution renders ineligible for membership any person who is “a member of the Communist Party or of any other subversive group, or who subscribes to the doctrines of any such groups.” Subordinate Lodge Constitution of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers of America, Art. VI, § 1. And see Subordinate Lodge Constitution of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, § 6 (a). Art. 16, § 1 (a), of the Constitution of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association provides: “No member of the communist party or any person who advocates the objectives thereof, and no person who belongs to or supports the policies of any other organization or group which advocates the overthrow of the United States government or the government of the Dominion of Canada by force shall be eligible” for membership.
The donstitution of one of appellant unions provides that no person shall be eligible for union office “if such person associates himself with Communist, Fascist or similar organizations, or the Ku Klux Klan, or Columbians. Such eligibility shall likewise be denied where a person associates himself with, lends support or subscribes to the subversive doctrines of the organizations enumerated herein, similar organizations, or any organization or group that expounds or promotes any doctrine or philosophy inimical or subversive to the fundamental purposes of the constitution of the Government of the United States.” Constitution of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Art. XI, § 18. The Constitution of the International Association of Machinists, Art. I, § 5, provides: “A member who advocates or encourages communism, fascism, nazism, or any other totalitarian philosophy, or who, by other actions, gives support to these ‘philosophies’ or ‘isms’ is not eligible to hold office in the I. A. M.”
B. The Grand Lodge Constitution of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America prohibits members from “interfering with legislative matters affecting national, state, territorial, dominion or provincial legislation, adversely affecting the interests of our members.” §64.
The Constitution of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, another of the appellant unions, forbids any member from “creating or attempting to create dissatisfaction or dissension among any of the members or among L. U.’s [Local Unions] of the I. B. E. W.” Art. XXVII, §2 (8). The same article and section further prohibits any member from
“(15) Attending or participating in any gathering or meeting whatsoever, held outside meetings of a L. U., at which the affairs of the L. U. are discussed, or at which conclusions are arrived at regarding the business and the affairs of a L. U., or regarding L. U. officers or a candidate or candidates for L. U. office.
“(16) Mailing, handing out, or posting cards, handbills, letters, marked ballots or political literature of any kind, or displaying streamers, banners, signs or anything else of a political nature, or being a party in any way to such being done in an effort to induce members to vote for or against any candidate or candidates for L. U. office, or candidates to conventions.” And see Art. 17, § 1 (b), Constitution of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association; Art. XXIV, § 2, Constitution of the International Association of Machinists.
C. A number of the constitutions of appellant unions provide for the use of compulsory dues and assessments to finance union insurance and death benefit plans. See, e. g., Constitution of the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Art. I, §22; Constitution of the Railroad Yardmasters of America, Art. VII, §4; Constitution of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers of America, Art. VII, § 2.
See Summers, Disciplinary Powers of Unions (1950), 3 Ind. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 483; Summers, Disciplinary Procedures of Unions (1950), 4 Ind. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 15; Summers, Legal Limitations on Union Discipline (1951), 64 Harv. L. Rev. 1049; Aaron & Komaroff, Statutory Regulation of Internal Union Affairs (1949), 44 111. L. Rev. 425, 631; Wirtz, Government by Private Groups (1953), 13 La. L. Rev. 440; Williams, The Political Liberties of Labor Union Members (1954), 32 Tex. L. Rev. 826.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve claims of conscientious objectors under § 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (j) (1958 ed.), which exempts from combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States those persons who by reason of their religious training and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. The cases were consolidated for argument and we consider them together although each involves different facts and circumstances. The parties raise the basic question of the constitutionality of the section which defines the term “religious training and belief/’ as used in the Act, as “an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.” The constitutional attack is launched under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and is twofold: (1) The section does not exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors; and (2) it discriminates between different forms of religious expression in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Jakobson (No. 51) and Peter (No. 29) also claim that their beliefs come within the meaning of the section. Jakobson claims that he meets the standards of § 6 (j) because his opposition to war is based on belief in a Supreme Reality and is therefore an obligation superior to one resulting from man’s relationship to his fellowman. Peter contends that his opposition to war derives from his acceptance of the existence of a universal power beyond that of man and that this acceptance in fact constitutes belief in a Supreme Being, qualifying him for exemption. We granted certiorari in each of the cases because of their importance in the administration of the Act. 377 U. S. 922.
We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression “Supreme Being” rather than the designation “God,” was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief “in a relation to a Supreme Being” is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is “in a relation to a Supreme Being” and the other is not. We have concluded that the beliefs of the objectors in these cases meet these criteria, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgments in Nos. 50 and 51 and reverse the judgment in No. 29.
The Facts in the Cases.
No. 50: Seeger was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of New York of having refused to submit to induction in the armed forces. He was originally classified 1-A in 1953 by his local board, but this classification was changed in 1955 to 2-S (student) and he remained in this status until 1958 when he was reclassified 1-A. He first claimed exemption as a conscientious objector in 1957 after successive annual renewals of his student classification. Although he did not adopt verbatim the printed Selective Service System form, he declared that he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of his “religious” belief; that he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, “rather than answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ”; that his “skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God” did “not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever”; that his was a “belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed.” R. 69-70,73. He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity “without belief in God, except in the remotest sense.” R. 73. His belief was found to be sincere, honest, and made in good faith; and his conscientious objection to be based upon individual training and belief, both of which included research in religious and cultural fields. Seeger’s claim, however, was denied solely because it was not based upon a “belief in a relation to a Supreme Being” as required by § 6 (j) of the Act. At trial Seeger’s counsel admitted that Seeger’s belief was not in relation to a Supreme Being as commonly understood, but contended that he was entitled to the exemption because “under the present law Mr. Seeger’s position would also include definitions of religion which have been stated more recently,” R. 49, and could be “accommodated” under the definition of religious training and belief in the Act, R. 53. He was convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Being requirement of the section distinguished “between internally derived and externally compelled beliefs” and was, therefore, an “impermissible classification” under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 326 F. 2d 846.
No. 51: Jakobson was also convicted in the Southern District of New York on a charge of refusing to submit to induction. On his appeal the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that rejection of his claim may have rested on the factual finding, erroneously made, that he did not believe in a Supreme Being as required by § 6 (j). 325 F. 2d 409.
Jakobson was originally classified 1-A in 1953 and intermittently enjoyed a student classification until 1956. It was not until April 1958 that he made claim to noncombatant classification (1-A-O) as a conscientious objector. He stated on the Selective Service System form that he believed in a “Supreme Being” who was “Creator of Man” in the sense of being “ultimately responsible for the existence of” man and who was “the Supreme Reality” of which “the existence of man is the resultR. 44. (Emphasis in the original.) He explained that his religious and social thinking had developed after much meditation and thought. He had concluded that man must be “partly spiritual” and, therefore, “partly akin to the Supreme Reality”; and that his “most important religious law” was that “no man ought ever to wilfully sacrifice another man’s life as a means to any other end....” R. 45-46. In December 1958 he requested a 1-0 classification since he felt that participation in any form of military service would involve him in “too many situations and relationships that would be a strain on [his] conscience that [he felt he] must avoid.” R. 70. He submitted a long memorandum of “notes on religion” in which he defined religion as the “sum and essence of one’s basic attitudes to the fundamental problems of human existence,” R. 72 (emphasis in the original); he said that he believed in “Godness” which was “the Ultimate Cause for the fact of the Being of the Universe”; that to deny its existence would but deny the existence of the universe because “anything that Is, has an Ultimate Cause for its Being.” R. 73. There was a relationship to Godness, he stated, in two directions, i. e., “vertically, towards Godness directly,” and “horizontally, towards Godness through Mankind and the World.” R. 74. He accepted the latter one. The Board classified him 1-A-O and Jakobson appealed. The hearing officer found that the claim was based upon a personal moral code and that he was not sincere in his claim. The Appeal Board classified him 1-A. It did not indicate upon what ground it based its decision, i. e., insincerity or a conclusion that his belief was only a personal moral code. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that his claim came within the requirements of § 6 (j). Because it could not determine whether the Appeal Board had found that Jakobson’s beliefs failed to come within the statutory definition, or whether it had concluded that he lacked sincerity, it directed dismissal of the indictment.
No. 29: Forest Britt Peter was convicted in the Northern District of California on a charge of refusing to submit to induction. In his Selective Service System form he stated that he was not a member of a religious sect or organization; he failed to execute section VII of the questionnaire but attached to it a quotation expressing opposition to war, in which he stated that he concurred. In a later form he hedged the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being by saying that it depended on the definition and he appended a statement that he felt it a violation of his moral code to take human life and that he considered this belief superior to his obligation to the state. As to whether his conviction was religious, he quoted with approval Reverend John Haynes Holmes’ definition of religion as “the consciousness of some power manifest in nature which helps man in the ordering of his life in harmony with its demands... [; it] is the supreme expression of human nature; it is man thinking his highest, feeling his deepest, and living his best.” R. 27. The source of his conviction he attributed to reading and meditation “in our democratic American culture, with its values derived from the western religious and philosophical tradition.” Ibid. As to his belief in a Supreme Being, Peter stated that he supposed “you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. These just do not happen to be the words I use.” R. 11. In 1959 he was classified 1-A, although there was no evidence in the record that he was not sincere in his beliefs. After his conviction for failure to report for induction the Court of Appeals, assuming arguendo that he was sincere, affirmed, 324 F. 2d 173.
Background of § 6 (j).
Chief Justice Hughes, in his opinion in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. 605 (1931), enunciated the rationale behind the long recognition of conscientious objection to participation in war accorded by Congress in our various conscription laws when he declared that “in the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the State has always been maintained.” At 633 (dissenting opinion). In a similar vein Harlan Fiske Stone, later Chief Justice, drew from the Nation’s past when he declared that
“both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man’s moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process.” Stone, The Conscientious Objector, 21 Col. Univ. Q. 253, 269 (1919).
Governmental recognition of the moral dilemma posed for persons of certain religious faiths by the call to arms came early in the history of this country. Various methods of ameliorating their difficulty were adopted by the Colonies, and were later perpetuated in state statutes and constitutions. Thus by the time of the Civil War there existed a state pattern of exempting conscientious objectors on religious grounds. In the Federal Militia Act of 1862 control of conscription was left primarily in the States. However, General Order No. 99, issued by the Adjutant General pursuant to that Act, provided for striking from the conscription list those who were exempted by the States; it also established a commutation or substitution system fashioned from earlier state enactments. With the Federal Conscription Act of 1863, which enacted the commutation and substitution provisions of General Order No. 99, the Federal Government occupied the field entirely, and in the 1864 Draft Act, 13 Stat. 9, it extended exemptions to those conscientious objectors who were members of religious denominations opposed to the bearing of arms and who were prohibited from doing so by the articles of faith of their denominations. Selective Service System Monograph Nó. 11, Conscientious Objection 40^41 (1950). In that same year the Confederacy exempted certain pacifist sects from military duty. Id., at 46.
The need for conscription did not again arise until World War I. The Draft Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 76, 78, afforded exemptions to conscientious objectors who were affiliated with a “well-recognized religious sect or organization [then] organized and existing and whose existing creed or principles [forbade] its members to participate in war in any form....” The Act required that all persons be inducted into the armed services, but allowed the conscientious objectors to perform noncombatant service in capacities designated by the President of the United States. Although the 1917 Act excused religious objectors only, in December 1917, the Secretary of War instructed that “personal scruples against war” be considered as constituting “conscientious objection.” Selective Service System Monograph No. 11, Conscientious Objection 54-55 (1950). This Act, including its conscientious objector provisions, was upheld against constitutional attack in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 389-390 (1918).
In adopting the 1940 Selective Training and Service Act Congress broadened the exemption afforded in the 1917 Act by making it unnecessary to belong to a pacifist religious sect if the claimant’s own opposition to war was based on “religious training and belief.” 54 Stat. 889. Those found to be within the exemption were not inducted into the armed services but were assigned to noncombatant service under the supervision of the Selective Service System. The Congress recognized that one might be religious without belonging to an organized church just as surely as minority members of a faith not opposed to war might through religious reading reach a conviction against participation in war. Congress Looks at the Conscientious Objector (National Service Board for Religious Objectors, 1943) 71, 79, 83, 87, 88, 89. Indeed, the consensus of the witnesses appearing before the congressional committees Was that individual belief — rather than membership in a church or sect — determined the duties that God imposed upon a person in his everyday conduct; and that “there is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God.” Id., at 29-31. See also the proposals which were made to the House Military Affairs Committee but rejected. Id., at 21-23, 82-83, 85. Thus, while shifting the test from membership in such a church to one’s individual belief the Congress nevertheless continued its historic practice of excusing from armed service those who believed that they owed an obligation, superior to that due the state, of not participating in war in any form.
Between 1940 and 1948 two courts of appeals held that the phrase “religious training and belief” did not include philosophical, social or political policy. Then in 1948 the Congress amended the language of the statute and declared that “religious training and belief” was to be defined as “an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.” The only significant mention of this change in the provision appears in the teport of the Senate Armed Services Committee recommending adoption. It said simply this: “This section reenacts substantially the same provisions as were found in subsection 5 (g) of the 1940 act. Exemption extends to anyone who, because of religious training and belief in his relation to a Supreme Being, is conscientiously opposed to combatant military service or to both combatant and noncombatant military service. (See United States v. Berman [sic], 156 F. (2d) 377, certiorari denied, 329 U. S. 795.)” S. Rep. No. 1268, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 14.
Interpretation of § 6 (j).
1. The crux of the problem lies in the phrase “religious training and belief” which Congress has defined as “belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.” In assigning meaning to this statutory language we may narrow the inquiry by noting briefly those scruples expressly excepted from the definition. The section excludes those persons who, disavowing religious belief, decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations that war is wrong and that they will have no part of it. These judgments have historically been reserved for the Government, and in matters which can be said to fall within these areas the conviction of the individual has never been permitted to override that of the state. United States v. Macintosh, supra (dissenting opinion). The statute further excludes those whose opposition to war stems from a “merely personal moral code,” a phrase to which we shall have occasion to turn later in discussing the application of § 6 (j) to these cases. We also pause to take note of what is not involved in this litigation. No party claims to be an atheist or attacks the statute on this ground. The question is not, therefore, one between theistic and atheistic beliefs. We do not deal with or intimate any decision on that situation in these eases. Nor do the parties claim the monotheistic belief that there is but one God; what they claim (with the possible exception of Seeger who bases his position here not on factual but on purely constitutional grounds) is that they adhere to theism, which is the “Belief in the existence of a god or gods;... Belief in superhuman powers or spiritual agencies in one or many gods,” as opposed to atheism. Our question, therefore, is the narrow one: Does the term “Supreme Being” as used in § 6 (j) mean the orthodox God or the broader concept of a power or being, or a faith, “to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent”? Webster’s New International Dictionary (Second Edition). In considering this question we resolve it solely in relation to the language of § 6 (j) and not otherwise.
2. New would quarrel, we think, with the proposition that in no field of human endeavor has the tool of language proved so inadequate in the communication of ideas as it has in dealing with the fundamental questions of man’s predicament in life, in death or in final judgment and retribution. This fact makes the task of discerning the intent of Congress in using the phrase “Supreme Being” a complex one. Nor is it made the easier by the richness and variety of spiritual life in our country. Over 250 sects inhabit our land. Some believe in a purely personal God, some in a supernatural deity; others think of religion as a way of life envisioning as its ultimate goal the day when all men can live together in perfect understanding and peace. There are those who think of God as the depth of our being; others, such as the Buddhists, strive for a state of lasting rest through self-denial and inner purification; in Hindu philosophy, the Supreme Being is the transcendental reality which is truth, knowledge and bliss. Even those religious groups which have traditionally opposed war in every form have splintered into various denominations: from 1940 to 1947 there were four denominations using the name “Friends,” Selective Service System Monograph No. 11, Conscientious Objection 13 (1950); the “Church of the Brethren” was the official name of the oldest and largest church body of four denominations composed of those commonly called Brethren, id., at 11; and the “Mennonite Church” was the largest of 17 denominations, including the Amish and Hutterites, grouped as “Mennonite bodies” in the 1936 report on the Census of Religious Bodies, id., at 9. This vast panoply of beliefs reveals the magnitude of the problem which faced the Congress when it set about providing an exemption from armed service. It also emphasizes the care that Congress realized was necessary in the fashioning of an exemption which would be in keeping with its long-established policy of not picking and choosing among religious beliefs.
In spite of the elusive nature of the inquiry, we are not without certain guidelines. In amending the 1940 Act, Congress adopted almost intact the language of Chief Justice Hughes in United States v. Macintosh, supra:
“The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.” At 633-634. (Emphasis supplied.)
By comparing the statutory definition with those words, however, it becomes readily apparent that the Congress deliberately broadened them by substituting the phrase “Supreme Being” for the appellation “God.” And in so doing it is also significant that Congress did not elaborate on the form or nature of this higher authority which it chose to designate as “Supreme Being.” By so refraining it must have had in mind the admonitions of the Chief Justice when he said in the same opinion that even the word “God” had myriad meanings for men of faith:
“[P]utting aside dogmas with their particular conceptions of deity, freedom of conscience itself implies respect for an innate conviction of paramount duty. The battle for religious liberty has been fought and won with respect to religious beliefs and practices, which are not in conflict with good order, upon the very ground of the supremacy of conscience within its proper field.” At 634.
Moreover, the Senate Report on the bill specifically states that § 6 (j) was intended to re-enact “substantially the same provisions as were found” in the 1940 Act. That statute, of course, refers to “religious training and belief” without more. Admittedly, all of the parties here purport to base their objection on religious belief. It appears, therefore, that we need only look to this clear statement of congressional intent as set out in the report. Under the 1940 Act it was necessary only to have a conviction based upon religious training and belief; we believe that is all that is required here. Within that phrase would cpme all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. The test might be stated in these words: A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the fife of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs, exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord with the well-established congressional policy of equal treatment for those whose opposition to service is grounded in their religious tenets.
3. The Government takes the position that since Berman v. United States, supra, was cited in the Senate Report on the 1948 Act, Congress must have desired to adopt the Berman interpretation of what constitutes “religious belief.” Such a claim, however, will not bear scrutiny. First, we think it clear that an explicit statement of congressional intent deserves more weight than the parenthetical citation of a case which might stand for a number of things. Congress specifically stated that it intended to re-enact substantially the same provisions as were found in the 1940 Act. Moreover, the history of that Act reveals no evidence of a desire to restrict the concept of religious belief. On the contrary the Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee which reported out the 1940 exemption provisions stated:
“We heard the conscientious objectors and all of their representatives that we could possibly hear, and, summing it all up, their whole objection to the bill, aside from their objection to compulsory military training, was based upon the right of conscientious objection and in most instances to the right of the ministerial students to continue in their studies, and we have provided ample protection for those classes and those groups.” 86 Cong. Rec. 11368 (1940).
During the House debate on the bill, Mr. Faddis of Pennsylvania made the following statement:
“We have made provision to take care of conscientious objectors. I am sure the committee has had all the sympathy in the world with those who appeared claiming to have religious scruples against rendering military service in its various degrees. Some appeared who had conscientious scruples against handling lethal weapons, but who had no scruples against performing other duties which did not actually bring them into combat. Others appeared who claimed to have conscientious scruples against participating in any of the activities that would go along with the Army. The committee took all of these into consideration and has written a bill which, I believe, will take care of all the reasonable objections of this class of people.” 86 Cong. Rec. 11418 (1940).
Thus the history of the Act belies the notion that it was to be restrictive in application and available only to those believing in a traditional God.
As for the citation to Berman, it might mean a number of things. But we think that Congress’ action in citing it must be construed in such a way as to make it consistent with its express statement that it meant substantially to re-enact the 1940 provision. As far as we can find, there is not one word to indicate congressional concern over any conflict between Kauten and Berman. Surely, if it thought that two clashing interpretations as to what amounted to “religious belief” had to be resolved, it would have said so somewhere in its deliberations. Thus, we think that rather than citing Berman for what it said “religious belief” was, Congress cited it for what it said “religious belief” was not. For both Kauten and Berman hold in common the conclusion that exemption must be denied to those whose beliefs are political, social or philosophical in nature, rather than religious. Both, in fact, denied exemption on that very ground. It seems more likely, therefore, that it was this point which led Congress to cite Berman. The first part of the § 6 (j) definition — belief in a relation to a Supreme Being — was indeed set out in Berman, with the exception that the court used the word “God” rather than “Supreme Being.” However, as the Government recognizes, Berman took that language word for word from Macintosh. Far from requiring a conclusion contrary to the one we reach here, Chief Justice Hughes’ opinion, as we have pointed out, supports our interpretation.
Admittedly, the second half of the statutory definition— the rejection of sociological and moral views — was taken directly from Berman. But, as we have noted, this same view was adhered to in United States v. Kauten, supra. Indeed the Selective Service System has stated its view of the cases’ significance in these terms: “The United States v. Kauten and Herman Berman v. United States cases ruled that a valid conscientious objector claim to exemption must be based solely on'religious training and belief’ and not on philosophical, political, social, or other grounds... Selective Service System Monograph No. 11, Conscientious Objection 337 (1950). See id., at 278. That the conclusions of the Selective Service System are not to be taken lightly is evidenced in this statement by Senator Gurney, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and sponsor of the Senate bill containing the present version of § 6 (j):
“The bill which is now pending follows the 1940 act, with very few technical amendments, worked out by those in Selective Service who had charge of the conscientious-objector problem during the war.” x 94 Cong. Rec. 7305 (1948).
Thus we conclude that in enacting § 6 (j) Congress simply made explicit what the courts of appeals had correctly found implicit in the 1940 Act. Moreover, it is perfectly reasonable that Congress should have selected Berman for its citation, since this Court denied certiorari in that case, a circumstance not present in Kauten.
Section 6 (j), then, is no more than a clarification of the 1940 provision involving only certain “technical amendments,” to use the words of Senator Gurney. As such it continues the congressional policy of providing exemption from military service for those whose opposition is based on grounds that can fairly be said to be “religious.” To hold otherwise would not only fly in the face of Congress’ entire action in the past; it would ignore the historic position of our country on this issue since its founding.
4. Moreover, we believe this construction embraces the ever-broadening understanding of the modern religious community. The eminent Protestant theologian, Dr. Paul Tillich, whose views the Government concedes would come within the statute, identifies God not as a projection “out there” or beyond the skies but as the ground of our very being. The Court of Appeals stated in No. 51 that Jakobson’s views “parallel [those of] this eminent theologian rather strikingly.” 325 F. 2d, at 415-416. In his book, Systematic Theology, Dr. Tillich says:
“I have written of the God above the God of theism.... In such a state [of self-affirmation] the God of both religious and theological language disappears. But something remains, namely, the seriousness of that doubt in which meaning within meaninglessness is affirmed. The source of this affirmation of meaning within meaninglessness, of certitude within doubt, is not the God of traditional theism but the ‘God above God,’ the power of being, which works through those who have no name for it, not even the name God.” II Systematic Theology 12 (1957).
Another eminent cleric, the Bishop of Woolwich, John A. T. Robinson, in his book, Honest To God (1963), states:
“The Bible speaks of a God ‘up there.’ No doubt its picture of a three-decker universe, of ‘the heaven above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth,’ was once taken quite literally... At 11. “[Later] in place of a God who is literally or physically ‘up there’ we have accepted, as part of our mental furniture, a God who is spiritually or metaphysically ‘out there.’... But now it seems there is no room for him, not merely in the inn, but in the entire universe: for there are no vacant places left. In reality, of course, our new view of the universe has made not the slightest difference....” At 13-14.
“But the idea of a God spiritually or metaphysically ‘out there’ dies very much harder. Indeed, most people would be seriously disturbed by the thought that it should need to die at all. For it is their God, and they have nothing to put in its place.... Every one of us lives with some mental picture of a God ‘out there,’ a God who ‘exists’ above and beyond the world he made, a God ‘to’ whom we pray and to whom we ‘go’ when we die.” At 14.
“But the signs are that we are reaching the point at which the whole conception of a God ‘out there,’ which has served us so well since the collapse of the three-decker universe, is itself becoming more of a hindrance than a help.” At 15-16. (Emphasis in original.)
The Schema of the recent Ecumenical Council included a most significant declaration on religion:
“The community of all peoples is one. One is their origin, for God made the entire human race live on all the face of the earth. One, too, is their ultimate end, God. Men expect from the various religions answers to the riddles of the human condition: What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of our lives? What is the moral good and what is sin? What are death, judgment, and retribution after death?
“Ever since primordial days, numerous peoples have had a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events that make up the lives of men; some have even come to know of a Supreme Being and Father. Religions in an advanced culture have been able to use more refined concepts and a more developed language in their struggle for an answer to man’s religious questions.
“Nothing that is true and holy in these religions is scorned by the Catholic Church. Ceaselessly the Church proclaims Christ, ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life,’ in whom God reconciled all things to Himself. The Church regards with sincere reverence those ways of action and of life, precepts and teachings which, although they differ from the ones she sets forth, reflect nonetheless a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
Dr. David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture Movement, states in his book, Ethics As a Religion (1951), that “[ejverybody except the avowed atheists (and they are comparatively few) believes in some kind of God,” and that “The proper question to ask, therefore, is not the futile one, Do you believe in God? but rather, What kind of God do you believe in?” Id., at 86-87. Dr. Muzzey attempts to answer that question:
“Instead of positing a personal God, whose existence man can neither prove nor disprove, the ethical concept is founded on human experience. It is anthropocentric, not theocentric. Religion, for all the various definitions that have been given of it, must surely mean the devotion of man to the highest ideal that he can conceive. And that ideal is a community of spirits in which the latent moral potentialities of men shall have been elicited by their reciprocal endeavors to cultivate the best in their fellow men. What ultimate reality is we do not know; but we have the faith that it expresses itself in the human world as the power which inspires in men moral purpose.” At 95.
“Thus the ‘God’ that we love is not the figure on the great white throne, but the perfect pattern, envisioned by faith, of humanity as it should be, purged of the evil elements which retard its progress toward 'the knowledge, love and practice of the right.’ ” At 98.
These are but a few of the views that comprise the broad spectrum of religious beliefs found among us. But they demonstrate very clearly the diverse manners in which beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their possessors, may be articulated. They further reveal the difficulties inherent in placing too narrow a construction on the provisions of § 6 (j) and thereby lend conclusive support to the construction which we today find that Congress intended.
5. We recognize the difficulties that have always faced the trier of fact in these cases. We hope that the test that we lay down proves less onerous. The examiner is furnished a standard that permits consideration of criteria with which he has had considerable experience. While the applicant’s words may differ, the test is simple of application. It is essentially an objective one, namely, does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?
Moreover, it must be remembered that in resolving these exemption problems one deals with the beliefs of different individuals who will articulate them in a multitude of ways. In such an intensely personal area, of course, the claim of the registrant that his belief is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight. Recognition of this was implicit in this language, cited by the Berman court from State v. Amana Society, 132 Iowa 304, 109 N. W. 894 (1906):
“Surely a scheme of life designed to ob
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We granted certiorari to review for a second time whether the Court of Appeals was correct when it concluded that the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program is consistent with the constitutional guaranty of equal protection. But upon full briefing and oral argument we find that the current posture of this case prevents review of that important question. To address it would require a threshold inquiry into issues decided by the Court of Appeals but not presented in the petition for certiorari. We therefore dismiss the writ of cer-tiorari as improvidently granted.
Six years ago in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200 (1995) (Adarand I), we held that strict scrutiny governs whether race-based classifications violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See id., at 235 (“Federal racial classifications, like those of a State, must serve a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest”). We remanded for a determination whether the race-based components of the DOT’s DBE program could survive this standard of review.
On remand, the District Court for the District of Colorado found that no such race-based component then in operation could so survive. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 965 F. Supp. 1556 (1997). The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s judgment, reasoning that petitioner’s cause of action had been mooted because the Colorado Department of Transportation had recently certified petitioner as a DBE. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 169 F. 3d 1292, 1296-1297 (CA10 1999). Finding it not at all clear that petitioner’s certification was valid under DOT regulations, we again granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for a determination on the merits consistent with Adarand I. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U. S. 216 (2000) (per curiam).
Following the submission of supplemental briefs addressing statutory and regulatory changes that had occurred since the District Court’s 1997 judgment favorable to petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. 228 F. 3d 1147 (CA10 2000). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the DOT’s DBE program was unconstitutional as it was administered in 1997. It further agreed that the automatic use of financial incentives to encourage the award of subcontracts to DBEs, as originally contemplated by the DOT’s Subcontractor Compensation Clause (SCC) program, was “unconstitutional under Ada-rand [7’s] strict standard of scrutiny.” Id., at 1187. The Secretary of Transportation never challenged these rulings and has since discontinued any and all use of the SCC program. Brief for Respondents 2,10,13,20, n. 3,23. See also 228 F. 3d, at 1194 (“The government maintains, and Adarand does not dispute, that the SCC, which spawned this litigation in 1989, is no longer in use”); Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (“[SCCs] ha[ve been] abandoned in all respects, [they] have not been justified, and the United States Government is not employing [them]”).
The Court of Appeals next turned its attention to new regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), § 1101(b)(1), 112 Stat. 113. See 49 CFR pt. 26 (1999). These regulations pertain almost exclusively to use of federal funds for highway projects let by States and localities, which the Court of Appeals found to be the only “relevant” aspect of the DBE program under review. 228 F. 3d, at 1160. The Court of Appeals further noted that petitioner either lacked standing or had waived its right to challenge any other race-conscious program. Ibid. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that, by virtue of the new regulatory framework under which the DOT’S state and local DBE program now operates, that program passed constitutional muster under Adarand I. 228 F. 3d, at 1176-1187.
We again granted certiorari to decide whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard announced in Adarand I. 532 U. S. 941 (2001). We anticipated that we would be able to review the same “relevant program” that was addressed by the Court of Appeals. But since certiorari was granted there has been a shift in the posture of the case that precludes such review.
Both parties agree that the Court of Appeals confined its opinion to the constitutionality of the DOT’S DBE program as it pertains to the use of federal funds for highway projects let by States and localities. See Brief for Petitioner 15-17; Brief for Respondents 19-23. It is clear from its opinion that the Court of Appeals considered no other programs; its strict scrutiny analysis relies almost exclusively on regulations designed to channel benefits, through States and localities, to firms owned by individuals who hold themselves out to be socially and economically disadvantaged. See 228 F. 3d, at 1176-1188. These regulations clearly permit the award of contracts based on race-conscious measures in jurisdictions where petitioner operates, and, as the Government concedes, provide petitioner with a potential basis for prospective relief, at least to the extent petitioner challenges them. Brief for Respondents 3.
It appeared at the certiorari stage that petitioner was indeed challenging these statutes and regulations. Nothing in the pétition for certiorari contested the Court of Appeals’ determination that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the statutes and regulations relating to any other race-conscious program. The petition for certiorari simply noted the Court of Appeals’ determination on this ground as a matter of fact, without further comment. Pet. for Cert. 4, nn. 2, 3.
Petitioner now asserts, however, that it is not challenging any part of DOT’S state and local procurement program. Instead, it claims to be challenging only the statutes and regulations that pertain to DOT’S direct procurement of highway construction on federal lands. Brief for Petitioner 12-17. But the statutes and regulations relating to direct procurement are quite different from the statutes and regulations reviewed by the Court of Appeals. In particular, while procurement by States and localities is governed by the regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation under TEA-21, direct federal procurement is governed by the Small Business Act, including §§ 8(d)(4) — (6), as added by §211 of Pub. L. 95-507, 92 Stat. 1768, and as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§637(d)(4)-(6) (1994 ed. and Supp. V), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 48 CFR pt. 19 (1998).
This shift in posture requires dismissal of the writ for two reasons. First, the Court of Appeals has not considered whether the various race-based programs applicable to direct federal contracting could satisfy strict scrutiny. See 228 F. 3d, at 1189, n. 35 (“There is no indication from any of the parties in their briefs or elsewhere that the particular requirements of paragraphs (4M6) of §8(d) are at issue in the instant lawsuit”) (citing 15 U. S. C. § § 687(d)(4) — (6) (1994 ed. and Supp. IV)); see also 228 F. 3d, at 1188-1189, n. 32 (“The parties have not addressed paragraph (4) of § 8(d) at all, and ... we do not address it in great detail”). The Government also has not addressed such programs in its brief on the merits. Brief for Respondents 38-50. Petitioner urges us to take on this task ourselves, and apply strict scrutiny in the first instance to a complex web of statutes and regulations without benefit of any lower court review. But in Adarand I, 515 U. S., at 238-239, we said that application of our strict scrutiny standard “should be addressed in the first instance by the lower courts.” We ordinarily “do not decide in the first instance issues not decided below.” National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Smith, 525 U. S. 459, 470 (1999). See also Glover v. United States, 531 U. S. 198, 205 (2001) (“In the ordinary course we do not decide questions neither raised nor resolved below”); Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 (1976) (per curiam) (same).
Second, to reach the merits of any challenge to statutes and regulations relating to direct federal procurement would require a threshold examination of whether petitioner has standing to challenge such statutes and regulations. Petitioner has sought to show that it does have such standing, but this showing was not made (and no argument was ever advanced) until three weeks before oral argument. It was made then in a reply brief submitted with a lodging of voluminous evidence that has never been presented to any lower court. Reply Brief for Petitioner 1-9. The Government has responded with a lodging of its own, contending that no race-conscious measures are used for direct procurement in any jurisdiction in which petitioner does business. Whatever the merits of these competing positions, the petition for ceniorari nowhere disputed the Court of Appeals’ explicit holding that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the very provisions petitioner now asks us to review. 228 F. 3d, at 1160 (“Nor are we presented with any indication that Ada-rand has standing to challenge paragraphs (4)-(6) of 15 U. S. C. § 637(d)”).
We are obliged to examine standing sua sponte where standing has erroneously been assumed below. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 95 (1998) (“‘[I]f the record discloses that the lower court was without jurisdiction this court will notice the defect, although the parties make no contention concerning it’ ”) (quoting United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435, 440 (1936)). But we do not examine standing sua sponte simply to reach an issue for which standing has been denied below — exactly what petitioner asks that we do here. See, e. g., Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U S. Philips Corp., 510 U. S. 27, 31-32 (1993) (per curiam) (discussing this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) and the “heavy presumption” against reaching threshold questions not presented in the petition for certio-rari (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
“Mindful that this is a court of final review and not first view,” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U. S. 367, 399 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), we thus decline to reach the merits of petitioner’s present challenge. Petitioner points out that this case presents questions of fundamental national importance calling for final resolution by this Court. But the importance of an issue should not distort the principles that control the exercise of our jurisdiction. To the contrary, “by adhering scrupulously to the customary limitations on our discretion regardless of the significance of the underlying issue, we promote respect ... for the Court’s adjudicatory process.” Adams v. Robertson, 520 U. S. 83, 92, n. 6 (1997) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also “ensure that we are not tempted to engage in ill-considered decisions of questions not presented in the petition.” Izumi Seimitsu, supra, at 34.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
We granted certiorari to review the following questions:
“1. Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination?
“2. Whether the United States Department of Transportation’s current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest?” 532 U. S. 968 (2001).
The Government states that a “Benchmark Study” completed by the Department of Commerce, see 64 Fed. Reg. 52806 (1999); 63 Fed. Reg. 35714 (1998), prohibits the use of race-conscious mechanisms for direct federal procurement of highway construction projects in any State other than Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma, in none of which does petitioner conduct operations. Brief for Respondents 8-10, 22. At oral argument, the Government stated its view that the §§ 8(d)(4) — (6) programs in their current form would not meet the constitutional requirement of “narrow tailoring” if used in jurisdictions where the Benchmark Study has found no disparity suggesting discrimination or its continuing effects. Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-30.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for consideration in light of Aguilar v. Texas, ante, p. 108.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons assigned in the dissenting opinion in Aguilar v. Texas.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is “permanently neglected.” N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§384 — b.4.(d), 384-b.7.(a) (McKinney Supp. 1981-1982) (Soc. Serv. Law). The New York Family Court Act § 622 (McKinney 1975 and Supp. 1981-1982) (Fam. Ct. Act) requires that only a “fair preponderance of the evidence” support that finding. Thus, in New York, the factual certainty required to extinguish the parent-child relationship is no greater than that necessary to award money damages in an ordinary civil action.
Today we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.
I
A
New York authorizes its officials to remove a child temporarily from his or her home if the child appears “neglected,” within the meaning of Art. 10 of the Family Court Act. See §§ 1012(f), 1021-1029. Once removed, a child under the age of 18 customarily is placed “in the care of an authorized agency,” Soc. Serv. Law §384-b.7.(a), usually a state institution or a foster home. At that point, “the state’s first obligation is to help the family with services to... reunite it....” §384-b.l.(a)(iii). But if convinced that “positive, nurturing parent-child relationships no longer exist,” §384-b.l.(b), the State may initiate “permanent neglect” proceedings to free the child for adoption.
The State bifurcates its permanent neglect proceeding into “fact-finding” and “dispositional” hearings. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 622, 623. At the factfinding stage, the State must prove that the child has been “permanently neglected,” as defined by Fam. Ct. Act § § 614.1. (a> — (d) and Soc. Serv. Law §384-b.7.(a). See Fam. Ct. Act §622. The Family Court judge then determines at a subsequent dispositional hearing what placement would serve the child’s best interests. §§623, 631.
At the factfinding hearing, the State must establish, among other things, that for more than a year after the child entered state custody, the agency “made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship.” Fam. Ct. Act §§ 614.1.(c), 611. The State must further prove that during that same period, the child's natural parents failed “substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so.” §614.1.(d). Should the State support its allegations by “a fair preponderance of the evidence,” §622, the child may be declared permanently neglected. §611. That declaration empowers the Family Court judge to terminate permanently the natural parents’ rights in the child. §§ 631(c), 634. Termination denies the natural parents physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of the child.
New York’s permanent neglect statute provides natural parents with certain procedural protections. But New York permits its officials to establish “permanent neglect” with less proof than most States require. Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands currently specify a higher standard of proof, in parental rights termination proceedings, than a “fair preponderance of the evidence.” The only analogous federal statute of which we are aware permits termination of parental rights solely upon “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-608, § 102(f), 92 Stat. 3072, 25 U. S. C. § 1912(f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The question here is whether New York’s “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard is constitutionally sufficient.
B
Petitioners John Santosky II and Annie Santosky are the natural parents of Tina and John III. In November 1973, after incidents reflecting parental neglect, respondent Kramer, Commissioner of the Ulster County Department of Social Services, initiated a neglect proceeding under Fam. Ct. Act § 1022 and removed Tina from her natural home. About 10 months later, he removed John III and placed him with foster parents. On the day John was taken, Annie Santosky gave birth to a third child, Jed. When Jed was only three days old, respondent transferred him to a foster home on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health.
In October 1978, respondent petitioned the Ulster County Family Court to terminate petitioners’ parental rights in the three children. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard specified in Fam. Ct. Act §622. The Family Court Judge rejected this constitutional challenge, App. 29-30, and weighed the evidence under the statutory standard. While acknowledging that the Santoskys had maintained contact with their children, the judge found those visits “at best superficial and devoid of any real emotional content.” Id., at 21. After deciding that the agency had made “ ‘diligent efforts’ to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship,” id., at 30, he concluded that the Santoskys were incapable, even with public assistance, of planning for the future of their children. Id., at 33-37. The judge later held a dispositional hearing and ruled that the best interests of the three children required permanent termination of the Santoskys’ custody. Id., at 39.
Petitioners appealed, again contesting the constitutionality of § 622’s standard of proof. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding application of the preponderance-of-the-evidencé standard “proper and constitutional.” In re JohnAA, 75 App. Div. 2d 910, 427 N. Y. S. 2d 319, 320 (1980). That standard, the court reasoned, “recognizes and seeks to balance rights possessed by the child... with those of the natural parents....” Ibid.
The New York Court of Appeals then dismissed petitioners’ appeal to that court “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.” App. 55. We granted certiorari to consider petitioners’ constitutional claim. 450 U. S. 993 (1981).
J — I > — I
Last Term, in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S. 18 (1981), this Court, by a 5-4 vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding. The case casts light, however, on the two central questions here— whether process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a State’s parental rights termination proceeding, and, if so, what process is due.
In Lassiter, it was “not disputed that state intervention to terminate the relationship between [a parent] and [the] child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the Due Process Clause.” Id., at 37 (first dissenting opinion); see id., at 24-32 (opinion of the Court); id., at 59-60 (Stevens, J., dissenting). See also Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 13 (1981). The absence of dispute reflected this Court’s historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 845 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality opinion); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639-640 (1974); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651-652 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
In Lassiter, the Court and three dissenters agreed that the nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of the “three distinct factors” specified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976): the private interests affected by the proceeding; the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. See 452 U. S., at 27-31; id., at 37-48 (first dissenting opinion). But see id., at 59-60 (Stevens, J., dissenting). While the respective Lassiter opinions disputed whether those factors should be weighed against a presumption disfavoring appointed counsel for one not threatened with loss of physical liberty, compare 452 U. S., at 31-32, with id., at 41, and n. 8 (first dissenting opinion), that concern is irrelevant here. Unlike the Court’s right-to-counsel rulings, its decisions concerning constitutional burdens of proof have not turned on any presumption favoring any particular standard. To the contrary, the Court has engaged in a straightforward consideration of the factors identified in Eldridge to determine whether a particular standard of proof in a particular proceeding satisfies due process.
In Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), the Court, by a unanimous vote of the participating Justices, declared: “The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’” Id., at 423, quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Addington teaches that, in any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the private and public interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants.
Thus, while private parties may be interested intensely in a civil dispute over money damages, application of a “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard indicates both society’s “minimal concern with the outcome,” and a conclusion that the litigants should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” 441 U. S., at 423. When the State brings a criminal action to deny a defendant liberty or life, however, “the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically and without any explicit constitutional requirement they have been protected by standards of proof designed to exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment.” Ibid. The stringency of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard bespeaks the “weight and gravity” of the private interest affected, id., at 427, society’s interest in avoiding erroneous convictions, and a judgment that those interests together require that “society impos[e] almost the entire risk of error upon itself.” Id., at 424. See also In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring).
The “minimum requirements [of procedural due process] being a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 491 (1980). See also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., ante, at 432. Moreover, the degree of proof required in a particular type of proceeding “is the kind of question which has traditionally been left to the judiciary to resolve.” Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 284 (1966). “In cases involving individual rights, whether criminal or civil, ‘[t]he standard of proof [at a minimum] reflects the value society places on individual liberty.'” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 425, quoting Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. dism’d sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 U. S. 355 (1972).
This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — “clear and convincing evidence” — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both “particularly important” and “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 424. Notwithstanding “the state’s ‘civil labels and good intentions,’” id., at 427, quoting In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 365-366, the Court has deemed this level of certainty necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with “a significant deprivation of liberty” or “stigma.” 441 U. S., at 425, 426. See, e. g., Addington v. Texas, supra (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S., at 285 (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization).
In Lassiter, to be sure, the Court held that fundamental fairness may be maintained in parental rights termination proceedings even when some procedures are mandated only on a case-by-case basis, rather than through rules of general application. 452 U. S., at 31-32 (natural parent’s right to court-appointed counsel should be determined by the trial court, subject to appellate review). But this Court never has approved case-by-case determination of the proper standard of proof for a given proceeding. Standards of proof, like other “procedural due process rules[,] are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases, not the rare exceptions.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 344 (emphasis added). Since the litigants and the factfinder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard.
Ill
In parental rights termination proceedings, the private interest affected is commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is comparatively slight. Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard in such proceedings is inconsistent with due process.
A
“The.extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be ‘condemned to suffer grievous loss.’” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 262-263 (1970), quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whether the loss threatened by a particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant more than average certainty on the part of the factfinder turns on both the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss.
Lassiter declared it “plain beyond the need for multiple citation” that a natural parent’s “desire for and right to ‘the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children’ ” is an interest far more precious than any property right. 452 U. S., at 27, quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S., at 651. When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it. “If the State prevails, it will have worked a unique kind of deprivation.... A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.” 452 U. S., at 27.
In government-initiated proceedings to determine juvenile delinquency, In re Winship, supra; civil commitment, Addington v. Texas, supra; deportation, Woodby v. INS, supra; and denaturalization, Chaunt v. United States, supra, and Schneiderman v. United States, supra, this Court has identified losses of individual liberty sufficiently serious to warrant imposition of an elevated burden of proof. Yet juvenile delinquency adjudications, civil commitment, deportation, and denaturalization, at least to a degree, are all reversible official actions. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. See n. 1, supra. Few forms of state action are both so severe and so irreversible.
Thus, the first Eldridge factor — the private interest affected — weighs heavily against use of the preponderance standard at a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding. We do not deny that the child and his foster parents are also deeply interested in the outcome of that contest. But at the factfinding stage of the New York proceeding, the focus emphatically is not on them.
The factfinding does not purport — and is not intended — to balance the child’s interest in a normal family home against the parents’ interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the natural parents or the foster parents would provide the better home. Rather, the fact-finding hearing pits the State directly against the parents. The State alleges that the natural parents are at fault. Fam. Ct. Act §614.1.(d). The questions disputed and decided are what the State did — “made diligent efforts,” § 614.1.(c) — and what the natural parents did not do — “maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child.” §614.1.(d). The State marshals an array of public resources to prove its case and disprove the parents’ case. Victory by the State not only makes termination of parental rights possible; it entails a judicial determination that the parents are unfit to raise their own children.
At the factfinding, the State cannot presume that a child and his parents are adversaries. After the State has established parental unfitness at that initial proceeding, the court may assume at the dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge. See Fam. Ct. Act § 631 (judge shall make his order “solely on the basis of the best interests of the child,” and thus has no obligation to consider the natural parents’ rights in selecting dispositional alternatives). But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship. Thus, at the factfinding, the interests of the child and his natural parents coincide to favor use of error-reducing procedures.
However substantial the foster parents’ interests may be, cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S., at 845-847, they are not implicated directly in the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding against the natural parents. If authorized, the foster parents may pit their interests directly against those of the natural parents by initiating their own permanent neglect proceeding. Fam. Ct. Act § 1055(d); Soc. Serv. Law §§384-6.3(b), 392.7.(c). Alternatively, the foster parents can make their case for custody at the dispositional stage of a state-initiated proceeding, where the judge already has decided the issue of permanent neglect and is focusing on the placement that would serve the child’s best interests. Fam. Ct. Act §§623, 631. For the foster parents, the State’s failure to prove permanent neglect may prolong the delay and uncertainty until their foster child is freed for adoption. But for the natural parents, a finding of permanent neglect can cut off forever their rights in their child. Given this disparity of consequence, we have no difficulty finding that the balance of private interests strongly favors heightened procedural protections.
B
Under Mathews v. Eldridge, we next must consider both the risk of erroneous deprivation of private interests resulting from use of a “fair preponderance” standard and the likelihood that a higher evidentiary standard would reduce that risk. See 424 U. S., at 335. Since the factfinding phase of a permanent neglect proceeding is an adversary contest between the State and the natural parents, the relevant question is whether a preponderance standard fairly allocates the risk of an erroneous factfinding between these two parties.
In New York, the factfinding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding bears many of the indicia of a criminal trial. Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S., at 42-44 (first dissenting opinion); Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 402 U. S. 954, 959 (1971) (Black, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). See also dissenting opinion, post, at 777-779 (describing procedures employed at factfinding proceeding). The Commissioner of Social Services charges the parents with permanent neglect. They are served by summons. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 614, 616, 617. The factfinding hearing is conducted pursuant to formal rules of evidence. § 624. The State, the parents, and the child are all represented by counsel. §§ 249, 262. The State seeks to establish a series of historical facts about the intensity of its agency’s efforts to reunite the family, the infrequency and in-substantiality of the parents’ contacts with their child, and the parents’ inability or unwillingness to formulate a plan for the child’s future. The attorneys submit documentary evidence, and call witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. Based on all the evidence, the judge then determines whether the State has proved the statutory elements of permanent neglect by a fair preponderance of the evidence. §622.
At such a proceeding, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Permanent neglect proceedings employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 481 U. S., at 835, n. 36. In appraising the nature and quality of a complex series of encounters among the agency, the parents, and the child, the court possesses unusual discretion to underweigh probative facts that might favor the parent. Because parents subject to termination proceedings are often poor, uneducated, or members of minority groups, id., at 833-835, such proceedings are often vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias.
The State’s ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents’ ability to mount a defense. No predetermined limits restrict the sums an agency may spend in prosecuting a given termination proceeding. The State’s attorney usually will be expert on the issues contested and the procedures employed at the factfinding hearing, and enjoys full access to all public records concerning the family. The State may call on experts in family relations, psychology, and medicine to bolster its case. Furthermore, the primary witnesses at the hearing will be the agency’s own professional caseworkers whom the State has empowered both to investigate the family situation and to testify against the parents. Indeed, because the child is already in agency custody, the State even has the power to shape the historical events that form the basis for termination.
The disparity between the adversaries’ litigation resources is matched by a striking asymmetry in their litigation options. Unlike criminal defendants, natural parents have no “double jeopardy” defense against repeated state termination efforts. If the State initially fails to win termination, as New York did here, see n. 4, supra, it always can try once again to cut off the parents’ rights after gathering more or better evidence. Yet even when the parents have attained the level of fitness required by the State, they have no similar means by which they can forestall future termination efforts.
Coupled with a “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination. A standard of proof that by its very terms demands consideration of the quantity, rather than the quality, of the evidence may misdirect the factfinder in the marginal case. See In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 371, n. 3 (Harlan, J., concurring). Given the weight of the private interests at stake, the social cost of even occasional error is sizable.
Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 426. The Court has long considered the heightened standard of proof used in criminal prosecutions to be “a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error.” In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 363. An elevated standard of proof in a parental rights termination proceeding would alleviate “the possible risk that a factfinder might decide to [deprive] an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct [or]... idiosyncratic behavior.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 427. “Increasing the burden of proof is one way to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby perhaps to reduce the chances that inappropriate” terminations will be ordered. Ibid.
The Appellate Division approved New York’s preponderance standard on the ground that it properly “balanced rights possessed by the child... with those of the natural parents....” 75 App. Div. 2d, at 910, 427 N. Y. S. 2d, at 320. By so saying, the court suggested that a preponderance standard properly allocates the risk of error between the parents and the child. That view is fundamentally mistaken.
The court’s theory assumes that termination of the natural parents’ rights invariably will benefit the child. Yet we have noted above that the parents and the child share an interest in avoiding erroneous termination. Even accepting the court’s assumption, we cannot agree with its conclusion that a preponderance standard fairly distributes the risk of error between parent and child. Use of that standard reflects the judgment that society is nearly neutral between erroneous termination of parental rights and erroneous failure to terminate those rights. Cf. In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 371 (Harlan, J., concurring). For the child, the likely consequence of an erroneous failure to terminate is preservation of an uneasy status quo. For the natural parents, however, the consequence of an erroneous termination is the unnecessary destruction of their natural family. A standard that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between those two outcomes does not reflect properly their relative severity.
C
Two state interests are at stake in parental rights termination proceedings — a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings.. A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with both interests.
“Since the State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child, it shares the parent’s interest in an accurate and just decision” at the factfinding proceeding. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S., at 27. As parens patriae, the State’s goal is to provide the child with a permanent home. See Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b. l.(a)(i) (statement of legislative findings and intent). Yet while there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds. § 384 — b. l.(a)(ii). “[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S., at 652.
The State’s interest in finding the child an alternative permanent home arises only “when it is clear that the natural parent cannot or will not provide a normal family home for the child.” Soc. Serv. Law §384-b.l.(a)(iv) (emphasis added). At the factfinding, that goal is served by procedures that promote an accurate determination of whether the natural parents can and will provide a normal home.
Unlike a constitutional requirement of hearings, see, e. g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 347, or court-appointed counsel, a stricter standard of proof would reduce factual error without imposing substantial fiscal burdens upon the State. As we have observed, 35 States already have adopted a higher standard by statute or court decision without apparent effect on the speed, form, or cost of their factfinding proceedings. See n. 3, supra.
Nor would an elevated standard of proof create any real administrative burdens for the State’s factfinders. New York Family Court judges already are familiar with a higher evidentiary standard in other parental rights termination proceedings not involving permanent neglect. See Soc. Serv. Law §§384-b.3.(g), 384-b.4.(c), and 384-b.4.(e) (requiring “clear and convincing proof” before parental rights may be terminated for reasons of mental illness and mental retardation or severe and repeated child abuse). New York also demands at least clear and convincing evidence in proceedings of far less moment than parental rights termination proceedings. See, e. g., N. Y. Veh. & Traf. Law §227.1 (McKinney Supp. 1981) (requiring the State to prove traffic infractions by “clear and convincing evidence”) and In re Rosenthal v. Hartnett, 36 N. Y. 2d 269, 326 N. E. 2d 811 (1975); see also Ross v. Food Specialties, Inc., 6 N. Y. 2d 336, 341, 160 N. E. 2d 618, 620 (1959) (requiring “clear, positive and convincing evidence” for contract reformation). We cannot believe that it would burden the State unduly to require that its factfinders have the same factual certainty when terminating the parent-child relationship as they must have to suspend a driver’s license.
IV
The logical conclusion of this balancing process is that the “fair preponderance of the evidence” standard prescribed by Fam. Ct. Act § 622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted in Addington: “The individual should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual is significantly greater than any possible harm to the state.” 441 U. S., at 427. Thus, at a parental rights termination proceeding, a near-equal allocation of risk between the parents and the State is constitutionally intolerable. The next question, then, is whether a “beyond a reasonable doubt” or a “clear and convincing” standard is constitutionally mandated.
In Addington, the Court concluded that application of a reasonable-doubt standard is inappropriate in civil commitment proceedings for two reasons — because of our hesitation to apply that unique standard “too broadly or casually in noncriminal cases,” id., at 428, and because the psychiatric evidence ordinarily adduced at commitment proceedings is rarely susceptible to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 429-430, 4324433. To be sure, as has been noted above, in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-608, § 102(f), 92 Stat. 3072, 25 U. S. C. § 1912(f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV), Congress requires “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” for termination of Indian parental rights, reasoning that “the removal of a child from the parents is a penalty as great [as], if not greater, than a criminal penalty....” H. R. Rep. No. 95-1386, p. 22 (1978). Congress did not consider, however, the evidentiary problems that would arise if proof beyond a reasonable doubt were required in all state-initiated parental rights termination hearings.
Like civil commitment hearings, termination proceedings often require the factfinder to evaluate medical and psychiatric testimony, and to decide issues difficult to prove to a level of absolute certainty, such as lack of parental motive, absence of affection between parent and child, and failure of parental foresight and progress. Cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U. S., at 30; id., at 44-46 (first dissenting opinion) (describing issues raised in state termination proceedings). The substantive standards applied vary from State to State. Although Congress found a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard proper in one type of parental rights termination case, another legislative body might well conclude that a reasonable-doubt standard would erect an unreasonable barrier to state efforts to free permanently neglected children for adoption.
A majority of the States have concluded that a “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof strikes a fair balance between the rights of the natural parents and the State’s legitimate concerns. See n. 3, supra. We hold that such a standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. We further hold that determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 433.
We, of course, express no view on the merits of petitioners’ claims. At a hearing conducted under a constitutionally proper standard, they may or may not prevail. Without deciding the outcome under any of the standards we have approved, we vacate the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
At oral argument, counsel for petitioners asserted that, in New York, natural parents have no means of restoring terminated parental rights. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. Counsel for respondents, citing Fam. Ct. Act § 1061, answered that parents may petition the Family Court to vacate or set aside an earlier order
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of We the People for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The motion of James W. Jeffords, et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.
Appellant challenges the operation of certain provisions of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 2 U. S. C. §§ 351-361, and of the 1975 Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, 2 U. S. C. § 31 (1970 ed., Supp. V), relating to increases in salaries paid members of Congress. He asserts that the operation of these Acts violates Art. I, § 1, and § 6, cl. 1 (the Ascertainment Clause), of the Constitution.
On April 4, 1977, Congress passed an amendment to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act. On April 12, the President signed that amendment into law. Pub. L. 95-19, 91 Stat. 45.
It appearing that the amendment to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act will alter materially the scope and perhaps the nature of appellant's suit, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in the light of the new legislation.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens would affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases raise an important question concerning what degree of protection, if any, the First Amendment provides to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication. That question is both novel and narrow. Despite the fact that federal law has prohibited such disclosures since 1934, this is the first time that we have confronted such an issue.
The suit at hand involves the repeated intentional disclosure of an illegally intercepted cellular telephone conversation about a public issue. The persons who made the disclosures did not participate in the interception, but they did know — or at least had reason to know — that the interception was unlawful. Accordingly, these eases present a conflict between interests of the highest order — on the one hand, the interest in the full and free dissemination of information concerning public issues, and, on the other hand, the interest in individual privacy and, more specifically, in fostering private speech. The Framers of the First Amendment surely did not foresee the advances in science that produced the conversation, the interception, or the conflict that gave rise to this action. It is therefore not surprising that Circuit judges, as well as the Members of this Court, have come to differing conclusions about the First Amendment’s application to this issue. Nevertheless, having considered the interests at stake, we are firmly convinced that the disclosures made by respondents in this suit are protected by the First Amendment.
I
During 1992 and most of 1993, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, a union representing the teachers at the Wyoming Valley West High School, engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the school board. Petitioner Kane, then the president of the local union, testified that the negotiations were “ ‘contentious’ ” and received “a lot of media attention.” App. 79, 92. In May 1993, petitioner Bartnicki, who was acting as the union’s “chief negotiator,” used the cellular phone in her car to call Kane and engage in a lengthy conversation about the status of the negotiations. An unidentified person intercepted and recorded that call.
In their conversation, Kane and Bartnicki discussed the timing of a proposed strike, id., at 41-45, difficulties created by public comment on the negotiations, id., at 46, and the need for a dramatic response to the board’s intransigence. At one point, Kane said: “ Tf they’re not gonna move for three percent, we’re gonna have to go to their, their homes.... To blow off their front porches, we’ll have to do some work on some of those guys. (PAUSES). Really, uh, really and truthfully because this is, you know, this is bad news. (UNDECIPHERABLE).”’ Ibid.
In the early fall of 1993, the parties accepted a nonbinding arbitration proposal that was generally favorable to the teachers. In connection with news reports about the settlement, respondent Vopper, a radio commentator who had been critical of the union in the past, played a tape of the intercepted conversation on his public affairs talk show. Another station also broadcast the tape, and local newspapers published its contents. After filing suit against Vopper and other representatives of the media, Bartnieki and Kane (hereinafter petitioners) learned through discovery that Vopper had obtained the tape from respondent Jack Yocum, the head of a local taxpayers’ organization that had opposed the union’s demands throughout the negotiations. Yocum, who was added as a defendant, testified that he had found the tape in his mailbox shortly after the interception and recognized the voices of Bartnieki and Kane. Yocum played the tape for some members of the school board, and later delivered the tape itself to Vopper.
II
In their amended complaint, petitioners alleged that their telephone conversation had been surreptitiously intercepted by an unknown person using an electronic device, that Yocum had obtained a tape of that conversation, and that he intentionally disclosed it to Vopper, as well as other individuals and media representatives. Thereafter, Vopper and other members of the media repeatedly published the contents of that conversation. The amended complaint alleged that each of the defendants "knew or had reason to know” that the recording of the private telephone conversation had been obtained by means of an illegal interception. Id., at 27. Relying on both federal and Pennsylvania statutory provisions, petitioners sought actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
After the parties completed their discovery, they filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Respondents contended that they had not violated the statute because (a) they had nothing to do with the interception, and (b) in any event, their actions were not unlawful since the conversation might have been intercepted inadvertently. Moreover, even if they had violated the statute by disclosing the intercepted conversation, respondents argued, those disclosures were protected by the First Amendment. The District Court rejected the first statutory argument because, under the plain statutory language, an individual violates the federal Act by intentionally disclosing the contents of an electronic communication when he or she “know[s] or ha[s] reason to know that the information was obtained” through an illegal interception. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-1687, pp. 53a-54a (emphasis deleted). Accordingly, actual involvement in the illegal interception is not necessary in order to establish a violation of that statute. With respect to the second statutory argument, the District Court agreed that petitioners had to prove that the interception in question was intentional, but concluded that the text of the interception raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to intent. That issue of fact was also the basis for the District Court’s denial of petitioners’ motion. Finally, the District Court rejected respondents’ First Amendment defense because the statutes were content-neutral laws of general applicability that contained “no indicia of prior restraint or the chilling of free speech.” Id., at 55a-56a.
Thereafter, the District Court granted a motion for an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b). It certified as controlling questions of law: “(1) whether the imposition of liability on the media Defendants under the [wiretapping statutes] solely for broadcasting the newsworthy tape on the Defendant [Vopper’s] radio news/public affairs program, when the tape was illegally intercepted and recorded by unknown persons who were not agents of [the] Defendants, violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether imposition of liability under the aforesaid [wiretapping] statutes on Defendant Jack Yocum solely for providing the anonymously intercepted and recorded tape to the media Defendants violates the First Amendment.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-1728, p. 76a. The Court of Appeals accepted the appeal, and the United States, also a petitioner, intervened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2403 in order to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute.
All three members of the panel agreed with petitioners and the Government that the federal and Pennsylvania wiretapping statutes are “content-neutral” and therefore subject to “intermediate scrutiny.” 200 F. 3d 109, 121 (CA3 1999). Applying that standard, the majority concluded that the statutes were invalid because they deterred significantly more speech than necessary to protect the privacy interests at stake. The court remanded the ease with instructions to enter summary judgment for respondents. In dissent, Senior Judge Poliak expressed the view that the prohibition against disclosures was necessary in order to remove the incentive for illegal interceptions and to preclude compounding the harm caused by such interceptions through wider dissemination. In so doing, he agreed with the majority opinion in a similar case decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Boehner v. McDermott, 191 F. 3d 463 (1999). See also Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F. 3d 158 (CA5 2000). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 530 U.S. 1260 (2000).
K=H HH í — I
As we pointed out in Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 45-49 (1967), sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) methods of eavesdropping on oral conversations and intercepting telephone calls have been practiced for decades, primarily by law enforcement authorities. In Berger, we held that New York’s broadly written statute authorizing the police to conduct wiretaps violated the Fourth Amendment. Largely in response to that decision, and to our holding in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), that the attachment of a listening and recording deviee to the outside of a telephone booth constituted a search, “Congress undertook to draft comprehensive legislation both authorizing the use of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance on specified conditions, and prohibiting its use otherwise. S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66 (1968).” Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41,78 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). The ultimate result of those efforts was Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 211, entitled Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance.
One of the stated purposes of that title was “to protect effectively the privacy of wire and oral communications.” Ibid. In addition to authorizing and regulating electronic surveillance for law enforcement purposes, Title III also regulated private conduct. One part of those regulations, §2511(1), defined five offenses punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both. Subsection (a) applied to any person who “willfully intercepts... any wire or oral communication.” Subsection (b) applied to the intentional use of devices designed to intercept oral conversations; subsection (d) applied to the use of the contents of illegally intercepted wire or oral communications; and subsection (e) prohibited the unauthorized disclosure of the contents of interceptions that were authorized for law enforcement purposes. Subsection (c), the original version of the provision most directly at issue in this suit, applied to any person who “willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subsection.” The oral communications protected by the Act were only those “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.” §2510(2).
As enacted in 1968, Title III did not apply to the monitoring of radio transmissions. In the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 1848, however, Congress enlarged the coverage of Title III to prohibit the interception of “electronic” as well as oral and wire communications. By reason of that amendment, as well as a 1994 amendment which applied to cordless telephone communications, 108 Stat. 4279, Title III now applies to the interception of conversations over both cellular and cordless phones. Although a lesser criminal penalty may apply to the interception of such transmissions, the same civil remedies are available whether the communication was “oral,” “wire,” or “electronic,” as defined by 18 U. S. C. § 2510 (1994 ed. and Supp. V).
IV
The constitutional question before us concerns the validity of the statutes as applied to the specific facts of these cases. Because of the procedural posture of these eases, it is appropriate to make certain important assumptions about those facts. We accept petitioners’ submission that the interception was intentional, and therefore unlawful, and that, at a minimum, respondents “had reason to know” that it was unlawful. Accordingly, the disclosure of the contents of the intercepted conversation by Yocum to school board members and to representatives of the media, as well as the subsequent disclosures by the media defendants to the public, violated the federal and state statutes. Under the provisions of the federal statute, as well as its Pennsylvania analogue, petitioners are thus entitled to recover damages from each of the respondents. The only question is whether the application of these statutes in such circumstances violates the First Amendment.
In answering that question, we accept respondents’ submission on three factual matters that serve to distinguish most of the eases that have arisen under §2511. First, respondents played no part in the illegal interception. Eather, they found out about the interception only after it occurred, and in fact never learned the identity of the person or persons who made the interception. Second, their access to the information on the tapes was obtained lawfully, even though the information itself was intercepted unlawfully by someone else. Cf. Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524, 536 (1989) (“Even assuming the Constitution permitted a State to proscribe receipt of information, Florida has not taken this step”). Third, the subject matter of the conversation was a matter of public concern. If the statements about the labor negotiations had been made in a public arena — during a bargaining session, for example — they would have been newsworthy. This would also be true if a third party had inadvertently overheard Bartnicki making the same statements to Kane when the two thought they were alone.
V
We agree with petitioners that §2511(l)(c), as well as its Pennsylvania analog, is in fact a content-neutral law of general applicability “Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task.... As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FGC, 512 U.S. 622, 642-643 (1994). In determining whether a regulation is content based or content neutral, we look to the purpose behind the regulation; typically, “[g]overnment regulation of expressive activity is content neutral so long as it is ‘justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.’ ” Ward v. Bock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989).
In this suit, the basic purpose of the statute at issue is to “protee[t] the privacy of wire[, electronic,] and oral communications.” S. Rep. No. 1097,90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66 (1968). The statute does not distinguish based on the content of the intercepted conversations, nor is it justified by reference to the content of those conversations. Rather, the communications at issue are singled out by virtue of the fact that they were illegally intercepted — by virtue of the source, rather than the subject matter.
On the other hand, the naked prohibition against disclosures is fairly characterized as a regulation of pure speech. Unlike the prohibition against the “use” of the contents of an illegal interception in §2511(l)(d), subsection (e) is not a regulation of conduct. It is true that the delivery of a tape recording might be regarded as conduct, but given that the purpose of such a delivery is to provide the recipient with the text of recorded statements, it is like the delivery of a handbill or a pamphlet, and as such, it is the kind of “speech” that the First Amendment protects. As the majority below put it, “[i]f the acts of ‘disclosing’ and ‘publishing’ information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does fall within that category, as distinct from the category of expressive conduct.” 200 F. 3d, at 120.
<1
As a general matter, “state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.” Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 448 U.S. 97, 102 (1979). More specifically, this Court has repeatedly held that “if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need... of the highest order.” Id., at 103; see also Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978).
Accordingly, in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (per curiam), the Court upheld the right of the press to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party. In so doing, that decision resolved a conflict between the basic rule against prior restraints on publication and the interest in preserving the secrecy of information that, if disclosed, might seriously impair the security of the Nation. In resolving that conflict, the attention of every Member of this Court was focused on the character of the stolen documents’ contents and the consequences of public disclosure. Although the undisputed fact that the newspaper intended to publish information obtained from stolen documents was noted in Justice Harlan’s dissent, id., at 754, neither the majority nor the dissenters placed any weight on that fact.
However, New York Times v. United States raised, but did not resolve, the question “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well.” Florida Star, 491 U.S., at 535, n. 8. The question here, however, is a narrower version of that still-open question. Simply put, the issue here is this: “Where the punished publisher of information has obtained the information in question in a manner lawful in itself but from a source who has obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the ensuing publication of that information based on the defect in a chain?” Boehner, 191F. 3d, at 484-485 (Sentelle, J., dissenting).
Our refusal to construe the issue presented more broadly is consistent with this Court’s repeated refusal to answer categorically whether truthful publication may ever be punished consistent with the First Amendment. Rather,
“[o]ur eases have carefully eschewed reaching this ultimate question, mindful that the future may bring scenarios which prudence counsels our not resolving antici-patorily.... We continue to believe that the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between [the] First Amendment and privacy rights counsel relying on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case.” Florida Star, 491 U.S., at 532-533.
See also Landmark Communications, 435 U.S., at 838. Accordingly, we consider whether, given the facts of these cases, the interests served by §2511(1)(c) can justify its restrictions on speech.
The Government identifies two interests served by the statute — first, the interest in removing an incentive for parties to intercept private conversations, and second, the interest in minimizing the harm to persons whose conversations have been illegally intercepted. We assume that those interests adequately justify the prohibition in §2511(l)(d) against the interceptor’s own use of information that he or she acquired by violating §2511(l)(a), but it by no means follows that punishing disclosures of lawfully obtained information of public interest by one not involved in the initial illegality is an acceptable means of serving those ends.
The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment on the person who engages in it. If the sanctions that presently attach to a violation of §2511(l)(a) do not provide sufficient deterrence, perhaps those sanctions should be made more severe. But it would be quite remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party. Although there are some rare occasions in whieh a law suppressing one party’s speech may be justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct by another, see, e. g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), this is not such a case.
With only a handful of exceptions, the violations of §2511(l)(a) that have been described in litigated eases have been motivated by either financial gain or domestic disputes. In virtually all of those cases, the identity of the person or persons intercepting the communication has been known. Moreover, petitioners cite no evidence that Congress viewed the prohibition against disclosures as a response to the difficulty of identifying persons making improper use of scanners and other surveillance devices and accordingly of deterring such conduct, and there is no empirical evidence, to support the assumption that the prohibition against disclosures reduces the number of illegal interceptions.
Although this suit demonstrates that there may be an occasional situation in which an anonymous scanner will risk criminal prosecution by passing on information without any expectation of financial reward or public praise, surely this is the exceptional ease. Moreover, there is no basis for assuming that imposing sanctions upon respondents will deter the unidentified scanner from continuing to engage in surreptitious interceptions. Unusual cases fall far short of a showing that there is a “need... of the highest order” for a rule supplementing the traditional means of deterring antisocial conduct. The justification for any such novel burden on expression must be “far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms.” United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454, 475 (1995). Accordingly, the Government’s first suggested justification for applying §2511(l)(e) to an otherwise innocent disclosure of public information is plainly insufficient.
The Government’s second argument, however, is considerably stronger. Privacy of communication is an important interest, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 559 (1985), and Title Ill’s restrictions are intended to protect that interest, thereby “encouraging the uninhibited exchange of ideas and information among private parties....” Brief for United States 27. Moreover, the fear of public disclosure of private conversations might well have a chilling effect on private speech.
“In a democratic society privacy of communication is essential if citizens are to think and act creatively and constructively. Fear or suspicion that one's speech is being monitored by a stranger, even without the reality of such activity, can have a seriously inhibiting effect upon the willingness to voice critical and constructive ideas.” President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 202 (1967).
Accordingly, it seems to us that there are important interests to be considered on both sides of the constitutional calculus. In considering that balance, we acknowledge that some intrusions on privacy are more offensive than others, and that the disclosure of the contents of a private conversation can be an even greater intrusion on privacy than the interception itself. As a result, there is a valid independent justification for prohibiting such disclosures by persons who lawfully obtained access to the contents of an illegally intercepted message, even if that prohibition does not play a significant role in preventing such interceptions from occurring in the first place.
We need not decide whether that interest is strong enough to justify the application of § 2511(c) to disclosures of trade secrets or domestic gossip or other information of purely private concern. Cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-388 (1967) (reserving the question whether truthful publication of private matters unrelated to public affairs can be constitutionally proscribed). In other words, the outcome of these eases does not turn on whether §2511(l)(e) may be enforced with respect to most violations of the statute without offending the First Amendment. The enforcement of that provision in these cases, however, implicates the core purposes of the First Amendment because it imposes sanctions on the publication of truthful information of public concern.
In these eases, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. As Warren and Brandéis stated in their classic law review article: “The right of privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.” The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 19S, 214 (1890). One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy.
“Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risof this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speeeh and of press. ‘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.’” Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S., at 388 (quoting Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940)).
Our opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), reviewed many of the decisions that settled the “general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” Id., at 269; see Both v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 (1941); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931). Those cases all relied on our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270; see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949); Be Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Roth, 354 U. S., at 484; Stromberg, 283 U.S., at 369; Bridges, 314 U.S., at 270. It was the overriding importance of that commitment that supported our holding that neither factual error nor defamatory content, nor a combination of the two, sufficed to remove the First Amendment shield from criticism of official conduct. Id., at 273; see also NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962); Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345 (1946); Bridges, 314 U.S., at 270.
We think it clear that parallel reasoning requires the conclusion that a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern. The months of negotiations over the proper level of compensation for teachers at the Wyoming Valley West High School were unquestionably a matter of publie concern, and respondents were clearly engaged in debate about that concern. That debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandéis’ classic opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S., at 372, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection.
The judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
See 48 Stat. 1069,1103.
Either actual damages or “statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000” may be recovered under 18 U.S. C. § 2520(c)(2); under the Pennsylvania Act, the amount is the greater of $100 a day or $1,000, but the plaintiff may also recover punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725(a) (2000).
Title 18 U. S. C. §2511(l)(c) provides that any person who “intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;... shall be punished....” The Pennsylvania Act contains a similar provision.
Title 18 U. S. C. §2511(l)(a) provides: “(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter [§§2510-2520 (1994 ed. and Supp. V)] any person who—
"(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;... shall he punished
In the Boehner ease, as in this suit, a conversation over a car cell phone was intercepted, but in that case the defendant knew both who was responsible for intercepting the conversation and how they had done it. 191 F. 3d, at 465. In the opinion of the majority, the defendant acted unlawfully in accepting the tape in order to provide it to the media. Id, at 476. Apparently because the couple responsible for the interception did not eavesdrop “for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” they were fined only $500. See Department of Justice Press Release, Apr. 23,1997. In another similar case involving a claim for damages under §2511(l)(c), Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F. 3d 158 (CA5 2000), the media defendant in fact participated in the interceptions at issue.
In particular, calls placed on cellular and cordless telephones can be intercepted more easily than those placed on traditional phones. See Shubert v. Metrophone, Inc., 898 F. 2d 401, 404-405 (CA31990). Although calls placed on cell and cordless phones can be easily intercepted, it is not clear how often intentional interceptions take place. From 1992 through 1997, less than 100 cases were prosecuted charging violations of 18 U. S. C. §2511. See Statement of James K. Kallstrom, Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Division of the FBI on February 5,1997 before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Committee on Commerce, U. S. House of Kepresentatives Regarding Cellular Privacy. However, information concerning techniques and devices for intercepting cell and cordless phone calls can he found in a number of publications, trade magazines, and sites on the Internet, see id., at 6, and at one set of congressional hearings in 1997, a scanner, purchased off the shelf and minimally modified, was used to intercept phone calls of Members of Congress.
See, e. g., Nix v. O’Malley, 160 F. 3d 343, 346 (CA6 1998); McKamey v. Roach, 55 F. 3d 1236, 1240 (CA6 1995).
In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1964); First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777 (1978).
“But while a content-based purpose may be sufficient in certain circumstances to show that a regulation is content based, it is not necessary to such a showing in all cases_Nor will the mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose be enough to save a law which, on its face, discriminates based on content.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642-643 (1994).
The Solicitor General has cataloged some of the eases that fall under subsection (d): “[I]t is unlawful for a company to use an illegally intercepted communication about a business rival in order to create a competing product; it is unlawful for an investor to use illegally intercepted communications in trading in securities; it is unlawful for a union to use an illegally intercepted communication about management (or vice versa) to prepare strategy for contract negotiations; it is unlawful for a supervisor to use information in an illegally recorded conversation to discipline a subordinate; and it is unlawful for a blackmailer to use an illegally intercepted communication for purposes of extortion. See, e. g., 1968 Senate Report 67 (corporate and labor-management uses); Fultz v. Gilliam, 942 F. 2d 396, 400 n. 4 (6th Cir. 1991) (extortion); Dorris v. Absher, 959 F. Supp. 813, 815-817 (M. D. Tenn. 1997) (workplace discipline), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 179 F. 3d 420 (6th Cir. 1999). The statute has also been held to bar the use of illegally intercepted communications for important and socially valuable purposes. See In re Grand Jury, 111 F. 3d 1066, 1077-1079 (3d Cir. 1997).” Brief for United States 24.
Put another way, what gave rise to statutory liability in this suit was the information communicated on the tapes. See Boehner v. McDermott, 191 F. 3d 463, 484 (CADC 1999) (Sentelle, J., dissenting) (“What... is being punished... here is not conduct dependent upon the nature or origin of the tapes; it is speech dependent upon the nature of the contents”).
That question was subsequently reserved in Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829, 837 (1978).
In eases relying on such a rationale, moreover, the speech at issue is considered of minimal value. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S., at 762 (“The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis’’).
The Government also points to two other areas of the law — namely, mail theft and stolen property — in which a ban on the receipt or possession of an item is used to deter some primary illegality. Brief for United States 14; see also post, at 550-551 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). Neither of those examples, though, involve prohibitions on speech. As such, they are not relevant to a First Amendment analysis.
The media respondents have included a list of 143 cases under §2511(1)(a) and 63 cases under §§2511(1)(c) and (d) — which must also involve violations of subsection (a) — in an appendix to their brief. The Reply Brief filed by the United States contains an appendix describing each of the cases in the latter group.
In only 5 of the 206 cases listed in the appendixes, see n. 14, supra, n. 17, infra, was the identity of the interceptor wholly unknown.
The legislative history of the 1968 Act indicates that Congress’ concern focused on private surveillance “in domestic relations and industrial espionage situations.” S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 225 (1968). Similarly, in connection with the enactment of the 1986 amendment, one Senator referred to the interest in protecting private communications from “a corporate spy, a police officer without probable cause, or just a plain snoop.” 131 Cong. Eee. 24366 (1985) (statement of Sen. Leahy).
The dissent argues that we have not given proper respect to “congressional findings” or to “‘Congress’ factual predictions.’” Post, at 550. But the relevant factual foundation is not to be found in the legislative
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains two provisions governing federal-court review of state-court factual findings. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2), a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim already adjudicated on the merits in state court unless that adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Under § 2254(e)(1), “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and the petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” In this case, petitioner, a capital defendant, challenges the key factual finding made by the Alabama state court that denied his application for postconviction relief: that his attorneys’ failure to pursue and present mitigating evidence of his borderline mental retardation was a strategic decision rather than a negligent omission. Petitioner argues that the state court’s finding was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2) and that, in denying his federal habeas petition, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erroneously conflated this standard with that of § 2254(e)(1), which petitioner contends is not applicable in cases, such as this one, not involving a separate federal habeas evidentiary hearing.
We granted certiorari to address the relationship between §§ 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1). We conclude, however, that the state court’s factual determination was reasonable even under petitioner’s reading of § 2254(d)(2), and therefore we need not address that provision’s relationship to § 2254(e)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that basis.
I
In 1993, petitioner Holly Wood broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend and shot her in the head and face as she lay in her bed. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Charged with capital murder during a first-degree burglary, Wood was represented at trial in Alabama state court by three court-appointed attorneys: Cary Dozier and Frank Ralph, both of whom had significant trial experience, and Kenneth Trotter, who had been admitted to the bar for five months at the time he was appointed. The jury convicted Wood at the guilt phase of trial and recommended a death sentence at the penalty phase by a vote of 10 to 2. After a separate sentencing hearing, the trial judge imposed the death penalty. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Wood’s conviction and sentence, Ex parte Wood, 715 So. 2d 812 (1996), as did the Alabama Supreme Court, Wood v. State, 715 So. 2d 819 (1998). This Court denied certiorari. Wood v. Alabama, 525 U. S. 1042 (1998).
Wood petitioned for state postconviction relief under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, arguing, among other things, that he was mentally retarded and not eligible for the death penalty, and that his trial counsel were ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), because they failed to investigate and present evidence of his mental deficiencies during the penalty phase of trial. App. to Pet. for Cert. 198a-202a, 207a-210a, 213a-216a, 220a-221a, 225a. The Rule 32 court held two evidentiary hearings and denied Wood’s claims. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for further consideration in light of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded. Wood v. State, 891 So. 2d 398 (2003).
On remand, the Rule 32 court conducted a third evidentiary hearing and . once again denied relief. As to Wood’s claim of mental retardation, the court found that, while the evidence suggested that he “probably does exhibit significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” he had failed to show “that he has significant or substantial deficits in his adaptive functioning.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 236a-237a.
The court also rejected Wood’s factually related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that Wood had failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was deficient or that any deficiency prejudiced his defense. Id., at 257a-275a. The court first made a factual finding that Wood’s counsel had made a strategic decision not to pursue evidence of his alleged mental retardation. The court observed that counsel had requested that a Dr. Karl Kirkland conduct a mental evaluation, had “thoroughly reviewed Dr. Kirkland’s report,” and had “determined that nothing in that report merited further investigation.” Id., at 264a, 271a. The court additionally found that counsel appeared to have made a strategic decision not to present to the jury the limited evidence of Wood’s mental deficiencies in their possession, because “calling Dr. Kirkland to testify was not in Wood’s best interest.” Id., at 271a-272a. The court concluded that these strategic decisions were reasonable and thus that counsel had not performed deficiently. Ibid. The court further concluded that there was “no reasonable probability” of a different outcome had the evidence developed in the Rule 32 hearings been presented to the jury or to the sentencing court. Id., at 273a. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, Wood v. State, 891 So. 2d 398, 411 (2004), and the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, App. 4.
Wood then filed a petition for federal habeas relief under §2254. The District Court rejected all of Wood’s claims save one: that counsel’s failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence of his mental deficiencies during the penalty phase constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. 465 P. Supp. 2d 1211, 1239-1245 (MD Ala. 2006). According to the court, there was “nothing in the record to even remotely support a finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to let the jury at the penalty stage know about Wood’s mental condition.” Id., at 1242. Ralph and Dozier, the court noted, had placed the inexperienced Trotter in charge of the penalty phase. At the Rule 32 hearing, Trotter testified that he had seen the references to Wood’s intellectual functioning in the Kirkland report but did not recall considering whether to pursue that issue. Trotter further testified that he had unsuccessfully attempted to subpoena Wood’s school records and that he did not recall speaking to any of Wood’s teachers. Trotter had also written to an attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center explaining that he was “‘stressed out over this case and [didn’t] have anyone with whom to discuss the case, including the other two attorneys.’” Id., at 1241. Shortly before the penalty phase began, Trotter told the judge that he would request further psychological evaluation before the judge’s sentencing hearing, even though the evaluation would come too late to be considered by the jury. Id., at 1241-1242. Based on this evidence, the District Court concluded that the state court’s finding “that a strategic decision was made not to investigate or introduce to the sentencing jury evidence of mental retardation [was] an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the clear and convincing evidence presented in the record.” Ibid.
Having rejected the state court’s factual determinations, the District Court held that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Wood, concluding that the state court’s holdings to the contrary constituted “an unreasonable application of federal law under Strickland.” Id., at 1245. The court granted the petition on this claim and ordered the State either to re-sentence Wood to fife without parole or to conduct a new sentencing hearing.
In a divided opinion, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief. 542 F. 3d 1281 (2008). The majority began by explaining the standard of review: “Section 2254(d) permits federal habeas relief only where the state courts’ decisions were (1) ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ or (2) ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’ ” Id., at 1285 (quoting §§ 2254(d)(1)-(2)). A “ ‘determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,’” the majority explained, and the petitioner “‘shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.’” Ibid, (quoting § 2254(e)(1)). “Thus,” the majority stated, the federal habeas court’s “ ‘review of findings of fact by the state court is even more deferential than under a clearly erroneous standard of review.’ ” Ibid.
The majority then held that the Alabama court’s rejection of Wood’s ineffeetive-assistance-of-counsel claim was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. With respect to the facts, the court concluded that the evidence presented in the Rule 32 hearings supported the state court’s findings that counsel made a strategic decision not to present mental health evidence during the penalty phase. “At a minimum,” the court noted, “Wood has not presented evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence, that counsel did not make such decisions.” Id., at 1304, n. 23. The court also agreed with the state court’s legal conclusion that counsel’s strategic decision was reasonable. According to the court, the silent record created a presumption that counsel exercised sound professional judgment, supported by ample reasons, not to present the information they had obtained. These reasons included unfavorable information in Dr. Kirkland’s report, such as details about Wood’s 19 earlier arrests and his previous attempt to murder another ex-girlfriend, as well as Dr. Kirkland’s conclusion that, notwithstanding Wood’s mental deficiencies, Wood had a high level of adaptive functioning. Id., at 1304-1306. The court added that the investigation preceding counsel’s decision was sufficient to permit them to make a reasoned decision, crediting the Rule 32 court’s findings that, inter alia, counsel not only employed an investigator who sought mitigation evidence from family members but also themselves met with family members and sought guidance from capital defense organizations. Id., at 1307-1308. The court also accepted as not “objectively unreasonable” the state court’s determination that Wood had failed to show prejudice from counsel’s failure to present evidence of his mental deficiencies. Id., at 1309, 1314.
The dissent, implicitly considering the factual question whether counsel made a strategic decision as part and parcel of the legal question whether any strategic decision was reasonable, concluded that “[n]o such strategic decisions could possibly have been made in this case because counsel had failed to adequately investigate the available mitigating evidence.” Id., at 1316 (opinion of Barkett, J.). According to the dissent, “the weight of the evidence in the record demonstrates that Trotter, an inexperienced and overwhelmed attorney,” unassisted by senior counsel, “realized too late”— only in time to present it to the sentencing judge, not to the penalty jury — “what any reasonably prepared attorney would have known: that evidence of Wood’s mental impairments could have served as mitigating evidence and deserved investigation so that it could properly be presented before sentencing.” Id., at 1320. The dissent also concluded that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome at the penalty phase had the evidence been presented, because the jury could have concluded that Wood was less culpable as a result of his diminished abilities. Id., at 1322-1325. The dissent therefore concluded that the state court’s application of Strickland to the facts of this case was unreasonable. 542 F. 3d, at 1326.
We granted certiorari to resolve two related questions raised by Wood’s petition. First, we granted review of a question that has divided the Courts of Appeals: whether, in order to satisfy § 2254(d)(2), a petitioner must establish only that the state-court factual determination on which the decision was based was “unreasonable,” or whether § 2254(e)(1) additionally requires a petitioner to rebut a presumption that the determination was correct with clear and convincing evidence. We also granted review of the question whether the state court reasonably determined that Wood’s counsel made a “strategic decision” not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies. 556 U. S. 1234 (2009). Wood’s petition raised two additional questions on which we declined to grant certiorari. Ibid. Neither of these asked us to review whether the state court’s resolution of Wood’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1) and Strickland.
II
A
Notwithstanding statements we have made about the relationship between §§ 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) in cases that did not squarely present the issue, see Brief for Petitioner 37-38; Brief for Respondents 28-29, we have explicitly left open the question whether § 2254(e)(1) applies in every case presenting a challenge under § 2254(d)(2), see Rice v. Collins, 546 U. S. 333, 339 (2006). The parties and their amici have offered a variety of ways to read the relationship between these two provisions. Although we granted certiorari to resolve the question of how §§ 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) fit together, we find once more that we need not reach this question, because our view of the reasonableness of the state court’s factual determination in this case does not turn on any interpretive difference regarding the relationship between these provisions. For present purposes, we assume for the sake of argument that the factual determination at issue should be reviewed, as Wood urges, only under § 2254(d)(2) and not under § 2254(e)(1). We conclude that, under § 2254(d)(2), the state court’s finding that Wood’s counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of Wood’s mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. We therefore do not need to decide whether that determination should be reviewed under the arguably more deferential standard set out in § 2254(e)(1).
As we have observed in related contexts, “[t]he term ‘unreasonable’ is no doubt difficult to define.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 410 (2000). It suffices to say, however, that a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance. Cf. id., at 411. In Rice, for example, in which we assumed, arguendo, that only § 2254(d)(2) and not § 2254(e)(1) applied, 546 U. S., at 339, we rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that a state-court factual determination was unreasonable. We noted that even if “[Reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree” about the finding in question, “on habeas review that does not suffice to supersede the trial court’s ... determination.” Id., at 341-342.
In this case, the evidence in the state-court record demonstrated that all of Wood’s counsel read the Kirkland report. App. 12,174,210,283. Trotter testified that Dozier told him that nothing in the report merited further investigation, a recollection that is supported by contemporaneous letters Trotter wrote to Dozier and Ralph noting that no independent psychological evaluations had been conducted because Dozier had said they would not be needed. Id., at 283, 343, 345. Trotter also told the sentencing judge that counsel did not intend to introduce the Kirkland report to the jury. Id., at 12. This evidence in the state-court record can fairly be read to support the Rule 32 court’s factual determination that counsel’s failure to pursue or present evidence of Wood’s mental deficiencies was not mere oversight or neglect but was instead the result of a deliberate decision to focus on other defenses.
Arguing that the state court’s factual determination to this effect was unreasonable, Wood calls our attention to Dozier’s testimony during the Rule 32 proceedings that evidence of Wood’s mental health problems would have been presented during the penalty phase if counsel had been aware of it, id., at 169; that Dozier did not recall whether he had decided not to present evidence based on the Kirkland report, id., at 168, 171; and that Dozier and Ralph had designated the inexperienced Trotter to be in charge of the penalty phase proceedings, id., at 270-271. Trotter, in turn, testified that he did not recall considering Wood’s mental deficiencies. Id., at 288. Wood also observes that the Kirkland report was prepared for the guilt phase, not the penalty phase, and a strategic decision not to use the Kirkland report in the former does not necessarily carry over into the latter. Id., at 324. Wood notes that his counsel sought to obtain additional evidence about his mental health to use in mitigation after reviewing the Kirkland report, but they failed to pursue it, in part out of a belief that the sentencing judge would not grant a continuance to permit them to investigate. Id., at 285, 343-346. Finally, Wood emphasizes that his counsel must have thought that evidence of his mental deficiencies was important because they presented it to the judge at the final sentencing hearing. Id., at 88.
Most of the evidence Wood highlights, however, speaks not to whether counsel made a strategic decision, but rather to whether counsel’s judgment was reasonable — a question we do not reach. See Part II-B, infra. As for any evidence that may plausibly be read as inconsistent with the finding that counsel made a strategic decision, we conclude that it does not suffice to demonstrate that the finding was unreasonable.
Reviewing all of the evidence, we agree with the State that even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that, after reviewing the Kirkland report, counsel made a strategic decision not to inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood’s mental deficiencies and not to present to the jury such information as counsel already possessed about these deficiencies. Cf. Rice, 546 U. S., at 341-342. For that reason, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court erred in holding to the contrary.
B
Wood also argues that the state-court decision involved an unreasonable application of Strickland under § 2254(d)(1) because counsel failed to make a reasonable investigation of Wood’s mental deficiencies before deciding not to pursue or present such evidence. Without a reasonable investigation, Wood contends, these decisions were an unreasonable exercise of professional judgment and constituted deficient performance under Strickland. We agree with the State, however, that this argument is not “fairly included” in the questions presented under this Court’s Rule 14.1(a). Whether the state court reasonably determined that there was a strategic decision under § 2254(d)(2) is a different question from whether the strategic decision itself was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment under Strickland or whether the application of Strickland was reasonable under § 2254(d)(1). Cf. Rice, 546 U. S., at 342 (“The question whether a state court errs in determining the facts is a different question from whether it errs in applying the law”). These latter two questions may be “related to the one petitione[r] presented, and perhaps complementary to the one petitione[r] presented,” but they are “not fairly included therein.” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is true that Wood’s petition discussed the Eleventh Circuit’s misapplication of § 2254(d)(1) and Strickland. Pet. for Cert. 22-27. But “the fact that [petitioner) discussed this issue in the text of [his] petition for certiorari does not bring it before us. Rule 14.1(a) requires that a subsidiary question be fairly included in the question presented for our review.” Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp., 510 U. S. 27, 31, n. 5 (1993) (per curiam). We therefore do not address Wood’s argument that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland in rejecting his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on the merits.
* * *
Because the resolution of this case does not turn on them, we leave for another day the questions of how and when § 2254(e)(1) applies in challenges to a state court’s factual determinations under § 2254(d)(2). We hold simply that, even under petitioner’s reading of § 2254(d)(2), the state court’s conclusion that Wood’s counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
It is so ordered.
See, e.g., 542 F. 3d 1281, 1285, 1304, n. 23 (CA11 2008) (ease below); Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F. 3d 992, 999-1000 (CA9) (where a habeas petitioner challenges state-court factual findings “based entirely on the state record,” the federal court reviews those findings for reasonableness only under § 2254(d)(2), but where a petitioner challenges such findings based in part on evidence that is extrinsic to the state-court record, 12254(e)(1) applies), cert, denied, 543 U. S. 1038 (2004); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F. 3d 210, 235 (CA3 2004) (“[Section] 2254(d)(2)’s reasonableness determination turns on a consideration of the totality of the ‘evidence presented in the state-court proceeding,’ while § 2254(e)(1) contemplates a challenge to the state court’s individual factual determinations, including a challenge based wholly or in part on evidence outside the state trial record”); Trussell v. Bowersox, 447 F. 3d 588, 591 (CA8) (federal habeas relief is available only “if the state court made 'an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,’ 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2), which requires clear and convincing evidence that the state court’s presumptively correct factual finding lacks evidentiary support”), cert, denied, 549 U. S. 1034 (2006); Ben-Yisrayl v. Buss, 540 F. 3d 542, 549 (CA7 2008) (12254(d)(2) can be satisfied by showing, under § 2254(e)(1), that a state-court decision “rests upon a determination of fact that lies against the clear weight of the evidence” because such a decision “is, by definition, a decision so inadequately supported by the record as to be arbitrary and therefore objectively unreasonable” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In Wood’s view, when a petitioner seeks relief based entirely on the state-court record, a federal court reviews the state court’s findings for reasonableness under § 2254(d)(2). Section 2254(e)(1) comes into play, according to Wood, only when a petitioner challenges individual state-court factual findings based in part on evidence that is extrinsic to the state-court record. Brief for Petitioner 38-39. According to respondents, § 2254(e)(1) applies to any challenge to a state court’s factual findings under § 2254(d)(2), including a challenge based solely on the state-court record. Brief for Respondents 35-37. Respondents’ amici offer still further variations, although they all agree with respondents that § 2254(e)(1) applies in some fashion in every habeas case reviewing state-court factual findings. Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 5, 10-14; Brief for State of Indiana et al. 2, 12-18.
The dissent suggests that counsel could not have made a strategic decision not to pursue evidence of Wood’s mental deficiencies because there could be no reasonable justification for doing so. Post, at 307-309 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Kennedy, J.). This interpretation conflates the question whether a decision was strategic with the question whether a strategic decision was reasonable. Cf. post, at 306, n. 1. Without expressing a view on the ultimate reasonableness of the decision not to pursue this evidence further, we note that the Eleventh Circuit majority observed that the state court could reasonably have determined that counsel had strategic grounds for their decision. In particular, evidence about Wood’s mental deficiencies may have led to rebuttal testimony about the capabilities he demonstrated through his extensive criminal history, an extraordinarily limited amount of which was actually admitted at the penalty phase of the trial. Counsel’s decision successfully thwarted the prosecutor’s efforts to admit evidence that Wood murdered his ex-girlfriend while on parole for an attempted murder of a different ex-girlfriend that was strikingly similar in execution to the subsequent successful murder. App. 23-24. Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit majority noted, evidence of Wood’s mental deficiencies also could have undercut the defense’s argument that he left school to support his family, suggesting instead that he left school because of educational difficulties. 542 F. 3d, at 1305-1306. Counsel’s decision about which avenues to investigate can therefore plausibly be described as strategic rather than necessarily being the product of “happenstance, inattention, or neglect,” post, at 307.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Minton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a veteran employed as authorization officer in the Regional Office of the Veterans’ Administration in New Orleans, was removed from his position. He appealed under § 14 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 (5 U. S. C. (Sppp. IV) § 863) to the Tenth Regional Office of the United States Civil Service Commission in New Orleans. The Regional Board found that his discharge was not warranted and recommended that he be reinstated to his position. The Veterans’ Administration appealed to the Board of Appeals and Review of the Civil Service Commission in Washington. The Commission reversed the Tenth Regional Board and so notified petitioner.
Petitioner then instituted this suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, naming as defendants Guerre, the Regional Manager of the Veterans’ Administration, who had first discharged him, and the United States Civil Service Commission. Guerre was served personally. Service on the Commission was sought through personal service on Weinstein, the United States District Attorney, and on Leach, the Regional Director of the Tenth United States Civil Service Region. Both Weinstein and Leach resided within the Eastern District of Louisiana. Service by r gistered mail was made in the District of Columbia up* i the Attorney General of the • United States and thé United States Civil Service Commission.
Petitioner prayed for a judgment of the District Court setting aside and annulling his discharge by Guerre and the action of the Civil Service Commission confirming Guerre’s action, and declaring that “plaintiff is entitled to an order from the United States Civil Service Commission directing . . . Guerre ... to restore plaintiff to his aforesaid position” with back pay. Respondents appeared and filed a motion to dismiss because of improper venue and lack of jurisdiction. After this motion was overruled, respondents filed an answer raising, among other things, the same issues. On motions of both parties for summary judgment, the court sustained that of respondents, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the persons of the Commissioners, who were not residents of the Eastern District of Louisiana and who were indispensable parties. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that there was no venue in the District Court, without prejudice to further proceedings by petitioner in the proper venue. 190 F. 2d 427. We granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 884.
We do not reach the merits in this proceeding. We are met at the threshold with a challenge by motion and answer as to the venue and jurisdiction of the District Court of Louisiana to entertain this action. These defenses as to law and fact were properly presented in this manner. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 12 (b).
If the Commission could be sued eo nomine, we would be confronted with the question of whether service as here, made would be sufficient to bring the Commission into court; but Congress has not constituted the Commission a body corporate or authorized it to be sued eo nomine.
It is suggested that such authorization is given by the Hatch Act. Not so. While § 118k (c) of 5 U. S. C. does provide that a state officer or employee found to have violated § 118k (b) may obtain review in the District Court . of the district in which he resides, this is not authorization for a new proceeding against the Civil Service Commission. It is authorization only for a transfer of the ease from the Commission to the District Court — -a continuation of the same proceeding before another tribunal. Review is instituted by petition and notice to the Commission, which is directed by the Act to file a transcript of the record in the case in the District Court. The court reviews the case on the old /record, with the right to hear further evidence. Even this limited review is not afforded federal employees found to have violated § 118 (i). Thus, by no stretch of the imagination can the limited review granted state employees by the Hatch Act be deemed an authorization by Congress for the present suit against the Commission. When Congress authorizes one of its agencies to be sued eo nomine, it does so in explicit language, or impliedly because the agency is the offspring of such a suable entity. See Keifer & Keifer v. R. F. C., 306 U. S. 381, 390.
Since the Civil Service Commission is not a corporate entity which Congress has authorized to be sued, a suit involving the action of the Commission generally must be brought against the individual Commissioners as members of the United States Civil Service Commission. No such suit was brought here, and no service, was had upon the individuals comprising the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, neither the individuals comprising the Civil Service Commission nor the Commission as a suable entity was before the District Court.
We do not have a question of venue as to defendants until we' have defendant's before the court. The only.defendant before the court was Guerre. The venue as to him was all right, but it is obvious no relief can be granted against him.
It is further suggested that judicial review is authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. Certainly there is no specific authorization in that Act for suit against the Commission as an entity. Still less is the Act to be deemed an implied waiver of all governmental immunity from suit. If the Commission’s action is reviewable under § 1009, it is reviewable only in a court of “competent jurisdiction.” Assuming, without deciding, that Commission action is reviewable by court action under § 1009, it must follow that review must be in that district where the Commissioners can be served. Since we have held that the Civil Service Commission is not an entity that may be sued anywhere it may be functioning but only the Commissioners may be sued where they can be served, § 1009 does not aid petitioner in an action brought in Louisiana. The courts of the District of Columbia are the only courts of “competent jurisdiction” to reach the members of the Civil Service Commission.
Since the members of the Civil Service Commission were never served, and could not be served, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and the Civil Service Commission is not a corporate entity, it follows that the only defendant before the court was Guerre, and, as we have pointed out, no relief could possibly be granted against him in these proceedings, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Black dissents.
53 Stat. 1147, as amended, 54 Stat. 767, § 12 (c), 5 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 118k (c).
Ҥ 1009. Judicial review of agency action.
“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 proceedings.
“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 ... in. any court of competent jurisdiction. . .
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An offender had been serving time in federal prison for multiple felonies when two of his convictions were declared invalid. As a result, he had served too much prison time and was at once set free, but a term of supervised release was yet to be served on the remaining convictions. The question becomes whether the excess prison time should be credited to the supervised release term, reducing its length. Bound by the text of the controlling statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3624(e), we hold that the supervised release term remains unaltered.
Respondent Roy Lee Johnson was convicted in 1990 on two counts of possession with an intent to distribute controlled substances, 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. § 841(a), on two counts of use of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, 18 U. S. C. § 924(c) (1994 ed. and Supp. IV), and on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, § 922(g). He received a sentence of 171 months’ imprisonment, consisting of three concurrent 51-month terms on the § 841(a) and § 922(g) counts, to be followed by two consecutive 60-month terms on the § 924(c) counts. In addition, the District Court imposed a mandatory 3-year term of supervised release for the drug possession offenses. See 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (1994 ed., Supp. III). The Court of Appeals, though otherwise affirming respondent’s convictions and sentence, concluded the District Court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment for the two § 924(c) firearm offenses. United States v. Johnson, 25 F. 3d 1335, 1337-1338 (CA6 1994) (en banc). On remand the District Court modified the prisoner’s sentence to a term of 111 months.
After our decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995), respondent filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. §2255 to vacate his § 924(e) convictions, and the Government did not oppose. On May 2, 1996, the District Court vacated those convictions, modifying respondent’s sentence to 51 months. He had already served more than that amount of time, so the District Court ordered his immediate release. His term of supervised release then went into effect. This dispute concerns its length.
In June 1996, respondent filed a motion requesting the District Court to reduce his supervised release term by 2.5 years, the extra time served on the vacated § 924(e) convictions. The District Court denied relief, explaining that pursuant to 18 U. S. C¡ § 3624(e) the supervised release commenced upon respondent’s actual release from incarceration, not before. Granting respondent credit, the court observed, would undermine Congress’ aim of using supervised release to assist convicted felons in their transitions to community life.
A divided Court of Appeals reversed. 154 F. 3d 569 (CA6 1998). The court accepted respondent’s argument that his term of supervised release commenced not on the day he left prison confines but earlier, when his' lawful term of imprisonment expired. Id., at 571. Awarding respondent credit for the extra time served, the court further concluded, would provide meaningful relief because supervised release, while serving rehabilitative purposes, is also “punitive in nature.” Ibid. Judge Gilman dissented, agreeing with the position of the District Court. Id., at 572-573.
The Courts of Appeals have reached differing conclusions on the question presented. Compare United States v. Blake, 88 F. 3d 824, 825 (CA9 1996) (supervised release commences on the date defendants “should have been released, rather than on the dates of their actual release”), with United States v. Jeanes, 150 F. 3d 483, 485 (CA5 1998) (supervised release cannot run during any period of imprisonment); United States v. Joseph, 109 F. 3d 34 (CA1 1997) (same); United States v. Douglas, 88 F. 3d 533, 534 (CA8 1996) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve the question, 527 U. S. 1062 (1999), and we now reverse.
Section 3583(a) of Title 18 authorizes, and in some instances mandates, sentencing courts to order supervised release terms following imprisonment. On the issue presented for review — whether a term of supervised release begins on the date of actual release from incarceration or on an earlier date due to a mistaken interpretation of federal law — the language of § 3624(e) controls. The statute provides in relevant part:
“A prisoner whose sentence includes a term of supervised release after imprisonment shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer who shall, during the term imposed, supervise the person released to the degree warranted by the conditions specified by the sentencing court. The term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment and runs concurrently with any Federal, State, or local term of probation or supervised release or parole for another offense to which the person is subject or becomes subject during the term of supervised release. A term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.”
The quoted language directs that a supervised release term does not commence until an individual “is released from imprisonment.” There can be little question about the meaning of the word “release” in the context of imprisonment. It means “[t]o loosen or destroy the force of; to remove the obligation or effect of; hence to alleviate or remove; . . . [t]o let loose again; to set free from restraint, confinement, or servitude; to set at liberty; to let go.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2103 (2d ed. 1949). As these definitions illustrate, the ordinary, commonsense meaning of release is to be freed from confinement. To say respondent was released while still imprisoned diminishes the concept the word intends to convey.
of § 3624(e) supports our construction. A term of supervised release comes “after imprisonment,” once the prisoner is “released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer.” Supervised release does not run while an individual remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The phrase “on the day the person is released,” in the second sentence of § 3624(e), suggests a strict temporal interpretation, not some fictitious or constructive earlier time. The statute does not say “on the day the person is released or on the earlier day when he should have been released.” Indeed, the third sentence admonishes that “supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned.”
statute does provide for concurrent running of supervised release in specific cases. After the operative phrase “released from imprisonment,” § 3624(e) requires the concurrent running of a term of supervised release with terms of probation, parole, or with other, separate terms of supervised release. The statute instructs that concurrency is permitted not for prison sentences but only for those other types of sentences given specific mention. The next sentence in the statute does address a prison term and does allow concurrent counting, but only for prison terms less than 30 days in length. When Congress provides exceptions in a statute, it does not follow that courts have authority to create others. The proper inference, and the one we adopt here, is that Congress considered the issue of exceptions and, in the end, limited the statute to the ones set forth. The 30-day exception finds no application in this case; each of respondent’s sentences, to which the term of supervised release attached, exceeded that amount of time. Finally, § 3583(e)(3) does not have a substantial bearing on the interpretive issue, for this directive addresses instances where conditions of supervised release have been violated, and the court orders a revocation.
Our conclusion finds further support in 18 U. S. C. § 3583(a), which authorizes the imposition of “a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” This provision, too, is inconsistent with respondent’s contention that confinement and supervised release can run at the same time. The statute’s direction is clear and precise. Release takes place on the day the prisoner in fact is freed from confinement.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that reduction of respondent’s supervised release term was a necessary implementa1 tion of § 3624(a), which provides that “[a] prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons on the date of the expiration of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment. . ..” All concede respondent’s term of imprisonment should have ended earlier than it did. It does not follow, however, that the term of supervised release commenced, as a matter of law, once he completed serving his lawful sentences. It is true the prison term and the release term are related, for the latter cannot begin until the former expires. Though interrelated, the terms are not interchangeable. The Court of Appeals was mistaken in holding otherwise, and the text of § 3624(e) cannot accommodate the rule the Court of Appeals derived. Supervised release has no statutory function until confinement. ends. Cf. United States v. Granderson, 511 U. S. 39, 50 (1994) (observing that 'Terms of supervised release . . . follow up prison terms”)- The rule of lenity does not alter the analysis. Absent ambiguity, the rule of lenity is not applicable to guide statutory interpretation. Cf. Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 410 (1991).
While the text of § 3624(e) resolves the case, we observe that our conclusion accords with the statute’s purpose and design. The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release. Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their transition to community life. Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration. See § 3553(a)(2)(D); United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §§5D1.3(c), (d), (e) (Nov. 1998); see also S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 124 (1983) (declaring that “the primary goal [of supervised release] is to ease the defendant’s transition into the community after the service of a long prison term for a particularly serious offense, or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and training programs after release”). Sentencing courts, in determining the conditions of a defendant’s supervised release, are required to consider, among other factors, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” “the need ... to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; ... to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and ... to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment.” 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a). In the instant case, the transition assistance ordered by the trial court required respondent, among other conditions, to avoid possessing or transporting firearms and to participate in a drug dependency treatment program. These conditions illustrate that supervised release, unlike incarceration, provides individuals with postconfinement assistance. Cf. Gozlon-Peretz, supra, at 407 (describing “[supervised release [a]s a unique method of postconfinement supervision invented by the Congress for a series of sentencing reforms”). The Court of Appeals erred in treating respondent’s time in prison as interchangeable with his term of supervised release.
There can be no doubt that equitable considerations of great weight exist when an individual is incarcerated beyond the proper expiration of his prison term. The statutory structure provides a means to address these concerns in large part. The trial court, as it sees fit, may modify an individual’s conditions of supervised release. § 3583(e)(2). Furthermore, the court may terminate an individual’s supervised release obligations “at any time after the expiration of one year ... if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” § 3583(e)(1). Respondent may invoke § 3583(e)(2) in pursuit of relief; and, having completed one year of supervised release, he may also seek relief under § 3583(e)(1).
The statute, by its own necessary operation, does not reduce the length of a supervised release term by reason of excess time served in prison. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In Burden v. Zant, 498 U. S. 433 (1991) (per curiam), we reversed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which had upheld denial of habeas relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflict of interest. The case is before us again on a petition seeking review of the decision rendered on remand, 975 F. 2d 771 (1992), in which the Court of Appeals once again rejected Burden’s claim that he had been deprived of the right to be represented by counsel free of conflict of interest.
In our earlier unanimous per curiam opinion, we held that the courts below had failed to accord the presumption of correctness apparently due a state-court determination bearing on the conflict claim (i. e., that Dixon, the key prosecution witness allegedly represented by Burden’s pretrial counsel, “ ‘was granted immunity from prosecution,’ ” 498 U. S., at 436). See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). We directed the Court of Appeals on remand to evaluate Burden’s conflict-of-interest claim “free from” the “erroneous failure to credit the state trial court’s finding .. . .” 498 U. S., at 438.
In the decision now before us, the Eleventh Circuit majority first held that there was no need for a federal habeas court to presume the correctness of the immunity finding, because it had not been “adequately developed” in the state trial court proceeding. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(3). The majority reasoned that the trial court’s conclusion, contained in an administrative report to the State Supreme Court, see Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(a) (1990), and not labeled a finding of fact or conclusion of láw, amounted to the trial judge’s mere personal “impression” on an issue not subject to significant dispute at trial. See 975 F. 2d, at 774-775. Declaring it “improper” to defer to the judge’s “comment,” id., at 775, the Court of Appeals explained that it would uphold its prior denial of relief on the basis of a District Court finding, said to be that “Dixon did not testify under a grant of transactional immunity or pursuant to a promise that the State would not prosecute him,” ibid. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Anderson maintained that the District Court’s order contained no such finding and that his colleagues had overlooked the record of evidence strongly supporting Burden’s contention that some sort of immunity deal had, in fact, been struck.
Reviewing the record, we are convinced that Judge Anderson was correct, that the decision of the Court of Appeals was grounded on manifest mistake, and that reversal is warranted on that basis alone. We therefore grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse and remand for the Eleventh Circuit, or subject to its further order the District Court, to determine whether Mr. Kondritzer’s representation created “an actual conflict of interest adversely affect[ing] [his] performance.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 350 (1980).
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, issued under § 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 54 Stat. 905, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2), authorizing the joint acquisition of a heretofore independent switching railroad at Portland, Oregon, by two of the four line-haul railroads serving that city. Spokane, P. & S. R. Co. and Union Pacific R. Co., 334 I. C. C. 419 (1969). The switching railroad, Peninsula Terminal Co., is of current interest to the carriers because it provides an entrance route to the Rivergate Industrial District, a modern industrial and port complex being developed by the appellant, Port of Portland.
The two railroads authorized to acquire Peninsula are the Union Pacific Railway Co. (UP) and the Great Northern Pacific & Burlington Lines, Inc. (Burlington Northern), through its subsidiary, the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co. (SP&S). The two other line-haul carriers now serving Portland — -the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co. (Milwaukee) and the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (SP)— sought to be included as joint purchasers of Peninsula under §§ 5 (2)(b), (c), and (d) of the Act, 49 U. S. C. §§5(2) (b), (c), and (d), and sought trackage rights linking their lines with Peninsula. This appeal arises out of the Commission’s denial — in disagreement with its hearing examiner’s recommendations- — of the petitions of Milwaukee and SP. Together with these two railroads, the Port of Portland and the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon appeal from the decision of the three-judge District Court affirming, without opinion, the Commission’s order. The United States joins the appellants in urging that the judgment below be reversed, while the Commission joins Burlington Northern and UP in urging affirmance. Probable, jurisdiction was noted. 401 U. S. 906 (1971).
The question whether the Commission applied the correct legal standards is presented against the background of a complex factual situation — though this is not unusual in the case of railway mergers and acquisitions — and we find it necessary to go into detail concerning the facts and the proceedings prior to the submission of the case here.
I
A. The Rivergate Area and Peninsula’s Relation to It
The developing Rivergate Industrial District occupies nearly 3,000 acres at the tip of the peninsula formed by the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.'Rivergate’s six miles of waterfront will provide docksites for direct deepwater access to the Pacific Ocean. The Port of Portland has expended more than five million dollars of public funds for planning, construction, and development, and it is estimated that ultimate pub-lie and private investment in industrial and port facilities at Rivergate will exceed 500 million dollars.
As conceived by its public developers, the Rivergate complex will be served by a domestic transportation network capable of providing efficient and economical service to and from points throughout the Nation. To achieve this goal, the Port’s consultants recommended construction by the Port of an internal rail loop that would connect with existing carriers at the southwestern and eastern corners of Rivergate, thus providing River-gate industries with direct access to all line-haul carriers serving Portland. At full development — estimated to be 15 years in the future — rail traffic generated by these industries is expected to reach between 500 and 600 cars per day, with a projected annual volume of five million tons of freight.
At present, eight industries occupy about one-tenth of the Rivergate area. Seven of these are located on the west, or Willamette River, side of Rivergate, and are served by tracks owned by the Port of Portland. Outside rail access to this part of Rivergate is provided by tracks extending from UP’s Barnes Yard (point 9 on the schematic map appended to this opinion) and connecting with the Port of Portland tracks. Over these éxternal tracks, jointly owned by UP and Burlington Northern, UP provides switching service to the line-haul carriers serving Portland. It is expected that this Barnes Yard route will remain the southwest entrance to Rivergate.
The one other Rivergate industry — the poleyard of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation (Point E on the map) — is located at the easternmost edge of Rivergate, on the Columbia River. Outside rail access is presently provided by Peninsula, which serves, in addition, 13 industries located just southeast of the Rivergate boundary. Peninsula, organized in 1918 to serve a packinghouse facility long since closed, has a main track extending for only 8,000 feet along the Columbia River. At its easternmost end is the North Portland interchange (point 7 on the map), where Peninsula connects with lines owned by Burlington Northern and UP. Since the lines of these two line-haul carriers do not connect directly with Rivergate in this area, access to the eastern end of the Rivergate District is, at present, solely over Peninsula tracks.
Whether Peninsula tracks will remain the sole access to the eastern end of Rivergate is by no means certain. Peninsula suffers from certain physical limitations — its tracks are laid upon sand, its clearances are- limited, and the main line is impeded by heavy curvature. Furthermore, the North Portland interchange tracks may have insufficient capacity for the expected Rivergate traffic. Accordingly, an alternate access route to the eastern end of Rivergate is under consideration, that is, a new spur leading directly to Rivergate from the Burlington Northern main north-south tracks.
B. The Proposed Purchase of Peninsula
All outstanding capital stock of Peninsula is owned by the United Stockyards Corporation. Stockyards R. Co. Control, 254 I. C. C. 207 (1943). United is not itself a carrier and has no interest in continuing to operate a railroad independent of its stockyard operation. It has been willing to sell Peninsula at the appraised value of its capital stock, and it has no preference as to the purchaser. On February 28, 1967, United entered into an agreement to sell Peninsula to SP&S and UP.
By joint application filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission on July 25, 1967, SP&S and UP sought approval, under § 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, of their contracted purchase of Peninsula from United Stockyards. The application pointed out that the acquisition would enable the applicants to provide rail service to the adjacent Rivergate area over the Peninsula tracks. Peninsula, however, would continue to operate as a separate carrier. No major changes in traffic or revenues were anticipated in the immediate future, though it was anticipated that “within the foreseeable future substantial new traffic and revenues” would be derived from the developing Rivergate area.
In response to the above application, Milwaukee and SP filed petitions seeking inclusion in the acquisition of Peninsula as joint and equal owners, pursuant to §§ 5 (2)(b), (c), and (d) of the Act; in addition, they sought the right to use tracks necessary to connect their own lines with Peninsula. The Commission’s action on these petitions is the subject of the present appeal. The competing contentions are closely related to the facts of the interconnections between the four line-haul carriers near Rivergate, and to these we now turn.
C. Carrier Interconnections and Switching Arrangements
(1) The North Portland Interchange
At the North Portland interchange (point 7 on the map), where Peninsula connects with Burlington Northern and UP, are four interchange tracks. Two of these are jointly owned by Burlington Northern and UP; the remaining two are owned half by Peninsula, and the other half jointly by Burlington Northern and UP. Only one of these four tracks — one of the two jointly owned by Burlington Northern and UP — connects directly to the Burlington Northern double main-line tracks, running to the north across the Columbia River. In addition, the interchange tracks connect to a single UP track, which extends south through a mile-long tunnel to the UP’s Albina Yard (point 6 on the map), a distance of 5.2 miles.
At the time of the hearing in this case, about 30 cars were handled daily at the North Portland interchange. About 61% of this traffic involved switching between the predecessors of Burlington Northern on the one hand and UP and its subsidiaries on the other. Only the remaining 39% involved switching cars designated to or from industries served by Peninsula. As the only two line-haul carriers connecting directly with Peninsula at North Portland, Burlington Northern and UP provide reciprocal switching to any other line-haul carrier whose cars are designated to or from industries served by Peninsula.
(2) The Southern Pacific Connection
Although SP is a line-haul carrier serving Portland, its tracks terminate in East Portland (point 5) and at the Hoyt Street Yard on the other side of the Willamette River (point 3). SP cars designated for industries served by Peninsula are generally switched to UP trains at the latter’s Albina Yard (point 6) and moved thence to the North Portland interchange, where they are switched by Peninsula itself to their ultimate destination. Alternatively, the cars may be switched to SP&S trains at the Hoyt Street Yard and moved to North Portland over the SP&S mainline. In either case, SP must pay a switching charge to Burlington Northern or to UP (whichever is the switching carrier), and then pay a “rate division” to Peninsula for its switching service. The Peninsula rate division is absorbed by any line-haul carrier subject to it and is thus not passed on to the shipper. The SP&S and UP switching charges may be absorbed by a line-haul carrier if a minimum line-haul revenue per car is exceeded, and SP has done so, except on certain low-rated noncompetitive traffic. SP shared in about 20% of Peninsula’s traffic in 1966, and in about 17% in 1967.
(3) Milwaukee’s Presence in Portland
Throughout the proceedings below, Milwaukee was not a line-haul carrier serving Portland. Its own tracks terminate at Longview, Washington, 46 miles north of Portland, and through arrangements with SP&S it shared in only one percent of Peninsula’s traffic in 1966 and 1967. However, a basic condition of the Commission’s approval of the merger of the Great Northern Railway Co., the Northern Pacific Railway Company, and their affiliates, including SP&S, was that Milwaukee be made an effectively competitive transcontinental carrier by being permitted to enter Portland over the lines of the new company, Burlington Northern. Condition 24(a) of the merger required that Burlington Northern
“shall grant to the Milwaukee, upon such fair and reasonable terms as the parties may agree or as determined by this Commission in the event of their inability to agree, trackage rights to operate freight trains over [Burlington Northern] lines between Longview Junction and Portland, including the right to serve on an equal basis all present and future industries at Portland and intermediate points and the use of [Burlington Northern] facilities at Portland necessary for the switching of traffic to other railroads and industries. [Burlington Northern] shall maintain Portland as an open gateway on a reciprocal basis with the Milwaukee to the same extent as with other connecting carriers... 331 I. C. C. 228, 357.
Pursuant to Condition 24(a), Milwaukee commenced service to Portland on March 22, 1971. Since that date, it has published rates reflecting single-line service to Portland industries, including those served by Peninsula, by absorbing the relevant switching charges. It has operated its own locomotives over Burlington Northern lines as far south as the Hoyt Street Yard on the western side of the Willamette River (point 3). If Milwaukee is not allowed to switch cars directly to Peninsula at the North Portland interchange, Milwaukee cars designated for industries on Peninsula will be switched to Burlington Northern trains at Vancouver, on the north side of the Columbia (point 8), at the Hoyt Street Yard (point 3), or at the Guild’s Lake Yard (point 2), and moved thence to Peninsula.
D. Milwaukee and Southern Pacific Pleadings Before the Commission
By petition filed August 23, 1967, Milwaukee sought inclusion in the proposed purchase of Peninsula by Burlington Northern (then SP&S) and UP. Section 5 (2) (d) of the Interstate Commerce Act authorizes the Commission to require such inclusion as a prerequisite to its approval of the purchase “upon a finding that such inclusion is consistent with the public interest.” After first setting out its impending access to Portland over SP&S lines because of the Northern Lines merger, Milwaukee alleged:
“The instant transaction, if approved by the Commission without inclusion of Milwaukee upon the terms stated below, would have the effect of foreclosing Milwaukee direct service to all the industries now or in the future to be located on the lines of Peninsula Terminal Company. With fifty per cent of Peninsula Terminal Company stock in the hands of Union Pacific Railroad Company, not a party to the contract referred to above, Milwaukee will not have any right similar to that sought by applicants herein... to operate over or obtain trackage rights in the lines of Peninsula Terminal Company. Industries on the lines of Peninsula Terminal Company will thus be denied the single-line service of Milwaukee to such points as [various western and midwestern rail centers served by Milwaukee], contrary to the public interest.” App. 165.
Accordingly, the Milwaukee sought equal inclusion with SP&S and UP in the purchase of Peninsula and, in addition, asked
“[t]hat Milwaukee be granted the right to acquire trackage rights over intervening connecting track-age jointly owned by applicants, from SP&S main line to Peninsula Terminal Company’s lines upon such reasonable terms and conditions, and for such considerations, as Milwaukee and applicants may negotiate, or, failing such negotiations, upon such terms and conditions and for such consideration as the Commission may find just and reasonable.” App. 166.
On December 29, 1967, SP&S and the UP filed replies, arguing, inter alia: (1) that even if Condition 24 (a) were implemented, Milwaukee would still not connect with Peninsula because of the intervening North Portland interchange tracks, jointly owned by SP&S, UP, and Peninsula, and trackage rights over these tracks could not be granted to the Milwaukee in this proceeding; and (2) that joint ownership of Peninsula with the Milwaukee could “lead to a cumbersome, confused and divided management with resulting policy stalemates and serious deterioration of service.”
Milwaukee thereupon filed a supplement to its petition for inclusion, stating that
“in light of the replies of applicants herein to the Milwaukee’s petition for inclusion, the Milwaukee alleges that the joint application herein is for the purpose of bottling up the Milwaukee at Portland and impair [sic] its ability to provide a competitive service to industries served or to be served by Peninsula Terminal Company contrary to the public interest and the plain intent of the Commission’s [report and order in the Northern Lines Merger Case].” App. 182.
Accordingly, the Milwaukee added to its earlier petition by requesting:
“That applicants be required to grant Milwaukee trackage rights over intervening trackage at North Portland connecting with the yards of Peninsula Terminal Company, both as a condition to participation in ownership of Peninsula Terminal Company and also under Section 3 (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act” App. 183. (Emphasis added.)
Whether intentionally or not, by requesting trackage rights under § 3 (5), the text of which appears in the margin, Milwaukee divorced the question of access to Peninsula from the question of inclusion in the ownership of Peninsula. Any trackage rights granted in connection with the petition for inclusion under § 5 (2) would be contingent upon SP&S’ and UP’s deciding to consummate the purchase; trackage rights granted under § 3 (5), however, would be independent of the purchase.
In the meantime, by an amended petition filed November 29, 1967, SP joined with the Milwaukee in seeking inclusion under § 5 (2) (d) as an equal owner of Peninsula. It further requested that UP
“be required to grant petitioner bridge trackage rights over [the Union Pacific] main line and terminal trackage between Peninsula Terminal Company and the Southern Pacific-Union Pacific track connection at East Portland, Ore.” App. 168.
In response to replies that trackage rights to East Portland could not be granted in a § 5 (2) proceeding, SP, unlike Milwaukee, initiated separate proceedings under §3(5) (Dec. 19, 1967). It sought orders requiring SP&S and UP to allow the “common use of Peninsula Terminal Company,” together with bridge trackage rights over UP lines to East Portland; additionally (or, presumably, alternatively), it sought the “common use of the terminal facilities of Union Pacific between Peninsula Terminal Company and... East Portland, Oregon.”
E. Proceedings Before the Hearing Examiner
The applications, petitions, and replies of the four line-haul carriers were referred to an examiner for hearing upon a consolidated record. The Port of Portland, the Portland Commission of Public Docks, the Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon, and Crown Zellerbach Corporation intervened in favor of Milwaukee and the SP. At the hearings in February and March of 1968, evidence was taken from five shippers in addition to Crown Zellerbach, as well as officers and consultants of the parties and intervenors.
On September 9, 1968, nearly a year after the Commission had approved the Northern Lines merger, the hearing examiner issued his report. In the § 5 (2) proceeding, he recommended approval of the purchase of Peninsula by Burlington Northern and UP, on condition (1) that SP be included as an equal owner and (2) that Milwaukee be included as an equal owner upon consummation of the Northern Lines merger and upon Milwaukee’s commencing operations into Portland. The examiner further recommended that if the purchase were consummated on the above conditions, SP and Milwaukee be granted
“the right of access... to Peninsula Terminal Company trackage over intervening North Portland interchange tracks, at North Portland, Oreg., presently owned individually or jointly by [Peninsula, SP&S and Northern Pacific, and UP], upon such terms and compensation for use of such intervening trackage mutually agreeable to the interested carriers, or in the event of failure to agree, as the Commission may fix as just and reasonable, to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (5)... App. 128-129.
The examiner found that this right of access “is practicable and would not substantially impair the ability of the owning carriers to handle their business.” App. 129.
In the separate § 3 (5) proceedings initiated by SP, the examiner ordered common use by SP of the tracks and facilities of UP for operation between the connection at East Portland and the tracks of Peninsula at North Portland, conditioned, again, upon compensation to be agreed upon by the parties or “just and reasonable” as fixed by the Commission.
In his discussion of the issues, the hearing examiner first announced that he would treat the entire area involved as “one transportation terminal entity.” On the subject of inclusion in the purchase of Peninsula, he announced:
“Existing disparity in charges and treatment of traffic within the Portland switching area is convincing evidence that the greatest economic advantage for equality of shippers and carriers can be accomplished best by equal access and ownership. The most economical and functionally modern transportation facilities are essential to development of Rivergate and the Port of Portland. Limitation of direct access there to two railroads barring on-line solicitation and the direct development interests of the other railroads serving the Portland area is contrary to an environment of unencumbered development and the establishment of a sound transportation system.... [D]irect access to all the carriers will enable shippers to deal directly with originating carriers providing on-line service to many points in areas not served by the two initial applicants. Shippers would benefit from elimination of switching charges assessed on non-competitive traffic where one of the applicants now acts as a switching carrier.” App. 120-121.
On the subject of the SP’s § 3 (5) applications, the examiner found that the evidence warranted a conclusion that common use by SP of UP trackage between the North Portland interchange and East Portland was “in the public interest, practicable, and would not substantially impair UP’s ability to handle its own business.” He noted the “almost incredible 30-hour average transit time required for car movements between Albina Yard and Peninsula, a round-trip distance of about 10.4 miles, including engine changes, car inspection, and car classification at Albina Yard.” With respect to the developing Rivergate complex, the examiner was convinced
“that access thereto by other line-haul carriers will create greater incentive for improvement of railroad facilities and for elimination of present unsatisfactory conditions in the involved area.” App. 124.
Nor did the examiner think that joint ownership and access by the four line-haul railroads in Peninsula and the proposed trackage rights to SP would curtail competition.
“To the contrary, shippers in the involved area would be afforded free direct access to all the line-haul carriers’ services. Among other things, it would place traffic movements between the Portland area, on the one hand, and, on the other, on-line points of carriers in California and States east thereof, on a more competitive basis with movements between those points over the lines of UP and [Burlington Northern].... Also, Milwaukee would become more competitive with UP and [Burlington Northern] and their connections in providing service to the north and east of Portland. The authorizations, generally, would result in improved competitive service and the fostering of sound transportation in the involved area.” App. 125.
Finally, the examiner did not grant SP’s apparent application, pursuant to § 3 (5), for trackage rights over Peninsula itself. He concluded his discussion with the words:
“In event the parties elect not to consummate the purchase [of Peninsula] recommended herein further petitions by these carriers requesting access to and operation over trackage of Peninsula pursuant to section 3 (5) of the Act may be filed. Jurisdiction will be retained for that purpose.” App. 127.
F. The Decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission
Burlington Northern and UP filed exceptions to the hearing examiner’s recommendations. They contended, inter alia, (1) that undue emphasis was placed on the future development of Rivergate, (2) that the hearing examiner erroneously held the Portland terminal area to constitute one terminal entity, (3) that the evidence does not support a four-way ownership of Peninsula, either from a general public or a shipper standpoint, (4) that Condition 24 (a) did not grant Milwaukee access to Peninsula, and (5) that neither use of the North Portland interchange tracks by Milwaukee and SP, nor common use by the SP of UP trackage between North Portland and East Portland, was in the public interest.
On June 6, 1969, Division 3 of the Interstate Commerce Commission issued its opinion. 334 I. C. C. 419. Though it approved the acquisition of Peninsula by SP&S and UP, it otherwise rejected the hearing examiner’s recommendations and. denied the petitions and applications filed by Milwaukee and SP. The following conditions were imposed upon the acquisition, “to protect the present routings and interchanges” of Peninsula:
“1. Under the control of SP&S and UP, Peninsula shall maintain and keep open all routes and channels of trade via existing junctions and gateways, unless and until otherwise authorized by the Commission;
“2. The present neutrality of handling inbound and outbound traffic to and from Peninsula by SP&S and UP shall be continued so as to permit equal opportunity for service to and from all lines reaching Peninsula through SP&S and UP without discrimination as to routing or movement of traffic, and without discrimination in the arrangements of schedules or otherwise;
“3. The present traffic and operating relationships existing between Peninsula, on the one hand, and, all lines reaching Peninsula through the lines of SP&S and UP, on the other, shall be continued insofar as such matters are within the control of SP&S and UP;
“4. Peninsula, SP&S and/or UP shall accept, handle, and deliver all cars inbound, loaded and empty, without discrimination in promptness or frequency of service irrespective of destination or route of movement;
“5. Peninsula, SP&S and/or UP shall not do anything to restrain or curtail the right of industries, now located on Peninsula, to route traffic over any and all existing routes and gateways;
“6. Peninsula, SP&S and/or UP shall refrain from closing any existing route or channel of trade with SP or Milwaukee on account of the [authorized purchase of Peninsula], unless and until authorized by this Commission;
“7. Consummation of [the authorized purchase of Peninsula] shall constitute assent by the corporate parents of SP&S, the members of their respective systems, and any carrier resulting from consummation of the Northern Lines case, to be bound by these conditions to the same extent that SP&S is bound by these conditions; and
“8. Any party or person having an interest in the subject matter may at any future time make application for such modification of the above-stated conditions, or any of them, as may be required in the public interest, and jurisdiction will be retained to reopen the proceeding on our own motion for the same purpose.” 334 I. C. C., at 436-437.
II
A. “Direct Access”
As a reading of Part I reveals, there seems to have been a certain amount of confusion below as to whether or not actual operation over the main tracks of Peninsula by any of the four line-haul carriers was at issue in this case. Early in the Commission’s discussion of the merits, for example, it said:
“[W]e find that since neither SP nor Milwaukee now connect with Peninsula, and have never connected with it in the past, their direct service to Peninsula’s industries over the objections of SP&S and UP would constitute a new operation and an invasion of the joint applicant’s territory.” 334 I. C. C., at 433 (emphasis added).
Laying aside the substantive policy involved in this statement, we do not see how the italicized words can refer to anything but physical operation over tracks wholly owned by Peninsula. Yet, as we have already seen supra, at 828-829, and n. 20, and 832 n. 21, the hearing examiner did not recommend the granting of such trackage rights to Milwaukee and SP; and neither of these two railroads filed exceptions to the hearing examiner’s report requesting such rights. As for Burlington Northern and UP, the third condition which the Commission imposed on their purchase of Peninsula (quoted supra, at 833) seems to acknowledge that Peninsula will continue to operate as a separate railroad, handling all the switching from industries located upon its lines to the North Portland interchange tracks.
This matter was not resolved before this Court. The briefs filed by the appellants and by the United States contain many references to “direct access” by the line-haul carriers to Peninsula and Rivergate, again strongly suggesting physical operation over Peninsula tracks. The Commission argues that physical operation on the part of Burlington Northern and UP is not at issue, because ownership alone — all that these two railroads seek — gives no right to operate over the tracks of the purchased railroad. Brief for Interstate Commerce Commission 23 n. 15; Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. Milwaukee denies that it ever sought “to switch cars to Peninsula industries with its own engines and crews,” Supplemental Brief for Appellant Milwaukee 34, but no similarly direct statement has been forthcoming from SP.
We have set forth but one of the confusions — factual and procedural — that plague this case. Such confusions might have been resolved before the case reached us had the three-judge court that initially reviewed these orders written an opinion.
B. The Petitions for Inclusion
(1) Condition 24 (a)
Milwaukee and the United States argued at length before this Court that Condition 24 (a) of the Northern Lines merger by itself requires that Milwaukee be included in the purchase of Peninsula. The Commission considered this point at the very start of its discussion of the merits and stated that Milwaukee’s petition for inclusion could not be viewed
“as part of the general realignment of western railroad competition resulting from the Commission’s approval of the Northern Lines merger. Condition No. 24... is applicable only to Northern Lines trackage and territory. The condition is silent with respect to trackage and territory in which other carriers, such as UP, have a joint interest and the effect of the condition upon such joint trackage and territory was not presented to, nor considered by, the Commission. Furthermore,... the purchase of Peninsula by the joint applicants was not within the contemplation of the Commission at the time condition No. 24 was imposed.... Accordingly, we consider the petition of Milwaukee under the same public interest criteria as the petition and applications of SP, rather than as a petition to carry out the provisions of condition No. 24.10” 334 I. C. C., at 432.
In its footnote 10, however, the Commission said:
“Upon completion of litigation in the Northern Lines case and consummation of that merger, Milwaukee may wish to seek relief from the Commission in that proceeding to determine the relationship of condition No. 24, if any, to Peninsula’s tracks which would at that time be partially owned by the Northern Lines.” Ibid.
This suggestion that the Commission might consider anew the effect of Condition 24 (a) upon jointly owned tracks leaves us in doubt whether at this point it has made a final determination on the applicability of the condition, or simply a determination that the question should be raised in a different proceeding. We do not find it necessary, however, to resolve this doubt and to rule upon the narrow question whether Condition 24 (a) alone requires that Milwaukee be included in the purchase of Peninsula. No one disputes that the condition had one clear meaning — that Milwaukee would be permitted to run its trains into Portland over Burlington Northern-SP&S tracks. The Commission took this as its starting point and went on to discuss the merits of both Milwaukee’s and SP’s petitions for inclusion. We find, for the reasons that will appear below, that the Commission took too narrow a view of the “public interest” and we are in disagreement with its § 5 (2) order.
(2) Evaluating the Public Interest
As an initial matter, the Commission limited its attention to Peninsula alone, rather than considering the “entire Portland area” as “one transportation terminal entity,” as the hearing examiner had. Appellants contend that this very first step was error, but we think it wiser to evaluate the Commission’s approach as a whole.
A fair summary of the Commission’s analysis appears in the last paragraph of its discussion of the petitions for inclusion. There it concludes:
“The adverse effect on SP&S and UP, and the shippers dependent upon them for service, of admitting SP and Milwaukee into ownership and control of Peninsula, would outweigh any advantage accruing to SP, Milwaukee, and the Rivergate industries of four-railroad ownership. We cannot find, therefore, that inclusion of SP and Milwaukee in the title proceeding would constitute a just and reasonable term, condition, or modification of the authority requested by the joint applicants.” 334 I. C. C., at 435.
In the preceding paragraphs, the Commission had summarized the evidence presented by the three shippers located in Rivergate that had supported SP’s petition and application; it concluded that this evidence failed to establish that benefits would accrue from four-railroad ownership of Peninsula. No mention was made of evidence that tended to establish that “shippers dependent upon” SP&S and UP would suffer from such ownership. It is apparent, therefore, that the dominant factor in the Commission’s analysis, outweighing any advantage accruing to SP and Milwaukee from four-railroad ownership, was the “adverse effect on SP&S and UP”; we must examine now the manner in which the Commission characterized this “adverse effect.”
First, the Commission said:
“[W]e find that since neither SP nor Milwaukee now connect with Peninsula, and have never connected with it in the past, their direct service to Peninsula’s industries over the objections of SP&S and UP would constitute a new operation and an invasion of the joint applicant^’] territory.” Id., at 433.
We have already observed that this passage suggests direct physical operation over the main track of Peninsula, a matter that appears not to be directly at issue in this case. But it may also refer to the trackage rights sought by Milwaukee and SP, as a condition to the purchase, which would permit them to connect directly with Peninsula, so the Commission’s further treatment of this point is relevant:
“In the past, the Commission has usually held that sound economic conditions in the transportation industry require that a railroad now serving a particular territory should normally be accorded the right to transport all traffic therein which it can handle adequately, efficiently, and economically, before a new operation should be authorized. This conclusion is applicable not only with respect to existing traffic but also with respect to potential traffic.... See Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. Acquisition, 295 I. C. C. 787, 802 [1958], and cases cited therein.” Ibid.
This passage appears to announce the principle that in considering petitions for inclusion in proposed purchases or mergers under § 5 (2), with accompanying trackage rights, the dominant policy is preservation of the market shares of the railroads already serving the location in question, so long as those railroads provide reasonably adequate switching service to other carriers in the area. Whatever doubts we might have, either as to the principle itself or its application to this case, are removed by the critical paragraph that immediately follows the sentences just quoted:
“As shown in the appendix, SP shared, through connections and use of joint rates and routes, in only about 20 percent of Peninsula’s traffic during 1966, and only about 17 percent during 1967. Milwaukee’s share, also via connections and joint rates and routes, amounted to only 1 percent during those years. Permitting SP and Milwaukee to acquire access to, and equal ownership of, Peninsula and therefore participate in its existing traffic on a direct haul basis will, of course, allow those two railroads to increase their share of Peninsula’s declining traffic (3,640 loaded cars handled in 1966 and 2,748 handled in 1967). These increased shares of SP and Milwaukee could only be at the expense of the joint applicants and the railway employees whose jobs would be eliminated by the direct service planned by SP and Milwaukee.” Ibid,
This discussion strikes us as initially misdirected because it ignores the prospective presence of Milwaukee in this area. In 1966 and 1967, Milwaukee trains were still running no closer to Portland than Longview, Washington, 46 miles away. All through the Commission proceedings, however, it was assumed by all concerned that pursuant to Condition 24 (a) of the Northern Lines merger, Milwaukee would soon be operating directly into Portland over Burlington Northern tracks, as it is today. Granted that Milwaukee had only 1 % of Peninsula’s traffic in 1966 and 1967, the Commission pointed to no evidence that the Milwaukee share would continue to be this small after affirmance of the Northern Lines merger.
The next difficulty with the Commission’s approach relates to the potential growth of Peninsula traffic. The raison d’etre of this litigation has been the possibility that Peninsula would become the northern access to River-gate. As we have already noted, this possibility may be remote, given the physical limitations of Peninsula’s present facilities. But the Commission nowhere states that the possibility is too speculative to be considered in this litigation. The paragraph we have just quoted, then, reads strangely indeed; for if Peninsula becomes the northern route into Rivergate, the estimates we have been given indicate that daily traffic over its line would increase from the 1967 rate of 30 cars per day to over 300 cars per day, assuming that a roughly equal number of cars go out over each of the northern and southern routes from Rivergate. Yet according to the principle announced by the Commission, the public interest requires that Burlington Northern’s and UP’s 80% share of this potentially enormous traffic be protected.
Such an approach seems to us to fly in the face of the well-settled principle that the Commission is obligated to consider the anticompetitive effects of any § 5 (2) transaction. McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U. S. 67, 83-87 (1944
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 was convicted in an Ohio state court of assault with intent to kill and of cutting with intent to kill, wound or maim the same person. He immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus which was denied on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy. He then attempted to appeal, but this was denied as out of time and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed this denial. He unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus twice more, the latest petition being to the Supreme Court of Ohio and alleging, among other matters, a denial of counsel at his trial and a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus was not a substitute for appeal and was not available to remedy the defects alleged by petitioner. Petitioner now seeks our writ of certiorari to review that ruling.
The petition for certiorari must be denied. The decision below and the several prior actions in the Ohio courts indicate that petitioner is without a state remedy to challenge his conviction upon the federal constitutional grounds asserted. In these circumstances, Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 208, is not applicable and a prisoner may, without first seeking certiorari here, file his application for habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court. 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Massey v. Moore, 348 U. S. 105; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519. Petitioner’s allegations, if true, would present serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment, and those allegations would therefore entitle him to a hearing. Massey v. Moore, supra; Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of §§ 6 and 7 of c. 157, 1972 Extraordinary Session Laws of the State of Washington, and this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, ante, p. 164.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree after a jury trial in a California court. He did not testify at the trial on the issue of guilt, though he did testify at the separate trial on the issue of penalty. The trial court instructed the jury on the issue of guilt, stating that a defendant has a constitutional right not to testify. But it told the jury:
“As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge, if he does not testify or if, though he does testify, he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable.”
It added, however, that no such inference could be drawn as to evidence respecting which he had no knowledge. It stated that failure of a defendant to deny or explain the evidence of which he had knowledge does not create a presumption of guilt nor by itself warrant an inference of guilt nor relieve the prosecution of any of its burden of proof.
Petitioner had been seen with the deceased the evening of her death, the evidence placing him with her in the alley where her body was found. The prosecutor made much of the failure of petitioner to testify:
“The defendant certainly knows whether Essie Mae had this beat up appearance at the time he left her apartment and went down the alley with her.
“What kind of a man is it that would want to have sex with a woman that beat up if she was beat up at the time he left?
“He would know that. He would know how she got down the alley. He would know how the blood got on the bottom of the concrete steps. He would know how long he was with her in that box. He would know how her wig got off. He would know whether he beat her or mistreated her. He would know whether he walked away from that place cool as a cucumber when he saw Mr. Villasenor because he was conscious of his own guilt and wanted to get away from that damaged or injured woman.
“These things he has not seen fit to take the stand and deny or explain.
“And in the whole world, if anybody would know, this defendant would know.
“Essie Mae is dead, she can’t tell you her side of the story. The defendant won’t.”
The death penalty was imposed and the California Supreme Court affirmed. 60 Cal. 2d 182, 383 P. 2d 432. The case is here on a writ of certiorari which we granted, 377 U. S. 989, to consider whether comment on the failure to testify violated the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment which we made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, decided after the Supreme Court of California had affirmed the present conviction.
If this were a federal trial, reversible error would have been committed. Wilson v. United States, 149 U. S. 60, so holds. It is said, however, that the Wilson decision rested not on the Fifth Amendment, but on an Act of Congress, now 18 U. S. C. § 3481. That indeed is the fact, as the opinion of the Court in the Wilson case states. And see Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 60, n. 6; Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287, 294. But that is the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry. The question remains whether, statute or not, the comment rule, approved by California, violates the Fifth Amendment.
We think it does. It is in substance a rule of evidence that allows the State the privilege of tendering to the jury for its consideration the failure of the accused to testify. No formal offer of proof is made as in other situations; but the prosecutor’s comment and the court’s acquiescence are the equivalent of an offer of evidence and its acceptance. The Court in the Wilson case stated:
. . the act was framed with a due regard also to those who might prefer to rely upon the presumption of innocence which the law gives to every one, and not wish to be witnesses. It is not every one who can safely venture on the witness stand though entirely innocent of the charge against him. Excessive timidity, nervousness when facing others and attempting to explain transactions of a suspicious character, and offences charged against him, will often confuse and embarrass him to such a degree as to increase rather than remove prejudices against him. It is not every one, however honest, who would, therefore, willingly be placed on the witness stand. The statute, in tenderness to the weakness of those who from the causes mentioned might refuse to ask to be a witness, particularly when they may have been in some degree compromised by their association with others, declares that the failure of the defendant in a criminal action to request to be a witness shall not create any presumption against him.” 149 U. S., p. 66.
If the words “Fifth Amendment” are substituted for “act” and for “statute,” the spirit of the Self-Incrimination Clause is reflected. For comment on the refusal to testify is a remnant of the “inquisitorial system of criminal justice,” Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55, which the Fifth Amendment outlaws. It is a penalty imposed by courts for exercising a constitutional privilege. It cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly. It is said, however, that the inference of guilt for failure to testify as to facts peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge is in any event natural and irresistible, and .that comment on the failure does not magnify that inference into a penalty for asserting a constitutional privilege. People v. Modesto, 62 Cal. 2d 436, 452-453, 398 P. 2d 753, 762-763. What the jury may infer, given no help from the court, is one thing. What it may infer when the court solemnizes the silence of the accused into evidence against him is quite another. That the inference of guilt is not always so natural or irresistible is brought out in the Modesto opinion itself:
“Defendant contends that the reason a defendant refuses to testify is that his prior convictions will be introduced in evidence to impeach him ([Cal.] Code Civ. Proc. § 2051) and not that he is unable to deny the accusations. It is true that the defendant might fear that his prior convictions will prejudice the jury, and therefore another possible inference can be drawn from his refusal to take the stand.” Id., p. 453, 398 P. 2d, p. 763.
We said in Malloy v. Hogan, supra, p. 11, that “the same standards must determine whether an accused’s silence in either a federal or state proceeding is justified.” We take that in its literal sense and hold that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government, and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
See Penal Code § 190.1, providing for separate trials on the two issues.
Article I, § 13, of the California Constitution provides in part:
“. . . 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.”
The California Supreme Court later held in People v. Modesto, 62 Cal. 2d 436, 398 P. 2d 753, that its ‘‘comment” rule squared with Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1. The overwhelming consensus of the States, however, is opposed to allowing comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. The legislatures or courts of 44 States have recognized that such comment is, in light of the privilege against self-incrimination, “an unwarrantable line of argument.” State v. Howard, 35 S. C. 197, 203, 14 S. E. 481, 483. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2272, n. 2 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961 and 1964 Supp.). Of the six States which permit comment, two, California and Ohio, give this permission by means of an explicit constitutional qualification of the privilege against self-incrimination. Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13; Ohio Const., Art. I, § 10. New Jersey permits comment, State v. Corby, 28 N. J. 106, 145 A. 2d 289; cf. State v. Garvin, 44 N. J. 268, 208 A. 2d 402; but its constitution contains no provision embodying the privilege against self-incrimination (see Laba v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 23 N. J. 364, 389, 129 A. 2d 273, 287; State v. White, 27 N. J. 158, 168-169, 142 A. 2d 65, 70). The absence of an express constitutional privilege against self-incrimination also puts Iowa among the six. See State v. Ferguson, 226 Iowa 361, 372-373, 283 N. W. 917, 923. Connecticut permits comment by the judge but not by the prosecutor. State v. Heno, 119 Conn. 29, 174 A. 181. New Mexico permits comment by the prosecutor but holds that the accused is then entitled to an instruction that “the jury shall indulge no presumption against the accused because of his failure to testify.” N. M. Stat. Ann. § 41-12-19; State v. Sandoval, 59 N. M. 85, 279 P. 2d 850.
Section 3481 reads as follows:
“In trial of all persons charged with the commission of offenses against the United States and in all proceedings in courts martial and courts of inquiry in any State, District, Possession or Territory, the person charged shall, at his own request, be a competent witness. His failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him.” June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 833.
The legislative history shows that 18 U. S. C. § 3481 was designed, inter alia, to bar counsel for the prosecution from commenting on the defendant’s refusal to testify. Mr. Frye of Maine, spokesman for the bill, said, “That is the law of Massachusetts, and we propose to adopt it as a law of the United States.” 7 Cong. Pee. 385. The reference was to Mass. Stat. 1866, c. 260, now Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., e. 233, §20, cl. Third (1959), which is almost identical with 18 U. S. C. § 3481. See also Commonwealth v. Harlow, 110 Mass. 411; Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass. 239; Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 620, 15 N. E. 2d 662.
Our decision today that the Fifth Amendment prohibits comment on the defendant’s silence is no innovation, for on a previous occasion a majority of this Court indicated their acceptance of this proposition. In Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, the question was, as here, whether the Fifth Amendment proscribed California’s comment practice. The four dissenters (Black, Douglas, Murphy and Rutledge, JJ.) would have answered this question in the affirmative. A fifth member of the Court, Justice Frankfurter, stated in a separate opinion: “For historical reasons a limited imniunity from the common duty to testify was written into the Federal Bill of Rights, and I am prepared to agree that, as part of that immunity, comment on the failure of an accused to take the witness stand is forbidden in federal prosecutions.” Id., p. 61. But, though he agreed with the dissenters on this point, he also agreed with Justices Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Burton that the Fourteenth Amendment did not make the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States; thus he joined the opinion of the Court which so held (the Court’s opinion assumed that the Fifth Amendment barred comment, but it expressly disclaimed any intention to decide the point. Id., p.50).
We reserve decision on whether an accused can require, as in Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287, that the jury be instructed that his silence must be disregarded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At the time petitioner committed the crime for which he was convicted, Florida’s sentencing guidelines would have resulted in a presumptive sentence of 314 to 414 years’ imprisonment. At the time petitioner was sentenced, the revised guidelines called for a presumptive sentence of 514 to 7 years in prison. The trial court applied the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing and imposed a 7-year sentence. The question presented is whether application of these amended guidelines in petitioner’s case is unconstitutional by virtue of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
t — I
In 1983, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation replacing Florida’s system of indeterminate sentencing with a sentencing guidelines scheme intended “to eliminate unwarranted variation in the sentencing process. ” Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.701(b) (1983). See 1983 Fla. Laws, ch. 83-216. Under the sentencing statute, a guidelines commission was responsible for “the initial development of a statewide system of sentencing guidelines.” Fla. Stat. §921.001(1) (1983). Once the commission had made its recommendation, the Supreme Court of Florida was to develop a final system of guidelines. These guidelines were to become effective for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1983. Fla. Stat. §921.001(4)(a) (1983).
The sentencing statute authorized the guidelines commission to “meet annually or at the call of the chairman to review sentencing practices and recommend modifications to the guidelines.” Fla. Stat. §921.001(3) (1983). Before the convening of the legislature each year, the commission was to make its recommendations regarding the need for changes in the guidelines. The Supreme Court of Florida then could revise the sentencing guidelines to conform to all or part of the commission’s recommendations. The sentencing law provided, however, that such revisions would become effective “only upon the subsequent adoption by the Legislature of legislation implementing the guidelines as then revised.” Fla. Stat. §921.001(4)(b) (1983).
In accordance with this legislation, the Supreme Court of Florida developed sentencing guidelines that went into effect on October 1, 1983. See In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines), 439 So. 2d 848 (1983). Under the scheme, offenses were grouped into nine “offense categories” (e. g., “robbery” and “sexual offenses”). A single sentencing “scoresheet” would be prepared based on the defendant’s “primary offense,” defined as the crime “with the highest statutory degree” at the time of conviction. Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.701(d) (1983). In scoring a defendant’s guidelines sentence, points would be assigned based on the primary offense, additional offenses at the time of conviction, prior record, legal status at the time of the offense, and victim injury. The defendant’s total point score then would be compared to a chart for that offense category, which provided a presumptive sentence for that composite score.
The presumptive sentence range was “assumed to be appropriate for the composite score of the offender.” Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.701(d)(8) (1983). Within the recommended range, the sentencing judge had discretion to fix the sentence “without the requirement of a written explanation.” Ibid. If the sentencing judge wished to depart from the guideline range, however, the judge had to give clear and convincing reasons in writing for doing so:
“Departures from the presumptive sentence should be avoided unless there are clear and convincing reasons to warrant aggravating or mitigating the sentence. Any sentence outside of the guidelines must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure. Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to either instant offense or prior arrests for which convictions have not been obtained.” Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.701(d)(ll) (1983).
The “clear and convincing” standard was construed as requiring reasons “of such weight as to produce in the mind of the judge a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that departure is warranted.” State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 1986). Only those sentences that fall outside the guidelines’ range are subject to appellate review. See Fla. Stat. §921.001(5) (1983).
Petitioner was convicted in August 1984 on counts of sexual battery with slight force, a second-degree felony, Fla.
Stat. §794.011(5) (Supp. 1984); burglary with an assault, a felony of the “first degree punishable by . . . life,” Fla. Stat. §810.02 (1983); and petit theft, a misdemeanor, Fla. Stat. §812.014(2)(c) (1983). On April 25, 1984, when these offenses were committed, the sentencing guidelines adopted October 1,1983, were still in effect. On May 8,1984, however, the Supreme Court of Florida proposed several revisions to the sentencing guidelines. See Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (§.701, S.988 — Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So. 2d 824 (1984). In June 1984 the Florida Legislature adopted the recommended changes, see 1984 Fla. Laws, ch. 84-328, and the legislation implementing the revised guidelines became effective July 1, 1984. When petitioner was sentenced on October 2, 1984, therefore, these revised sentencing guidelines were the guidelines then in effect.
Only two changes made in the revised guidelines are relevant here. First, the guidelines changed the definition of “primary offense” from the offense wdth “the highest statutory degree,” to the offense which results in “the most severe sentence range.” See 451 So. 2d, at 824, n. This changed petitioner’s primary offense from burglary wdth assault — the offense with the higher statutory degree — to sexual battery. Petitioner does not argue here that the new definition itself changed his presumptive sentence. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. As a result of the new definition, however, petitioner was affected by another change in the revised guidelines law: a 20% increase in the number of primary offense points assigned to sexual offenses. The Supreme Court of Florida, in its comments accompanying the revised guidelines, described the change: “The revision increases the primary offense points by 20% and wdll result in both increased rates and length of incarceration for sexual offenders.” 451 So. 2d, at 824, n. As a result of the point increase, petitioner’s total point score jumped to a presumptive sentence of to 7 years. See App. 12.
At petitioner’s sentencing hearing on October 2, 1984, the State contended that the revised guidelines should apply in determining petitioner’s sentence. Alternatively, the State argued that if the sentencing judge applied the earlier guidelines, he should depart from the guidelines’ range and impose a 7-year sentence. Id., at 8-9. The sentencing judge, rejecting petitioner’s ex post facto argument, ruled that the revised guidelines should apply. Concluding that he would “stay within the new guidelines,” the judge imposed a 7-year term of imprisonment for the sexual assault count. Id., at 10. Petitioner received a concurrent 7-year sentence on the burglary count, and time served on the misdemeanor charge. Id., at 6, 11.
On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal, relying on this Court’s decision in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24 (1981), vacated petitioner’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time the offense was committed. 468 So. 2d 1018 (1985). In remanding the case, the court noted that “the same sentence is possible if clear and convincing reasons for departure from the then applicable guidelines are stated in writing.” Ibid.
The Supreme Court of Florida reversed. 488 So. 2d 820 (1986). In a summary opinion, the court concluded that its decision in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (1985), established that “the trial court may sentence a defendant pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing.” 488 So. 2d, at 820. In Jackson, the Supreme Court of Florida had emphasized that “the presumptive sentence established by the guidelines does not change the statutory limits of the sentence imposed for a particular offense.” 478 So. 2d, at 1056. On that basis, it had concluded that a modification in sentencing guidelines procedure was “merely a procedural change, not requiring the application of the ex post facto doctrine” under Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282 (1977). 478 So. 2d, at 1056.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 960 (1986), and now reverse.
II
Article I of the United States Constitution provides that neither Congress nor any State shall pass any “ex post facto Law.” See Art. I, §9, cl. 3; Art. I, §10, cl. 1. Our understanding of what is meant by ex post facto largely derives from the case of Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798), in which this Court first considered the scope of the ex post facto prohibition. In Calder, Justice Chase, noting that the expression “ex post facto” “had been in use long before the revolution,” id., at 391, summarized his understanding of what fell “within the words and the intent of the prohibition”:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.” Id., at 390 (emphasis omitted).
Accord, Dobbert v. Florida, supra, at 292, quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167, 169-170 (1925).
Justice Chase explained that the reason the Ex Post Facto Clauses were included in the Constitution was to assure that federal and state legislatures were restrained from enacting arbitrary or vindictive legislation. See 3 Dall., at 389. Justices Paterson and Iredell, in their separate opinions in Calder, likewise emphasized that the Clauses were aimed at preventing legislative abuses. See id., at 396 (Paterson, J.); id., at 399-400 (Iredell, J.). See also Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183 (1915); James v. United States, 366 U. S. 213, 247, n. 3 (1961) (separate opinion of Harlan, J.). In addition, the Justices’ opinions in Calder, as well as other early authorities, indicate that the Clauses were aimed at a second concern, namely, that legislative enactments “give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed.” Weaver v. Graham, supra, at 28-29. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall., at 388 (Chase, J.); id., at 396 (Paterson, J.); 1W. Blackstone, Commentaries *46. Thus, almost from the outset, we have recognized that central to the ex post facto prohibition is a concern for “the lack of fair notice and governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.” Weaver, 450 U. S., at 30.
Our test for determining whether a criminal law is ex post facto derives from these principles. As was stated in Weaver, to fall within the ex post facto prohibition, two critical elements must be present: first, the law “must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment”; and second, “it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Id., at 29. We have also held in Dobbert v. Florida, supra, that no ex post facto violation occurs if a change does not alter “substantial personal rights,” but merely changes “modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance.” Id., at 293. See Beazell v. Ohio, supra, at 170-171. Respondent contends that the revised sentencing law is neither impermissibly retrospective, nor to petitioner’s disadvantage; respondent also contends that the revised sentencing law is merely a procedural change. We consider these claims in turn.
A law is retrospective if it “changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.” Weaver, supra, at 31. Application of the revised guidelines law in petitioner’s case clearly satisfies this standard. Respondent nevertheless contends that the ex post facto concern for retrospective laws is not violated here because Florida’s sentencing statute “on its face provides for continuous review and recommendation of changes to the guidelines. ” Brief for Respondent 27-28. Relying on our decision in Dobbert, respondent argues that it is sufficient that petitioner was given “fair warning” that he would be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines then in effect on his sentencing date. Brief for Respondent 28.
In our view, Dobbert provides scant support for such a pinched construction of the ex post facto prohibition. In Dobbert, the capital sentencing statute in effect at the time the murders took place later was held to be invalid. In rejecting the defendant’s argument that imposition of the death penalty therefore was a change in punishment from the punishment “in effect” when the crimes were committed, the Court concluded that ex post facto concerns were satisfied because the statute on the books at the time Dobbert committed the crimes warned him of the specific punishment Florida prescribed for first-degree murders. See 432 U. S., at 298. Here, by contrast, the statute in effect at the time petitioner acted did not warn him that Florida prescribed a 514- to 7-year presumptive sentence for that crime. Petitioner simply was warned of the obvious fact that the sentencing guidelines law — like any other law — was subject to revision. The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws cannot be avoided merely by adding to a law notice that it might be changed.
It is “axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law.” Dobbert, supra, at 294. Looking only at the change in primary offense points, the revised guidelines law clearly disadvantages petitioner and similarly situated defendants. See 451 So. 2d, at 824, n. (the purpose and effect of the change in primary offense points was to “increas[e] [the] rates and length of incarceration for sexual offenders”). Considering the revised guidelines law as a whole does not change this result. Unlike Dobbert, where we found that the “totality of the procedural changes wrought by the new statute . . . did not work an onerous application of an ex post facto change,” 432 U. S., at 296-297, here respondent has not been able to identify any feature of the revised guidelines law that could be considered ameliorative.
Respondent maintains that the change in guidelines laws is not disadvantageous because petitioner “cannot show definitively that he would have gotten a lesser sentence.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 29. This argument, however, is foreclosed by our decision in Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S. 397 (1937). In Lindsey, the law in effect at the time the crime was committed provided for a maximum sentence of 15 years, and a minimum sentence of not less than six months. At the time Lindsey was sentenced, the law had been changed to provide for a mandatory 15-year sentence. Finding that retrospective application of this change was ex post facto, the Court determined that “we need not inquire whether this is technically an increase in the punishment annexed to the crime,” because “[i]t is plainly to the substantial disadvantage of petitioners to be deprived of all opportunity to receive a sentence which would give them freedom from custody and control prior to the expiration of the 15-year term.” Id., at 401-402. Thus, Lindsey establishes “that one is not barred from challenging a change in the penal code on ex post facto grounds simply because the sentence he received under the new law was not more onerous than that which he might have received under the old.” Dobbert, supra, at 300.
Petitioner plainly has been “substantially disadvantaged” by the change in sentencing laws. To impose a 7-year sentence under the old guidelines, the sentencing judge would have to depart from the presumptive sentence range of 314 to 414 years. As a result, the sentencing judge would have to provide clear and convincing reasons in writing for the departure, on facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and his determination would be reviewable on appeal. By contrast, because a 7-year sentence is within the presumptive range under the revised law, the trial judge did not have to provide any reasons, convincing or otherwise, for imposing the sentence, and his decision was unreviewable. Thus, even if the revised guidelines law did not “technically . . . increase . . . the punishment annexed to [petitioner’s] crime,” Lindsey, supra, at 401, it foreclosed his ability to challenge the imposition of a sentence longer than his presumptive sentence under the old law. Petitioner therefore was “substantially disadvantaged” by the retrospective application of the revised guidelines to his crime.
Finally, even if a law operates to the defendant’s detriment, the ex post facto prohibition does not restrict “legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance.” Dobbert, 432 U. S., at 293. Hence, no ex post facto violation occurs if the change in the law is merely procedural and does “not increase the punishment, nor change the ingredients of the offence or the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt.” Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 590 (1884). See Dobbert, supra, at 293-294 (“The new statute simply altered the methods employed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed; there was no change in the quantum of punishment attached to the crime”). On the other hand, a change in the law that alters a substantial right can be ex post facto “even if the statute takes a seemingly procedural form.” Weaver, 450 U. S., at 29, n. 12.
Although tííe distinction between substance and procedure might sometimes prove elusive, here the change at issue appears to have little about it that could be deemed procedural. The 20% increase in points for sexual offenses in no wise alters the method to be followed in determining the appropriate sentence; it simply inserts a larger number into the same equation. The comments of the Florida Supreme Court acknowledge that the sole reason for the increase was to punish sex offenders more heavily: the amendment was intended to, and did, increase the “quantum of punishment” for category 2 crimes. See 451 So. 2d, at 824, n.
Respondent objects that it is misleading to view the change in the revised guidelines apart from the sentencing scheme as a whole. Relying largely on decisions by the Courts of Appeals sustaining the United States Parole Commission’s guidelines against ex post facto claims, respondent urges that the revised guidelines “merely guide and channel” the sentencing judge’s discretion. Brief for Respondent 35. See, e. g., Wallace v. Christensen, 802 F. 2d 1539 (CA9 1986) (en banc); Yamamoto v. United States Parole Comm’n, 794 F. 2d 1295 (CA8 1986); Dufresne v. Baer, 744 F. 2d 1543 (CA11 1984), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 817 (1985); Warren v. United States Parole Comm’n, 212 U. S. App. D. C. 137, 659 F. 2d 183 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 950 (1982). See also Portley v. Grossman, 444 U. S. 1311 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). Invoking the reasoning of these cases, respondent contends that an increase in the guidelines sentence operates only as a “procedural guidepost” for the exercise of discretion within the same statutorily imposed sentencing limits.
We find the federal parole guidelines cases inapposite. The courts that have upheld the retrospective application of federal parole guidelines have articulated several reasons why the ex post facto prohibition does not apply. The majority of these courts have held that the federal parole guidelines are not “laws” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See, e. g., Wallace v. Christensen, supra, at 1553-1554 (citing cases). Other courts have found that the guidelines merely rationalize the exercise of statutory discretion, and that retrospective application of the guidelines thus does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See, e. g., Warren v. United States Parole Comm’n, supra, at 149, 659 F. 2d, at 195; Portley v. Grossman, supra, at 1312. Finally, some of the cases have held that retrospective application of the guidelines does not result in a more onerous punishment and thus does not constitute an ex post facto violation. See, e. g., Dufresne v. Baer, supra, at 1549-1550.
None of the reasons given in the federal parole cases even arguably applies here. First, the revised sentencing law is a law enacted by the Florida Legislature, and it has the force and effect of law. Cf. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1986) (departure sentence not supported by clear and convincing reasons was erroneous even though defendant consented, because “a defendant cannot . . . confer on the court the authority to impose an illegal sentence”). Nor do the revised guidelines simply provide flexible “guideposts” for use in the exercise of discretion: instead, they create a high hurdle that must be cleared before discretion can be exercised, so that a sentencing judge may impose a departure sentence only after first finding “clear and convincing reasons” that are “credible,” “proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “not... a factor which has already been weighed in arriving at a presumptive sentence.” See State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d, at 525; Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1308, 1309 (Fla. 1986). Compare S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 38 (1983) (describing the “unfettered discretion” of the Parole Commission under the system of parole guidelines). Finally, the revised guidelines directly and adversely affect the sentence petitioner receives. Thus, this is not a case where we can conclude, as we did in Dobbert, that “[t]he crime for which the present defendant was indicted, the punishment prescribed therefor, and the quantity or the degree of proof necessary to establish his guilt, all remained unaffected by the subsequent statute.” 432 U. S., at 294.
r — H I — I I — I
The law at issue in this case, like the law in Weaver, “makes more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment.” Weaver, supra, at 36. Accordingly, we find that Florida’s revised guidelines law, 1984 Fla. Laws, ch. 84-328, is void as applied to petitioner, whose crime occurred before the law’s effective date. We reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The petitioner, a section foreman for respondent railroad, was assaulted by one of his section gang whom he accused of stealing a ballast fork. 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 Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The trial judge set aside the verdict and granted respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Appellate Court affirmed, 35 Ill. App. 2d 66, 181 N. E. 2d 737. Its judgment became final when the Illinois Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. Ill. Rev. Stat., 1961, c. 110, § 75.
The trial judge granted respondent’s motion on the ground that “there was a lack of evidence to sustain” the jury’s verdict. The Appellate Court, in affirming, held that there was no evidence sufficient to support a finding that the respondent knew or should have known prior to the assault of propensities of the assailant to commit such assaults.
We think that the Illinois courts improperly invaded the function and province of the jury in this case. While “. . . reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers’ Liability Act negligence,” Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio B. Co., ante, p. 108, at 117, we have held that the fact that “the foreseeable danger was from intentional or criminal misconduct is irrelevant; respondent nonetheless had a duty to make reasonable provision against it.” Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U. S. 459, 462. The petitioner’s evidence was that his immediate superior, a roadmaster, assigned the assailant to petitioner’s crew and at the time warned him: “You will have to watch him because he is a bad actor and a trouble maker. You will have to watch him.” He also testified to having several times complained to the roadmaster about the assailant’s misconduct and refusal to follow his orders during the two months the assailant was with his crew. Finally, he testified that after the assault the roadmaster said to him: “I told you to look out for him. Now you got yourself in plenty of trouble.” This testimony was disputed but, if believed by the jury, it constituted probative facts sufficient to support the jury’s finding of foreseeability and withstand the respondent’s motion. McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; see also Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart would deny certiorari. See dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J., and separate opinion of Harlan, J., in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, 559; concurring opinion of Stewart, J., in Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U. S. 107, 111; dissenting opinion of Harlan, J., in Callick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., ante, p. 122. The case having been taken, however, they concur in the judgment of the Court. 352 U. S., at 559-562; 361 U. S., at 111.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of the appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to dismiss is also granted and the appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the case within the time prescribed by Rule 13.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 72, Nowak v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 660. Maisenberg was brought to this country from Russia in 1912, at the age of 11. She was admitted to citizenship in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in January 1938. In March 1953, in the same court, the United States brought this suit under § 340 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to set aside the naturalization decree, alleging in its complaint that Maisenberg’s citizenship was obtained “by concealment of a material fact [and] willful misrepresentation.” After a trial the District Court, in an unreported opinion, granted the relief requested by the Government. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 238 F. 2d 282, and we granted certiorari. 353 U. S. 922.
Although the findings of the District Court do not clearly disclose the grounds for decision, Maisenberg seems to have been denaturalized because she was found to have made misrepresentations in (1) answering falsely “No” to the second part of Question 28 in her Preliminary Form for Petition for Naturalization, filed in June 1937; and (2) stating that for a period of five years preceding her naturalization she had been “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States . . . The District Court also sustained the sufficiency of the Government’s affidavit of “good cause,” which was not signed by an individual having personal knowledge of the facts on which the proceedings were based, but by an attorney of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who relied on official records of the Service.
For the reasons stated in Nowak v. United States, supra, we hold that (1) the Government’s timely filed affidavit of good cause was sufficient; and (2) a finding of misrepresentation cannot be predicated on Maisen-berg’s negative answer to the second part of Question 28.
We also are of opinion that the Government has failed to prove by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 158, that Maisenberg was not “attached to the principles of the Constitution.” As in Nowak, the Government has attempted to prove its case indirectly by showing that Maisenberg was a member of the Communist Party during the five years preceding her naturalization and that she knew that the Party was illegally advocating the violent overthrow of the United States. We think that the Government has adequately proved that Maisenberg was a member of the Party during the pertinent five-year period. But, even making the same assumptions on behalf of the Government that were made in Nowak — that it was adequately shown that the Party in 1938 advocated violent action for the overthrow of the Government and that lack of “attachment” could be proved by this method — the Government still cannot prevail. For we do not believe that it has carried the burden of proving that Maisenberg was aware of that alleged tenet of the Party.
Apart from introducing evidence that Maisenberg was an active member and functionary of the Communist Party, and that she had attended various “closed” Party meetings, the Government presented several witnesses who testified to a number of sporadic statements by Mai-senberg (or by others in her presence) between 1930 and 1937 which are claimed to show that she was aware of the purpose of the Party “to overthrow the government by force” and to establish “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” For much the same reasons given in Nowak, we regard this evidence as inadequate to establish the Government's case. In each of the several episodes described by the witnesses the statements attributed to Maisenberg can well be taken as merely the expression of abstract predictory opinions; all of them were of a highly equivocal nature; and the faltering character of much of this testimony as to events of many years before casts the gravest doubt upon its reliability. There is no evidence in the record that Maisenberg herself ever advocated revolutionary action or that she was aware that the Party proposed to take such action. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 319-322. As we said in Nowak, such proof falls short of the “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence needed to support a decree of denaturalization. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 669.]
66 Stat. 260, 8 U. S. C. § 1451 (a):
“It shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings ... for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation . . .
As in the form completed by Nowak, Question 28 read:
“28. Are you a believer in anarchy? ... Do you belong to or are you associated with any organization which teaches or advocates anarchy or the overthrow of existing government in this country? . . .”
In view of our decision that, as an objective matter, petitioner has not been shown to have lacked attachment to the principles of the Constitution in 1938, we need not reach the further question under the 1952 Act whether the Government has adequately proved that petitioner misrepresented her attachment or concealed a lack of attachment. See note 1, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
New York has established an Emergency Assistance Program that receives substantial federal funding under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U. S. C. § 603(a)(5). The program excludes recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) from emergency assistance in the form of cash. It also excludes public assistance recipients (including AFDC recipients) from reimbursement for lost or stolen grants, even though it provides such reimbursement to other public benefit recipients. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s treatment of AFDC recipients is not inconsistent with the federal Act and regulations but violates the Equal Protection Clause. Because we conclude that the New York law is invalid under the Act, we affirm without reaching the equal protection issue.
I
Appellee Jeanne Bacon has two minor children and depends entirely on an AFDC grant to support her family. On June 1, 1977, while she was shopping, her wallet and food stamps were stolen. She promptly reported the theft to the police and to the New York Department of Social Services (DSS). She requested emergency assistance (E A) under the State’s federally funded Emergency Assistance Program, explaining that she had no money to purchase food and other essential items for her household for the month. DSS denied her request on the basis of a recent state law which precludes the furnishing of any cash E A to persons receiving or eligible for AFDC, N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 350 — j(2)(c) and (3) (McKinney Supp. 1981) (the “no-cash” provision), or of EA in any form to replace a lost or stolen public assistance grant, including an AFDC grant. §350-j(2)(e) (the “loss-or-theft” provision). Appellee Gertrude Parrish suffered a similar fate. An AFDC mother, she lost her food and AFDC funds when her apartment was broken into and ransacked. She applied for EA, and DSS denied her request on the same basis as it denied relief to appellee Bacon. The other named appellees, Linda Selders and Freddie Mae Goodwine, also were denied EA after they cashed their AFDC checks and suffered the loss of their money.
Appellees brought this class action to enjoin enforcement of the state law insofar as it denies EA pursuant to the no-cash provision and the loss-or-theft provision. Appellees argued that the law conflicts with the Act and violates equal protection because it arbitrarily discriminates against AFDC recipients: it provides cash EA to all eligible recipients other than AFDC recipients, and provides EA for lost or stolen public benefit grants to all public benefit recipients (such as recipients of social security and Supplemental Security Income) other than those on public assistance (including AFDC recipients).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of appel-lees on the ground that the state provisions impermissibly narrowed the eligibility standards imposed on state EA programs by § 406(e) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 606(e), and were thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Bacon v. Toia, 437 F. Supp. 1371 (1977). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Bacon v. Toia, 580 F. 2d 1044 (1978). Shortly thereafter, this Court decided Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725 (1978), in which we held that § 406(e) imposes permissive, not mandatory, standards on participating States. The Court of Appeals granted a motion for rehearing, vacated the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Quern. On remand, the District Court changed its prior decision and held that the New York law was not inconsistent with the federal Act. In a subsequent opinion, the District Court invalidated the no-cash provision as a violation of equal protection but upheld the loss-or-theft provision. Bacon v. Toia, 493 F. Supp. 865 (1980). On the second appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that our decision in Quern foreclosed a finding that the law violates the Supremacy Clause. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that both the no-cash and loss-or-theft provisions violate equal protection. Bacon v. Toia, 648 F. 2d 801 (1981;. We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1122.
II
Where a party raises both statutory and constitutional arguments in support of a judgment, ordinarily we first address the statutory argument in order to avoid unnecessary resolution of the constitutional issue. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 692-693 (1979); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 543 (1974). We conclude that this case may be resolved on statutory grounds. As we explain below, the New York no-cash and loss-or-theft rules conflict with valid federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (Secretary) (now the Secretary of Health and Human Services) which proscribe inequitable treatment under the EA program. Thus, New York’s rules are invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
A
Before reviewing the federal regulations that we find to be dispositive of this case, we first address appellant’s claim that reliance on the Act is foreclosed by our decision in Quern v. Mandley, supra. In that case, we carefully reviewed the nature and scope of the EA program and examined one aspect of its relationship to the AFDC program. Under Title IV-A of the Act, state public assistance plans approved by the Secretary are eligible for federal financial assistance. AFDC is a major categorical aid program funded under the Act — indeed, it is “the core of the Title IV-A system.” Id., at 728. States are required, as a condition of federal funding under the AFDC program, to make assistance available to all persons who meet statutory eligibility criteria. Id., at 740; 42 U. S. C. §§602(a)(10), 606(a). The EA program is a supplement to such categorical assistance programs as AFDC. It permits federal reimbursement to States which choose to provide for temporary emergency assistance in their Title IV-A plans. 42 U. S. C. § 603(a)(5). In contrast to AFDC, the EA program establishes much broader eligibility standards and is not limited to persons eligible for AFDC. 42 U. S. C. § 606(e).
Plaintiffs in Quern made the broad claim that a State participating in the federal EA program may not limit eligibility for EA more narrowly than the federal eligibility standards in § 406(e). The state plan at issue provided emergency assistance only to certain AFDC families who were without shelter and to applicants presumptively eligible for AFDC who were in immediate need of clothing or household furnishings. We rejected the plaintiffs’ broad claim and held that unlike the AFDC program, § 406(e) establishes only permissive, not mandatory, eligibility standards.
Quern did not address the statutory issue before us today — whether the complete and automatic exclusion of AFDC recipients from a State’s EA program is inconsistent with the Act and applicable regulations. The Court had no occasion to consider the question, since the EA program in that case included only AFDC recipients. In addition, the only pertinent federal regulations in Quern undermined the plaintiffs’ claims and supported the State’s rules. See 436 U. S., at 743-744, n. 19; 45 CFR §233.120 (1981). Here, on the other hand, the Secretary has promulgated a regulation inconsistent with New York’s no-cash and loss-or-theft rules. See 45 CFR §233.10 (1981); infra, at 139-142. In short, although we emphasized in Quern that a State retains considerable flexibility in determining which emergencies to cover under its EA plan, we hardly suggested that the Secretary had been stripped of all authority to review a plan that arbitrarily or inequitably excluded a class of recipients.
B
The Secretary, who is charged with administering federal funding for EA under the Act, has promulgated the following regulation applicable to state plans under Title IV-A, including EA programs:
“(a) State plan requirements. A State plan under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI, of the Social Security Act must:
“(1) Specify the groups of individuals, based on reasonable classifications, that will be included in the program, and all the conditions of eligibility that must be met by the individuals in the groups. The groups selected for inclusion in the plan and the eligibility conditions imposed must not exclude individuals or groups on an arbitrary or unreasonable basis, and must not result in inequitable treatment of individuals or groups in the light of the provisions and purposes of the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act.” 45 CFR § 233.10 (1981).
The Secretary has also issued regulations exclusively addressed to the EA program. 45 CFR §233.120 (1981).
On the authority of these regulations, the Secretary has specifically required the inclusion of AFDC recipients in any EA program, and has disapproved New York's EA plan because it excludes AFDC recipients as a class. Shortly after this Court’s decision in Quern, the Office of Family Assistance of the Social Security Administration issued Action Transmittal SSA-AT-78-44 (OFA) addressed to state agencies administering approved public assistance programs. The Transmittal explains that after Quern, “States remain free, under Federal policy to develop their own definition of the kind of emergencies they will meet under this program.” App. 173a. Nevertheless, “[a] State Plan must clearly specify that AFDC recipients are included in its EA program. Other categories of needy families with children may be included at State option; these categories must be specified in the plan.” Id., at 174a (emphasis added). In an ami-cus brief filed at the invitation of the Court of Appeals below, the Secretary confirmed that New York’s exclusion of AFDC recipients through its no-cash and loss-or-theft provisions violates federal regulations, in particular the “equitable treatment” regulation, 45 CFR § 233.10 (1981). App. to Motion to Affirm 12a-17a. As the Secretary interpreted that regulation, the discrimination in New York’s program is not justified by, or tailored to, the purposes of the EÁ program. Ibid.
We agree that New York’s law is invalid under the equitable-treatment regulation insofar as it automatically excludes AFDC recipients from the EA program. The regulation, and the Secretary’s decision to apply it to strike down New York’s no-cash and loss-or-theft rules, clearly deserve judicial deference. We have often noted that the interpretation of an agency charged with the administration of a statute is entitled to substantial deference. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S. 27 (1981); Quern, 436 U. S., at 738. In light of the strong support in the legislative history for the Secretary’s conclusion that the automatic exclusion of AFDC recipients from an EA program is inequitable in light of the purposes of the EA program, we find such deference particularly appropriate in this case.
C
In 1967, Congress thoroughly revised the Social Security Act, including many of its public assistance provisions. The House and Senate Committee Reports concerning the portion of the revision that would ultimately become the EA program make it unmistakably clear that AFDC recipients were expected to benefit from the program. The initial House Report states:
“Your committee understands that the process of determining eligibility and authorizing payments frequently precludes the meeting of emergency needs when a crisis occurs. In the event of eviction, or when utilities are turned off, or when an alcoholic parent leaves children without food, immediate action is necessary. It frequently is unavailable under State programs today. When a child is suddenly deprived of his parents by their accidental death or when the agency finds that the conditions in the home are contrary to the child’s welfare, the normal methods of payment have to be suspended while new arrangements and court referrals are made.
“To encourage public welfare agencies to move promptly and with maximum effectiveness in such situations, the bill contains an offer to the States of 50-percent participation in emergency assistance payments. . . . The eligible families involved are those with children under 21 who either are or have recently been living with close relatives. The families do not have to be receiving or eligible upon application to receive AFDC (although they are generally of the same type), but they must be without available resources ....
“Assistance might be in any form .... The provision is broad enough that emergencies can be met in migrant families as well as those meeting residence requirements of the State’s AFDC program. Its utilization would be optional with thé States.” H. R. Rep. No. 544, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 109 (1967) (emphasis added).
This passage leaves the obvious implication that persons who are eligible for AFDC benefits would receive EA. The Senate Report is almost identical, except for an explanation of the changes in the Senate bill. S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 165-166 (1967). Indeed, in an earlier summary of this provision, the Senate Report describes EA as one of a series of amendments that “would set up new protections for the children in AFDC families.” Id., at 146.
The House and Senate debates on this portion of the Social Security Amendments, although abbreviated, buttress our understanding of congressional intent. Senator Long, floor manager of the bill, repeated the Senate Report’s characterization of EA as one of several changes that would establish “new protections for the children in AFDC families.” 113 Cong. Rec. 32592 (1967). Comments by other legislators reveal a similar understanding. Testimony by witnesses and statements introduced at the Senate hearings on the bill are also illuminating. Many statements assume that AFDC would be covered, and some reveal the belief that E A would be principally an AFDC program.
l — t H-<
The Secretary s decision to apply the equitable treatment” regulation so as to forbid a State to exclude AFDC recipients from its E A program is eminently reasonable and deserves judicial deference. The regulation explicitly forbids the “inequitable treatment of individuals or groups in the light of the provisions and purposes of the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act.” 45 CFR §233.10 (1981). AFDC recipients are “the core of the Title IV-A system,” Quern, 436 U. S., at 728, and the principal group of beneficiaries under federally assisted state welfare programs. Moreover, the legislative history reviewed above leaves no doubt that AFDC recipients were expected to be included in a state EA program receiving federal financial assistance.
Because New York’s no-cash and loss-or-theft rules conflict with a valid federal regulation, they are invalid under the Supremacy Clause. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 295-296 (1979). In light of our disposition of this Supremacy Clause claim, we do not address appellees’ equal protection argument.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
New York Soc. Serv. Law §350 — j (McKinney Supp. 1981) provides in pertinent part:
“2. For purposes of this section, the term ‘emergency assistance’ means aid, care and services authorized during a period not in excess of thirty days in any twelve month period to meet the emergency needs of a child or the household in which he is living, in the following circumstances:
“(a) where the child is under twenty-one years of age; and
“(b) the child is living with, or within the previous six months has lived with, one or more persons specified in subdivision b of section three hundred forty-nine of this chapter; and
“(c) in cases of applications for grants of cash assistance, such child or such household is not categorically eligible for or receiving aid to dependent children; and
“(d) such emergency needs resulted from a catastrophic occurrence or from a situation which threatens family stability and which has caused the destitution of the child and/or home; and
“(e) such occurrence or situation could not have been foreseen by the applicant, was not under his control, and, in the case of a person receiving public assistance, did not result from the loss, theft or mismanagement of a regular public assistance grant; and
“(f) the emergency grant being applied for will not replace or duplicate a public assistance grant already made under section one hundred thirty-one-a of this chapter.
“3. Emergency assistance to needy families with children shall be provided to the extent of items of need and services set forth in sections one hundred thirty-one and one hundred thirty-one-a of this chapter .... Such emergency assistance, but not including cash grants, may be furnished to a family eligible for aid to dependent children only in the form of emergency services, and so long as federal aid remains available, for emergency fuel grants in the form of vendor restricted payments” (emphasis added).
The record indicates that appellees have standing to challenge the no-cash as well as the loss-or-theft provision. In the ease of appellees Bacon, Parrish, and Goodwine, DSS purported to rely on the loss-or-theft provision in denying EA. However, Parrish was denied EA for lost food as well as lost money. The no-cash provision, not the loss-or-theft provision, would appear to justify denial of E A for the lost food, since that loss did not result from the theft of her public assistance grant.
In the case of appellee Selders, DSS denied EA for her lost cash pursuant to an administrative memorandum that outlines both the no-cash and the loss-or-theft exclusions for AFDC recipients. App. 34a-37a, 51a. It is therefore unclear which exclusion the State purported to rely upon in denying assistance. However, Selders lost a food stamp voucher as well as the cash from her AFDC grant. DSS refused to provide the cash equivalent of the voucher. Although DSS replaced the voucher, Selders was unable to make use of the replacement because she had no cash. Bacon v. Toia, 437 F. Supp. 1371, 1376-1377 (SDNY 1977). Accordingly, it was the State’s no-cash rule that prevented her from obtaining effective EA. Id., at 1384-1385. Selders alone was denominated a representative of the subclass of plaintiffs challenging the no-cash rule. Id., at 1381.
In light of these facts and appellant’s concession that DSS relied upon both the no-cash and the loss-or-theft provisions in denying assistance, Brief for Appellant 6-7; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, 17, we conclude that appellees have standing to challenge both provisions.
Appellees also sought to enjoin enforcement of the statutory provision denying replacement or duplication of a public assistance grant already made. N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 350 — j(2)(f) (McKinney Supp. 1981). They no longer seek relief with respect to that provision because the District Court determined that the provision does not preclude EA in the event of a true emergency. Bacon v. Toia, 493 F. Supp. 865, 875 (SDNY 1980).
Section 406(e) of the Act provides in part:
“(1) The term ‘emergency assistance to needy families with children’ means any of the following, furnished for a period not in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period, in the case of a needy child under the age of 21 who is . . . living with any of the relatives specified in subsection (a)(1) of this section in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home, but only where such child is without available resources, the payments, care, or services involved as necessary to avoid destitution of such child or to provide living arrangements in a home for such child, and such destitution or need for living arrangements did not arise because such child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment—
“(A) money payments, payments in kind, or such other payments as the State agency may specify with respect to, or medical care or any other type of remedial care recognized under State law on behalf of, such child or any other member of the household in which he is living, and
“(B) such services as may be specified by the Secretary;
“but only with respect to a State whose State plan approved under section 602 of this title includes provision for such assistance.
“(2) Emergency assistance as authorized under paragraph (1) may be provided ... to migrant workers with families in the State or in such part or parts thereof as the State shall designate.” 81 Stat. 893.
Appellant argues that the statutory issue is not properly before us. It is well accepted, however, that without filing a cross-appeal or cross-petition, an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support of the judgment below. See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ludwig, 426 U. S. 479 (1976) (per curiam); Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 419 (1977); see also R. Stem & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 478 (5th ed. 1978). Moreover, the statutory issue was raised and decided in both the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
Appellant also asserts that the appellees were required to file a cross-appeal because they seek to modify the judgment below. Acceptance of the appellees’ statutory argument will allegedly result in such a modification because “the injunction granted below on the basis of constitutional right would be modified to one based upon statute or regulation.” Reply of Appellant to Motion to Affirm 8. Appellant cites no authority for this novel view that an affirmance which does not alter the relief ordered in the judgment below “modifies” the judgment simply because the affirmance rests on a different legal basis than the court below adopted.
For a general discussion of the EA and AFDC programs, see Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S., at 728-729, 735-736, 739, 742-743.
In a footnote, the Court reported that some States have narrowed eligibility for EA programs by excluding AFDC recipients if the emergency need is one theoretically covered by the basic assistance grant. Id., at 739-740, n. 16. This descriptive statement is not, of course, an expression of opinion, much less a holding, with respect to the issue before us.
These regulations were adopted pursuant to § 1102 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1302, which provides the Secretary with authority to “make . . . such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged under this chapter.” We have described this provision as creating “broad rule-making powers.” Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268, 277, n. 28 (1969). The Secretary has also argued that 45 CFR §233.10(a)(1) (1981) is authorized pursuant to § 402(a)(5), 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(5), under which a state plan under Title IV-A “must. . . provide such methods of administration ... as are found by the Secretary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the plan.” See App. to Motion to Affirm 8a. This section applies to all portions of a state plan under Title IV-A, including the EA program. See Quern, supra, at 741-742.
It appears that the Secretary has consistently taken the position that automatic exclusions of AFDC recipients from an EA program violate the “equitable treatment” regulation, 45 CFR § 233.10 (1981). In an amicus brief filed at the invitation of the court in Ingerson v. Pratt, Civ. Action No. 76-3255-S (Mass., Nov. 14, 1979), the Secretary stated that the regulation applies to EA programs. The Office of Family Assistance later determined that Massachusetts’ “recipient status” rule violates the regulation because it provides that the EA benefits available to AFDC recipients will be affected by the amount received in the AFDC grant, whereas the EA benefits available to non-AFDC recipients will not be affected by the amount of assistance received. Documentation of the U. S. Dept. of HEW relating to Ingerson v. Pratt, File of the Clerk of this Court in No. 81-770. The District Court has invalidated this rule (as well as another state rule) based on the “equitable treatment” regulation. Ingerson v. Pratt, Civ. Action No. 76-3255-S (Mass., Feb. 8, 1982).
The EA program, a small part of the 1967 Social Security Amendments, originated with the President’s limited proposal to extend temporary assistance to migratory workers. See H. R. 5710, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 122-123 (1967). The assistance “would be in an amount consistent with what the individuals would receive if they were eligible under a public assistance plan in the State in which they are living.” House Committee on Ways and Means, Section-by-Section Analysis of H. R. 5710, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (Comm. Print 1967). In the House, the Ways and Means Committee adopted a much broader proposal, very similar to the version ultimately enacted. See H. R. 12080, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 137-139 (1967). After House passage, the Senate made three changes— increasing the amount of time that emergency assistance would be available, denying assistance if a child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment, and more explicitly protecting migrant workers. In conference, the second and third changes were accepted. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1030, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 60 (1967). Congress adopted the conference bill.
The Senate Report also inserts “AFDC” prior to the word “eligibility” in the first sentence quoted in the text above — yet another indication that those eligible for or receiving AFDC were presumed to be covered.
Other portions of the legislative documents indicate that the EA program was viewed as an extension of the AFDC program. For example, the House bill initially contained the title, “Emergency Assistance for Certain Needy Families with Dependent Children.” H. R. 12080, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 137 (1967) (emphasis added). The bill as enacted placed the EA provisions within Subchapter IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., entitled “Aid to Families With Dependent Children.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 603(a)(5), 606(e). Moreover, numerous historical documents place discussion of the EA program within an “AFDC” category. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 544, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 97 (1967); Senate Committee on Finance, Social Security Amendments of 1967: Comparison of H. R. 12080, As Passed by the House of Representatives with Existing Law, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 37-38 (Comm. Print 1967); S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 4, 165-166 (1967); Senate Committee on Finance, The Social Security Amendments of 1967, Brief Summary of Major Provisions and Detailed Comparison with Prior Law, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 68-69 (1968).
Congress expressed concern that categorical aid programs (which include AFDC) were often too inflexible to afford immediate emergency relief. The implicit assumption is that if a state EA plan covered emergency needs that were not promptly met under these programs, persons receiving or eligible for aid under the programs would receive EA. Thus, Senator Ribicoff emphasized that welfare agencies need to have “flexibility’' in dealing with emergencies; and Senator Curtis explained that “[f]or a period of 30 days, emergency assistance can be paid in cases where [EA recipients] cannot meet other qualifications.” 113 Cong. Rec. 32853, 36319 (1967).
Hearings on H. R. 12080 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1034 (1967) (statement of Commissioner, Louisiana Dept, of Public Welfare); id., at App. A8 (statement of Commissioner, Alabama Dept, of Pensions and Security); id., at App. A125 (statement of Governor of Hawaii); id., at App. A289 (statement of Rhode Island Dept, of Social Welfare).
Appellant asserts that the no-cash rule does not discriminate against AFDC recipients at all. On its face, of course, the rule excludes AFDC as well as all other public assistance recipients and thus violates the regulation. But appellant claims that AFDC recipients may obtain the same emergency benefits through special grants under other provisions of the state welfare law. Both lower courts rejected this claim, concluding that the special grant provisions are more limited than EA provisions. 648 F. 2d, at 807-808; 493 F. Supp., at 872-873. In particular, the Court of Appeals, after reviewing relevant state cases, determined that the state EA program would provide grants in cases of loss caused by burglary or public auction following eviction, and would provide food and other immediate living expenses, while special grants would not cover these items. 648 F. 2d, at 808. We have no reason to question the conclusion of the lower courts, given their familiarity with state law. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346 (1976).
Of course, we do not suggest that a State may not choose to provide AFDC special grants for emergencies as an alternative to including AFDC recipients within the EA program, if the special grants are provided as promptly and for the same emergencies as the EA grants. Cf. Quern, 436 U. S., at 734-739.
We do not reach the question whether the loss-or-theft provision in N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 350 — j (McKinney Supp. 1981) is invalid as applied to public assistance recipients other than those receiving AFDC. The question presented in appellant’s jurisdictional statement refers only to the discrimination against AFDC recipients; thus, appellant challenges the judgment below only insofar as it requires the granting of EA to AFDC recipients.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires the Court to decide what standards apply when a party seeks to avoid compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued in connection with a grand jury investigation.
I
Since 1986, a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia has been investigating allegations of interstate transportation of obscene materials. In early 1988, the grand jury issued a series of subpoenas to three companies — Model Magazine Distributors, Inc. (Model), R. Enterprises, Inc., and MFR Court Street Books, Inc. (MFR). Model is a New York distributor of sexually oriented paperback books, magazines, and videotapes. R. Enterprises, which distributes adult materials, and MFR, which sells books, magazines, and videotapes, are also based in New York. All three companies are wholly owned by Martin Rothstein. The grand jury subpoenas sought a variety of corporate books and records and, in Model’s case, copies of 193 videotapes that Model had shipped to retailers in the Eastern District of Virginia. All three companies moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas called for production of materials irrelevant to the grand jury’s investigation and that the enforcement of the subpoenas would likely infringe their First Amendment rights.
The District Court, after extensive hearings, denied the motions to quash. As to Model, the court found that the subpoenas for business records were sufficiently specific and that production of the videotapes would not constitute a prior restraint. App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a-58a. As to R. Enterprises, the court found a “sufficient connection with Virginia for further investigation by the grand jury.” Id., at 60a. The court relied in large part on the statement attributed to Rothstein that the three companies were “all the same thing, I’m president of all three.” Ibid. Additionally, the court explained in denying MFR’s motion to quash that it was “inclined to agree” with “the majority of the jurisdictions,” which do not require the Government to make a “threshold showing” before a grand jury subpoena will be enforced. Id., at 63a. Even assuming that a preliminary showing of relevance was required, the court determined that the Government had made such a showing. It found sufficient evidence that the companies were “related entities,” at least one of which “certainly did ship sexually explicit material into the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Ibid. The court concluded that the subpoenas in this case were “fairly standard business subpoenas” and “ought to be complied with.” Id., at 65a. Notwithstanding these findings, the companies refused to comply with the subpoenas. The District Court found each in contempt and fined them $500 per day, but stayed imposition of the fine pending appeal. Id., at 64a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the business records subpoenas issued to Model, but remanded the motion to quash the subpoena for Model’s videotapes. In re Grand Jury 87-3 Subpoena Duces Tecum, 884 F. 2d 772 (1989). Of particular relevance here, the Court of Appeals quashed the business records subpoenas issued to R. Enterprises and MFR. In doing so, it applied the standards set out by this Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 699-700 (1974). The court recognized that Nixon dealt with a trial subpoena, not a grand jury subpoena, but determined that the rule was “equally applicable” in the grand jury context. 884 F. 2d, at 776, n. 2. Accordingly, it required the Government to clear the three hurdles that Nixon established in the trial context — relevancy, admissibility, and specificity — in order to enforce the grand jury subpoenas. Id., at 776. The court concluded that the challenged subpoenas did not satisfy the Nixon standards, finding no evidence in the record that either company had ever shipped materials into, or otherwise conducted business in, the Eastern District of Virginia. Ibid. The Court of Appeals specifically criticized the District Court for drawing an inference that, because Rothstein owned all three businesses and one of them had undoubtedly shipped sexually explicit materials into the Eastern District of Virginia, there might be some link between the Eastern District of Virginia and R. Enterprises or MFR. Id., at 777. It then noted that “any evidence concerning Mr. Rothstein’s alleged business activities outside of Virginia, or his ownership of companies which distribute allegedly obscene materials outside of Virginia, would most likely be inadmissible on relevancy grounds at any trial that might occur,” and that the subpoenas therefore failed “to meet the requirements [sic] that any documents subpoenaed under [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 17(c) must be admissible as evidence at trial.” Ibid., citing Nixon, supra, at 700. The Court of Appeals did not consider whether enforcement of the subpoenas duces tecum issued to respondents implicated the First Amendment.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard in evaluating the grand jury subpoenas issued to respondents. 496 U. S. 924 (1990). We now reverse.
II
The grand jury occupies a unique role in our criminal justice system. It is an investigatory body charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not a crime has been committed. Unlike this Court, whose jurisdiction is predicated on a specific case or controversy, the grand jury “can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632, 642-643 (1950). The function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it has identified an offense or has satisfied itself that none has occurred. As a necessary consequence of its investigatory function, the grand jury paints with a broad brush. “A grand jury investigation ‘is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.’” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 701 (1972), quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F. 2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970).
A grand jury subpoena is thus much different from a subpoena issued in the context of a prospective criminal trial, where a specific offense has been identified and a particular defendant charged. “[T]he identity of the offender, and the precise nature of the offense, if there be one, normally are developed at the conclusion of the grand jury’s labors, not at the beginning.” Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 282 (1919). In short, the Government cannot be required to justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable cause because the very purpose of requesting the information is to ascertain whether probable cause exists. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 65 (1906).
This Court has emphasized on numerous occasions that many of the rules and restrictions that apply at a trial do not apply in grand jury proceedings. This is especially true of evidentiary restrictions. The same rules that, in an adversary hearing on the merits, may increase the likelihood of accurate determinations of guilt or innocence do not necessarily advance the mission of a grand jury, whose task is to conduct an ex parte investigation to determine whether or not there is probable cause to prosecute a particular defendant. In Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359 (1956), this Court declined to apply the rule against hearsay to grand jury proceedings. Strict observance of trial rules in the context of a grand jury’s preliminary investigation “would result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial.” Id., at 364. In United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974), we held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings. Permitting witnesses to invoke the exclusionary rule would “delay and disrupt grand jury proceedings” by requiring adversary hearings on peripheral matters, id., at 349, and would effectively transform such proceedings into preliminary trials on the merits, id., at 349-350. The teaching of the Court’s decisions is clear: A grand jury “may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials,” id., at 343.
This guiding principle renders suspect the Court of Appeals’ holding that the standards announced in Nixon as to subpoenas issued in anticipation of trial apply equally in the grand jury context. The multifactor test announced in Nixon would invite procedural delays and detours while courts evaluate the relevancy and admissibility of documents sought by a particular subpoena. We have expressly stated that grand jury proceedings should be free of such delays. “Any holding that would saddle a grand jury with minitrials and preliminary showings would assuredly impede its investigation and frustrate the public’s interest in the fair and expeditious administration of the criminal laws.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 17 (1973). Accord, Calandra, supra, at 350. Additionally, application of the Nixon test in this context ignores that grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy requirements. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(e). Requiring the Government to explain in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens tQ compromise “the indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings.” United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 513 (1943). Broad disclosure also affords the targets of investigation far more information about the grand jury’s internal workings than the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure appear to contemplate.
Ill
A
The investigatory powers of the grand jury are nevertheless not unlimited. See Branzburg, supra, at 688; Calandra, supra, at 346, and n. 4. Grand juries are not licensed to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor may they select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass. In this case, the focus of our inquiry is the limit imposed on a grand jury by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), which govérns the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum in federal criminal proceedings. The Rule provides that “[t]he court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.”
This standard is not self-explanatory. As we have observed, “what is reasonable depends on the context.” New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 337 (1985). In Nixon, this Court defined what is reasonable in the context of a jury trial. We determined that, in order to require production of information prior to trial, a party must make a reasonably specific request for information that would be both relevant and admissible at trial. 418 U. S., at 700. But, for the reasons we have explained above, the Nixon standard does not apply in the context of grand jury proceedings. In the grand jury context, the decision as to what offense will be charged is routinely not made until after the grand jury has concluded its investigation. One simply cannot know in advance whether information sought during the investigation will be relevant and admissible in a prosecution for a particular offense.
To the extent that Rule 17(c) imposes some reasonableness limitation on grand jury subpoenas, however, our task is to define it. In doing so, we recognize that a party to whom a grand jury subpoena is issued faces a difficult situation. As a rule, grand juries do not announce publicly the subjects of their investigations. See supra, at 299. A party who desires to challenge a grand jury subpoena thus may have no conception of the Government’s purpose in seeking production of the requested information. Indeed, the party will often not know whether he or she is a primary target of the investigation or merely a peripheral witness. Absent even minimal information, the subpoena recipient is likely to find it exceedingly difficult to persuade a court that “compliance would be unreasonable.” As one pair of commentators has summarized it, the challenging party’s “unenviable task is to seek to persuade the court that the subpoena that has been served on [him or her] could not possibly serve any investigative purpose that the grand jury could legitimately be pursuing.” 1 S. Beale & W. Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice §6:28 (1986).
Our task is to fashion an appropriate standard of reasonableness, one that gives due weight to the difficult position of subpoena recipients but does not impair the strong governmental interests in affording grand juries wide latitude, avoiding minitrials on peripheral matters, and preserving a necessary level of secrecy. We begin by reiterating that the law presumes, absent a strong showing to the contrary, that a grand jury acts within the legitimate scope of its authority. See United States v. Mechanik, 475 U. S. 66, 75 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“The grand jury proceeding is accorded a presumption of regularity, which generally may be dispelled only upon particularized proof of irregularities in the grand jury process”). See also Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 139, n. 23 (1974); United States v. Johnson, supra, at 512-513. Consequently, a grand jury subpoena issued through normal channels is presumed to be reasonable, and the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the recipient who seeks to avoid compliance. Indeed, this result is indicated by the language of Rule 17(c), which permits a subpoena to be quashed only “on motion” and “if compliance would be unreasonable” (emphasis added). To the extent that the Court of Appeals placed an initial burden on the Government, it committed error. Drawing on the principles articulated above, we conclude that where, as here, a subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation. Respondents did not challenge the subpoenas as being too indefinite nor did they claim that compliance would be overly burdensome. See App. in In re Grand Jury 87-3 Subpoena Duces Tecum, Nos. 88-5619, 88-5620 (CA4), pp. A-333, A-494. The Court of Appeals accordingly did not consider these aspects of the subpoenas, nor do we.
B
It seems unlikely, of course, that a challenging party who does not know the general subject matter of the grand jury’s investigation, no matter how valid that party’s claim, will be able to make the necessary showing that compliance would be unreasonable. After all, a subpoena recipient “cannot put his whole life before the court in order to show that there is no crime to be investigated,” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 270, 560 P. 2d 778, 788 (1977) (Gordon, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part). Consequently, a court may be justified in a case where unreasonableness is alleged in requiring the Government to reveal the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation before requiring the challenging party to carry its burden of persuasion. We need not resolve this question in the present case, however, as there is no doubt that respondents knew the subject of the grand jury investigation pursuant to which the business records subpoenas were issued. In cases where the recipient of the subpoena does not know the nature of the investigation, we are confident that district courts will be able to craft appropriate procedures that balance the interests of the subpoena recipient against the strong governmental interests in maintaining secrecy, preserving investigatory flexibility, and avoiding procedural delays. For example, to ensure that subpoenas are not routinely challenged as a form of discovery, a district court may require that the Government reveal the subject of the investigation to the trial court in camera, so that the court may determine whether the motion to quash has a reasonable prospect for success before it discloses the subject matter to the challenging party.
<1
Applying these principles in this case demonstrates that the District Court correctly denied respondents’ motions to quash. It is undisputed that all three companies — Model, R. Enterprises, and MFR — are owned by the same person, that all do business in the samé area, and that one of the three, Model, has shipped sexually explicit materials into the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court could have concluded from these facts that there was a reasonable possibility that the business records of R. Enterprises and MFR would produce information relevant to the grand jury’s investigation into the interstate transportation of obscene materials. Respondents’ blanket denial of any connection to Virginia did not suffice to render the District Court’s conclusion invalid. A grand jury need not accept on faith the self-serving assertions of those who may have committed criminal acts. Rather, it is entitled to determine for itself whether a crime has been committed. See Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S., at 642-643.
Both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, respondents contended that these subpoenas sought records relating to First Amendment activities, and that this required the Government to demonstrate that the records were particularly relevant to its investigation. The Court of Appeals determined that the subpoenas did not satisfy Rule 17(c) and thus did not pass on the First Amendment issue. We express no view on this issue and leave it to be resolved by the Court of Appeals.
The judgment is reversed insofar as the Court of Appeals quashed the subpoenas issued to R. Enterprises and MFR, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia joins in all but Part III-B of this opinion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether a state sales tax scheme that taxes general interest magazines, but exempts newspapers and religious, professional, trade, and sports journals, violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press.
J — l
Since 1935, Arkansas has imposed a tax on receipts from sales of tangible personal property. 1935 Ark. Gen. Acts 233, §4, pp. 593, 594, now codified at Ark. Stat. Ann. §84-1903(a) (1980 and Supp. 1985). The rate of tax is currently four percent of gross receipts. § 84-1903 (three percent); Ark. Stat. Ann. §84-1903.1 (Supp. 1985) (additional one percent). Numerous items are exempt from the state sales tax, however. These include “[g]ross receipts or gross proceeds derived from the sale of newspapers,” §84-1904(f) (newspaper exemption), and “religious, professional, trade and sports journals and/or publications printed and published within this State . . . when sold through regular subscriptions.” §84-1904(j) (magazine exemption).
Appellant Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc., publishes Arkansas Times, a general interest monthly magazine with a circulation of approximately 28,000. The magazine includes articles on a variety of subjects, including religion and sports. It is printed and published in Arkansas, and is sold through mail subscriptions, coin-operated stands, and over-the-counter sales. In 1980, following an audit, appellee Commissioner of Revenue assessed tax on sales of Arkansas Times. Appellant initially contested the assessment, but eventually reached a settlement with the State and agreed to pay the tax beginning in October 1982. However, appellant reserved the right to renew its challenge if there were a change in the tax law or a court ruling drawing into question the validity of Arkansas’ exemption structure. Record 46-47.
Subsequently, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575 (1983), this Court held unconstitutional a Minnesota tax on paper and ink used in the production of newspapers. In January 1984, relying on this authority, appellant sought a refund of sales tax paid since October 1982, asserting that the magazine exemption must be construed to include Arkansas Times. It maintained that subjecting Arkansas Times to the sales tax, while sales of newspapers and other magazines were exempt, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commissioner denied appellant’s claim for refund. App. to Juris. Statement 12-14.
Having exhausted available administrative remedies, appellant filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. The complaint also stated a claim under 42 U. S. C. §§1983 and 1988 for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. The parties stipulated that Arkansas Times is not a “newspaper” or a “religious, professional, trade or sports journal” and that, during the relevant time period, appellant had paid $15,838.22 in sales tax. The Chancery Court granted appellant summary judgment, construing § 84 — 1904(j) to create two categories of tax-exempt magazines sold through subscriptions, one for religious, professional, trade, and sports journals, and one for publications published and printed within the State of Arkansas. No. 84-1268 (Pulaski Cty. Chancery Ct., Mar. 29, 1985). Because Arkansas Times came within the second category, the court held that the magazine was exempt from sales tax and appellant was entitled to a refund. The court determined that resolution of the dispute on statutory grounds made it unnecessary to address the constitutional issues raised in appellant’s § 1983 claim.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Chancery Court. 287 Ark. 155, 697 S. W. 2d 94 (1985). It construed § 84 — 1904(j) as creating a single exemption and held that, in order to qualify for this exemption, a magazine had to be a “religious, professional, trade, or sports periodical.” Id., at 157, 697 S. W. 2d, at 95. Concluding that “neither party has questioned the constitutionality of the exemption,” the State Supreme Court failed to address appellant’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Ibid.
On petition for rehearing, the court issued a supplementary opinion in which it acknowledged that appellant had pursued its constitutional claims and that they “should have been discussed” in the court’s original opinion. Id., at 157, 157A, 157B, 698 S. W. 2d 802, 803 (1985). It rejected appellant’s claims of discriminatory treatment, reasoning that exemptions granted to other publications need not be considered, because:
“[I]t would avail [appellant] nothing if it wins its argument. ... It is immaterial that an exemption in favor of some other taxpayer may be invalid, as discriminatory. If so, it is the exemption that would fall, not the tax against the [Arkansas] Times.” Id., at 157A, 698 S. W. 2d, at 803.
As to appellant’s First Amendment objections, the court noted that this Court has held that “the owners of newspapers are not immune from any of the ‘ordinary forms of taxation’ for support of the government.” Ibid., quoting Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250 (1936). In contrast to Minneapolis Star, supra, and Grosjean, supra, the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that the Arkansas sales tax was a permissible “ordinary form of taxation.” Because the court did not find that appellant’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated, it did not consider the claim for attorney’s fees under § 1988.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 476 U. S. 1113 (1986), and we now reverse.
II
As a threshold matter, the Commissioner argues that appellant does not have standing to challenge the Arkansas sales tax scheme. Extending the reasoning of the court below, he contends that, since appellant has conceded that Arkansas Times is neither a newspaper nor a religious, professional, trade, or sports journal, it has not asserted an injury that can be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court and therefore does not meet the requirements for standing set forth in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982).
We do not accept the Commissioner’s notion of standing, for it would effectively insulate underinclusive statutes from constitutional challenge, a proposition we soundly rejected in Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268, 272 (1979). The Commissioner’s position is inconsistent with numerous decisions of this Court in which we have considered claims that others similarly situated were exempt from the operation of a state law adversely affecting the claimant. See, e. g., Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638 (1984); Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455 (1980); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). Contrary to the Commissioner’s assertion, appellant has alleged sufficient a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation. “The holding of the [Arkansas] cour[t] stand[s] as a total bar to appellant’s relief; [its] constitutional attack holds the only promise of escape from the burden that derives from the challenged statut[e].” Orr v. Orr, supra, at 273.
A
Our cases clearly establish that a discriminatory tax on the press burdens rights protected by the First Amendment. See Minneapolis Star, 460 U. S., at 591-692; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, at 244-245. In Minneapolis Star, the discrimination took two distinct forms. First, in contrast to generally applicable economic regulations to which the press can legitimately be subject, the Minnesota use tax treated the press differently from other enterprises. 460 U. S., at 581 (the tax “singles] out publications for treatment that is . . . unique in Minnesota tax law”). Second, the tax targeted a small group of newspapers. This was due to the fact that the first $100,000 of paper and ink were exempt from the tax; thus “only a handful of publishers pay any tax at all, and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax.” Id., at 591.
Both types of discrimination can be established even where, as here, there is no evidence of an improper censorial motive. See id., at 579-580, 592 (“Illicit legislative intent is not the sine qua non of a violation of the First Amendment”). This is because selective taxation of the press — either singling out the press as a whole or targeting individual members of the press — poses a particular danger of abuse by the State.
“A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected. When the State imposes a generally applicable tax, there is little cause for concern. We need not fear that a government will destroy a selected group of taxpayers by burdensome taxation if it must impose the same burden on the rest of its constituency.” Id., at 585.
Addressing only the first type of discrimination, the Commissioner defends the Arkansas sales tax as a generally applicable economic regulation. He acknowledges the numerous statutory exemptions to the sales tax, including those exempting newspapers and religious, trade, professional, and sports magazines. Nonetheless, apparently because the tax is nominally imposed on receipts from sales of all tangible personal property, see §84-1903, he insists that the tax should be upheld.
On the facts of this case, the fundamental question is not whether the tax singles out the press as a whole, but whether it targets a small group within the press. While-we indicated in Minneapolis Star that a genuinely nondiscriminatory tax on the receipts of newspapers would be constitutionally permissible, 460 U. S., at 586, and n. 9, the Arkansas sales tax cannot be characterized as nondiscriminatory, because it is not evenly applied to all magazines. To the contrary, the magazine exemption means that only a few Arkansas magazines pay any sales tax; in that respect, it operates in much the same way as did the $100,000 exemption to the Minnesota use tax. Because the Arkansas sales tax scheme treats some magazines less favorably than others, it suffers from the second type of discrimination identified in Minneapolis Star.
Indeed, this case involves a more disturbing use of selective taxation than Minneapolis Star, because the basis on which Arkansas differentiates between magazines is particularly repugnant to First Amendment principles: a magazine’s tax status depends entirely on its content. “[AJbove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S., at 95. See also Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S., at 462-463. “Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 648-649 (1984).
If articles in Arkansas Times were uniformly devoted to religion or sports, the magazine would be exempt from the sales tax under § 84 — 1904(j). However, because the articles deal with a variety of subjects (sometimes including religion and sports), the Commissioner has determined that the magazine’s sales may be taxed. In order to determine whether a magazine is subject to sales tax, Arkansas’ “enforcement authorities must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed . . . .” FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U. S. 364, 383 (1984). Such official scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. See Regan v. Time, Inc., supra, at 648.
Arkansas’ system of selective taxation does not evade the strictures of the First Amendment merely because it does not burden the expression of particular views by specific magazines. We rejected a similar distinction between content and viewpoint restrictions in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 530 (1980). As we stated in that case, “[t]he First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic.” Id., at 537. See FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, supra, at 383-384; Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S. 490, 518-519 (1981) (plurality opinion); Carey v. Brown, supra, at 462, n. 6.
Nor are the requirements of the First Amendment avoided by the fact that Arkansas grants an exemption to other members of the media that might publish discussions of the various subjects contained in Arkansas Times. For example, exempting newspapers from the tax, see §84-1904(f), does not change the fact that the State discriminates in determining the tax status of magazines published in Arkansas. “It hardly answers one person’s objection to a restriction on his speech that another person, outside his control, may speak for him.” Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U. S. 540, 553 (1983) (Blackmun, J., concurring). See also Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 757, n. 15 (1976) (“We are aware of no general principle that freedom of speech may be abridged when the speaker’s listeners could come by his message by some other means”).
B
Arkansas faces a heavy burden in attempting to defend its content-based approach to taxation of magazines. In order to justify such differential taxation, the State must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. See Minneapolis Star, 460 U. S., at 591-592.
The Commissioner has advanced several state interests. First, he asserts the State’s general interest in raising revenue. While we have recognized that this interest is an important one, see id., at 586, it does not explain selective imposition of the sales tax on some magazines and not others, based solely on their content. In Minneapolis Star, this interest was invoked in support of differential treatment of the press in relation to other businesses. Ibid. In that context, we noted that an interest in raising revenue,
“[standing alone, . . . cannot justify the special treatment of the press, for an alternative means of achieving the same interest without raising concerns under the First Amendment is clearly available: the State could raise the revenue by taxing businesses generally, avoiding the censorial threat implicit in a tax that singles out the press.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
The same is true of a tax that differentiates between members of the press.
The Commissioner also suggests that the exemption of religious, professional, trade, and sports journals was intended to encourage “fledgling” publishers, who have only limited audiences and therefore do not have access to the same volume of advertising revenues as general interest magazines such as Arkansas Times. Brief for Appellee 16. Even assuming that an interest in encouraging fledgling publications might be a compelling one, we do not find the exemption in § 84 — 1904(j) of religious, professional, trade, and sports journals narrowly tailored to achieve that end. To the contrary, the exemption is both overinclusive and underinclusive. The types of magazines enumerated in § 84 — 1904(j) are exempt, regardless of whether they are “fledgling”; even the most lucrative and well-established religious, professional, trade, and sports journals do not pay sales tax. By contrast, struggling general interest magazines and struggling specialty magazines on subjects other than those specified in §84-1904(j) are ineligible for favorable tax treatment.
Finally, the Commissioner asserted for the first time at oral argument a need to “foster communication” in the State. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28, 32. While this state interest might support a blanket exemption of the press from the sales tax, it cannot justify selective taxation of certain publishers. The Arkansas tax scheme only fosters communication on religion, sports, and professional and trade matters. It therefore does not serve its alleged purpose in any significant way.
C
Appellant argues that the Arkansas tax scheme violates the First Amendment because it exempts all newspapers from the tax, but only some magazines. Appellant contends that, under applicable state regulations, see nn. 1 and 2, supra, the critical distinction between newspapers and magazines is not format, but rather content: newspapers are distinguished from magazines because they contain reports of current events and articles of general interest. Just as content-based distinctions between magazines are impermissible under prior decisions of this Court, appellant claims that content-based distinctions between different members of the media are also impermissible, absent a compelling justification.
Because we hold today that the State’s selective application of its sales tax to magazines is unconstitutional and therefore invalid, our ruling eliminates the differential treatment of newspapers and magazines. Accordingly, we need not decide whether a distinction between different types of periodicals presents an additional basis for invalidating the sales tax, as applied to the press.
IV
In the Chancery Court, appellant asserted its First and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, as well as a corresponding entitlement to attorney’s fees under § 1988. Because this Court has found a constitutional violation, appellant urges us to consider its cause of action under § 1983 and order an award of attorney’s fees. However, the state courts have not yet indicated whether they will exercise jurisdiction over this claim and we therefore remand to give them an opportunity to do so.
The parties recognize that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over actions brought under § 1983, see, e. g., Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 283, n. 7 (1980), although the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, ordinarily precludes federal courts from entertaining challenges to the assessment of state taxes. The parties disagree, however, on whether the state court must exercise jurisdiction in such cases. We leave it to the courts on remand to consider the necessity of entertaining this claim.
V
We stated in Minneapolis Star that “[a] tax that singles out the press, or that targets individual publications within the press, places a heavy burden on the State to justify its action.” 460 U. S., at 592-593. In this case, Arkansas has failed to meet this heavy burden. It has advanced no compelling justification for selective, content-based taxation of certain magazines, and the tax is therefore invalid under the First Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Arkansas Supreme Court and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The newspaper exemption was added in 1941. 1941 Ark. Gen. Acts 386, § 4, p. 1060. Gross Receipts Tax Regulations of 1981, adopted by the Arkansas Commissioner of Revenue define a newspaper as “a publication in sheet form containing reports of current events and articles of general interest to the public, published regularly in short intervals such as daily, weekly, or bi-weekly, and intended for general circulation.” GR-48(A)(1), reproduced at Record 50.
The magazine exemption was added in 1949. 1949 Ark. Gen. Acts 152, § 2, p. 491. The regulations define a publication as “any pamphlet, magazine, journal, or periodical, other than a newspaper, designed for the information or entertainment of the general public or any segment thereof.” GR-48(A)(5), reproduced at Record 50. The term “regular subscription” is defined as “the purchase by advance payment of a specified number of issues of a publication over a certain period of time, and delivered to the subscriber by mail or otherwise.” GR-48(A)(6), reproduced at Record 50.
Appellant’s First Amendment claims are obviously intertwined with interests arising under the Equal Protection Clause. See Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 94-95 (1972). However, since Arkansas’ sales tax system directly implicates freedom of the press, we analyze it primarily in First Amendment terms. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 585, n. 7 (1983).
Appellant maintains that Arkansas Times is the only Arkansas publication that pays sales tax. App. 13 (Affidavit of Alan Leveritt). The Commissioner contends that there are two periodicals, in addition to Arkansas Times, that pay tax. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. Whether there are three Arkansas magazines paying tax or only one, the burden of the tax clearly falls on a limited group of publishers.
This challenge was made in the courts below, but it was not addressed by either the Chancery Court or the Arkansas Supreme Court. Since the Chancery Court construed the magazine exemption to cover sales of Arkansas Times, it was not necessary to reach the issue. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the sales tax was a generally applicable regulation and did not examine the impact of the magazine exemption or the newspaper exemption. 287 Ark. 155, 157A, 157B, 698 S. W. 2d 802, 803 (1985).
The Chancery Court construed the magazine exemption to apply to sales of Arkansas Times and therefore did not reach the federal cause of action. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court’s construction of the statute and held that there was no First Amendment violation. It found that it was not necessary to consider appellant’s claim for attorney’s fees under § 1988.
Whether state courts must assume jurisdiction over these cases is not entirely clear. See Note, Section 1983 in State Court: A Remedy for Unconstitutional State Taxation, 95 Yale L. J. 414, 420-421 (1985). See also Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 281 S. C. 492, 316 S. E. 2d 386, aff’d by an equally divided Court, 471 U. S. 82 (1984). Of course, an af-firmance by an equally divided Court is not entitled to precedential weight. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 192 (1972).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Pearl Barrett has been convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky of a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (h), a part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213, amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197, enacted earlier the same year. The issue before us is whether § 922 (h) has application to a purchaser’s intrastate acquisition of a firearm that previously, but independently of the purchaser’s receipt, had been transported in interstate commerce from the manufacturer to a distributor and then from the distributor to the dealer.
I
In January 1967, petitioner was convicted in a Kentucky state court of housebreaking. He received a two-year sentence. On April 1, 1972, he purchased a .32-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver over the counter from a Western Auto Store in Booneville, Ky., where petitioner resided. The vendor, who was a local dentist as well as the owner of the store, and who was acquainted with petitioner, was a federally licensed firearms dealer. The weapon petitioner purchased had been manufactured in Massachusetts, shipped by the manufacturer to a distributor in North Carolina, and then received by the Kentucky dealer from the distributor in March 1972, a little less than a month prior to petitioner’s purchase. The sale to Barrett was the firearm’s first retail transaction. It was the only handgun then in the dealer’s stock. Tr. 36-47.
Within an hour after the purchase petitioner was arrested by a county sheriff for driving while intoxicated. The firearm, fully loaded, was on the floorboard of the car on the driver’s side.
Petitioner was charged with a violation of § 922 (h). He pleaded not guilty. At the trial no evidence was presented to show that Barrett personally had participated in any way in the previous interstate movement of the firearm. The evidence was merely to the effect that he had purchased the revolver out of the local dealer’s stock, and that the gun, having been manufactured and then warehoused in other States, had reached the dealer through interstate channels. At the close of the prosecution’s case, Barrett moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the ground that § 922 (h) was not applicable to his receipt of the firearm. The motion was denied. The court instructed the jury that the statute’s interstate requirement was satisfied if the firearm at some time in its past had traveled in interstate commerce. A verdict of guilty was returned. Petitioner received a sentence of three years, subject to the immediate parole eligibility provisions of 18 U. S. C. §4208 (a)(2).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote on the question before us. 504 F. 2d 629 (CA6 1974). Because of the importance of the issue and because the Sixth Circuit’s decision appeared to have overtones of conflict with the opinion and decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Ruffin, 490 F. 2d 557 (1974), we granted certiorari limited to the § 922 (h) issue. 420 U. S. 923 (1975).
II
Petitioner concedes that Congress, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, has the power to regulate interstate trafficking in firearms. Brief for Petitioner 7. He states, however, that the issue before us concerns the scope of Congress’ exercise of that power in this statute. He argues that, in its enactment of § 922 (h), Congress was interested in “the business of gun traffic,” Brief for Petitioner 11; that the Act was meant “to deal with businesses, not individuals per se” (emphasis in original), id., at 14, that is, with mail-order houses, out-of-state sources, and the like; and that the Act was not intended to, and does not, reach an isolated intrastate receipt, such as Barrett’s transaction, where the handgun was sold within Kentucky by a local merchant to a local resident with whom the merchant was acquainted, and where the transaction “has no apparent connection with interstate commerce,” despite the weapon’s manufacture and original distribution in States other than Kentucky. Id., at 6.
We feel, however, that the language of § 922 (h), the structure of the Act of which § 922 (h) is a part, and the manifest purpose of Congress are all adverse to petitioner’s position.
A. Section 922 (h) pointedly and simply provides that it is unlawful for four categories of persons, including a convicted felon, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” The quoted language is without ambiguity. It is directed unrestrictedly at the felon’s receipt of any firearm that “has been” shipped in interstate commerce. It contains no limitation to a receipt which itself is part of the interstate movement. We therefore have no reason to differ with the Court of Appeals’ majority’s conclusion that the language “means exactly what it says.” 504 F. 2d, at 632.
It is to be noted, furthermore, that while the proscribed act, “to receive any firearm,” is in the present tense, the interstate commerce reference is in the present perfect tense, denoting an act that has- been completed. Thus, there is no warping or stretching of language when the statute is applied to a firearm that already has completed its interstate journey and has come to rest in the dealer’s showcase at the time of its purchase and receipt by the felon. Congress knew the significance and meaning of the language it employed. It used the present perfect tense elsewhere in the same section, namely, in § 922 (h)(1) (a person who “has been convicted”), and in § 922 (h) (4) (a person who “has been adjudicated” or who “has been committed”), in contrast to its use of the present tense (“who is”) in §§922 (h)(1), (2), and (3). The statute’s pattern is consistent and no unintended misuse of language or of tense is apparent.
Had Congress intended to confine § 922 (h) to direct interstate receipt, it would have so provided, just as it did in other sections of the Gun Control Act. See § 922 (a) (3) (declaring it unlawful for a nonlicensee to receive in the State where he resides a firearm purchased or obtained “by such person outside that State”); § 922 (j) (prohibiting the receipt of a stolen firearm “moving as . . . interstate . . . commerce”); and § 922 (k) (prohibiting the receipt “in interstate . . . commerce” of a firearm the serial number of which has been removed). Statutes other than the Gun Control Act similarly utilize restrictive language when only direct interstate commerce is to be reached. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §§ 659, 1084, 1201, 1231, 1951, 1952, 2313, 2315, and 2421, and 15 U. S. C. § 77e. As we have said, there is no ambiguity in the words of § 922 (h), and there is no justification for indulging in uneasy statutory construction. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95-96 (1820); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 305 (1957); Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 831 (1974). See United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 696 (1948). There is no occasion here to resort to a rule of lenity, see Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971), for there is no ambiguity that calls for a resolution in favor of lenity. A criminal statute, to be sure, is to be strictly construed, but it is “not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature.” Ameri-can Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Pet. 358, 367 (1829); Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 831.
B. The very structure of the Gun Control Act demonstrates that Congress did not intend merely to restrict interstate sales but sought broadly to keep firearms away from the persons Congress classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous. These persons are comprehensively barred by the Act from acquiring firearms by any means. Thus, § 922 (d) prohibits a licensee from knowingly selling or otherwise disposing of any firearm (whether in an interstate or intrastate transaction, see Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 833) to the same categories of potentially irresponsible persons. If § 922 (h) were to be construed as petitioner suggests, it would not complement § 922 (d), and a gap in the statute’s coverage would be created, for then, although the licensee is prohibited from selling either interstate or intrastate to the designated person, the vendee is not prohibited from receiving unless the transaction is itself interstate.
Similarly, § 922 (g) prohibits the same categories of potentially irresponsible persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate commerce or, see 18 U. S. C. § 2 (b), causing it to be shipped interstate. Petitioner’s proposed narrow construction of § 922 (h) would reduce that section to a near redundancy with § 922 (g), since almost every interstate shipment is likely to have been solicited or otherwise caused by the direct recipient. That proposed narrow construction would also create another anomaly: if a prohibited person seeks to buy from his local dealer a firearm that is not currently in the dealer’s stock, and the dealer then orders it interstate, that person violates § 922 (h), but under the suggested construction, he would not violate § 922 (h) if the firearm were already on the dealer’s shelf.
We note, too, that other sections of the Act clearly apply to and regulate intrastate sales of a gun that has moved in intrastate commerce. For example, the licensing provisions, §§ 922 (a)(1) and 923 (a), apply to exclusively intrastate, as well as interstate, activity. Under § 922 (d), as noted above, a licensee may not knowingly sell a firearm to any prohibited person, even if the sale is intrastate. Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 833. Sections 922 (c) and (a)(6), relating, respectively, to a physical presence at the place of purchase and to the giving of false information, apply to intrastate as well as to interstate transactions. So, too, do §§ 922 (b) (2) and (5).
Construing § 922 (h) as applicable to an intrastate retail sale that has been preceded by movement of the firearm in interstate commerce is thus consistent with the entire pattern of the Act. To confine § 922 (h) to direct interstate receipts would result in having the Gun Control Act cover every aspect of intrastate transactions in firearms except receipt. This, however, and obviously, is the most crucial of all. Congress surely did not intend to except from the direct prohibitions of the statute the very act it went to such pains to prevent indirectly, through complex provisions, in the other sections of the Act.
C. The legislative history is fully supportive of our construction of § 922 (h). The Gun Control Act of 1968 was an amended and, for present purposes, a substantially identical version of Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Each of the statutes enlarged and extended the Federal Firearms Act, 52 Stat. 1250 (1938). Section 922 (h), although identical in its operative phrase with § 2 (f) of the Federal Firearms Act, expanded the categories of persons prohibited from receiving firearms. The new Act also added many prophylactic provisions, hereinabove referred to, governing intrastate as well as interstate transactions. See Zimring, Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968, 4 J. Legal Studies 133 (1975). But the 1938 Act, it was said, was designed “to prevent the crook and gangster, racketeer and fugitive from justice from being able to purchase or in any way come in contact with firearms of any kind.” S. Rep. No. 1189, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 33 (1937). Nothing we have found in the committee reports or hearings on the 1938 legislation indicates any intention on the part of Congress to confine § 2 (f) to direct interstate receipt of firearms.
The history of the 1968 Act reflects a similar concern with keeping firearms out of the hands of categories of potentially irresponsible persons, including convicted felons. Its broadly stated principal purpose was “to make it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency.” S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1968). See also 114 Cong. Rec. 13219 (1968) (remarks by Sen. Tydings); Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 824-825. Congressman Celler, the House Manager, expressed the same concern: “This bill seeks to maximize the possibility of keeping firearms out of the hands of such persons.” 114 Cong. Rec. 21784 (1968); Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S., at 828. In the light of this principal purpose, Congress could not have intended that the broad and unambiguous language of § 922 (h) was to be confined, as petitioner suggests, to direct interstate receipts. That suggestion would remove from the statute the most usual transaction, namely, the felon’s purchase or receipt from his local dealer.
Ill
Two statements of this Court in past cases, naturally relied upon by petitioner, deserve mention. The first is an observation made over 30 years ago in reference to the 1938 Act’s § 2 (f), the predecessor of § 922 (h):
“Both courts below held that the offense created by the Act is confined to the receipt of firearms or ammunition as a part of interstate transportation and does not extend to the receipt, in an intrastate transaction, of such articles which, at some prior time, have been transported interstate. The Government agrees that this construction is correct.” Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 466 (1943).
In that case, the Court held that the presumption contained in § 2 (f), to the effect that “the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person [one convicted of a crime of violence or a fugitive from justice] shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this Act,” was violative of due process.
The quoted observation, of course, is merely a recital as to what the District Court and the Court of Appeals in that case had held and a further statement that the Government had agreed that the construction by the lower courts was correct. Having made this observation, the Court then understandably moved on to the only issue in Tot, namely, the validity of the statutory presumption. The fact that the Government long ago took a narrow position on the reach of the 1938 Act may not serve to help its posture here, when it seemingly argues to the contrary, but it does not prevent the Government from arguing that the current gun control statute is broadly based and reaches a purchase such as that made by Barrett.
The second statement is more recent and appears in United States v. Bass, supra. The Bass comment, of course, is dictum, for Bass had to do with a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202 (a), a provision which was part of Title VII, not of Title IV, of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. Section 1202 (a) concerned any member of stated categories of persons “who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm.” The Government contended that the statute did not require proof of a connection with interstate commerce. The Court held, however, that the statute was ambiguous and that, therefore, it must be read to require such a nexus. In so holding, the Court noted the connection between Title VII and Title IV, and observed that although subsections of the two Titles addressed their prohibitions to some of the same people, each also reached groups not reached by the other. Then followed the dictum in question. The Court went on to state:
“While the reach of Title IV itself is a question to be decided finally some other day, the Government has presented here no learning or other evidence indicating that the 1968 Act changed the prior approach to the 'receipt’ offense.” 404 U. S., at 343 n. 10.
The Bass dictum was just another observation made in passing as the Court proceeded to consider § 1202 (a). The observation went so far as to intimate that Title IV was to be limited even with respect to a transaction possessing an interstate commerce nexus, a situation that Barrett here concedes is covered by §922 (h). In any event, the Court, by its statement in n. 10 of the Bass opinion, reserved the question of the reach of Title IV for “some other day.” That day is now at hand, with Barrett’s case before us. And it is at hand with the benefit of full briefing and an awareness of the plain language of § 922 (h), of the statute’s position in the structure of the entire Act, and of the legislative aims and purpose.
Furthermore, we are not willing to decide the present case on the assumption that Congress, in passing the Gun Control Act 25 years after Tot was decided, had the Court’s casual recital in Tot in mind when it used language identical to that in the 1938 Act. There is one mention of Tot in the debates, 114 Cong. Rec. 21807 (1968), and one mention in the reports, S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 272 (1968) (additional views of Sens. Dirksen, Hruska, Thurmond, and Burdick). These reflect a concern with the fact that Tot eliminated the presumption of interstate movement, thus increasing the burden of proof on the Government. They do not focus on what showing was necessary to carry that burden of proof. Similarly, the few references to Tot in the hearings reflect objections to the elimination of the presumption, but mention only in passing the type of proof that the witness believed was necessary to satisfy § 2 (f). See, e. g., Hearings on S. 1, Amendment 90 to S. 1, S. 1853, and S. 1854 before Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 46 (1967); Hearings on H. R. 5037, H. R. 5038, H. R. 5384, H. R. 5385, and H. R. 5386 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 561-562, 564, 677-678. Nothing in this legislative history persuades us that Congress intended to adopt Tot’s limited interpretation. If we were to conclude otherwise, we would fly in the face of, and ignore, obvious congressional intent at the price of a passing recital. See Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 69-70 (1946). To hold, as the Court did in Bass, 404 U. S., at 350, that Title VII, directed to a receipt of any firearm “in commerce or affecting commerce,” requires only a showing that the firearm received previously traveled in interstate commerce, but that Title IY, relating to a receipt of any firearm “which has been shipped or transported in interstate . . . commerce,” is limited to the receipt of the firearm as part of an interstate movement, would be inconsistent construction of sections of the same Act and, indeed, would be downgrading the stronger language and upgrading the weaker.
We conclude that § 922 (h) covers the intrastate receipt, such as petitioner’s purchase here, of a firearm that previously had moved in interstate commerce. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed.
7 It %s so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Ҥ 922. Unlawful acts.
“(h) It shall be unlawful for any person—
“(1) who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
“(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
“(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) ; or
“(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to any mental institution;
"to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Petitioner at the time of the purchase was not asked to complete Treasury Form 4473, designed for use in the enforcement of the gun control provisions of the statute. Tr. 45-47. Accordingly, there is no issue here as to the making of any false statement, in violation of § 922 (a) (6). See Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814 (1974).
The defense also moved to quash the indictment on the ground that on June 20, 1969, the Governor of Kentucky, by executive order in the nature of a pardon, had granted petitioner “all the rights of citizenship denied him in consequence of said judgment of conviction.” It was suggested that this served to wipe out petitioner’s state felony conviction of January 1967. The motion to quash was denied. The same argument was made in the Court of Appeals, but that court unanimously rejected it for reasons stated in the court’s respective majority and dissenting opinions. 504 F. 2d 629, 632-634 (CA6 1974). The issue is not presented here.
“Now, interstate commerce, ladies and gentlemen, is the movement of something of value from one political subdivision, which we call a state, to another political subdivision, which we call a state. Interstate commerce occurs when something of value crosses a state boundary line. Now, if you believe that from this evidence . . . the firearm in question was manufactured in a state other than Kentucky, then you are entitled to make the permissible inference that in order for that firearm to be physically located in Kentucky, ... it had to be engaged in interstate transportation at some point or another, but this is a permissible inference. You are not required to make that inference unless you believe from the evidence that that is a logical, reasonable determination to make from the facts.” Tr. 99-100.
Section 2 (f) provided:
“It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence or is a fugutive [sic] from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce . . . 52 Stat. 1251.
There is, of course, no rule of law to the effect that the Government must be consistent in its stance in litigation over the years. It has changed positions before. See, e. g., Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, 183 (1957).
“Even under respondent’s view, a Title VII offense is made out if the firearm was possessed or received ‘in commerce or affecting commerce’; however, Title IV apparently does not reach possessions or intrastate transactions at all, even those with an interstate commerce nexus, but is limited to the sending or receiving of firearms as part of an interstate transportation.” 404 U. S., at 342-343.
“The verdict of quiescent years cannot be invoked to baptize a statutory gloss that is otherwise impermissible. This Court has many times reconsidered statutory constructions that have been passively abided by Congress. Congressional inaction frequently betokens unawareness, preoccupation, or paralysis.” Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 185-186, n. 21 (1969).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Eugene F. Diamond is a pediatrician engaged in private practice in Illinois. He seeks to defend before this Court the constitutionality of four sections of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended. These sections impose criminal liability for the performance of an abortion under certain circumstances, and, under other circumstances, require that the woman be provided with particular abortion-related information. The State of Illinois has chosen to absent itself from this appeal, despite the fact that its statute is at stake. Because a private party whose own conduct is neither implicated nor threatened by a criminal statute has no judicially cognizable interest in the statute’s defense, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I
On October 30, 1979, over gubernatorial veto, the Illinois Legislature amended the State’s 1975 Abortion Law to provide for increased regulation. 1979 Ill. Laws, Pub. Act 81-1078. That very day appellees, four physicians who provide obstetric, gynecologic, and abortion services in Illinois, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They alleged a deprivation of rights in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983 by the Illinois officials charged with enforcing the Abortion Law. Appellees sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The next day, the District Court certified the plaintiff class and temporarily restrained enforcement of the entire statute. On November 8, appellant Diamond filed a motion to intervene as a party defendant, either permissively or as of right, and to be appointed guardian ad litem for fetuses who survive abortion. The motion for intervention professed to be based on Doctor Diamond’s conscientious objection to abortions, and on his status as a pediatrician and as a parent of an unemancipated minor daughter.
Over appellees’ objection, the District Court granted Diamond’s motion to intervene. The District Court did not indicate whether the intervention was permissive or as of right, and it did not describe how Diamond’s interests in the litigation satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 for intervenor status. The court denied the guardianship motion.
On November 16, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction against a number of sections of the Abortion Law, including §§6(1) and 6(4). These sections prescribe the standard of care that must be exercised by a physician in performing an abortion of a viable fetus, and of a possibly viable fetus. A violator of §6(1) is subject to a term of imprisonment of between three and seven years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 1005-8-1(5) and 1005-9-1(1) (1983). A violator of §6(4) is subject to a term of imprisonment of between two and five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 1005-8-1(6) and 1005-9-1(1) (1983).
The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction as to §2(10), which defines the term “abortifacient,” and as to § 11(d), which requires a physician who prescribes an abortifacient to tell the patient what it is. A violator of § 11(d) is subject to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days, and a fine not exceeding $500. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 1005-8-3(3) and 1005-9-1(3) (1983). No cross-appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit instructed the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction as to §§2(10) and 11(d), because these statutory provisions forced physicians “to act as the mouthpiece for the State’s theory of life.” Charles v. Carey, 627 F. 2d 772, 789 (1980).
On remand, the District Court permanently enjoined, among others, §§6(4), 2(10), and 11(d). Charles v. Carey, 579 F. Supp. 464 (1983). On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of the permanent injunction as to the three sections, and also permanently enjoined the enforcement of § 6(1). 749 F. 2d 452 (1984). The State did not appeal the grant of the permanent injunction. Diamond, however, filed a notice of appeal to this Court and a jurisdictional statement. As we have indicated, see n. 4, supra, Doctor Diamond is the sole appellant here. We noted probable jurisdiction. 471 U. S. 1115 (1985).
The State, through the office of its Attorney General, subsequently filed with this Court a “letter of interest,” invoking our Rule 10.4, which provides: “All parties to the proceeding in the court from whose judgment the appeal is being taken shall be deemed parties in this Court. . . .” In that letter Illinois stated:
“Although not an appellant, the Office of the Attorney General ... is a party in the United States Supreme Court and is designated an appellee. The Illinois Attorney General’s interest in this proceeding is identical to that advanced by it in the lower courts and is essentially co-terminous with the position on the issues set forth by the appellants.” Letter dated July 15, 1985, to the Clerk of the Court from the Director of Advocacy, Office of the Attorney General of Illinois.
See App. to Reply Brief for Appellants A-l. Illinois’ absence as an appellant requires that we examine our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
II
Article III of the Constitution limits the power of federal courts to deciding “cases” and “controversies.” This requirement ensures the presence of the “concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet Art. Ill’s requirements. This Court consistently has required, in addition, that the party seeking judicial resolution of a dispute “show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct” of the other party. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975).
The nature of the injury is central to the Art. Ill inquiry, because standing also reflects a due regard for the autonomy of those most likely to be affected by a judicial decision. “The exercise of judicial power . . . can so profoundly affect the lives, liberty, and property of those to whom it extends,” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 473 (1982), that the decision to seek review must be placed “in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972). It is not to be placed in the hands of “concerned bystanders,” who will use it simply as a “vehicle for the vindication of value interests.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 687 (1973).
Ill
Had the State of Illinois invoked this Court’s appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2) and sought review of the Court of Appeals’ decision, the “case” or “controversy” requirement would have been met, for a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute. Diamond argues that Illinois’ “letter of interest” demonstrates the State’s continued concern with the enforcement of its Abortion Law, and renders the State the functional equivalent of an appellant. Accordingly, Diamond asserts, there is no jurisdictional problem in the case. This claim must be rejected.
It is true that, as a party below, the State remains a party here under our Rule 10.4. But status as a “party” does not equate with status as an appellant. To appear before the Court as an appellant, a party must file a notice of appeal, the statutory prerequisite to invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c). Illinois’ mere expression of interest is insufficient to bring the State into the suit as an appellant. By not appealing the judgment below, the State indicated its acceptance of that decision, and its lack of interest in defending its own statute. The State’s general interest may be adverse to the interests of appellees, but its failure to invoke our jurisdiction leaves the Court without a “case” or “controversy” between appellees and the State of Illinois. Cf. Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U. S. 100 (1982).
Had the State sought review, this Court’s Rule 10.4 makes clear that Diamond, as an intervening defendant below, also would be entitled to seek review, enabling him to file a brief on the merits, and to seek leave to argue orally. But this ability to ride “piggyback” on the State’s undoubted standing exists only if the State is in fact an appellant before the Court; in the absence of the State in that capacity, there is no case for Diamond to join.
IV
A
Diamond claims that his interests in enforcement permit him to defend the Abortion Law, despite Illinois’ acquiescence in the Court of Appeals’ ruling of unconstitutionality. This claim also must fail. Doctor Diamond attempts to equate his position with that of appellees, the physicians who instituted this suit in the District Court. Appellees, however, had standing to bring suit against the state officials who were charged with enforcing the Abortion Law because appellees faced possible criminal prosecution. See, e. g., Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 188 (1973). The conflict between state officials empowered to enforce a law and private parties subject to prosecution under that law is a classic “case” or “controversy” within the meaning of Art. III.
The conflict presented by Diamond is different. Were the Abortion Law to be held constitutional, Diamond could not compel the State to enforce it against appellees because “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619 (1973); see Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U. S. 83 (1981); Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883 (1984). See also Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 42 (1971); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 33 (1962). Cf. Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 754 (1984) (“[A]n asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court”).
The concerns for state autonomy that deny private individuals the right to compel a State to enforce its laws apply with even greater force to an attempt by a private individual to compel a State to create and retain the legal framework within which individual enforcement decisions are made. The State’s acquiescence in the Court of Appeals’ determination of unconstitutionality serves to deprive the State of the power to prosecute anyone for violating the Abortion Law. Diamond’s attempt to maintain the litigation is, then, simply an effort to compel the State to enact a code in accord with Diamond’s interests. But “the power to create and enforce a legal code, both civil and criminal” is one of the quintessential functions of a State. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U. S. 592, 601 (1982). Because the State alone is entitled to create a legal code, only the State has the kind of “direct stake” identified in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S., at 740, in defending the standards embodied in that code.
B
Even if there were circumstances in which a private party would have standing to defend the constitutionality of a challenged statute, this is not one of them. Diamond is not able to assert an injury in fact. A physician has standing to challenge an abortion law that poses for him a threat of criminal prosecution. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S., at 188; see Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 62 (1976). In addition, a physician who demonstrates that abortion funding regulations have a direct financial impact on his practice may assert the constitutional rights of other individuals who are unable to assert those rights themselves. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106 (1976). Diamond attempts to assert an equivalent interest based upon his personal status as a doctor, a father, and a protector of the unborn. We must reject Diamond’s claims that his personal and professional interests confer standing.
Diamond, who is a pediatrician, claims that if the Abortion Law were enforced, he would gain patients; fewer abortions would be performed and those that would be performed would result in more live births, because the law requires a physician to attempt to preserve the life of the aborted fetus. By implication, therefore, the pool of potential fee-paying patients would be enlarged. The possibilities that such fetuses would survive and then find their way as patients to Diamond are speculative, and “unadorned speculation will not suffice to invoke the federal judicial power.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 44 (1976). Diamond’s situation, based on speculation and hoped-for fees is far different from that of the physicians in Wulff, supra, where actual fees were limited by the challenged Missouri statute.
Diamond also alleges that, as a physician, he has standing to litigate the standards of medical practice that ought to be applied to the performance of abortions. Although Diamond’s allegation may be cloaked in the nomenclature of a special professional interest, it is simply the expression of a desire that the Illinois Abortion Law as written be obeyed. Article III requires more than a desire to vindicate value interests. See United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S., at 687. It requires an “ ‘injury in fact’ ” that distinguishes “a person with a direct stake in the outcome of a litigation — even though small — from a person with a mere interest in the problem.” Id., at 689, n. 14. Diamond has an interest, but no direct stake, in the abortion process. This “abstract concern . . . does not substitute for the concrete injury required by Art. III.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S., at 40. Similarly, Diamond’s claim of conscientious objection to abortion does not provide a judicially cognizable interest.
Doctor Diamond also asserts that he has standing as the father of a daughter of childbearing years. First, to the extent that Diamond’s claim derives from § 3(3) of the Abortion Law, the parental notification section, he lacks standing to continue this litigation, for it does not address the validity of that provision. Second, to the extent that he claims an interest in ensuring that his daughter is not prescribed an abortifacient without prior information — a concern ostensibly triggered by the invalidation of §§2(10) and 11(d) — he has failed to show that he is a proper person to advance this claim on her behalf. Diamond has not shown either that his daughter is currently a minor or that she is otherwise incapable of asserting her own rights. Diamond’s failure to adduce factual support renders him incapable of maintaining this appeal in his capacity as a parent. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 548-549 (1986).
Nor can Diamond assert any constitutional rights of the unborn fetus. Only the State may invoke regulatory measures to protect that interest, and only the State may invoke the power of the courts when those regulatory measures are subject to challenge.
V
Finally, Diamond asserts that he has standing based on two interests that relate not to the Abortion Law, but to his involvement in this litigation. Neither interest suffices.
A
Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether permissive or as of right, does not confer standing sufficient to keep the case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal. Although intervenors are considered parties entitled, among other things, to seek review by this Court, Mine Workers v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co., 325 U. S. 335, 338 (1945), an intervenor’s right to continue a suit in the absence of the party on whose side intervention was permitted is contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III. See id., at 339. See also Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U. S. 352, 368 (1980).
This Court has recognized that certain public concerns may constitute an adequate “interest” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), see Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U. S. 129, 135 (1967), and has held that an interest under Rule 24(a)(2), which provides for intervention as of right, requires a “significantly protectable interest.” See Donaldson v. United States, 400 U. S. 517, 531 (1971). However, the precise relationship between the interest required to satisfy the Rule and the interest required to confer standing, has led to anomalous decisions in the Courts of Appeals. We need not decide today whether a party seeking to intervene before a district court must satisfy not only the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2), but also the requirements of Art. III. To continue this suit in the absence of Illinois, Diamond himself must satisfy the requirements of Art. III. The interests Diamond asserted before the District Court in seeking to intervene plainly are insufficient to confer standing on him to continue this suit now.
B
At oral argument, Diamond stated that the District Court has assessed attorney’s fees against him and the State, jointly and severally. This fee award, Diamond asserted, provided the requisite standing to litigate this case:
“The standing or the real controversy thus between the parties to this case is a very real sum of money, a judgment that runs in favor of the individual plaintiff physicians in this case and against the individual defendants intervenors whom I represent.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 4.
Diamond is claiming that an award of fees entered after a decision on the merits by the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and after probable jurisdiction had been noted by this Court, gives him a direct stake in the enforcement of the Illinois Abortion Law. In short, because Diamond stands to lose the amount of the fee unless the State’s regulations concerning abortion are reinstated, he claims he has been injured by the invalidation of those regulations.
But Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U. S., at 472, makes clear that Art. Ill standing requires an injury with a nexus to the substantive character of the statute or regulation at issue:
“[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. Ill requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to ‘show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,’ Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979), and that the injury ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,’ Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 38, 41 (1976).”
Any liability for fees is, of course, a consequence of Diamond’s decision to intervene, but it cannot fairly be traced to the Illinois Abortion Law. The fee award is wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation, and bears no relation to the statute whose constitutionality is at issue here. It is true that, were the Court to resolve the case on the merits against appellees, appellees would no longer be “prevailing parties” entitled to an award of fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. But the mere fact that continued adjudication would provide a remedy for an injury that is only a byproduct of the suit itself does not mean that the injury is cognizable under Art. III.
VI
The State of Illinois, by failing to appeal, has indicated no direct interest in upholding the four sections of the Abortion Law at issue here. Diamond has stepped in, attempting to maintain the litigation abandoned by the State in which he resides. Because he lacks any judicially cognizable interest in the Abortion Law, his appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Justice White concurs in the judgment.
1975 Ill. Laws, Pub. Act 79-1126, as amended, now codified as Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 81-21 to 81-34 (1983). The 1975 Act was passed over the Governor’s veto. Substantial portions of it already have been held to be unconstitutional. See, e. g., Wynn v. Scott, 449 F. Supp. 1302 (ND Ill. 1978), aff’d sub nom. Wynn v. Carey, 599 F. 2d 193 (CA7 1979).
The defendants named in the complaint were the Attorney General of the State and the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, each in his official capacity, and the State’s Attorney of Cook County, in both his official capacity and as representative of a class consisting of the State’s Attorneys in all the counties of the State of Illinois. A suit against a state officer in his official capacity is, of course, a suit against the State. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165-166 (1985). The District Court certified a defendant class of State’s Attorneys. Charles v. Carey, Civ. No. 79C 4541 (Oct. 31, 1979).
On the same day another and similar action was filed in the same court by three other Illinois obstetrician-gynecologists and two Illinois clinics that provide abortion services. The two suits were consolidated by court order on Nov. 14, 1979.
Doctor Diamond’s motion to intervene and for appointment of guardian was joined by Doctor Jasper F. Williams and David K. Campbell. Doctor Williams, a physician engaged in private practice in Illinois, in the alternative sought appointment as guardian ad litem for unborn children subject to abortion. We are advised that Doctor Williams died on April 15, 1985, after the filing of the notice of appeal to this Court. No one has been substituted for him. Mr. Campbell, who sought intervention as the spouse of a woman of childbearing age, did not file or join a notice of appeal to this Court.
Diamond claimed that under the Abortion Law as a whole fewer abortions would be performed, and that those performed in accordance with the Abortion Law would be designed to preserve the life of aborted fetuses, resulting in more live births. Diamond also rested his motion for intervention on § 13 of the Abortion Law, which provides that a physician who refuses to perform abortions based on conscientious objections will not be subject to liability. He relied, furthermore, on § 11(1), to the effect that violations of the Abortion Law constitute unprofessional conduct, and on § 3.3, which provides for parental consultation.
Although the motion to intervene was on behalf of Doctor Diamond, Doctor Williams, and Mr. Campbell, see n. 4, supra, the District Court granted leave to intervene to Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, counsel for the intervenors below and for Diamond before this Court.
The preliminary injunction also applied to the following sections: §2(2) (defining “viability”); §3.3 (parental consultation); §3.4 (spousal consultation); § 3.5(2), in part (the portion requiring that the patient be told, inter alia: “The State of Illinois wants you to know that in its view the child you are carrying is a living human being whose life should be preserved. Illinois strongly encourages you not to have an abortion but to go through to childbirth”); § 4 (abortion subsequent to first trimester); §§ 5(1), (2), and (3) (definition of “viability”); § 9 (prohibition of saline amniocentesis after first trimester); § 10(i) (certification as to nonviability or as to medical indicators for abortion when fetus was viable); § 10(j) (reporting requirements for saline amniocentesis); § 10(0, in part (the reporting requirement as to the basis for a judgment concerning the existence of a medical emergency); and §12, in part (the third sentence, prohibiting experimentation with or exploitation of fetal tissue).
Section 6(1) then provided:
“No person who intentionally terminates a pregnancy after the fetus is known to be viable shall intentionally fail to exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be bom and not aborted. Any physician or person assisting in such a pregnancy termination who shall intentionally fail to take such measures to encourage or to sustain the life of a fetus known to be viable before or after birth, commits a Class 2 felony if the death of a viable fetus or infant results from such failure.” 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶81-26 (1983).
On June 30, 1984, the Illinois Legislature amended § 6(1), overriding another veto of the Governor. 1984 Ill. Laws, Pub. Act 83-1128, § 1. The Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of § 6(1) as it appeared prior to the 1984 amendment. See Charles v. Daley, 749 F. 2d 452, 455 (CA7 1984).
Section 6(4) then provided:
“No person who intentionally terminates a pregnancy shall intentionally fail to exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted when there exists, in the medical judgment of the physician performing the pregnancy termination based on the particular facts of the case before him, a possibility known to him of sustained survival of the fetus apart from the body of the mother, with or without artificial support. Any physician or person assisting in such pregnancy termination who shall intentionally fail to take such measures to encourage or sustain the life of such a fetus, before or after birth, is guilty of a Class 3 felony if the death of a viable fetus or an infant results from such failure.” 111. Rev. Stat., eh. 38, ¶81-26 (1983).
Section 6(4) was amended by the 1984 statute cited in n. 8, supra, but the Court of Appeals assessed its constitutionality on the version quoted above. See Charles v. Daley, 749 F. 2d, at 455.
Section 2(10) provides:
“‘Abortifacient’ means any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device which is known to cause fetal death when employed in the usual and customary use for which it is manufactured, whether or not the fetus is known to exist when such substance or device is employed.” 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶81-22 (1983).
Section 11(d) provides in relevant part:
“Any person who prescribes or administers any instrument, medicine, drug or other substance or device, which he knows to be an abortifacient, and which is in fact an abortifacient, and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to inform the person for whom it is prescribed or upon whom it is administered that it is an abortifacient commits a Class C misdemeanor.” 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶81-31 (1983).
The Court of Appeals instructed the District Court also to enter a preliminary injunction against the following sections: § 3.2(A)(l)(a)(iii); § 3.5(2); § 6(6); § 3.2(A)(1)(a) (defining the terms “by the physician who is to perform the abortion” and “the woman is provided at least 24 hours before the abortion”); § 3.2(A)(1)(b) (defining the term “from the physician at least 24 hours before the abortion is to be performed”); § 3.2(B)(1) (waiver of waiting period); § 10(k) (reporting requirement for waiver of waiting period); § 3.2(A)(1)(a) (defining the term “with a true copy of her pregnancy test result”); and § 6(2). See 627 F. 2d, at 792, and n. 36.
Other sections of the Abortion Law had been preliminarily enjoined under a separate opinion by the District Court following remand. See Charles v. Carey, 579 F. Supp. 377 (1983).
The purpose of the Rule is to provide a means for a party below, who was not notified that this Court’s review has been sought by another party, to make its interests known to the Court. Frequently, an appellant would seek review as to only one party below, permitting the judgment to stand as to others. See R. Stern, R. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice § 6.20 (6th ed. 1986), and § 6.35 (3d ed. 1962) (describing evolution of the Rule). This Court’s Rule 10.4 therefore avoids the adjudication of rights in a party’s absence, but it does not provide a means to obtain review in the absence of the filing of a notice of appeal by a proper party.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c) provides: “Any other appeal or any writ of certiorari intended to bring any judgment or decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the Supreme Court for review shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the entry of such judgment or decree.”
The State’s reasons for abandoning this suit are not articulated in the record. We have noted above, however, that, during the pendency of this case before the Court of Appeals, Illinois again amended its Abortion Law. 1984 Ill. Laws, Pub. Act 83-1128. At the time of the Court of Appeals’ decision, which was based on the preamendment version of the Abortion Law, the amended sections were subject to a temporary restraining order. See Keith v. Daley, No. 84 C 5602 (ND Ill. 1984). The Court of Appeals declined to assess the constitutionality of the 1984 amendments and rejected challenges of mootness based on those amendments. Charles v. Daley, 749 F. 2d, at 455, 457-458. The State’s inaction may well be due to its concern with the amended, not the earlier, form of the statutes under attack.
The Illinois Legislature, of course, has the power to create new interests, the invasion of which may confer standing. In such a ease, the requirements of Art. Ill may be met. See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 41, n. 22 (1976).
Diamond’s purported interest appears to rest on § 11(a) of the Abortion Law, which provides that the requirements of that law constitute the standards of conduct for the medical profession. Since that provision is neither before the Court nor integrally related to any of the sections at issue in this proceeding, it cannot confer standing on Diamond.
Diamond claims that he is asserting the rights of his prospective patients, who survive abortion, to be born with as few handicapping conditions as possible. Diamond asserted this claim before the District Court as a basis for appointment as guardian ad litem for unborn fetuses. That claim was rejected by the District Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides for intervention
“when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
The Courts of Appeals have reached varying conclusions as to whether a party seeking to intervene as of right must himself possess standing. Compare United States v. 39.36 Acres of Land, 754 F. 2d 855, 859 (CA7 1985) (intervention requires an interest in excess of that required for standing), cert. pending sub nom. Save the Dunes Council, Inc. v. United States, No. 85-426, with Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Kelley, 241 U. S. App. D. C. 340, 747 F. 2d 777 (1984) (equating interest necessary to intervene with interest necessary to confer standing), and United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 206 U. S. App. D. C. 317, 642 F. 2d 1285 (1980) (intervention is proper only if the would-be intervenor has an interest in the outcome of the suit different from that of the public as a whole), with Sagebush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F. 2d 525 (CA9 1983) (resolving intervention questions without reference to standing doctrine), and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F. 2d 861 (CA8 1977) (same).
While not determinative of the standing claim in this case, Diamond responded to the fee award by filing a motion to dismiss him from the litigation and name Americans United for Life, Inc., as the sole intervenor. See n. 6, swpra. In the alternative, Diamond asked the District Court to clarify the original intervention order by stating that “AUL is an intervening defendant for all purposes, including the assessment of attorney’s fees.” The motion further stated that “AUL is the real party in interest.” In assessing fees against appellant Diamond, the District Court stated that “the State defendants and intervenors played at least equal roles in defending the abortion statute.” Charles v. Daley, No. 79-C-4541 (Apr. 22, 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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779 (1995), we reviewed a challenge to an Arkansas law that prohibited the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for the United States Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if he or she had already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. We held that the ballot restriction was an indirect attempt to impose term limits on congressional incumbents that violated the Qualifications Clauses in Article I of the Constitution rather than a permissible exercise of the State’s power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” within the meaning of Article I, §4, cl. 1.
In response to that decision, the voters of Missouri adopted in 1996 an amendment to Article VIII of their State Constitution designed to lead to the adoption of a specified “Congressional Term Limits Amendment” to the Federal Constitution. At issue in this case is the constitutionality of Article VIII.
I
Article VIII “instruct^]” each Member of Missouri’s congressional delegation “to use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment” set forth in §16 of the Article. Mo. Const., Art. VIII, §17(1). That proposed amendment would limit service in the United States Congress to. three terms in the House of Representatives and two terms in the Senate.
Three provisions in Article VIII combine to advance its purpose. Section 17 prescribes that the statement “DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS” be printed on all primary and general ballots adjacent to the name of a Senator or Representative who fails to take any one of eight legislative acts in support of the proposed amendment. Section 18 provides that the statement “DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS” be printed on all primary and general election ballots next to the name of every nonincumbent congressional candidate who refuses to take a “Term Limit” pledge that commits the candidate, if elected, to performing the legislative acts enumerated in §17. And §19 directs the Missouri Secretary of State to determine and declare, pursuant to §§ 17 and 18, whether either statement should be printed alongside the name of each candidate for Congress.
Respondent Don Gralike was a nonincumbent candidate for election in 1998 to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri's Third Congressional District. A month after Article VIII was amended, Gralike brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to enjoin petitioner, the Secretary of State of Missouri, from implementing the Article, which the complaint alleges violates several provisions of the Federal Constitution.
The District Court decided the ease on the pleadings, granting Gralike's motion for summary judgment. The court first held that Article VIII contravened the Qualifications Clauses of Article I of the Federal Constitution because it “has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications for Congress indirectly and has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates for Congress.” 996 F. Supp. 917, 920 (1998); see 996 F. Supp. 901, 906-909 (1998). The court further held that Article VIII places an impermissible burden on the candidates' First Amendment right to speak freely on the issue of term limits by “punish[ing] candidates for speaking out against term limits” through putting “negative words next to their names on the ballot,” and by “us[ing] the threat of being disadvantaged in the election to coerce candidates into taking a position on the term limits issue.” 996 F. Supp., at 910; see 996 F. Supp., at 920. Lastly, the court found Article VIII to be an indirect and unconstitutional attempt by the people of Missouri to interject themselves into the amending process authorized by Article V of the Federal Constitution. In doing so, the court endorsed the reasoning of other decisions invalidating provisions similar to Article VIII on the ground that negative ballot designations “place an undue influence on the legislator to vote in favor of term limits rather than exercise his or her own independent judgment as is contemplated by Article V.” 996 F. Supp., at 916; see 996 F. Supp., at 920. Accordingly, the court permanently enjoined petitioner from enforcing §§ 15 through 19 of Article VIII.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Like the District Court, it found that Article VIII “threatens a penalty that is serious enough to compel candidates to speak — the potential political damage of the ballot labels”; “seeks to impose an additional qualification for candidacy for Congress and does so in a manner which is highly likely to handicap term limit opponents and other labeled candidates”; and “coerce[s] legislators into proposing or ratifying a particular constitutional amendment” in violation of Article V. 191 F. 3d 911, 918, 924, 925 (1999). The Court of Appeals also observed that, contrary to the Speech or Debate Clause in Art. I, § 6, cl. 1, of the Federal Constitution, Article VIII “establishes a regime in which a state officer — the secretary of state — is permitted to judge and punish Members of Congress for their legislative actions or positions.” 191 F. 3d, at 922.
Although the Court of Appeals’ decision is consistent with the views of other courts that have passed on similar voter initiatives, the importance of the case prompted our grant of certiorari. 529 U. S. 1065 (2000).
II
Article VIII furthers the State’s interest in adding a term limits amendment to the Federal Constitution in two ways. It encourages Missouri’s congressional delegation to support such an amendment in order to avoid an unfavorable ballot designation when running for reelection. And it encourages the election of representatives who favor such an amendment. Petitioner argues that Article VIII is an exercise of the “right of the people to instruct” their representatives reserved by the Tenth Amendment, and that it is a permissible regulation of the “manner” of electing federal legislators within the authority delegated to the States by the Elections Clause, Art. I, § 4, cl. I. Because these two arguments rely on different sources of state power, it is appropriate at the outset to review the distinction in kind between powers reserved to the States and those delegated to the States by the Constitution.
As we discussed at length in U. S. Term Limits, the Constitution “draws a basic distinction between the powers of the newly created Federal Government and the powers retained by the pre-existing sovereign States.” 514 U. S., at 801. On the one hand, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, “it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.” Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 (1819). The text of the Tenth Amendment delineates this principle:
“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.”
On the other hand, as Justice Story observed, “the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution did not delegate to them.” 1 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §627 (3d ed. 1858) (hereinafter Story). Simply put, “[n]o state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed.” Ibid.
III
To be persuasive, petitioner’s argument that Article VIII is a valid exercise of the State’s reserved power to give binding instructions to its representatives would have to overcome three hurdles. First, the historical precedents on which she relies for the proposition that the States have such a reserved power are distinguishable. Second, there is countervailing historical evidence. Third, and of decisive significance, the means employed to issue the instructions, ballots for congressional elections, are unacceptable unless Article VIII is a permissible exercise of the State’s power to regulate the manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. Only a brief comment on the first two points is necessary.
Petitioner relies heavily on the part instructions played in the Second Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, the early Congress, the selection of United States Senators before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, and the ratification of certain federal constitutional amendments. However, unlike Article VIII, none of petitioner’s examples was coupled with an express legal sanction for disobedience. At best, as an amicus curiae for petitioner points out, and as petitioner herself acknowledges, such historical instructions at one point in the early Republic may have had “de facto binding force” because it might have been “political suicide” not to follow them. This evidence falls short of demonstrating that either the people or the States had a right to give legally binding, i. e., nonadvisory, instructions to their representatives that the Tenth Amendment reserved, much less that such a right would apply to federal representatives. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 802 (Tenth Amendment “could only 'reserve’ that which existed before”); cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 430 (1819) (rejecting argument that States had reserved power to tax corporations chartered by Congress because an “original right to tax” such federal entities “never existed”).
Indeed, contrary evidence is provided by the fact that the First Congress rejected a proposal to insert a right of the people “to instruct their representatives” into what would become the First Amendment. 1 Annals of Cong. 732 (1789). The fact that the proposal was made suggests that its proponents thought it necessary, and the fact that it was rejected by a vote of 41 to 10, id., at 747, suggests that we should give weight to the views of those who opposed the proposal. It was their view that binding instructions would undermine an essential attribute of Congress by eviscerating the deliberative nature of that National Assembly. See, e. g., id., at 735 (remarks of Rep. Sherman) (“[W]hen the people have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from the different parts of the Union, and consult, and agree with them to such acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community. If they were to be guided by instructions, there would be no use in deliberation; all that a man would have to do, would be to produce his instructions, and lay them on the table, and let them speak for him”). As a result, James Madison, then a Representative from Virginia, concluded that a right to issue binding instructions would “run the risk of losing the whole system.” Id., at 739; see also id., at 735 (remarks of Rep. Clymer) (proposed right to give binding instructions was “a most dangerous principle, utterly destructive of all ideas of an independent and deliberative body, which are essential requisites in the Legislatures of free Governments”).
In any event, even assuming the existence of the reserved right that petitioner asserts (and that Article VIII falls within its ambit), the question remains whether the State may use ballots for congressional elections as a means of giving its instructions binding force.
> — I
The federal offices at stake “aris[e] from the Constitution itself.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 805. Because any state authority to regulate election to those offices could not precede their very creation by the Constitution, such power “had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.” Id., at 804. Cf. 1 Story § 627 (“It is no original prerogative of state power to appoint a representative, a senator, or president for the union”). Through the Elections Clause, the Constitution delegated to the States the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” subject to a grant of authority to Congress to “make or alter such Regulations.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 315 (1941). No other constitutional provision gives the States authority over congressional elections, and no such authority could be reserved under the Tenth Amendment. By process of elimination, the States may regulate the incidents of such elections, including balloting, only within the exclusive delegation of power under the Elections Clause.
With respect to the Elections Clause, petitioner argues that Article VIII “merely regulates the manner in which elections are held by disclosing information about congressional candidates.” As such, petitioner concludes, Article VIII is a valid exercise of Missouri’s delegated power.
We disagree. To be sure, the Elections Clause grants to the States “broad power” to prescribe the procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 217 (1986); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 855, 366 (1932) (“It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections”). Nevertheless, Article VIII falls outside of that grant of authority. As we made clear in U S. Term Limits, “the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.” 514 U. S., at 833-834. Article VIII is not a procedural regulation. It does not regulate the time of elections; it does not regulate the place of elections; nor, we believe, does it regulate the manner of elections. As to the last point, Article VIII bears no relation to the “manner” of elections as we understand it, for in our commonsense view that term encompasses matters like “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366; see also U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 833. In short, Article VIII is not among “the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved,” Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366, ensuring that elections are “fair and honest,” and that “some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process,” Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974).
Rather, Article VIII is plainly designed to favor candidates who are willing to support the particular form of a term limits amendment set forth in its text and to disfavor those who either oppose term limits entirely or would prefer a different proposal. Cf. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788, n. 9 (1983) (“We have upheld generally applicable and evenhanded [ballot access] restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself”). As noted, the state provision does not just “instruct” each member of Missouri’s congressional delegation to promote in certain ways the passage of the specified term limits amendment. It also attaches a concrete consequence to noncompliance — the printing of the statement “DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTIONS ON TERM LIMITS” by the candidate’s name on all primary and general election ballots. Likewise, a nonincumbent candidate who does not pledge to follow the instruction receives the ballot designation “DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS.”
In describing the .two labels, the courts below have employed terms such as “pejorative,” “negative,” “derogatory,” “ ‘intentionally intimidating,’ ” “particularly harmful,” “politically damaging,” “a serious sanction,” “a penalty,” and “official denunciation.” 191 F. 3d, at 918, 919, 922, 925; 996 F. Supp., at 908; see id., at 910, 916. The general counsel to petitioner’s office, no less, has denominated the labels as “the Scarlet Letter.” App. 34-35. We agree with the sense of these descriptions. They convey the substantial political risk the ballot labels impose on current and prospective congressional members who, for one reason or another, fail to comply with the conditions set forth in Article VIII for passing its term limits amendment. Although petitioner now claims that the labels “merely” inform Missouri voters about a candidate’s compliance with Article VIII, she has acknowledged under oath that the ballot designations would handicap candidates for the United States Congress. Id., at 66. To us, that is exactly the intended effect of Article VIII.
Indeed, it seems clear that the adverse labels handicap candidates “at the most crucial stage in the election process — the instant before the vote is cast.” Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399, 402 (1964). At the same time, “by directing the citizen’s attention to the single consideration” of the candidates’ fidelity to term limits, the labels imply that the issue “is an important — perhaps paramount — consideration in the citizen’s choice, which may decisively influence the citizen to cast his ballot” against candidates branded as unfaithful. Ibid. While the precise damage the labels may exact on candidates is disputed between the parties, the labels surely place their targets at a political disadvantage to unmarked candidates for congressional office. Thus, far from regulating the procedural mechanisms of elections, Article VIII attempts to “dictate electoral outcomes.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 833-834. Such “regulation” of congressional elections simply is not authorized by the Elections Clause.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
We shall follow the parties’ practice of referring to the amendment as “Article VIII” even though it merely added new §§ 15 through 22 to the pre-existing article.
The full text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
“Congressional Term Limits Amendment
“(a) No person shall serve in the office of United States Representative for more than three terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of the United States Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
“(b) No person shall serve in the office of United States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of United States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve in the office for more than one additional term.
“(c) Any state may enact by state constitutional amendment longer or shorter limits than those specified in section ‘a’ or ‘b’ herein.
“(d) This article shall have no time limit within which it must be ratified to become operative upon the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.”
Section 17(2) provides that the statement shall be printed “adjacent to the name of any United States Senator or Representative who:
“(a) fails to vote in favor of the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above when brought to a vote or;
“(b) fails to second the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above if it lacks for a second before any proceeding of the legislative body or;
“(c) fails to propose or otherwise bring to a vote of the full legislative body the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above if it otherwise lacks a legislator who so proposes or brings to a vote of the Ml legislative body the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above or;
“(d) fails to vote in favor of all votes bringing the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above before any committee or subcommittee of the respective house upon which he or she serves or;
“(e) fails to reject any attempt to delay, table or otherwise prevent a vote by the Ml legislative body of the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above or;
“(f) fails to vote against any proposed constitutional amendment that would establish longer term limits than those in the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above regardless of any other actions in support of the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above or;
“(g) sponsors or cosponsors any proposed constitutional amendment or law that would increase term limits beyond those in the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth above or;
“(h) fails to ensure that all votes on Congressional Term Limits are recorded and made available to the public.”
The pledge, contained in § 18(3), reads:
“I support term limits and pledge to use all my legislative powers to enact the proposed Constitutional Amendment set forth in the Term Limits Act of 1996. If elected, I pledge to vote in such a way that the designation ‘DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS’ will not appear adjacent to my name.”
Section 19(5) permits a voter to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court a determination that a statement should not be placed next to a candidate’s name, and •§ 19(6) allows a candidate to appeal to the State’s highest court a determination that such a statement should be printed. In either ease, clear and convincing evidence is required to demonstrate that the statement does not belong on the ballot adjacent to the candidate’s name.
The remainder of Article VIII provides for automatic repeal of the Article should the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment be ratified, § 20; exclusive jurisdiction of challenges to the Amendment in the Supreme Court of Missouri, §21; and severance of “any portion, clause, or phrase” of Article VIII that is declared invalid, §22.
Although Gralike intended to run for Congress when he filed suit, under Missouri law he could not formally file a declaration for candidacy until February 1998. App. 25-26.
See League of Women Voters of Me. v. Gwadosky, 966 F. Supp. 52 (Me. 1997); Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S. W. 2d 119 (1996). 8
While the appeal was pending, respondent Gralike withdrew from the 1998 election and respondent Harmon, a nonincumbent candidate in the 2000 Republican congressional primary in the Seventh District of Missouri, intervened as an appellee. In view of Harmon's participation, there is no contention that this case is moot. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 737, n. 8 (1974).
Although Judge Hansen, dissenting in part, thought that §§17 through 19 should be severed, leaving the rest of Article VIII intact, the majority declined to do so. 191 F. 3d, at 926, n. 12. Petitioner does not contend here that any parts of Article VIII should be severed if found unconstitutional, but rather urges us to uphold the provision “in its entirety.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 1-2.
See Miller v. Moore, 169 F. 3d 1119 (CA8 1999) (Nebraska initiative invalidated on Article V and right-to-vote grounds); Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (SD 1998) (South Dakota initiative invalidated on Article V, First Amendment, Speech or Debate Clause, and due process grounds); League of Women Voters of Me. v. Gwadosky, 966 F. Supp. 52 (Me. 1997) (Maine initiative invalidated on Article V grounds); Bromberg v. Jones, 20 Cal. 4th 1045, 978 P. 2d 1240 (1999) (California initiative invalidated on Article V grounds); Morrissey v. State, 951 P. 2d 911 (Colo. 1998) (Colorado initiative invalidated on Article V and Guarantee Clause grounds); Simpson v. Cenarrusa, 130 Idaho 609, 944 P. 2d 1372 (1997) (Idaho initiative invalidated on Speech or Debate Clause and state constitutional grounds, but did not violate Article V); Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S. W. 2d 119 (1996) (in preelection challenge, Arkansas initiative invalidated on Article V grounds); In re Initiative Petition No. 364, 930 P. 2d 186 (Okla. 1996) (Oklahoma initiative invalidated on Article V and state constitutional grounds).
Brief for Petitioner 25, and n. 37; see Reply Brief for Petitioner 4.
Brief for Petitioner 28, 38; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, 8.
Justice Souter does not join this Part of the Court’s opinion.
Brief for Petitioner 10-17.
For example, the Provincial Congress of North Carolina passed the following instruction on April 12, 1776: “Resolved, That the Delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be empowered to concur with the Delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign alliances, reserving to this Colony the sole and exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony . .. .” 5 American Archives 860 (P. Force ed. 1844).
Brief for Professor Kris W. Kobach as Amicus Curiae 5, 13; see Brief for Petitioner 14, n. 13. But see 1 Annals of Cong. 744 (1789) (remarks of Rep. Wadsworth) (“I have known, myself, that [instructions] have been disobeyed, and yet the representative was not brought to account for it; on the contrary, he was caressed and re-elected, while those who have obeyed them, contrary to their private sentiments, have ever after been despised for it”).
Of course, whether the members of a representative assembly should be bound by the views of their constituents, or by their own judgment, is a matter that has been the subject of debate since even before the Federal Union was established. For instance, in his classic speech to the electors of Bristol, Edmund Burke set forth the latter view:
“To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.” The Speeches of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke 130 (J. Burke ed. 1867).
Brief for Petitioner 28; see also id., at 38.
Petitioner once shared our belief, when, in deposition testimony before the District Court, she admitted that Article VIII does not regulate the time, place, or maimer of elections. App. 58.
That much, apparently, also seemed clear to many Members of Congress operating under Article VIII or similar label laws adopted by other States, who consequently tailored their behavior to avoid the ballot designations. For example, in 1997, the House of Representatives voted on 11 different proposals to adopt a term limits amendment to the Constitution; 7 of those proposals were dictated by voter initiatives in 7 different States. Representative Blunt of Missouri introduced the Article VIII version to “ensure that members of the Missouri delegation have the ability to vote for language that meets a verbatim test of [the] Missouri Amendment” and thereby avoid “the scarlet letter provision.” 143 Cong. Rec. H494 (Feb. 12, 1997). However, because each of the state initiatives provided a sanction similar to the ballot labels included in Article VIII, some Representatives explained that they were constrained to vote only for the version endorsed by the voters of their States, and to vote against differing versions proposed by congressional members from other States, even though they were supportive of term limits generally. See, e.g., id., at H486 (remarks of Rep. Hutchinson) (“I will vote against the bill of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], not because I am opposed to term limits but because this particular resolution does not comply with the term limit instructions approved by the voters and the people of Arkansas”); id., at H490 (remarks of Rep. Crapo) (“Last Congress I supported the McCollum term limits bill that, as I said, supported a 12-year term limit. However, in this Congress I must oppose this bill because of the initiative passed by the people of the State of Idaho which requires me to oppose any term limits measure that does not have the same set of term limit conditions that are included in the initiative that was passed in the State”). As Representative Frank of Massachusetts put it, “[e]very State’s Members get to vote on their State’s term limits so they make them feel better and they do not get the scarlet letter.” Id., at H487. Consequently, the most popular proposal for such an amendment, that of Representative Mc-Collum of Florida, received 217 votes, 10 fewer than it had in the preceding Congress. Id., at H511. As for the Missouri version, it suffered a 353-to-72 defeat. Id., at H497.
At the margins, the parties have fought over whether the Elections Clause is even applicable because it is a grant of power to “each State by the Legislature thereof” and Article VIII is the product of referendum. Compare Brief for Petitioner 38, n. 46, with Brief for Respondents 12-13, n. 8. Of course, “[wlherever the term ‘legislature’ is used in the Constitution, it is necessary to consider the nature of the particular action in view.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932). Nevertheless, we need not delve into this inquiry, as it is clear, for the reasons stated in the text, that Article VIII is not authorized by the Elections Clause.
In discussing the Elections Clause issue, respondents have also relied in part on First Amendment cases upholding “time, place, and manner” regulations of speech. Brief for Respondents 13-14. Although the Elections Clause uses the same phrase as that branch of our First Amendment jurisprudence, it by no means follows that such cases have any relevance to our disposition of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
I
Appellee Schmid was arrested and charged with criminal trespass while distributing political materials on the campus of Princeton University. Schmid was not a student at Princeton University. Under University regulations then in effect, members of the public who wished to distribute materials on the campus were required to receive permission from University officials. Appellee was tried in Princeton Borough Municipal Court and on October 20, 1978, the trial judge issued an opinion convicting appellee and fining him $15 plus $10 costs. A de novo trial in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, also resulted in conviction and the same fine was imposed. While appeal was pending to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, the case was certified for review by the New Jersey Supreme Court. That court invited the University to intervene and participate as a party, which it did!
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that appellee’s rights of speech and assembly under the New Jersey Constitution had been violated. State v. Schmid, 84 N. J. 535, 423 A. 2d 615 (1980). The University filed a notice of appeal and jurisdictional statement. Its claim is that the judgment below deprives it of its rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The State of New Jersey did not file a separate jurisdictional statement but joined in that of the University. We postponed jurisdiction, 451 U. S. 982 (1981), and now dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
II
The State of New Jersey has filed a brief in this Court asking us to review and decide the issues presented, but stating that it'“deems it neither necessary nor appropriate to express an opinion on the merits of the respective positions of the private parties to this action.” Brief for Appellant State of New Jersey 4. Had the University not been a party to this case in the New Jersey Supreme Court and had the State filed a jurisdictional statement urging reversal, the existence of a case or controversy — and of jurisdiction in this Court— could not be doubted. However, if the State were the sole appellant and its jurisdictional statement simply asked for review and declined to take a position on the merits, we would have dismissed the appeal for want of a case or controversy. We do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse parties before us. See, e. g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 731-732 (1972); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 99 (1968). Thus the presence of the State of New Jersey in this case does not provide a sound jurisdictional basis for undertaking to decide difficult constitutional issues.
Princeton defends its own standing and our jurisdiction on the grounds that it was a party to the case in the New Jersey Supreme Court, that it is bound by the judgment of that court with respect to the validity of its regulations, and that no other forum is available in which to challenge the judgment on federal constitutional grounds. We have determined, however, that we lack jurisdiction with respect to Princeton. The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that while the case was pending on appeal, the University substantially amended its regulations governing solicitation, distribution of literature, and similar activities on University property by those not affiliated with the University. 84 N. J., at 539-541, n. 2, 568, 423 A. 2d, at 617-618, n. 2, 633. The opinion below rested on the absence of a reasonable regulatory scheme governing expressional activity on University property, but the regulation at issue is no longer in force. Furthermore, the lower court’s opinion was careful not to pass on the validity of the revised regulation under either the Federal or the State Constitution. Thus the issue of the validity of the old regulation is moot, for this case has “lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.” Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 48 (1969) (per curiam).
Princeton does not claim standing on the ground that a private party may intervene and challenge the reversal of a criminal conviction of another party. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 619 (1973). Its alleged standing in this Court rests on its claim that the judgment below would be res judicata against it and that it has thus finally been deprived of the authority to enforce the regulation as it stood prior to amendment. Since the judgment, however, does not prevent it from having the validity of its new regulation ruled upon in another enforcement action, the University is without standing to invoke our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
So ordered.
Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
That Princeton had standing in state court does not determine the power of this Court to consider the issue. Any determination of who has standing to assert constitutional rights is a federal question to be decided by the Court itself. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, 282 (1961); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 23, n. 3 (1960).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Couri.
The respondent, Torao Takahashi, born in Japan, came to this country and became a resident of California in 1907. Federal laws, based on distinctions of “color and race,” Toyota v. United States, 268 U. S. 402, 411-412, have permitted Japanese and certain other non-white racial groups to enter and reside in the country, but have made them ineligible for United States citizenship. The question presented is whether California can, consistently with the Federal Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it, use this federally created racial ineligibility for citizenship as a basis for barring Taka-hashi from earning his living as a commercial fisherman in the ocean waters off the coast of California.
Prior to 1943 California issued commercial fishing licenses to all qualified persons without regard to alienage or ineligibility to citizenship. From 1915 to 1942 Taka-hashi, under annual commercial fishing licenses issued by the State, fished in ocean waters off the California coast, apparently both within and without the three-mile coastal belt, and brought his fresh fish ashore for sale. In 1942, while this country was at war with Japan, Takahashi and other California residents of Japanese ancestry were evacuated from the State under military orders. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214. In 1943, during the period of war and evacuation, an amendment to the California Fish and Game Code was adopted prohibiting issuance of a license to any “alien Japanese.” Cal. Stats. 1943, ch. 1100. In 1945, the state code was again amended by striking the 1943 provision for fear that it might be “declared unconstitutional” because directed only “against alien Japanese”; the new amendment banned issuance of licenses to any “person ineligible to citizenship,” which classification included Japanese. Cal. Stats. 1945, ch. 181. Because of this state provision barring issuance of commercial fishing licenses to persons ineligible for citizenship under federal law, Takahashi, who met all other state requirements, was denied a license by the California Fish and Game Commission upon his return to California in 1945.
Takahashi brought this action for mandamus in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to compel the Commission to issue a license to him. That court granted the petition for mandamus. It held that lawful alien inhabitants of California, despite their ineligibility to citizenship, were entitled to engage in the vocation of commercial fishing on the high seas beyond the three-mile belt on the same terms as other lawful state inhabitants, and that the California code provision denying them this right violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Supreme Court, three judges dissenting, reversed, holding that California had a proprietary interest in fish in the ocean waters within three miles of the shore, and that this interest justified the State in barring all aliens in general and aliens ineligible to citizenship in particular from catching fish within or without the three-mile coastal belt and bringing them to California for commercial purposes. 30 Cal. 2d 719, 185 P. 2d 805. To review this question of importance in the fields of federal-state relationships and of constitutionally protected individual equality and liberty, we granted certiorari.
We may well begin our consideration of the principles to be applied in this case by a summary of this Court’s holding in Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, not deemed controlling by the majority of the California Supreme Court, but regarded by the dissenters as requiring the invalidation of the California law. That case involved an attack upon an Arizona law which required all Arizona employers of more than five workers to hire not less than eighty (80) per cent qualified electors or native-born citizens of the United States. Raich, an alien who worked as a cook in a restaurant which had more than five employees, was about to lose his job solely because of the state law’s coercive effect on the restaurant owner. This Court, in upholding Raich’s contention that the Arizona law was invalid, declared that Raich, having been lawfully admitted into the country under federal law, had a federal privilege to enter and abide in “any State in the Union” and thereafter under the Fourteenth Amendment to enjoy the equal protection of the laws of the state in which he abided; that this privilege to enter in and abide in any state carried with it the “right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community,” a denial of which right would make of the Amendment “a barren form of words.” In answer to a contention that Arizona’s restriction upon the employment of aliens was “reasonable” and therefore permissible, this Court declared:
“It must also be said that reasonable classification implies action consistent with the legitimate interests of the State, and it will not be disputed that these cannot be so broadly conceived as to bring them into hostility to exclusive Federal power. The authority to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens- — -is vested solely in the Federal Government. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 713. The assertion of .an authority to deny to aliens the opportunity of earning a livelihood when lawfully admitted to the State would be tantamount to the assertion of the right to deny them entrance and abode, for in ordinary cases they cannot live where they cannot work. And, if such a policy were permissible, the practical result would be that those lawfully admitted to the country under the authority of the acts of Congress, instead of enjoying in a substantial sense and in their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission, would be segregated in such of the States as chose to offer hospitality.” Truax v. Raich, supra at 42.
Had the Truax decision said nothing further than what is quoted above, its reasoning, if followed, would seem to require invalidation of this California code provision barring aliens from the occupation of fishing as inconsistent with federal law, which is constitutionally declared to be “the supreme Law of the Land.” However, the Court there went on to note that it had on occasion sustained state legislation that did not apply alike to citizens and non-citizens, the ground for the distinction being that such laws were necessary to protect special interests either of the state or of its citizens as such. The Truax opinion pointed out that the Arizona law, aimed as it was against employment of aliens in all vocations, failed to show a “special public interest with respect to any particular business . . . that could possibly be deemed to support the enactment.” The Court noted that it had previously upheld various state laws which restricted the privilege of planting oysters in the tidewater rivers of a state to citizens of that state, and which denied to aliens within a state the privilege of possessing a rifle and of shooting game within that state; it also referred to decisions recognizing a state’s broad powers, in the absence of overriding treaties, to restrict the devolution of real property to non-aliens.
California now urges, and the-State Supreme Court held, that the California fishing provision here challenged falls within the rationale of the “special public interest” cases distinguished in the Truax opinion, and thus that the state’s ban upon commercial fishing by aliens ineligible to citizenship is valid. The contention is this: California owns the fish within three miles of its coast as a trustee for all California citizens as distinguished from its non-citizen inhabitants; as such trustee-owner, it has complete power to bar any or all aliens from fishing in the three-mile belt as a means of conserving the supply of fish; since migratory fish caught while swimming in the three-mile belt are indistinguishable from those caught while swimming in the adjacent high seas, the State, in order to enforce its three-mile control, can also regulate the catching and delivery to its coast of fish caught beyond the three-mile belt under this Court’s decision in Bayside Fish Co. v. Gentry, 297 U. S. 422. Its law denying fishing licenses to aliens ineligible for citizenship, so the state’s contention goes, tends to reduce the number of commercial fishermen and therefore is a proper fish conservation measure; in the exercise of its power to decide what groups will be denied licenses, the State has a right, if not a duty, to bar first of all aliens, who have no community interest in the fish owned by the State. Finally, the legislature’s denial of licenses to those aliens who are “ineligible to citizenship” is defended as a reasonable classification, on the ground that California has simply followed the Federal Government’s lead in adopting that classification from the naturalization laws.
First. The state’s contention that its law was passed solely as a fish conservation measure is vigorously denied. The petitioner argues that it was the outgrowth of racial antagonism directed solely against the Japanese, and that for this reason alone it cannot stand. See Korematsu v. United States, supra at 216; Kotch v. Board of River Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, 556; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; In re Ah Chong, 2 F. 733, 737. We find it unnecessary to resolve this controversy concerning the motives that prompted enactment of the legislation. Accordingly, for purposes of our decision we may assume that the code provision was passed to conserve fish in the California coastal waters, or to protect California citizens engaged in commercial fishing from competition by Japanese aliens, or for both reasons.
Second. It does not follow, as California seems to argue, that because the United States regulates immigration and naturalization in part on the basis of race and color classifications, a state can adopt one or more of the same classifications to prevent lawfully admitted aliens within its borders from earning a living in the same way that other state inhabitants earn their living. The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 66. Under the Constitution the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid. Moreover, Congress, in the enactment of a comprehensive legislative plan for the nation-wide control and regulation of immigration and naturalization, has broadly provided:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” 16 Stat. 140, 144, 8 U. S. C. § 41.
The protection of this section has been held to extend to aliens as well as to citizens. Consequently the section and the Fourteenth Amendment on which it rests in part protect “all persons” against state legislation bearing unequally upon them either because of alienage or color. See Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24. The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall abide “in any state” on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws.
All of the foregoing emphasizes the tenuousness of the state’s claim that it has power to single out and ban its lawful alien inhabitants, and particularly certain racial and color groups within this class of inhabitants, • from following a vocation simply because Congress has put some such groups in special classifications in exercise of its broad and wholly distinguishable powers over immigration and naturalization. The state’s law here cannot be supported in the employment of this legislative authority because of policies adopted by Congress in the exercise of its power to treat separately and differently with aliens from countries composed of peoples of many diverse cul-. tures, races, and colors. For these reasons the power of a state to apply its laws exclusively to its alien inhabitants as a class is confined within narrow limits.
Third. We are unable to find that the “special public interest” on which California relies provides support for this state ban on Takahashi’s commercial fishing. As before pointed out, California’s claim of “special public interest” is that its citizens are the collective owners of fish swimming in the three-mile belt. It is true that this Court did long ago say that the citizens of a state collectively own “the tide-waters . . . and the fish in them, so •far as they are capable of ownership while running.” McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 394. Cf. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 38; Toomer v. Witsell, ante, p. 385. The McCready case upheld a Virginia law which prohibited citizens of other states from planting oysters in a Virginia tidewater river. Though the Mc-Cready case has been often distinguished, its rationale has been relied on in other cases, including Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519. That decision, where only the commerce clause was involved, sustained a state law that, in order to restrict the use of game to the people of the state, prohibited the out-of-state transportation of game killed within the state. On the other hand, where Louisiana laws declared that the state owned all shrimp within the waters of the state, but permitted ultimate sale and shipment of shrimp for consumption outside that state’s boundaries, Louisiana was denied power under the commerce clause to require the local processing of shrimp taken from Louisiana marshes as a prerequisite to out-of-state transportation. Foster Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1. In the absence of overriding federal treaties, this Court sustained a state law barring aliens from hunting wild game in the interest of conserving game for citizens of the state against due process and equal protection challenges. Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138. Later, however, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 755, was sustained as within federal power despite the claim of Missouri of ownership of birds within its boundaries based on prior statements as to state ownership of game and fish in the Geer case. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416. The Court was of opinion that “To put the claim of the State upon title is to lean upon a slender reed.” P. 434. We think that same statement is equally applicable here. To whatever extent the fish in the three-mile belt off California may be “capable of ownership” by California, we think that “ownership” is inadequate to justify California in excluding any or all aliens who are lawful residents of the State from making a living by fishing in the ocean off its shores while permitting all others to do so.
This leaves for consideration the argument that this law should be upheld on authority of those cases which have sustained state laws barring aliens ineligible to citizenship from land ownership. Assuming the continued validity of those cases, we think they could not in any event be controlling here. They rested solely upon the power of states to control the devolution and ownership of land within their borders, a power long exercised and supported on reasons peculiar to real property. They cannot be extended to cover this case.
The judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
The comprehensive laws adopted by Congress regulating the immigration and naturalization of aliens are included in Title 8 of the U. S. Code; for codification of laws governing racial and color prerequisites of aliens to citizenship see 8 U. S. C. § 703. An act adopted by the first Congress in 1790 made “free white persons” only eligible for citizenship. 1 Stat. 103. Later acts have extended eligibility of aliens to citizenship to the following groups: in 1870, “aliens of African nativity and . . . persons of African descent,” 16 Stat. 254, 256; in 1940, “descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere,” 54 Stat. 1137, 1140; in 1943, “Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent,” 57 Stat. 600, 601; and in 1946, Filipinos and “persons of races indigenous to India,” 60 Stat. 416. While it is not wholly clear what racial groups other than Japanese are now ineligible to citizenship, it is clear that Japanese are among the few groups still not eligible, see Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 635, n. 3, and that, according to the 1940 census, Japanese aliens constituted the great majority of aliens living in the United States then ineligible for citizenship. See concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Murphy in Oyama v. California, supra at 650, 665, 666, nn. 20 and 22.
Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Japanese Resettlement, May 1, 1945, pp. 5-6.
As amended the code section now reads: “Persons required to procure license: To whom issuable. Every person who uses or operates or assists in using or operating any boat, net, trap, line, or other appliance to take fish, mollusks or crustaceans for profit, or who brings or causes fish, mollusks or crustaceans to be brought ashore at any point in the State for the purpose of selling the same in a fresh state, shall procure a commercial fishing license.
“A commercial fishing license may be issued to any person other than a person ineligible to citizenship. A commercial fishing license may be issued to a corporation only if said corporation is authorized to do business in this State, if none of the officers or directors thereof are persons ineligible to citizenship, and if less than the majority of each class of stockholders thereof are persons ineligible to citizenship.” Cal. Fish and Game Code § 990. In 1947 the code was amended to permit “any person, not a citizen of the United States,” to obtain hunting and sport fishing licenses, both of which had been denied to “alien Japanese” and to persons “ineligible to citizenship” under the 1943 and 1945 amendments. Cal. Stats. 1947, c. 1329; Cal. Fish and Game" Code §§427, 428.
The Superior Court first ordered issuance of a commercial fishing license authorizing Takahashi to bring ashore “catches of fish from the waters of the high seas beyond the State’s territorial jurisdiction.” After appeal to the State Supreme Court by the State Commission the Superior Court amended its judgment so as to order a commercial license authorizing Takahashi to bring in catches of fish taken from the three-mile ocean belt adjacent to the California coast as well as from, the high seas. The State Supreme Court held that the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to amend its judgment after appeal and accordingly treated the amended judgment as void. California argues here that its State Fish and Game Commission is authorized by statute to issue only one type of commercial fishing license, namely, one permitting ocean fish to be brought ashore whether caught within or without the three-mile belt, that the Superior Court’s first judgment ordering issuance of a license limited to catches of high seas fish directed the Commission to do something it was without authority to do, and that on this ground we should affirm the state court’s denial of the requested license. The State Supreme Court did not, however, decide the case on that ground, but ruled against petitioner on the ground that the challenged code provision was valid under the Federal Constitution and that the Commission’s refusal to grant a license was required by its terms. Since the state court of last resort relied solely upon federal grounds for its decision, we may properly review its action here.
The opinion cited the following cases: McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483; and Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333.
Truax v. Raich, supra; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275, 280; see Hines v. Davidowitz, supra at 65-68.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra at 369; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 696; In re Tiburcio Parrott, 1 F. 481, 508-509; Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co., 82 F. 257.
Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197; Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U. S. 225; Webb v. O’Brien, 263 U. S. 313; Frick v. Webb, 263 U. S. 326.
See Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 646, 649, 672.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition , for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Greene v. United States, ante, p. 149.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Greene v. United States, ante, p. 164.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The present case requires us to determine the extent of submerged lands granted to the State of California by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and in particular to declare whether specified bodies of water on the California coast are “inland waters” within the meaning of that Act. A substantial amount of background is necessary to place the issues in perspective.
I.
The Setting op the Case.
This is a suit begun in 1945, brought by the United States against California to determine dominion over the submerged lands and mineral rights under the three-mile belt of sea off the coast of California. In 1947 the Court decreed:
“The United States of America is now, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward three nautical miles.... The State of California has no title thereto or property interest therein.” United States v. California, 332 U. S. 804, 805, Order and Decree.
After the entry of this decree, the United States asked that the lands awarded to it be defined in greater detail in certain areas where there was substantial oil well activity, and which California asserted lay within inland waters. The Court appointed a Special Master, and directed him to consider seven specified segments of the California coast to determine the line of ordinary low water and the outer limit of inland waters. These segments included various bays, and, as the problem evolved, the so-called “overall unit area” consisting of the waters inside a line encompassing the islands off the shore of southern California, some as far as 50 miles out. The Special Master’s Report, generally favoring the position of the United States, was filed with this Court in November 1952, 344 U. S. 872. He adopted as his criteria for defining inland waters those applied by the United States in the conduct of its foreign affairs as of the date of the California decree, October 27, 1947 — in particular, a rule that only a bay having a closing line across its mouth no more than 10 miles in length and enclosing a sufficient water area to satisfy the so-called Boggs formula would be inland water, with the qualification that a bay which had been historically considered inland water would so continue. Both parties noted their exceptions to the Report, but before any further action was taken, Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act.
The Submerged Lands Act grants to the States “title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States.” § 3 (a). “Boundaries” includes the seaward boundaries of a State “as they existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by the Congress,” but subject to the limitation that
“in no event shall the term ‘boundaries’... be interpreted as extending from the coast line more than three geographical miles into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico.” § 2 (b).
“Coast line” is then defined as the composite “line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.” § 2 (c). For States having no previously approved seaward boundaries the Act provides that “[a]ny State admitted subsequent to the formation of the Union which has not already done so may extend its seaward boundaries to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line....” § 4.
Thus the Act effectively grants each State on the Pacific coast all submerged lands shoreward of a line three geographical miles from its “coast line,” derivatively defined in terms of “the seaward limit of inland waters.” “Inland waters” is not defined by the Act.
In a later measure related to the Submerged Lands Act, Congress declared that the United States owned all submerged land in the continental shelf seaward of the lands granted to the States. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq.
The passage of the Submerged Lands Act marked the beginning of a long halt in the proceedings in this case. Depth of California’s coastal waters increases very rapidly, and as of May 22, 1953, the date of enactment, it was impractical to drill for oil except close to the shore. By granting to California the mineral rights in the three-mile belt, the Act vested in California all the interests that were then thought to be important, and no further action was taken on the Special Master’s Report. That Report was neither adopted, modified, nor rejected by this Court, but was simply allowed to lie dormant. By 1963, however, drilling techniques had improved sufficiently to revitalize the importance of the demarcation line between state and federal submerged lands. The United States filed an amended complaint reviving the Special Master’s Report and redescribing the issues as modified by the Submerged Lands Act; both the United States and California filed new exceptions to the Report, and the case is now ready for decision.
The basic contention of the United States is that the Act simply moved the line of demarcation out three miles from the line established by the California decree. Therefore, contends the United States, the Special Master’s Report on the line of ordinary low water and the outer limit of inland waters as used in the California decree is just as relevant now as it was before Congress acted, and, with slight modifications, the line drawn by the Special Master should be taken as the “coast line” for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act. California asserts that whereas the Special Master determined inland waters to be those which the United States would have claimed as such for purposes of international relations, the Submerged Lands Act used the term in an entirely different sense to mean those waters which the States historically considered to be inland — in California’s case, those waters which the State considered to be inland at the time it entered the Union. Therefore, according to California, the line drawn in the Special Master’s Report was determined under standards wholly foreign to the Submerged Lands Act.
The focal point of this case is the interpretation to be placed on “inland waters” as used in the Act. Since the Act does not define the term, we look to the legislative history.
II.
Legislative History Reveals that Congress Meant to Leave the Definition of Inland Waters to the Courts.
Two changes relevant for our purposes were made in the bill which became the Submerged Lands Act between the time it was sent to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the time of its passage.
(1) As first written, the bill defined inland waters to include
“all estuaries, ports, harbors, bays, channels, straits, historic bays, and sounds, and all other bodies of water which join the open sea.”
This definition was removed by the Senate Committee.
(2) The bill originally contained no limitation on the extent of historic boundaries that could be claimed. The provision limiting the extent of boundary claims to no more than three geographical miles from the coastline on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and three marine leagues on the Gulf of Mexico was added to the bill on the floor of the Senate in the late stages of the debates.
Removal of the definition for inland waters and the addition of the three-mile limitation in the Pacific, when taken together, unmistakably show that California cannot prevail in its contention that “as used in the Act, Congress intended inland waters to identify those areas which the states always thought were inland waters.” By deleting the original definition of “inland waters” Congress made plain its intent to leave the meaning of the term to be elaborated by the courts, independently of the Submerged Lands Act.
In response to substantial objections made in the hearings to the original bill’s broad definition of inland waters on grounds that it would prejudice and limit the position which the United States could take in its future conduct of foreign affairs, Senator Cordon, the manager of the bill, recommended and obtained elimination of the definition. The Committee Report which he authored explained:
“The words 'which include all estuaries, ports, harbors, bays, channels, straits, historic bays, and sounds, and all other bodies of water which join the open sea’ have been deleted from the reported bill because of the committee’s belief that the question of what constitutes inland waters should be left where Congress finds it. The committee is convinced that the definition neither adds nor takes away anything a State may have now in the way of a coast and the lands underneath waters behind it.” S. Rep. No. 133, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 18.
The committee’s understanding that the measure “neither adds nor takes away anything a State may have now in the way of a coast and the lands underneath waters behind it,” appears to be an acceptance of “inland waters” as used in the California and prior Court opinions, whatever that usage might have been. Various different concepts of inland waters were asserted during the Senate Hearings, based on such elements as the depth of the water, the width of the opening of a coastal indentation, the Boggs formula, and the common designation of bodies of water as bays, sounds, straits, etc. When it became clear that the question had highly technical aspects (see, e. g., n. 5, supra) and was one on which differences would arise, the Senate Committee adopted the expedient solution of leaving the matter just as it had found it, neither accepting nor rejecting any particular rule or formula. It intended to leave unaffected the judicial view of inland waters and the judicial responsibility for particularizing it.
Reference to Senator Cordon’s request to the Senate Committee for deletion of the objectionable clause confirms that understanding. He said:
“The matter of inland waters is one that has been defined time and time again by the courts, not, I believe, in any one all-inclusive definition, but it was felt [by those who objected to the definition during the hearings] that the use of these words were [sic] an attempted legislative definition of the term 'inland waters,’ and it was inadvisable for us in this bill, which is a transfer of title, to attempt to make law in the other field of what is or is not inland water.
“The use of the language, it was felt, would probably raise questions that have not been raised, whereas the present definitions are in- the decisions and available to the court.”
“Senator MALONE. The inland waters had a special master for that particular job, did they not, and that is now under consideration, that is, his report is under consideration by the Supreme Court?
“Senator CORDON. With respect to California, and a portion of California coast; yes.” Senate Hearings 1304-1305.
Shortly thereafter there follows a virtually conclusive statement:
“Senator CORDON. It was not the chairman’s view that we were attempting to draw a line delimiting inland waters, but that we were using a term that is well known in the law and is defined by the Court in the California case, for instance, and in the Louisiana case, I assume. That line might still be defined, even though the area may not now have the same legal status as it had before.” Id., at 1376. (Emphasis added.)
California fastens on a statement made in the Committee Report with regard to the eliminated definition:
“The elimination of the language, in the committee’s opinion, is consistent with the philosophy of the Holland bill to place the States in the position in which both they and the Federal Government thought they were for more than a century and a half, and not to create any situations with respect thereto.” S. Rep. No. 133, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 18.
From this California reasons that “inland waters” must have been intended to encompass all waters which the States “thought” were inland waters, for that is the only way in which the Act can now be interpreted to effectuate fully its supposed “philosophy” of granting to the States all submerged lands within their historic boundaries.
If such a view of the bill’s purpose is accepted as of the time that the Committee Report was written, there is, nonetheless, no inconsistency whatsoever between that purpose and a legislative intent to leave the definition of inland waters to the courts without restriction; at that time the limitation on boundary claims had not yet been incorporated into the Act; thus as the Act was then written, States could have claimed all submerged lands within their historic boundaries, no matter how “inland waters” was defined. The definition would have affected only those States which, not having adequate pre-existing seaward boundaries, chose to extend their boundaries three miles from the coastline pursuant to § 4 of the Act. As stated by Senator Cordon during the Hearings,
“this bill has two approaches to a determination of the area of its application. The first approach is that of the boundaries of the States when they came into the Union; second, an election to any State that has not done so to extend its boundary 3 geographical miles from its present coastline, as that term is described in the present tense in the bill.” Senate Hearings 1374.
Only with the adoption of the three-mile limitation on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the three-league limitation in the Gulf of Mexico did the interpretations of historic boundaries and inland waters become operationally related, and any inconsistency thus created between the limitation and the prior philosophy of the Act shows only that, to the extent the limitation would come into play, the philosophy was modified. This amendment was one of very few made to the bill as reported by the Senate Committee, and came as the result of continuous criticism throughout the course of the debates that the extent of the grant was indefinite, and that coastal States could engage in a “claiming race” for submerged lands. California points to language stating that adoption of the limitation worked no significant change in the bill. 99 Cong. Rec. 4114-4116 (remarks of Senator Holland). But such statements simply reflect the understanding of the major supporters of the bill that no States other than Texas and Florida (on its Gulf side) had provable claims beyond three miles, and that the claims of those two States did not go beyond three leagues. If such were the case, the limitation could indeed be thought to have no effect, for no state boundaries would run afoul of it, and the vast grant of submerged lands up to three miles along the length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and three leagues, subject to historical proof, in the Gulf of Mexico, would not be impaired. Senator Holland, the author of the bill, proposed the limiting boundary amendment to meet the fears of those Senators who had criticized the indefiniteness of the bill. He explained:
“... I think the amendment has very little effect. But I am perfectly willing to meet the suggestions of my friends, some of whom have been opponents, and some of whom have been supporters of the joint resolution, to the effect that they would like to have the language more clearly spelled out than it was in the original measure, to the effect that there is no intention whatsoever to grant boundaries beyond 3 geographical miles in either the Atlantic or the Pacific, and that this Congress knows of no possible situation under which greater boundaries are claimed or could be granted in the Gulf of Mexico than 3 leagues; and, in that case, this Congress knows, although this amendment does not indicate it, that there are but 2 States affected by that particular situation.” 99 Cong. Rec. 4116.
Senator Holland was aware of California’s expansive inland water claims, but thought them altogether untenable.
“Mr. HOLLAND. My understanding is that California has no provable case beyond 3 miles from its mainland; and that as to the islands, its provable case would be 3 miles around each of the islands. I so stated in the hearings on this matter.
“Mr. DOUGLAS. That is a consummation devoutly to be desired, but I am not at all satisfied that that is what the Senator’s joint resolution would accomplish, because the coastline is not fully and clearly defined.
“Mr. HOLLAND. Under the joint resolution, no such contention could be maintained.
“Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator certain of that?
“Mr. HOLLAND. That is what I believe, and that is what every legal authority I have consulted on the subject believes. Incidentally, the only reason why there was some thought to the contrary was some wording in the original joint resolution, which has been omitted, which would have made the outer boundary of inland waters farther out than that which is now provided by the joint resolution. The joint resolution simply continues the outer boundary of inland waters pursuant to the decisions of the Supreme Court already made....
“The Senator from Florida knows full well that if the United States Supreme Court should change its mind as to what constituted the outer limits of inland waters, and should change it to a sufficient degree, it could open up, not only under this joint resolution, but of its own initiative, questions which would reach out much farther than anything we have been talking about here.
“The Senator from Florida believes that the laws, as announced over and over and over again by the Supreme Court, as to the delimitation of inland waters, are sufficiently fixed, definite, and certain so that it would require a complete, cataclysmic change of the Supreme Court’s philosophy in that field to afford any hope for an extension of the boundaries of the good State of California so that they would go out beyond the islands as to all areas contained within an outer line. There is no way for us to foreclose the Supreme Court from changing its mind. It might change its mind with reference to inland waters and their delimitation. But failing, such change, the Senator from Florida cannot see how, under this joint resolution, there could possibly be any serious question affecting California or any other State.” 99 Cong. Rec. 2756-2757.
Senator Holland did not wish to foreclose California from arguing (as it has done both here and before the Special Master) that its waters are inland within the appropriate judicial definition, but it was his opinion that no such definition would permit California’s claim to all waters shoreward of their remote islands to prevail. Congress could have defined inland waters as it wished for the purely domestic purposes of the Submerged Lands Act. See United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 30-36. It could have adopted California’s theory, or the Special Master’s theory, or any other. Instead, it chose to leave the definition of inland waters where it found it — in the Court’s hands. The Act does not reveal a particular intent that courts should broadly interpret “inland waters” so as to restore California to its historic expectations regardless of what its expectations might be. Indeed, if the Court is to draw any inference from the intent and structure of the Act as to how inland waters should be defined, the most plausible inference would be that Congress, in adopting the three-mile limitation, must have intended some base line to be used other than one dependent upon each State’s subjective concept of its inland waters, for such a limitation would prove to have been none at all, as full acceptance of California’s claims in the present case would show.
III.
The Meaning of “Inland Waters” in the Submerged Lands Act Should Conform to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
We turn, then, to determining the judicial definition of “inland waters.” It immediately appears that the bulk of cases cited by Congressmen during debates on the Submerged Lands Act for the proposition that inland waters have “been defined time and time again by the courts” deal with interior waters such as lakes and rivers, and provide no assistance in classifying bodies of water which join the open sea. In this latter context no prior case in this Court has ever precisely defined the term. The 1947 California opinion clearly indicated that “inland waters” was to have an international content since the outer limits of inland waters would determine the Country’s international coastline, but the Court did not particularize the definition. It was that task which subsequently led to the appointment of the Special Master.
The Special Master found that there was no internationally accepted definition for inland waters and decided, in those circumstances, that it was the position which the United States took on the question in the conduct of its foreign affairs which should be controlling. He considered the relevant date on which to determine our foreign policy position to be the date of the California decree, October 27, 1947. He therefore rejected the assertion that letters from the State Department written in 1951 and 1952 declaring the then present policy of the United States were conclusive on the question before him. At the same time that decision required the Special Master to consider a great many foreign policy materials dating back to 1793 in an attempt to discern a consistent thread of United States policy on the definition of inland waters. He ultimately decided that as of 1947 the United States had taken the position that a bay was inland water only if a closing line could be drawn across its mouth less than 10 miles long enclosing a sufficient water area to satisfy the Boggs formula.
Since the filing of the Special Master’s Report the policy of the United States has changed significantly. Indeed it may now be said that there is a settled international rule defining inland waters. On March 24, 1961, the United States ratified the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (T. I. A. S. No. 5639) and on September 10, 1964, when the requisite number of nations had ratified it, the Convention went into force. For nations which do not use a straight-base-line method to define inland waters (see United Kingdom v. Norway, [1951] I. C. J. Rep. 116), the Convention permits a 24-mile maximum closing line for bays and a “semicircle” test for testing the sufficiency of the water area enclosed. The semicircle test requires that a bay must comprise at least as much water area within its closing line as would be contained in a semicircle with a diameter equal to the length of the closing line. Unquestionably the 24-mile closing line together with the semicircle test now represents the position of the United States.
The United States contends that we must ignore the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in performing our duty of giving content to “inland waters” as used in the Submerged Lands Act, and must restrict ourselves to determining what our decision would have been had the question been presented to us for decision on May 22, 1953, the date of enactment. At that time there was no international accord on any definition of inland waters, and the best evidence (although strenuously contested by California) of the position of the United States was the letters of the State Department which the Special Master refused to treat as conclusive.
We do not think that the Submerged Lands Act has so restricted us. Congress, in passing the Act, left the responsibility for defining inland waters to this Court. We think that it did not tie our hands at the same time. Had Congress wished us simply to rubber-stamp the statements of the State Department as to its policy in 1953, it could readily have done so itself. It is our opinion that we best fill our responsibility of giving content to the words which Congress employed by adopting the best and most workable definitions available. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, approved by the Senate and ratified by the President, provides such definitions. We adopt them for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act. This establishes a single coastline for both the administration of the Submerged Lands Act and the conduct of our future international relations (barring an unexpected change in the rules established by the Convention). Furthermore the comprehensiveness of the Convention provides answers to many of the lesser problems related to coastlines which, absent the Convention, would be most troublesome.
California argues, alternatively to its claim that “inland waters” embraces all ocean areas lying within a State’s historic seaward boundaries, that if Congress intended “inland waters” to be judicially defined in accordance with international usage, such definition should possess an ambulatory quality so as to encompass future changes in international law or practice. Thus, if 10 years from now the definitions of the Convention were amended, California would say that the extent of the Submerged Lands Act grant would automatically shift, at least if the effect of such amendment were to enlarge the extent of submerged lands available to the States. We reject this open-ended view of the Act for several reasons. Before today’s decision no one could say with assurance where lay the line of inland waters as contemplated by the Act; hence there could have been no tenable reliance on any particular line. After today that situation will have changed. Expectations will be established and reliance placed on the line we define. Allowing future shifts of international understanding respecting inland waters to alter the extent of the Submerged Lands Act grant would substantially undercut the definiteness of expectation which should attend it. Moreover, such a view might unduly inhibit the United States in the conduct of its foreign relations by making its ownership of submerged lands vis-á-vis the States continually dependent upon the position it takes with foreign nations. “Freezing” the meaning of “inland waters” in terms of the Convention definition largely avoids this, and also serves to fulfill the requirements of definiteness and stability which should attend any congressional grant of property rights belonging to the United States.
IV.
Subsidiary Issues.
Once it is decided that the definitions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone apply, many of the subsidiary issues before us fall into place.
1. Straight Base Lines. — California argues that because the Convention permits a nation to use the straight-baseline method for determining its seaward boundaries if its “coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity,” California is therefore free to use such boundary lines across the openings of its bays and around its islands. We agree with the United States that the Convention recognizes the validity of straight base lines used by other countries, Norway for instance, and would permit the United States to use such base lines if it chose, but that California may not use such base lines to extend our international boundaries beyond their traditional international limits against the expressed opposition of the United States. The national responsibility for conducting our international relations obviously must be accommodated with the legitimate interests of the States in the territory over which they are sovereign. Thus a contraction of a State’s recognized territory imposed by the Federal Government in the name of foreign policy would be highly questionable. But an extension of state sovereignty to an international area by claiming it as inland water would necessarily also extend national sovereignty, and unless the Federal Government’s responsibility for questions of external sovereignty is hollow, it must have the power to prevent States from so enlarging themselves. We conclude that the choice under the Convention to use the straight-base-line method for determining inland waters claimed against other nations is one that rests with the Federal Government, and not with the individual States.
California relies upon Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, for the proposition that a State may draw its boundaries as it pleases within limits recognized by the law of nations regardless of the position taken by the United States. Although some dicta in the case may be read to support that view, we do not so interpret the opinion. The case involved neither an expansion of our traditional international boundary nor opposition by the United States to the position taken by the State.
2. Twenty-jour-mile Closing Rule. — The Convention recognizes, and it is the present United States position, that a 24-mile closing rule together with the semicircle test should be used for classifying bays in the United States. Applying these tests to the segments of California’s coast here in dispute, it appears that Monterey Bay is inland water and that none of the other coastal segments in dispute fulfill these aspects of the Convention test. We so hold.
California asserts that the Santa Barbara Channel may be considered a “fictitious bay” because the openings at both ends of the channel and between the islands are each less than 24 miles. The United States argues that the channel is no bay at all; that it is a strait which serves as a useful route of communication between two areas of open sea and as such may not be classified as inland waters.
By way of analogy California directs our attention to the Breton and Chandeleur Sounds off Louisiana which the United States claims as inland waters, United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 66-67, n. 108. Each of these analogies only serves to point up the validity of the United States’ argument that the Santa Barbara Channel should not be treated as a bay. The Breton Sound is a cul de sac. The Chandeleur Sound, if considered separately from the Breton Sound which it joins, leads only to the Breton Sound. Neither is used as a route of passage between two areas of open sea. In fact both are so shallow as to not be readily navigable. California also points to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. That strait is not claimed by the United States as a “fictitious bay” and it does not connect two areas of open sea.
Evidence submitted to the Special Master on the extent of international use made of the Santa Barbara Channel was sparse. What evidence there was indicated the usefulness of the route, but did not specify whether the ships so using it were domestic or international. California now regards the point as important, for under international law as expressed in the Corfu Channel Case, [1949] I. C. J. Rep. 4, the International Court of Justice held that a country could not claim a strait as inland water if, in its natural'state, it served as a useful route for international passage. We do not consider the point of controlling importance. The United States has not in the past claimed the Santa Barbara Channel as inland water and opposes any such claim now. The channel has not been regarded as a bay either historically or geographically. In these circumstances, as with the drawing of straight base lines, we hold that if the United States does not choose to employ the concept of a “fictitious bay” in order to extend our international boundaries around the islands framing Santa Barbara Channel, it cannot be forced to do so by California. It is, therefore, unnecessary to reinstitute proceedings before a master to determine the factual question of whether the passageway is internationally useful.
3. Historic Inland Waters. — By the terms of the Convention the 24-mile closing rule does not apply to so-called “historic” bays. Essentially these are bays over which a coastal nation has traditionally asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations. California claims that virtually all the waters here in dispute are historic inland waters as the term is internationally understood. It relies primarily on an interpretation of its State Constitution to the effect that the state boundaries run three miles outside the islands and bays, plus several court decisions which so interpret it as applied to Monterey, Santa Monica, and San Pedro Bays The United States counters that, as with straight base lines, California can maintain no claim to historic inland waters unless the claim is endorsed by the United States. The Special Master found it unnecessary to decide that question because, on the evidence before him, he concluded that California had not traditionally exercised dominion over any of the claimed waters.
Since the 24-mile rule includes Monterey Bay, we do not consider it here. As to Santa Monica Bay, San Pedro Bay, and the other water areas in dispute, we agree with the Special Master that they are not historic inland waters of the United States.
California contends that two studies of the criteria for determining historic waters have been made since the Special Master filed his report which show that he applied the wrong standards, thus vitiating his conclusions. In particular it is said that the Special Master erroneously thought the concept of historic waters to be an exception to the general rule of inland waters requiring a rigorous standard of proof. We find no substantial indication of this in his report.
On the evidence, California’s claim that its constitution set a boundary beyond the bays and islands is arguable, but many of the state statutes drawing county boundaries which supposedly run to the limit of the state boundaries cut the other way by indicating a line only three miles from shore. Furthermore, a legislative declaration of jurisdiction without evidence of further active and continuous assertion of dominion over the waters is not sufficient to establish the claim. There is a federal district court opinion, United States v. Carrillo, 13 F. Supp. 121 (1935), which dismissed federal criminal charges for an offense which took place more than three miles from the shore of San Pedro Bay on the ground that the bay was within California, not federal, jurisdiction; but it is difficult to see this dismissal as an assertion of dominion. In Santa Monica Bay, California did successfully prosecute a criminal offense which took place more than three miles from the shore, People v. Stralla, 14 Cal. 2d 617, 96 P. 2d 941 (1939). However, the decision stands as the only assertion of criminal jurisdiction of which we have been made aware.
The United States disclaims that any of the disputed areas are historic inland waters. We are reluctant to hold that such a disclaimer would be decisive in all circumstances, for a case might arise in which the historic evidence was clear beyond doubt. But in the case before us, with its questionable evidence of continuous and exclusive assertions of dominion over the disputed waters, we think the disclaimer decisive.
4. Harbors and Roadsteads. — The parties disagree as to whether inland waters should encompass anchorages beyond the outer harborworks of harbors. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (Art. 8) states without qualification that “the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system shall be regarded as forming part of the coast.” We take that to be the line incorporated in the Submerged Lands Act.
As to open roadsteads used for loading, unloading and anchoring ships, the Convention (Art. 9) provides that such areas should be included in the territorial sea, and, by implication, that they are not to be considered inland waters. We adopt that interpretation.
5. The Line of Ordinary Low Water. — Along the California coast there are two low tides each day, one of which is generally lower than the other. The assertion of the United States, with which the Special Master agreed, is that the line of ordinary low water is obtained by taking the average of all the low tides. California would average only the lower low tides.
We hold that California’s position represents the better view of the matter. The Submerged Lands Act defines coastline in terms of the “line of ordinary low water.” The Convention (Art. 3) uses “the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State” (i. e., the United States). We interpret the two lines thus indicated to conform, and on the official United States coastal charts of the Pacific Coast prepared by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, it is the lower low water line which is marked.
6. Artificial Accretions. — When this case was before the Special Master, the United States contended that it owned all mineral rights to lands outside inland waters which were submerged at the date California entered the Union, even though since enclosed or reclaimed by means of artificial structures. The Special Master ruled that lands so enclosed or filled belonged to California because such artificial changes were clearly recognized by international law to change the coastline. Furthermore, the Special Master recognized that the United States, through its control over navigable waters, had power to protect its interests from encroachment by unwarranted artificial structures, and that the effect of any future changes could thus be the subject of agreement between the parties.
The United States now contends that whereas the Submerged Lands Act recognized and confirmed state title within all artificial as well as natural modifications to the shoreline prior to the passage of the Act, Congress meant to recognize only natural modifications after the date of the Act. The Act, however, makes no specific reference to artificial accretions, and nowhere in the legislative history did anyone focus
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we examine a city’s “adult business” licensing ordinance to determine whether it meets the First Amendment’s requirement that such a licensing scheme assure prompt judicial review of an administrative decision denying a license. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215 (1990); cf. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). We conclude that the ordinance before us, considered on its face, is consistent with the First Amendment’s demands.
I
Littleton, Colorado, has enacted an “adult business” ordinance that requires an “adult bookstore, adult novelty store or adult video store” to have an “adult business license.” Littleton City Code §§3-14-2, 3-14-4 (2003), App. to Brief for Petitioner 13a-20a, 23a. The ordinance defines “adult business”; it requires an applicant to provide certain basic information about the business; it insists upon compliance with local “adult business” (and other) zoning rules; it lists eight specific circumstances the presence of which requires the city to deny a license; and it sets forth time limits (typically amounting to about 40 days) within which city officials must reach a final licensing decision. §§3-14-2, 3-14-3, 3-14-5,3-14-7,3-14-8, id., at 13a-30a. The ordinance adds that the final decision may be “appealed to the [state] district court pursuant to Colorado rules of civil procedure 106(a)(4).” § 3-14-8(B)(3), id., at 30a.
In 1999, the respondent, a company called Z. J. Gifts D-4, L. L. C. (hereinafter ZJ), opened a store that sells “adult books” in a place not zoned for adult businesses. Compare Tr. of Oral Arg. 13 (store “within 500 feet of a church and day care center”) with §3-14-3(B), App. to Brief for Petitioner 21a (forbidding adult businesses at such locations). Instead of applying for an adult business license, ZJ brought this lawsuit attacking Littleton’s ordinance as unconstitutional on its face. The Federal District Court rejected ZJ’s claims; but on appeal the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit accepted two of them, 311 F. 3d 1220, 1224 (2002). The court held that Colorado law “does not assure that [the city’s] license decisions will be given expedited [judicial] review”; hence it does not assure the “prompt final judicial decision’’ that the Constitution demands. Id., at 1238. It also held unconstitutional another ordinance provision (not now before us) on the ground that it threatened lengthy administrative delay — a problem that the city believes it has cured by amending the ordinance. Compare id., at 1233-1234, with § 3-14-7, App. to Brief for Petitioner 27a-28a, and Brief for Petitioner 3. Throughout these proceedings, ZJ’s store has continued to operate.
The city has asked this Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s “judicial review” determination, and we granted certiorari in light of lower court uncertainty on this issue. Compare, e. g., 311 F. 3d, at 1238 (First Amendment requires prompt judicial determination of license denial); Nightclubs, Inc. v. Paducah, 202 F. 3d 884, 892-893 (CA6 2000) (same); Baby Tam & Co. v. Las Vegas, 154 F. 3d 1097, 1101-1102 (CA9 1998) (same); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 58 F. 3d 988, 998-1001 (CA4 1995) (en banc) (same), with Boss Capital, Inc. v. Casselberry, 187 F. 3d 1251, 1256-1257 (CA11 1999) (Constitution requires only prompt access to courts); TK’s Video, Inc. v. Denton County, 24 F. 3d 705, 709 (CA5 1994) (same); see also Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U. S. 316, 325-326 (2002) (noting a Circuit split); City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, 531 U. S. 278, 281 (2001) (same).
II
The city of Littleton’s claims rest essentially upon two arguments. First, this Court, in applying the First Amendment’s procedural requirements to an “adult business” licensing scheme in FW/PBS, found that the First Amendment required such a scheme to provide an applicant with “prompt access” to judicial review of an administrative denial of the license, but that the First Amendment did not require assurance of a “prompt judicial determination” of the applicant’s legal claim. Second, in any event, Colorado law satisfies any “prompt judicial determination” requirement. We reject the first argument, but we accept the second.
A
The city’s claim that its licensing scheme need not provide a “prompt judicial determination” of an applicant’s legal claim rests upon its reading of two of this Court’s eases, Freedman and FW/PBS. In Freedman, the Court considered the First Amendment’s application to a “motion picture censorship statute” — a statute that required an “‘owner or lessee’ ” of a film, prior to exhibiting a film, to submit the film to the Maryland State Board of Censors and obtain its approval. 380 U. S., at 52, and n. 1 (quoting Maryland statute). It said, “a noncriminal process which requires the prior submission of a film to a censor avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system.” Id., at 58. The Court added that those safeguards must include (1) strict time limits leading to a speedy administrative decision and minimizing any “prior restraint”-type effects, (2) burden of proof rules favoring speech, and (3) (using language relevant here) a “procedure” that will “assure a prompt final judicial decision, to minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license.” Id., at 58-59 (emphasis added).
In FW/PBS, the Court considered the First Amendment’s application to a city ordinance that “regulates sexually oriented businesses through a scheme incorporating zoning, licensing, and inspections.” 493 U. S., at 220-221. A Court majority held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment because it did not impose strict administrative time limits of the kind described in Freedman. In doing so, three Members of the Court wrote that “the full procedural protections set forth in Freedman are not required,” but that nonetheless such a licensing scheme must comply with Freedman's “core policy” — including (1) strict administrative time limits and (2) (using language somewhat different from Freedman's) “the possibility of prompt judicial review in the event that the license is erroneously denied." 493 U. S., at 228 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (emphasis added). Three other Members of the Court wrote that all Freedman’s safeguards should apply, including Freedman’s requirement that “a prompt judicial determination must be available.” 493 U. S., at 239 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). Three Members of the Court wrote in dissent that Freedman’s requirements did not apply at all. See 493 U. S., at 244-245 (White, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id,., at 250 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The city points to the differing linguistic descriptions of the “judicial review” requirement set forth in these opinions. It concedes that Freedman, in listing constitutionally necessary “safeguards,” spoke of the need to assure a “prompt final judicial decision.” 380 U. S., at 59. But it adds that Justice O’Connor’s controlling plurality opinion in FW/ PBS did not use the word “decision,” instead speaking only of the “possibility of prompt judicial review.” 493 U. S., at 228 (emphasis added); see also id., at 229 (“an avenue for prompt judicial review”); id., at 230 (“availability of prompt judicial review”). This difference in language between Freedman and FW/PBS, says the city, makes a major difference: The First Amendment, as applied to an “adult business” licensing scheme, demands only an assurance of speedy access to the courts, not an assurance of a speedy court decision.
In our view, however, the city’s argument makes too much of too little. While Justice O’Connor’s FW/PBS plurality opinion makes clear that only Freedman’s “core” requirements apply in the context of “adult business” licensing schemes, it does not purport radically to alter the nature of those “core” requirements. To the contrary, the opinion, immediately prior to its reference to the “judicial review” safeguard, says:
“The core policy underlying Freedman is that the license for a First Amendment-protected business must be issued within a reasonable period of time, because undue delay results in the unconstitutional suppression of protected speech. Thus, the first two [Freedman] safeguards are essential....” 493 U. S., at 228.
These words, pointing out that Freedman's “judicial review” safeguard is meant to prevent “undue delay,” 493 U. S., at 228, include judicial, as well as administrative, delay. A delay in issuing a judicial decision, no less than a delay in obtaining access to a court, can prevent a license from being “issued within a reasonable period of time.” Ibid. Nothing in the opinion suggests the contrary. Thus we read that opinion’s reference to “prompt judicial review,” together with the similar reference in Justice Brennan’s separate opinion (joined by two other Justices), see id., at 239, as encompassing a prompt judicial decision. And we reject the city’s arguments to the contrary.
B
We find the second argument more convincing. In effect that argument concedes the constitutional importance of assuring a “prompt” judicial decision. It concedes as well that the Court, illustrating what it meant by “prompt” in Freedman, there set forth a “model” that involved a “hearing one day after joinder of issue” and a “decision within two days after termination of the hearing.” 380 U. S., at 60. But the city says that here the First Amendment nonetheless does not require it to impose 2- or 3-day time limits; the First Amendment does not require special “adult business” judicial review rules; and the First Amendment does not insist that Littleton write detailed judicial review rules into the ordinance itself. In sum, Colorado’s ordinary “judicial review” rules offer adequate assurance, not only that access to the courts can be promptly obtained, but also that a judicial decision will be promptly forthcoming.
Littleton, in effect, argues that we should modify FW/ PBS, withdrawing its implication that Freedman's special judicial review rules apply in this case. And we accept that argument. In our view, Colorado’s ordinary judicial review procedures suffice as long as the courts remain sensitive to the need to prevent First Amendment harms and administer those procedures accordingly. And whether the courts do so is a matter normally fit for case-by-case determination rather than a facial challenge. We reach this conclusion for several reasons.
First, ordinary court procedural rules and practices, in Colorado as elsewhere, provide reviewing courts with judicial tools sufficient to avoid delay-related First Amendment harm. Indeed, where necessary, courts may arrange their schedules to “accelerate” proceedings. Colo. Rule Civ. Proc. 106(a)(4)(VIII) (2003). And higher courts may quickly review adverse lower court decisions. See, e. g., Goebel v. Colorado Dept. of Institutions, 764 P. 2d 785, 792 (Colo. 1988) (en banc) (granting “expedited review”).
Second, we have no reason to doubt the willingness of Colorado’s judges to exercise these powers wisely so as to avoid serious threats of delay-induced First Amendment harm. We presume that courts are aware of the constitutional need to avoid “undue delay resulting] in the unconstitutional suppression of protected speech.” FW/PBS, supra, at 228; see also, e. g., Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 756 (1975). There is no evidence before us of any special Colorado court-related problem in this respect. And were there some such problems, federal remedies would provide an additional safety valve. See Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
Third, the typical First Amendment harm at issue here differs from that at issue in Freedman, diminishing the need in the typical case for special procedural rules imposing special 2- or 3-day decisionmaking time limits. Freedman considered a Maryland statute that created a Board of Censors, which had to decide whether a film was “‘pornographic,’” tended to “‘debase or corrupt morals,”’ and lacked “‘whatever other merits.’ ” 380 U. S., at 52-53, n. 2 (quoting Maryland statute). If so, it denied the permit and the film could not be shown. Thus, in Freedman, the Court considered a scheme with rather subjective standards and where a denial likely meant complete censorship.
In contrast, the ordinance at issue here does not seek to censor material. And its licensing scheme applies reasonably objective, nondiscretionary criteria unrelated to the content of the expressive materials that an adult business may sell or display. The ordinance says that an adult business license “símil” be denied if the applicant (1) is underage; (2) provides false information; (3) has within the prior year had an adult business license revoked or suspended; (4) has operated an adult business determined to be a state law “public nuisance” within the prior year; (5) (if a corporation) is not authorized to do business in the State; (6) has not timely paid taxes, fees, fines, or penalties; (7) has not obtained a sales tax license (for which zoning compliance is required, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-17); or (8) has been convicted of certain crimes within the prior five years. § 3-14-8(A), App. to Brief for Petitioner 28a-29a (emphasis added).
These objective criteria are simple enough to apply and their application simple enough to review that their use is unlikely in practice to suppress totally the presence of any specific item of adult material in the Littleton community. Some license applicants will satisfy the criteria even if others do not; hence the community will likely contain outlets that sell protected adult material. A supplier of that material should be able to find outlets; a potential buyer should be able to find a seller. Nor should zoning requirements suppress that material, for a constitutional zoning system seeks to determine where, not whether, protected adult material pan be sold. See Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, 46 (1986). The upshot is that Littleton’s “adult business” licensing scheme does “not present the grave ‘dangers of a censorship system.”’ FW/PBS, 493 U. S., at 228 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (quoting Freedman, supra, at 58). And the simple objective nature of the licensing criteria means that in the ordinary case, judicial review, too, should prove simple, hence expeditious. Where that is not so— where, for example, censorship of material, as well as delay in opening an additional outlet, is improperly threatened— the courts are able to act to prevent that harm.
Fourth, nothing in FW/PBS or in Freedman requires a city or a State to place judicial review safeguards all in the city ordinance that sets forth a licensing scheme. Freedman itself said: “How or whether Maryland is to incorporate the required procedural safeguards in the statutory scheme is, of course, for the State to decide.” 380 U. S., at 60. This statement is not surprising given the fact that many cities and towns lack the state-law legal authority to impose deadlines on state courts.
These four sets of considerations, taken together, indicate that Colorado’s ordinary rules of judicial review are adequate — at least for purposes of this facial challenge to the ordinance. Where (as here and as in FW/PBS) the regulation simply conditions the operation of an adult business on compliance with neutral and nondiscretionary criteria, cf. post, at 785 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and does not seek to censor content, an adult business is not entitled to an unusually speedy judicial decision of the Freedman type. Colorado’s rules provide for a flexible system of review in which judges can reach a decision promptly in the ordinary case, while using their judicial power to prevent significant harm to First Amendment interests where circumstances require. Of course, those denied licenses in the future remain free to raise special problems of undue delay in individual cases as the ordinance is applied.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants "dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" an opportunity to file a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 35 U.S.C. § 145. The statute specifies that "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant." Ibid. The question presented in this case is whether such "expenses" include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). We hold that they do not.
I
A
The Patent Act creates two mutually exclusive pathways to challenge an adverse decision by the PTO. The first permits judicial review by direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. § 141. There is "no opportunity for the applicant to offer new evidence" in a § 141 proceeding, and the Federal Circuit "must review the PTO's decision on the same administrative record that was before the [agency]." Kappos v. Hyatt , 566 U.S. 431, 434, 132 S.Ct. 1690, 182 L.Ed.2d 704 (2012) ; 35 U.S.C. § 144.
The second pathway allows applicants to file a new civil action against the Director of the PTO in federal district court. § 145. Unlike § 141, § 145 "permits the applicant to present new evidence ... not presented to the PTO." Kappos , 566 U.S. at 435, 132 S.Ct. . 1690. The district court "acts as a factfinder when new evidence is introduced in a § 145 proceeding" and must make de novo determinations that take into account "both the new evidence and the administrative record before the PTO." Id. , at 444, 446, 132 S.Ct. 1690.
The parties may appeal the district court's final decision to the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C).
Because § 145 does not limit an applicant's ability to introduce new evidence to challenge the denial of a patent, Kappos , 566 U.S. at 439, 132 S.Ct. 1690, it can result in protracted litigation. As a condition for permitting such extensive review, the Patent Act requires applicants who avail themselves of § 145 to pay "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings." 35 U.S.C. § 145.
B
After the PTO denied respondent NantKwest, Inc.'s patent application directed to a method for treating cancer, NantKwest filed a complaint against the PTO Director in the Eastern District of Virginia under § 145. The District Court granted summary judgment to the PTO, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee , 686 Fed.Appx. 864 (2017). The PTO moved for reimbursement of expenses that included-for the first time in the 170-year history of § 145 -the pro rata salaries of PTO attorneys and a paralegal who worked on the case.
The District Court denied the PTO's motion to recover its pro rata legal fees as "expenses" of the § 145 proceeding. The court concluded that the statutory language referencing expenses was not clear enough to rebut the "American Rule"-the background principle that parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees. NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee , 162 F.Supp.3d 540, 542 (E.D. Va. 2016). A divided Federal Circuit panel reversed, with Judge Stoll dissenting. NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal , 860 F.3d 1352 (2017). The majority expressed "substantial doub[t]" that § 145 even implicated the American Rule's presumption against fee shifting in a case in which the payment was not made to a prevailing party. Id., at 1355. The majority concluded that, even assuming the American Rule presumption applied, the term "expenses" in § 145 "specific[ally]" and "explicit[ly]" authorized an award of fees. Id. , at 1356.
The en banc Federal Circuit voted sua sponte to rehear the case and reversed the panel over a dissent. NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu , 898 F.3d 1177, 1184 (2018). The majority opinion-now authored by Judge Stoll-held that the American Rule presumption applied to § 145 because it is "the starting point whenever a party seeks to shift fees from one side to the other in adversarial litigation." Id. , at 1184 (citing Baker Botts L. L. P. v. ASARCO LLC , 576 U. S. 121, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2158, 2165, 192 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015) ). After examining the plain text and statutory history of § 145, the judicial and congressional understanding of similar language, and overarching policy considerations, the majority concluded that "[a]warding '[a]ll the expenses' simply cannot supply the 'specific and explicit' directive from Congress to shift attorneys' fees, and nothing else in the statute evinces congressional intent to make them available." 898 F.3d at 1196 (quoting Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society , 421 U.S. 240, 260, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ). We granted certiorari, 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 1292, 203 L.Ed.2d 413 (2019), and now affirm.
II
This Court's " 'basic point of reference' when considering the award of attorney's fees is the bedrock principle known as the ' "American Rule" ': Each litigant pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise." Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. , 560 U.S. 242, 252-253, 130 S.Ct. 2149, 176 L.Ed.2d 998 (2010) (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club , 463 U.S. 680, 683, 103 S.Ct. 3274, 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983) ).
The American Rule has "roots in our common law reaching back to at least the 18th century." Baker Botts , 576 U. S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2164 (citing Arcambel v. Wiseman , 3 Dall. 306, 1 L.Ed. 613 (1796) ); see also Summit Valley Industries, Inc. v. Carpenters , 456 U.S. 717, 721, 102 S.Ct. 2112, 72 L.Ed.2d 511 (1982) (observing that the American Rule "has been consistently followed for almost 200 years"); Alyeska Pipeline , 421 U.S. at 257, 95 S.Ct. 1612 (referring to the presumption against shifting attorney's fees as a "general" rule).
The Government does not dispute this principle or its pedigree, but argues instead that it does not apply at all. Because the American Rule presumption is most often overcome when a statute awards fees to a "prevailing party," the Government maintains, the presumption applies only to prevailing-party statutes. And because § 145 requires one party to pay all expenses regardless of outcome, the argument goes, it is not a statute subject to the presumption.
That view is incorrect. This Court has never suggested that any statute is exempt from the presumption against fee shifting. Nor has it limited its American Rule inquiries to prevailing-party statutes. Indeed, the Court has developed a "line of precedents" "addressing statutory deviations from the American Rule that do not limit attorney's fees awards to the 'prevailing party.' " Hardt , 560 U.S. at 254, 130 S.Ct. 2149 ; see also Baker Botts , 576 U. S., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2164-2166 (analyzing a bankruptcy provision that did not mention prevailing parties under the American Rule's presumption against fee shifting).
Sebelius v. Cloer , 569 U.S. 369, 133 S.Ct. 1886, 185 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2013), confirms that the presumption against fee shifting applies to all statutes-even those like § 145 that do not explicitly award attorney's fees to "prevailing parties." In Cloer , the Court interpreted a provision of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that permitted courts to "award attorney's fees ... 'incurred [by a claimant] in any proceeding on' an unsuccessful vaccine-injury 'petition ... brought in good faith [with] a reasonable basis for the claim.' " 569 U.S. at 371, 133 S.Ct. 1886 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(1) ). The Court held that the provision's clear language authorized attorney's fees, even though the statute exclusively applied to unsuccessful litigants. 569 U.S. at 372, 133 S.Ct. 1886.
Cloer establishes two points: First, contrary to the Government's suggestion, Congress has indeed enacted fee-shifting statutes that apply to nonprevailing parties. Second, and again contrary to the Government's view, the American Rule applies to such statutes. The Government itself argued in Cloer that the presumption against fee shifting applied by default, but maintained that the statute "depart[ed] so far from background principles about who pays a litigant's attorney's fees that it [could not] be justified without a clearer statement than the Act can supply.' " Brief for Petitioner in Sebelius v. Cloer , O. T. 2012, No. 12236, p. 32. The Court acknowledged the Government's position but concluded that the "rul[e] of thumb" against fee shifting gave way because the "words of [the] statute [were] unambiguous." Cloer , 569 U.S. at 380-381, 133 S.Ct. 1886 (citing the Government's brief).
The dissenting en banc Federal Circuit Judges also doubted that the American Rule could apply to a § 145 action. They characterized the proceeding as an intermediate step in obtaining a patent and the payment of legal fees as a portion of the application costs. 898 F.3d at 1200 (opinion of Prost, J.). Yet § 145 has all the marks of the kind of adversarial litigation in which fee shifting, and the presumption against it, is common; the statute authorizes filing a separate civil action where new evidence can be introduced for de novo review by a district judge. Thus, the presumption against fee shifting not only applies, but is particularly important because § 145 permits an unsuccessful government agency to recover its expenses from a prevailing party. Reading § 145 to award attorney's fees in that circumstance "would be a radical departure from longstanding fee-shifting principles adhered to in a wide range of contexts." Ruckelshaus , 463 U.S. at 683, 103 S.Ct. 3274.
The American Rule thus provides the starting point for assessing whether § 145 authorizes payment of the PTO's legal fees.
III
To determine whether Congress intended to depart from the American Rule presumption, the Court first "look[s] to the language of the section" at issue. Hardt , 560 U.S. at 254, 130 S.Ct. 2149 (internal quotation marks omitted). While "[t]he absence of [a] specific reference to attorney's fees is not dispositive," Key Tronic Corp. v. United States , 511 U.S. 809, 815, 114 S.Ct. 1960, 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994), Congress must provide a sufficiently "specific and explicit" indication of its intent to overcome the American Rule's presumption against fee shifting. Alyeska Pipeline , 421 U.S. at 260, 95 S.Ct. 1612.
A
The reference to "expenses" in § 145 does not invoke attorney's fees with the kind of "clarity we have required to deviate from the American Rule." Baker Botts , 576 U. S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2164.
Definitions of "expenses" provide scant guidance. The term, standing alone, encompasses wide-ranging "expenditure[s] of money, time, labor, or resources to accomplish a result," Black's Law Dictionary 698 (10th ed. 2014), "charges or costs met with in ... doing one's work," Webster's New World College Dictionary 511 (5th ed. 2014), and "outlay[s]" for labor, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 180 (1996); see also N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 319 (3d ed. 1830) (defining the term broadly to include "the employment and consumption, as of time or labor," or the "disbursing of money"). Though these definitions are capacious enough to include attorney's fees, the mere failure to foreclose a fee award "neither specifically nor explicitly authorizes courts to shift [fees]." Baker Botts , 576 U. S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2165.
Reading the term "expenses" alongside neighboring words in the statute, however, supports a conclusion excluding legal fees from the scope of § 145. The complete phrase "expenses of the proceeding" is similar to the Latin expensæ litis , or "expenses of the litigation." This term has long referred to a class of expenses commonly recovered in litigation to which attorney's fees did not traditionally belong. See Black's Law Dictionary 461 (1891) (defining "expensæ litis " to mean "generally allowed" costs); 1 J. Bouvier, Law Dictionary 392 (1839) (defining the term to mean the "costs which are generally allowed to the successful party"); id. , at 244 (excluding from the definition of "costs" the "extraordinary fees [a party] may have paid counsel"). These definitions suggest that the use of "expenses" in § 145 would not have been commonly understood to include attorney's fees at its enactment.
Finally, the modifier "all" does not expand § 145 's reach to include attorney's fees. Although the word conveys breadth, it cannot transform "expenses" to reach an outlay it would not otherwise include. Cf. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. , 586 U. S. ----, ---- - ----, 139 S.Ct. 873, 878-879, 203 L.Ed.2d 180 (2019) ("The adjective 'full' in § 505 therefore does not alter the meaning of the word 'costs.' Rather, 'full costs' are all the 'costs' otherwise available under law").
Section 145 's plain text thus does not overcome the American Rule's presumption against fee shifting to permit the PTO to recoup its legal personnel salaries as "expenses of the proceedings."
B
"The record of statutory usage" also illustrates how the term "expenses" alone does not authorize recovery of attorney's fees. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey , 499 U.S. 83, 88, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) (looking to statutory usage to determine whether attorney's fees and expert fees were distinct expenses in the fee-shifting context).
That "expenses" and "attorney's fees" appear in tandem across various statutes shifting litigation costs indicates that Congress understands the two terms to be distinct and not inclusive of each other. See, e.g., 898 F.3d at 1188 (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 363(n) (allowing trustee to recover "any costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses incurred"); 12 U.S.C. § 1786(p) (permitting courts to "allow to any such party such reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees as it deems just and proper"); 25 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (allowing distribution of funds after payment of "attorney fees and litigation expenses"); 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(2)(A) (authorizing recovery of "costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" against an attorney who "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplies proceedings); 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1) (permitting recovery of "reasonable expenses ... plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs"); 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2) (allowing courts to award "reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses") (all internal quotation marks omitted)).
While some other statutes refer to attorney's fees as a subset of expenses, they show only that "expenses" can include attorney's fees when so defined. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 361 (authorizing "reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees"); § 1447(c) ("An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal"); 29 U.S.C. § 1370(e)(1) ("[T]he court in its discretion may award all or a portion of the costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action including reasonable attorney's fees"); 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(e)(9) (allowing a party to recover "reasonable expenses incurred ..., including a reasonable attorney's fee").
The Government cites several decisions to argue how, on occasion, this Court has used the term "expenses" to mean "attorney's fees." None of the cases furthers its position. See, e.g. , Rimini Street , 586 U. S., at ----, ----, 139 S.Ct., at 877, 881 (reasoning that the term "costs" in the general federal costs statutes does not include attorney's fees); Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. , 566 U.S. 560, 573, 132 S.Ct. 1997, 182 L.Ed.2d 903 (2012) (mentioning that a party may bear "expenses" related to attorneys, without specifying whether these "expenses" include attorney's fees); Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy , 548 U.S. 291, 297-303, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006) (distinguishing "attorney's fees" from "costs" and "costs" from "expenses," without indicating whether "expenses" encompasses attorney's fees); Casey , 499 U.S. at 99, 111 S.Ct. 1138 (suggesting that an explicit reference to "expert witness fees" or "litigation expenses" could shift expert fees in addition to attorney's fees-not that the term "litigation expenses" alone could shift attorney's fees).
Simply put, in common statutory usage, the term "expenses" alone has never been considered to authorize an award of attorney's fees with sufficient clarity to overcome the American Rule presumption.
C
In fact, the Patent Act's history reinforces that Congress did not intend to shift fees in § 145 actions.
There is no evidence that the Patent Office, the PTO's predecessor, originally paid its personnel from sums collected from adverse parties in litigation, or that the Office initially even employed attorneys. See Act of July 4, 1836, § 9, 5 Stat. 121 ("[T]he moneys received into the Treasury under this act shall constitute a fund for the payment of the salaries of the officers and clerks herein provided for, and all other expenses of the Patent Office, and to be called the patent fund"). That salaries of PTO employees might have qualified as an "expense" of the agency, however, does not mean that they are an "expense" of a § 145 proceeding. Neither has the PTO, until this litigation, sought its attorney's fees under § 145. That the agency has managed to pay its attorneys consistently suggests that financial necessity does not require reading § 145 to shift fees, either.
In later years, when Congress intended to provide for attorney's fees in the Patent Act, it stated so explicitly. See, e.g. , 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party"); § 271(e)(4) ("[A] court may award attorney fees under section 285"); § 273(f) (same); § 296(b) (same); § 297(b)(1) ("Any customer ... who is found by a court to have been injured by any material false or fraudulent statement ... may recover ... reasonable costs and attorneys' fees"). Because Congress failed to make its intention similarly clear in § 145, the Court will not read the statute to "contravene fundamental precepts of the common law." United States v. Rodgers , 461 U.S. 677, 716, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983).
The history of the Patent Act thus reaffirms the Court's view that the statute does not specifically or explicitly authorize the PTO to recoup its lawyers' or paralegals' pro rata salaries in § 145 civil actions.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the PTO cannot recover the pro rata salaries of its legal personnel under § 145 and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
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:
|
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court,
This case, arising out of a denial by a state college of official recognition to a group of students who desired to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), presents this Court with questions requiring the application of well-established First Amendment principles. While the factual background of this particular case raises these constitutional issues in a manner not heretofore passed on by the Court, and only infrequently presented to lower federal courts, our decision today is governed by existing precedent.
As the case involves delicate issues concerning the academic community, we approach our task with special caution, recognizing the mutual interest of students, faculty members, and administrators in an environment free from disruptive interference with the educational process. We also are mindful of the equally significant interest in the widest latitude for free expression and debate consonant with the maintenance of order. Where these interests appear to compete the First Amendment, made binding on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, strikes the required balance.
I
We mention briefly at the outset the setting in 1969-1970. A climate of unrest prevailed on many college campuses in this country. There had been widespread civil disobedience on some campuses, accompanied by the seizure of buildings, vandalism, and arson. Some colleges had been shut down altogether, while at others files were looted and manuscripts destroyed. SDS chapters on some of those campuses had been a catalytic force during this period. Although the causes of campus disruption were many and complex, one of the prime consequences of such activities was the denial of the lawful exercise of First Amendment rights to the majority of students by the few. Indeed, many of the most cherished characteristics long associated with institutions of higher learning appeared to be endangered. Fortunately, with the passage of time, a calmer atmosphere and greater maturity now pervade our campuses. Yet, it was in this climate of earlier unrest that this case arose.
Petitioners are students attending Central Connecticut State College (CCSC), a state-supported institution of higher learning. In September 1969 they undertook to organize what they then referred to as a “local chapter” of SDS. Pursuant to procedures established by the College, petitioners filed a request for official recognition as a campus organization with the Student Affairs Committee, a committee composed of four students, three faculty members, and the Dean of Student Affairs. The request specified three purposes for the proposed organization’s existence. It would provide “a forum of discussion and self-education for students developing an analysis of American society”; it would serve as “an agency for integrating thought with action so as to bring about constructive changes”; and it would endeavor to provide “a coordinating body for relating the problems of leftist students” with other interested groups on campus and in the community. The Committee, while satisfied that the statement of purposes was clear and unobjectionable on its face, exhibited concern over the relationship between the proposed local group and the National SDS organization. In response to inquiries, representatives of the proposed organization stated that they would not affiliate with any national organization and that their group would remain “completely independent.”
In response to other questions asked by Committee members concerning SDS’ reputation for campus disruption, the applicants made the following statements, which proved significant during the later stages of these proceedings:
“Q. How would you respond to issues of violence as other S. D. S. chapters have?
“A. Our action would have to be dependent upon each issue.
“Q. Would you use any means possible?
“A. No I can’t say that; would not know until we know what the issues are.
“Q. Could you envision the S. D. S. interrupting a class?
“A. Impossible for me to say.”
With this information before it, the Committee requested an additional filing by the applicants, including a formal statement regarding affiliations. The amended application filed in response stated flatly that “CCSC Students for a Democratic Society are not under the dictates of any National organization.” At a second hearing before the Student Affairs Committee, the question of relationship with the National organization was raised again. One of the organizers explained that the National SDS was divided into several “factional groups,” that the national-local relationship was a loose one, and that the local organization accepted only “certain ideas” but not all of the National organization’s aims and philosophies.
By a vote of six to two the Committee ultimately approved the application and recommended to the President of the College, Dr. James, that the organization be accorded official recognition. In approving the application, the majority indicated that its decision was premised on the belief that varying viewpoints should be represented on campus and that since the Young Americans for Freedom, the Young Democrats, the Young Republicans, and the Liberal Party all enjoyed recognized status, a group should be available with which “left wing” students might identify. The majority also noted and relied on the organization’s claim of independence. Finally, it admonished the organization that immediate suspension would be considered if the group’s activities proved incompatible with the school’s policies against interference with the privacy of other students or destruction of property. The two dissenting members based their reservation primarily on the lack of clarity regarding the organization’s independence.
Several days later, the President rejected the Committee’s recommendation, and issued a statement indicating that petitioners’ organization was not to be accorded the benefits of official campus recognition. His accompanying remarks, which are set out in full in the margin, indicate several reasons for his action. He found that the organization’s philosophy was antithetical to the school’s policies, and that the group’s independence was doubtful. He concluded that approval should not be granted to any group that “openly repudiates” the College’s dedication to academic freedom.
Denial of official recognition posed serious problems for the organization’s existence and growth. Its members were deprived of the opportunity to place announcements regarding meetings, rallies, or other activities in the student newspaper; they were precluded from using various campus bulletin boards; and — most importantly — nonrecognition barred them from using campus facilities for holding meetings. This latter disability was brought home to petitioners shortly after the President’s announcement. Petitioners circulated a notice calling a meeting to discuss what further action should be taken in light of the group’s official rejection. The members met at the coffee shop in the Student Center (“Devils’ Den”) but were disbanded on the President’s order since nonrecognized groups were not entitled to use such facilities.
Their efforts to gain recognition having proved ultimately unsuccessful, and having been made to feel the burden of nonrecognition, petitioners resorted t-o the courts. They filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the President of the College, other administrators, and the State Board of Trustees. Petitioners’ primary complaint centered on the denial of First Amendment rights of expression and association arising from denial of campus recognition. The cause was submitted initially on stipulated facts, and, after a short hearing, the judge ruled that petitioners had been denied procedural due process because the President had based his decision on conclusions regarding the applicant’s affiliation which were outside the record before him. The court concluded that if the President wished to act on the basis of material outside the application he must at least provide petitioners a hearing and opportunity to introduce evidence as to their affiliations. 311 F. Supp. 1275, 1279, 1281. While retaining jurisdiction over the case, the District Court ordered respondents to hold a hearing in order to clarify the several ambiguities surrounding the President’s decision. One of the matters to be explored was whether the local organization, true to its repeated affirmations, was in fact independent of the National SDS. Id., at 1282. And if the hearing demonstrated that the two were not separable, the respondents were instructed that they might then review the “aims and philosophy” of the National organization. Ibid.
Pursuant to the court’s order, the President designated Dean Judd, the Dean of Student Affairs, to serve as hearing officer and a hearing was scheduled. The hearing, which spanned two dates and lasted approximately two hours, added little in terms of objective substantive evidence to the record in this case. Petitioners introduced a statement offering to change the organization’s name from “CCSC local chapter of SDS” to “Students for a Democratic Society of Central Connecticut State College.” They further reaffirmed that they would “have no connection whatsoever to the structure of an existing national organization.” Petitioners also introduced the testimony of their faculty adviser to the effect that some local SDS organizations elsewhere were unafSliated with any national organization. The hearing officer, in addition to introducing the minutes from the two pertinent Student Affairs Committee meetings, also introduced, sua sponte, portions of a transcript of hearings before the United States House of Representatives Internal Security Committee investigating the activities of SDS. Excerpts were offered both to prove that violent and disruptive activities had been attributed to SDS elsewhere and to demonstrate that there existed a national organization that recognized and cooperated with regional and local college campus affiliates. Petitioners did not challenge the asserted existence of a National SDS, nor did they question that it did have a system of affiliations of some sort. Their contention was simply that their organization would not associate with that network. Throughout the hearing the parties were acting at cross purposes. What seemed relevant to one appeared completely immaterial to the other. This failure of the hearing to advance the litigation was, at bottom, the consequence of a more basic failure to join issue on the considerations that should control the President’s ultimate decision, a problem to which we will return in the ensuing section.
Upon reviewing the hearing transcript and exhibits, the President reaffirmed his prior decision to deny petitioners recognition as a campus organization. The reasons stated, closely paralleling his initial reasons, were that the group would be a “disruptive influence” at CCSC and that recognition would be “contrary to the orderly process of change” on the campus.
After the President’s second statement issued, the case then returned to the District Court, where it was ordered dismissed. The court concluded, first, that the formal requisites of procedural due process had been complied with, second, that petitioners had failed to meet their burden of showing that they could function free from the National organization, and, third, that the College’s refusal to place its stamp of approval on an organization whose conduct it found “likely to cause violent acts of disruption” did not violate petitioners’ associational rights. 319 F. Supp. 113, 116.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where, by a two-to-one vote, the District Court’s judgment was affirmed. The majority purported not to reach the substantive First Amendment issues on the theory that petitioners had failed to avail themselves of the due process accorded them and had failed to meet their burden of complying with the prevailing standards for recognition. 445 F. 2d 1122, 1131-1132. Judge Smith dissented, disagreeing with the majority’s refusal to address the merits and finding that petitioners had been deprived of basic First Amendment rights. Id., at 1136. This Court granted certiorari and, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the judgments of the courts below must be reversed and the case remanded for reconsideration.
II
At the outset we note that state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment. “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). Of course, as Mr. Justice Fortas made clear in Tinker, First Amendment rights must always be applied “in light of the special characteristics of the... environment” in the particular case. Ibid. And, where state-operated educational institutions are involved, this 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.” Id., at 507. Yet, the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, “[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960). The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the “ ‘marketplace of ideas,’ ” and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation’s dedication to safeguarding academic freedom. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 249-250 (1957) (plurality opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Warren), 262 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result).
Among the rights protected by the First Amendment is the right of individuals to associate to further their personal beliefs. While the freedom of association is not explicitly set out in the Amendment, it has long been held to be implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition. See, e. g., Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S. 1, 6 (1971); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 430 (1963); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296 (1961); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958) (Harlan, J., for a unanimous Court). There can be no doubt that denial of official recognition, without justification, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right. The primary impediment to free association flowing from nonrecognition is the denial of use of campus facilities for meetings and other appropriate purposes. The practical effect of nonrecognition was demonstrated in this case when, several days after the President’s decision was announced, petitioners were not allowed to hold a meeting in the campus coffee shop because they were not an approved group.
Petitioners’ associational interests also were circumscribed by the denial of the use of campus bulletin boards and the school newspaper. If an organization is to remain a viable entity in a campus community in which new students enter on a regular basis, it must possess the means of communicating with these students. Moreover, the organization’s ability to participate in the intellectual give and take of campus debate, and to pursue its stated purposes, is limited by denial of access to the customary media for communicating with the administration, faculty members, and other students. Such impediments cannot be viewed as insubstantial.
Respondents and the courts below appear to have taken the view that denial of official recognition in this case abridged no constitutional rights. The District Court concluded that
“President James’ discretionary action in denying this application cannot be legitimately magnified and distorted into a constitutionally cognizable interference with the personal ideas or beliefs of any segment of the college students; neither does his action deter in any material way the individual advocacy of their personal beliefs; nor can his action be reasonably construed to be an invasion of, or having a chilling effect on academic freedom.” 319 F. Supp., at 116.
In that court’s view all that was denied petitioners was the “administrative seal of official college respectability.” Ibid. A majority of the Court of Appeals agreed that petitioners had been denied only the “college’s stamp of approval.” 445 F. 2d, at 1131. Respondents take that same position here, arguing that petitioners still may meet as a group off campus, that they still may distribute written material off campus, and that they still may meet together informally on campus — as individuals, but not as CCSC-SDS.
We do not agree with the characterization by the courts below of the consequences of nonrecognition. We may concede, as did Mr. Justice Harlan in his opinion for a unanimous Court in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S., at 461, that the administration “has taken no direct action... to restrict the rights of [petitioners] to associate freely... But the Constitution’s protection is not limited to direct interference with fundamental rights. The requirement in Patterson that the NAACP disclose its membership lists was found to be an impermissible, though indirect, infringement of the members’ associational rights. Likewise, in this case, the group’s possible ability to exist outside the campus community does not ameliorate significantly the disabilities imposed by the President’s action. We are not free to disregard the practical realities. Me. Justice Stewart has made the salient point: “Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference.” Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523 (1960). See also Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S., at 263 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result); Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 197 (1957).
The opinions below also assumed that petitioners had the burden of showing entitlement to recognition by the College. While petitioners have not challenged the procedural requirement that they file an application in conformity with the rules of the College, they do question the view of the courts below that final rejection could rest on their failure to convince the administration that their organization was unaffiliated with the National SDS. For reasons to be stated later in this opinion, we do not consider the issue of affiliation to be a controlling one. But, apart from any particular issue, once petitioners had filed an application in conformity with the requirements, the burden was upon the College administration to justify its decision of rejection. See, e. g., Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1971); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958). It is to be remembered that the effect of the College’s denial of recognition was a form of prior restraint, denying to petitioners’ organization the range of associational activities described above. While a college has a legitimate interest in preventing disruption on the campus, which under circumstances requiring the safeguarding of that interest may justify such restraint, a “heavy burden” rests on the college to demonstrate the appropriateness of that action. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 713-716 (1931); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 418 (1971); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 57 (1965).
Ill
These fundamental errors — discounting the existence of a cognizable First Amendment interest and misplacing the burden of proof — require that the judgments below be reversed. But we are unable to conclude that no basis exists upon which nonrecognition might be appropriate. Indeed, based on a reasonable reading of the ambiguous facts of this case, there appears to be at least one potentially acceptable ground for a denial of recognition. Because of this ambiguous state of the record we conclude that the case should be remanded, and, in an effort to provide guidance to the lower courts upon reconsideration, it is appropriate to discuss the several bases of President James’ decision. Pour possible justifications for nonrecognition, all closely related, might be derived from the record and his statements. Three of those grounds are inadequate to substantiate his decision: a fourth, however, has merit.
A
From the outset the controversy in this case has centered in large measure around the relationship, if any, between petitioners’ group and the National SDS. The Student Affairs Committee meetings, as reflected in its minutes, focused considerable attention on this issue; the court-ordered hearing also was directed primarily to this question. Despite assurances from petitioners and their counsel that the local group was in fact independent of the National organization, it is evident that President James was significantly influenced by his apprehension that there was a connection. Aware of the fact that some SDS chapters had been associated with disruptive and violent campus activity, he apparently considered that affiliation itself was sufficient justification for denying recognition.
Although this precise issue has not come before the Court heretofore, the Court has consistently disapproved governmental action imposing criminal sanctions or denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization. See, e. g., United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S., at 605-610; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11 (1966); Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (1961). In these cases it has been established that “guilt by association alone, without [establishing] that an individual’s association poses the threat feared by the Government,” is an impermissible basis upon which to deny First Amendment rights. United States v. Robel, supra, at 265. The government has the burden of establishing a knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims.
Students for a Democratic Society, as conceded by the College and the lower courts, is loosely organized, having various factions and promoting a number of diverse social and political views, only some of which call for unlawful action. Not only did petitioners proclaim their complete independence from this organization, but they also indicated that they shared only some of the beliefs its leaders have expressed. On this record it is clear that the relationship was not an adequate ground for the denial of recognition.
B
Having concluded that petitioners were affiliated with, or at least retained an affinity for, National SDS, President James attributed what he believed to be the philosophy of that organization to the local group. He characterized the petitioning group as adhering to “some of the major tenets of the national organization,” including a philosophy of violence and disruption. Understandably, he found that philosophy abhorrent. In an article signed by President James in an alumni periodical, and made a part of the record below, he announced his unwillingness to “sanction an organization that openly advocates the destruction of the very ideals and freedoms upon which the academic life is founded.” He further emphasized that the petitioners’ “philosophies” were “counter to the official policy of the college.”
The mere disagreement of the President with the group’s philosophy affords no reason to deny it recognition. As repugnant as these views may have been, especially to one with President James’ responsibility, the mere expression of them would not justify the denial of First Amendment rights. Whether petitioners did in fact advocate a philosophy of “destruction” thus becomes immaterial. The College, acting here as the instrumentality of the State, may not restrict speech or association simply because it finds the views expressed by any group to be abhorrent. As Mr. Justice Black put it most simply and clearly:
“I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.” Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U. S. 1, 137 (dissenting opinion) (1961).
C
As the litigation progressed in the District Court, a third rationale for President James’ decision — beyond the questions of affiliation and philosophy — began to emerge. His second statement, issued after the court-ordered hearing, indicates that he based rejection on a conclusion that this particular group would be a “disruptive influence at CCSC.” This language was underscored in the second District Court opinion. In fact, the court concluded that the President had determined that CCSC-SDS’ “prospective campus activities were likely to cause a disruptive influence at CCSC.” 319 F. Supp., at 116.
If this reason, directed at the organization’s activities rather than its philosophy, were factually supported by the record, this Court’s prior decisions would provide a basis for considering the propriety of nonrecognition. The critical line heretofore drawn for determining the permissibility of regulation is the line between mere advocacy and advocacy “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and... likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (unanimous per curiam opinion). See also Scales v. United States, 367 U. S., at 230-232; Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 298 (1961); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957). In the context of the “special characteristics of the school environment,” the power of the government to prohibit “lawless action” is not limited to acts of a criminal nature. Also prohibitable are actions which “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U. S., at 513. Associational activities need not be tolerated where they infringe reasonable campus rules, interrupt classes, or substantially interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an education.
The “Student Bill of Rights” at CCSC, upon which great emphasis was placed by the President, draws precisely this distinction between advocacy and action. It purports to impose no limitations on the right of college student organizations “to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them.” (Emphasis supplied.) But it also states that students have no right (1) “to deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard,” (2) “to invade the privacy of others,” (3) “to damage the property of others,” (4) “to disrupt the regular and essential operation of the college,” or (5) “to interfere with the rights of others.” The line between permissible speech and impermissible conduct tracks the constitutional requirement, and if there were an evidential basis to support the conclusion that CCSC-SDS posed a substantial threat of material disruption in violation of that command the President’s decision should be affirmed.
The record, however, offers no substantial basis for that conclusion. The only support for the view expressed by the President, other than the reputed affiliation with National SDS, is to be found in the ambivalent responses offered by the group’s representatives at the Student Affairs Committee hearing, during which they stated that they did not know whether they might respond to “issues of violence” in the same manner that other SDS chapters had on other campuses. Nor would they state unequivocally that they could never “envision... interrupting a class.” Whatever force these statements might be thought to have is largely dissipated by the following exchange between petitioners’ counsel and the Dean of Student Affairs during the court-ordered hearing:
Counsel: “... I just read the document that you’re offering [minutes from Student Affairs Committee meeting] and I can’t see that there’s anything in it that intimates that these students contemplate any illegal or disruptive practice.”
Dean: “No. There’s no question raised to that, counselor....” App. 73-74.
Dean Judd’s remark reaffirms, in accord with the full record, that there was no substantial evidence that these particular individuals acting together would constitute a disruptive force on campus. Therefore, insofar as nonrecognition flowed from such fears, it constituted little more than the sort of “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance [which] is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U. S., at 508.
D
These same references in the record to the group’s equivocation regarding how it might respond to “issues of violence” and whether it could ever “envision... interrupting a class,” suggest a fourth possible reason why recognition might have been denied to these petitioners. These remarks might well have been read as announcing petitioners’ unwillingness to be bound by reasonable school rules governing conduct. The College’s Statement of Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities of Students contains, as we have seen, an explicit statement with respect to campus disruption. The regulation, carefully differentiating between advocacy and action, is a reasonable one, and petitioners have not questioned it directly. Yet their statements raise considerable question whether they intend to abide by the prohibitions contained therein.
As we have already stated in Parts B and C, the critical line for First Amendment purposes must be drawn, between advocacy, which is entitled to full protection, and action, which is not. Petitioners may, if they so choose, preach the propriety of amending or even doing away with any or all campus regulations. They may not, however, undertake to flout these rules. Mr. Justice Blackmun, at the time he was a circuit judge on the Eighth Circuit, stated:
“We... hold that a college has the inherent power to promulgate rules and regulations; that it has the inherent power properly to discipline; that it has power appropriately to protect itself and its property; that it may expect that its students adhere to generally accepted standards of conduct.” Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F. 2d 1077, 1089 (CA8 1969), cert. denied, 398 U. S. 965 (1970).
Just as in the community at large, reasonable regulations with respect to the time, the place, and the manner in which student groups conduct their speech-related activities must be respected. A college administration may impose a requirement, such as may have been imposed in this case, that a group seeking official recognition affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law. Such a requirement does not impose an impermissible condition on the students’ associational rights. Their freedom to speak out, to assemble, or to petition for changes in school rules is in no sense infringed. It merely constitutes an agreement to conform with reasonable standards respecting conduct. This is a minimal requirement, in the interest of the entire academic community, of any group seeking the privilege of official recognition.
Petitioners have not challenged in this litigation the procedural or substantive aspects of the College’s requirements governing applications for official recognition. Although the record is unclear on this point, CCSC may have, among its requirements' for recognition, a rule that prospective groups affirm that they intend to comply with reasonable campus regulations. Upon remand it should first be determined whether the College recognition procedures contemplate any such requirement. If so, it should then be ascertained whether petitioners intend to comply. Since we do not have the terms of a specific prior affirmation rule before us, we are not called on to decide whether any particular formulation would or would not prove constitutionally acceptable. Assuming the existence of a valid rule, however, we do conclude that the benefits of participation in the internal life of the college community may be denied to any group that reserves the right to violate any valid campus rules with which it disagrees.
IY
We think the above discussion establishes the appropriate framework for consideration of petitioners’ request for campus recognition. Because respondents failed to accord due recognition to First Amendment principles, the judgments below approving respondents’ denial of recognition must be reversed. Since we cannot conclude from this record that petitioners were willing to abide by reasonable campus rules and regulations, we order the case remanded for reconsideration. We note, in so holding, that the wide latitude accorded by the Constitution to the freedoms of expression and association is not without its costs in terms of the risk to the maintenance of civility and an ordered society. Indeed, this latitude often has resulted, on the campus and elsewhere, in the infringement of the rights of others. Though we deplore the tendency of some to abuse the very constitutional privileges they invoke, and although the infringement of rights of others certainly should not be tolerated, we reaffirm this Court’s dedication to the principles of the Bill of Rights upon which our vigorous and free society is founded.
Reversed and remanded.
See Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest (1970); Report of the American Bar Association Commission on Campus Government and Student Dissent (1970).
The statement of purposes is set out as an Appendix to the Second Circuit’s opinion and appears following the dissent thereto. 445 F. 2d 1122, 1135-1139 (1971).
445 F. 2d, at 1133. During the Committee’s consideration of petitioners’ application, one of the group’s representatives was asked why, if it indeed desired to remain independent, it chose to use a nationally known name. The witness’ response was that “the name brings to mind the type of organization we wish to bring across, that is, a left-wing organization which will allow students interested in such to express themselves.”
The President stated:
“Though I have full appreciation for the action of the Student Affairs Committee and the reasons stated in their minutes for the majority vote recommending approval of a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, it is my judgment that the statement of purpose to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society carries full and unmistakable adherence to at least some of the major tenets of the national organization, loose and divided though that organization may be. The published aims and philosophy of the Students for a Democratic Society, which include disruption and violence, are contrary to the approved policy (by faculty, students, and administration) of Central Connecticut State College which states:
“ ‘Students do not have the right to invade the privacy of others, to damage the property of others, to disrupt the regular and essential operation of the college, or to interfere with the' rights of others.’
“The further statement on the request for recognition that 'CCSC Students for a Democratic Society are not under the dictates of any National organization’ in no way clarifies why if a group intends to follow the established policy of the college, they wish to become a local chapter of an organization which openly repudiates such a policy.
“Freedom of speech, academic freedom on the campus, the freedom of establishing an open forum for the exchange of ideas, the freedoms outlined in the Statement on Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities of Students that ‘college students and student organizations shall have the right to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, to express opinion publicly and privately, and to support causes by orderly means. They may organize public demonstrations and protest gatherings and utilize the right of petition’ — these are all precious freedoms that we cherish and are freedoms on which we stand. To approve any organization or individual who joins with an organization which openly repudiates those principles is contrary to those freedoms and to the approved ‘Statement on the Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities of Students’ at Central.” App. 15-16.
In 1969, CCSC adopted, as have many other colleges and universities, a Statement on Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities of Students. This statement, commonly referred to as the “Student Bill of Rights,” is printed as an Appendix to the Second Circuit’s majority opinion in this case, 445 F. 2d, at 1135-1139, see n. 2, supra. Part V of that statement establishes the standards for approval of campus organizations and imposes several basic limitations on their campus activities:
“A. Care shall be taken in the establishment and organization of campus groups so that the basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities of students will be preserved.
“B. Student organizations shall submit a clear statement of purpose, criteria for membership, rules of procedures and a list of officers as a condition of institutional recognition. They shall not be required to submit a membership list as a condition of institutional recognition.
“C. Membership in campus organizations shall be limited to matriculated students (day or evening) at the college. Membership shall not be restricted by race, religion or nationality. The members shall have sole power to determine organization policy consistent with the regulations of the college.
“D. Each organization is free to choose its own adviser. Advisers to organizations shall advise but not control the organizations and their policies.
“E. College students
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A private citizen seeks to attach an asset belonging to Iran’s Ministry of Defense in order to help satisfy a judgment for money damages. The question raised is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (Act), 28 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. Ill), forbids that attachment.
The judgment for money damages consists of a default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran (for about $300 million) that the private citizen, Dariush Elahi, obtained in a federal-court lawsuit claiming that the Republic had murdered his brother. Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F. Supp. 2d 97, 103 (DC 2000). The asset is an arbitration award (against a third party), which Iran’s Ministry of Defense obtained in Switzerland. Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc., 385 F. 3d 1206, 1211 (CA9 2004). The Ministry asked the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California to confirm the award. Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (2002). The court did so. And Elahi then intervened, seeking to impose a lien upon the award. The Ministry opposed the attachment on the ground that the Act grants it immunity from such a claim.
The Federal District Court rejected the Ministry’s immunity defense on the ground that, by suing to enforce the award, the Ministry had waived any such immunity. On appeal the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the District Court about waiver. But it then found against the Ministry on a different ground — a ground that the parties had not argued. The Act says that under certain conditions the property of an “agency or instrumentality ” of a foreign government is “not... immune from attachment ” if the agency is “engaged in commercial activity in the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1610(b) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals found that the Ministry engages in commercial activity and that the other conditions were satisfied. 385 F. 3d, at 1219-1222 (applying § 1610(b)(2)). And it held that this section of the Act barred the Ministry’s assertion of immunity. Ibid.
The Ministry filed a petition for certiorari asking us to review that decision. The Solicitor General agrees with the Ministry that we should grant the writ but limited to the Ministry’s Question 1, namely, whether “the property of a foreign state stricto sensu, situated in the United States,” is “immune from attachment ... as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.” Pet. for Cert, i (citing §§ 1603(a), 1610(a)). The Solicitor General also asks us to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for consideration of whether the Ministry is simply a “foreign state” (what the Ministry calls “a foreign state stricto sensu”) or whether the Ministry is an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign state (as the Ninth Circuit held). Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15-17. We grant the writ limited to Question 1.
The Act, as it applies to the “property in the United States of a foreign state,” § 1610(a) (emphasis added), does not contain the “engaged in commercial activity” exception that the Ninth Circuit described. That exception applies only where the property at issue is property of an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign state. Compare § 1610(b) (“property ... of an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in commercial activity”) with § 1610(a) (“property ... of a foreign state . . . used for a commercial activity” (emphasis added)). The difference is critical. Moreover, in the Solicitor General’s view a defense ministry (unlike, say, a government-owned commercial enterprise) generally is not an “agency or instrumentality” of a foreign state but an inseparable part of the state itself. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8-11; see also Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F. 3d 148, 153 (CADC 1994) (“holding] that armed forces are as a rule so closely bound up with the structure of the state that they must in all cases be considered as the ‘foreign state’ itself, rather than a separate ‘agency or instrumentality’ of the state”).
We shall not now determine whether the Solicitor General is correct about the status of the Ministry, for the Ninth Circuit did not address the question nor did the parties argue the matter before the Circuit. Neither can we fault the Ministry for that failure. As we said, swpra, at 451, the District Court based its denial of immunity upon waiver. The parties’ Ninth Circuit briefs focused on matters not relevant here (such as the waiver question), with one exception. The exception consists of a footnote in Elahi’s brief mentioning the Act’s “agency and instrumentality” provision. That footnote, however, does not ask for affirmance on that basis; nor did it provide the Ministry with clear notice that a reply was necessary. Answering Brief for Appellee in No. .03-55015 (CA9), p. 45, n. 27 (stating that “[iff [the Ministry] is considered ‘an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,’ rather than the foreign state itself, Mr. Elahi’s attachment still is valid” (emphasis added)).
The Ninth Circuit said that it was free to affirm on “any ground supported by the record.” 385 F. 3d, at 1219, n. 15. But the court did not explain what in the record might demonstrate that the Ministry is an “agency or instrumentality” of the state rather than an integral part of the state itself. The court noted that “Elahi appears to concede” that the Ministry is an “agency and instrumentality,” id., at 1218, n. 13, but any relevant concession would have to have come from the Ministry, not from Elahi, whose position the concession favors. Thus, in implicitly concluding that the Ministry was an “agency or instrumentality” of the Republic of Iran within the meaning of § 1610(b), the Ninth Circuit either mistakenly relied on a concession by respondent that could not possibly bind petitioner, or else erroneously presumed that there was no relevant distinction between a foreign state and its agencies or instrumentalities for purposes of that subsection. See §§ 1603(a), (b). Either way, the Ninth Circuit committed error that was essential to its judgment in favor of respondent.
Because the Ninth Circuit did not consider, and the Ministry had no reasonable opportunity to argue, the critical legal point we have mentioned, we vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375 (1970), overruling The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 (1886), held that an action for wrongful death based on unseaworthiness is maintainable under federal maritime law, but left the shaping of the new nonstatutory action to future cases. The question in this case is whether the widow of a longshoreman may maintain such an action for the wrongful death of her husband — alleged to have resulted from injuries suffered by him while aboard a vessel in navigable waters — after the decedent recovered damages in his lifetime for his injuries.
Respondent's husband suffered severe injuries while working as a longshoreman aboard petitioner’s vessel, the S. S. Claiborne, in Louisiana navigable waters. He recovered $140,000 for his permanent disability, physical agony, and loss of earnings in an action based on unseaworthiness, but died shortly after the action was terminated. Respondent brought this wrongful-death action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for damages suffered by her. Based on her husband’s recovery, the District Court dismissed the widow’s suit on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Moragne gave “Mrs. Gaudet... a compen-sable cause of action for Mr. Gaudet’s death wholly apart from and not extinguished by the latter’s recovery for his personal injuries....” 463 F. 2d 1331, 1332 (1972). We granted certiorari, 411 U. S. 963 (1973), and now affirm.
I
The harshness of the Harrisburg rule that in the absence of a statute, there is no maritime action for wrongful death, was only partially relieved by enactment of federal and state wrongful-death statutes. The Death on the High Seas Act, 41 Stat. 537, 46 U. S. C. §§ 761-768, created a wrongful-death action for death outside the three-mile limit. The Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, incorporating the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60, established such an action based on negligence for the wrongful death of a seaman regardless of the situs of the wrong; but otherwise, wrongful-death actions for deaths occurring on navigable waters within the three-mile territorial waters of a State depended upon whether the State had enacted a wrongful-death statute and, if so, whether the statute permitted recovery.
Moragne reflected dissatisfaction with this state of the law that illogically and unjustifiably deprived the dependents of many maritime death victims of an adequate remedy for their losses. Three clearly unjust consequences were of particular concern:
“The first of these is simply the discrepancy produced whenever the rule of The Harrisburg holds sway: - within territorial waters, identical conduct violating federal law (here the furnishing of an unseaworthy vessel) produces liability if the victim is merely injured, but frequently not if he is killed....
“The second incongruity is that identical breaches of the duty to provide a seaworthy ship, resulting in death, produce liability outside the three-mile limit — since a claim under the Death on the High Seas Act may be founded on unseaworthiness, see Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U. S. 426, 430 n. 4 (1958)—but not within the territorial waters of a State whose local statute excludes unseaworthiness claims....
“The third, and assertedly the ‘strangest’ anomaly is that a true seaman — that is, a member of a ship’s company, covered by the Jones Act — is provided no remedy for death caused by unseaworthiness within territorial waters, while a longshoreman, to whom the duty of seaworthiness was extended only because he performs work traditionally done by seamen, does have such a remedy when allowed by a state statute (footnote omitted).” 398 U. S., at 395-396.
In overruling The Harrisburg, Moragne ended these anomalies by the creation of a uniform federal cause of action for maritime death, designed to extend to the dependents of maritime wrongful-death victims admiralty’s “special solicitude for the welfare of those men who under [take] to venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages.” Id., at 387. Our approach to the resolution of the issue before us must necessarily be consistent with the extension of this “special solicitude” to the dependents of the seafaring decedent.
Petitioner, Sea-Land Services, Inc. (Sea-Land), would attach no significance to this extension in shaping the maritime wrongful-death remedy. It argues that the wrongful-death remedy should recognize no loss independent of the decedent’s claim for his personal injuries, and therefore that respondent had a wrongful-death remedy only “in the event Gaudet failed to prosecute [his own claim] during his lifetime.” Brief for Petitioner 6. But Moragne had already implicitly rejected that argument; for we there recognized that a single tortious act might result in two distinct, though related harms, giving rise to two separate causes of action: “in the case of mere injury, the person physically harmed is made whole for his harm, while in the case of death, those closest to him- — usually spouse and children — seek to recover for their total loss of one on whom they depended.” Id., at 382. Thus, Moragne created a true wrongful-death remedy- — -founded upon the death itself and independent of any action the decedent may have had for his own personal injuries. Because the respondent’s suit involves a different cause of action, it is not precluded by res judicata. For res judicata operates only to bar
“repetitious suits involving the same cause of action. [The bar] rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of certainty in legal relations. The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound 'not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 352. The judgment puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever, absent fraud or some other factor invalidating the judgment. See Von Moschzisker, 'Res Judicata,' 38 Yale L. J. 299; Restatement of the Law of Judgments, §§ 47, 48.” Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591, 597 (1948).
To be sure, a majority of courts interpreting state and federal wrongful-death statutes have held that an action for wrongful death is barred by the decedent’s recovery for injuries during his lifetime. But the bar does not appear to rest in those cases so much upon principles of res judicata or public policy as upon statutory limitations on the wrongful-death action. As one authority has noted, "[t]he fact that all civil remedies for wrongful death derive from statute has important consequences. Since the right was unknown to common law, the legislatures which created the right were free to impose restrictions upon it.” 2 Harper & James § 24.1, p. 1285. Thus, England’s Lord Campbell’s Act, the first wrongful-death statute, permits recovery “whensoever the Death of a Person shall be caused by [the] wrongful Act... [of another] and the Act... is such as would (if Death had not ensued) have entitled the Party injured to maintain an Action and recover Damages in respect thereof....” Early English cases interpreting the Act held that this language conditioned wrongful-death recovery upon the existence of an actionable cause of the decedent at his death; if the deceased had reduced his claim to judgment and settled with or released his tortfeasor, and therefore up to the time he died could not have maintained a further action for his injuries, his dependents could have no cause of action for his wrongful death. Since Lord Campbell’s Act became the prototype of American wrongful-death statutes, most state statutes contained nearly identical language and have been similarly interpreted by state courts. Though the federal wrongful-death statutes do not contain the same controversial language, the FELA, at least, has been held to be “essentially identical with” Lord Campbell’s Act, Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 69 (1913), and therefore similar restrictions have been placed on FELA wrongful-death recovery. Mellon v. Goodyear, 277 U. S. 335, 345 (1928).
Moragne, on the other hand, requires that the shape of the new maritime wrongful-death remedy (not a statutory creation but judge-made, see The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, 611 (1959) (opinion of Brennan, J.)) be guided by the principle of maritime law that “certainly it better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and inflexible rules,” The Sea Gull, 21 F. Cas. 909 (No. 12,578) (C. C. Md. 1865), quoted in Moragne, 398 U. S., at 387. Since the policy underlying the remedy is to insure compensation of the dependents for their losses resulting from the decedent's death, the remedy should not be precluded merely because the decedent, during his lifetime, is able to obtain a judgment for his own personal injuries. No statutory language or “established and inflexible rules” of maritime law require a contrary conclusion.
II
Sea-Land argues that, if dependents are not prevented from bringing a separate cause of action for wrongful death in cases where the decedent has already received a judgment for his personal injuries, then necessarily it will be subject to double liability. In order to evaluate this argument it is necessary first to identify the particular harms suffered by the dependents, for which the maritime wrongful-death remedy permits recovery of damages. In identifying these compensable harms, we are not without useful guides; for in Moragne we recognized that with respect to “particular questions of the measure of damages, the courts will not be without persuasive analogy for guidance. Both the Death on the High Seas Act and the numerous state wrongful-death acts have been implemented with success for decades. The experience thus built up counsels that a suit for wrongful death raises no problems unlike those that have long been grist for the judicial mill.” 398 U. S., at 408. Our review of those authorities, and the policies of maritime law, persuade us that, under the maritime wrongful-death remedy, the decedent’s dependents may recover damages for their loss of support, services, and society, as well as funeral expenses.
Recovery for loss of support has been universally recognized, and includes all the financial contributions that the decedent would have made to his dependents had he lived. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of state wrongful-death acts and courts interpreting the Death on the High Seas Act have permitted recovery for the monetary value of services the decedent provided and would have continued to provide but for his wrongful death. Such services include, for example, the nurture, training, education, and guidance that a child would have received had not the parent been wrongfully killed. Services the decedent performed at home or for his spouse are also compensable.
Compensation for loss of society, however, presents a closer question. The term “society” embraces a broad range of mutual benefits each family member receives from the others' continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection. Unquestionably, the deprivation of these benefits by wrongful death 4s a grave loss to the decedent’s dependents. Despite this fact, a number of early wrongful-death statutes were interpreted by courts to preclude recovery for these losses on the ground that the statutes were intended to provide compensation only for “pecuniary loss,” and that the loss of society is not such an economic loss. Other wrongful-death statutes contain express language limiting recovery to pecuniary losses; for example, the Death on the High Seas Act limits recovery to “a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the persons for whose benefit the suit is brought...,” 46 U. S. C. § 762 (emphasis added), and consequently has been construed to exclude recovery for the loss of society.
A clear majority of States, on the other hand, have rejected such a narrow view of damages, and, either by express statutory provision or by judicial construction, permit recovery for loss of society. This expansion of damages recoverable under wrongful-death statutes to include loss of society has led one commentator to observe that “[w]hether such damages are classified as 'pecuniary/ or recognized and allowed as non-pecuniary, the recent trend is unmistakably in favor of permitting such recovery.” Speiser 218. Thus, our decision to permit recovery for loss of society aligns the maritime wrongful-death remedy with a majority of state wrongful-death statutes. But in any event, our decision is compelled if we are to shape the remedy to comport with the humanitarian policy of the maritime law to show “special solicitude” for those who are injured within its jurisdiction.
Objection to permitting recovery for loss of society often centers upon the fear that such damages are somewhat speculative and that factfinders will return excessive verdicts. We were not unaware of this objection in Moragne, where we said:
“[O]ther courts have recognized that calculation of the loss sustained by dependents or by the estate of the deceased, which is required under most present wrongful-death statutes... does not present difficulties more insurmountable than assessment of damages for many nonfatal personal injuries.” 398 U. S., at 385.
For example, juries are often called upon to measure damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish in disfigurement cases, or intentional infliction of emotional harm. In fact, since the 17th century, juries have assessed damages for loss of consortium — which encompasses loss of society — in civil actions brought by husbands whose wives have been negligently injured. More recently, juries have been asked to measure loss of consortium suffered by wives whose husbands have been negligently harmed. Relying on this history, the Florida Supreme Court recognized as early as 1899 that the damages for loss of society recovered by a wife for the wrongful death of her husband were “no more fanciful or speculative than the frugality, industry, usefulness, attention and tender solicitude of a wife [all of which a husband might recover at common law in an action for consortium], and the one can be compensated [as easily] by that simple standard of pecuniary loss... as the other.” Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 73, 25 So. 338, 348.
We are confident that the measure of damages for loss of society in a maritime wrongful-death action can “be left to turn mainly upon the good sense and deliberate judgment of the tribunal assigned by law to ascertain what is a just compensation for the injuries inflicted.” The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453, 464 (1880). As in all damages awards for tortious injury, “[insistence on mathematical precision would be illusory and the judge or juror must be allowed a fair latitude to make reasonable approximations guided by judgment and practical experience,” Whitaker v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., 296 F. 2d 554, 555 (CA4 1961). Moreover, appellate tribunals have amply demonstrated their ability to control excessive awards, see, e. g., Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Richardson, 295 F. 2d 583 (CA2 1961); Dugas v. National Aircraft Corp., 438 F. 2d 1386 (CA3 1971).
Finally, in addition to recovery for loss of support, services, and society, damages for funeral expenses may be awarded under the maritime wrongful-death remedy in circumstances where the decedent’s dependents have either paid for the funeral or are liable for its payment. A majority of States provided for such recovery under their wrongful-death statutes. Furthermore, although there is a conflict over whether funeral expenses are com-pensable under the Death on the High Seas Act, compare The Culberson, 61 F. 2d 194 (CA3 1932), with Moore v. The O S Fram, 226 F. Supp. 816 (SD Tex. 1963), aff’d, sub nom. Wilhelm Seafoods, Inc. v. Moore, 328 F. 2d 868 (CA5 1964), it is clear that funeral expenses were permitted under the general maritime law prior to The Harrisburg, see, e. g., Hollyday v. The David Reeves, 12 F. Cas. 386 (No. 6,625) (Md. 1879). We therefore find no persuasive reason for not following the earlier admiralty rule and thus hold that funeral expenses are compensable.
Turning now to Sea-Land’s double-liability argument, we note that, in contrast to the elements of damages which we today hold may be recovered in a maritime wrongful-death action, the decedent recovered damages only for his loss of past and future wages, pain and suffering, and medical and incidental expenses. Obviously, the decedent’s recovery did not include damages for the dependents’ loss of services or of society, and funeral expenses. Indeed, these losses — unique to the decedent’s dependents — could not accrue until the decedent’s death. Thus, recovery of damages for these losses in the maritime wrongful-death action will not subject Sea-Land to double liability or provide the dependents with a windfall.
There is, however, an apparent overlap between the decedent’s recovery for loss of future wages and the dependents’ subsequent claim for support. In most instances, the dependents’ support will derive, at least in part, from the decedent’s wages. But, when a tortfeasor has already fully compensated the decedent, during his lifetime, for his loss of future wages, the tortfeasor should not be required to make further compensation in a subsequent wrongful-death suit for any portion of previously paid wages. Any potential for such double liability can be eliminated by the application of familiar principles of collateral estoppel to preclude a decedent’s dependents from attempting to relitigate the issue of the support due from the decedent’s future wages.
Collateral estoppel applies
“where the second action between the same parties is upon a different cause or demand.... In this situation, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel, not as to matters which might have been litigated and determined, but 'only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, [94 U. S. 351,] 353. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 48; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., 320 U. S. 661, 671. Since the cause of action involved in the second proceeding is not swallowed by the judgment in the prior suit, the parties are free to litigate points which were not at issue in the first proceeding, even though such points might have been tendered and decided at that time. But matters which were actually litigated and determined in the first proceeding cannot later be relitigated.” Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S., at 597-598.
And while the general rule is that nonparties to the first action are not bound by a judgment or resulting determination of issues, see Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320-327 (1971), several exceptions exist. The pertinent exception here is that nonparties may be collaterally estopped from relitigating issues necessarily decided in a suit brought by a party who acts as a fiduciary representative for the beneficial interest of the nonparties. In such cases, “the beneficiaries are bouhd by the judgment with respect to the interest which was the subject of the fiduciary relationship ; they are... bound by the rules of collateral estop-pel in suits upon different causes of action,” F. James, Civil Procedure § 11.28, p. 592 (1965).
Under the prevailing American rule, a tort victim suing for damages for permanent injuries is permitted to base his recovery “on his prospective earnings for the balance of his life expectancy at the time of his injury undiminished by any shortening of that expectancy as a result of the injury,” 2 Harper & James § 24.6, pp. 1293-1294 (emphasis in original). Thus, when a decedent brings his own personal-injury action during his lifetime and recovers damages for his lost wages he acts in a fiduciary capacity to the extent that he represents his dependents' interest in that portion of his prospective earnings which, but for his wrongful death, they had a reasonable expectation of his providing for their support. Since the decedent’s recovery of any future wages will normally be dependent upon his fully litigating that issue, we need not fear that applying principles of collateral estoppel to pre-elude the decedent’s dependents’ claim for a portion of those future wages will deprive the dependents of their day in court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The jury reduced a verdict of $175,000 by 20% because of decedent’s contributory negligence.
Wrongful-death statutes are to be distinguished from survival statutes. The latter have been separately enacted to abrogate the common-law rule that an action for tort abated at the death of either the injured person or the tortfeasor. Survival statutes permit the deceased’s estate to prosecute any claims for personal injury the deceased would have had, but for his death. They do not permit recovery for harms suffered by the deceased’s family as a result of his death. See Michigan C. B. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59 (1913); Schumacher, Rights of Action Under Death and Survival Statutes, 23 Mich. L. Rev. 114 (1924) (hereafter Schumacher); Winfield, Death as Affecting Liability in Tort, 29 Col. L. Rev. 239 (1929); Livingston, Survival of Tort Actions, A Proposal for California Legislation, 37 Calif. L. Rev. 63 (1949); New York Law Revision Commission Report 157 et seq. (1935). The underlying reasons for survival statutes have been summarized by Professor Harper:
“At early common law, the personal representative could not be sued for a tort committed by the decedent during his lifetime. Prom early notions of the untransmittability of blame — and the quasi-criminal nature of early tort law must not be forgotten — to the crystallization of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, the common law was developed without exception, and the rule was uniform that tort actions died with the parties, either wrongdoer or injured party. There was, then, no survival of a right of action either in favor of or against an executor or administrator until statutes modified somewhat the rule of dependability upon the fives of the original parties to the wrong.” F. Harper, Law of Torts 673—674 (1933), quoted in 2 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts § 24.1 n. 2 (1956) (hereafter Harper & James). Survival statutes, in one form or another, have been enacted in over one-half the States and supplement the state wrongful-death statutes, see W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 126, p. 900 (4th ed. 1971) (hereafter Prosser), though in a small number of States the survival statute provides the only death remedy available, see 2 Harper & James § 24.2, p. 1288. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 59, and the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688, but not the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U. S. C. §§ 761-768, contain survival provisions.
Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U. S. 426, 430 n. 4 (1958).
The fungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588 (1959).
Most wrongful-death statutes have also been construed to create an independent cause of action in favor of the decedent’s dependents, see F. Tiffany, Death by Wrongful Act § 23 (2d ed. 1913) (hereafter Tiffany); 2 Harper & James § 24.2; Schumacher 121. Thus, for example, Coleridge, J., said of England’s Lord Campbell’s Act, “[I]t will be evident that this Act does not transfer this right of action to [the decedent’s] representative, but gives to the representative a totaEy new right of action, on different principles,” Blake v. Midland B. Co., 18 Q. B. (Ad. & E., N. S.) *93, *110, 118 Eng. Rep. 35, 41 (1852). See also Seward v. The Vera Cruz, 10 App. Cas. 59, 70 (Lord Blackburn). Interpreting the wrongful-death provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60, this Court described the action as “independent of any cause of action which the decedent had, and includes no damages which he might have recovered for his injury if he had survived. It is one beyond that which the decedent had, — one proceeding upon altogether different principles. It is a liability for the loss and damage sustained by relatives dependent upon the decedent,” Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S., at 68.
Lord Campbell’s Act, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 93, An Act for compensating the Families of Persons killed by Accidents (Aug. 26, 1846):
“Whereas no Action at Law is now maintainable against a Person who by his wrongful Act, Neglect, or Default may have caused the Death of another Person... : Be it therefore enacted... That whensoever the Death of a Person shall be caused by wrongful Act, Neglect, or Default, and the Act, Neglect, or Default is such as would (if Death had not ensued) have entitled the Party injured to maintain an Action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such Case the Person who would have been liable if Death had not ensued shall be liable to an Action for Damages, notwithstanding the Death of the Person injured, and although the Death shall have been caused under such Circumstances as amount in Law to Felony.
“II. And be it enacted, That every such Action shall be for the Benefit of the Wife, Husband, Parent, and Child of the Person whose Death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the Name of the Executor or Administrator of the Person deceased; and in every such Action the Jury may give such Damages as they may think proportioned to the Injury resulting from such Death to the Parties respectively for whom and for whose Benefit the Action shall be brought....
“III. Provided always, and be it enacted, That not more than One Action shall lie for and in respect of the same Subject Matter of Complaint...
See, e. g., Read v. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 555, 558, in which the court held :
“The question turns upon the construction of s. 1 of 9 & 10 Viet. (Lord Campbell’s Act), c. 93. Before that statute the person who received a personal injury, and survived its consequences, could bring an action, and recover damages for the injury; but if he died from its effects, then no action could be brought. To meet this state of the law the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, was passed, and 'whenever the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, and the act is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action, and recover damages in respect thereof, then... the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable for an action for damages notwithstanding the death of the party injured.’ Here, taking the plea to be true, the party injured could not'maintain an action in respect thereof,’ because he had already received satisfaction.”
See, e. g., Legg v. Britton, 64 Vt. 652, 24 A. 1016 (1892); Melitch v. United R. & E. Co., 121 Md. 457, 88 A. 229 (1913). This interpretation has been by no means universal. A number of courts interpreting Lord Campbell’s Act-type state wrongful-death statutes have held that a wrongful-death action could be prosecuted even though before his death the decedent could not have brought a cause of action for his personal injuries because he had already recovered a judgment, settled, or released his claims. A classic statement of this view is that of the South Dakota Supreme Court in Rowe v. Richards, 35 S. D. 201, 215-216, 151 N. W. 1001, 1006 (1915):
“We must confess our inability to grasp the logic of any course of so-called reasoning through which the conclusion is drawn that the husband simply because he may live to suffer from a physical injury and thus become vested with a cause of action for the violation of his own personal right, has an implied power to release a cause of action — one which has not then accrued; one which may never accrue; and one which from its very nature cannot accrue until his death; and one which, if it ever does accrue, will accrue in favor of his wife and be based solely upon a violation of a right vested solely in the wife.”
The contrary interpretation of the pertinent statutory language has also been the subject of scholarly criticism. Professor Prosser argues: “It is not at all clear, however, that such provisions of the death acts ever were intended to prevent recovery where the deceased once had a cause of action, but it has terminated before his death. The more reasonable interpretation would seem to be that they are directed at the necessity of some original tort on the part of the defendant, under circumstances giving rise to liability in the first instance, rather than to subsequent changes in the situation affecting only the interest of the decedent.” Prosser § 127, p. 911. See also Schumacher 120-121; Fleming, The Lost Years: A Problem in the Computation and Distribution of Damages, 50 Calif. L. Rev. 598, 608-610 (1962); Anno., 70 Am. St. Rep. 666, 684 (1898). In States where the limiting language of Lord Campbell’s Act is absent from the wrongful-death statute, the courts have permitted wrongful-death actions although the decedent had already recovered for his own injuries, see, e. g., Blackwell v. American Film Co., 189 Cal. 689, 693-694, 209 P. 999, 1001 (1922).
Beyond the common elements that the FELA may share with Lord Campbell’s Act, express statutory terms peculiar to the FELA lend additional support for the result reached in Mellon v. Goodyear. The Act provides:
“Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce... shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence... of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence....” 45 U. S. C. § 51 (emphasis added).
The significant language, of course, is the use of the disjunctive “or.” This language was understood by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Oliver, 261 F. 1, 2 (1919): “The two distinct rights of action are given in the alternative or dis-junctively. The language used indicates the absence of an intention to allow recoveries for the same wrong by both the injured employé and, in case of his death, by his personal representative;.only one recovery being allowed when the injured employe dies without having enforced the right of action given to him. It seems to be a fair inference from that language that the right of action given to the injured employé’s personal representative was intended to be unenforceable after the enforcement and satisfaction of the one given to the employe himself.”
10 Significantly, the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U. S. C. §§ 761-768, the only federal statute “that deals specifically and exclusively with actions for wrongful death... for breaches of the duties imposed by general maritime law,” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375, 407 (1970), has not been interpreted, as the FELA has been, to bar wrongful-death recovery in cases where the decedent has already recovered during his lifetime for his personal injuries.
See, e. g., Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S., at 70; The S. S. Black Gull, 90 F. 2d 619 (CA2 1937) (interpreting the Death on the High Seas Act); Dugas v. National Aircraft Corp., 438 F. 2d 1386 (CA3 1971) (interpreting the Death on the High Seas Act); Tiffany §§ 153, 160; S. Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death § 3.4 (1966) (hereafter Speiser); Prosser § 127, p. 906. Damages for loss of support have also been awarded consistently in post-Moragne maritime wrongful-death actions. See, e. g., Dennis v. Central Gulf S. S. Corp., 323 F. Supp. 943 (ED La. 1971), aff’d, 453 F. 2d 137 (CA5 1972); Petition of United States Steel Corp., 436 F. 2d 1256 (CA6 1970); In re Cambria S. S. Co., 353 F. Supp. 691 (ND Ohio
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Jtjstice'Rehnqtjist
delivered.the opinion of the Court.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) vests jurisdiction in federal district courts to enjoin an “agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(4)(B). We hold today that even if a. document requested under, the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an “agency,” the. agency which received the request does not “improperly withhold” those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not “withheld” requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress,, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA.
I
This litigation arises out of FOIA requests seeking access to various transcriptions of petitioner. Kissinger’s telephone conversations. The questions presented by the petition necessitate a thorough review of the facts.
A
Henry Kissinger served in the Nixon and Ford administrations for eight years. He assumed the position of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in January 1969. In September 1973, Kissinger was appointed to the office of Secretary of State, but retained his National Security Affairs advisory position until November 3, 1975. After his resignation from the latter position, Kissinger continued to serve as Secretary of State until January 20, 1977. Throughout this period of Government service, Kissinger’s secretaries generally monitored his telephone conversations and recorded their contents either by shorthand or on tape. The stenographic notes or tapes were used to prepare detailed summaries, and sometimes verbatim transcripts, of Kissinger’s conversations. Since Kissinger’s secretaries generally monitored all of his conversations, the summaries discussed official business as well as personal matters. The summaries and transcripts prepared from the electronic or stenographic recording of his telephone conversations throughout his entire tenure in Government service were stored in his office at the State Department in personal files.
On October 29, 1976, while still Secretary of State, Kissinger arranged to move the telephone notes from his office in the State Department to the New York estate of Nelson Rockefeller. Before removing the notes, Kissinger did not consult the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Document and Reference Center (FADRC), the center responsible for implementing the State Department’s record maintenance and disposal program. Nor did he consult the Nat’onal Archives and Records Service (NARS), a branch of the General Services Administration (GSA) which is responsible for records preservation throughout the Federal Government. Kissinger had obtained an opinion from the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, however, advising him that the telephone summaries were not agency records but were his personal papers which he would be free to take when he left office.
After Kissinger effected this physical transfer of the notes, he entered into two agreements with the Library of Congress deeding his private papers. In the first agreement, dated November 12, 1976, Kissinger deeded to the United States, in care of the Library of Congress, one collection of papers. Kissinger’s telephone notes were not included in this collection. The agreement established terms obligating Kissinger to comply with certain restrictions on the inclusion of official documents in the collection and obligating the Library to respect restrictions on access. The agreement required that official materials in the collection would consist of “copies of government papers of which there is an original or record copy in government files.” It also provided that all such materials must have been “approved for inclusion in the Collection” by “authorized officials.”
Public access to the collection, under the terms of the deed, will not begin until 25 years after the transfer or 5 years after Kissinger’s death, whichever is later. Until that time, access is restricted to (1) employees of the Library of Congress who have been jointly approved by the Library of Congress and Mr. Kissinger; (2) persons who have received the written permission of Mr. Kissinger; and (3) after Kissinger’s death, persons who have received the written permission of a committee to be named in his will. Kissinger and all.of his research assistants who have appropriate security clearance retain unrestricted access to the collection.
After this agreement was executed, the Department of State formulated procedures for the review of the documents and their transfer to the Library of Congress. Employees reviewed the collection and retained (a) original or record copies of documents belonging to the agency, and (b) any materials containing classified information. In the donation process, Kissinger was also required to sign the Department’s Standard Separation Statement affirming that he had “surrendered to responsible officials... documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished... during the course of [Government] employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversations, or other documents of a personal nature....”
On December 24, 1976, by a second deed, Kissinger donated a second collection consisting of his telephone notes. This second agreement with the Library of Congress incorporated by reference all of the terms and conditions of the first agreement. It provided in addition, however, that public access to the transcripts would be permitted only with the consent, or upon the death, of the other parties to the telephone conversations in question.
On December 28, 1976, the transcripts were transported directly to the Library from the Rockefeller estate. Thus the transcripts were not reviewed by the Department of State Document and Reference Center with the first collection of donated papers before they were delivered into the possession of the Library of Congress. Several weeks after they were moved to the Library, however, one of Kissinger’s personal aides did extract portions of the transcripts for inclusion in the files of the State Department and the National Security Council. Pursuant to the instructions of the State Department Legal Adviser, the aide included in the extracts, “any significant policy decisions or actions not otherwise reflected in the Department’s records.”
B
Three separate FOIA requests form the basis of this litigation. All three requests were filed while Kissinger was Secretary of State, but only one request was filed prior to the removal of the telephone notes from the premises of the State Department. This first request was filed by William Safire, a New York Times columnist, on January 14, 1976. Safire requested the Department of State to produce any transcripts of Kissinger’s telephone conversations between January 21, 1969,. and February 12, 1971, in which (1) Safire’s name appeared or (2) Kissinger discussed the subject of information “leaks” with certain named White House officials. The Department denied Safire’s FOIA request by letter of February 11, 1976. The Department letter reasoned that the requested notes had been made while Kissinger was National Security Adviser and therefore were not agency records subject to FOIA disclosure.
The second FOIA request was filed on December 28 and 29, 1976, by the Military Audit Project (MAP) after Kissinger publicly announced the gift of his telephone notes to the United States and their placement in the Library of Congress. The MAP request, filed with the Department of State, sought records of all Kissinger’s conversations made while Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. On January 18, 1977, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State denied the request on two grounds. First,, he found that the notes were not agency records. Second, the deposit of the notes with the Library of.Congress prior to the request terminated the Department’s custody and control. The denial was affirmed on administrative appeal.
The third FOIA request was filed on January 13, 1977, by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), the American Historical Association, the American Pol'tical Science Association, and a number of other journalists (collectively referred to as the RCFP requesters). This request also sought production of the telephone notes made by Kissinger both while he was National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. The request was denied for the same reasons given to the MAP requesters.
The United States has taken some action to seek recovery of the notes for record processing. On January 4, 1977, the Government Archivist wrote to Kissinger, requesting that he be permitted to inspect the telephone notes so that he could determine whether they were Department records, and to determine whether Kissinger had authority to remove them from Department custody. The State Department Legal Adviser, however, analyzed the Archivist’s request and issued a memorandum concluding that so long as extracts of the official business contained in the notes were filed as agency records, Kissinger had complied with the Department’s regulations. The Legal Adviser also concluded that the inspection procedures suggested by the Archivist would compromise the Department’s policy of respecting the privacy of such secretarial notes and would discourage the creation of historical materials in the first instance. On January 18, 1977, Kissinger replied to the Archivist, declining to permit access.
The Archivist renewed his request for an inspection on February 11, 1977, by which time Kissinger was no longer Secretary of State. With the request, he enclosed a memorandum of law prepared by the General Counsel of the GSA concluding that the materials in question might well be records rather than personal files and that the Archivist was entitled to inspect them under the Federal Records and Records Disposal Acts, 44 U. S. C. §§2901-2909, 3101-3107; 44 U. S. C. §§ 3301-3314 (1976 ed. and Supp. II). Kissinger did not respond to the Archivist’s second request.
C
Proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia commenced February 8, 1977. The RCFP requesters and Safire instituted an action under the FOIA, seeking enforcement of their FOIA requests. On March 8, 1977, MAP filed a similar suit. Both suits named Kissinger, the Library of Congress, the Secretary of State and the Department of State as defendants. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that the summaries were agency records that had been unlawfully removed and were being improperly withheld. Plaintiffs requested as ultimate relief that the court require the Library to return the transcripts to the Department with directions to process them for disclosure under the FOIA.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all plaintiffs and by Kissinger. The District Judge ruled in plaintiffs’ favor as to transcripts produced while Kissinger was Secretary of State, but denied relief as to transcripts of conversations produced while Kissinger was Special Assistant to the President. The court first found that the transcripts of telephone conversations were “agency records” subject to disclosure under the FOIA. The court also found that Kissinger had wrongfully removed these records by not obtaining the prior approval of the Administrator of General Services. The court recognized that the FOIA did not directly provide for relief since the records were in the custody of the Library of Congress, which is not an “agency” under the Act. Nevertheless, the court held that the FOIA permitted the court to invoke its equitable powers “to order the return of wrongfully removed agency documents where a statutory retrieval action appears unlikely.”
An order was entered requiring the Library to return the documents to the Department of State; requiring the Department of State to determine which of the summaries are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, and to provide the required materials to the plaintiffs. The court denied the production of summaries made during Kissinger’s tenure as National Security Adviser on the basis of a mistaken assumption that plaintiffs had withdrawn their request for these summaries.
Both Kissinger and the private parties appealed from the lower court judgment. The Court of Appeals, without discussion, affirmed the trial court judgment ordering production of the summaries made while Kissinger was Secretary of State. The Court of Appeals also held that the summaries made during Kissinger’s service as National Security Adviser need not be produced. The court found that this request had not been withdrawn, and reasoned that three considerations supported nonproduction: (1) the FOIA does not cover those Presidential advisers “who are so close to him as to be within the White House”; (2) the relocation of the transcripts to the State Department did not bring them within its disclosure responsibilities under the FOIA; and (3) the fact that portions of the transcripts may reflect the affairs of the NSC, an agency to which the FOIA does apply, provided no basis for disclosure in the absence of an FOIA request directed to that agency.
Kissinger filed a petition for certiorari requesting this Court to review the Court of Appeals’ determination that the State Department had improperly withheld agency records, thereby permitting their production from the Library of Congress. The RCFP requesters filed a cross-petition seeking review of that court’s judgment denying production of the conversations transcribed while Kissinger served as National Security Adviser. We granted both petitions, 441 U. S. 904, and we now affirm in part and reverse in part.
II
We first address the issue presented by Kissinger — whether the District Court possessed the authority to order the transfer of that portion of the deeded collection, including the transcripts of all conversations Kissinger made while Secretary of State, from the Library of Congress to the Department of State at the behest of the named plaintiffs. The lower courts premised this exercise of jurisdiction on their findings that the papers were “agency records” and that they had been wrongfully removed from State Department custody in violation of the Federal Records Disposal Act, 44 U. S. C. § 3303. We need not, and do not, decide whether the telephone notes are agency records, or were wrongfully removed, for even assuming an affirmative answer to each of these questions, the FOIA plaintiffs were not entitled to relief.
The question must be, of course, whether Congress has conferred jurisdiction on the federal courts to impose this remedy. Two statutory schemes are relevant to this inquiry. First, if Congress contemplated a private right of action under the Federal Records Act and the Federal Records Disposal Act, this would in itself justify, the remedy imposed if Kissinger in fact wrongfully removed the documents. In the alternative, the lower court order could be sustained if authorized by the FOIA.
A
The Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U. S. C. § 2901 et seq., authorizes the “head of each Federal agency” to establish a “records management program” and to define the extent to which documents are “appropriate for preservation” as agency records. The records management program requires that adequate documentation of agency policies and procedures be retained. The Records Disposal Act, a complementary records management Act, provides the exclusive means for record disposal. 44 U. S. C. § 3314.
Under the Records Disposal Act, once a document achieves the- status of a “record” as defined by the Act, it may not be alienated or disposed of without the consent of the Administrator of General Services, who has delegated his authority in such matters to the Archivist of the United States. 44 U. S. C. §§ 3303, 3303a, 3308-3314 (1976 ed. and Supp. II); GSA, Delegations of Authority Manual, ADM P. 5450.39A. Thus if Kissinger’s telephone notes were “records” within the meaning of the Federal Records Act, a question we do not reach, then Kissinger’s transfer might well violate the Act since he did not seek the approval of the Archivist prior to transferring custody to himself and then to the Library of Congress. We assume such a wrongful removal arguendo for the purposes of this opinion.
But the Federal Records Aet establishes only one remedy for the improper removal of a “record” from the agency. The head of the agency is required under 44 U. S. C. § 3106 to notify the Attorney General if he determines or “has reason to believe” that records have been improperly removed from the agency. The Administrator of General Services is obligated to assist in such actions. 44 U. S. C. § 2905. At the behest of these administrators, the Attorney General may bring suit to recover the records.
The Archivist did request return of the telephone notes from Kissinger on the basis of his belief that the documents may have been wrongfully removed under the Act. Despite Kissinger’s refusal to comply with the Archivist’s request, no suit has been instituted against Kissinger to retrieve the records under 44 U. S. C. § 3106.
Plaintiff requesters effectively seek to enforce these requirements of the Acts by seeking the return of the records to State Department custody. No provision of either Act, however, expressly confers a right of action on private parties. Nor do we believe that such a private right of action can be implied.
This Court has spent too many pages identifying the factors relevant to uncovering congressional intent to imply a private cause of action to belabor the topic here. Our most recent pronouncement on the subject, Transamerica Mortgage Ad-visors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11 (1979), readily disposes of the question. First, the language of the Records Acts merely “proscribes certain conduct” and does not “create or alter any civil liabilities.” Id., at 19. The Records Act also expressly provides administrative remedies for violations of the duties it imposes, implicating our conclusion in Transamerica Mortgage that it is “an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.” Ibid. Finally, the legislative history does not detract from the inference to be drawn from congressional silence, but rather confirms that such silence is purposeful.
The legislative history of the Acts reveals that their purpose was not to benefit private parties, but solely to benefit the agencies themselves and the Federal Government as a whole. The Senate Report to the Federal Records Act of 1950 reveals this focus. S. Rep. No. 2140, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1950). The Report states:
“It is well to emphasize that records come into existence, or should do so, not in order to fill filing cabinets or occupy floor space, or even to satisfy the archival needs of this and future generations, but first of all to serve the administrative- and executive purposes of the organization that creates them. There is danger of this simple, self-evident fact being lost for lack of emphasis. The measure of effective records management should be its usefulness to the executives who are responsible for accomplishing the substantive purposes of the organization.... [The] first interest is in the establishment of a useful system of documentation that will enable [the executive] to have the information he needs available when he needs it.”
Congress expressly recognized the need for devising adequate statutory safeguards against the unauthorized removal of agency records, and opted in favor of a system of administrative standards and enforcement. See U. S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Task Force Report on Records Management 27 (1949). Thus, regardless of whether Kissinger has violated the Records and Records Disposal Acts, Congress has not vested federal courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate that question upon suit by a private party. That responsibility is vested in the administrative authorities.
B
The plaintiff requesters contend that even though the Federal Records and Records Disposal Acts do not contemplate a private right of action, the FOIA nevertheless supplies what was missing from those Acts — congressional intent to permit private actions to recover records wrongfully removed from Government custody. We are, however, unable to read the FOIA as supplying that congressional intent.
The FOIA represents a carefully balanced scheme of public rights and agency obligations designed to foster greater access to agency records than existed prior to its enactment. That statutory scheme authorizes federal courts to ensure private access to requested materials when three requirements have been met. Under 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (4) (B) federal jurisdiction is dependent upon a showing that an agency has (1) “improperly”; (2) “withheld”; (3) “agency records.” Judicial authority to devise remedies and enjoin agencies can only be invoked, under the jurisdictional grant conferred by § 552, if the agency has contravened all three components of this obligation. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the telephone notes were “agency records” since we conclude that a covered agency — here the State Department — has not “withheld” those documents from the plaintiffs. We also need not decide the full contours of a prohibited “withholding.” We do decide, however, that Congress did not mean that an agency improperly withholds a document which has been removed from the possession of the agency prior to the filing of the FOIA request. In such a case, the agency has neither the custody nor control necessary to enable it to withhold.
In looking for congressional intent, we quite naturally start with the usual meaning of the word “withhold” itself. The requesters would have us read the “hold” out of “withhold.” The act described by this word presupposes the actor’s possession or control of the item withheld. A refusal to resort to legal remedies to obtain possession is simply not conduct subsumed by the verb “withhold.”
The Act and its legislative history do not purport to define the word. An examination of the structure and purposes of the Act, however, indicates that Congress used the word in its usual sense. An agency’s failure to sue a third party to obtain possession is not a withholding under the Act.
Several sources suggest directly that agency possession or control is prerequisite to triggering any duties under the FOIA. In the debates, the Act was described as ensuring “access to the information possessed by [Government] servants.” (Emphasis added.) 112 Cong. Rec. 13652 (1966), reprinted in Freedom of Information Act Source Book, S. Doc. No. 93-82, p. 69 (1974) (remarks of Rep. Monagan) (hereinafter Source Book I).
Following FOIA’s enactment in 1966, the Attorney General issued guidelines for the use of all federal departments and agencies in complying with the new statute. The guidelines state that FOIA
“refers, of course, only to records in being and in the possession or control of an agency.... [It] imposes no obligation to compile or procure a record in response to a request.” Attorney General’s Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act 23-24 (June 1967), Source Book I, pp. 222-223.
Most courts which have considered the question have concluded that the FOIA is only directed at requiring agencies to disclose those “agency records” for which they have chosen to retain possession or control. See also NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U. S. 214, 221 (1978), describing the Act as reaching “records and material in the possession of federal agencies....”
The conclusion that possession or control is a prerequisite to FOIA disclosure duties is reinforced by an examination of the purposes of the Act. The Act does not obligate agencies to create or retain documents; it only obligates them to provide access to those which it in fact has created and retained. It has been settled by decision of this Court that only the Federal Records Act, and not the FOIA, requires an agency to actually create records, even though the agency’s failure to do so deprives the public of information which might have otherwise been available to it. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 421 U. S. 132, 161-162 (1975); Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U. S. 168, 192 (1975).
If the agency is not required to create or to retain records under the FOIA, it is somewhat difficult to determine why the agency is nevertheless required to retrieve documents which have escaped its possession, but which it has not endeavored to recover. If the document is of so little interest to the agency that it does not believe the retrieval effort to be justified, the effect of this judgment on an FOIA request seems little different from the effect of an agency determination that a record should never be created, or should be discarded.
The procedural provisions of the Act, in particular, reflect the nature of the obligation which Congress intended to impose on agencies in the production of agency records. First, Congress has provided that agencies normally must decide within 10 days whether to comply with an FOIA request unless they can establish “unusual circumstances” as defined in the Act. 5 U. S. C. §§ 552 (a)(6)(A), (B). The “unusual circumstances” specified by the Act include “the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities and other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.” This exception for searching and collecting certainly does not suggest that Congress expected an agency to commence lawsuits in order to obtain possession of documents requested, particularly when it is seen that where an extension is allowable, the period of the extension is only for 10 days. Either Congress was operating under the assumption that lawsuits could be waged and won in 10 days, or it was operating under the assumption that agencies would not be obligated to file lawsuits in order to comply with FOIA requests.
A similarly strong expression of congressional expectations emerges in 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(4)(A) providing for recovery of certain costs incurred in complying with FOIA requests. This section was included in the Act in order to reduce the burdens imposed on the agencies. The agency is authorized to establish fees for the “direct costs” of “document search and duplication.” The costs allowed reflect the congressional judgment as to the nature of the costs which would be incurred. Congress identified these costs, and thus the agency burdens, as consisting of “search” and “duplication.” During the enactment of the 1974 amendments to the FOIA, it was emphasized that agencies generally are not obligated to provide extensive services in fulfilling FOIA requests. S. Rep. No. 93-854, p. 12 (1974), reprinted in House Committee on Government Operations and Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974: Source Book, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 164 (Joint Comm. Print 1975) (hereinafter Source Book II). When agencies do provide additional services in conducting a search, they are clearly authorized to allocate that cost to the requester. Ibid. It is doubtful that Congress intended that a “search” include legal efforts to retrieve wrongfully removed documents, since such an intent would authorize agency assessment to the private requester of its litigation costs in such an endeavor.
It is therefore clear that Congress never intended, when it enacted the FOIA, to displace the statutory scheme embodied in the Federal Records Act and the Federal Records Disposal Act providing for administrative remedies to safeguard against wrongful removal of agency records as well as to retrieve wrongfully removed records. This result is buttressed by our decisions in Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1 (1974), and NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., supra, both demonstrating reluctance to construe the FOIA as silently departing from prior longstanding practice. Banner-craft, supra, of course held that Congress intended federal district courts to retain traditional equitable jurisdiction in adjudicating FOIA actions. But historic equitable practice has long recognized that an individual does not improperly withhold a document sought pursuant to a subpoena by his refusal to sue a third party to obtain or recover possession. Amey v. Long, 9 East 473, 482, 103 Eng. Rep. 653, 657 (K. B. 1808).
C
This construction of “withholding” readily disposes of the RCFP and MAP requests. Both of these requests were filed after Kissinger’s telephone notes had been deeded to the Library of Congress. The Government, through the Archivist/ has requested return of the documents from Kissinger. The request has been refused. The facts make it apparent that Kissinger, and the Library of Congress as his donee, are holding the documents under a claim of right. Under these circumstances, the State Department cannot be said to have had possession or control of the documents at the time the requests were received. It did not, therefore, withhold any agency records, an indispensable prerequisite to liability in. a suit under the FOIA.
Ill
The Safire request raises a separate question. At the time when Safire submitted his request for certain notes of Kissinger’s telephone conversations, all the notes were still located in Kissinger’s office at the State Department. For this reason, we do not rest our resolution of his claim on the grounds that there was no withholding by the State Department. As outlined above, the Act only prohibits the withholding of “agency records.” We conclude that the Safire request sought disclosure of documents which were not “agency records” within the meaning of the FOIA.
Safire’s request sought only a limited category of documents. He requested the Department to produce all transcripts of telephone conversations made by Kissinger from his White House office between January 21, 1969, and February 12, 1971, in which (1) Safire’s name appeared; or (2) in which Kissinger discussed the subject of information “leaks” with General Alexander-Haig, Attorney General John Mitchell, President Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, or any other official of the FBI.
The FOIA does render the “Executive Office of the President” an agency subject to the Act. 5 U. S. C. § 552 (e). The legislative history is unambiguous, however, in explaining that the “Executive Office” does not include the Office of the President. The Conference Report for the 1974 FOIA Amendments indicates that “the President’s immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President” are not included within the term “agency” under the FOIA. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1380, p. 15 (1974), reprinted in Source Book II, p. 232. Safire’s request was limited to a period of time in which Kissinger was serving as Assistant to the President. Thus these telephone notes were not “agency records” when they were made.
The RCFP requesters have argued that since some of the telephone notes made while Kissinger was adviser to the President may have related to the National Security Council they may have been National Security Council records and therefore subject to the Act. See H. R. Rep No. 93-876, p. 8 (1974), Source Book II, p. 128, indicating that the National Security Council is an executive agency to which the FOIA applies. We need not decide when records which, in the words of the RCFP requesters, merely “relate to” the affairs of an FOIA agency become records of that agency. To the extent Safire sought discussions concerning information leaks which threatened the internal secrecy of White House policy-making, he sought conversations in which Kissinger had acted in his capacity as a Presidential adviser, only.
Nor does his request for conversations in which his name appeared require a different conclusion. Safire never identified the request as implicating any National Security Council records. The request did not mention the National Security Council or any subject relating to the NSC. To the contrary, he requested to see transcripts Kissinger made from his White House office. Moreover, after the State Department denied the request on the grounds that these were White House records, Safire’s appeal argued these were State Department records, again never suggesting they were NSC records. The FOIA requires the requester to adequately identify the records which are sought. 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(3)(A). Safire’s request did not describe the records as relating to the NSC or in any way put the agency on notice that it should refer the request to the NSC. See 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (6) (B) (iii). Therefore, we also need not address the issue of when an agency violates the Act by refusing to produce records of another agency, or failing to refer a request to the appropriate agency.
The RCFP requesters nevertheless contend that if the transcripts of telephone conversations made while adviser to the President were not then “agency records,” they acquired that status under the Act when they were removed from White House files and physically taken to Kissinger’s office at the Department of State. We simply decline to hold that the physical location of the notes of telephone conversations renders them “agency records.” The papers were not in the control of the State Department at any time. They were not generated in the State Department. They never entered the State Department’s files, and they were not used by the Department for any purpose. If mere physical location of papers and materials could confer status as an “agency record” Kissinger’s personal books, speeches, and all other memorabilia stored in his office would have been agency records subject to disclosure under the FOIA. It requires little discussion or analysis to conclude that the lower courts correctly resolved this question in favor of Kissinger. See also Forsham v. Harris, post, p. 169.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Court of Appeals compelling production of the telephone manuscripts made by Kissinger while Secretary of State and affirm the order denying the requests for transcripts produced while Kissinger served as National Security Adviser.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the decision of these cases.
Tapes and stenographic notes were always destroyed immediately after they were summarized or transcribed.
This conclusion was premised on the Adviser’s finding that the notes were covered by a Department regulation providing that a retiring official may retain papers “explicitly designated or filed as personal at the time of origin or receipt.” 5 FAM § 417.1 (a) (1974).
Safire filed an administrative appeal from this decision, contending that the notes were agency records by virtue of their relocation to the State Department. The appeal was denied.
See Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560 (1979); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979).
We need not decide what remedies might be available to private plaintiffs complaining that the administrators and the Attorney General have breached a duty to enforce the Records Act, since no such action was brought here. See 5 U. S. C. §§ 704, 701 (a) (2), 706 (1).
See Nolen v. Rumsfeld, 535 F. 2d 890, 891 (CA5 1976) (suit “seeking production of missing records... is not within the purview of the Freedom of Information Act”), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1104 (1977); Nichols v. United States, 325 F. Supp. 130, 137 (Kan. 1971) (“the Court may not require production of records not in [the] custody or control of an agency”), aff’d, 460 F. 2d 671 (CA10), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 966 (1972); Ciba-Oeigy Corp. v. Mathews, 428 F. Supp. 523, 531 (SDNY 1977) (“[T]he government cannot be compelled to obtain possession of documents not under its control or furnish an opinion when none is written”).
Congress has imposed some very limited record-creating obligations with regard to indexing under the FOIA. See 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (2).
This is not to suggest that this discretionary determination by the agency relieves it of other obligations imposed by the records management Acts. The observation goes only to the nature of the public right of access provided by the FOIA.
There is no question that a “withholding” must here be gauged by the time at which the request is made since there is no FOIA obligation to retain records prior to that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises questions concerning the power of States to regulate the terms and conditions of marine insurance contracts.
Glenn, Frank and Henry Wilburn, merchants in Deni-son, Texas, bought a small houseboat to use for commercial carriage of passengers on nearby Lake Texoma, an artificial inland lake between Texas and Oklahoma. The respondent Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company insured the boat against loss from fire and other perils. While moored on the lake the boat was destroyed by fire. Following respondent’s refusal to pay for the loss, this suit was brought in a Texas state court by the Wilburns and by their wholly owned corporation, the Wilburn Boat Company, to which the boat’s legal title had been transferred. After removal of the case to the United States District Court because of diversity, respondent answered admitting issuance of the policy, payment of premiums and destruction of the boat. Liability was denied however because of alleged breaches of printed policy terms or "warranties” providing that, without written consent of the company, the boat could not be sold, transferred, assigned, pledged, hired or chartered, and must be used solely for private pleasure purposes. The case was submitted on stipulated facts supplemented by oral testimony. Contending that the evidence showed the policy contract to have been made and delivered in Texas, petitioners urged that all questions concerning alleged policy breaches were controlled by Texas law. If Texas law does govern, the policy provision against pledging may be wholly invalid. Furthermore no breach by the insured of the provisions of a fire insurance policy is a defense to any suit under Texas law unless the breach contributes to the loss. Without finding whether the policy had been made and delivered in Texas, the court refused to give that State’s law any effect at all, holding that since a marine policy is a maritime contract, federal admiralty law — not state law — governed. The court went on to hold that there is an established admiralty rule which requires literal fulfillment of every policy warranty so that any breach bars recovery, even though a loss would have happened had the warranty been carried out to the letter. Finding that the Wilburns had breached policy provisions against transfer, pledge and use of the boat, the District Court entered judgment for the insurance company. Approving the District Court’s actions in all respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed, saying that “It is the settled doctrine that a marine contract of insurance is 'derived from’ is 'governed by’, and is a ‘part of’ the general maritime law of the world.” 201 F. 2d 833, 837. Importance of the questions involved prompted us to grant certiorari. 347 U. S. 950.
Since the insurance policy here sued on is a maritime contract the Admiralty Clause of the Constitution brings it within federal jurisdiction. Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. But it does not follow, as the courts below seemed to think, that every term in every maritime contract can only be controlled by some federally defined admiralty rule. In the field of maritime contracts as in that of maritime torts, the National Government has left much regulatory power in the States. As later discússed in more detail, this state regulatory power, exercised with federal consent or acquiescence, has always been particularly broad in relation to insurance companies and the contracts they make.
Congress has not taken over the regulation of marine insurance contracts and has not dealt with the effect of marine insurance warranties at all; hence there is no possible question here of conflict between state law and any federal statute. But this does not answer the questions presented, since in the absence of controlling Acts of Congress this Court has fashioned a large part of the existing rules that govern admiralty. And States can no more override such judicial rules validly fashioned than they can override Acts of Congress. See, e. g., Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239. Consequently the crucial questions in this case narrow down to these: (1) Is there a judicially established federal admiralty rule governing these warranties? (2) If not, should we fashion one?
The only decision of this Court relied on by the Court of Appeals to support its holding that there is an established admiralty rule requiring strict fulfillment of marine insurance warranties was Imperial Fire Insurance Co. v. Coos County, 151 U. S. 452. There, because of a breach of warranty, an insurance company was relieved of liability for loss of a courthouse by fire, and this Court said it was immaterial whether the breach contributed to the loss. But no question of marine insurance was remotely involved nor was there any reliance on a marine insurance rule. Writing its own “general commercial law,” as was the custom in diversity cases prior to Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, this Court in the Coos County case simply followed a general doctrine commonly applied to warranties in all types of insurance. A mere cursory examination of the cases, state and federal, will disclose that through the years this common-law doctrine, when accepted, has been treated not as an admiralty rule but as a general warranty rule applicable to many types of contracts including marine and other insurance. There are very few federal cases on marine insurance in which the strict breach of warranty rule has even been considered. And only two circuits appear to have thought of the rule as a part of the general admiralty law.. On the contrary, other circuit court decisions, including the ones relied on in those few cases holding the rule to be one of federal admiralty, seem to indicate that state law was followed in applying the rule or that the question was decided as one of “general commercial law,” a uniform practice during the era of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. I. This Court did say in one marine insurance case that warranties “must be strictly and literally performed.” Hazard’s Administrator v. New England Marine Ins. Co., 8 Pet. 557, 580. But there is not the slightest indication that this statement referred to a federal admiralty rule and the Court in fact expressly followed and applied Massachusetts law to decide another question in that very case. Whatever the origin of the “literal performance” rule may be, we think it plain that it has not been judicially established as part of the body of federal admiralty law in this country. Therefore, the scope and validity of the policy provisions here involved and the consequences of breaching them can only be determined by state law unless we are now prepared to fashion controlling federal rules.
The whole judicial and legislative history of insurance regulation in the United States warns us against the judicial creation of admiralty rules to govern marine policy terms and warranties. The control of all types of insurance companies and contracts has been primarily a state function since the States came into being. In 1869, this Court held in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, that States possessed regulatory power over the insurance business and strongly indicated that the National Government did not have that power. Three years later, it was first authoritatively decided in Insurance Co. v. Dunham, supra, that federal courts could exercise “jurisdiction” over marine insurance contracts. In 1894, years after the Dunham holding, this Court applied the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia and held that States could regulate marine insurance the same as any other insurance. Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648. Later, the power of States to regulate marine insurance was reaffirmed in Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553. This constitutional doctrine carrying implications of exclusive state power to regulate all types of- insurance contracts remained until 1944 when this Court decided United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533. Thus it is clear that at least until 1944 this Court has always treated marine insurance contracts, like all others, as subject to state control. The vast amount of insurance litigation in state courts throughout our history also bears witness that until recently state legislatures and state courts have treated marine insurance as controlled by state law to the same extent as all other insurance. This is aptly illustrated by a Massachusetts case decided in 1893 which expressly held a generally worded statute of that State relating to warranties to be applicable to marine insurance companies equally with other insurance companies. Durkee v. India Mutual Ins. Co., 159 Mass. 514, 34 N. E. 1133.
Not only courts, but Congress, insurance companies, and those insured have all acted on the assumption that States can regulate marine insurance. In the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, Congress recognized that marine insurance companies were operating under state laws. Then, following a three-year study of marine insurance, Congress in 1922 passed a law regulating all types of insurance in the District of Columbia. This enactment generally referred to as the District of Columbia Model Marine Insurance Act, had the backing of insurance companies generally and was hailed as a model which it was hoped States would copy. Because of a provision in the bill as offered relating to “policy forms and conditions,” the bill was first criticized by a national association of shipowners but was later approved after the criticized provision was removed. Hearings on the bill make it plain that shipowners and marine insurance companies recognized that marine insurance was then, and would continue to be, regulated by the States. This model bill which it was hoped would serve as a pattern for States to follow was prompted in part by widespread doubt created by Paul v. Virginia and Hooper v. California that the Federal Government could enter the field at all. Again in 1935 marine insurance was discussed in congressional hearings in connection with the Limitation of Liability Act. 49 Stat. 1479, 46 U. S. C. § § 181-196. There representatives of shipowners strongly opposed regulation of marine insurance by federal authority, arguing that it was better for the States to retain their regulatory function. Finally, in 1944 and 1945, Congress had before it for consideration bills specifically designed to authorize States to continue to regulate the business of insurance. At the very beginning of extensive hearings on these bills the Committee’s attention was directed to that part of this Court’s opinion in Hooper v. California deciding that States could regulate the marine insurance business the same as they could regulate other kinds of insurance businesses. Again and again the Committee was reminded of the Paul and Hooper cases which together showed that States had previously been regulating marine insurance as well as all other types. Passage of the bill followed United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., supra, holding that, despite the constitutional doctrine embodied in the Paul v. Virginia line of cases, Congress had power under the Constitution to regulate interstate insurance transactions. In the South-Eastern case, however, all the opinions had emphasized the historical fact that States had always been free to regulate insurance. The measure Congress passed shortly thereafter, known as the McCarran Act, was designed to assure that existing state power to regulate insurance would continue. Accordingly, the Act contains a broad declaration of congressional policy that the continued regulation of insurance by the States is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of Congress should not be construed to impose any barrier to continued regulation of insurance by the States.
The hearings on the McCarran Act reveal the complexities and difficulties of an attempt to unify insurance law on a nationwide basis, even by Congress. Courts would find such a task far more difficult. Congress in passing laws is not limited to the narrow factual situation of a particular controversy as courts are in deciding lawsuits. And Congress could replace the presently functioning state regulations of marine insurance by one comprehensive Act. Courts, however, could only do it piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis. Such a creeping approach would result in leaving marine insurance largely unregulated for years to come.
In this very case, should we attempt to fashion an admiralty rule governing policy provisions, we would at once be faced with the difficulty of determining what should be the consequences of breaches. We could adopt the old common-law doctrine of forfeiting all right of recovery in the absence of strict and literal performance of warranties, but that is a harsh rule. Most States, deeming the old rule a breeder of wrong and injustice, have abandoned it in whole or in part. But that has left open the question of what kind of new rule could be substituted that would be fair both to insurance companies and policyholders. Out of their abundant broad experience in regulating the insurance business, some state legislatures have adopted one kind of new rule and some another. Some States for example have denied companies the right to forfeit policies in the absence of an insured’s bad faith or fraud. Other States have thought this kind of rule inadequate to stamp out forfeiture practices deemed evil. The result, as this Court has pointed out, has been state statutes like that of Texas which “go to the root of the evil” and forbid forfeiture for an insured’s breach of policy terms unless the breach actually contributes to bring about the loss insured against. Northwestern National Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243, 253-254. Thus there are a number of other possible rules from which this Court could fashion one for admiralty. But such a choice involves varied policy considerations and is obviously one which Congress is peculiarly suited to make. And we decline to undertake the task. See Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282, 285.
Under our present system of diverse state regulations, which is as old as the Union, the insurance business has become one of the great enterprises of the Nation. Congress has been exceedingly cautious about disturbing this system, even as to marine insurance where congressional power is undoubted. We, like Congress, leave the regulation of marine insurance where it has been — with the States.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for a trial under appropriate state law.
It is so ordered.
“It Is Also Agreed that this insurance shall be void in case this Policy or the interest insured thereby shall be sold, assigned, transferred or pledged without the previous consent in writing of the Assurers.”
“Warranted by the Assured that the within named vessel shall be used solely for private pleasure purposes during the currency of this Policy and shall not be hired or chartered unless permission is granted by endorsement hereon.”
Vernon's Rev. Civ. Stat., 1936, Art. 4890: “Any provision in any policy of insurance issued by any company subject to the provisions of this law to the effect that if said property is encumbered by a lien of any character or shall after the issuance of such policy become encumbered by a lien of any character then such encumbrance shall render such policy void shall be of no force and effect. Any such provision within or placed upon any such policy shall be null and void."
Vernon’s Rev. Civ. Stat., 1936, Art. 4930: “No breach or violation by the insured of any warranty, condition or provision of any fire insurance policy, contract of insurance, or application therefor, upon personal property, shall render void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a suit for loss thereon, unless such breach or violation contributed to bring about the destruction of the property.”
The District Court said: “After much consideration of the above matter, I am of the opinion that the policy involved here is a maritime contract and therefore governed by the general admiralty law and not by the law of Texas, since the policy covered the vessel on navigable waters of the United States, without as well as within the State of Texas, and I find that the waters of Lake Texoma are navigable waters of the United States.”
There was evidence that prior to the loss the company had notice that the boat was constantly used for commercial purposes. Because of this petitioners urged that the company had waived the policy provision against such use and was also estopped to plead it. Questions involved in these contentions remain wholly open for consideration by the District Court in any new trial that may be had.
The Court of Appeals assumed that if any state law applied it was that of Texas. The question of the appropriate state law is not before us, however, and we express no opinion on that aspect of the case. Cf. Watson v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 348 U. S. 66. Likewise we are not concerned at this time with whether the District Court’s holdings that the Wilburns’ transactions constituted breaches, and that the breaches had not been waived by the company, would be correct holdings under state law.
See, e. g., The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U. S. 556. But cf. Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U. S. 308.
See, e. g., Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383; The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398. But cf. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406; Butler v. Boston & Savannah S. S. Co., 130 IP. S. 527, 557-558.
See, e. g., Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183, 189-190.
See, e. g., cases collected in 87 A. L. R. 1074; L. R. A. 1918B, 429; 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 563; 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 981; 29 Am. Jur., Insurance, § 529 et seq.
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Houston Oil & Transport Co., 49 F. 2d 121 (1931); Home Ins. Co. v. Ciconett, 179 F. 2d 892 (1950).
Gelb v. Automobile Ins. Co., 168 F. 2d 774; Levine v. Aetna Ins. Co., 139 F. 2d 217; Shamrock Towing Co. v. American Ins. Co., 9 F. 2d 57. See also United States Gypsum Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 19 F. Supp. 767. See Goulder, Evolution of the Admiralty Law in America, 5 Am. Lawyer 314.
E. g., Canton Ins. Office, Ltd. v. Independent Transp. Co., 217 F. 213; Whealton Packing Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 185 F. 108; Robinson v. Home Ins. Co., 73 F. 2d 3; Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 12 F. 2d 573.
See Vance, The History of the Development of the Warranty in Insurance Law, 20 Yale L. J. 523; Patterson, Warranties in Insurance Law, 34 Col. L. Rev. 595.
The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, and cases there cited.
For cases subsequent to 1944 holding that States could regulate insurance, see Robertson v. California, 328 U. S. 440; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408.
See cases collected in 9 L. Ed. 1123; 22 L. Ed. 216; 42 L. Ed. 113; 9 A. L. R. 1314; 13 A. L. R. 893; 43 A. L. R. 222; L. R. A. 1917C, 730; L. R. A. 1916F, 1171; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 742; 36 Am. St. Rep. 854; 29 Am. Jur., Insurance, §§227-237, 758-785, 1032-1051, 1198-1224; note 10, supra.
41 Stat. 1000, 46 U. S. C. § 885 (a) (2).
42 Stat. 408; D. C. Code, 1951, §35-1101 et seq.
Hearings before Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 210, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 111, 112, 213.
Id., at 20-30. See also S. Rep. No. 228, 67th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 582, 67th Cong., 2d Sess.
Hearings before House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on H. R. 4550, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 et seq.
Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary on S. 1362, H. R. 3269, H. R. 3270, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 7. Attention was also called to New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389, and other cases which held that States had power to bar policy provisions deemed contrary to the public interest and compel inclusion of provisions deemed to be in the public welfare.
59 Stat. 33,15 U.S.C.§1011.
For the multitudinous insurance regulations States have found necessary after long experience, see, e. g., McKinney’s N. Y. Laws, Insurance Law; La. Rev. Stat., 1950, Title 22; Vernon’s Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., 1936, Arts. 4679-5068b.
For criticisms of the rule see note 14, supra.
4 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, § 819 et seq.; 12 Apple-man, Insurance Law and Practice, § 7251 et seq. For instances where state courts have relaxed the rule of their own accord see 4 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2695; 12 id., § 7354.
Congress has made certain provisions in connection with war risk insurance. 64 Stat. 773, 46 U. S. C. §§ 1281-1294. And to a very limited extent it has authorized governmental agencies to regulate policies and insurance companies which are insuring vessels in which the Government has some interest. 41 Stat. 992, 46 U. S. C. § 868; 52 Stat. 969, 46 U. S. C. §§ 1271-1279; 55 Stat. 243, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1273.
It is faintly contended that the Federal Constitution forbids States to regulate marine insurance, even where Congress acquiesces or expressly consents. This contention is so lacking in merit that it need not be discussed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U. S. C. §151 et seq., pre-empts a Wisconsin statute debarring certain repeat violators of the Act from doing business with the State. We hold that it does.
I
Wisconsin has directed its Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations to maintain a list of every person or firm found by judicially enforced orders of the National Labor Relations Board to have violated the NLRA in three separate cases within a 5-year period. See Wis. Stat. § 101.245 (1983-1984). State procurement agents are statutorily forbidden to purchase “any product known to be manufactured or sold by any person or firm included on the list of labor law violators.” §16.75(8). A name remains on the violators’ list for three years. § 101.245(4).
Appellee Gould Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. In 1982, Wisconsin placed Gould on its list of labor law violators following the judicial enforcement of four Board orders against various divisions of the company, none of which was located in Wisconsin and none of which Gould still owned at the time of its debarment. The State informed Gould that it would enter into no new contract with the company until 1985. The State also announced that it would continue its current contracts with Gould only as long as necessary to avoid contractual penalties, and that while Gould was on the list the State would not purchase products containing components produced by the company. At the time, Gould held state contracts worth over $10,000, and had outstanding bids for additional contracts in excess of $10,000.
Gould filed this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the Wisconsin debarment scheme was preempted by the NLRA and violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted Gould summary judgment on the preemption claim, and did not reach the arguments pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment. 576 F. Supp. 1290 (1983). The court enjoined the defendant state officials from refusing to do business with Gould, from refusing to purchase products with Gould components, and from including Gould on the fist of labor law violators. Id., at 1299; App. to Juris. Statement 86, 87. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in relevant part. 750 F. 2d 608 (1984). We noted probable jurisdiction, 471 U. S. 1115 (1985). As did the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we find it necessary to reach only the pre-emption issue.
II
It is by now a commonplace that in passing the NLRA Congress largely displaced state regulation of industrial relations. Although some controversy continues over the Act’s pre-emptive scope, certain principles are reasonably settled. Central among them is the general rule set forth in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), that States may not regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits. Because “conflict is imminent” whenever “two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same activity,” Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U. S. 485, 498-499 (1953), the Garmon rule prevents States not only from setting forth standards of conduct inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the NLRA, but also from providing their own regulatory or judicial remedies for conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by the Act. See 359 U. S., at 247. The rule is designed to prevent “conflict in its broadest sense” with the “complex and interrelated federal scheme of law, remedy, and administration,” id., at 243, and this Court has recognized that “[c]onflict in technique can be fully as disruptive to the system Congress erected as conflict in overt policy.” Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274, 287 (1971).
Consequently, there can be little doubt that the NLRA would prevent Wisconsin from forbidding private parties within the State to do business with repeat labor law violators. Like civil damages for picketing, which the Court refused to allow in Garmon, a prohibition against in-state private contracts would interfere with Congress’ “integrated scheme of regulation” by adding a remedy to those prescribed by the NLRA. 359 U. S., at 247. Nor does it matter that a supplemental remedy is different in kind from those that may be ordered by the Board, for “judicial concern has necessarily focused on the nature of the activities which the States have sought to regulate, rather than on the method of regulation adopted.” Id., at 243; Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 292. Indeed, “to allow the State to grant a remedy . . . which has been withheld from the National Labor Relations Board only accentuates the danger of conflict,” Garmon, 359 U. S., at 247, because “the range and nature of those remedies that are and are not available is a fundamental part” of the comprehensive system established by Congress. Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 287.
Wisconsin does not assert that it could bar its residents from doing business with repeat violators of the NLRA. It contends, however, that the statutory scheme invoked against Gould escapes pre-emption because it is an exercise of the State’s spending power rather than its regulatory power. But that seems to us a distinction without a difference, at least in this case, because on its face the debarment statute serves plainly as a means of enforcing the NLRA. The State concedes, as we think it must, that the point of the statute is to deter labor law violations and to reward “fidelity to the law.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, 6; Brief for Defendants in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 83-C-1045, (WD Wis.), p. 18. No other purpose could credibly be ascribed, given the rigid and undiscriminating manner in which the statute operates: firms adjudged to have violated the NLRA three times are automatically deprived of the opportunity to compete for the State’s business.
Because Wisconsin’s debarment law functions unambiguously as a supplemental sanction for violations of the NLRA, it conflicts with the Board’s comprehensive regulation of industrial relations in precisely the same way as would a state statute preventing repeat labor law violators from doing any business with private parties within the State. Moreover, if Wisconsin’s debarment law is valid, nothing prevents other States from taking similar action against labor law violators. Indeed, at least four other States already have passed legislation disqualifying repeat or continuing offenders of the NLRA from competing for state contracts. Each additional statute incrementally diminishes the Board’s control over enforcement of the NLRA and thus further detracts from the “integrated scheme of regulation” created by Congress.
That Wisconsin has chosen to use its spending power rather than its police power does not significantly lessen the inherent potential for conflict when “two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same activity,” Garner, 346 U. S., at 498-499. To uphold the Wisconsin penalty simply because it operates through state purchasing decisions therefore would make little sense. “It is the conduct being regulated, not the formal description of governing legal standards, that is the proper focus of concern.” Lockridge, 403 U. S., at 292.
Ill
Wisconsin notes correctly that state action in the nature of “market participation” is not subject to the restrictions placed on state regulatory power by the Commerce Clause. See White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U. S. 204 (1983); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429 (1980); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794 (1976). We agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that by flatly prohibiting state purchases from repeat labor law violators Wisconsin “simply is not functioning as a private purchaser of services,” 750 F. 2d, at 614; for all practical purposes, Wisconsin’s debarment scheme is tantamount to regulation.
In any event, the “market participant” doctrine reflects the particular concerns underlying the Commerce Clause, not any general notion regarding the necessary extent of state power in areas where Congress has acted. In addition to authorizing congressional action, the Commerce Clause limits state action in the absence of federal approval. The Clause restricts “state taxes and regulatory measures impeding free private trade in the national marketplace,” but “[t]here is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the States themselves to operate freely in the free market.” Reeves, 447 U. S., at 437. The NLRA, in contrast, was designed in large part to' “entrus[t] administration of the labor policy for the Nation to a centralized administrative agency.” Garmon, 359 U. S., at 242; see also, e. g., NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138, 145 (1971) (“The Board is the sole protector of the ‘national interest’ defined with particularity in the Act”) (footnote omitted). What the Commerce Clause would permit States to do in the absence of the NLRA is thus an entirely different question from what States may do with the Act in place. Congressional purpose is of course “ ‘the ultimate touchstone’” of pre-emption analysis, see, e. g., Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 208 (1985), quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963), and we cannot believe that Congress intended to allow States to interfere with the “interrelated federal scheme of law, remedy, and administration,” Garmon, 359 U. S., at 243, under the NLRA as long as they did so through exercises of the spending power.
Nothing in the NLRA, of course, prevents private purchasers from boycotting labor law violators. But government occupies a unique position of power in our society, and its conduct, regardless of form, is rightly subject to special restraints. Outside the area of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it is far from unusual for federal law to prohibit States from making spending decisions in ways that are permissible for private parties. See, e. g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 (1976); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972). The NLRA, moreover, has long been understood to protect a range of conduct against state but not private interference. See, e. g., Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 148-151 (1976); Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252, 259-260 (1964); Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1337, 1346, 1351-1359 (1972). The Act treats state action differently from private action not merely because they frequently take different forms, but also because in our system States simply are different from private parties and have a different role to play.
We do not say that state purchasing decisions may never be influenced by labor considerations, any more than the NLRA prevents state regulatory power from ever touching on matters of industrial relations. Doubtless some state spending policies, like some exercises of the police power, address conduct that is of such “peripheral concern” to the NLRA, or that implicates “interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility,” that pre-emption should not be inferred. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 243-244; see also, e. g., Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U. S. 491, 498 (1983). And some spending determinations that bear on labor relations were intentionally left to the States by Congress. See New York Tel. Co. v. New York State Labor Dept., 440 U. S. 519 (1979). But Wisconsin’s debarment rule clearly falls into none of these categories. We are not faced here with a statute that can even plausibly be defended as a legitimate response to state procurement constraints or to local economic needs, or with a law that pursues a task Congress intended to leave to the States. The manifest purpose and inevitable effect of the debarment rule is to enforce the requirements of the NLRA. That goal may be laudable, but it assumes for the State of Wisconsin a role Congress reserved exclusively for the Board.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 101.245 provides in relevant part:
“(1) The department [of industry, labor and human relations] shall maintain a list of persons or firms that have been found by the national labor relations board, and by 3 different final decisions of a federal court within a 5-year period as determined under sub. (lm), if the 3 final decisions involved a cumulative finding of at least three separate violations, to have violated the national labor relations act, 29 U. S. C. 151 et seq., and of persons or firms that have been found to be in contempt of court for failure to correct a violation of the national labor relations act on 3 or more occasions by a court within a 5-year period as determined under sub. (lm) if the 3 contempt findings involved a cumulative total of at least 3 different violations.
“(lm) On or before July 1 of each year the department shall compile the list required under sub. (1) based upon the 5-year period which ended on September 30 of the year preceding.
“(2) This list may be compiled from the records of the national labor relations board.
“(3) Whenever a new name is added to this list the department shall send the name to the department of administration for actions as provided in s. 16.75(8).
“(4) A name shall remain on the list for 3 years.”
The statute was enacted as 1979 Wis. Laws, ch. 340, § 3. It became effective May 21, 1980.
Section 16.75(8) provides in relevant part:
“The department [of administration] shall not purchase any product known to be manufactured or sold by any person or firm included on the list of labor law violators compiled by the department of industry, labor and human relations under s. 101.245. The secretary may waive this subsection if maintenance, repair or operating supplies are required to maintain systems or equipment which were purchased by the state from a person or firm included on the list prior to the date of inclusion on the list, or if the secretary finds that there exists an emergency which threatens the public health, safety or welfare and a waiver is necessary to meet the emergency.”
We are advised that the statutory ban applies only to purchases by the State and not to purchasing decisions of counties, municipalities, or other political subdivisions of the State. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4.
In addition to disqualifying repeat violators of the NLRA, Wisconsin provides statutory preferences to bids from Wisconsin companies, minority businesses, employers of disabled workers, and prison industries. See Wis. Stat. §§ 16.75(1)(a), (3m)(b), (3s)(a), and (3t)(c) (1983-1984).
The original complaint also sought monetary damages, but Gould apparently abandoned this request in its motion and briefs for summary judgment. See 576 F. Supp. 1290, 1293, n. 3 (WD Wis. 1983).
Although Gould’s debarment was scheduled to end in 1985, Wisconsin does not contend that the case is moot. At a minimum, the problem presented is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” E. g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333, n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
The complaint named as defendants three state agencies, including the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, and four state officials. The District Court dismissed the agency defendants under the Eleventh Amendment but, pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), allowed the suit to proceed against the state officials. 576 F. Supp., at 1293. Gould did not appeal the dismissal of the agency defendants, and they appear in this Court only as nominal parties under the Court’s Rule 10.4.
The conflict between the challenged debarment statute and the NLRA is made all the more obvious by the essentially punitive rather than corrective nature of Wisconsin’s supplemental remedy. The regulatory scheme established for labor relations by Congress is “essentially remedial,” and the Board is not generally authorized to impose penalties solely for the purpose of deterrence or retribution. Republic Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U. S. 7, 10-12 (1940). Wisconsin’s debarment sanction, in contrast, functions as punishment and serves no corrective purpose. Punitive sanctions are inconsistent not only with the remedial philosophy of the NLRA, but also in certain situations with the Act’s procedural logic. For example, the Board’s certification of a bargaining representative is not subject to direct judicial appeal. An employer who believes that the Board erred in approving an election or defining a bargaining unit thus may obtain administrative and judicial review only by refusing to bargain and awaiting an enforcement action by the Board for violation of the Act. See Magnesium Casting Co. v. NLRB, 401 U. S. 137, 139 (1971); AFL v. NLRB, 308 U. S. 401 (1940). One of Gould’s violations in fact occurred in precisely this manner. See Gould, Inc., Elec. Components Div. v. NLRB, 610 F. 2d 316 (CA5 1980). An unsuccessful challenge of this sort, if pursued in good faith, will generally present an especially inappropriate occasion for punitive sanctions.
See Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-57a (1985); Md. State Finance & Procurement Code Ann. § 13-404 (1985); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 423.322, .323, and .324 (Supp. 1985); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 121.23 (1984).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
MR. Justice Black,
announced by Mr. Justice Douglas.
Petitioner, Lulu B. McGee, recovered a judgment in a California state court against respondent, International Life Insurance Company, on a contract of insurance. Respondent was not served with process in California but by registered mail at its principal place of business in Texas. The California court based its jurisdiction on a state statute which subjects foreign corporations to suit in California on insurance contracts with residents of that State even though such corporations cannot be served with process within its borders.
Unable to collect the judgment in California petitioner went to Texas where she filed suit on the judgment in a Texas court. But the Texas courts refused to enforce her judgment holding it was void under the Fourteenth Amendment because service of process outside California could not give the courts of that State jurisdiction over respondent. 288 S. W. 2d 579. Since the case raised important questions, not only to California but to other States which have similar laws, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 924. It is not controverted that if the California court properly exercised jurisdiction over respondent the Texas courts erred .in refusing to give its judgment full faith and credit. 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
The material facts are relatively simple. In 1944, Lowell Franklin, a resident of California, purchased a life insurance policy from the Empire Mutual Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation. In 1948 the respondent agreed with Empire Mutual to assume its insurance obligations. Respondent then mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in California offering to insure him in accordance with the terms of the policy he held with Empire Mutual. He accepted this offer and from that time until his death in 1950 paid premiums by mail from his California home to respondent’s Texas office. Petitioner, Franklin’s mother, was the beneficiary under the policy. She sent proofs of his death to the respondent but it refused to pay claiming that he had committed suicide. It appears that neither Empire Mutual nor respondent has ever had any office or agent in California. And so far as the record before us shows, respondent has never solicited or done any insurance business in California apart from the policy involved here.
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, this Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places some limit on the power of state courts to enter binding judgments against persons not served with process within their boundaries. But just where this line of limitation falls has been the subject of prolific controversy, particularly with respect to foreign corporations. In a continuing process of evolution this Court accepted and then abandoned “consent,” “doing business,” and “presence” as the standard for measuring the extent of state judicial power over such corporations. See Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law, c. V. More recently in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, the Court decided that “due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316.
Looking back over this long history of litigation a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and' other nonresidents. In part this is attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years. Today many commercial transactions touch two or more States and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.
Turning to this case we think it apparent that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that State. Cf. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U. S. 623; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 735. The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he died. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. These residents would be at a severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant State in order to hold it legally accountable. When claims were small or moderate individual claimants frequently could not afford the cost of bringing an action in a foreign forum— thus in effect- making the company judgment proof. Often the crucial witnesses — as here on the company’s defense of suicide — will be found in the insured’s locality. Of course there may be inconvenience to the insurer if it is held amenable to suit in California where it had this contract but certainly nothing which amounts to a denial of due process. Cf. Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Comm’n, 339 U. S. 643. There is no contention that respondent did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to prepare its defenses and appear.
The California statute became law in 1949, after respondent had entered into the agreement with Franklin to assume Empire Mutual’s obligation to him. Respondent contends that application of the statute to this existing contract improperly impairs the obligation of the contract. We believe that contention is devoid of merit. The statute was remedial, in the purest sense of that term, and neither enlarged nor impaired respondent’s substantive rights or obligations under the contract. It did nothing more than to provide petitioner with a California forum to enforce whatever substantive rights she might have against respondent. At the same time respondent was given a reasonable time to appear and defend on the merits after being notified of the suit. Under such circumstances it had no vested right not to be sued in California. Cf. Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516; National Surety Co. v. Architectural Decorating Co., 226 U. S. 276; Funkhouser v. J. B. Preston Co., 290 U. S. 163.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Texas, First Supreme Judicial District, for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cal. Insurance Code, 1953, §§ 1610-1620.
And see Ace Grain Co. v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 95 F. Supp. 784; Storey v. United Ins. Co., 64 F. Supp. 896; S. Howes Co. v. W. P. Milling Co., 277 P. 2d 655 (Okla.); Compañía de Astral, S. A. v. Boston Metals Co., 205 Md. 237, 107 A. 2d 357, cert. denied, 348 U. S. 943; Zacharakis v. Bunker Hill Mut. Ins. Co., 281 App. Div. 487, 120 N. Y. S. 2d 418; Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Co., 116 Vt. 569, 80 A. 2d 664.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, sentenced to death by the Louisiana state courts, makes two federal constitutional attacks on his sentence. He first contends that the trial court impermissibly coerced the jury to return a sentence of death by inquiries it made to the jury and a supplemental charge which it gave to the jury following the receipt of a communication from that body. Petitioner’s second contention is that the death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the single “aggravating circumstance” found by the jury and upheld by the Supreme Court of Louisiana merely duplicates an element of the underlying offense of first-degree murder of which he was convicted at the guilt stage. We reject both of these contentions.
I
Petitioner was charged with killing a woman with whom he had lived, three members of her family, and one of her male friends. The jury found petitioner guilty of two counts of manslaughter and three counts of first-degree murder; an essential element of the latter verdicts was a finding that petitioner intended “to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:30A(3) (West 1986).
The jury commenced its sentencing deliberations on the same day that it returned the verdict of guilt, and the judge’s charge to them in this second phase of the trial included the familiar admonition that the jurors should consider the views of others with the objective of reaching a verdict, but that they should not surrender their own honest beliefs in doing so. The court also charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation, the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
The jury was allowed to retire late in the evening, and reconvene the next day. During the afternoon of that day a note came from the foreman of the jury stating that the jury was unable to reach a decision at that time, and requesting that the court again advise the jury as to its responsibilities. The jury was called back. The court provided a piece of paper to each juror and asked each to write on the paper his or her name and the answer to the question whether “further deliberations would be helpful in obtaining a verdict.” The jurors complied, and were asked to retire to the jury room. The papers revealed eight answers in the affirmative — that more deliberation would be helpful — and four in the negative. Defense counsel renewed a previously made motion for a mistrial, arguing that the jury was obviously hung. The trial court denied the motion, noting that this was the first sign that the jury was having trouble reaching a verdict in the penalty phase. The court directed that as previously agreed upon the jury would return to the courtroom and be instructed again as to its obligations in reaching a verdict.
When the jurors returned to the courtroom a new note from them was given to the judge. This note stated that some of the jurors had misunderstood the question previously asked. The judge polled the jury again using the same method but changing the question slightly; the judge asked, “Do you feel that any further deliberations will enable you to arrive at a verdict?” App. 55. This time 11 jurors answered in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. The court then reinstructed the jury:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, as I instructed you earlier if the jury is unable to unanimously agree on a recommendation the Court shall impose the sentence of Life Imprisonment without benefit of Probation, Parole, or Suspension of Sentence.
“When you enter the jury room it is your duty to consult with one another to consider each other’s views and to discuss the evidence with the objective of reaching a just verdict if you can do so without violence to that individual judgment.
“Each of you must decide the case for yourself but only after discussion and impartial consideration of the case with your fellow jurors. You are not advocates for one side or the other. Do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and to change your opinion if you are convinced you are wrong but do not surrender your honest belief as to the weight and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.” Id., at 56.
Defense counsel did not object to either poll, to the manner in which the polls were conducted, or to the supplemental instruction. The jury resumed its deliberations and in 30 minutes returned with a verdict sentencing petitioner to death on all three counts of first-degree murder. In support of all three sentences, the jury found the statutory aggravating circumstance of “knowingly creating] a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person.” La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.4(d) (West 1984). One death sentence was additionally supported by the aggravating circumstance that “the victim was a witness in a prosecution against the defendant. ...” Art. 905.4(h).
On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences. State v. Lowenfield, 495 So. 2d 1245 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1153 (1986). The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support the aggravating circumstance that the victim was a witness in a prosecution against the defendant, but concluded that the remaining aggravating circumstance was established by the evidence and was sufficient to support the sentences. 495 So. 2d, at 1256-1258. The court went on to hold that the trial court had not abused its discretion in declining to declare a mistrial during sentencing when the jury indicated that it was having difficulty reaching a verdict. “This court has rejected the construction that the court is required to declare a deadlock at the first sign of trouble.” Id., at 1259. Finally, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the judge had coerced the sentence recommendations from the jury. “It is a well settled proposition that when the court is informed by a jury that they are having difficulty in agreeing, it is not error for the court to impress upon them the importance of the case, urge them to come to agreement, and send them back for further deliberation.” Ibid.
Subsequently petitioner sought habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Petitioner raised, inter alia, the two issues now before this Court: whether a sentence of death may validly rest upon a single aggravating circumstance that is a necessary element of the underlying offense of first-degree murder, and whether the judge had coerced the sentence verdicts from the jury. The District Court denied relief and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 817 F. 2d 285 (1987). The panel unanimously rejected the aggravating circumstance claim. Id., at 289. The majority went on to conclude: “there is no showing of coercion; the record certainly does not demonstrate coercion sufficient to render the trial fundamentally unfair.” Id., at 293. The dissenting judge argued that the combination of the supplemental instruction to the jury and the polling of the jury as to the usefulness of further deliberations constituted improper coercion. Id., at 299-303.
II
Our review of petitioner’s contention that the jury was improperly coerced requires that we consider the supplemental charge given by the trial court “in its context and under all the circumstances.” Jenkins v. United States, 380 U. S. 445, 446 (1965) (per curiam). The use of a supplemental charge has long been sanctioned. Nearly a century ago in Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 492 (1896), this Court reviewed a charge similar but by no means identical to that given to the Louisiana jury here, and concluded that it was not reversible error even within the federal system. The defendant in that case had been sentenced to death by Judge Parker in the Western District of Arkansas, exercising a jurisdiction unique among federal courts. The judge’s charge is not set out verbatim in the opinion of this Court, but it differed from the charge given in the present case in that the Allen charge urged the minority to consider the views of the majority, and ask themselves whether their own views were reasonable under the circumstances. This Court upheld the conviction and sentence against the defendant’s claim of coercion, saying:
“The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror should not listen with deference to the arguments and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment; or, that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself.” Id., at 501-502.
The continuing validity of this Court’s observations in Allen are beyond dispute, and they apply with even greater force in a case such as this, where the charge given, in contrast to the so-called “traditional Allen charge,” does not speak specifically to the minority jurors. But in this case one of the purposes served by such a charge — the avoidance of the societal costs of a retrial — is not present because Louisiana law provides that if the jury hangs, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment. La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.8 (West 1984). Petitioner naturally urges that this difference makes the charge here impermissible under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment. The difference between the division of function between the jury and judge in this case and the division in Allen obviously weighs in the constitutional calculus, but we do not find it dis-positive. The State has in a capital sentencing proceeding a strong interest in having the jury “express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 519 (1968). Surely if the jury had returned from its deliberations after only one hour and informed the court that it had failed to achieve unanimity on the first ballot, the court would incontestably have had the authority to insist that they deliberate further. This is true even in capital cases such as this one and Allen, even though we are naturally mindful in such cases that the “qualitative difference between death and other penalties calls for a greater degree of reliability when the death sentence is imposed.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978).
Petitioner relies on this Court’s decision in Jenkins v. United States, supra, but we think that case affords him no help. There the jury had sent a note to the judge to the effect that it was unable to agree upon a verdict; the judge then gave additional instructions to the jury, in the course of which he said: “‘You have got to reach a decision in this case.’” Id., at 446. This Court concluded that “in its context and under all the circumstances the judge’s statement had the coercive effect attributed to it.” Ibid. The difference between the language used there and the language used in the present case is sufficiently obvious to show the fallacy of petitioner’s reliance. The same is true of the colloquy between the judge and the foreman of the jury in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 459 (1978), upon which petitioner also relies.
Petitioner argues, however, that the coercive effect of the supplemental charge was exacerbated by inquiries made to the jury by the trial court. In Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448 (1926), the trial court had, after deliberations stalled, inquired as to how the jury was divided, and was informed simply that the jury stood nine to three. The jury resumed deliberations and subsequently found the defendants guilty. This Court concluded that the inquiry into the jury’s numerical division necessitated reversal because it was generally coercive and almost always brought to bear “in some degree, serious although not measurable, an improper influence upon the jury.” Id., at 450. Although the decision in Brasfield was an exercise of this Court’s supervisory powers, it is nonetheless instructive as to the potential dangers of jury polling.
Petitioner’s attempt to fit the instant facts within the holding of Brasfield is, however, unavailing. Here the inquiry as to the numerical division of the jury was not as to how they stood on the merits of the verdict, but how they stood on the question of whether further deliberations might assist them in returning a verdict. There is no reason why those who may have been in the minority on the merits would necessarily conclude that further deliberation would not be helpful, or that those in the majority would necessarily conclude otherwise. The two questions are clearly independent of one another. We believe the type of question asked by the trial court in this case is exactly what the Court in Brasfield implicitly approved when it stated: “[An inquiry as to numerical division] serves no useful purpose that cannot be attained by questions not requiring the jury to reveal the nature or extent of its division.” Ibid.
We are mindful that the jury returned with its verdict soon after receiving the supplemental instruction, and that this suggests the possibility of coercion. United States Gypsum Co., supra, at 462. We note, however, that defense counsel did not object to either the polls or the supplemental instruction. We do not suggest that petitioner thereby waived this issue, Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412, 431, n. 11 (1985), but we think such an omission indicates that the potential for coercion argued now was not apparent to one on the spot. Id., at 430-431, and n. 11.
We hold that on these facts the combination of the polling of the jury and the supplemental instruction was not “coercive” in such a way as to deny petitioner any constitutional right. By so holding we do not mean to be understood as saying other combinations of supplemental charges and polling might not require a different conclusion. Any criminal defendant, and especially any capital defendant, being tried by a jury is entitled to the uncoerced verdict of that body. For the reasons stated we hold there was no coercion here.
Ill
Petitioner advances as a second ground for vacating his sentence of death that the sole aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the sentencing phase was identical to an element of the capital crime of which he was convicted. Petitioner urges that this overlap left the jury at the sentencing phase free merely to repeat one of its findings in the guilt phase, and thus not to narrow further in the sentencing phase the class of death-eligible murderers. Upon consideration of the Louisiana capital punishment scheme in the light of the decisions of this Court we reject this argument.
Louisiana has established five grades of homicide: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and vehicular homicide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:29 (West 1986). Second-degree murder includes intentional murder and felony murder, and provides for punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. §14:30.1. Louisiana defines first-degree murder to include a narrower class of homicides:
“First degree murder is the killing of a human being:
“(1) When the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated escape, aggravated arson, aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, armed robbery, or simple robbery;
“(2) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a fireman or peace officer engaged in the performance of his lawful duties;
“(3) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person; or
“(4) When the offender has specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm and has offered, has been offered, has given, or has received anything of value for the killing.
“(5) When the offender has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a victim under the age of twelve years.” § 14:30A.
An individual found guilty of first-degree murder is sentenced by the same jury in a separate proceeding to either death or life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. § 14:30C. “A sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance exists and, after consideration of any mitigating circumstances, recommends that the sentence of death be imposed.” La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.3 (West 1984). Louisiana has established 10 statutory aggravating circumstances. Art. 905.4. If the jury returns a sentence of death, the sentence is automatically reviewable for excessiveness by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Art. 905.9.
Petitioner was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder under § 14.30. A.(3): “[T]he offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.” The sole aggravating circumstance both found by the jury and upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court was that “the offender knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person.” Art. 905.4(d). In these circumstances, these two provisions are interpreted in a “parallel fashion” under Louisiana law. See State v. Williams, 480 So. 2d 721, 726-727 (La. 1985). Petitioner’s argument that the parallel nature of these provisions requires that his sentences be set aside rests on a mistaken premise as to the necessary role of aggravating circumstances.
To pass constitutional muster, a capital sentencing scheme must “genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.” Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 877 (1983); cf. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976). Under the capital sentencing laws of most States, the jury is required during the sentencing phase to find at least one aggravating circumstance before it may impose death. Id., at 162-164 (reviewing Georgia sentencing scheme); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 247-250 (1976) (reviewing Florida sentencing scheme). By doing so, the jury narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty according to an objective legislative definition. Zant, supra, at 878 (“[Statutory aggravating circumstances play a constitutionally necessary function at the stage of legislative definition: they circumscribe the class of persons eligible for the death penalty”).
In Zant v. Stephens, supra, we upheld a sentence of death imposed pursuant to the Georgia capital sentencing statute, under which “the finding of an aggravating circumstance does not play any role in guiding the sentencing body in the exercise of its discretion, apart from its function of narrowing the class of persons convicted of murder who are eligible for the death penalty.” Id., at 874. We found no constitutional deficiency in that scheme because the aggravating circumstances did all that the Constitution requires.
The use of “aggravating circumstances” is not an end in itself, but a means of genuinely narrowing the class of death-eligible persons and thereby channeling the jury’s discretion. We see no reason why this narrowing function may not be performed by jury findings at either the sentencing phase of the trial or the guilt phase. Our opinion in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976), establishes this point. The Jurek Court upheld the Texas death penalty statute, which, like the Louisiana statute, narrowly defined the categories of murders for which a death sentence could be imposed. If the jury found the defendant guilty of such a murder, it was required to impose death so long as it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s acts were deliberate, the defendant would probably constitute a continuing threat to society, and, if raised by the evidence, the defendant’s acts were an unreasonable response to the victim’s provocation. Id., at 269. We concluded that the latter three elements allowed the jury to consider the mitigating aspects of the crime and the unique characteristics of the perpetrator, and therefore sufficiently provided for jury discretion. Id., at 271-274. But the opinion announcing the judgment noted the difference between the Texas scheme, on the one hand, and the Georgia and Florida schemes discussed in the cases of Gregg, supra, and Proffitt, supra:
‘While Texas has not adopted a list of statutory aggravating circumstances the existence of which can justify the imposition of the death penalty as have Georgia and Florida, its action in narrowing the categories of murders for which a death sentence may ever be imposed serves much the same purpose. ... In fact, each of the five classes of murders made capital by the Texas statute is encompassed in Georgia and Florida by one or more of their statutory aggravating circumstances. . . . Thus, in essence, the Texas statute requires that the jury find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance before the death penalty may be imposed. So far as consideration of aggravating circumstances is concerned, therefore, the principal difference between Texas and the other two States is that the death penalty is an available sentencing option — even potentially — for a smaller class of murders in Texas.” 428 U. S., at 270-271 (citations omitted).
It seems clear to us from this discussion that the narrowing function required for a regime of capital punishment may be provided in either of these two ways: The legislature may itself narrow the definition of capital offenses, as Texas and Louisiana have done, so that the jury finding of guilt responds to this concern, or the legislature may more broadly define capital offenses and provide for narrowing by jury findings of aggravating circumstances at the penalty phase. See also Zant, supra, at 876, n. 13, discussing Jurek and concluding: “[I]n Texas, aggravating and mitigating circumstances were not considered at the same stage of the criminal prosecution.”
Here, the “narrowing function” was performed by the jury at the guilt phase when it found defendant guilty of three counts of murder under the provision that “the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.” The fact that the sentencing jury is also required to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance in addition is no part of the constitutionally required narrowing process, and so the fact that the aggravating circumstance duplicated one of the elements of the crime does not make this sentence constitutionally infirm. There is no question but that the Louisiana scheme narrows the class of death-eligible murderers and then at the sentencing phase allows for the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the exercise of discretion. The Constitution requires no more.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is accordingly
Affirmed.
Justice Stevens joins Part III of this opinion, except for the last sentence.
All of the Federal Courts of Appeals have upheld some form of a supplemental jury charge. See United States v. Angiulo, 485 F. 2d 37 (CA1 1973); United States v. Burke, 700 F. 2d 70, 80 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 816 (1983); United States v. Fioravanti, 412 F. 2d 407, 414-420 (CA3), cert. denied sub nom. Panaccione v. United States, 396 U. S. 837 (1969); United States v. Sawyers, 423 F. 2d 1335 (CA4 1970); United States v. Kelly, 783 F. 2d 575, 576-577 (CA5), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 889 (1986); United States v. Scott, 547 F. 2d 334 (CA6 1977); United States v. Silvern, 484 F. 2d 879 (CA7 1973) (en banc); Potter v. United States, 691 F. 2d 1275 (CA8 1982); United States v. Bonam, 772 F. 2d 1449, 1450 (CA9 1985); United States v. McKinney, 822 F. 2d 946 (CA10 1987); United States v. Rey, 811 F. 2d 1453 (CA11), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 830 (1987); United States v. Thomas, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 101, 449 F. 2d 1177 (1971) (en banc).
We note that our ruling in Jenkins v. United States was based on our supervisory power over the federal courts, cf. United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171, 180, n. 7 (1975), and not on constitutional grounds. The Jenkins Court cited no provision of the Constitution, but rather relied upon other cases involving the exercise of supervisory powers. 380 U. S., at 446.
Our decision in Brasfield makes no mention of the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional provision. The Federal Courts of Appeals have uniformly rejected the notion that Brasfield’s per se reversal approach must be followed when reviewing state proceedings on habeas corpus. E. g., Williams v. Parke, 741 F. 2d 847, 851 (CA6 1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1029 (1985); Locks v. Sumner, 703 F. 2d 403, 405-407 (CA9), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 933 (1983).
The mistrial motions referred to by the dissent, post, at 254, n. 3, were unrelated to the actions of the trial court — the polls and the supplemental instruction — that now form the core of petitioner’s argument and the dissent’s attack, and there is no reason defense counsel would have been dissuaded from objecting to these latter actions because of the unsuccessful mistrial motions.
“Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:
“(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or
“(2) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated escape, armed robbery, or simple robbery, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:30.1 (West 1986).
“The following shall be considered aggravating circumstances:
“(a) the offender was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson, aggravated escape, armed robbery, or simple robbery;
“(b) the victim was a fireman or peace officer engaged in his lawful duties;
“(c) the offender was previously convicted of an unrelated murder, aggravated rape, or aggravated kidnapping or has a significant prior history of criminal activity;
“(d) the offender knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person;
“(e) the offender offered or has been offered or has given or received anything of value for the commission of the offense;
“(f) the offender at the time of the commission of the offense was imprisoned after sentence for the commission of an unrelated forcible felony;
“(g) the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner; or
“(h) the victim was a witness in a prosecution against the defendant, gave material assistance to the state in any investigation or prosecution of the defendant, or was an eyewitness to a crime alleged to have been committed by the defendant or possessed other material evidence against the defendant.
“(i) the victim was a correctional officer or any other employee of the Louisiana Department of Corrections who, in the normal course of his employment was required to come in close contact with persons incarcerated in a state prison facility, and the victim was engaged in his lawful duties at the time of the offense.” La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.4 (West 1984).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, as amended, 80 Stat. 1139, 40 U. S. C. § 270a et seg., a prime contractor on a federal construction project involving over $2,000 must post a payment bond to protect those who have a direct contractual relationship with either the prime contractor or a “subcontractor.” The issue in this case is whether the term “subcontractor,” as used in the Act, encompasses a firm that is technically a “sub-subcontractor.”
The material facts are not in dispute. Petitioner J. W. Bateson Co. entered into a contract with the United States for construction of an addition to a hospital and provided a payment bond signed by Bateson’s president and by representatives of petitioner sureties. Bateson, the prime contractor, subcontracted with Pierce Associates for a portion of the original work, and Pierce in turn subcontracted with Colquitt Sprinkler Co. for the installation of a sprinkler system, one of the items specified in the contract between Bateson and the United States. Under a collective-bargaining agreement with respondent Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, Col-quitt was obligated to pay over amounts withheld from employees’ wages for union dues and vacation savings, and to contribute to the union’s welfare, pension, and educational trust funds. When Colquitt failed to make any of these payments by the end of the union members’ employment with the firm, the union and respondent trustees notified Bateson of the amount that they claimed was due them under the payment bond and then filed suit against Bateson in the name of the United States.
The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 325, 551 F. 2d 1284 (1977). The appellate court recognized that Colquitt, which had a contractual relationship with Pierce but not with Bateson, was “technically a sub-subcontractor,” but it concluded nevertheless that Colquitt should be considered a “subcontractor” for purposes of payment bond recovery by its employees or their representatives. Id., at 327, 551 F. 2d, at 1286. Applying a functional test based on the “substan-tiality] and importan [ce]” of the relationship between Bateson and Colquitt, the court noted that Colquitt was performing on the jobsite “an integral and significant part of [Bateson’s] contract” with the Government, that the work “was performed over a substantial period of time,” that Bate-son had access to Colquitt’s payroll records, and that Bateson could have protected itself “through bond or otherwise” against Colquitt’s default. Ibid., 551 F. 2d, at 1286.
We granted certiorari, 433 U. S. 907 (1977), to resolve a conflict between the decision below and the holdings of at least three other Circuits. We now reverse.
Like the predecessor Heard Act, Act of Aug. 13, 1894, ch. 280, 28 Stat. 278, as amended, Act of Feb. 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, the Miller Act was designed to provide an alternative remedy to the mechanics’ liens ordinarily available on private construction projects. F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U. S. 116, 122 (1974). Because “a lien cannot attach to Government property,” persons supplying labor or materials on a federal construction project were to be protected by a payment bond. Id., at 121-122. The scope of the Miller Act’s protection is limited, however, by a proviso in § 2 (a) of the Act that “had no counterpart in the Heard Act.” Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102, 107 (1944). This proviso has the effect of requiring that persons who lack a “contractual relationship express or implied with the [prime] contractor” show a “direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor” in order to recover on the bond. 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a); see F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., supra, at 122; Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., supra, at 107-108. In the instant case it is conceded that Colquitt's employees enjoyed no contractual relationship, “express or implied,” with Bateson, and that they did have a “direct contractual relationship” with Colquitt. The question before us, then, is whether Colquitt can be considered a “subcontractor.”
As we observed in Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., supra, Congress used the word “subcontractor” in the Miller Act in accordance with “usage in the building trades.” 322 U. S., at 108-109; see id., at 110. In the building trades,
“a subcontractor is one who performs for and takes from the prime contractor a specific part of the labor or material requirements of the original contract . . . .” Id., at 109 (emphasis added).
It thus appears that a contract with a prime contractor is a prerequisite to being a “subcontractor.”
This interpretation of the Act’s language is confirmed by the legislative history, which leaves no room for doubt about Congress’ intent. While relatively brief, the authoritative Committee Reports of both the House of Representatives and the Senate squarely focus on the question at issue here:
“A sub-subcontractor may avail himself of the protection of the bond by giving written notice to the contractor, but that is as far as the bill goes. It is not felt that more remote relationships ought to come within the purview of the bond.” H. R. Rep. No. 1263, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1935); S. Rep. No. 1238, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1935).
This passage indicates both that Congress understood the difference between “sub-subcontractors” like Colquitt and “subcontractors” like Pierce, and that it intended the scope of protection of a payment bond to extend no further than to sub-subcontractors. See MacEvoy, 322 U. S., at 107-108, and n. 5. There is nothing to the contrary anywhere in the legislative history. Thus, while Colquitt could have claimed against the payment bond had Pierce defaulted in its obligations , the employees of Colquitt were not similarly protected against Colquitt’s default, because they did not have a contractual relationship with Pierce or any other “subcontractor.”
This view of what was intended in the Miller Act is reinforced by the fact that all reported decisions that have considered the question, except that of the court below and one early District Court decision, have reached the same conclusion. Presumably aware of this well-settled body of law dating back almost 20 years, Congress has never moved to modify the Act’s coverage. As a result, all of those concerned with Government projects — prime contractors, sureties, various levels of subcontractors and their employees — have been led to assume that the employees of a sub-subcontractor would not be protected by the Miller Act payment bond and to order their affairs accordingly. In the absence of some clear indication to the contrary, we should not defeat these reasonable expectations, particularly in view of the importance of certainty with regard to bonding practices on Government construction projects. See generally MacEvoy, supra, at 110-111.
In reaching a result contrary to that of other Courts of Appeals, the court below did not address itself either to the legislative history quoted above or to the conflict among the Circuits that its ruling created. Instead, it focused primarily on the substantiality and importance of the relationship between Colquitt and Bateson, see supra, at 588, relying for this approach on our decisions in MacEvoy and F. D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co. While those cases did involve the scope of the term “subcontractor” in the § 2 (a) proviso, they arose in situations in which the firm at issue, unlike Colquitt, had a direct contractual relationship with the prime contractor. The question in both cases was whether a supplier of materials to the prime contractor could be considered a “subcontractor,” and on this question an absence of dispositive statutory language and legislative history led the Court ultimately to look to “functional” considerations. 417 U. S., at 123-124; see 322 U. S., at 110-111. In the instant case, by contrast, the traditional tools of statutory construction provide a definitive answer to the question before us, and hence it would be inappropriate to utilize the approach relied on by the Court of Appeals.
In concluding that the word “subcontractor” must be limited in meaning to one who contracts with a prime contractor, we are not unmindful of our obligation to construe the “highly remedial” Miller Act “liberal [ly] ... in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.” MacEvoy, supra, at 107. As we wrote in MacEvoy, however, “such a salutary policy does not justify ignoring plain words of limitation and imposing wholesale liability on payment bonds. . . . [W]e cannot disregard the limitations on liability which Congress intended to impose and did impose in the proviso of § 2 (a).” 322 U. S., at 107. It was Congress that drew a line between sub-subcontractors and those in “more remote relationships” to the prime contractor. H. R. Rep. No. 1263, supra, at 3; S. Rep. No. 1238, supra, at 2; MacEvoy, supra, at 108; Rich, 417 U. S., at 122. If the scope of protection afforded by a Miller Act payment bond is to be extended, it is Congress that must make the change.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The right of trustees of union trust funds to assert a claim against a Miller Act payment bond on behalf of employees was established in United States ex rel. Sherman v. Carter, 353 U. S. 210, 218-220 (1957). That case also held that amounts which the employer agreed to contribute to union trust funds could be recovered by the employees or their representatives under the payment bond. See id., at 217-218.
United States ex rel. Powers Regulator Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 376 F. 2d 811 (CA1 1967); United States ex rel. W. J. Halloran Steel Erection Co. v. Frederick Raff Co., 271 F. 2d 415 (CA1 1959); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Harris, 360 F. 2d 402, 407-409 (CA9 1966); Elmer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 275 F. 2d 89 (CA5), cert. denied, 363 U. S. 843 (1960). See also United States ex rel. DuKane Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 422 F. 2d 597, 599-600, and n. 4 (CA4 1970).
Section 2 (a) of the Miller Act, as set forth in 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a), provides in full:
“Every person who has furnished labor or material in the prosecution of the work provided for in [the] contract, in respect of which a payment bond is furnished under section 270a of this title and who has not been paid in full therefor before the expiration of a period of ninety days after the day on which the last of the labor was done or performed by him or material was furnished or supplied by him for which such claim is made, shall have the right to sue on such payment bond for the amount, or the balance thereof, unpaid at the time of institution of such suit and to prosecute said action to final execution and judgment for the sum or sums justly due him: Provided, however, That any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship express or implied with the contractor furnishing said payment bond shall have a right of action upon the said payment bond upon giving written notice to said contractor within ninety days from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which such claim is made, stating with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. Such notice shall be served by mailing the same by registered mail, postage prepaid, in an envelop [e] addressed to the contractor at any place he maintains an office or conducts his business, or his residence, or in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated is authorized by law to serve summons.”
The structure of the § 2 (a) proviso as it relates to notice lends further support to this view. Under the proviso, those having a claim against a “subcontractor” must give written notice to the prime contractor within 90 days of completing work on the job in order to recover against the payment bond. 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a); see n. 3, supra. This requirement “permits the prime contractor, after waiting ninety days, safely to pay his subcontractors without fear of additional liability to sub-subcontractors or materialmen.” United States ex rel. Munroe-Lang-Stroth, Inc. v. Fraught, 270 F. 2d 235, 238 (CA1 1959). The notice provision thus prevents both “double payments” by prime contractors and the alternative of “interminable delay in settlements between contractors and subcontractors.” United States ex rel. J. A. Edwards & Co. v. Thompson Construction Corp., 273 F. 2d 873, 875-876 (CA2 1959), cert. denied, 362 U. S. 951 (1960).
If the term “subcontractor” in the proviso had been meant to include sub-subcontractors like Colquitt, it seems likely that notice would have been required, not only to the prime contractor, but also to intermediate subcontractors like Pierce. The prime contractor or his surety, while having initial responsibility for payment of the claimant, would probably in turn either withhold that amount from, or file a claim against, a bond or indemnity furnished by, the intermediate subcontractor. (Here, for example, it appears that Pierce had agreed to indemnify Bateson against such losses. Brief for Petitioners 18 n. 15.) Hence notice to the intermediate subcontractor would serve the same purpose as does notice to the prime contractor: prevention of double payments (e. g., Pierce making full payment to Colquitt, then having to indemnify Bateson for amounts owed by Colquitt to its employees) or delayed settlements.
We note that Colquitt’s employees also would not have been protected under the mechanic’s lien statutes of many States. See supra, at 589. While these statutes have always varied widely, it appears that a large number of States, including some of the most commercially significant States, have restricted mechanics’ liens to persons dealing directly with the prime contractor or with a subcontractor who dealt with the prime contractor. See, e. g., Battista v. Horton, Myers & Raymond, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 3, 128 F. 2d 29, 31 (1942) (District of Columbia mechanic’s lien statute); Wynkoop v. People, 1 App. Div. 2d 620, 153 N. Y. S. 2d 836 (1956), summarily aff’d, 4 N. Y. 2d 892, 150 N. E. 2d 771 (1958) (New York statute restricting mechanics’ liens to those “performing labor for or furnishing materials to a contractor [or] his subcontractor”). See generally Note, Mechanics’ Liens and Surety Bonds in the Building Trades, 68 Yale L. J. 138, 147-148 (1958).
See cases cited in n. 2, supra; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Southern, Waldrip & Harvick, 198 F. Supp. 505 (ND Cal. 1961); United States ex rel. Whitmore Oxygen Co. v. Idaho Crane & Rigging Co., 193 F. Supp. 802 (Idaho 1961); United States ex rel. Jonathan Handy Co. v. Deschenes Construction Co., 188 F. Supp. 270 (Mass. 1960); United States ex rel. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Blount Bros. Construction Co., 168 F. Supp. 407 (Md. 1958). Contra, McGregor Architectural Iron Co. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp., 150 F. Supp. 323 (MD Pa. 1957). See also H. Cohen, Public Construction Contracts and the Law § 7.9, p. 208 (1961); 8 J. McBride & I. Wachtel, Government Contracts §49.320 [2] (1977); R. Shealey, Law of Government Contracts § 143A, p. 187 (3d ed. 1938); Forster & DeBenedictis, Construction Contracts in Government Contracts Practice § 14.13, pp. 683-684 (1964); Stickells, Bonds of Contractors on Federal Public Works: The Miller Act, 36 B. U. L. Rev. 499, 512-516 (1956); Note, supra, n. 5, at 164.
In the instant case, it appears that all of the affected parties arranged their affairs on the assumption that Colquitt’s employees would not be covered by the payment bond. Bateson required an indemnity agreement from Pierce, Brief for Petitioners 18 n. 15, doubtless in part to protect Bateson from claims against the payment bond made by those contracting with Pierce. But Pierce did not require a similar agreement from Col-quitt, ibid., presumably because Pierce did not think that Colquitt’s employees, on Colquitt’s default, would have recourse against Bateson’s payment bond. Finally, the agreement between Colquitt and the union contained a provision, which the union ultimately chose not to* enforce, requiring Colquitt to post a bond to guarantee the various payments that it was required to make to the union and its trust funds. App. 13; see id., at 49 (affidavit of union trustee).
In MacEvoy we held that a firm which had merely supplied materials to the prime contractor could not be considered a “subcontractor.” In Rich we concluded that a firm which had contracted with the prime contractor both to install certain items in a housing project and to supply materials for the project was a “subcontractor.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Chief Justice Warren and Mr. Justice Brennan join.
This case involves the constitutionality of a 1967 Louisiana statute, known as Act No. 2, which creates a body called the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§23:880.1-23:880.18 (Supp. 1969). The stated purpose of this Commission is “the investigation and findings of facts relating to violations or possible violations of criminal laws of the state of Louisiana or of the United States arising out of or in connection with matters in the field of labor-management relations Act No. 2, Preamble, [1967 Extra. Sess.] La. Acts 3. Appellant, a member of a labor union, filed this suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging the constitutionality of Act No. 2 and of certain actions taken by state officials in the administration of the Act and otherwise. He sought both declaratory and injunctive relief. A three-judge court was convened and that court ultimately granted appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 286 F. Supp. 537 (D. C. E. D. La. 1968). We noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We reverse.
Since the case was decided on a motion to dismiss, a rather detailed examination of the structure of the Act and of the allegations of the complaint is necessary.
I.
The impetus for the formation of the Commission was stated in the preamble of the Act. [1967 Extra. Sess.] La. Acts 2. It cited “unprecedented conditions” in the labor relations of the construction industry, and it particularly noted certain “allegations and accusations of violations of the state and federal criminal laws which should be thoroughly investigated in the public interest . . . Id,., at 3. The additional investigative facilities of the Commission were thought necessary to “supplement and assist the efforts and activities of the several district attorneys, grand juries and other law enforcement officials and agencies . . . Ibid.
The Commission is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.1 (Supp. 1969). It is empowered to act only upon referral by the Governor when, in his opinion, there is substantial indication that there are or may be “widespread or continuing violations of existing criminal laws” affecting labor-management relations. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.5 (Supp. 1969). Upon referral by the Governor, the Commission is to proceed by public hearing to ascertain the facts pertaining to the alleged violations. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.6 (Supp. 1969). In order to carry out this function, the Commission has the power to make appropriate rules and regulations, to employ attorneys, investigators, and other staff members, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them under oath, and to require the production of books, records, and other evidence. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.8 (Supp. 1969). It can enforce its orders by petition to the state courts for contempt proceedings. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.9 (Supp. 1969).
The scope of the Commission’s investigative authority is explicitly limited by the Act to violations of criminal laws. “The commission shall have no power, authority or jurisdiction to investigate, hold hearings or seek to ascertain the facts or make any reports or recommendations on any of the strictly civil aspects of any labor problem . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.6 B (Supp. 1969). Further, the Commission has no power to participate in any manner in any civil proceeding, except, of course, contempt proceedings. Ibid. The limitation of the Commission to criminal matters is further reinforced by the provision of the Act allowing the Commission, at the request of the Governor, to assign its investigatory forces to the state police to assist the latter in their investigatory activities. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.6 C (Supp. 1969).
The Commission is required to determine, in public findings, whether there is probable cause to believe violations of the criminal laws have occurred. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.7 A (Supp. 1969). Its power is limited to making these findings and recommendations:
“The commission shall have no authority to and it shall make no binding adjudication with respect to such violation or violations; however, it may, in its discretion, include in its findings the conclusions of the commission as to specific individuals . . . and it may make such recommendations for action to the governor as it deems appropriate.” Ibid.
The findings are to be a matter of public record, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.15 B (Supp. 1969), although they may not be used as prima facie or presumptive evidence of guilt or innocence in any court of law, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.7 A (Supp. 1969). The Commission is required to report its findings to the proper state or federal authorities if it finds there is probable cause to believe that violations of the criminal laws have occurred, and it may file appropriate charges. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.7 B (Supp. 1969). Finally, the Commission may request the Governor to refer matters to the State Attorney General asking the latter to exercise his authority to cause criminal prosecutions to be instituted. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.7 D (Supp. 1969). Nothing in the Act makes any provision for preparation of findings or reports for submission to the Governor or the legislature for the explicit purpose of legislative action. Indeed, the preamble of the Act and the Act itself make it clear that the purpose of the Commission is to supplement the activities of the State’s law enforcement agencies in one narrowly defined area.
As indicated above, the Commission has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. A witness is given notice of the general subject matter of the investigation before being asked to appear and testify. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.10A (Supp. 1969). A witness has the right to the presence and advice of counsel, “subject to such reasonable limitations as the commission may impose in order to prevent obstruction of or interference with the orderly conduct of the hearing.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.10 B (Supp. 1969). Counsel may question his client as to any relevant matters, ibid., but the right of a witness or his counsel to examine other witnesses is limited:
“In no event shall counsel for any witness have any right to examine or cross-examine any other witness but he may submit to the commission proposed questions to be asked of any other witness appearing before the commission, and the commission shall ask the witness such of the questions as it deems to be appropriate to its inquiry.” Ibid.
With one limited exception to be discussed below, neither a witness nor any other private party has the right to call anyone to testify before the Commission.
Although the Commission must base its findings and reports only on evidence and testimony given at public hearings, the Act does provide for executive session when it appears that the testimony to be given “may tend to degrade, defame or incriminate any person.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.12A (Supp. 1969). In executive session the Commission must allow the person who might be degraded, defamed, or incriminated an opportunity to appear and be heard, and to call a reasonable number of witnesses on his behalf. Ibid. However, the Commission may decide that the evidence or testimony shall be heard in a public hearing, regardless of its effect on any particular person. Ibid. In that case, the person affected has the right to appear as a “voluntary witness” and may submit “pertinent” statements of others. Ibid. He may submit a list of additional witnesses, but subpoenas will be issued only in the discretion of the Commission. Ibid.; see also La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:880.12 C (Supp. 1969).
II.
Appellant’s complaint named as defendants the Governor of Louisiana and six members of the Commission. The complaint presented, inter alia, the question of whether the provisions of Act No. 2 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant alleged that the Commission was an executive trial agency “aimed at conducting public trials concerning criminal law violations,” and that its function was publicly to condemn. Appellant asserted that the defendants
“in connection with the administration of the provisions of said Act, have singled out complainant and members of Teamsters Local No. 5 as a special class of persons for repressive and willfully punitive action ... in furtherance of which a deliberate effort has been made and continues to be made by said officials ... to destroy the current power structure of the labor union aforesaid'. . . .”
More specifically, the complaint alleged that appellees and their agents, acting under color of law and in conspiracy, procured false statements of criminal activities and used such statements to initiate baseless criminal proceedings against appellant, that they intimidated and coerced public officials into filing and prosecuting false criminal charges against appellant, and that they knowingly, willfully, and purposefully intimidated state court judges having under consideration legal controversies involving appellant. These acts of appellees allegedly deprived appellant and all others similarly situated of “rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Finally, appellant alleged that the appellees intended to continue to deprive him and others of their rights and that there was no “plain, adequate or efficient remedy at law.”
Appellant prayed that a three-judge district court be convened, that a temporary restraining order issue, that Act No. 2 be declared unconstitutional, that all civil and criminal actions against appellant be permanently restrained, and that other unspecified relief be granted.
Temporary relief was denied by the District Court and a three-judge court was impanelled to hear the case. Appellees answered and moved to dismiss. They alleged that appellant lacked standing to question the constitutionality of Act No. 2 and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Thereafter, appellant filed a “Supplemental and Amending Petition” in which he alleged, in some detail, that appellees had continued the course of action described in the original complaint. After a hearing, the court dismissed the complaint. Jenkins v. McKeithen, supra.
The court, relying largely on the opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Martone v. Morgan, 251 La. 993, 207 So. 2d 770, appeal dismissed, 393 U. S. 12 (1968) (petition for rehearing pending), held that this Court’s decision in Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420 (1960), was dispositive of the issue of the constitutionality of the Act. The court further ruled that appellant had not stated any other claim for relief under §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988 of Title 42, United States Code. Rather, the court held that the other matters sought to be raised in the complaint were merely potential defenses to the pending criminal charges and that appellant had not alleged any basis for restraining prosecution of those charges. Finally, the court ruled that appellant’s suit was not a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did not explicitly rule on the issue of whether appellant lacked standing to challenge the Act.
Appellant presents two questions for review in this Court: Whether Act No. 2 is constitutional and whether the complaint otherwise states a cause of action under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988.
III.
We are met at the outset with appellees’ assertion that appellant lacks standing to attack the constitutionality of Act No. 2. This argument is based in part upon certain allegations in the complaint that Act No. 2 is unconstitutional because it denies to “a person compelled to appear before . . . [the] Commission” the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right of confrontation, and the right to compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses. Since appellant did not allege in his complaint that he was called to appear before the Commission or that he expected to be called, appellees assert that he lacks standing to assert the denial of rights to those who do appear. See, e. g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44 (1943). Further, appellees argue that appellant lacks standing because he cannot demonstrate that he has been, or will be, “injured” by the operation of the challenged statute. We cannot agree.
The present case was decided on appellees’ motion to dismiss, in which appellees contested appellant’s standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. As noted above, the court below made no explicit reference to the issue of standing. But since the question of standing goes to this Court’s jurisdiction, see Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 94-101 (1968), we must decide the issue even though the court below passed over it without comment. Cf. Tileston v. Ullman, supra.
For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted. See, e. g., Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 174-175 (1965). And, the complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8 (f): Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957). The complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that appellant could “prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, supra, at 45-46. With these rules in mind, we turn to an examination of the allegations of appellant’s complaint.
It is true, as appellees assert, that appellant alleges deprivations of rights of those who are or will be called to testify before the Commission and that he fails to allege that he was or will be called to testify. If this were the extent of appellant’s allegations, we would agree that appellant lacks standing to challenge the Act. However, appellant’s allegations are not limited to those mentioned by appellees. Appellant alleged that the Commission was an “executive trial agency” whose function was to conduct public trials designed to find appellant and others guilty of violations of criminal laws, allegedly for the purpose of injuring him and destroying the labor union of which he was a member. More specifically, appellant alleged that
“said Commission of Inquiry exercises (a) an accusatory function, (b) its duty to find that named individuals are responsible for criminal law violations, (c) it must advertise such findings, and (d) its findings serve as part of the process of criminal prosecution . . . .”
Finally, the complaint alleged that the appellees, acting in concert with others and in connection with the administration of the Act, have actually engaged in a course of conduct designed publicly to brand appellant and others as criminals, including, as noted above, the filing of allegedly baseless criminal charges against appellant.
Thus, although the complaint is inartfully drawn, it does allege that the Commission and those acting in concert with it have taken and will take in the future certain actions with respect to appellant. The issue is thus whether those allegations are sufficient to give appellant standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act creating the Commission and the actions taken by the Commission under authority of that Act. We think that they are.
The concept of standing to sue, as we noted in Flast v. Cohen, supra, “is surrounded by the same complexities and vagaries that inhere in [the concept of] justiciability” in general. 392 U. S., at 98. Nevertheless, the outlines of the concept can be stated with some certainty. The indispensable requirement is, of course, that the party seeking relief allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions . . . .” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962); see Flast v. Cohen, supra; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341U. S. 123, 151 (1951) (concurring opinion). In this sense, the concept of standing focuses on the party seeking relief, rather than on the precise nature of the relief sought. See Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 99-100. The decisions of this Court have also made it clear that something more than an “adversary interest” is necessary to confer standing. There must in addition be some connection between the official action challenged and some legally protected interest of the party challenging that action. See Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 101-106.
In the present case, it is clear that appellant possesses sufficient adversary interest to insure proper presentation of issues facing the court. His allegations, if taken as true, indicate that the Commission and those acting in concert with it have carried out a series of public acts designed to injure him in various ways. Appellant’s interest in his own reputation and in his economic well-being guarantee that the present proceeding will be an adversary one.
We also think that appellant has alleged that the Act’s administration was the direct cause of sufficient injury to his own legally protected interests to accord him standing to challenge the validity of the Act. We are not presented with a case in which any injury to appellant is merely a collateral consequence of the actions of an investigative body. See Hannah v. Larche, supra, at 443; cf. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 295 (1929); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135, 179-180 (1927). Rather, it is alleged that the very purpose of the Commission is to find persons guilty of violating criminal laws without trial or procedural safeguards, and to publicize those findings. Moreover, we think that the personal and economic consequences alleged to flow from such actions are sufficient to meet the requirement that appellant prove a legally redressable injury. Those consequences would certainly be actionable if caused by a private party and thus should be sufficient to accord appellant standing. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 493, n. 22 (1959); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, supra, at 140-141 (opinion of Burton, J.); id., at 151-160 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). It is no answer that the Commission has not itself tried to impose any direct sanctions on appellant; it is enough that the Commission’s alleged actions will have a substantial impact on him. See, e. g., Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States, 316 U. S. 407 (1942); cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 460-463 (1958). Finally, in the circumstances of the present case, we do not regard appellant’s opportunity to defend any criminal prosecutions as sufficient to deprive him of standing to challenge the Act. Cf. United States v. Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co., 273 U. S. 299 (1927). Appellant’s allegations go beyond the normal publicity attending criminal prosecution; he alleges a concerted attempt publicly to brand him a criminal without a trial. Further, he alleges that he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to secure prosecution of the charges against him.
We hold that appellant’s complaint contains sufficient allegations of direct and substantial injury to his own legally protected interests to accord him standing to challenge the constitutionality of Act No. 2.
IV.
We thus reach the merits of appellant’s contention that Act No. 2 is unconstitutional. Appellant’s complaint is long and inartfully drawn; it contains many allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Commission and other state officials. But the only issue presented by this aspect of the case is whether the Act creating the Commission is constitutional, either on its face or as applied. Many of appellant’s allegations are relevant to this latter contention, but many involve issues that the court below ruled were properly matters to be raised in defense,' of any criminal prosecutions which might take place. We will deal with those allegations in the final section of this opinion.
Appellees, like the court below, rely heavily on this Court’s decision in Hannah v. Larche, supra. In Hannah, this Court upheld the Civil Rights Commission against challenges similar to those involved in the present case. Indeed, Act No. 2 was drafted with Hannah in mind and the structure and powers of the Commission here are similar to those of the Civil Rights Commission. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 286 F. Supp., at 540; Martone v. Morgan, supra. We cannot agree, however, that Hannah controls the present case, for we think that there are crucial differences between the issues presented by this complaint and the issues in Hannah.
The appellants in Hannah were persons subpoenaed to appear before the Civil Rights Commission in connection with complaints about deprivations of voting rights. They objected to the Civil Rights Commission’s rules about nondisclosure of the complainants and about limitations on the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. This Court ruled that the Commission’s rules were consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court noted that
“ ‘[d]ue process’ is an elusive concept. Its exact boundaries are undefinable, and its content varies according to specific factual contexts. . . . Whether the Constitution requires that a particular right obtain in a specific proceeding depends upon a complexity of factors. The nature of the alleged right involved, the nature of the proceeding, and the possible burden on that proceeding, are all considerations which must be taken into account.” 363 U. S., at 442.
In rejecting appellants’ challenge to the Civil Rights Commission’s procedures, the Court placed great emphasis on the investigatory function of the Commission:
“[I]ts function is purely investigative and fact-finding. It does not adjudicate. It does not hold trials or determine anyone’s civil or criminal liability. It does not issue orders. Nor does it indict, punish, or impose any legal sanctions. It does not make determinations depriving anyone of his life, liberty, or property. In short, the Commission does not and cannot take any affirmative action which will affect an individual’s legal rights. The only purpose of its existence is to find facts which may subsequently be used as the basis for legislative or executive action.” 363 U. S., at 441.
The Court noted that any adverse consequences to those being investigated, such as subjecting them to public opprobrium, were purely conjectural, and, in any case, were merely collateral and “not . . . the result of any affirmative determinations made by the Commission . . . 363 U. S., at 443. Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1 (1938), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, supra, and Greene v. McElroy, supra, were distinguished on the ground that “[t]hose cases ... involved . . . determinations in the nature of adjudications affecting legal rights.” 363 U. S., at 451.
We reaffirm the decision in Hannah. In our view, however, the Commission in the present case differs in a substantial respect from the Civil Rights Commission and the other examples cited by the Court in Hannah. It is true, as the Supreme Court of Louisiana has held, Martone v. Morgan, supra, that the Commission does not adjudicate in the sense that a court does, nor does the Commission conduct, strictly speaking, a criminal proceeding. Nevertheless, the Act, when analyzed in light of the allegations of the complaint, makes it clear that the Commission exercises a function very much akin to making an official adjudication of criminal culpability. See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, supra.
The Commission is limited to criminal law violations; the Act explicitly provides that the Commission shall have no jurisdiction over civil matters in the labor-management relations field. Indeed, the Commision is even limited to certain types of criminal activities. As noted above, nothing in the Act indicates that the Commission’s findings are to be used for legislative purposes. Rather, everything in the Act points to the fact that it is concerned only with exposing violations of criminal laws by specific individuals. In short, the Commission very clearly exercises an accusatory function; it is empowered to be used and allegedly is used to find named individuals guilty of violating the criminal laws of Louisiana and the United States and to brand them as criminals in public.
Given this view of the purpose of the Labor-Management Commission of Inquiry, we agree with Justice Frankfurter, concurring in the result in Hannah v. Larche:
“Were the [Civil Rights] Commission exercising an accusatory function, were its duty to find that named individuals were responsible for wrongful deprivation of voting rights and to advertise such finding or to serve as part of the process of criminal prosecution, the rigorous protections relevant to criminal prosecutions might well be the controlling starting point for assessing the protection which the Commission’s procedure provides.” 363 U. S., at 488.
When viewed from this perspective, it is clear the procedures of the Commission do not meet the minimal requirements made obligatory on the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Act severely limits the right of a person being investigated to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. Only a person appearing as a witness may cross-examine other witnesses. Cross-examination is further limited to those questions which the Commission “deems to be appropriate to its inquiry,” and those questions must be submitted, presumably beforehand, in writing to the Commission. We have frequently emphasized that the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of procedural due process. See, e. g., Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U. S. 96, 103-104 (1963); Greene v. McElroy, supra, at 496-499, and cases cited. In the present context, where the Commission allegedly makes an actual finding that a specific individual is guilty of a crime, we think that due process requires the Commission to afford a person being investigated the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, subject only to traditional limitations on those rights. Cf. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 (1965).
The Commission’s procedures also drastically limit the right of a person investigated to present evidence on his own behalf. It is true that he may appear and call a “reasonable number of witnesses” in executive session, but should the Commission decide to hold a public hearing, he is limited to presentation of his own testimony and the “pertinent” written statements of others. The right to present oral testimony from other witnesses and the power to compel attendance of those witnesses may be denied in the discretion of the Commission. The right to present evidence is, of course, essential to the fair hearing required by the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Morgan v. United States, supra, at 18; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 349, 368-369 (1936). And, as we have noted above, this right becomes particularly fundamental when the proceeding allegedly results in a finding that a particular individual was guilty of a crime. Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948). We do not mean to say that the Commission may not impose reasonable restrictions on the number of witnesses and on the substance of their testimony; we only hold that a person’s right to present his case should not be left to the unfettered discretion of the Commission.
Appellant argues that the procedures contemplated by the Act are deficient in other respects. In particular, he alleges that the Act provides no meaningful rules of evidence and fails to provide standards of guilt or innocence. He also alleges that the Act deprives him of effective assistance of counsel. We have, however, said enough to demonstrate that appellant has alleged a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Whether the Due Process Clause requires that the Commission provide all the procedural protections afforded a defendant in a criminal prosecution, or whether something less is sufficient, are questions that we think should be initially answered by the District Court on remand. As we have noted, “[w]hether the Constitution requires that a particular right obtain in a specific proceeding depends upon a complexity of factors.” Hannah v. Larche, supra, at 442. We think it inappropriate to rule on the extent to which the Commission’s procedures may run afoul of the Due Process Clause on the basis of the record before us, barren as it is of any established facts. That issue is best decided in the first instance by the District Court in light of the evidence adduced at trial.
We do not mean to say that this same analysis applies to every body which has an accusatory function. The grand jury, for example, need not provide all the procedural guarantees alleged by appellant to be applicable to the Commission. As this Court noted in Hannah, “the grand jury merely investigates and reports. It does not try.” 363 U. S., at 449. Moreover, “[t]he functions of that institution and its constitutional prerogatives are rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history.” Id., at 489-490 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in the result). Finally the grand jury is designed to interpose an independent body of citizens between the accused and the prosecuting attorney and the court. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 218 (1960); Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1, 11 (1887); Hannah v. Larche, supra, at 497-499 (dissenting opinion). Investigative bodies such as the Commission have no claim to specific constitutional sanction. In addition, the alleged function of the Commission is to make specific findings of guilt, not merely to investigate and recommend. Finally, it is clear from the Act and from the allegations of the complaint that the Commission is in no sense an “independent” body of citizens. Rather, its members serve at the pleasure of the Governor, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.1 (Supp. 1969), and it cannot act in the absence of a “referral” from the Governor, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§23:880.5, 23:880.6 A (Supp. 1969).
We also wish to emphasize that we do not hold that appellant is now entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief. We only hold that he has alleged a cause of action which may make such relief appropriate. It still remains for him to prove at trial that the Commission is designed to and does indeed act in the manner alleged in his complaint, and that its procedures fail to meet the requirements of due process.
Y.
As noted above, appellant also alleges in his complaint that appellees, and those acting in concert with them, have engaged in a course of conduct, both pursuant to the Act and otherwise, that has resulted in the filing of false criminal charges against appellant. He alleges numerous other related actions allegedly depriving him of his rights secured by the Constitution. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to these acts; in particular, appellant prays that the District Court enjoin all civil and criminal actions pending or to be instituted against him. To the extent that these allegations involve actions taken under the direct authority of Act No. 2, we think that they may properly be considered by the District Court in determining the constitutionality of the Act. However, the District Court characterized many of appellant’s allegations as involving merely potential defenses to the criminal charges assertedly pending. In the exercise of its discretion and because the issues were “intertwined” with the issue of the constitutionality of the Act, the court passed upon the question of whether appellant had alleged a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Relying in part on its determination that the Act was constitutional, the court held that appellant had not stated a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief and that appellant's remedy was to defend any criminal prosecutions then pending or that might be brought. Jenkins v. McKeithen, supra, 286 F. Supp., at 542-543. Whether the court will take the same view of the propriety of passing on the question or of the merits in light of our holding and the evidence adduced at trial cannot be determined at this time. Accordingly, we think that issue should be left open for reconsideration on remand.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 493-508 (1960).
The constitutionality of the Act was upheld in Martone v. Morgan, 251 La. 993, 207 So. 2d 770, appeal dismissed, 393 U. S. 12 (1968) (petition for rehearing pending).
“[I]ts power, authority or jurisdiction shall in no case extend to (1) any matter which is solely an ‘unfair labor practice’ or an ‘unfair employment practice’ or a legitimate labor dispute under the provisions of any federal or state law; or (2) any matter which relates to legitimate economic issues arising between labor and management or the manner in which such labor practices or economic issues are to be settled between the parties, whether by-negotiation, arbitration, lockout or strike; or (3) any matter which relates solely to the internal affairs of labor organizations, including but not necessarily restricted to membership policies, election procedures, membership rights and like matters; or (4) any alleged acts of violence or threats of violence or so-called 'mass picketing,’ or like conduct by either an employer or a union, which is not related to bribery or extortion, as defined by law, but which is related only to an organizational objective of a labor union or which is related only to furthering the interests of one side or the other in a ‘labor dispute,’ as that term is defined by federal or state law, such conduct being already regulated by and subject to the police power of the state, exercised through such agencies as the Division of State Police; or (5) any matter which relates solely to the internal affairs of any business organization, including but not necessarily restricted to its labor and business policy and general operations, or (6) any matters which constitute a combination of any two or more of these.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:880.6B (Supp. 1969).
Appellant does not assign this ruling as error on this appeal.
See n. 2, 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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Petitioner charged that he was being held in prison without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
We hold that the facts alleged are such as to entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Burger
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Powell joined.
We granted certiorari to consider a facial constitutional challenge to a requirement in a congressional spending program that, absent an administrative waiver, 10% of the federal funds granted for local public works projects must be used' by the state or local grantee to procure services or supplies from businesses owned and controlled by members of statutorily identified minority groups. 441 Ü. S. 960 (1979).
I
In May 1977, Congress enacted the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-28, 91 Stat. 116, which amended the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-369, 90 Stat. 999, 42 U. S. C. § 6701 et seg. The 1977 amendments authorized an additional $4 billion appropriation for federal grants to be made by the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Economic Development Administration (EDA), to state and local governmental entities for use in local public works projects. Among the changes made was the addition of the provision that has become the focus of this litigation. Section 103 (f) (2) of the 1977 Act, referred to as the “minority business enterprise” or “MBE” provision, requires that:
“Except to the extent that the Secretary determines otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘minority business enterprise’ means a business at least 50 per centum of which is owned by minority group members or, in case of a publicly owned business, at least 51 per centum of the stock of which is owned by minority group members. For the purposes of the preceding sentence, minority group members are citizens of the United States who are Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.”
In late May 1977, the Secretary promulgated regulations governing administration of the grant program which were amended two months later. In August. 1977, the EDA issued guidelines supplementing the statute and regulations with respect to minority business participation in local public works grants, and in October 1977, the EDA issued a technical bulletin promulgating detailed instructions and information to assist grantees and their contractors in meeting the 10% MBE requirement.
On November 30, 1977, petitioners filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the MBE provision. Named as defendants were the Secretary of Commerce, as the program administrator, and the State and City of New York, as actual and potential project grantees. Petitioners are several associations of construction contractors and subcontractors, and a firm engaged in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work. Their complaint alleged that they had sustained economic injury due to enforcement of the 10% MBE requirement and that the MBE provision on its face violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and various statutory antidiscrimination provisions.
After a hearing held the day the complaint was filed, the District Court denied a requested temporary restraining order and scheduled the matter for an expedited hearing on the merits. On December 19, 1977, the District Court issued a memorandum opinion upholding the validity of the MBE program and denying the injunctive relief sought. Fullilove v. Kreps, 443 F. Supp. 253 (1977).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 584 F. 2d 600 (1978), holding that “even under the most exacting standard of review the MBE provision passes constitutional muster.” Id., at 603. Considered in the context of many years of governmental efforts to remedy past racial and ethnic discrimination, the court found it “difficult to imagine” any purpose for the program other than to remedy such discrimination. Id., at 605. In its view, a number of factors contributed to the legitimacy of the MBE provision, most significant of which was the narrowed focus and limited extent of the statutory and administrative program, in size, impact, and duration, id., at 607-608; the court looked also to the holdings of other Courts of Appeals and District Courts that the MBE program was constitutional, id., at 608-609. It expressly rejected petitioners’ contention that the 10% MBE requirement violated the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. Id., at 609.
II
A
The MBE provision was enacted as part of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which made various amendments to Title I of the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976. The 1976 Act was intended as a short-term measure to alleviate the problem of national unemployment and to stimulate the national economy by assisting state and local governments to build needed public facilities. To accomplish these objectives, the Congress authorized the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the EDA, to make grants to state and local governments for construction, renovation, repair, or other improvement of local public works projects. The 1976 Act placed a number of restrictions on project eligibility designed to assure that federal moneys were targeted to accomplish the legislative purposes. It established criteria to determine grant priorities and to apportion federal funds among political jurisdictions. Those criteria directed grant funds toward areas of high unemployment. The statute authorized the appropriation of up to $2 billion for a period ending in September 1977; this appropriation was soon consumed by grants made under the program.
Early in 1977, Congress began consideration of expanded appropriations and amendments to the grant program. Under administration of the 1976 appropriation, referred to as “Round I” of the local public works program, applicants seeking some $25 billion in grants had competed for the $2 billion in available funds; of nearly 25,000 applications, only some 2,000 were granted. The results provoked widespread concern for the fairness of the allocation process. Because the 1977 Act would authorize the appropriation of an additional $4 billion to fund “Round II” of the grant program, the congressional hearings and debates concerning the amendments focused primarily on the politically sensitive problems of priority and geographic distribution of grants under the supplemental appropriation. The result of this attention was inclusion in the 1977 Act of provisions revising the allocation criteria of the 1976 legislation. Those provisions, however, retained the underlying objective to direct funds into areas of high unemployment. The 1977 Act also added new restrictions on applicants seeking to qualify for federal grants; among these was the MBE provision.
The origin of the provision was an amendment to the House version of the 1977 Act, H. R. 11, offered on the floor of the House on February 23, 1977, by Representative Mitchell of Maryland. As offered, the amendment provided:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local public works project unless at least 10 per centum of the articles, materials, and supplies which will be used in such project are procured from minority business enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘minority business enterprise’ means a business at least 50 percent of which is owned by minority group members or, in case of publicly owned businesses, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by minority group members. For the purposes of the preceding sentence, minority group members are citizens of the United States who are Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.”
The sponsor stated that the objective of the amendment was to direct funds into the minority business community, a sector of the economy sorely in need of economic stimulus but which, on the basis of past experience with Government procurement programs, could not be expected to benefit significantly from the public works program as then formulated. He cited the marked statistical disparity that in fiscal year 1976 less than 1% of all federal procurement was concluded with minority business enterprises, although minorities comprised 15-18% of the population. When the amendment was put forward during debate on H. R. 11, Representative Mitchell reiterated the need to ensure that minority firms would obtain a fair opportunity to share in the benefits of this Government program.
The amendment was put forward not as a new concept, but rather one building upon prior administrative practice. In his introductory remarks, the sponsor rested his proposal squarely on the ongoing program under § 8 (a) of the Small Business Act, Pub. L. 85-536, § 2, 72 Stat. 389, which, as will become evident, served as a model for the administrative program developed to enforce the MBE provision:
“The first point in opposition will be that you cannot have a set-aside. Well, Madam Chairman, we have been doing this for the last 10 years in Government. The 8-A set-aside under SBA has been tested in the courts more than 30 times and has been found to be legitimate and bona fide. We are doing it in this bill.”
Although the proposed MBE provision on its face appeared mandatory, requiring compliance with the 10% minority participation requirement “[notwithstanding any other provision of law,” its sponsor gave assurances that existing administrative practice would ensure flexibility in administration if, with respect to a particular project, compliance with the 10% requirement proved infeasible.
Representative Roe of New Jersey then suggested a change of language expressing the twin intentions (1) that the federal administrator would have discretion to waive the 10% requirement where its application was not feasible, and (2) that the grantee would be mandated to achieve at least 10% participation by minority businesses unless infeasibility was demonstrated. He proposed as a substitute for the first sentence of the amendment the language that eventually was enacted:
“Except to the extent that the Secretary determines otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 percent of the amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business enterprises.”
The sponsor fully accepted the suggested clarification because it retained the directive that the initial burden of compliance would fall on the grantee. That allocation of burden was necessary because, as he put it, “every agency of the Government has tried to figure out a way to avoid doing this very thing. Believe me, these bureaucracies can come up with 10,000 ways to avoid doing it.”
Other supporters of. the MBE amendment echoed the sponsor’s concern that a number of factors, difficult to isolate or quantify, seemed to impair access by minority businesses to public contracting opportunities. Representative Con-yers of Michigan spoke of the frustration of the existing situation, in which, due to the intricacies of the bidding process and through no fault of their own, minority contractors and businessmen were unable to gain access to government contracting opportunities.
Representative Biaggi of New York then spoke to the need for the amendment to “promote a sense of economic equality in this Nation.” He expressed the view that without the amendment, “this legislation may be potentially inequitable to minority businesses and workers” in that it would perpetuate the historic practices that have precluded minority businesses from effective participation in public contracting opportunities. The amendment was accepted by the House.
Two weeks later, the Senate considered S. 427, its package of amendments to the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976. At that time Senator Brooke of Massachusetts introduced an MBE amendment, worded somewhat differently than the House version, but aimed at achieving the same objectives. His statement in support of the 10% requirement reiterated and summarized the various expressions on the House side that the amendment was necessary to ensure that minority businesses were not deprived of access to the government contracting opportunities generated by the public works program.
The Senate adopted the amendment without debate. The Conference Committee, called to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, adopted the language approved by the House for the MBE provision. The Conference Reports added only the comment: “This provision shall be dependent on the availability of minority business enterprises located in the project area.”
The device of a 10% MBE participation requirement, subject to administrative waiver, was thought to be required to assure minority business participation; otherwise it was thought that repetition of the prior experience could be expected, with participation by minority business accounting for an inordinately small percentage of government contracting. The causes of this disparity were perceived as involving the longstanding existence and maintenance of barriers impairing access by minority enterprises to public contracting opportunities, or sometimes as involving more direct discrimination, but not as relating to lack — as Senator Brooke put it — “of capable and qualified minority enterprises who are ready and willing to work.” In the words of its sponsor, the MBE provision was “designed to begin to redress this grievance that has been extant for so long.”
B
The legislative objectives of the MBE provision must be considered against the background of ongoing efforts directed toward deliverance of the century-old promise of equality of economic opportunity. The sponsors of the MBE provision in the House and the Senate expressly linked the provision to the existing administrative programs promoting minority opportunity in government procurement, particularly those related to § 8 (a) of the Small Business Act of 1953. Section 8 (a) delegates to the Small Business Administration (SBA) an authority and an obligation “whenever it determines such action is necessary” to enter into contracts with any procurement agency of the Federal Government to furnish required goods or services, and, in turn, to enter into subcontracts with small businesses for the performance of such contracts. This authority lay dormant for a decade. Commencing in 1968, however, the SBA was directed by the President to develop a program pursuant to its § 8 (a) authority to assist small business concerns owned and controlled by “socially or economically disadvantaged” persons to achieve a competitive position in the economy.
At the time the MBE provision was enacted, the regulations governing the § 8 (a) program defined “social or economic disadvantage” as follows:
“An applicant concern must be owned and controlled by one or more persons who have been deprived of the opportunity to develop and maintain a competitive position in the economy because of social or economic disadvantage. Such disadvantage may arise from cultural, social, chronic economic circumstances or background, or other similar cause. Such persons include, but are not limited to, black Americans, American Indians, Spanish-Americans, oriental Americans, Eskimos, and Aleuts....”
The guidelines accompanying these regulations provided that a minority business could not be maintained in the program, even when owned and controlled by members of the identified minority groups, if it appeared that the business had not been deprived of the opportunity to develop and maintain a competitive position in the economy because of social or economic disadvantage.
As the Congress began consideration of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, the House Committee on Small Business issued a lengthy Report summarizing its activities, including its evaluation of the ongoing § 8 (a) program. One chapter of the Report, entitled “Minority Enterprises and Allied Problems of Small Business,” summarized a 1975 Committee Report of the same title dealing with this subject matter. The original Report, prepared by the House Subcommittee on SBA Oversight and Minority Enterprise, observed:
“The subcommittee is acutely aware that the economic policies of this Nation must function within and be guided by' our constitutional system which guarantees ‘equal protection of the laws.’ The effects of past inequities stemming from racial prejudice have not remained in the past. The Congress has recognized the reality that past discriminatory practices have, to some degree, adversely affected our present economic system.
“While minority persons comprise about 16 percent of the Nation’s population, of the 13 million businesses in the United States, only 382,000, or approximately 3.0 percent, are owned by minority individuals. The most recent data from the Department of Commerce also indicates that the gross receipts of all businesses in this country totals about $2,540.8 billion, and of this amount only $16.6 billion, or about 0.65 percent was realized by minority business concerns.
“These statistics are not the result of random chance. The presumption must be made that past discriminatory systems have resulted in present economic inequities. In order to right this situation, the Congress has formulated certain remedial programs designed to uplift those socially or economically disadvantaged persons to a level where they may effectively participate in the business mainstream of our economy.*
“*For the purposes of this report the term ‘minority’ shall include only such minority individuals as are considered to be economically or socially disadvantaged.”
The 1975 Report gave particular attention to the § 8 (a) program, expressing disappointment with its limited effectiveness. With specific reference to Government construction contracting, the Report concluded, “there are substantial § 8 (a) opportunities in the area of Federal construction, but... the practices of some agencies preclude the realization of this potential.” The Subcommittee took “full notice... as evidence for its consideration” of reports submitted to the Congress by the General Accounting Office and by the TJ. S. Commission on Civil Rights, which reflected a similar dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the § 8 (a) program. The Civil Rights Commission report discussed at some length the barriers encountered by minority businesses in gaining access to government contracting opportunities at the federal, state, and local levels. Among the major difficulties confronting minority businesses were deficiencies in working capital, inability to meet bonding requirements, disabilities caused by an inadequate “track record,” lack of awareness of bidding opportunities, unfamiliarity with bidding procedures, preselection before the formal advertising process, and the exercise of discretion by government procurement officers to disfavor minority businesses.
The Subcommittee Report also gave consideration to the operations of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, an agency of the Department of Commerce organized pursuant to Executive Orders to formulate and coordinate federal efforts to assist the development of minority businesses. The Report concluded that OMBE efforts were “totally inadequate” to achieve its policy of increasing opportunities for subcontracting by minority businesses on public contracts. OMBE efforts were hampered by a “glaring lack of specific objectives which each prime contractor should be required to achieve,” by a “lack of enforcement provisions,” and by a “lack of any meaningful monitoring system.”
Against this backdrop of legislative and administrative programs, it is inconceivable that Members of both Houses were not fully aware of the objectives of the MBE provision and of the reasons prompting its enactment.
c
Although the statutory MBE provision itself outlines only the bare bones of the federal program, it makes a number of critical determinations: the decision to initiate a limited racial and ethnic preference; the specification of a minimum level for minority business participation; the identification of the minority groups that are to be encompassed by the program; and the provision for an administrative waiver where application of the program is not feasible. Congress relied on the administrative agency to flesh out this skeleton, pursuant to delegated rulemaking authority, and to develop an administrative operation consistent with legislative intentions and objectives.
As required by the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, the Secretary of Commerce promulgated regulations to set into motion “Round II” of the federal grant program. The regulations require that construction projects funded under the legislation must be performed under contracts awarded by competitive bidding, unless the federal administrator has made a determination that in the circumstances relating to a particular project some other method is in the public interest. Where competitive bidding is employed, the regulations echo the statute’s requirement that contracts are to be awarded on the basis of the “lowest responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established criteria of responsibility,” and they also restate the MBE requirement.
EDA also has published guidelines devoted entirely to the administration of the MBE provision. The guidelines outline the obligations of the grantee to seek out all available, qualified, bona fide MBE’s, to provide technical assistance as needed, to lower or waive bonding requirements where feasible, to solicit the aid of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, the SBA, or other sources for assisting MBE’s in obtaining required working capital, and to give guidance through the intricacies of the bidding process.
EDA regulations contemplate that, as anticipated by Congress, most local public works projects will entail the award of a predominant prime contract, with the prime contractor assuming the above grantee obligations for fulfilling the 10% MBE requirement. The EDA guidelines specify that when prime contractors are selected through competitive bidding, bids for the prime contract “shall be considered by the Grantee to be responsive only if at least 10 percent of the contract funds are to be expended for MBE’s.” The administrative program envisions that competitive incentive will motivate aspirant prime contractors to perform their obligations under the MBE provision so as to qualify as “responsive” bidders. And, since the contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder, the same incentive is expected to motivate prime contractors to seek out the most competitive of the available, qualified, bona fide minority firms. This too is consistent with the legislative intention.
The EDA guidelines also outline the projected administration of applications for waiver of the 10% MBE requirement, which may be sought by the grantee either before or during the bidding process. The Technical Bulletin issued by EDA discusses in greater detail the processing, of waiver requests, clarifying certain issues left open by the guidelines. It specifies that waivers may be total or partial, depending on the circumstances, and it illustrates the projected operation of the waiver procedure by posing hypothetical questions with projected administrative responses. One such hypothetical is of particular interest, for it indicates the limitations on the scope of the racial or ethnic preference contemplated by the federal program when a grantee or its prime contractor is confronted with an available, qualified, bona fide minority business enterprise who is not the lowest competitive bidder. The hypothetical provides:
“Question: Should a request for waiver of the 10% requirement based on an unreasonable price asked by an MBE ever be granted?
“Answer: It is possible to imagine situations where an MBE might ask a price for its product or services that is unreasonable and where, therefore, a waiver is justified. However, before a waiver request will be honored, the following determinations will be made:
“a) The MBE’s quote is unreasonably priced. This determination should, be based on the nature of the product or service of the subcontractor, the geographic location of the site and of the subcontractor, prices of similar products or services in the relevant market area, and general business conditions in the market area. Furthermore, a subcontractor’s price should not be considered unreasonable if he is merely trying to cover his costs because the price results from disadvantage which affects the MBE’s cost of doing business or results from discrimination.
“b) The contractor has contacted other MBEs and has no meaningful choice but to accept an unreasonably high price.”
This announced policy makes clear the administrative understanding that a waiver or partial waiver is justified (and will be granted) to avoid subcontracting with a minority business enterprise at an “unreasonable” price, i. e., a price above competitive levels which cannot be attributed to the minority firm’s attempt to cover costs inflated by the present effects of disadvantage or discrimination.
This administrative approach is consistent with the legislative intention. It will be recalled that in the Report of the House Subcommittee on SBA Oversight and Minority Enterprise the Subcommittee took special care to note that when using the term “minority” it intended to include “only such minority individuals as are -considered to be economically or socially disadvantaged.” The Subcommittee also was cognizant of existing administrative regulations designed to ensure that firms maintained on the lists of bona fide minority business enterprises be those whose competitive position is impaired by the effects of disadvantage and discrimination. In its Report, the Subcommittee expressed its intention that these criteria continue to govern administration of the SBA’s § 8 (a) program. The sponsors of the MBE provision, in their reliance on prior administrative practice, intended that the term “minority business enterprise” would be given that same limited application; this even found expression in the legislative debates, where Representative Roe made the point:
“[W]hen we are talking about companies held by minority groups... [c]ertainly people of a variety of backgrounds are included in that. That is not really a measurement. They are talking about people in the minority and deprived.”
The EDA Technical Bulletin provides other elaboration of the MBE provision. It clarifies the definition of “minority group members.” It also indicates EDA’s intention “to allow credit for utilization of MBEs only for those contracts in which involvement constitutes a basis for strengthening the long-term and continuing participation of the MBE in the construction and related industries.” Finally, the Bulletin outlines a procedure for the processing of complaints of “unjust participation by an enterprise or individuals in the MBE program,” or of improper administration of the MBE requirement.
Ill
When we are required to pass on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, we assume “the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (opinion of Holmes, J.). A program that employs racial or ethnic criteria, even in a remedial context, calls for close examination; yet we are bound to approach our task with appropriate deference to the Congress, a co-equal branch charged by the Constitution with the power to “provide for the... general Welfare of the United States” and “to enforce, by. appropriate legislation,” the equal protection guarantees of the-Fourteenth Amendment. Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Arndt. 14,
§ 5. In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 102 (1973), we accorded “great weight to the decisions of Congress” even though the legislation implicated fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The rule is not different when a congressional program raises equal protection concerns. See, e. g., Cleland v. National College of Business, 435 U. S. 213 (1978); Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181 (1976).
Here we pass, not on a choice made by a single judge or a school board, but on a considered decision of the Congress and the President. However, in no sense does that render it immune from judicial scrutiny, and it “is not to say we ‘defer’ to the judgment of the Congress... on a constitutional question,” or that we would hesitate to invoke the Constitution should we determine that Congress has overstepped the bounds of its constitutional power. Columbia Broadcasting, supra, at 103.
The clear objective of the MBE provision is disclosed by our necessarily extended review of its legislative and administrative background. The program was designed to ensure that, to the extent federal funds were granted under the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, grantees who elect to participate would not employ procurement practices that Congress had decided might result in perpetuation of the effects of prior discrimination which had impaired or foreclosed access by minority businesses to public contracting opportunities. The MBE program does not mandate the allocation of federal funds according to inflexible percentages solely based on race or ethnicity.
Our analysis proceeds in two steps. At the outset, we must inquire whether the objectives of this legislation are within the power of Congress. If so, we must go on to decide whether the limited use of racial and ethnic criteria, in the context presented, is a constitutionally permissible means for achieving the congressional objectives and does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A
(1)
In enacting the MBE provision, it is clear that Congress employed an amalgam of its specifically delegated powers. The Public Works Employment Act of 1977, by its very nature, is primarily an exercise of the Spending Power. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. This Court has recognized that the power to “provide for the... general Welfare” is an independent grant of legislative authority, distinct from other broad congressional powers. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 90-91 (1976); United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65-66 (1936). Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy. E. g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974); Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U. S. 127 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 (1937); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548 (1937).
The MBE program is structured within this familiar legislative pattern. The program conditions receipt of public works grants upon agreement by the state or local governmental grantee that at least 10% of the federal funds will be devoted to contracts with minority businesses, to the extent this can be accomplished by overcoming barriers to access and by awarding contracts to bona fide MBE’s. It is further conditioned to require that MBE bids on these contracts are competitively priced, or might have been competitively priced but for the present effects of prior discrimination. Admittedly, the problems of administering this program with respect to these conditions may be formidable. Although the primary responsibility for ensuring minority participation falls upon the grantee, when the procurement practices of the grantee involve the award of a prime contract to a general or prime contractor, the obligations to assure minority participation devolve upon the private contracting party; this is a contractual condition of eligibility for award of the prime contract.
Here we need not explore the outermost limitations on the objectives attainable through such an application of the Spending Power. The reach of the Spending Power, within its sphere, is at least as broad as the regulatory powers of Congress. If, pursuant to its regulatory powers, Congress could have achieved the objectives of the MBE program, then it may do so under the Spending Power. And we have no difficulty perceiving a basis for accomplishing the objectives of the MBE program through the Commerce Power insofar as the program objectives pertain to the action of private contracting parties, and through the power to enforce the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as the program objectives pertain to the action of state and local grantees.
(2)
We turn first to the Commerce Power. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Had Congress chosen to do so, it could have drawn on the Commerce Clause to regulate the practices of prime contractors on federally funded public works projects. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964). The legislative history of the MBE provision shows that there was a rational basis for Congress to conclude that the subcontracting practices of prime contractors could perpetuate the prevailing impaired access by minority businesses to public contracting opportunities, and that this inequity has an effect on interstate commerce. Thus Congress could take necessary and proper action to remedy the situation. Ibid.
It is not necessary that these prime contractors be shown responsible for any violation of antidiscrimination laws. Our cases dealing with application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, express no doubt of the congressional authority to prohibit practices “challenged as perpetuating the effects of [not unlawful] discrimination occurring prior to the effective date of the Act.” Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 761 (1976); see California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant, 444 U. S. 598 (1980); Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 (1975); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971). Insofar as the MBE program pertains to the actions of private prime contractors, the Congress could have achieved its objectives under the Commerce Clause. We conclude that in this respect the objectives of the MBE provision are within the scope of the Spending Power.
(3)
In certain contexts, there are limitations on the reach of the Commerce Power to regulate the actions of state and local governments. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976). To avoid such complications, we look to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for the power to regulate the procurement practices of state and local grantees of federal funds. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). A review of our cases persuades us that the objectives of the MBE program are within the power of Congress under § 5 “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966), we equated the scope of this authority with the broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. “Correctly viewed, § 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 384 U. S., at 651. In Katzenbach, the Court upheld § 4 (e) of the Voting Eights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b (e), which prohibited application of state English-language literacy requirements to otherwise qualified voters who had completed the sixth grade in an accredited American school in which a language other than English was the predominant medium of instruction. To uphold this exercise of congressional authority, the Court found no prerequisite that application of a literacy requirement violate the Equal Protection Clause. 384 U. S.. at 648-649. It was enough that the Court could perceive a basis upon which Congress could reasonably predicate a judgment that application of literacy qualifications within the compass of § 4 (e) would discriminate in terms of access to the ballot and consequently in terms of access to the provision or administration of governmental programs. Id., at 652-653.
Four years later, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970), we upheld §201 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 315, which imposed a 5-year nationwide prohibition on the use of various • voter-qualification tests and devices in federal, state, and local elections. The Court was unanimous, albeit in separate opinions, in concluding that Congress was within its authority to prohibit the use of such voter qualifications; Congress could reasonably determine that its legislation was an appropriate method of attacking the perpetuation of prior purposeful discrimination, even though the use of these tests or devices might have discriminatory effects only. See City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 176-177 (1980). Our cases reviewing the parallel power of Congress to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, TJ. S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, confirm that congressional authority extends beyond the prohibition of purposeful discrimination to encompass state action that has discriminatory impact perpetuating the effects of past discrimination. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966); cf. City of Rome, supra.
With respect to the MBE provision, Congress had abundant evidence from which it could conclude that minority businesses have been denied effective participation in public contracting opportunities by procurement practices that perpetuated the effects of prior discrimination. Congress, of course, may legislate without compiling the kind of “record” appropriate with respect to
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
This case presents a challenge to § 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104,110 Stat. 136,47 U. S. C. § 561 (1994 ed., Supp. III). Section 505 requires cable television operators who provide channels “primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming” either to “fully scramble or otherwise fully block” those channels or to limit their transmission to hours when children are unlikely to be viewing,
' set by administrative regulation as the time between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 47 U. S. C. § 561(a) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill); 47 CFR § 76.227 (1999). Even before enactment of the statute, signal scrambling was already in use. Cable operators used scrambling in the regular course of business, so that only paying customers had access to certain programs; Scrambling could be imprecise, however; and either or both audio and visual portions of the scrambled programs might be heard or seen, a phenomenon known as “signal bleed.” The purpose of § 505 is to shield children from hearing or seeing images resulting from signal bleed.
To comply with the statute, the majority of cable operators adopted the second, or “time channeling,” approach. The effect of the widespread adoption of time channeling was to eliminate altogether the transmission of the targeted programming outside the safe harbor period in affected cable service areas. In other words, for two-thirds of the day no household in those service areas could receive the programming, whether or not the household or the viewer wanted to do so.
Appellee Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., challenged the statute as unnecessarily restrictive content-based legislation violative of the First Amendment. After a trial, a three-judge District Court concluded that a regime in which viewers could order signal blocking on a household-by-household basis presented an effective, less restrictive alternative to § 505. 30 F. Supp. 2d 702,719 (Del. 1998). Finding no error in this conclusion, we affirm.
I
Playboy Entertainment Group owns and prepares programs for adult television networks, including Playboy Television and Spice. Playboy transmits its programming to cable television operators, who retransmit it to their subscribers, either through monthly subscriptions to premium channels or on a so-called “pay-per-view” basis. Cable operators transmit Playboy’s signal, like other premium channel signals, in scrambled form. The operators then provide paying subscribers with an “addressable converter,” a box placed on the home television set. The converter permits the viewer to see 'and hear the descrambled signal. It is conceded that almost all of Playboy’s programming consists of sexually explicit material as defined by the statute.
The statute was enacted because not all scrambling technology is perfect. Analog cable television systems may use either “RF” or “baseband” scrambling systems, which may not prevent signal bleed, so discernible pictures may appear from time to time on the scrambled screen. Furthermore, the listener might hear the audio portion of the program.
These imperfections are not inevitable. The problem is that at present it appears not to be economical to convert simpler RP or baseband scrambling systems to alternative scrambling technologies on a systemwide scale. Digital technology may one day provide another solution, as it presents no bleed problem at all. Indeed, digital systems are projected to become the technology of choice, which would eliminate the signal bleed problem. Digital technology is not yet in widespread use, however. With imperfect scrambling, viewers who have not paid to receive Playboy’s channels may happen across discernible images of a sexually explicit nature. How many viewers, how discernible the scene or sound, and how often this may occur are at issue in this case.
Section 505 was enacted to address the signal bleed phenomenon. As noted, the statute and its implementing regulations require cable operators either to scramble a sexually explicit channel in full or to limit the channel’s programming to the hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 47 U. S. C. § 561 (1994 ed., Supp. III); 47 CFR §76.227 (1999). Section 505 was added by floor amendment, without significant debate, to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act), a major legislative effort designed "to reduce regulation and encourage ‘the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’ ” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 857 (1997) (quoting 110 Stat. 56). "The Act includes seven Titles, six of which are the product of extensive committee hearings and the subject of discussion in Reports prepared by Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.” Reno, supra, at 858. Section 505 is found in Title V of the Act, which is itself known as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). 110 Stat. 133. Section 505 was to become effective on March 9,1996, 30 days after the Act was signed by the President. Note following 47 U. S. C. §561 (1994 ed., Supp. III).
On March 7,1996, Playboy obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of §505. 918 E Supp. 813 (Del.), and brought this suit in a three-judge District Court pursuant to § 561 of the Act, 110 Stat. 142, note following 47 U. S. C. § 223 (1994 ed., Supp. III). Playboy sought a declaration that § 505 violates the Constitution and an injunction prohibiting the law’s enforcement. The District Court denied Playboy a preliminary injunction, 945 E Supp. 772 (Del. 1996), and we summarily affirmed, 520 U. S. 1141 (1997). The TRO was lifted, and the Federal Communications Commission announced it would begin enforcing § 505 on May 18,1997. In re Implementation of Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 12 FCC Red. 5212, 5214 (1997).
When the statute became operative, most cable operators had “no practical choice but to curtail [the targeted] programming during the [regulated] sixteen hours or risk the penalties imposed... if any audio or video signal bleed occurred] during [those] times.” 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 711. The majority of operators — “in one survey, 69%” — complied with § 505 by time channeling the targeted programmers. Ibid. Since “30 to 50% of all adult programming is viewed by households prior to 10 p.m.,” the result was a significant restriction of communication, with a corresponding reduction in Playboy’s revenues. Ibid.
In March 1998, the District Court held a full trial and concluded that § 505 violates the First Amendment. Id., at 702. The District Court observed that §505 imposed a content-based restriction on speech. Id., at 714-715. It agreed that the interests the statute advanced were compelling but concluded the Government might further those interests in less restrictive ways. Id., at 717-720. One plausible, less restrictive alternative could be found in another section of the Act: § 504, which requires a cable operator, “[u]pon request by a cable service subscriber... without charge, [to] fully scramble or otherwise fully block” any channel the subscriber does not wish to receive. 110 Stat. 136, 47 U. S. C. §560 (1994 ed., Supp. III). As long as subscribers knew about this opportunity, the court reasoned, § 504 would provide as much protection against unwanted programming as would § 505. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 718-720. At the same time, §504 was content neutral and would be less restrictive of Playboy’s First Amendment rights. Ibid.
The court described what “adequate notice” would include, suggesting
“[operators] should communicate to their subscribers the information that certain channels broadcast sexually-oriented programming; that signal bleed... may appear; that children may view signal bleed without their parents’ knowledge or permission; that channel blocking devices... are available free of charge...; and that a request for a free device... can be made by a telephone call to the [operator].” Id., at 719.
The means of providing this notice could include
“inserts in monthly billing statements, barker channels (preview channels of programming coming up on Pay-Per-View), and on-air advertisement on channels other than the one broadcasting the sexually explicit programming.” Ibid.
The court added that this notice could be “conveyed on a regular basis, at reasonable intervals,” and could include notice of changes in channel alignments. Ibid.
The District Court concluded that §504 so supplemented would be an effective, less restrictive alternative to §505, and consequently declared §505 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Id., at 719-720. The court also required Playboy to insist on these notice provisions in its contracts with cable operators. Ibid.
The United States filed a direct appeal in this Court pursuant to §561. The District Court thereafter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction two post-trial motions filed by the Government. App. to Juris. Statement 91a-92a. We noted probable jurisdiction, 527 U. S. 1021 (1999), and now affirm.
II
Two essential points should be understood concerning the speech at issue here. First, we shall assume that many adults themselves would find the material highly offensive; and when we consider the further circumstance that the material comes unwanted into homes where children might see or hear it against parental wishes or consent, there are legitimate reasons for regulating it. Second, all parties bring the case to us on the premise that Playboy’s programming has First Amendment protection. As this case has been litigated, it is not alleged to be obscene; adults have a constitutional right to view it; the Government disclaims any interest in preventing children from seeing or hearing it with the consent of their parents; and Playboy has concomitant rights under the First Amendment to transmit it. These points are undisputed.
The speech in question is defined by its content; and the statute which seeks to restrict it is content based. Section 505 applies only to channels primarily dedicated to “sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent.” The statute is unconcerned with signal bleed from any other channels. See 945 F. Supp., at 785 (“[Section 505] does not apply when signal bleed occurs on other premium channel networks, like HBO or the Disney Channel”). The overriding justification for the regulation is concern for the effect of the subject matter on young viewers. Section 505 is not “ ‘justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.’ ” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984)). It “focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct impact that speech has on its listeners.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 321 (1988) (opinion of O’Connor, J.). This is the essence of content-based regulation.
Not only does § 505 single out particular programming content for regulation, it also singles out particular programmers. The speech in question was not thought by Congress to be so harmful that all channels were subject to restriction. Instead, the statutory disability applies only to channels '‘primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming.” 47 U. S. C. § 561(a) (1994 ed., Supp. III). One sponsor of the measure even identified appellee by name. See 141 Cong. Rec. 15587 (1995) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (noting the statute would apply to channels “such as the Playboy and Spice channels”). Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the expression of specific speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles. Section 505 limited Playboy’s market as a penalty for its programming choice, though other channels capable of transmitting like material are altogether exempt.
The effect of the federal statute on the protected speech is now apparent. It is evident that the only reasonable way for a substantial number of cable operators to comply with the letter of § 505 is to time channel, which silences the protected speech for two-thirds of the day in every home in a cable service area, regardless of the presence or likely presence of children or of the wishes of the viewers. According to the District Court, “30 to 50% of all adult programming is viewed by households prior to 10 p.m.,” when the safe-harbor period begins. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 711. To prohibit this much speech is a significant restriction of communication between speakers and willing adult listeners, communication which enjoys First Amendment protection. It is of no moment that the statute does not impose a complete prohibition. The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.
Since §505 is a content-based speech restriction, it can stand only if it satisfies strict scrutiny. Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 126 (1989). If a statute regulates speech based on its content, it must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest. Ibid. If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative. Reno, 521 U. S., at 874 (“[The CDA’s Internet indecency provisions’] burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve”); Sable Communications, supra, at 126 (“The Government may... regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest”). To do otherwise would be to restrict speech without an adequate justification, a course the First Amendment does not permit.
Our precedents teach these principles. Where the designed benefit of a content-based speech restriction is to shield the sensibilities of listeners, the general rule is that the right of expression prevails, even where no less restrictive alternative exists. We are expected to protect our own sensibilities “simply by averting [our] eyes.” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 21 (1971); accord, Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 210-211 (1975). Here, of course, we consider images transmitted to some homes where they are not wanted and where parents often are not present to give immediate guidance. Cable television, like broadcast media, presents unique problems, which inform our assessment of the interests at stake, and which may justify restrictions that would be unacceptable in other contexts. See Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 744 (1996) (plurality opinion); id., at 804-805 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). No one suggests the Government must be indifferent to unwanted, indecent speech that comes into the home without parental consent. The speech here, all agree, is protected speech; and the question is what standard the Government must meet in order to restrict it. As we consider a content-based regulation, the answer should be clear: The standard is strict scrutiny. This case involves speech alone; and even where speech is indecent and enters the home, the objective of shielding children does not suffice to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.
In Sable Communications, for instance, the feasibility of a technological approach to controlling minors’ access to “dial-a-porn” messages required invalidation of a complete statutory ban on the medium. 492 U. S., at 130-131. And, while mentioned only in passing, the mere possibility that user-based Internet screening software would “‘soon be widely available’ ” was relevant to our rejection of an over-broad restriction of indecent cyberspeech. Reno, supra, at 876-877. Compare Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 729-730 (1970) (upholding statute “whereby any householder may insulate himself from advertisements that offer for sale ‘matter which the addressee in his sole discretion believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative’” (quoting then 39 U. S. C. § 4009(a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV))), with Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 75 (1983) (rejecting blanket ban on the mailing of unsolicited contraceptive advertisements). Compare also Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 631 (1968) (upholding state statute barring the sale to minors of material defined as “obscene on the basis of its appeal to them”), with Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 381 (1957) (rejecting blanket ban of material “ ‘tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth’” (quoting then Mich. Penal Code §343)). Each of these cases arose in a different context — Sable Communica tions and Reno, for instance, also note the affirmative steps necessary to obtain access to indecent material via the media at issue — but they provide necessary instruction for complying with accepted First Amendment principles.
Our zoning cases, on the other hand, are irrelevant to the question here. Post, at 83B (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41 (1986), and Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976)). We have made clear that the lesser scrutiny afforded regulations targeting the secondary effects of crime or declining property values has no application to content-based regulations targeting the primary effects of protected speech. Reno, supra, at 867-868; Boos, 485 U. S., at 320-321. The statute now before us burdens speech because of its content; it must receive strict scrutiny.
There is, moreover, a key difference between cable television and the broadcasting media, which is the point on which this case turns: Cable systems have the capacity to block unwanted channels on a household-by-household basis. The option to block reduces the likelihood, so concerning to the Court in Pacifica, supra, at 744, that traditional First Amendment scrutiny would deprive the Government of all authority to address this sort of problem. The corollary, of course, is that targeted blocking enables the Government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners — listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests. This is not to say that the absence of an effective blocking mechanism will in all cases suffice to support a law restricting the speech in question; but if a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.
I — I I — I H-t
The District Court concluded that a less restrictive alternative is available: §504, with adequate publicity. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 719-720. No one disputes that § 504, which requires cable operators to block undesired channels at individual households upon request, is narrowly tailored to the Government’s goal of supporting parents who want those channels blocked. The question is whether §504 can be effective.
When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the Government’s obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals. The Government has not met that burden here. In support of its position, the Government cites empirical evidence showing that §504, as promulgated and implemented before trial, generated few requests for household-by-household blocking. Between March 1996 and May 1997, while the Government was enjoined from enforcing §505, §504 remained in operation. A survey of cable operators determined that fewer than 0.5% of cable subscribers requested full blocking during that time. Id., at 712. The uncomfortable fact is that §504 was the sole blocking regulation in effect for over a year; and the public greeted it with a collective yawn.
The District Court was correct to direct its attention to the import of this tepid response. Placing the burden of proof upon the Government, the District Court examined whether §504 was capable of serving as an effective, less restrictive means of reaching the Government’s goals. Id., at 715, 718-719. It concluded that § 504, if publicized in an adequate manner, could be. Id., at 719-720.
The District Court employed the proper approach. When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 183 (1999) (“[T]he Government bears the burden of identifying a substantial interest and justifying the challenged restriction”); Reno, 521 U. S., at 879 (“The breadth of this content-based restriction of speech imposes an especially heavy burden on the Government to explain why a less restrictive provision would not be as effective. ); Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 770-771 (1993) (“[A] governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree”); Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 480 (1989) (“[T]he State bears the burden of justifying its restrictions...”); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 509 (1969) (“In order for the State... to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”). When the Government seeks to restrict speech based on its content, the usual presumption of constitutionality afforded congressional enactments is reversed. “Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid,” R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.
This is for good reason. “[T]he line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated, suppressed, or punished is finely drawn.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525 (1958). Error in marking that line exacts an extraordinary cost. It is through speech that our convictions and beliefs are influenced, expressed, and tested. It is through speech that we bring those beliefs to bear on Government and on society. It is through speech that our personalities are formed and expressed. The citizen is entitled to seek out or reject certain ideas or influences without Government interference or control.
When a student first encounters our free speech jurisprudence, he or she might think it is influenced by the philosophy that one idea is as good as any other, and that in art and literature objective standards of style, taste, decorum, beauty, and esthetics are deemed by the Constitution to be inappropriate, indeed unattainable. Quite the opposite is true. The Constitution no more enforces a relativistic philosophy or moral nihilism than it does any other point of view. The Constitution exists precisely so that opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature, can be formed, tested, and expressed. What the Constitution says is that these judgments are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority. Technology expands the capacity to choose; and it denies the potential of this revolution if we assume the Government is best positioned to make these choices for us.
It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible. Indeed, were we to give the Government the benefit of the doubt when it attempted to restrict speech, we would risk leaving regulations in place that sought to shape our unique personalities or to silence dissenting ideas. When First Amendment compliance is the point to be proved, the risk of nonpersuasion— operative in all trials — must rest with the Government, not with the citizen. Id., at 526.
With this burden in mind, the District Court explored three explanations for the lack of individual blocking requests. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 719. First, individual blocking might not be an effective alternative, due to technological or other limitations. Second, although an adequately advertised blocking provision might have been effective, § 504 as written did not require sufficient notice to make it so. Third, the actual signal bleed problem might be far less of a concern than the Government at first had supposed. Ibid.
To sustain its statute, the Government was required to show that the first was the right answer. According to the District Court, however, the first and third possibilities were “equally consistent” with the record before it. Ibid. As for the second, the record was “not clear” as to whether enough notice had been issued to give § 504 a fighting chance. Ibid. The case, then, was at best a draw. Unless the District Court’s findings are clearly erroneous, the tie goes to free expression.
The District Court began with the problem of signal bleed itself, concluding “the Government has not convinced us that [signal bleed] is a pervasive problem.” Id., at 708-709, 718. The District Court’s thorough discussion exposes a central weakness in the Government’s proof: There is little hard evidence of how widespread or how serious the problem of signal bleed is. Indeed, there is no proof as to how likely any child is to view a discernible explicit image, and no proof of the duration of the bleed or the quality of the pictures or sound. To say that millions of children are subject to a risk of viewing signal bleed is one thing; to avoid articulating the true nature and extent of the risk is quite another. Under §505, sanctionable signal, bleed can include instances as fleeting as an image appearing on a screen for just a few seconds. The First Amendment requires a more careful assessment and characterization of an evil in order to justify a regulation as sweeping as this. Although the parties have taken the additional step of lodging with the Court an assortment of videotapes, some of which show quite explicit bleeding and some of which show television static or snow, there is no attempt at explanation or context; there is no discussion, for instance, of the extent to which any particular tape is representative of what appears on screens nationwide.
The Government relied at trial on anecdotal evidence to support its regulation, which the District Court summarized as follows:
“The Government presented evidence of two city councillors, eighteen individuals, one United States Senator, and the officials of one city who complained either to their [cable operator], to their local Congressman, or to the FCC about viewing signal bleed on television. In each instance, the local [cable operator] offered to, or did in fact, rectify the situation for free (with the exception of 1 individual), with varying degrees of rapidity. Included in the complaints was the additional concern that other parents might not be aware that their children are exposed to this problem. In addition, the Government presented evidence of a child exposed to signal bleed at a friend’s house. Cindy Omlin set the lockout feature on her remote control to prevent her child from tuning to adult channels, but her eleven year old son was nevertheless exposed to signal bleed when he attended a slumber party at a friend’s house.
“The Government has presented evidence of only a handful of isolated incidents over the 16 years since 1982 when Playboy started broadcasting. The Government has not presented any survey-type evidence on the magnitude of the ‘problem.’ ” Id., at 709 (footnote and record citations omitted).
Spurred by the District Court’s express request for more specific evidence of the problem, see 945 F. Supp., at 779, n. 16, the Government also presented an expert’s spreadsheet estimate that 39 million homes with 29.5 million children had the potential to be exposed to signal bleed, 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 708-709. The Government made no attempt to confirm the accuracy of its estimate through surveys or other field tests, however. Accordingly, the District Court discounted the figures and made this finding: “[T]he Government presented no evidence on the number of households actually exposed to signal bleed and thus has not quantified the actual extent of the problem of signal bleed.” Id., at 709. The finding is not clearly erroneous; indeed it is all but required.
Once § 505 went into effect, of course, a significant percentage of cable operators felt it necessary to time channel their sexually explicit programmers. Id., at 711, and n. 14. This is an indication that scrambling technology is not yet perfected. That is not to say, however, that scrambling is completely ineffective. Different cable systems use different scrambling systems, which vary in their dependability. “The severity of the problem varies from time to time and place to place, depending on the weather, the quality of the equipment, its installation, and maintenance.” Id., at 708. At even the good end of the spectrum a system might bleed to an extent sufficient to trigger the time-channeling requirement for a cautious cable operator. (The statute requires the signal to be “fully bloek[ed].” 47 U. S. C. § 561(a) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill) (emphasis added).) A rational cable operator, faced with the possibility of sanctions for intermittent bleeding, could well choose to time channel even if the bleeding is too momentary to pose any concern to most households. To affirm that the Government failed to prove the existence of a problem, while at the same time observing that the statute imposes a severe burden on speech, is consistent with the analysis our cases require. Here, there is no probative evidence in the record which differentiates among the extent of bleed at individual households and no evidence which otherwise quantifies the signal bleed problem.
In addition, market-based solutions such as programmable televisions, VCR’s, and mapping systems (which display a blue screen when tuned to a scrambled signal) may eliminate signal bleed at the consumer end of the cable. 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 708. Playboy made the point at trial that the Government’s estimate failed to account for these factors. Id., at 708-709. Without some sort of field survey, it is impossible to know how widespread the problem in fact is, and the only indicator in the record is a handful of complaints. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180, 187 (1997) (reviewing “ ‘a record of tens of thousands of pages’ of evidence” developed through “three years of pre-enactment hearings,... as well as additional expert submissions, sworn declarations and testimony, and industry documents” in support of complex must-carry provisions). If the number of children transfixed by even flickering pornographic television images in fact reached into the millions we, like the District Court, would have expected to be directed to more than a handful of complaints.
No support for the restriction can be found in the near barren legislative record relevant to this provision. Section 505 was added to the Act by floor amendment, accompanied by only brief statements, and without committee hearing or debate. See 141 Cong. Ree. 15586-15589 (1995). One of the measure’s sponsors did indicate she considered time channeling to be superior to voluntary blocking, which “put[s] the burden of action on the subscriber, not the cable company.” Id., at 15587 (statement of Sen. Feinstein). This sole eonclu-sory statement, however, tells little about the relative efficacy of voluntary blocking versus time channeling, other than offering the unhelpful, self-evident generality that voluntary measures require voluntary action. The Court has declined to rely on similar evidence before. See Sable Communications, 492 U. S., at 129-130 (“[A]side from conclusory statements during the debates by proponents of the bill,... the congressional record presented to us contains no evidence as to how effective or ineffective the... regulations were or might prove to be” (footnote omitted)); Reno, 521 U. S., at 858, and n. 24, 875-876, n. 41 (same). This is not to suggest that a 10,000-page record must be compiled in every case or that the Government must delay in acting to address a real problem; but the Government must present more than anecdote and supposition. The question is whether an actual problem has been proved in- this ease. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban.
Nor did the District Court err in its second conclusion. The Government also failed to prove § 504 with adequate notice would be an ineffective alternative to § 505. Once again, the District Court invited the Government to produce its proof. See 945 F. Supp., at 781 (“If the § 504 blocking option is not being promoted, it cannot become a meaningful alternative to the provisions of § 505. At the time of the permanent injunction hearing, further evidence of the actual and predicted impact and efficacy of §504 would be helpful to us”). Once again, the Government fell short. See 30 F. Supp. 2d, at 719 (“[The Government’s argument that § 504 is ineffective] is premised on adequate notice to subscribers. It is not clear, however, from the record that notices of the provisions of § 504 have been adequate”). There is no evidence that a well-promoted voluntary blocking provision would not be capable at least of informing parents about signal bleed (if they are not yet aware of it) and about their rights to have the bleed blocked (if they consider it a problem and have not yet controlled it themselves).
The Government finds at least two problems with the conclusion of the three-judge District Court. First, the Government takes issue with the District Court’s reliance, without proof, on a “hypothetical, enhanced version of Section 504.” Brief for Appellants 32. It was not the District Court’s obligation, however, to predict the extent to which an improved notice scheme would improve § 504. It was for the Government, presented with a plausible, less restrictive alternative, to prove the alternative to be ineffective, and § 505 to be the least restrictive available means. Indeed, to the extent the District Court erred, it was only in attempting to implement the less restrictive alternative through judicial decree by requiring Playboy to provide for expanded notice in its cable service contracts. The appropriate remedy was not to repair the statute, it was to enjoin the speech restriction. Given the existence of a less restrictive means, if the Legislature wished to improve its statute, perhaps in the process giving careful consideration to other alternatives, it then could do so.
The Government also contends a publicized § 504 will be just as restrictive as §505, on the theory that the cost of installing blocking devices will outstrip the revenues from distributing Playboy’s programming and lead to its cancellation. See 30 F. Sup
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider the reach of the private right of action the Court has found implied in § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2007). In this suit investors alleged losses after purchasing common stock. They sought to impose liability on entities who, acting both as customers and suppliers, agreed to arrangements that allowed the investors’ company to mislead its auditor and issue a misleading financial statement affecting the stock price. We conclude the implied right of action does not reach the customer/supplier companies because the investors did not rely upon their statements or representations. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
This class-action suit by investors was filed against Charter Communications, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, was the lead plaintiff and is petitioner here.
Charter issued the financial statements and the securities in question. It was a named defendant along with some of its executives and Arthur Andersen LLP, Charter’s independent auditor during the period in question. We are concerned, though, with two other defendants, respondents here. Respondents are Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Motorola, Inc. They were suppliers, and later customers, of Charter.
For purposes of this proceeding, we take these facts, alleged by petitioner, to be true. Charter, a cable operator, engaged in a variety of fraudulent practices so its quarterly reports would meet Wall Street expectations for cable subscriber growth and operating cashflow. The fraud included misclassification of its customer base; delayed reporting of terminated customers; improper capitalization of costs that should have been shown as expenses; and manipulation of the company’s billing cutoff dates to inflate reported revenues. In late 2000, Charter executives realized that, despite these efforts, the company would miss projected operating cashflow numbers by $15 to $20 million. To help meet the shortfall, Charter decided to alter its existing arrangements with respondents, Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola. Petitioner’s theory as to whether Arthur Andersen was altogether misled or, on the other hand, knew the structure of the contract arrangements and was complicit to some degree, is not clear at this stage of the case. The point, however, is neither controlling nor significant for our present disposition, and in our decision we assume it was misled.
Respondents supplied Charter with the digital cable converter (set-top) boxes that Charter furnished to its customers. Charter arranged to overpay respondents $20 for each set-top box it purchased until the end of the year, with the understanding that respondents would return the overpayment by purchasing advertising from Charter. The transactions, it is alleged, had no economic substance; but, because Charter would then record the advertising purchases as revenue and capitalize its purchase of the set top boxes, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles, the transactions would enable Charter to fool its auditor into approving a financial statement showing it met projected revenue and operating cashflow numbers. Respondents agreed to the arrangement.
So that Arthur Andersen would not discover the link between Charter’s increased payments for the boxes and the advertising purchases, the companies drafted documents to make it appear the transactions were unrelated and conducted in the ordinary course of business. Following a request from Charter, Scientific-Atlanta sent documents to Charter stating — falsely—that it had increased production costs. It raised the price for set-top boxes for the rest of 2000 by $20 per box. As for Motorola, in a written contract Charter agreed to purchase from Motorola a specific number of set-top boxes and pay liquidated damages of $20 for each unit it did not take. The contract was made with the expectation Charter would fail to purchase all the units and pay Motorola the liquidated damages.
To return the additional money from the set top box sales, Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola signed contracts with Charter to purchase advertising time for a price higher than fair value. The new set-top box agreements were backdated to make it appear that they were negotiated a month before the advertising agreements. The backdating was important to convey the impression that the negotiations were unconnected, a point Arthur Andersen considered necessary for separate treatment of the transactions. Charter recorded the advertising payments to inflate revenue and operating cash-flow by approximately $17 million. The inflated number was shown on financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and reported to the public.
Respondents had no role in preparing or disseminating Charter’s financial statements. And their own financial statements booked the transactions as a wash, under generally accepted accounting principles. It is alleged respondents knew or were in reckless disregard of Charter’s intention to use the transactions to inflate its revenues and knew the resulting financial statements issued by Charter would be relied upon by research analysts and investors.
Petitioner filed a securities fraud class action on behalf of purchasers of Charter stock alleging that, by participating in the transactions, respondents violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In re Charter Communications, Inc., Securities Litigation, 443 F. 3d 987 (2006). In its view the allegations did not show that respondents made misstatements relied upon by the public or that they violated a duty to disclose; and on this premise it found no violation of § 10(b) by respondents. Id., at 992. At most, the court observed, respondents had aided and abetted Charter’s misstatement of its financial results; but, it noted, there is no private right of action for aiding and abetting a § 10(b) violation. See Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Den ver, N. A., 511 U. S. 164,191 (1994). The court also affirmed the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to amend the complaint, as the revised pleading would not change the court’s conclusion on the merits. 443 F. 3d, at 993.
Decisions of the Courts of Appeals are in conflict respecting when, if ever, an injured investor may rely upon § 10(b) to recover from a party that neither makes a public misstatement nor violates a duty to disclose but does participate in a scheme to violate § 10(b). Compare Simpson v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 452 F. 3d 1040 (CA9 2006), with Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 482 F. 3d 372 (CA5 2007). We granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 1304 (2007).
II
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act makes it
“unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange
“[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U. S. C. § 78j.
The SEC, pursuant to this section, promulgated Rule 10b-5, which makes it unlawful
“(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
“(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
“(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
“in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 17 CFR §240.10b-5.
Rule 10b-5 encompasses only conduct already prohibited by § 10(b). United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642, 651 (1997). Though the text of the Securities Exchange Act does not provide for a private cause of action for § 10(b) violations, the Court has found a right of action implied in the words of the statute and its implementing regulation. Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 404 U. S. 6, 13, n. 9 (1971). In a typical § 10(b) private action a plaintiff must prove (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U. S. 336, 341-342 (2005).
In Central Bank, the Court determined that § 10(b) liability did not extend to aiders and abettors. The Court found the scope of § 10(b) to be delimited by the text, which makes no mention of aiding and abetting liability. 511 U. S., at 177. The Court doubted the implied § 10(b) action should extend to aiders and abettors when none of the express causes of action in the securities Acts included that liability. Id., at 180. It added the following:
“Were we to allow the aiding and abetting action proposed in this case, the defendant could be liable without any showing that the plaintiff relied upon the aider and abettor’s statements or actions. See also Chiarella [v. United States, 445 U. S. 222, 228 (1980)]. ' Allowing plaintiffs to circumvent the reliance requirement would disregard the careful limits on 10b-5 recovery mandated by our earlier cases.” Ibid.
The decision in Central Bank led to calls for Congress to create an express cause of action for aiding and abetting within the Securities Exchange Act. Then-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, testifying before the Senate Securities Subcommittee, cited Central Bank and recommended that aiding and abetting liability in private claims be established. S. Hearing No. 103-759, pp. 13-14 (1994). Congress did not follow this course. Instead, in § 104 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 109 Stat. 757, it directed prosecution of aiders and abettors by the SEC. 15 U.S. C. § 78t(e).
The § 10(b) implied private right of action does not extend to aiders and abettors. The conduct of a secondary actor must satisfy each of the elements or preconditions for liability; and we consider whether the allegations here are sufficient to do so.
Ill
The Court of Appeals concluded petitioner had not alleged that respondents engaged in a deceptive act within the reach of the § 10(b) private right of action, noting that only misstatements, omissions by one who has a duty to disclose, and manipulative trading practices (where “manipulative” is a term of art, see, e. g., Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 476-477 (1977)) are deceptive within the meaning of the Rule. 443 F. 3d, at 992. If this conclusion were read to suggest there must be a specific oral or written statement before there could be liability under § 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, it would be erroneous. Conduct itself can be deceptive, as respondents concede. In this case, moreover, respondents’ course of conduct included both oral and written statements, such as the backdated contracts agreed to by Charter and respondents.
A different interpretation of the holding from the Court of Appeals opinion is that the court was stating only that any deceptive statement or act respondents made was not actionable because it did not have the requisite proximate relation to the investors’ harm. That conclusion is consistent with our own determination that respondents’ acts or statements were not relied upon by the investors and that, as a result, liability cannot be imposed upon respondents.
A
Reliance by the plaintiff upon the defendant’s deceptive acts is an essential element of the § 10(b) private cause of action. It ensures that, for liability to arise, the “requisite causal connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and a plaintiff’s injury” exists as a predicate for liability. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U. S. 224, 243 (1988); see also Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U. S. 128, 154 (1972) (requiring “causation in fact”). We have found a rebuttable presumption of reliance in two different circumstances. First, if there is an omission of a material fact by one with a duty to disclose, the investor to whom the duty was owed need not provide specific proof of reliance. Id., at 153-154. Second, under the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, reliance is presumed when the statements at issue become public. The public information is reflected in the market price of the security. Then it can be assumed that an investor who buys or sells stock at the market price relies upon the statement. Basic, supra, at 247.
Neither presumption applies here. Respondents had no duty to disclose; and their deceptive acts were not communicated to the public. No member of the investing public had knowledge, either actual or presumed, of respondents’ deceptive acts during the relevant times. Petitioner, as a result, cannot show reliance upon any of respondents’ actions except in an indirect chain that we find too remote for liability.
B
Invoking what some courts call “scheme liability,” see, e. g., In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative, & “ERISA” Litigation, 439 F. Supp. 2d 692, 723 (SD Tex. 2006), petitioner nonetheless seeks to impose liability on respondents even absent a public statement. In our view this approach does not answer the objection that petitioner did not in fact rely upon respondents’ own deceptive conduct.
Liability is appropriate, petitioner contends, because respondents engaged in conduct with the purpose and effect of creating a false appearance of material fact to further a scheme to misrepresent Charter’s revenue. The argument is that the financial statement Charter released to the public was a natural and expected consequence of respondents’ deceptive acts; had respondents not assisted Charter, Charter’s auditor would not have been fooled, and the financial statement would have been a more accurate reflection of Charter’s financial condition. That causal link is sufficient, petitioner argues, to apply Basic’s presumption of reliance to respondents’ acts. See, e. g., Simpson, 452 F. 3d, at 1051-1052; In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, 376 F. Supp. 2d 472, 509 (SDNY 2005).
In effect petitioner contends that in an efficient market investors rely not only upon the public statements relating to a security but also upon the transactions those statements reflect. Were this concept of reliance to be adopted, the implied cause of action would reach the whole marketplace in which the issuing company does business; and there is no authority for this rule.
As stated above, reliance is tied to causation, leading to the inquiry whether respondents’ acts were immediate or remote to the injury. In considering petitioner’s arguments, we note § 10(b) provides that the deceptive act must be “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b). Though this phrase in part defines the statute’s coverage rather than causation (and so we do not evaluate the “in connection with” requirement of § 10(b) in this case), the emphasis on a purchase or sale of securities does provide some insight into the deceptive acts that concerned the enacting Congress. See Black, Securities Commentary:
The Second Circuit’s Approach to the Tn Connection With’ Requirement of Rule 10b-5, 53 Brooklyn L. Rev. 539, 541 (1987) (“[WJhile the ‘in connection with’ and causation requirements are analytically distinct, they are related to each other, and discussion of the first requirement may merge with discussion of the second”). In all events we conclude respondents’ deceptive acts, which were not disclosed to the investing public, are too remote to satisfy the requirement of reliance. It was Charter, not respondents, that misled its auditor and filed fraudulent financial statements; nothing respondents did made it necessary or inevitable for Charter to record the transactions as it did.
Petitioner invokes the private cause of action under § 10(b) and seeks to apply it beyond the securities markets — the realm of financing business — to purchase and supply contracts — the realm of ordinary business operations. The latter realm is governed, for the most part, by state law. It is true that if business operations are used, as alleged here, to affect securities markets, the SEC enforcement power may reach the culpable actors. It is true as well that a dynamic, free economy presupposes a high degree of integrity in all of its parts, an integrity that must be underwritten by rules enforceable in fair, independent, accessible courts. Were the implied cause of action to be extended to the practices described here, however, there would be a risk that the federal power would be used to invite litigation beyond the immediate sphere of securities litigation and in areas already governed by functioning and effective state-law guarantees. Our precedents counsel against this extension. See Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S. 551, 556 (1982) (“Congress, in enacting the securities laws, did not intend to provide a broad federal remedy for all fraud”); Santa Fe, 430 U. S., at 479-480 (“There may well be a need for uniform federal fiduciary standards .... But those standards should not be supplied by judicial extension of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 to ‘cover the corporate universe’” (quoting Cary, Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections Upon Delaware, 83 Yale L. J. 663, 700 (1974))). Though § 10(b) is “not ‘limited to preserving the integrity of the securities markets,’ ” Bankers Life, 404 U. S., at 12, it does not reach all commercial transactions that are fraudulent and affect the price of a security in some attenuated way.
These considerations answer as well the argument that if this were a common-law action for fraud there could be a finding of reliance. Even if the assumption is correct, it is not controlling. Section 10(b) does not incorporate common-law fraud into federal law. See, e. g., SEC v. Zandford, 535 U. S. 813, 820 (2002) (“[Section 10(b)] must not be construed so broadly as to convert every common-law fraud that happens to involve securities into a violation”); Central Bank, 511 U. S., at 184 (“Even assuming ... a deeply rooted background of aiding and abetting tort liability, it does not follow that Congress intended to apply that kind of liability to the private causes of action in the securities Acts”); see also Dura, 544 U. S., at 341. Just as § 10(b) “is surely badly strained when construed to provide a cause of action ... to the world at large,” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 733, n. 5 (1975), it should not be interpreted to provide a private cause of action against the entire marketplace in which the issuing company operates.
Petitioner’s theory, moreover, would put an unsupportable interpretation on Congress’ specific response to Central Bank in §104 of the PSLRA. Congress amended the securities laws to provide for limited coverage of aiders and abettors. Aiding and abetting liability is authorized in actions brought by the SEC but not by private parties. See 15 U. S. C. § 78t(e). Petitioner’s view of primary liability makes any aider and abettor liable under § 10(b) if he or she committed a deceptive act in the process of providing assistance. Reply Brief for Petitioner 6, n. 2; Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. Were we to adopt this construction of § 10(b), it would revive in substance the implied cause , of action against all aiders and abettors except those who committed no deceptive act in the process of facilitating the fraud; and we would undermine Congress’ determination that this class of defendants should be pursued by the SEC and not by private litigants. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 290 (2001) (“The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others”); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 143 (2000) (“At the time a statute is enacted, it may have a range of plausible meanings. Over time, however, subsequent acts can shape or focus those meanings”); see also Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572, 596 (1980) (“[W]hile the views of subsequent Congresses cannot override the unmistakable intent of the enacting one, such views are entitled to significant weight, and particularly so when the precise intent of the enacting Congress is obscure” (citations omitted)).
This is not a case in which Congress has enacted a regulatory statute and then has accepted, over a long period of time, broad judicial authority to define substantive standards of conduct and liability. Cf. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877, 899 (2007). And in accord with the nature of the cause of action at issue here, we give weight to Congress’ amendment to the Act restoring aiding and abetting liability in certain cases but not others. The amendment, in our view, supports the conclusion that there is no liability.
The practical consequences of an expansion, which the Court has considered appropriate to examine in circumstances like these, see Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 1083, 1104-1105 (1991); Blue Chip, 421 U. S., at 737, provide a further reason to reject petitioner’s approach. In Blue Chip, the Court noted that extensive discovery and the potential for uncertainty and disruption in a lawsuit allow, plaintiffs with weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies. Id., at 740-741. Adoption of petitioner’s approach would expose a new class of defendants to these risks. As noted in Central Bank, contracting parties might find it necessary to protect against these threats, raising the costs of doing business. See 511 U. S., at 189. Overseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here. See Brief for Organization for International Investment et al. as Amici Curiae 17-20. This, in turn, may raise the cost of being a publicly traded company under our law and shift securities offerings away from domestic capital markets. Brief for NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 12-14.
C
The history of the § 10(b) private right and the careful approach the Court has taken before proceeding without congressional direction provide further reasons to find no liability here. The § 10(b) private cause of action is a judicial construct that Congress did not enact in the text of the relevant statutes. See Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 358-359 (1991); Blue Chip, supra, at 729. Though the rule once may have been otherwise, see J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 432-433 (1964), it is settled that there is an implied cause of action only if the underlying statute can be interpreted to disclose the intent to create one, see, e. g., Alexander, supra, at 286-287; Virginia Bankshares, supra, at 1102; Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 575 (1979). This is for good reason. In the absence of congressional intent the Judiciary’s recognition of an implied private right of action
“necessarily extends its authority to embrace a dispute Congress has not assigned it to resolve. This runs contrary to the established principle that ‘[t]he jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation . . . ,’ American Fire & Cas[ualty] Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 17 (1951), and conflicts with the authority of Congress under Art. III to set the limits of federal jurisdiction.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 746-747 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (citations and footnote omitted).
The determination of who can seek a remedy has significant consequences for the reach of federal power. See Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U. S. 498, 509, n. 9 (1990) (requirement of congressional intent “reflects a concern, grounded in separation of powers, that Congress rather than the courts controls the availability of remedies for violations of statutes”).
Concerns with the judicial creation of a private cause of action caution against its expansion. The decision to extend the cause of action is for Congress, not for us. Though it remains the law, the § 10(b) private right should not be extended beyond its present boundaries. See Virginia Bank-shares, supra, at 1102 (“[T]he breadth of the [private right of action] once recognized should not, as a general matter, grow beyond the scope congressionally intended”); see also Central Bank, supra, at 173 (determining that the scope of conduct prohibited is limited by the text of § 10(b)).
This restraint is appropriate in light of the PSLRA, which imposed heightened pleading requirements and a loss causation requirement upon “any private action” arising from the Securities Exchange Act. See 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b). It is clear these requirements touch upon the implied right of action, which is now a prominent feature of federal securities regulation. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 81-82 (2006); Dura, 544 U. S., at 345-346; see also S. Rep. No. 104-98, pp. 4-5 (1995) (recognizing the § 10(b) implied cause of action, and indicating the PSLRA was intended to have “Congress . . . reassert its authority in this area”); id., at 26 (indicating the pleading standards covered § 10(b) actions). Congress thus ratified the implied right of action after the Court moved away from a broad willingness to imply private rights of action. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 381-382, and n. 66 (1982); cf. Borak, supra, at 433. It is appropriate for us to assume that when § 78u-4 was enacted, Congress accepted the § 10(b) private cause of action as then defined but chose to extend it no further.
IV
Secondary actors are subject to criminal penalties, see, e. g., 15 U. S. C. § 78ff, and civil enforcement by the SEC, see, e. g., § 78t(e). The enforcement power is not toothless. Since September 30, 2002, SEC enforcement actions have collected over $10 billion in disgorgement and penalties, much of it for distribution to injured investors. See SEC, 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 26, http:// www.sec.gov/about/secpar2007.shtml (as visited Jan. 2, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). And in this case both parties agree that criminal penalties are a strong deterrent. See Brief for Respondents 48; Reply Brief for Petitioner 17. In addition some state securities laws permit state authorities to seek fines and restitution from aiders and abettors. See, e. g., Del. Code Ann., Tit. 6, § 7325 (2005). All secondary actors, furthermore, are not necessarily immune from private suit. The securities statutes provide an express private right of action against accountants and underwriters in certain circumstances, see 15 U. S. C. § 77k, and the implied right of action in § 10(b) continues to cover secondary actors who commit primary violations, Central Bank, 511 U. S., at 191.
Here respondents were acting in concert with Charter in the ordinary course as suppliers and, as matters then evolved in the not so ordinary course, as customers. Unconventional as the arrangement was, it took place in the marketplace for goods and services, not in the investment sphere. Charter was free to do as it chose in preparing its books, conferring with its auditor, and preparing and then issuing its financial statements. In these circumstances the investors cannot be said to have relied upon any of respondents’ deceptive acts in the decision to purchase or sell securities; and as the requisite reliance cannot be shown, respondents have no liability to petitioner under the implied right of action. This conclusion is consistent with the narrow dimensions we must give to a right of action Congress did not authorize when it first enacted the statute and did not expand when it revisited the law.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case 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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case, simply stated, is whether the City of Memphis may further delay in meeting fully its constitutional obligation under the Fourteenth Amendment to desegregate its public parks and other municipal recreational facilities.
The petitioners, adult Negro residents of Memphis, commenced this action against the city in May 1960 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief directing immediate desegregation of municipal parks and other city owned or operated recreational facilities from which Negroes were then still excluded. The city denied neither the fact that the majority of the relevant facilities were operated on a segregated basis nor its duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to terminate its policy of conditioning use of such facilities on race. Instead, it pointed to the partial desegregation already effected and attempted to justify its further delay in conforming fully and at once to constitutional mandates by urging the need and wisdom of proceeding slowly and gradually in its desegregation efforts.
The District Court denied the relief sought by the petitioners and ordered the city to submit, within six months, a plan providing additional time for desegregation of the relevant facilities. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 303 F. 2d 863. We granted certiorari, 371 U. S. 909, to consider the important question presented and the applicability here of the principles enunciated by this Court in the second Brown decision, Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, upon which the courts below relied in further delaying complete vindication of the petitioners’ constitutional rights.
We find the second Brown decision to be inapplicable here and accordingly reverse the judgment below.
I.
It is important at the outset to note the chronological context in which the city makes its claim to entitlement to additional time within which to work out complete elimination of racial barriers to use of the public facilities here involved. It is now more than nine years since this Court held in the first Brown decision, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, that racial segregation in state public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And it was almost eight years ago — in 1955, the year after the decision on the merits in Brown — that the constitutional proscription of state enforced racial segregation was found to apply to public recreational facilities. See Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 220 F. 2d 386, aff’d, 350 U. S. 877; see also Muir v. Louisville Park Theatrical Assn., 347 U. S. 971.
Thus, the applicability here of the factors and reasoning relied on in framing the 1955 decree in the second Brown decision, supra, which contemplated the possible need of some limited delay in effecting total desegregation of public schools, must be considered not only in the context of factual similarities, if any, between that case and this one, but also "in light of the significant fact that the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doctrine. In considering the appropriateness of the equitable decree entered below inviting a plan calling for an even longer delay in effecting desegregation, we cannot ignore the passage of a substantial period of time since the original declaration of the manifest unconstitutionality of racial practices such as are here challenged, the repeated and numerous decisions giving notice of such illegality, and the many intervening opportunities heretofore available to attain the equality of treatment which the Fourteenth Amendment commands the States to achieve. These factors mustrinevitably and substantially temper the present import of such broad policy considerations as may have underlain, even in part, the form of decree ultimately framed in the Brown case. Given the extended time which has elapsed, it is far from clear that the mandate of the second Brown decision requiring that desegregation proceed with “áll deliberate speed” would today be fully satisfied by types of plans or programs for desegregation of public educational facilities which eight years ago might have been deemed sufficient. Brown never contemplated that the concept of “deliberate speed” would countenance indefinite delay in elimination of racial barriers in schools, let alone other public facilities not involving the same physical problems or comparable conditions.
II.
When, in 1954, in the first Brown decision, this Court declared the constitutional impermissibility of racial segregation in public schools, it did not immediately frame a decree, but instead invited and heard further argument on the question of relief. In its subsequent opinion, the Court noted that “[f]ull implementation of these [applicable] constitutional principles may require solution of varied .local sehool problems” arid indicated an appropriate scope for the application of equitable principles consistent with both public and private need and for “exercise, of [the] . . . traditional attributes of equity power.” 349 U. S., at 299-300. The District Courts to which the cases there under consideration were remanded were invested with a discretion appropriate to ultimate fashioning of detailed relief .consonant- with properly cognizable local conditions. This did not mean, however, that the discretion was even then unfettered or exercisable without restraint. Basic to the remand was the concept that desegregation must proceed with “all deliberate speed,” and the problems which might be considered and which might justify a decree requiring something less than immediate and total desegregation were severely delimited. Hostility to the- constitutional precepts underlying the original decision was expressly and firmly pretermitted as such an operative factor. Id., at 300.
The nature of the ultimate resolution effected in the second Brown decision largely reflected no more than a recognition of the unusual and particular problems inhering in desegregating large numbers of schools throughout the country. The careful specification of factors relevant to a determination whether any delay in complying fully and completely with the constitutional mandate would.be warranted demonstrated a concern that delay not be conditioned upon insufficient reasons or, in any event, tolerated unless it imperatively and compellingly appeared unavoidable.
This case presents no obvious occasion for the application of Brown. We are not here confronted with attempted desegregation of a local school system with ■ any or all of the perhaps uniquely attendant problems, administrative and other, specified in the second. Brown decision as proper considerations in weighing the need for further delay in vindicating the Fourteenth Amendment rights of petitioners. Desegregation of parks and other recreational facilities does not present the same kinds of cognizable difficulties inhering in elimination of racial classification in schools, at which attendance is compulsory, the adequacy of teachers and facilities crucial, and questions of geographic assignment often of major -•significance.
Most importantly, of course, it must be recognized that even the delay countenanced by Brown was a necessary, albeit significant, adaptation of the usual principle that any deprivation of constitutional rights calls for prompt rectification. The rights'here asserted .are, like all such rights, present rights; they are not merely hopes to some future enjoyment of some formalistic constitutional promise. The basic guarantees of our Constitution are warrants for the here and now and, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, they are to be promptly fulfilled. The second Brown decision is but •a narrowly drawn, and carefully limited, qualification upon usual precepts of constitutional adjudication and is .not to be unnecessarily expanded in application.
Solely because of their race, the petitioners here have been refused the use of city owned or operated parks and other recreational facilities, which the Constitution mandates be open to their enjoyment on equal terms with white persons. The city has effected, continues to effect, and claims the right or need to prolong patently unconstitutional racial discriminations violative of now long-declared and well-established individual rights. The claims of the city to further delay in affording the petitioners that to which they are clearly and unquestionably entitled cannot be upheld except upon the most convincing and impressive demonstration by the city that such delay is manifestly compelled by constitutionally cognizable circumstances warranting the exercise of an appropriate equitable discretion by a court. In short, the city must sustain an extremely heavy burden of proof.
Examination of the facts of this case in light of the foregoing discussion discloses with singular clarity that this burden has not been sustained; indeed, it is patent from the record that the principles enunciated in the second Brown decision have absolutely no application here.
III.
The findings of the District, Court disclose an unmistakable and pervasive pattern of local segregation, which, in fact, the city makes no attempt to deny, but merely attempts to justify as necessary for the time being. Memphis owns 131 parks, all of which are operated by the Memphis Park Commission. Of these, only 25 were at the time of trial open to use without regard to race; 58 were restricted to use by whites and 25 to use by Negroes; the remaining 23 parks were undeveloped raw land. Subject to exceptions, neighborhood parks were generally segregated according to the racial character of the area in which located. The City Park Commission also operates a number of additional recreational facilities, by far the largest share of which were found to be racially segregated. Though a zpo, an art gallery and certain boating and other facilities are now desegregated, about two-thirds (40) of the 61 city-owned playgrounds were at the time of trial reserved for whites only, and the remainder were set aside for Negro use. Thirty of the 56 playgrounds and other facilities operated by the municipal Park Commission on property owned by churches, private groups, or the School Board were set aside for the exclusive use of whites, while 26 were reserved for Negroes. All 12 of the municipal community centers were segregated, eight being available only to whites and four to Negroes. Only two of the seven city golf courses were open to Negroes; play on the remaining five was limited to whites. While several of these properties have been desegregated since the filing of suit, the general pattern of racial segregation in such public recreational facilities persists.
The city asserted in the court below, and states here, that its good faith in attempting to comply with the requirements of the Constitution is not in issue, and contends that gradual desegregation on a facility-by-facility basis is necessary to prevent interracial disturbances, violence, riots, and community confusion and turmoil. The compelling answer to this contention is that constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise. See Wright v. Georgia, ante, p. 284; Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300. Cf. Taylor v. Louisiana, 370 U. S. 154. As declared in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 16, “law and order are not ... to be preserved by depriving the Negro children of their constitutional rights.” This is really no more than an application of a principle enunciated much earlier in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, a case dealing with a somewhat different form of state-órdained segregation — enforced separation of Negroes and whites by neighborhood. A unanimous Court, in striking down the officially imposed pattern of racial segregation there in question, declared almost a half century ago:
“It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conflicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace, this aim cannot -be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the Federal Constitution.” 245 U. S., at 81.
Beyond this, however, neither the asserted fears of violence and tumult nor the asserted inability to preserve the peace was demonstrated at trial to be anything more than personal speculations or vague.disquietudes of city officials. There is no indication that there- had been any violence or meaningful disturbances when other recrea-, tional facilities had been desegregated. In fact, the only evidence in the record was that such prior transitions had been peaceful. The Chairman of the Memphis Park Commission indicated that the city had “been singularly blessed by the absence of turmoil up to this time on this race question”-; notwithstanding the prior desegregation of numerous recreational facilities, the same witness could point as evidence of the unrest or turmoil which would assertedly occur upon complete desegregation of such facilities only to a number of anonymous letters and phone calls which he had received. The Memphis Chief of Police mentioned without further description some “troubles” at the time bus service was desegregated and referred to threatened • violence in connection with a “sit-in” demonstration at a local store, but, beyond making general predictions, gave no concrete indication of any inability of authorities to maintain the peace. The only violence referred to at any park or recreational facility occurred in segregated parks and was not the product of attempts at desegregation. Moreover, there was no factual evidence to support the bare testi-moniar speculations that authorities would be unable to cope successfully with any problems which in fact might arise or to meet the need for additional protection should the occasion demand.
The existing and commendable goodwill between the races in Memphis, to which both the District Court and some of the witnesses at trial made express and emphatic reference as in some .inexplicable fashion supporting the need for further delay, can best be preserved and extended by the observance and protection, not the denial, of the basic constitutional rights here asserted. The best guarantee of civil peace is adherence to, and respect for, the law.
The other justifications for delay urged by the city or relied upon by the courts below are no more substantial, either legally or practically. It was, for example, asserted that immediate desegregation of playgrounds and parks would deprive a number of children — both Negro and white — of recreational facilities; this contention was apparently based on the premise that a number of such facilities would have to be closed because of the inadequacy of the “present” park budget to provide additional “supervision” assumed to be necessary to operate unsegregated playgrounds. As already noted, however, there is no warrant in this record for assuming that such added supervision would, in fact, be required, much less that police and recreation personnel would be unavailable to meet such needs if they should arise. More significantly, however, it is obvious that vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny than to afford them. We will not assume that the citizens of Memphis accept the questionable premise implicit in this argument or that either the resources of the city are inadequate, or its' government unresponsive, to the needs of all of its citizens.
In support of its judgment, the District Court also pointed out that the recreational facilities available for Negroes were roughly proportional to their number and therefore presumably adequate to meet their needs. While the record does not clearly support this, no more need be said than that, even if true, it reflects an impermissible obeisance to the now thoroughly discredited doctrine of “separate but equal.” The sufficiency of Negro facilities is beside the point; it is the segregation by race that is unconstitutional.
Finally, the District Court deferred ruling as to the propriety of ordering elimination of racial barriers at one facility, an art museum, pending initiation of, and decision in, a state court action to construe a racially restrictive covenant contained in the deed of the property to the city. Of course, the outcome of the state suit is irrelevant to whether the city may constitutionally enforce the segregation, regardless of the effect which desegregation may have on its title. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusts, 353 U. S. 230. In any event, there is no reason to believe that the. restrictive provision will be invoked. The museum has already been opened to Negroes one day a week without complaint.
Since the city has completely failed to demonstrate any compelling or convincing reason requiring further delay in implementing the constitutional proscription of segregation of publicly owned or operated recreational facilities, there is no cause whatsoever to depart from the generally operative and here clearly controlling principle that constitutional rights are to be promptly vindicated. The continued denial to petitioners of the use of city facilities solely because of their race is without warrant. Under the facts in this case, the District Court’s undoubted discretion in the fashioning and timing of equitable relief was not called into play; rather, affirmative judicial action was required to vindicate plain and present constitutional rights. Today, no less than 50 years ago, the solution to the problems growing out of race relations "cannot be promoted by depriving citizens of their constitutional rights and privileges,” Buchanan v. Warley, supra, 245 U. S., at 80-81.
The judgment below must be and is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed.
The plan ultimately formulated, though not part of the record here, was described in oral argument before the Court of Appeals. It does not provide for complete desegregation of all facilities until 1971.
See, e. g., Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 220 F. 2d 386, aff’d, 350 U. S. 877 (beaches and bathhouses); New Orleans City Park Improvement Assn. v. Detiege, 252 F. 2d 122, aff’d, 358 U. S. 54 (golf courses and other facilities); City of St. Petersburg v. Alsup, 238 F. 2d 830 (beach and swimming pools); Tate v. Department of Conservation and Development, 133 F. Supp. 53, aff’d, 231 F. 2d 615, cert. denied, 352 U. S. 838 (parks); Moorhead v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 152 F. Supp. 131, aff’d, 248 F. 2d 544 (golf course) ; Fayson v. Beard, 134 F. Supp. 379 (parks); Holley v. City of Portsmouth, 150 F. Supp. 6 (golf course); Ward v. City of Miami, 151 F. Supp. 593 (golf course); Willie v. Harris County, 202 F. Supp. 549 (park). It is noteworthy that in none of these cases was the possibility of delay in effecting desegregation even considered.
The factors set out by the Court in the second Brown decision were “problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the .school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools'on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems.” 349 U. S., at 300-301.
Recognition of the possible need for delay has not even been extended to desegregation of state colleges or universities in "which like problems were not presented. See, e. g., Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U. S. 413, where, in remanding on the authority of Brown, this Court said that “[a]s this case involves the admission of a Negro to a graduate professional school, there is no reason for delay. He is entitled to prompt admission under the rules .and regulations applicable to other, qualified candidates.” 350 U. S., at 414. See also Lucy v. Adams, 350 U. S. 1. Similarly, both before and after Brown, delay has neither been suggested nor countenanced in eliminating operation of racial barriers with respect to transpprtation, e. g., Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454; Henderson v. United States, 339 U. S. 816; Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373; Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707, aff’d, 352 U. S. 903; voting, e. g., Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649; racial zoning of property, e. g., City of Richmond v. Deans, 281 U. S. 704; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60; or employment rights and union representation, e. g., Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768.
This principle was well established- even under the now discarded '“separate but equal” doctrine. See, e. g., McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U. S. 637, 642; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 635; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 632-633. See also Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U. S. 413, 414, and notes 2 and 4, supra.
These figures, and others referred to in the text, apparently represent the total extent of progress, as pf the time of trial, toward desegregation of recreational facilities since this Court’s decision eight years ago outlawing the practices here in question. So far as appears, none of the relevant facilities were open for use without regard to race prior to 1955, and, in fact, several new parks have been opened on a segregated basis since that time. •
It is not entirely clear precisely how many properties have since trial actually been desegregated and how many were merely changed from “white-only” to “Negro-only” use in line with changes in neighborhood racial composition.
Nor, contrary to predictions, does it appear that violence or disruption of any, kind ensued upon elimination of racial barriers to use of certain additional facilities subsequent to trial.
Except for the mention of some extra policemen assigned to duty at the city zoo, no showing was made even that additional supervision was necessary or provided at facilities which had been desegregated previously.
Approximately 37% of Memphis’ 500,000 residents are Negroes; contrary to the apparent assumption of the trial court, the recreational facilities available to Negroes were not at the time of trial all quantitatively proportional to their number and their cómplete or partial exclusion from certain other facilities evidenced a substantial qualitative difference. Moreover, there was testimony from Negro witnesses that they were excluded from golf courses and playgrounds more convenient to their places of residence than other, like facilities open to them. ■ . .
The city also asserted .in the District Court that delay was supported by the fact that desegregation of the Fairgrounds would result ’ in a substantial loss of revenues therefrom and would be unfair to contract concessionaires. This claim appears to have been mooted by the intervening elimination of racial restrictions at that facility, seemingly without difficulty.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered, the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a constitutional challenge to a Kansas recoupment statute, whereby the State may recover in subsequent civil proceedings counsel and other legal defense fees expended for the benefit of indigent defendants. The three-judge court below held the statute unconstitutional, finding it to be an impermissible burden upon the right to counsel established in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). The State appealed and we noted jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 982.
The relevant facts are not disputed. Appellee Strange was arrested and charged with first-degree robbery under Kansas law. He appeared before a magistrate, professed indigency, and accepted appointed counsel under the Kansas Aid to Indigent Defendants Act. Appellee was then tried in the Shawnee County District. Court, on the reduced charge of pocket picking.. He pleaded guilty and received. a suspended sentence and three years’ probation.
Thereafter, appellee’s counsel, applied to the State for payment for his services and received $500 from the Aid to Indigent Defendants Fund. Pursuant to Kansas’ recoupment statute, the Kansas Judicial Ad-' ministrator requested appellee to reimburse the State within 60 days or a judgment for the $500 would be docketed against him. Appellee contends this procedure violates his constitutional rights.
I
It is necessary at the outset to explain the terms and operation of the challenged statute. When the State provides an indigent defendant with counsel or other legal services, the defendant becomes obligated to the State for the amount expended in his behalf. Within 3Ó days of the expenditure, the defendant is notified of his debt and given 60 days to repay it. If the sum remains unpaid after the 60-day period, a judgment is docketed against defendant for the unpaid amount. Six percent annual interest runs on the debt from the date the expenditure was made. The debt becomes a lien on the real estate of defendant and may be executed by garnishment or in any other manner provided by the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure. The indigent defendant is not, however, accorded any of the exemptions provided by that code for other judgment debtors except the homestead exemption. If the judgment is not executed within five years, it becomes dormant and ceases to operate as a lien on the debtor’s real estate, but may be revived in the same manner as other dormant judgments under the code of civil procedure.
Several features of this procedure merit mention. The entire program is administered by the judicial administrator, a public official, but appointed counsel are private practitioners. The statute apparently leaves to administrative discretion whether, and under what circumstances, enforcement of the judgment will be sought. Recovered sums do, however, revert to the Aid to Indigent Defendants Fund.
The Kansas statute is but one of many state re-coupment laws applicable to counsel fees and expenditures paid for indigent defendants. The statutes vary' widely in their terms. Under some statutes, the indigent’s liability is to the county in which he is tried; in others to the State. Alabama and Indiana make assessment and recovery of an indigent’s counsel fees discretionary .with the court. Florida’s recoupment law-has no statute of limitations and the State is deemed to have a perpetual lien against the defendant’s real and personal property and estate. Idaho, on the other hand, has a five-year statute of limitations on the recovery of an “indigent’s” concealed assets at the time of trial and a three-year statute for the recovery of later acquired ones. In Virginia and West Virginia, the amount paid to court-appointed counsel is assessed only against convicted defendants as a part of costs, although the majority of state recoupment laws apply whether or not the defendant prevails. If is thus apparent that state recoupment laws and procedures differ significantly in their particulars. Given the wide differences in the features of these statutes, any broadside pronouncement on their general validity would be inappropriate.
We turn therefore to the Kansas statute, aware that our reviewing function is a limited one. We do not inquire whether this statute is wise or desirable, or “whether it is based on assumptions scientifically substantiated.” Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 501 (1957) (separate opinion of Harlan, J.). Misguided laws may nonetheless be constitutional. It has been noted both in the briefs and at argument that only $17,000 has been recovered under the statute in its almost two years of operation, and that this amount is negligible compared to the total expended. Our task, however, is not to weigh this statute’s effectiveness but its constitutionality. Whether the returns under the statute justify the expense, time, and efforts of state officials is for the ongoing supervision of the legislative branch. .
The court below invalidated this statute on the grounds that .it “needlessly encourages indigents to do without counsel arid consequently infringes on the right to counsel as explicated in Gideon v. Wainwright, supra.” 323 F. Supp. 1230, 1233. In Gideon, counsel had been denied an indigent defendant charged with a felony because his was not a capital case. This Court often has voided state statutes and practices which denied to accused indigents the means to present effective defenses, in courts of law. Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487 (1963); Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 (1963); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956). Here, however, Kansas has enacted laws both to provide and compensate from public funds counsel for the indigent. There is certainly no denial of the right to counsel in the strictest sense. Whether the statutory obligations for repayment impermissibly deter the exercise of this right is a question we need not reach, for wé find the statute before us constitutionally infirm on other grounds.
II
Appellants have asserted in argument before this Court that the statute “has attempted to treat them [indigent defendants] the same as would any civil judgment debtor be treated in the State courts . . . .” Again, in their brief appellants assert that “[f]or all practical purposes the methods available for enforcement of the judgment are the same as those provided by the Code of Civil Procedures [sic] or any other civil judgment.” The challenged portion of the statute- thrice alludes to means of debt recovery prescribed by the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure.
Yet the ostensibly equal treatment of indigent defendants with other civil judgment debtors recedes sharply as one examines the statute more closely. The statute stipulates that save for the homesteád, “[n]one of the exemptions provided for in the code of civil procedure shall apply to any such judgment . . . .” This provision strips from indigent defendants the array of protective exemptions Kansas has erectéd for other civil judgment debtors, including restrictions on the amount of disposable earnings subject to garnishment, protection of the. debtor from wage garnishment at times of severe personal or. family sickness, and exemption from attachment and execution on a debtor’s personal clothing, books, and tools of trade. For the head of a family, the exemptions afforded other judgment debtors becommore extensive, and cover furnishings, food, fuel, clothing, means of transportation, pension funds, and even a family burial plot or crypt.
Of the above exemption^, none is more important to a debtor than the exemption of his wages from unrestricted garnishment. The debtor’s wages are his sustenance, with which he supports himself and his family. The average low income wage' earner spends nearly nine-tenths of those wages for items of immediate consumption. This Court has recognized the potential of certain garnishment proceedings to “impose tremendous hardshipsi on wage earners with families to support.” Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337, 340 (1969). Kansas has likewise perceived the burden to a debtor and his family when wages may be subject to wholesale garnishment. Consequently, under its code of civil procedure, the maximum which can be garnished is the lesser of 25% of a debtor's weekly disposable earnings or the amount by which those earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage. No one creditor may issue more than one garnishment during any one month, and no employer may discharge an employee because his earnings have been garnished for a single indebtedness. For Kansas to deny protections such as these to the once criminally accused is to risk denying him the means needed to keep himself and his family afloat.
The indigent's predicament under this statute comes into sharper focus when compared with that of one who has hired counsel in his defense. Should the latter prove unable to pay and a judgment be obtained against him, his obligation would become enforceable, under the relevant provisions of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure. But, unlike the indigent under the recoupment statute, the code’s exemptions would protect this judgment debtor.
It may be argued that an indigent accused, for whom the State' has provided counsel, is in a different class-with respect to collection of his indebtedness than a judgment creditor whose obligaticn arose from a private transaction. But other Kansas statutes providing for recoupment of public assistance to indigents do not include the severe provisions imposed on indigent defendants in this case. Kansas has enacted, as have many other States, laws for state recovery of public welfare assistance- when paid to an ineligible recipient. Yet the Kansas welfare recipient, unlike the indigent defendant,' is not denied the customary exemptions.
We recognize, of course, - that the State’s claim to reimbursement may take precedence, under appropriate circumstances, over the claims of private creditors and that enforcement procedures with respect to judgments need not be identical. This does not mean, however, that a State may impose unduly harsh or discriminatory • terms merely because the obligation is to the public treasury rather than to a private creditor. The State itself in the statute before us analogizes the judgment lien against the indigent defendant .to other “judgments under the code of civil, procedure.” But the statute then strips the indigent defendant of the very exemptions- designed primarily to benefit debtors of low and marginal incomes.
The Kansas statute provides for recoupment whether the indigent defendant is acquitted or found- guilty. If acquitted, the indigent finds himself obligated to repay the State for a service the need for which resulted from the State’s prosecution. It is difficult to See why such a defendant, • adjudged to be innocent of the State’s charge, should be denied basic exemptions accorded all other judgment debtors. The indigent defendant who is found guilty is uniquely disadvantaged in terms of the practical operation of the statute. A criminal conviction usually limits employment opportunities. This is especially true where a prison sentence has been served. It is in the interest of society and the State that such a defendant, upon satisfaction of the criminal penalties imposed, be afforded a reasonable opportunity of employment, rehabilitation and return to useful citizenship. There is limited incentive to seek legitimate employment when, after serving a sentence during which interest has accumulated on the indebtedness for legal services, the indigent knows that his wages will be garnished without the benefit of any of the customary exemptions.
Appellee in this case has now married, works for a modest wage, and has recently become a father. To deprive him of all protection for his wages and intimate personalty discourages the search for self-sufficiency which might make of the criminally accused a contributing citizen. Not only does this treatment not accord with the treatment of indigent recipients of public welfare or with that of other civil judgment debtors, but the Kansas statute also appears to be alone among re-coupment laws applicable to indigent defendants in expressly denying them the benefit of basic debtor exemptions.
Ill
In Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305 (1966), the Court considered a situation comparable in some respects to the case at hand. Rinaldi involved a New Jersey statute which required only those indigent defendants who were sentenced to confinement in state institutions to reimburse the State the costs of a transcript on appeal. In Rinaldi, as here, a broad ground of decision was urged, namely, that the statute unduly burdened an indigent’s right to appeal. The Court found, however, a different basis for decision* holding that “[t]o fasten a financial burden only upon those unsuccessful appellants who are confined in state institutions ... is to make an invidious discrimination” in violation. of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 309.
Rinaldi affirmed that the Equal Protection Clause “imposes a requirement of some rationality in the nature of the class singled out.” Id., at 308-309. This requirement is lacking where, as in the instant case, the State has subjected indigent defendants to such discriminatory conditions of repayment. This case, to be sure, differs from Rinaldi in that here all indigent defendants are treated alike. But to impose these harsh conditions on a class of debtors who were provided counsel as required by the Constitution is to practice, no less than in Rinaldi, a discrimination which the Equal Protection Clause proscribes.
The Court assumed in Rinaldi, arguendo, “that, a legislature could validly provide for replenishing a county treasury from the pockets of those who have directly benefited from county expenditures.” Id., at 309. We note here also that the state interests represented by recoupment laws may prove important ones. Recoupment proceedings may protect the State from fraudulent concealment of assets and false assertions of indigency. Many States, moreover, face expanding criminal dockets, and this Court has required appointed counsel for indigents in widening classes of cases and stages of prosecution.' Such trends have heightened the burden on public revenues, and recoupment laws reflect legislative efforts to recover some of the added costs. Finally, federal dominance of the Nation’s major revenue sources haS encouraged state and local governments to seek new methods of conserving public funds, not only through the recoupment of indigents’ counsel fees but of other forms of public assistance as well.
We thus recognize that state recoupment statutes may betoken legitimate state interests. But these interests are not thwarted by requiring more even treatment of indigent criminal defendants with other-classes of debtors to whom the statute itself repeatedly makes reference. State recoupment laws, notwithstanding the state interests they may serve, need not blight in such discriminatory fashion the hopes of indigents for self-sufficiency and self-respect. . The statute before us embodies elements of púnitiveness and discrimination which violate the rights of citizens to equal treatment under the law.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
The opinion of the three-judge court is reported in 323 F. Supp. 1230 (Kan. 1971).
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§22-4501 to 22-4515 (Supp. 1971).
Kan. Stat. Ann. §22 — 4513 (Supp. 1971). The statute reads as follows:
“(a) Whenever any expenditure has been made from the aid to indigent defendants fund to provide counsel and other defense services to any defendant, as authorized by section 10, . . . such defendant shall be liable to the state of Kansas for a sum équal-to such expenditure, and such sum may be recovered from the defendant by the state of Kansas for the benefit of the fund to aid indigent defendants. Within thirty (30) days after such expenditure, the judicial administrator shall send a notice by certified mail to the person on whose behalf such expenditure was made, which notice shall state the amount of the expenditure and shall demand that the defendant pay said sum to'the state of Kansas for the benefit of the fund to aid indigent defendants within sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice. ' The notice shall state that such sum became due on the date of the^expenditure and that the sum demanded will bear interest at six perc.ent (6%) per annum from the due date until paid. Failure to receive any such notice shall not relieve the person to whom it is addressed from the payment of the sum claimed .and-, any interest due thereon.
“Should the sum demanded remain unpaid at the expiration of sixty (60) days after mailing the notice, the judicial administrator shall certify an abstract of the total amount of the unpaid demand and interest thereon to the clerk of the district court of the county in which counsel was appointed or the expenditure- authorized by the court, and such clerk shall enter the total amount thereof on his judgment docket and said total amount, together with the interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of the expenditure thereof until paid, shall become a judgment in the same manner and to the same extent as any other judgment under the code of civil procedure and shall become a lien on real estate from and after the time of filing thereof. A transcript of said judgment may be filed in another county and become a lien upon real estate, located in such county, in the same manner as is provided in ease of other judgments. Execution, garnishment, or other proceedings in aid of execution may issue within the county, or to any other county, on said judgment in like manner as on judgments under the code of civil procedure. None of the exemptions prbvided for in the code of civil procedure shall apply to any - such judgment, but no such judgment shall be levied against a homestead. If execution shall not be sued out within five (5) years from the date of the entry of any such judgment, or’if five (5) years shall have’intervened between the date of the last execution issued on such judgment and the time of suing out another writ of execution thereon, such judgment shall become dormant and shall cease to operate as a lien on real estate of the judgment debtor. Such dormant judgment may be revived in like manner as dormant judgments under the code of civil procedure.
“(b) Whenever any expenditure has been' made from the aid to indigent defendants fund to provide counsel, and other defense. services to' any defendant, as authorized by section 10, ... a sum equal to such expenditure' may be recovered by the state of Kansas for the benefit of the aid-to indigent defendants fund from any persons to whom the indigent defendant shall have transferred any of his property without adequate monetary consideration after the commission of the alleged crime, to the extent of the value of such transfer, and such persons are hereby made liable to reimburse the state of Kansas for such expenditures with interest at six percent (6%)'per annum. Any action to recover judgment for such expenditures shall be prosecuted by the attorney general, who may require the assistance of the county attorney of the county in which the action is to be filed, and such action shall be governed by the provisions of the code of civil procedure relating to actions for the recovery of money. No action shall be brought against any person under the provisions of this section to recover for sums expended ' on behalf of an indigent defendant, unless such ^action shall have been filed within two (2) years after the date of the expenditure from the fund to aid indigent defendants.”
Failure to receive notice, however, does not relieve the person to whom it is addressed of the obligation.
A dormant judgment may be revived within two years of the date on which the judgment became dormant. -IKan. Stat. Ann. §60-2404 (1964).
There is also a federal reimbursement provision, 18 U. S. C. § 3006A (f):
“Receipt of other payments. — Whenever the' United States magistrate or the court finds that funds are available for payment, from or on behalf of a person furnished representation, it may authorize or direct that such funds be paid to the appointed attorney, to the bar association or legal aid agency or community defender organization which provided the appointed attorney, to any person or organization authorized pursuant to subsection (e) to render investigative, expert, or other services, or to the court for deposit, in the Treasury as a .reimbursetnent to the appropriation, current at the time of payment, to carry out the provisions of this section. Except as so authorized or directed, no such person or organization may-request or accept any payment or promise of payment for representing a defendant.”.
The board of county commissioners has discretion to compromise or' release the hen, however. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 27.56 (Supp. 1972-1973).
State recoupment statutes, including those quoted above, are as follows:
Ala. Code, Tit. 15, § 318 (12) (Supp. 1969); Alaska Stat. § 12.55.020 (1962); Fla. Stat. Ann. §27.56 (Supp. 1972-1973); Idaho Code § 19-858 (Supp. 1971); Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-3501 (Supp. 1970); Iowa Code Ann. §775.5 (Supp. 1972); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 26, § 12C (Supp. 1971); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 41-22-7 (Supp. 1971); N. D. Cent. Code §29-07-01.1 (Supp. 1971); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2941.51 (Supp. 1971); S. C. Code Ann. § 17-283 (Supp. 1971); Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 1018 (1966); Va. Code Ann. § 14.1-184 (Supp. 1971); W. Va. Code Ann. §62-3-1 (Supp. 1971); Wis. Stat. Ann. §256.66 (1971).
For fiscal 1971 $400,000 was appropriated to fund the program.
See n. 2, supra.
“Tr: of Oral Arg.. 9. The State concedes .that exemptions for other civil judgment debtors are broader than for indigent defendants, id., at 10, a matter we will address forthwith. .
Brief for Appellants 7:
See .Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-701 to 60-724, 60-2401 to. 60-2419 (1964 and Supp. 1971).
The exemptions in the civil code are set forth in Kan. Stat. Ann. §§60-2301 to 60-2311 (1964 and Supp. 1971).
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-2304 and 60-2308 (1964 and Supp. 1971).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics 281 (1968). Low-wage earners are defined as families with after-tax income of less than $5,000.
The Court in Sniadach held that Wisconsin’s prejudgmént wage garnishment procedure, as a taking of property without notice and prior hearing, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-2310 (b) and 60-2311 (Supp. 1971).' Section 60-2310 also provides further debtor protection from wage garnishment at a time of disabling personal sickness and from professional collecting agencies; See Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-2310 (c) and (d) (Supp. 1971). See also Bennett, the 1970 Kansas Legislature in Review, 39 J. B. A. K. 107, 178 (1970), which points out that the State’s restrictions on garnishments have been made to conform to Tit. Ill of the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, 82 Stat. 163. Kansas, however, provided significant wage exemptions from garnishment long before the federal Act was passed.
Kan. Stat. Ann. §39-719b (1964); §59-2006 (Supp. 1971). Section 39-719b deals mainly with the recovery of assistance from an ineligible recipient. Yet, even when the welfare recipient is deemed to have defrauded the State, he still escapes the immediate interest accumulations and denial of exemptions imposed on indigent defendants:
Ҥ 39-719b. Duty of recipient to report changes; action by board; recovery of assistance obtained by ineligible recipient. If at any time during the continuance of assistance to any person, the recipient thereof becomes possessed of any property or income in excess of the amount ascertained at the time of granting assistance, it shall be the duty of the recipient to notify, the county board of social welfare immediately of the receipt or possession of such property or income and said county board may, after investigation, cancel the assistance in accordance with the circumstances.
“Any assistance paid shall be recoverable by the county board as a debt due to the state and the county in proportion to the amount of the assistance paid by each, respectively: If during the life or on the death of any person receiving assistance, it is found that the recipient was possessed of income or property in excess of the amount reported or ascertained at the time of granting assistance, and if it be shown that such assistance was obtained by an ineligible recipient,' the total amount of the assistance may be recovered by the state department of social welfare as a fourth class claim, from the estate of the recipient or in an action brought against the recipient while ■living.”
There appears to be a. further discrimination against the indigent defendant as contrasted with the delinquent welfare recipient. The recoupment statute applicable to indigent defendants provides for the accumulation of 6% annual interest from the date expenditures are made for counsel or other legal defense costs. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4513 (Supp. 1971). The interest build-up for the indigent defendant would not be insubstantial, In the five years before the judgment became dormant, interest accumulations could lift ap-pellee’s $500 debt to almost $670. If the dormant judgment is revived within the statutorily prescribed two years, the principal and interest might total over $750. (The interest presumably would run while the judgment was dormant since “[a] dormant judgment may be revived and have the same force and effect as if it had not become dormant . . . .” Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-2404 (Supp. 1971)).
Kansas also has a statute providing that all judgments shall bear 8% interest from the day on which they are rendered. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16-204 (Supp. 1971) (recently amended from 6%) . Presumably this statute would cover the “debts” of welfare recipients once they are reduced to judgment. The debt of the indigent defendant, however, runs from the date the assistance is granted, while any interest on the debt of a welfare, recipient would presumably run from the date of judgment.
For example, Kansas does not extend its exemptions with respect to wage garnishment to any debt due for any state or federal tax, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-2310 (e) (3) (Supp. 1971). This type of public debt, however, differs from the instant case in representing a wrongful withholding from the State of a tax on assets in the actual possession of the taxpayer and not, as here, a debt contracted under circumstances of indigency.
The statutes of various other States, e. g., Alaska, South Carolina, and West Virginia, provide, as does Kansas, for recovery against . indigent defendants in the same manner as on other judgments. Unlike Kansas, however, these States do not expressly subject indigents to conditions to which other civil judgment debtors are not liable. See n. 8, supra, for citations.
See n. 8, supra, for citations.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); Argersinger v. Hamlin, ante, p. 25.
Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128 (1967); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, William Miller, together with Bessie Byrd and her brother, Arthur R. Shepherd, was tried and convicted in the District Court for the District of Columbia for conspiracy to commit violations, and violations, of the federal narcotics laws. 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 4704 (a), 21 U. S. C. § 174, 18 U. S. C. § 371. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting, 100 U. S. App. D. C. 302, 244 F. 2d 750. We granted certiorari, 353 U. S. 957, to determine whether evidence seized at the time of petitioner’s arrest was properly admitted against the petitioner. The evidence was $100 of marked currency which was seized by the federal officers who arrested the petitioner and Bessie Byrd at their apartment.
On March 25, 1955, at 1:35 a. m., Clifford Reed was arrested, under an arrest warrant, on a Washington, D. C., street on suspicion of narcotics offenses. Reed revealed to Wilson, a federal narcotics agent, that he purchased heroin in 100-capsule quantities from the petitioner through Shepherd. Agent Wilson knew of the petitioner as one who had trafficked in narcotics and had been convicted for a narcotics offense in 1953. Reed said that he was to meet Shepherd later that morning to make a purchase. Agent Wilson enlisted his aid to apprehend Shepherd and the petitioner. About 3 a. m. another federal narcotics agent, Lewis, carrying $100 of marked currency, went with Reed in a taxicab to Shepherd’s home. Reed introduced Lewis to Shepherd as a buyer. Shepherd accepted the $100 and agreed to secure 100 capsules of heroin from the petitioner and deliver them to Lewis at Reed’s apartment. Shepherd proceeded alone in the taxicab to the petitioner’s apartment.
The taxicab was followed by agent Wilson, officer Wurms of the Metropolitan Police Department, and other officers in police cars. Shepherd was seen to leave the taxicab in front of the apartment house where the petitioner and Bessie Byrd occupied a two-room-and-bath basement apartment. The taxicab waited. Shepherd entered the basement but agent Wilson, who looked into the basement hall, could not see where he went. Shepherd came out of the basement within a few minutes and re-entered the taxicab. The taxicab was proceeding toward Reed's apartment when the officers following in the police cars intercepted it. Shepherd was arrested and searched. He did not have the marked bills on his person but admitted to agent Wilson and officer Wurms that a package of 100 capsules of narcotics found under the taxicab’s front seat was put there by him when the police cars stopped the taxicab. He said that he had taken the package from behind a fire extinguisher in the basement hall where he had been sent by a “féllow” with Reed who had promised him $10 for getting'it.
The federal officers returned immediately to the apartment building. About 3:45 a. m. agent Wilson and officer Wurms went to the door of the petitioner’s apartment. Officer Wurms knocked and, upon the inquiry from within — “Who’s there?” — replied in a low voice, “Police.” The petitioner opened the door on an attached door chain and asked what the officers were doing there. Before either responded, he attempted to close the door. Thereupon, according to officer Wurms, “we put our hands inside the door and pulled and ripped the chain off, and entered.” The officers had no arrest or search warrant. They did not expressly demand admission or state their purpose for their presence, nor did they place the petitioner under arrest until after they entered the apartment.
Bessie Byrd was also arrested in the apartment and turned over the cash she had in her housecoat. The cash included $34 of the marked currency. After an extended search the remaining $66 of marked currency was found, some in a hatbox in a closet, and the rest within the covers of a bed in the bedroom.
The Government contends that there was probable cause for arresting the petitioner and that the marked currency was properly admitted in evidence because it was seized as an incident to a lawful arrest. Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145. The petitioner’s argument breaks down into three contentions: (1) that the officers had no probable cause to arrest the petitioner without a warrant; (2) that the search was not justified as being an incident of a lawful arrest; (3) that the arrest, and therefore the search, was in any event unlawful because the officers broke the door of petitioner’s home without first giving notice of their authority and purpose in demanding admission. If any one of these contentions prevails, it is agreed that the marked money was inadmissible in evidence. In the view we take, we need consider only petitioner’s third contention.
The lawfulness of the arrest of petitioner depends upon the power of the arresting officers to “break” the doors of a home in order to arrest without warrant persons suspected of having committed narcotics offenses. Agent Wilson did not have statutory authority to arrest without a warrant although officer Wurms, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, did have such authority. This Court has said, in the similar circumstance of an arrest for violation of federal law by state peace officers, that the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589; Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15. By like reasoning the validity of the arrest of petitioner is to be determined by reference to the law of the District of Columbia.
In making reference to that law we are mindful of our policy of not interfering with local rules of law fashioned by the courts of the District of Columbia. Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, 476; Griffin v. United States, 336 U. S. 704, 715. But the Government agrees with petitioner that the validity of the entry to execute the arrest without warrant must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U. S. C. § 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant. That section provides that an officer, executing a search warrant, may break open a door only if, “after notice of his authority and purpose,” he is denied admittance. The Government states in its brief that, “where an arrest is made on probable cause rather than a warrant, these statutory requirements must be met before an officer can force entry into an apartment.” These statutory requirements are substantially identical to those judicially developed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Accarino v. United States, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 403, 179 F. 2d 456, 465. Since the rule of Accarino bears such a close relationship to a statute which is not confined in operation to the District of Columbia, we believe that review is warranted here. Cf. Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U. S. 280; Carroll v. United States, 354 U. S. 394, 414.
From earliest days, the common law drastically limited the authority of law officers to break the door of a house to effect an arrest. Such action invades the precious interest of privacy summed up in the ancient adage that a man’s house is his castle. As early as the 13th Yearbook of Edward IY (1461-1483), at folio 9, there is a recorded holding that it was unlawful for the sheriff to break the doors of a man’s house to arrest him in a civil suit in debt or trespass, for the arrest was then only for the private interest of a party. Remarks attributed to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of debate in Parliament on the searches incident to the enforcement of an excise on cider, eloquently expressed the principle:
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”
But the common law recognized some authority in law officers to break the door of a dwelling to arrest for felony. The common-law authorities differ, however, as to the circumstances in which this was the case. Hawkins says: “where one lies under a probable Suspicion only, and is not indicted, it seems the better Opinion at this Day, That no one can justify the Breaking open Doors in Order to apprehend him.” 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (1762), c. 14, § 7; see also Foster, Crown Law (1762), 320-321. Coke appears to have been of the same view, and to have thought that the breaking of a house was limited to cases in which a writ, now our warrant, had issued. Co. 4th Inst. 177. On the other hand, Hale says that “A man, that arrests upon suspicion of felony, may break open doors, if the party refuse upon demand to open them . . . .” 1 Hale, Pleas of the Crown (1736), 583.
Whatever the circumstances under which breaking a door to arrest for felony might be lawful, however, the breaking was unlawful where the officer failed first to state his authority and purpose for demanding admission. The requirement was pronounced in 1603 in Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 11 E. R. C. 629, 77 Eng. Repr. 194, at 195: “In all cases where the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The requirement stated in Semayne’s Case still obtains. It is reflected in 18 U. S. C. § 3109, in the statutes of a large number of States, and in the American Law Institute’s proposed Code of Criminal Procedure, § 28. It applies, as the Government here concedes, whether the arrest is to be made by virtue of a warrant, or when officers are authorized to make an arrest for a felony* without a warrant. There are some state decisions holding that justification for noncompliance exists in exigent circumstances, as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe that they or someone within are in peril of bodily harm, Read v. Case, 4 Conn. 166, or that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence. People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 294 P. 2d 6.
But whether the unqualified requirements of the rule admit of an exception justifying noncompliance in exigent circumstances is not a question we are called upon to decide in this case. The Government makes no claim here of the existence of circumstances excusing compliance. The Government concedes that compliance was required but argues that “compliance is evident from the events immediately preceding the officers’ forced entry.”
The rule seems to require notice in the form of an express announcement by the officers of their purpose for demanding admission. The burden of making an express announcement is certainly slight. A few more words by the officers would have satisfied the requirement in this case. It may be that, without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain that the petitioner already knows their purpose so that an announcement would be a useless gesture. Cf. People v. Martin, 45 Cal. 2d 755, 290 P. 2d 855; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 798, 802 (1924). But even by that test the evidence upon which the Government relies was not sufficient to justify the officers’ failure expressly to notify the petitioner that they demanded admission to his apartment for the purpose of arresting him.
The single fact known to the officers upon which the Government relies is the “split-second” occurrence in which the petitioner evinced “instantaneous resistance to their entry,” an “almost instinctive attempt to bar their entry after they [the officers] had identified themselves as police ....”■ It is argued that this occurrence “certainly points up that he knew their purpose immediately . . . [and], at once, realized that he had been detected and that the officers were there to arrest him”; that “[i]t would be wholly unrealistic to say that the officers had not made their purpose known because they did not more formally announce that they were there to arrest him.”
But, first, the fact that petitioner attempted to close the door did not of itself prove that he knew their purpose to arrest him. It was an ambiguous act. It could have been merely the expected reaction of any citizen having this experience at that hour of the morning, particularly since it does not appear that the officers were in uniform, cf. Accarino v. United States, supra, 85 U. S. App. D. C., at 403, 179 F. 2d, at 465, and the answer “Police” was spoken “in a low voice” and might not have been heard by the petitioner so far as the officers could tell.
Second, petitioner’s reaction upon opening the door could only have created doubt in the officers’ minds that he knew they were police intent on arresting him. On the motion to suppress, agent Wilson testified that “he wanted to know what we were doing there.” This query, which went unanswered, is on its face inconsistent with knowledge. The majority of the Court of Appeals denied the import of the query by inferring that Miller knew Wilson and Wurms personally and recognized them as soon as he opened the door. That inference has no support in the record. But even if this inference were supportable, Miller’s recognition of Wilson and Wurms as police officers would not have justified them, in light of other facts known to them, in being virtually certain that Miller actually knew the reason for their presence. The officers knew that petitioner was unaware of Shepherd’s arrest; they knew that he was unaware that the currency was marked; they .knew that he was unaware that their presence was pursuant to a plan, initiated by Reed’s disclosures, to catch the petitioner in a criminal act. Moreover, they did not actually know that petitioner had made a sale to Shepherd and received the marked money, for Shepherd had not talked and had not been seen to enter petitioner’s apartment. The fact that the marked money was found in the apartment has no bearing upon the petitioner’s knowledge of the officers’ purpose since he did not know that the money was marked. This Court said in United States v. Di Re, supra, at 595: “We have had frequent occasion to point out that a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.” The most that can be said is that the petitioner’s act in attempting to close the door might be the basis for the officers being virtually certain that the petitioner knew there were police at his door conducting an investigation. This, however, falls short of a virtual certainty that the petitioner knew of their purpose to arrest him. The requirement is not met except by notice of that purpose, for the Government admits that the officers had no authority to break the petitioner’s door except to arrest him. We must, therefore, conclude that the petitioner did not receive the required notice of authority and purpose.
We are duly mindful of the reliance that society must place for achieving law and order upon the enforcing agencies of the criminal law. But insistence on observance by law officers of traditional fair procedural requirements is, from the long point of view, best calculated to contribute to that end. However much in a particular case insistence upon such rules may appear as a technicality that inures to the benefit of a guilty person, the history of the criminal law proves that tolerance of shortcut methods in law enforcement impairs its enduring effectiveness. The requirement of prior notice of authority and purpose before forcing entry into a home is deeply rooted in our heritage and should not be given grudging application. Congress, codifying a tradition embedded in Anglo-American law, has declared in § 3109 the reverence of the law for the individual’s right of privacy in his house. Every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house. The petitioner could not be lawfully arrested in his home by officers breaking in without first giving him notice of their authority and purpose. Because the petitioner did not receive that notice before the officers broke the door to invade his home, the arrest was unlawful, and the evidence seized should have been suppressed.
Reversed.
MR. Justice Harlan concurs in the result.
The group included two Federal Bureau of Narcotics agents, Wilson and Pappas, officer Wurms of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and officers Bowman and Thompson of the Virginia State Police, who were trainees in the narcotics program of the State of Virginia.
Officer Wurms testified:
“The Witness: Agent Wilson and I were at the front door of the apartment No. 1, 1337 Columbia Road. I knocked on the front door. I said — somebody asked, 'Who’s there?’ I said, ‘Blue’ [the petitioner’s nickname] — in a low voice, I said ‘Police.’
“I repeated it two or three times, in that manner.
“The door opened. There was a chain on the door. Blue Miller saw me, Agent Wilson, and I don’t know who else he saw but he tried to close the door and at that time we put our hands inside the door and pulled and ripped the chain off, and entered.”
At the trial, but not at the hearing on the motion to suppress, agent Wilson testified, “He said, ‘What do you-all want?’ And we says, ‘Police, you are under arrest, we want in.’ He says he was not going to let us in, or something like that, and so officer Wurms took ahold of the door and pulled it open.” But apparently the Government is satisfied that agent Wilson was mistaken in saying that there was mention of the purpose to arrest. His testimony on the motion to suppress as well as the testimony of officer Wurms, both on the motion and at the trial, is contrary. The Government in its brief refers to this testimony merely in footnotes. Its brief accepts the petitioner’s premise that the case should be decided upon the basis that the evidence shows that the officers did not formally announce their purpose. The Court of Appeals decided the case on the basis that Wilson did not make the statement. 100 U. S. App. D. C. 302, 306, 244 F. 2d 750, 754.
Narcotics agents were subsequently given authority by 26 U. S. C. § 7607, added July 18, 1956, to make an arrest where the agents have “reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed” a narcotics offense. In the District of Columbia peace officers having probable cause to believe that a felony is being, or has been, committed are empowered to arrest without a warrant. Wrightson v. United States, 98 U. S. App. D. C. 377, 378, 236 F. 2d 672, 673 (C. A. D. C. Cir.).
18 U. S. C. §3109:
“The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.”
The petitioner does not raise a question of the application of D. C. Code, 1951, § 4-141. See also § 4-145.
Judge Prettyman’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in Accarino v. United States, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 179 F. 2d 456, discusses comprehensively the development of the law. See also the exhaustive article, Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 673, 798 (1924).
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (2d ed. 1953), 379. In Hansard, Parliamentary History of England (1813), vol. 15, column 1307, under the proceedings in the Commons on the cider tax in March, 1763, we find: “Mr. Pitt spoke against this measure, particularly against the dangerous precedent of admitting the officers of excise into private houses. Every man’s house was his castle, he said.”
Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 15, §155; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., 1955, § 13-1411; Deering’s Cal. Penal Code, § 844; Fla. Stat., 1957, 901.17; Idaho Code, 1947, § 19-611; Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat., 1956, Replacement Vol., § 9-1009; Iowa Code Ann., 1949, § 755.9; Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, 62-1819; Ky. Rev. Stat., 1953, §70.078; Dart’s La. Crim. Code, 1943, Art. 72; Mich. Stat. Ann., 1954, §28.880; Minn. Stat., 1945, §629.34; Miss. Code, 1942, §2471; Mo. Rev. Stat., 1949, §544.200; Mont. Rev. Codes, 1947, 94-6011; Neb. Rev. Stat., 1943, §29-411; Nev. Rev. Stat., 1957, 171.275; Clevenger-Gilbert’s N. Y. Crim. Code, 1956, § 178; N. C. Gen. Stat., 1953, § 15-44; Page’s Ohio Rev. Code Ann., 1953, § 2935.15; Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, §194; Ore. Comp. Laws Ann., 1940, §26-1530; S. C. Code, 1952, § 53-198; S. D. Code, 1939, §34.1606; Tenn. Code Ann., 1955, § 40-807; Utah Code Ann., 1953, 77-13-12; Remington’s Wash. Rev. Stat., 1932, § 2082; Wyo. Comp. Stat., 1945, § 10-309.
Code of Crim. Proc., American Law Institute, Official Draft (1930), §28:
“Right of officer to break into building. An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest for a felony without a warrant, as provided in section 21, may break open a door or window of any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose.”
Professor Wilgus sums up his discussion of the breaking of doors thus: “Before doors are broken, there must be a necessity for so doing, and notice of the authority and purpose to make the arrest must be given and a demand and refusal of admission must be made, unless this is already understood, or the peril would be increased.” 22 Mich. L. Rev. 798, 802. (Footnotes omitted.) The dissenting opinion herein, in footnote 1, mistakenly refers to this passage as if it were a holding “enunciated” by the Court of Appeals. In fact, this passage was merely quoted without approval. The holding was: “Upon one topic there appears to be no dispute in the authorities. Before an officer can break open a door to a home, he must make known the cause of his demand for entry. There is no claim in the case at bar that the officers advised the suspect of the cause of their demand before they broke down the door.” Accarino v. United States, 85 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 403, 179 F. 2d 456, 465.
Judge Holtzoff heard the motion to suppress over two months before the trial. Our examination of the record made at that time brings us into complete agreement with Judge Edgerton, who, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, said, “I find no evidence, and the court cites no evidence, that supports an inference that Miller even recognized the officers as the narcotics squad.” 100 U. S. App. D. C. 302, 311, 244 E. 2d 750, 759. Even if petitioner could have seen the officers sufficiently to make out their faces, there is no evidence that he knew them personally. The record at best supports an inference, not that either officer personally knew Miller, or that Miller had met, or even heard of, either officer, but only that the officers knew of him as a reputed narcotics violator. Judge Youngdahl presided at the trial and refused to hear a renewed motion to suppress because he considered the matter settled by Judge Holt-zoff’s ruling. Agent Wilson’s testimony at the trial was again at variance with his testimony before Judge Holtzoff as it had been on the question whether the officers had communicated their purpose to arrest. At the trial he testified that Miller had met him on one occasion before the night of the arrest. Apparently unwilling to rely on this testimony, in the face of its inconsistency, the majority of the Court of Appeals did not allude to it as the basis for its conclusion that Miller recognized the officers.
Compliance is also a safeguard for the police themselves who might be mistaken for prowlers and be shot down by a fearful householder. See concurring opinion in McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 460-461.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner has filed a motion “for clarification of mandate” in this case, and respondents have filed a memorandum in answer to petitioner’s motion. We decided this case last Term on June 29, 1977, 433 U. S. 623; Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered a plurality opinion for himself, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Powell; and Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered an opinion concurring in the result for himself and The Chief Justice. While these opinions did not agree in their reasoning, each of them concluded that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had in turn affirmed the issuance of an injunction by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, should be reversed. Mr. Justice Stevens, delivered a dissenting opinion for himself, Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall. The dissenting Members of the Court would have affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The judgment of the Court, using language customary in such documents, ordered “that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court.” On August 19, 1977, the Court of Appeals in turn entered an order remanding the case to the District Court “for further proceedings, in conformity with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court rendered on June 29, 1977.”
A timely petition for rehearing was filed in this Court, contending, inter alia:
“The Concurring Opinion . . . was explicitly based on the false assumption that ‘only one state-court proceeding was involved in this case.' The Concurring Opinion states that The District Court failed properly to apply the California Motor Transport rule’ because
“ ‘The court believed that it was enough that Vendo’s activities in the single state-court proceeding involved in this case were not genuine attempts to use the state adjudicative process legitimately’ [433 U. S., at 645]. “That interpretation of the District Court’s findings is erroneous.”
This petition for rehearing was denied on October 3, 1977. Post, p. 881.
Meanwhile, respondents took the position in the District Court that the injunction which it had issued continued to be binding in spite of this Court’s decision, and petitioner therefore filed a motion in the District Court asking that the preliminary injunction previously issued be formally dissolved. The District Court has thus far declined to dissolve the injunction, and petitioner asserts that it has expressed the view that the preliminary injunction is still in effect until dissolved by that court, and any action by petitioner to collect its state-court judgments would risk contempt.
Respondents' memorandum in answer to petitioner’s motion for clarification of judgment states, correctly we believe, that “•[i]n effect, Vendo’s Motion for Clarification is a petition for this Court to mandamus the District Court to grant Vendo’s Motion to Dissolve.” Respondents contend that the District Court was not required by the opinions and judgment of this Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction which it had earlier issued, but that the District Court should be permitted to decide Vendo’s motion to dissolve before Vendo can appeal.
Respondents’ memorandum in this Court sets forth, their contentions made to the District Court after remand as to why the injunction should not be dissolved. These contentions are: (1) further findings of fact which are warranted by the record should be made in support of the injunction; (2) a finding of grave abuse of the state courts by Vendo, in seeking to further the precise conduct prescribed by the antitrust laws, is fully warranted by the record and should be made in support of the injunction; (3) the District Court should permit the record to be supplemented by further evidence newly discovered since the prior hearing; (4) the District Court should grant respondents the protection offered by Vendo’s so-called consent decrees and by the representations to this Court made by Vendo in opposing a stay.
We believe that the parties aré correct in treating this as an action for mandamus, which is available to a party who has prevailed in this Court if the lower court “does not proceed to execute the mandate, or disobeys and mistakes its meaning....” United States v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445, 446 (1859). Put another way, “[w]hen a case has been once decided by this court on appeal, and remanded to the Circuit Court, whatever was before this court, and disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally settled. The Circuit Court is bound by the decree as the law of the case; and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. ... If the Circuit Court mistakes or misconstrues the decree of this court, and does not give full effect to the mandate, its action may be controlled, either upon a new appeal (if involving a sufficient amount) or by a writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of this court.” In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 255 (1895).
While the parties both treat petitioner’s motion for clarification as a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, and are, we believe, correct in so doing, this Court’s Rule 31 requires that the motion and petition “shall be served on the judge or judges to whom the writ is sought to' be directed . . . .” There is no indication in the papers filed by either .petitioner or respondents that any such service has been made. The granting of petitioner’s motion for clarification of judgment would serve no useful purpose, since the judgment is typically a routine order directing that the decision of this Court be carried into effect. If petitioner is of the view that the District Court to which the case was remanded is failing to carry out the judgment of this Court, its remedy is by motion for leave to file a writ mandamus pursuant to Rule 31, including service of the motion or petition upon the judge or judges to whom the writ would be directed. The petition for clarification of judgment is therefore denied, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner entitles its present motion a “Motion of Petitioner for Clarification of Mandate.” Unless the Court specifically directs to the contrary, however, formal mandates do not issue in cases coming from federal courts. See this Court’s Rule 59. No formal mandate was issued in this case. Accordingly, we read petitioner’s motion as a motion for clarification of judgment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Secretary of Commerce decided to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census questionnaire. A group of plaintiffs challenged that decision on constitutional and statutory grounds. We now decide whether the Secretary violated the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution, the Census Act, or otherwise abused his discretion.
I
A
In order to apportion Members of the House of Representatives among the States, the Constitution requires an "Enumeration" of the population every 10 years, to be made "in such Manner" as Congress "shall by Law direct." Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; Amdt. 14, § 2. In the Census Act, Congress delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the task of conducting the decennial census "in such form and content as he may determine." 13 U. S. C. § 141(a). The Secretary is aided in that task by the Census Bureau, a statistical agency housed within the Department of Commerce. See §§ 2, 21.
The population count derived from the census is used not only to apportion representatives but also to allocate federal funds to the States and to draw electoral districts. Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 5-6, 116 S.Ct. 1091, 134 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996). The census additionally serves as a means of collecting demographic information, which "is used for such varied purposes as computing federal grant-in-aid benefits, drafting of legislation, urban and regional planning, business planning, and academic and social studies." Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 353-354, n. 9, 102 S.Ct. 1103, 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982). Over the years, the census has asked questions about (for example) race, sex, age, health, education, occupation, housing, and military service. It has also asked about radio ownership, age at first marriage, and native tongue. The Census Act obliges everyone to answer census questions truthfully and requires the Secretary to keep individual answers confidential, including from other Government agencies. §§ 221, 8(b), 9(a).
There have been 23 decennial censuses from the first census in 1790 to the most recent in 2010. Every census between 1820 and 2000 (with the exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth of the population. That change was part of a larger effort to simplify the census by asking most people a few basic demographic questions (such as sex, age, race, and marital status) on a short-form questionnaire, while asking a sample of the population more detailed demographic questions on a long-form questionnaire. In explaining the decision to move the citizenship question to the long-form questionnaire, the Census Bureau opined that "general census information on citizenship had become of less importance compared with other possible questions to be included in the census, particularly in view of the recent statutory requirement for annual alien registration which could provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the principal user of such data, with the information it needed." Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1960 Censuses of Population and Housing 194 (1966).
In 2010, the year of the latest census, the format changed again. All households received the same questionnaire, which asked about sex, age, race, Hispanic origin, and living arrangements. The more detailed demographic questions previously asked on the long-form questionnaire, including the question about citizenship, were instead asked in the American Community Survey (or ACS), which is sent each year to a rotating sample of about 2.6% of households.
The Census Bureau and former Bureau officials have resisted occasional proposals to resume asking a citizenship question of everyone, on the ground that doing so would discourage noncitizens from responding to the census and lead to a less accurate count of the total population. See, e.g., Federation of Am. Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F.Supp. 564, 568 (DDC 1980) ("[A]ccording to the Bureau[,] any effort to ascertain citizenship will inevitably jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count"); Brief for Former Directors of the U. S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae in Evenwel v. Abbott, O. T. 2014, No. 14-940, p. 25 (inquiring about citizenship would "invariably lead to a lower response rate").
B
In March 2018, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced in a memo that he had decided to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire. The Secretary stated that he was acting at the request of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which sought improved data about citizen voting-age population for purposes of enforcing the Voting Rights Act (or VRA)-specifically the Act's ban on diluting the influence of minority voters by depriving them of single-member districts in which they can elect their preferred candidates. App. to Pet. for Cert. 548a. DOJ explained that federal courts determine whether a minority group could constitute a majority in a particular district by looking to the citizen voting-age population of the group. According to DOJ, the existing citizenship data from the American Community Survey was not ideal: It was not reported at the level of the census block, the basic component of legislative districting plans; it had substantial margins of error; and it did not align in time with the census-based population counts used to draw legislative districts. DOJ therefore formally requested reinstatement of the citizenship question on the census questionnaire. Id., at 565a-569a.
The Secretary's memo explained that the Census Bureau initially analyzed, and the Secretary considered, three possible courses of action. The first was to continue to collect citizenship information in the American Community Survey and attempt to develop a data model that would more accurately estimate citizenship at the census block level. The Secretary rejected that option because the Bureau "did not assert and could not confirm" that such ACS-based data modeling was possible "with a sufficient degree of accuracy." Id., at 551a.
The second option was to reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial census. The Bureau predicted that doing so would discourage some noncitizens from responding to the census. That would necessitate increased "non-response follow up" operations-procedures the Bureau uses to attempt to count people who have not responded to the census-and potentially lead to a less accurate count of the total population.
Option three was to use administrative records from other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and Citizenship and Immigration Services, to provide DOJ with citizenship data. The Census Bureau recommended this option, and the Secretary found it a "potentially appealing solution" because the Bureau has long used administrative records to supplement and improve census data. Id., at 554a. But the Secretary concluded that administrative records alone were inadequate because they were missing for more than 10% of the population.
The Secretary ultimately asked the Census Bureau to develop a fourth option that would combine options two and three: reinstate a citizenship question on the census questionnaire, and also use the time remaining until the 2020 census to "further enhance" the Bureau's "administrative record data sets, protocols, and statistical models." Id., at 555a. The memo explained that, in the Secretary's judgment, the fourth option would provide DOJ with the "most complete and accurate" citizen voting-age population data in response to its request. Id., at 556a.
The Secretary "carefully considered" the possibility that reinstating a citizenship question would depress the response rate. Ibid. But after evaluating the Bureau's "limited empirical evidence" on the question-evidence drawn from estimated non-response rates to previous American Community Surveys and census questionnaires-the Secretary concluded that it was not possible to "determine definitively" whether inquiring about citizenship in the census would materially affect response rates. Id., at 557a, 562a. He also noted the long history of the citizenship question on the census, as well as the facts that the United Nations recommends collecting census-based citizenship information, and other major democracies such as Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom inquire about citizenship in their censuses. Altogether, the Secretary determined that "the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about a potentially lower response rate." Id., at 557a.
C
Shortly after the Secretary announced his decision, two groups of plaintiffs filed suit in Federal District Court in New York, challenging the decision on several grounds. The first group of plaintiffs included 18 States, the District of Columbia, various counties and cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors. They alleged that the Secretary's decision violated the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The second group of plaintiffs consisted of several non-governmental organizations that work with immigrant and minority communities. They added an equal protection claim. The District Court consolidated the two cases. Both groups of plaintiffs are respondents here.
The Government moved to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that the Secretary's decision was unreviewable and that respondents had failed to state cognizable claims under the Enumeration Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court dismissed the Enumeration Clause claim but allowed the other claims to proceed. 315 F.Supp.3d 766 (SDNY 2018).
In June 2018, the Government submitted to the District Court the Commerce Department's "administrative record": the materials that Secretary Ross considered in making his decision. That record included DOJ's December 2017 letter requesting reinstatement of the citizenship question, as well as several memos from the Census Bureau analyzing the predicted effects of reinstating the question. Shortly thereafter, at DOJ's urging, the Government supplemented the record with a new memo from the Secretary, "intended to provide further background and context regarding" his March 2018 memo. App. to Pet. for Cert. 546a. The supplemental memo stated that the Secretary had begun considering whether to add the citizenship question in early 2017, and had inquired whether DOJ "would support, and if so would request, inclusion of a citizenship question as consistent with and useful for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act." Ibid. According to the Secretary, DOJ "formally" requested reinstatement of the citizenship question after that inquiry. Ibid.
Respondents argued that the supplemental memo indicated that the Government had submitted an incomplete record of the materials considered by the Secretary. They asked the District Court to compel the Government to complete the administrative record. The court granted that request, and the parties jointly stipulated to the inclusion of more than 12,000 pages of additional materials in the administrative record. Among those materials were emails and other records confirming that the Secretary and his staff began exploring the possibility of reinstating a citizenship question shortly after he was confirmed in early 2017, attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from other agencies, and eventually persuaded DOJ to request reinstatement of the question for VRA enforcement purposes.
In addition, respondents asked the court to authorize discovery outside the administrative record. They claimed that such an unusual step was warranted because they had made a strong preliminary showing that the Secretary had acted in bad faith. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). The court also granted that request, authorizing expert discovery and depositions of certain DOJ and Commerce Department officials.
In August and September 2018, the District Court issued orders compelling depositions of Secretary Ross and of the Acting Assistant Attorney General for DOJ's Civil Rights Division. We granted the Government's request to stay the Secretary's deposition pending further review, but we declined to stay the Acting AAG's deposition or the other extra-record discovery that the District Court had authorized.
The District Court held a bench trial and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on respondents' statutory and equal protection claims. After determining that respondents had standing to sue, the District Court ruled that the Secretary's action was arbitrary and capricious, based on a pretextual rationale, and violated certain provisions of the Census Act. On the equal protection claim, however, the District Court concluded that respondents had not met their burden of showing that the Secretary was motivated by discriminatory animus. The court granted judgment to respondents on their statutory claims, vacated the Secretary's decision, and enjoined him from reinstating the citizenship question until he cured the legal errors the court had identified. 351 F.Supp.3d 502 (SDNY 2019).
The Government appealed to the Second Circuit, but also filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment, asking this Court to review the District Court's decision directly because the case involved an issue of imperative public importance, and the census questionnaire needed to be finalized for printing by the end of June 2019. We granted the petition. 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 16, 202 L.Ed.2d 306 (2019). At the Government's request, we later ordered the parties to address whether the Enumeration Clause provided an alternative basis to affirm. 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 16, 202 L.Ed.2d 306 (2019).
II
We begin with jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding "Cases" and "Controversies." For a legal dispute to qualify as a genuine case or controversy, at least one plaintiff must have standing to sue. The doctrine of standing "limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong" and "confines the federal courts to a properly judicial role." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). To have standing, a plaintiff must "present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling." Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 733, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).
Respondents assert a number of injuries-diminishment of political representation, loss of federal funds, degradation of census data, and diversion of resources-all of which turn on their expectation that reinstating a citizenship question will depress the census response rate and lead to an inaccurate population count. Several States with a disproportionate share of noncitizens, for example, anticipate losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are undercounted. These are primarily future injuries, which "may suffice if the threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The District Court concluded that the evidence at trial established a sufficient likelihood that the reinstatement of a citizenship question would result in noncitizen households responding to the census at lower rates than other groups, which in turn would cause them to be undercounted and lead to many of respondents' asserted injuries. For purposes of standing, these findings of fact were not so suspect as to be clearly erroneous.
We therefore agree that at least some respondents have Article III standing. Several state respondents here have shown that if noncitizen households are undercounted by as little as 2%-lower than the District Court's 5.8% prediction-they will lose out on federal funds that are distributed on the basis of state population. That is a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury to satisfy Article III, and there is no dispute that a ruling in favor of respondents would redress that harm.
The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary's decision, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Government will itself break the law by using noncitizens' answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to "endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors," Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 414, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013), particularly speculation about future unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, respondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizenship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the District Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau's theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens' reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents' theory of standing thus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 169-170, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) ; Davis, 554 U.S. at 734-735, 128 S.Ct. 2759. Because Article III "requires no more than de facto causality," Block v. Meese, 793 F.2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satisfied here. We may therefore consider the merits of respondents' claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
III
The Enumeration Clause of the Constitution does not provide a basis to set aside the Secretary's decision. The text of that clause "vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial 'actual Enumeration,' " and Congress "has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary." Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 19, 116 S.Ct. 1091. Given that expansive grant of authority, we have rejected challenges to the conduct of the census where the Secretary's decisions bore a "reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration." Id., at 20, 116 S.Ct. 1091.
Respondents ask us to evaluate the Secretary's decision to reinstate a citizenship question under that "reasonable relationship" standard, but we agree with the District Court that a different analysis is needed here. Our cases applying that standard concerned decisions about the population count itself-such as a postcensus decision not to use a particular method to adjust an undercount, id., at 4, 116 S.Ct. 1091, and a decision to allocate overseas military personnel to their home States, Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 790-791, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992). We have never applied the standard to decisions about what kinds of demographic information to collect in the course of taking the census. Indeed, as the District Court recognized, applying the "reasonable relationship" standard to every census-related decision "would lead to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to ask any demographic question on the census" because "asking such questions bears no relationship whatsoever to the goal of an accurate headcount." 315 F.Supp.3d at 804-805. Yet demographic questions have been asked in every census since 1790, and questions about citizenship in particular have been asked for nearly as long. Like the District Court, we decline respondents' invitation to measure the constitutionality of the citizenship question by a standard that would seem to render every census since 1790 unconstitutional.
We look instead to Congress's broad authority over the census, as informed by long and consistent historical practice. All three branches of Government have understood the Constitution to allow Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to use the census for more than simply counting the population. Since 1790, Congress has sought, or permitted the Secretary to seek, information about matters as varied as age, sex, marital status, health, trade, profession, literacy, and value of real estate owned. See id., at 801. Since 1820, it has sought, or permitted the Secretary to seek, information about citizenship in particular. Federal courts have approved the practice of collecting demographic data in the census. See, e.g., United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (CC SDNY 1901) (duty to take a census of population "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution"). While we have never faced the question directly, we have assumed that Congress has the power to use the census for information-gathering purposes, see Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287 (1871), and we have recognized the role of the census as a "linchpin of the federal statistical system by collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country," Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341, 119 S.Ct. 765, 142 L.Ed.2d 797 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
That history matters. Here, as in other areas, our interpretation of the Constitution is guided by a Government practice that "has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic." NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 572, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 21, 116 S.Ct. 1091 (noting "importance of historical practice" in census context). In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the Enumeration Clause, we conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire. We need not, and do not, decide the constitutionality of any other question that Congress or the Secretary might decide to include in the census.
IV
The District Court set aside the Secretary's decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the grounds that the Secretary acted arbitrarily and violated certain provisions of the Census Act. The Government contests those rulings, but also argues that the Secretary's decision was not judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act in the first place. We begin with that contention.
A
The Administrative Procedure Act embodies a "basic presumption of judicial review," Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), and instructs reviewing courts to set aside agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). Review is not available, however, "to the extent that" a relevant statute precludes it, § 701(a)(1), or the agency action is "committed to agency discretion by law," § 701(a)(2). The Government argues that the Census Act commits to the Secretary's unreviewable discretion decisions about what questions to include on the decennial census questionnaire.
We disagree. To be sure, the Act confers broad authority on the Secretary. Section 141(a) instructs him to take "a decennial census of population" in "such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys." 13 U. S. C. § 141. The Act defines "census of population" to mean "a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing," § 141(g), and it authorizes the Secretary, in "connection with any such census," to "obtain such other census information as necessary," § 141(a). It also states that the "Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title." § 5. And it authorizes him to acquire materials, such as administrative records, from other federal, state, and local agencies in aid of conducting the census. § 6. Those provisions leave much to the Secretary's discretion. See Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 19, 116 S.Ct. 1091 ("Through the Census Act, Congress has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary.").
But they do not leave his discretion unbounded. In order to give effect to the command that courts set aside agency action that is an abuse of discretion, and to honor the presumption of judicial review, we have read the § 701(a)(2) exception for action committed to agency discretion "quite narrowly, restricting it to 'those rare circumstances where the relevant statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.' " Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 586 U. S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 361, 370, 202 L.Ed.2d 269 (2018) (quoting Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 191, 113 S.Ct. 2024, 124 L.Ed.2d 101 (1993) ). And we have generally limited the exception to "certain categories of administrative decisions that courts traditionally have regarded as 'committed to agency discretion,' " id., at 191, 113 S.Ct. 2024, such as a decision not to institute enforcement proceedings, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), or a decision by an intelligence agency to terminate an employee in the interest of national security, Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600-601, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988).
The taking of the census is not one of those areas traditionally committed to agency discretion. We and other courts have entertained both constitutional and statutory challenges to census-related decisionmaking. See, e.g., Department of Commerce, 525 U.S. 316, 119 S.Ct. 765, 142 L.Ed.2d 797 ; Wisconsin, 517 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1091, 134 L.Ed.2d 167 ; Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834 (CA2 1980).
Nor is the statute here drawn so that it furnishes no meaningful standard by which to judge the Secretary's action. In contrast to the National Security Act in Webster, which gave the Director of Central Intelligence discretion to terminate employees whenever he "deem[ed]" it "advisable," 486 U.S. at 594, 108 S.Ct. 2047, the Census Act constrains the Secretary's authority to determine the form and content of the census in a number of ways. Section 195, for example, governs the extent to which he can use statistical sampling. Section 6(c), which will be considered in more detail below, circumscribes his power in certain circumstances to collect information through direct inquiries when administrative records are available. More generally, by mandating a population count that will be used to apportion representatives, see § 141(b), 2 U. S. C. § 2a, the Act imposes "a duty to conduct a census that is accurate and that fairly accounts for the crucial representational rights that depend on the census and the apportionment." Franklin, 505 U.S. at 819-820, 112 S.Ct. 2767 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
The Secretary's decision to reinstate a citizenship question is amenable to review for compliance with those and other provisions of the Census Act, according to the general requirements of reasoned agency decisionmaking. Because this is not a case in which there is "no law to apply," Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, the Secretary's decision is subject to judicial review.
B
At the heart of this suit is respondents' claim that the Secretary abused his discretion in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question. We review the Secretary's exercise of discretion under the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard. See 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). Our scope of review is "narrow": we determine only whether the Secretary examined "the relevant data" and articulated "a satisfactory explanation" for his decision, "including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary, ibid., but instead must confine ourselves to ensuring that he remained "within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking," Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983).
The District Court set aside the Secretary's decision for two independent reasons: His course of action was not supported by the evidence before him, and his stated rationale was pretextual. We focus on the first point here and take up the question of pretext later.
The Secretary examined the Bureau's analysis of various ways to collect improved citizenship data and explained why he thought the best course was to both reinstate a citizenship question and use citizenship data from administrative records to fill in the gaps. He considered but rejected the Bureau's recommendation to use administrative records alone. As he explained, records are lacking for about 10% of the population, so the Bureau would still need to estimate citizenship for millions of voting-age people. Asking a citizenship question of everyone, the Secretary reasoned, would eliminate the need to estimate citizenship for many of those people. And supplementing census responses with administrative record data would help complete the picture and allow the Bureau to better estimate citizenship for the smaller set of cases where it was still necessary to do so.
The evidence before the Secretary supported that decision. As the Bureau acknowledged, each approach-using administrative records alone, or asking about citizenship and using records to fill in the gaps-entailed tradeoffs between accuracy and completeness. Without a citizenship question, the Bureau would need to estimate the citizenship of about 35 million people; with a citizenship question, it would need to estimate the citizenship of only 13.8 million. Under either approach, there would be some errors in both the administrative records and the Bureau's estimates. With a citizenship question, there would also be some erroneous self-responses (about 500,000) and some conflicts between responses and administrative record data (about 9.5 million).
The Bureau explained that the "relative quality" of the citizenship data generated by each approach would depend on the "relative importance of the errors" in each, but it was not able to "quantify the relative magnitude of the errors across the alternatives." App. 148. The Bureau nonetheless recommended using administrative records alone because it had "high confidence" that it could develop an accurate model for estimating the citizenship of the 35 million people for whom administrative records were not available, and it thought the resulting citizenship data would be of superior quality. Id., at 146, 158-159. But when the time came for the Secretary to make a decision, the model did not yet exist, and even if it had, there was no way to gauge its relative accuracy. As the Bureau put it, "we will most likely never possess a fully adequate truth deck to benchmark" the model-which appears to be bureaucratese for "maybe, maybe not." Id., at 146. The Secretary opted instead for the approach that would yield a more complete set of data at an acceptable rate of accuracy, and would require estimating the citizenship of fewer people.
The District Court overruled that choice, agreeing with the Bureau's assessment that its recommended approach would yield higher quality citizenship data on the whole. But the choice between reasonable policy alternatives in the face of uncertainty was the Secretary's to make. He considered the relevant factors, weighed risks and benefits, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision. In overriding that reasonable exercise of discretion, the court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the agency.
The Secretary then weighed the benefit of collecting more complete and accurate citizenship data against the risk that inquiring about citizenship would depress census response rates, particularly among noncitizen households. In the Secretary's view, that risk was difficult to assess. The Bureau predicted a 5.1% decline in response rates among noncitizen households if the citizenship question were reinstated. It relied for that prediction primarily on studies showing that, while noncitizens had responded at lower rates than citizens to the 2000 short-form and 2010 censuses, which did not ask about citizenship, they responded at even lower rates than citizens to the 2000 long-form census and the 2010 American Community Survey, which did ask about citizenship. The Bureau thought it was reasonable to infer that the citizenship question accounted for the differential decline in noncitizen responses. But, the Secretary explained, the Bureau was unable to rule out other causes. For one thing, the evidence before the Secretary suggested that noncitizen households tend to be more distrustful of, and less likely to respond to, any government effort to collect information. For another, both the 2000 long-form census and 2010 ACS asked over 45 questions on a range of topics, including employment, income, and housing characteristics. Noncitizen households might disproportionately fail to respond to a lengthy and intrusive Government questionnaire for a number of reasons besides reluctance to answer a citizenship question-reasons relating to education level, socioeconomic status, and less exposure to Government outreach efforts. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 553a-554a, 557a-558a.
The Secretary justifiably found the Bureau's analysis inconclusive. Weighing that uncertainty against the value of obtaining more complete and accurate citizenship data, he determined that reinstating a citizenship question was worth the risk of a potentially lower response rate. That decision was reasonable and reasonably explained, particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census.
Justice BREYER would conclude otherwise, but only by subordinating the Secretary's policymaking discretion to the Bureau's technocratic expertise. Justice BREYER's analysis treats the Bureau's (pessimistic) prediction about response rates and (optimistic) assumptions about its data modeling abilities as touchstones of substantive reasonableness rather than simply evidence for the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark delivered
the opinion of the Court.
For the first time since the enactment of the Clayton Act in 1914 the Court is called upon to consider § 8’s prohibitions against interlocking corporate directorates. The Government appeals from judgments dismissing civil actions brought against Hancock and three pairs of corporations which he served as a director, W. T. Grant Co. and S. H. Kress & Co., Sears Roebuck & Co. and Bond Stores, Inc., and Kroger Co. and Jewel Tea Co., Inc. Alleging that the size and competitive relationship of each set of companies brought the interlocks within the reach of § 8, the complaints asked the court to order the particular interlocks terminated and to enjoin future violations of § 8 by the individual and corporate defendants. Soon after the complaints were filed, Hancock resigned from the boards of Kress, Kroger and Bond. Disclosing the resignations by affidavit, all of the defendants then moved to dismiss the actions as moot. Treated as motions for summary judgment, they were granted by the District Judge. He concluded that there is not “the slightest threat that the defendants will attempt any future activity in violation of Section 8 [if they have violated it already] . . . .” 112 F. Supp. 336, 338. The Government brought this direct appeal under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 62 Stat. 989, 15 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 29, contending that the cases were not rendered moot by Hancock’s resignations and that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse any injunctive relief.
Appellees suggest, without arguing the point in extenso, that the judgment should be affirmed because § 11 of the Clayton Act vests exclusive § 8 enforcement powers in the Federal Trade Commission. Section 11 does authorize the Commission to enforce § 8. But any inference that administrative jurisdiction was intended to be exclusive falls before the plain words of § 15: “The several district courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act . . . 38 Stat. 736, 15 U. S. C. § 25. And the cases have spoken of Congress’ design to provide a scheme of dual enforcement for the Clayton Act. United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 325 U. S. 196, 208 (1945); Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 310, note 13 (1949). Appellees’ failure to press the point denotes its merits. The District Court properly entertained the suits.
Both sides agree to the abstract proposition that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290 (1897); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U. S. 37 (1944); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321 (1944). A controversy may remain to be settled in such circumstances, United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 448 (1945), e. g., a dispute over the legality of the challenged practices. Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., supra; Carpenters Union v. Labor Board, 341 U. S. 707, 715 (1951). The defendant is free to return to his old ways. This, together with a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled, militates against a mootness conclusion. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., supra, at 309, 310. For to say that the case has become moot means that the defendant is entitled to a dismissal as a matter of right, Labor Board v. General Motors Corp., 179 F. 2d 221 (1950). The courts have rightly refused to grant defendants such a powerful weapon against public law enforcement.
The case may nevertheless be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” The burden is a heavy oné. Here the defendants told the court that the interlocks no longer existed and disclaimed any intention to revive them. Such a profession does not suffice to make a case moot although it is one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of granting an injunction against the now-discontinued acts.
Along with its power to hear the case, the court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, supra; Goshen Mfg. Co. v. Myers Mfg. Co., 242 U. S. 202 (1916). The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations, Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311, 326 (1928), and, of course, it can be utilized even without a showing of past wrongs. But the moving party must satisfy the court that relief is needed. The necessary determination is that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive. The chancellor’s decision is based on all the circumstances; his discretion is necessarily broad and a strong showing of abuse must be made to reverse it. To be considered are the bona fides of the expressed intent to comply, the effectiveness of the discontinuance and, in some cases, the character of the past violations.
The facts relied on by the Government to show an abuse of discretion in this case are these: Hancock’s three interlocking directorates viewed as three distinct violations, his failure to terminate them until after suit was filed despite five years of administrative attempts to persuade him of their illegality, his express refusal to concede that the interlocks in question were illegal under the statute and his failure to promise not to commit similar violations in the future.
Were we sitting as a trial court, this showing might be persuasive. But the Government must demonstrate that there was no reasonable basis for the District Judge’s decision. In this we think it fails. An individual proclivity to violate the statute need not be inferred from the fact that three violations were charged, particularly since it is only recently that the Government has attempted systematic enforcement of § 8. The District Court was not dealing with a defendant who follows one adjudicated violation with others. The only material before the District Judge on the supposed five years of administrative persuasion could easily support an inference that during that time the defendant and the Department of Justice were each trying to determine the legality of his directorships. The Government’s remedy under the statute was plain. Postponement of suit indicates doubt on the prosecutor’s part as much as intransigence on the defendant’s. How much contrition should be expected of a defendant is hard for us to say. This surely is a question better addressed to the discretion of the trial court. The same can be said of the limited disclaimer of future intent.
Assuming with the Government that the corporations were properly joined as defendants, the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing injunctive relief against Hancock applies a fortiori in their case. None of the corporations appeared to have engaged in more than one alleged violation. And affidavits filed with the motions to dismiss indicated that these defendants were ignorant of the Government’s interest in the interlocks until the suits were filed.- Indeed the emphasis on this branch of the case is placed on the refusal of relief against Hancock. The failure to point to circumstances compelling further relief against the corporations speaks for itself.
Essentially, the Government’s claim is that it was deprived of a trial on the relief issue. But at no time was objection raised to the procedure by which the case was handled. Of course summary judgment procedure could not have been employed were there a “genuine issue as to any material fact.” Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 56. However, after the defendants had moved to dismiss, the Government elected not to file any countervailing affidavits or amend its complaint and stated on oral argument that the truth of the defendants’ affidavits was not questioned. To frame a factual dispute, that left the complaint, the only relevant paragraph of which reads: “16. The defendants have threatened to continue and will continue the aforesaid violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act unless the relief prayed for herein is granted.” (Emphasis added.) “The aforesaid violation[s],” the specific interlocks, had been voluntarily terminated and intention to resume them had been negatived under oath. As to the prayer that the defendants be enjoined from any future violations of § 8, the complaint alleged no threatened violations other than those specifically charged. In these circumstances, the District Judge could decide that there was no significant threat of future violation and that there was no factual dispute about the existence of such a threat.
We conclude that, although the actions were not moot, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated'in the trial court’s refusal to award injunctive relief. Moreover, the court stated its dismissals “would not be a bar to a new suit in case possible violations arise in the future.” The judgments are
Affirmed.
“Sec. 8. . . .
“No person at the same time shall be a director in any two or more corporations, any one of which has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $1,000,000, engaged in whole or in part in commerce, ... if such corporations are or shall have been theretofore, by virtue of their- business and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. . . .” 38 Stat. 730, 15 U. S. C. § 19.
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12 (b) (6), 56.
“Sec. 11. That authority to enforce compliance with sections 2, 3, 7, and 8 of this Act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested ... in the Federal Trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce to be exercised as follows:
“Whenever the Commission . . . shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of sections 2, 3, 7, and 8 of this Act, it shall issue and serve upon such person and the Attorney General a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hearing .... If upon such hearing the Commission . . . shall be of the opinion that any of the provisions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing, in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock, or other share capital, or assets, held or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of this Act, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. . . .” 64 Stat. 1126, 15 U. S. C., Supp. V, §21.
Cf. United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466 (1916).
“When defendants are shown to have settled into a continuing practice or entered into a conspiracy violative of antitrust laws, courts will not assume that it has been abandoned without clear proof. ... It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption.” United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 333 (1952).
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, supra, at p. 448.
Cf. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 89 (1950), on review of particular antitrust decree provisions.
See Kramer, Interlocking Directorships and the Clayton Act After 35 Years, 59 Yale L. J. 1266.
We should not be understood as deciding whether corporations can violate § 8 or, for other reasons, be enjoined under 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At the March 1972 Illinois primary election, Chicago’s Democratic voters elected the 59 respondents (Wigoda delegates) as delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention to be held in July 1972 in Miami, Fla. Some of the 59 petitioners (Cousins delegates) challenged the seating of the Wigoda delegates before the Credentials Committee of the National Democratic Party on the ground, among others, that the slate-making procedures under which the Wigoda delegates were selected violated Party guidelines incorporated in the Call of the Convention. On June 30, 1972, the Credentials Committee sustained the Findings and Report of a Hearing Officer that the Wigoda delegates had been chosen in violation of the guidelines, and also adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommendation that the Wigoda delegates be unseated and the Cousins delegates (who had been chosen in June at private caucuses in Chicago) be seated in their stead.
On July 8, 1972, two days before the Convention opened, the Wigoda delegates obtained from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., an injunction that enjoined each of the 59 petitioners “from acting or purporting to act as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention . . . [and] from performing the functions of delegates . . . [and] from receiving or accepting any credentials, badges or other indicia of delegate status . ...” Nevertheless when the Convention on July 10 adopted the Credentials Committee’s recommendation and seated the Cousins delegates, they took their seats and participated fully as delegates throughout the Convention. In consequence, proceedings to adjudge petitioners in criminal contempt of the July 8 injunction are pending in the Circuit Court awaiting this Court’s decision in this case.
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the injunction, 14 Ill. App. 3d 460, 302 N. E. 2d 614 (1973), and the Supreme Court of Illinois, without opinion, on November 29, 1973, denied leave to appeal. The Appellate Court held that “[t]he right to sit as a delegate representing Illinois at the national nominating convention is governed exclusively by the Illinois Election Code,” id.., at 472, 302 N. E. 2d, at 626, and rejected the Cousins delegates’ contention that the injunction attempting to enforce that Code, by preventing them from participating as delegates at the Convention, violated their right, and the right of the National Democratic Party, to freedom of political activity and association assured them under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Appellate Court stated:
“[T]he purposes and guidelines for reform adopted by the Democratic National Party in its Call for the 1972 Democratic National Convention ... in no way take precedence in the State of Illinois over the Illinois Election Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 46, § 7-1 et seq.). The opening section of Article 7 of the Election Code, which deals with the making of nominations by political parties (§ 7-1), is most clear when in discussing the selection of delegates to National nominating conventions, it states:
. [Delegates and alternate delegates to National nominating conventions by all political parties . . . shall be made in the manner provided in this Article 7, and not otherwise.’ ” Id., at 471, 302 N. E. 2d, at 625.
“[T]he law of the state is supreme and party rules to the contrary are of no effect....” Id., at 475, 302 N. E. 2d, at 627.
“The interest of the state in protecting the effective right to participate in primaries is superior to whatever other interests the party itself might wish to protect. . . .” Id., at 477, 302 N. E. 2d, at 629.
“Since [respondents] were admittedly elected to the position of delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention by operation of the Election Code, an Illinois statute, this court finds the trial court’s injunctions did not abrogate [petitioners’] fundamental constitutional rights of free political association. ..Id., at 479, 302 N. E. 2d, at 631.
We granted certiorari to decide the important question presented whether the Appellate Court was correct in according primacy to state law over the National Political Party’s rules in the determination of the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to the Party’s National Convention. 415 U. S. 956 (1974) , We reverse.
I
There is a threshold question to be decided before we discuss the merits of the constitutional issue. During June and July 1972 the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District ofi Columbia Circuit twice considered an action brought by one of the Wigoda delegates, Thomas E. Keane, against the National Democratic Party. That action challenged the constitutionality of the Party guidelines allegedly violated in the selection of the Wigoda delegates. The Cousins delegates intervened and the Party counterclaimed for an injunction enjoining the Wigoda delegates! from proceeding with the state-court action. The case was initially dismissed on appeal because the Credentials Committee had not yet decided the petitioners’ challenge, Keane v. National Democratic Party, No. 1010-72 (DC June 19, 1972); Keane v. National Democratic Party, No. 72-1562 (DC Cir. June 20, 1972). After the Credentials Committee announced its adoption of the Hearing Officer’s Findings and Report, the suit proceeded. The District Court sustained the constitutionality of Guideline C-6, see n. 1, supra, and dismissed Keane’s suit, while denying the counterclaim. The Court of Appeals, on July 5, affirmed the dismissal but granted the counterclaim directing the entry of an order enjoining the Wigoda delegates from proceeding with the Circuit Court suit. Brown v. O’Brien, 152 U. S. App. D. C. 157, 469 F. 2d 563. This Court, however, at a Special Term on July 7, stayed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 409 U. S. 1. On October 10, 1972, we granted Keane’s petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for a determination of mootness. 409 U. S. 816. The Court of Appeals, on February 16, 1973, held the case moot insofar as it concerned seating of delegates at the July Convention, found no basis for relief as to any other matter, and entered a judgment affirming the District Court’s order of July 3 dismissing Keane’s suit, 155 U. S. App. D. C. 18, 475 F. 2d 1287.
Based upon these events, petitioners argue that the Illinois Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to enter its July 8 injunction notwithstanding this Court’s July 7 stay of the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The argument relies upon the reference in the Court’s per curiam opinion supporting the stay to “the large public interest in allowing the political processes to function free from judicial supervision,” 409 U. S., at 5, which, petitioners argue, “established the right, in the particular circumstances of this case, of the 1972 Democratic National Convention to decide the Chicago credentials contest.” Brief for Petitioners 20. The argument is without merit. The per .curiam did not decide the question before us in this case. The stay order, in terms, unambiguously suspended the operative effect of the Court of Appeals’ judgment without qualification and in its entirety, and nothing in the quoted excerpt from the per curiam opinion in any wise qualified that effect. We agree with the Illinois Appellate Court, therefore, that the stay order “completely froze the order of the Court of Appeals, including the injunction order directed to the Circuit Court of Illinois, thereby allowing the Circuit Court to proceed.” 14 Ill. App. 3d, at 468,302 N. E. 2d, at 622-623.
Petitioners argue further that in any event the stay order “did not alter the binding collateral estoppel and res judicata effect of that [Court of Appeals] judgment so as to permit collateral attack in the Illinois state courts.” Brief for Petitioners 28. We need not address the merits of that argument. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected it on the ground that the res judicata defense had not been pleaded and proved in the Circuit Court as required by Illinois law established in Svalina v. Saravana, 341 Ill. 236, 173 N. E. 281 (1930). 14 Ill. App. 3d, at 469, 302 N. E. 2d, at 623. We have no basis for disagreement with the holding of the Appellate Court “that the [petitioners] neither formally pleaded nor attempted to prove their claim of res judicata based on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” Ibid. This constitutes an adequate state ground that forecloses any jurisdiction that we might possess to review the merits of the res judicata defense. See, e. g., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46 (1914). Accordingly, we turn to consideration of the merits of the constitutional question.
II
The National Democratic Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association. “There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of 'orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. . . . The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 61, 56-57 (1973). “And of course this freedom protected against federal encroachment by the First Amendment is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the same protection from infringement by the States.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30-31 (1968). Moreover, “[a]ny interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957); see NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 431 (1963).
Petitioners rely upon these principles and contend that, since the July 8 Circuit Court injunction was fashioned to effectuate state law by barring them from serving as delegates at their Party’s National Convention, the injunction constituted an unconstitutional “significant interference” with protected rights of political association. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523 (1960); see also Kusper v. Pontikes, supra, at 58.
The Illinois Appellate Court conceded that petitioners and the Party enjoyed “fundamental constitutional rights of free political association.” 14 Ill. App. 3d, at 470, 302 N. F. 2d, at 624. The Appellate Court justified the injunction, however, on the ground that the “interest of the state in protecting the effective right to participate in primaries is superior to whatever other interests the party itself might wish to protect.” Id., at 477, 302 N. E. 2d, at 629. In other words, the Appellate Court identified as the State’s legitimate interest the protection of votes cast at the primary from the impairment that would result from stripping the respondents of their elected-delegate status.
We observe at the outset that petitioners’ compliance with the injunction would not have assured effectuation of the state objective to seat respondents at the Convention. The Convention was under no obligation to seat the respondents but was free, as respondents concede, to leave the Chicago seats vacant and thus defeat the objective.
We proceed, however, to considering whether the asserted state interest justifies the injunction. Even though legitimate, the “ 'subordinating interest of the State must be compelling’. . to justify the injunction’s abridgment of the exercise by petitioners and the National Democratic Party of their constitutionally protected rights of association. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463 (1958).
Respondents argue that Illinois had a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of its electoral processes and the right of its citizens under the State and Federal Constitutions to effective suffrage. They rely on the numerous statements of this Court that the right to vote is a “fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964) ; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 31; Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U. S. 621, 626 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972). But respondents overlook the significant fact that the suffrage was exercised at the primary election to elect delegates to a National Party Convention. Consideration of the special function of delegates to such a Convention militates persuasively against the conclusion that the asserted interest constitutes a compelling state interest. Delegates perform a task of supreme importance to every citizen of the Nation regardless of their State of residence. The vital business of the Convention is the nomination of the Party’s candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. To that end, the state political parties are “affiliated with a national party through acceptance of the national call to send state delegates to the national convention.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214, 225 (1952). The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. If the qualifications and eligibility of delegates, to National Political Party Conventions were left to state law “each of the fifty states could establish the qualifications of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable-result.” Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F. Supp. 82, 86 (ND Ill.1972). Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed, destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerted enterprise engaged in the vital process of choosing Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates— a process which usually involves coalitions cutting across state lines. The Convention serves the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office, and this national interest is greater than any interest of an individual State. The paramount necessity for effective performance of the Convention’s task is underscored by Mr. Justice Pitney’s admonition “that the likelihood of a candidate succeeding in an election without a party nomination is practically negligible. . . . As a practical matter, the ultimate choice of the mass of voters is predetermined when the nominations have been made.” Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232, 286 (1921) (dissenting opinion).
Thus, Illinois’ interest in protecting the integrity of its electoral process cannot be deemed compelling in the context of the selection of delegates to the National Party Convention. Whatever the case of actions presenting claims that the Party’s delegate selection procedures are not exercised within the confines of the Constitution— and no such claims are made here — this is a case where “the convention itself [was] the proper forum for determining intra-party disputes as to which delegates [should] be seated.” O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U. S. 1, 4 (1972).
Reversed.
The Hearing Officer found violations of Guidelines A-l (minority group participation), A-2 (women and youth participation), A-5 (existence of party rules), C-l (adequate public notice of party affairs), C-4 (timing of delegate selection), and C-6 (slate-making). Findings and Report of Cecil F. Poole, Hearing Officer (June 25, 1972). Guideline C-6 was as follows:
“C-6 Slate-making
“In mandating a full and meaningful opportunity t.o participate in the delegate selection process, the 1968 Convention meant to prohibit any practice in the process of selection which made it difficult for Democrats to participate. Since the process by which individuals are nominated for delegate positions and slates of potential delegates are formed is an integral and crucial part of the process by which delegates are actually .selected, the Commission requires State Parties to extend to the nominating process all guarantees of full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process. When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.
“Furthermore, whenever slates are presented to caucuses, meetings, conventions, committees, or to voters in a primary, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt procedures which assure that:
“1. the bodies'making up the slates have been elected, assembled, or appointed for the slate-making task with adequate public notice that they would perform such task;
“2. those persons making up each slate have adopted procedures ■ that will facilitate widespread participation in the slate-making process, with the proviso that any slate presented in the name of a presidential candidate in a primary State be assembled with due consultation with the presidential candidate or his representative.
“3. adequate procedural safeguards are provided to assure that the right to challenge the presented slate is more than perfunctory and places no undue burden on the challengers.
“When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.”
For comments on the development of the guidelines, see Schmidt & Whalen, Credentials Contests and the 1968 and. 1972 Democratic National Conventions, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1438 (1969); Segal, Delegate Selection Standards: The Democratic Party’s Experience, 38 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 873 (1970); Report of Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection: Mandate for Reform (1970), reprinted at 117 Cong. Rec. 32909 (1971).
The injunction was obtained in a Circuit Court action filed April 19, 1972, by the Wigoda delegates against the Cousins delegates. In the interval between the filing of the suit and the action of the Credentials Committee on June 30, 1972, two proceedings occurred in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois related to the suit. On April 20 petitioners removed the case to that federal court. On May 17 the case was remanded on the ground that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction. Wigoda v. Cousins, 342 F. Supp. 82. On June 30, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an unpublished order, affirmed the remand. Wigoda v. Cousins, No. 72-1384.
While the remand issue was pending, petitioners filed their own action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking an injunction against respondents proceeding with the Circuit Court suit on the ground that it violated their First Amendment rights. On June 9, after trial, a preliminary injunction issued barring respondents from proceeding with the state-court action. Cousins v. Wigoda, Civil No. 72C 1108. That injunction was reversed by the Seventh Circuit on June 29. Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F. 2d 603. Petitioners’ application to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, for a stay of the Court of Appeals order was denied on July 1. 409 U. S. 1201.
The Appellate Court also affirmed another injunction of the Circuit Court entered August 2, 1972, barring petitioners from participating as delegates at a post-convention caucus on August 5, 1972, to select the Illinois representatives to the Democratic National Committee to serve until the 1976 Convention. Petitioners complied with that injunction and respondents participated in the August 5 caucus. Since the National Committee plans the National Convention the question of the validity of the August 2 injunction is analytically indistinguishable from the question of the validity of the July 8 injunction, and our decision today applies to both injunctions.
We emphasize that this is the only question that we decide today. There are not before us in this case, and we intimate no views upon the merits of, such questions as:
(1) whether the decisions of a national political party in the area of delegate selection constitute state or governmental action, and, if so, whether or to what extent principles of the political question doctrine counsel against judicial intervention. Respondents concede, and we agree, that “[i]n the context of the instant case, it is not necessary to determine whether Convention action is 'state action’ . . . .” Brief for Respondents 47. See Brown v. O’Brien, 152 U. S. App. D. C. 157, 469 F. 2d 563 (1972); Georgia v. National Democratic Party, 145 U. S. App. D. C. 102, 447 F. 2d 1271 (1971); Smith v. State Executive Committee of Democratic Party of Georgia, 288 F. Supp. 371 (ND Ga. 1968); Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F. 2d 370 (CA3 1965). See also the Texas White Primary Cases, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953). For the differing views of commentators, see Note, Legal Issues of the 1972 Democratic Convention and Beyond, 4 Loyola U. of Chi. L. J. 137 (1973); Note, Regulation of Political Parties: Vote Dilution in the Presidential Nomination Procedure, 54 Iowa L. Rev. 471 (1968); Chambers & Rotunda, Reform of Presidential Nominating Conventions, 56 Va. L. Rev. 179 (1970); Note, Constitutional Safeguards in the Selection of Delegates to Presidential Nominating Conventions, 78 Yale L. J. 1228 (1969); Comment, One Man, One Vote and Selection of Delegates to National Nominating Conventions, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 536 (1970); Bellamy, Applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Allocation of Delegates to the Democratic National Convention, 38 . Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 892 (1970); Raymar, Judicial Review of Credentials Contests: The Experience of the 1972 Democratic National Convention, 42 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (1973); Note, Judicial Intervention in the Presidential Candidate Selection Process: One Step Backwards, 47 N. Y. TJ. L. Rev. 1184 (1972).
(2) whether national political parties are subject to the principles of the reapportionment decisions, or other constitutional restraints, in their methods of delegate selection and allocation. Compare Bode v. National Democratic Party, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 373, 452 F. 2d 1302 (1971), with Irish v. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, 399 F. 2d 119 (CA8 1968); and see Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 378 n. 10 (1963). For a history of a century of resolutions of credentials disputes through party procedures and machinery see R. Bain & J. Parris, Convention Decisions and Voting Records (2d ed. 1973); Goldstein, One Man, One Vote and the Political Convention, 40 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1 (1971),
(3) whether or to what extent national political parties and their nominating conventions are regulable by, or only by, Congress. See Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232, 275 (1921) (Pitney, J., dissenting); R. Horn, Groups and the Constitution 17-18 (1956); Note, Freedom of Association and the Selection of Delegates to National Political Conventions, 56 Cornell L. Rev. 148, 152-160 (1970).
Our order provided that “[t]he applications for stays of the judgments of the Court of Appeals are granted.” 409 U. S., at 5. This order applied also to- Keane’s companion case, O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U. S. 1 (1972), which concerned challenges to the California delegation to the 1972 Democratic National Convention.
The Illinois Appellate Court also found res judicata unavailable for other reasons, including a difference between the issue before it and the issue in Keane:
“The issue which is central to the instant cause is the Illinois Election Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 46, §7-1 et seq.), and the right of the plaintiffs who were elected pursuant to its provisions to serve in their elective office. The issue which was central to the litigation which ensued in Keane v. National Democratic Party was the constitutionality of the guidelines of the National Democratic Party . . . .” 14 Ill. App. 3d 460, 468-469, 302 N. E. 2d 614, 623.
Indeed, petitioners maintain only that the Court of Appeals’ decision was “presented” and “argued” before the Circuit Court judge, not that res judicata was formally pleaded. See Brief for Petitioners 16, 45. Moreover, while petitioners argued in the Circuit Court that the Court of Appeals’ injunction against the state proceeding was effective despite this Court’s stay, they did not couch the argument in terms of the Court of Appeals’ decision having res judicata effect. Transcript of July 8, 1972, pp. 25-30, 32 et seq.
“It is possible that the Convention would have rejected the elected delegates and that Chicago, Illinois would have been without representation at the convention.” Brief for Respondents 46. Thus, respondents concede that their protected rights of political association do not entitle them to relief compelling the Party to accept them as delegates.
Early Presidential nominations were made by caucuses of Members of Congress belonging to the National Parties. See W. Goodman, The Two-Party System in the United States 153-158 (3d ed. 1964). There have been recent proposals that parties use regional or national primaries to choose their nominees. See, e. g., New York Times, Apr. 18, 1972, p. 12, col. 5 (five regional primaries proposed by Senator Packwood; national primary proposed by Senators Mansfield and Aiken).
Several delegations selected according to state law have been denied seating in Convention resolution of disputes. See, e. g., R. Bain & J. Parris, Convention Decisions and Voting Records 283-284, 323 (2d ed. 1973) (1952 Republican Convention, Georgia delegation; 1968 Democratic Convention, Mississippi delegation).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, a graduate student in the University of Missouri School of Journalism, was expelled for distributing on campus a newspaper “containing forms of indecent speech” in violation of a bylaw of the Board of Curators. The newspaper, the Free Press Underground, had been sold on this state university campus for more than four years pursuant to an authorization obtained from the University Business Office. The particular newspaper issue in question was found to be unacceptable for two reasons. First, on the front cover the publishers had reproduced a political cartoon previously printed in another newspaper depicting policemen raping the Statue of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice. The caption under the cartoon read; . . With Liberty and Justice for All.” Secondly, the issue contained an article entitled “M f Acquitted,” which discussed the trial and acquittal on an assault charge of a New York City youth who was a member of an organization known as “Up Against the Wall, M- — f-—.”
Following a hearing, the Student Conduct Committee found that petitioner had violated Par. B of Art. Y of the General Standards of Student Conduct which requires students “to observe generally accepted standards of conduct” and specifically prohibits “indecent conduct or speech.” Her expulsion, after affirmance first by the Chancellor of the University and then by its Board of Curators, was made effective in the middle of the spring semester. Although she was then permitted to remain on campus until the end of the semester, she was not given credit for the one course in which she made a passing grade.
After exhausting her administrative review alternatives within the University, petitioner brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. She claimed that her expulsion was improperly premised on activities protected ' by the First Amendment. The District Court denied relief, 331 F. Supp. 1321, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 464 F. 2d 136. Rehearing en banc was denied by an equally divided vote of all the judges in the Eighth Circuit.
The District Court's opinion rests, in part, on the conclusion that the banned issue of the newspaper was obscene. The Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to decide that question. Instead, assuming that the newspaper was not obscene and that its distribution in the community at large would be protected by the First Amendment, the court held that on a university campus “freedom of expression” could properly be “subordinated to other interests such as, for example, the conventions of decency in the use and display of language and pictures.” Id., at 145. The court concluded that “[t]he Constitution does not compel the University ... [to allow] such publications as the one in litigation to be publicly sold or distributed on its open campus.” Ibid.
This case was decided several days before we handed down Heady v. James, 408 U. S. 169 (1972), in which, while recognizing a state university’s undoubted prerogative to enforce reasonable rules governing student conduct, we reaffirmed that “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.” Id., at 180. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U. S. 503 (1969). We think Healy makes it clear that the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of “conventions of decency.” Other recent precedents of this Court make it equally clear that neither the political cartoon nor the headline story involved in this case can be labeled as constitutionally obscene or otherwise unprotected. E. g., Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229 (1972); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972); Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971). There is language in the opinions below which suggests that the University’s action here could be viewed as an exercise of its legitimate authority to enforce reasonable regulations as to the time, place, and manner of speech and its dissemination. While we have repeatedly approved such regulatory authority, e. g., Healy v. James, 408 U. S., at 192-193, the facts set forth in the opinions below show clearly that petitioner was expelled because of the disapproved content of the newspaper rather than the time, place, or manner of its distribution.
Since the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech, and because the state University’s-action here cannot be justified as a nondiscriminatory application of reasonable rules governing conduct, the judgments of the courts below must be reversed. Accordingly the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the case is remanded to the District Court, and that court is instructed to order the University to restore to petitioner any course credits she earned for the semester in question and, unless she is barred from reinstatement for valid academic reasons, to reinstate her as a student in the graduate program.
Reversed and remanded.
This charge was contained in a letter from the University’s Dean of Students, which is reprinted in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. 464 F. 2d 136, 139 (CA8 1972).
In pertinent part, the bylaw states:
''Students enrolling in the University assume an obligation and are expected by the University to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the University's functions and missions as an educational institution. For that purpose students are required to observe generally accepted standards of conduct. . . . [I]ndecent conduct or speech . . . are examples of conduct which would contravene this standard. . . .” 464 F. 2d, at 138.
Miss Papish, a 32-year-old graduate student, was admitted to the graduate school of the University in September 1963. Five and one-half years later, when the episode under consideration occurred, she was still pursuing her graduate degree. She was on "academic probation” because of “prolonged submarginal academic progress,” and since November 1, 1967, she also had been on disciplinary probation for disseminating Students for a Democratic Society literature found at a university hearing to have contained “pornographic, indecent and obscene words.” This dissemination had occurred at a time when the University was host to high school seniors and their parents. 464 F. 2d, at 139 nn. 3 and 4. But disenchantment with Miss Papish's performance, understandable as it may have been, is no justification for denial of constitutional rights.
Prefatorily, the District Court held that petitioner, who was a nonresident of Missouri, was powerless to complain of her dismissal because she enjoyed no “federally protected or other right to attend a state university of a state of which she is not a domiciled resident.” 331 F. Supp. 1321, 1326. The Court of Appeals, because it affirmed on a different ground, deemed it “unnecessary to comment” upon this rationale. 464 F. 2d, at 141 n. 9. The District Court’s reasoning is directly inconsistent with a long line of controlling decisions of this Court. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 596-598 (1972), and the cases cited therein.
Under the authority of Gooding and Cohen, we have reversed or vacated and remanded a number of cases involving the same expletive used in this newspaper headline. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U. S. 1053 (1972); Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U. S. 901 (1972); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U. S. 913 (1972); Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U. S. 914 (1972). Cf. Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F. 2d 359, 361 and n. 7 (CA1 1969).
It is true, as Mr. Justice Rehnquist’s dissent indicates, that the District Court emphasized that the newspaper was distributed near the University’s memorial tower and concluded that petitioner was engaged in “pandering.” The opinion makes clear, however, that the reference to "pandering” was addressed to the content of the newspaper and to the organization on the front page of the cartoon and the headline, rather than to the manner in which the newspaper was disseminated. 331 F. Supp., at 1325, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1332. As the Court of Appeals opinion states, “[t]he facts are not in dispute.” 464 F. 2d, at 138. The charge against petitioner was quite unrelated to either the place or manner of distribution. The Dean’s charge stated that the “forms of speech” contained in the newspaper were “improper on the University campus.” Id., at 139. Moreover, the majority below quoted without disapproval petitioner’s verified affidavit stating that “no disruption of the University’s functions occurred in connection with the distribution.” Id., at 139-140. Likewise, both the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals and the District Court opinion refer to this same uncontroverted fact. Id., at 145; 331 F. Supp., at 1328. Thus, in the absence of any disruption of campus order or interference with the rights of others, the sole issue was whether a state university could proscribe this form of expression.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), we held that when a State has given a full and fair chance to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim, federal habeas review is not available to a state prisoner alleging that his conviction rests on evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure. Today we hold that Stone’s restriction on the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction does not extend to a state prisoner’s claim that his conviction rests on statements obtained in violation of the safeguards mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).
I
Police officers in Romulus, Michigan, learned that respondent, Robert Allen Williams, Jr., might have information about a double murder committed on April 6, 1985. On April 10, two officers called at Williams’s house and asked him to the police station for questioning. Williams agreed to go. The officers searched Williams, but did not handcuff him, and they all drove to the station in an unmarked car. One officer, Sergeant David Early, later testified that Williams was not under arrest at this time, although a contemporaneous police report indicates that the officers arrested Williams at his residence. App. 12a-13a, 24a-26a.
At the station, the officers questioned Williams about his knowledge of the crime. Although he first denied any involvement, he soon began to implicate himself, and the officers continued their questioning, assuring Williams that their only concern was the identity of the “shooter.” After consulting each other, the officers decided not to advise Williams of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a. When Williams persisted in denying involvement, Sergeant Early reproved him:
“You know everything that went down. You just don’t want to talk about it. What it’s gonna amount to is you can talk about it now and give us the truth and we’re gonna check it out and see if it fits or else we’re simply gonna charge you and lock you up and you can just tell it to a defense attorney and let him try and prove differently.” Ibid.
The reproof apparently worked, for Williams then admitted he had furnished the murder weapon to the killer, who had called Williams after the crime and told him where he had discarded the weapon and other incriminating items. Williams maintained that he had not been present at the crime scene.
Only at this point, some 40 minutes after they began questioning him, did the officers advise Williams of his Miranda rights. Williams waived those rights and during subsequent questioning made several more inculpatory statements. Despite his prior denial, Williams admitted that he had driven the murderer to and from the scene of the crime, had witnessed the murders, and had helped the murderer dispose of incriminating evidence. The officers interrogated Williams again on April 11 and April 12, and, on April 12, the State formally charged him with murder.
Before trial, Williams moved to suppress his responses to the interrogations, and the trial court suppressed the statements of April 11 and April 12 as the products of improper delay in arraignment under Michigan law. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 90a-91a. The court declined to suppress the statements of April 10, however, ruling that the police had given Williams a timely warning of his Miranda rights. Id., at 90a. A bench trial led to Williams’s conviction on two counts each of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and resulted in two concurrent life sentences. The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the April 10 statements, People v. Williams, 171 Mich. App. 234, 429 N. W. 2d 649 (1988), and the Supreme Court of Michigan denied leave to appeal, 432 Mich. 913, 440 N. W. 2d 416 (1989). We denied the ensuing petition for writ of certiorari. Williams v. Michigan, 493 U. S. 956 (1989).
Williams then began this action pro se by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, alleging a violation of his Miranda rights as the principal ground for relief. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in No. 90CV-70256, p. 5 (ED Mich.). The District Court granted relief, finding that the police had placed Williams in custody for Miranda purposes when Sergeant Early had threatened to “lock [him] up,” and that the trial court should accordingly have excluded all statements Williams had made between that point and his receipt of the Miranda warnings. App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a-52a. The court also concluded, though neither Williams nor petitioner had addressed the issue, that Williams’s statements after receiving the Miranda warnings were involuntary under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus likewise subject to suppression. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a-71a. The court found that the totality of circumstances, including repeated promises of lenient treatment if he told the truth, had overborne Williams’s will.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 944 F. 2d 284 (CA6 1991), holding the District Court correct in determining the police had subjected Williams to custodial interrogation before giving him the requisite Miranda advice, and in finding the statements made after receiving the Miranda warnings involuntary. Id., at 289-290. The Court of Appeals summarily rejected the argument that the rule in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), should apply to bar habeas review of Williams’s Miranda claim. 944 F. 2d, at 291. We granted certiorari to resolve the significant issue thus presented. 503 U. S. 983 (1992).
I — J HH
We have made it clear that Stone’s limitation on federal habeas relief was not jurisdictional in nature, but rested on prudential concerns counseling against the application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule on collateral review. See Stone, supra, at 494-495, n. 37; see also Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, 447 (1986) (opinion of Powell, J.) (discussing equitable principles underlying Stone); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 379, n. 4 (1986); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 103 (1980) (Stone concerns “the prudent exercise of federal-court jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 2254”); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 2243 (court entertaining habeas petition shall “dispose of the matter as law and justice require”). We simply concluded in Stone that the costs of applying the exclusionary rule on collateral review outweighed any potential advantage to be gained by applying it there. Stone, supra, at 489-495.
We recognized that the exclusionary rule, held applicable to the States in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), “is not a personal constitutional right”; it fails to redress “the injury to the privacy of the victim of the search or seizure” at issue, “for any ‘[rjeparation comes too late.’ ” Stone, supra, at 486 (quoting Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 637 (1965)). The rule serves instead to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, and we reasoned that its application on collateral review would only marginally advance this interest in deterrence. Stone, 428 U. S., at 493. On the other side of the ledger, the costs of applying the exclusionary rule on habeas were comparatively great. We reasoned that doing so would not only exclude reliable evidence and divert attention from the central question of guilt, but would also intrude upon the public interest in “ ‘(i) the most effective utilization of limited judicial resources, (ii) the necessity of finality in criminal trials, (iii) the minimization of friction between our federal and state systems of justice, and (iv) the maintenance of the constitutional balance upon which the doctrine of federalism is founded.”’ Id., at 491, n. 31 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 259 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring)).
Over the years, we have repeatedly declined to extend the rule in Stone beyond its original bounds. In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), for example, we denied a request to apply Stone to bar habeas consideration of a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim of insufficient evidence to support a state conviction. We stressed that the issue was “central to the basic question of guilt or innocence,” Jackson, 443 U. S., at 323, unlike a claim that a state court had received evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, and we found that to review such a claim on habeas imposed no great burdens on the federal courts. Id., at 321-322.
After a like analysis, in Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U. S. 545 (1979), we decided against extending Stone to foreclose habeas review of an equal protection claim of racial discrimination in selecting a state grand-jury foreman. A charge that state adjudication had violated the direct command of the Fourteenth Amendment implicated the integrity of the judicial process, we reasoned, Rose, 443 U. S., at 563, and failed to raise the “federalism concerns” that had driven the Court in Stone. 443 U. S., at 562. Since federal courts had granted relief to state prisoners upon proof of forbidden discrimination for nearly a century, we concluded, “confirmation that habeas corpus remains an appropriate vehicle by which federal courts are to exercise their Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities” would not likely raise tensions between the state and federal judicial systems. Ibid.
In a third instance, in Kimmelman v. Morrison, supra, we again declined to extend Stone, in that case to bar habeas review of certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. We explained that unlike the Fourth Amendment, which confers no “trial right,” the Sixth confers a “fundamental right” on criminal defendants, one that “assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process.” 477 U. S., at 374. We observed that because a violation of the right would often go unremedied except on collateral review, “restricting the litigation of some Sixth Amendment claims to trial and direct review would seriously interfere with an accused’s right to effective representation.” Id., at 378.
In this case, the argument for extending Stone again falls short. To understand why, a brief review of the derivation of the Miranda safeguards, and the purposes they were designed to serve, is in order.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness- against himself.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5. In Brain v. United States, 168 U. S. 532 (1897), the Court held that the Clause barred the introduction in federal cases of involuntary confessions made in response to custodial interrogation. We did not recognize the Clause’s applicability to state cases until 1964, however, see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1; and, over the course of 30 years, beginning with the decision in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936), we analyzed the admissibility of confessions in such cases as a question of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Stone, The Miranda Doctrine in the Burger Court, 1977 S. Ct. Rev. 99, 101-102. Under this approach, we examined the totality of circumstances to determine whether a confession had been “ ‘made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort.’” Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 513 (1963) (quoting Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 623 (1896)); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamante, supra, at 223-227 (discussing totality-of-circumstances approach). See generally 1 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 6.2 (1984). Indeed, we continue to employ the totality-of-circumstances approach when addressing a claim that the introduction of an involuntary confession has violated due process. E.g., Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991); Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 109-110 (1985).
In Malloy, we recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and thereby opened Bram’s doctrinal avenue for the analysis of state cases. So it was that two years later we held in Miranda that the privilege extended to state custodial interrogations. In Miranda, we spoke of the privilege as guaranteeing a person under interrogation “the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will,’ ” 384 U. S., at 460 (quoting Malloy, supra, at 8), and held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation . . . contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” 384 U. S., at 467. To counter these pressures we prescribed, absent “other fully effective means,” the now-familiar measures in aid of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege:
“He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement.” Id., at 479.
Unless the prosecution can demonstrate the warnings and waiver as threshold matters, we held, it may not overcome an objection to the use at trial of statements obtained from the person in any ensuing custodial interrogation. See ibid.; cf. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 721-723 (1975) (permitting use for impeachment purposes of statements taken in violation of Miranda).
Petitioner, supported by the United States as amicus curiae, argues that Miranda’s safeguards are not constitutional in character, but merely “prophylactic,” and that in consequence habeas review should not extend to a claim that a state conviction rests on statements obtained in the absence of those safeguards. Brief for Petitioner 91-93; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14-15. We accept petitioner’s premise for purposes of this case, but not her conclusion.
The Miranda Court did of course caution that the Constitution requires no “particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process,” and left it open to a State to meet its burden by adopting “other procedures . . . at least as effective in apprising accused persons” of their rights. 384 U. S., at 467. The Court indeed acknowledged that, in barring introduction of a statement obtained without the required warnings, Miranda might exclude a confession that we would not condemn as “involuntary in traditional terms,” id., at 457, and for this reason we have sometimes called the Miranda safeguards “prophylactic” in nature. E. g., Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 203 (1989); Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U. S. 523, 528 (1987); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 305 (1985); New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984); see Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974) (Miranda Court “recognized that these procedural safeguards were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected”)- But cf. Quarles, supra, at 660 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (Miranda Court “held unconstitutional, because inherently compelled, the admission of statements derived from in-custody questioning not preceded by an explanation of the privilege against self-incrimination and the consequences of forgoing it”). Calling the Miranda safeguards “prophylactic,” however, is a far cry from putting Miranda on all fours with Mapp, or from rendering Miranda subject to Stone.
As we explained in Stone, the Mapp rule “is not a personal constitutional right,” but serves to deter future constitutional violations; although it mitigates the juridical consequences of invading the defendant’s privacy, the exclusion of evidence at trial can do nothing to remedy the completed and wholly extrajudicial Fourth Amendment violation. Stone, 428 U. S., at 486. Nor can the Mapp rule be thought to enhance the soundness of the criminal process by improving the reliability of evidence introduced at trial. Quite the contrary, as we explained in Stone, the evidence excluded under Mapp “is typically reliable and often the most probative information bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant:” 428 U. S., at 490.
Miranda differs from Mapp in both respects. “Prophylactic” though it may be, in protecting a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Miranda safeguards “a fundamental trial right.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990) (emphasis added); cf. Kimmelman, 477 U. S., at 377 (Stone does not bar habeas review of claim that the personal trial right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated). The privilege embodies “principles of humanity and civil liberty, which had been secured in the mother country only after years of struggle,” Bram, 168 U. S., at 544, and reflects
“many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: ... our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates ‘a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load;’ our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual ‘to a private enclave where he may lead a private life;’ our distrust of self-deprecatory statements; and our realization that the privilege, while sometimes ‘a shelter to the guilty,’ is often ‘a protection to the innocent.’” Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964) (citations omitted).
Nor does the Fifth Amendment “trial right” protected by Miranda serve some value necessarily divorced from the correct ascertainment of guilt. “ ‘[A] system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the “confession” will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses’ than a system relying on independent investigation. ” Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 448, n. 23 (quoting Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 488-489 (1964)). By bracing against “the possibility of unreliable statements in every instance of in-custody interrogation,” Miranda serves to guard against “the use of unreliable statements at trial.” Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 730 (1966); see also Schneckloth, 412 U. S., at 240 {Miranda “Court made it clear that the basis for decision was the need to protect the fairness of the trial itself”); Halpern, Federal Habeas Corpus and the Mapp Exclusionary Rule after Stone v. Powell, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 40 (1982); cf. Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U. S. 545 (1979) (Stone does not bar habeas review of claim of racial discrimination in selection of grand-jury foreman, as this claim goes to the integrity of the judicial process).
Finally, and most importantly, eliminating review of Miranda claims would not significantly benefit the federal courts in their exercise of habeas jurisdiction, or advance the cause of federalism in any substantial way. As one amicus concedes, eliminating habeas review of Miranda issues would not prevent a state prisoner from simply converting his barred Miranda claim into a due process claim that his conviction rested on an involuntary confession. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17. Indeed, although counsel could provide us with no empirical basis for projecting the consequence of adopting petitioner’s position, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-11,19-21, it seems reasonable to suppose that virtually all Miranda claims would simply be recast in this way.
If that is so, the federal courts would certainly not have heard the last of Miranda on collateral review. Under the due process approach, as we have already seen, courts look to the totality of circumstances to determine whether a confession was voluntary. Those potential circumstances include not only the crucial element of police coercion, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S. 157, 167 (1986); the length of the interrogation, Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 153-154 (1944); its location, see Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433, 441 (1961); its continuity, Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556, 561 (1954); the defendant’s maturity, Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596, 599-601 (1948) (opinion of Douglas, J.); education, Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707, 712 (1967); physical condition, Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U. S. 519, 520-521 (1968) (per curiam); and mental health, Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 196 (1957). They also include the failure of police to advise the defendant of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 516-517 (1963); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19, n. 17; see also Schneckloth, supra, at 226 (discussing factors). We could lock the front door against Miranda, but not the back.
We thus fail to see how abdicating Miranda’s, bright-line (or, at least, brighter-line) rules in favor of an exhaustive totality-of-circumstances approach on habeas would do much of anything to lighten the burdens placed on busy federal courts. See P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 188 (3d ed. 1988, Supp. 1992); Halpern, supra, at 40; Schulhofer, Confessions and the Court, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 865, 891 (1981); see also Quarles, 467 U. S., at 664 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Fare v. Michael C, 439 U. S. 1310, 1314 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)) (Miranda’s “ ‘core virtue’ ” was “ ‘affording] police and courts clear guidance on the manner in which to conduct a custodial investigation’ ”). We likewise fail to see how purporting to eliminate Miranda issues from federal habeas would go very far to relieve such tensions as Miranda may now raise between the two judicial systems. Relegation of habeas petitioners to straight involuntariness claims would not likely reduce the amount of litigation, and each such claim would in any event present a legal question requiring an “independent federal determination” on habeas. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S., at 112.
One might argue that tension results between the two judicial systems whenever a federal habeas court overturns a state conviction on finding that the state court let in a voluntary confession obtained by the police without the Miranda safeguards. And one would have to concede that this has occurred in the past, and doubtless will occur again. It is not reasonable, however, to expect such occurrences to be frequent enough to amount to a substantial cost of reviewing Miranda claims on habeas or to raise federal-state tensions to an appreciable degree. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 21. We must remember in this regard that Miranda came down some 27 years ago. In that time, law enforcement has grown in constitutional as well as technological sophistication, and there is little reason to believe that the police today are unable, or even generally unwilling, to satisfy Miranda’s requirements. See Quarles, supra, at 663 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 304 (1980) (Burger, C. J., concurring in judgment)) (“ ‘meaning of Miranda has become reasonably clear and law enforcement practices have adjusted to its strictures’ ”); Schuihofer, Reconsidering Miranda, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 435, 455-457 (1987). And if, finally, one should question the need for federal collateral review of requirements that merit such respect, the answer simply is that the respect is sustained in no small part by the existence of such review. “It is the occasional abuse that the federal writ of habeas corpus stands ready to correct.” Jackson, 443 U. S., at 322.
III
One final point should keep us only briefly. As he had done in his state appellate briefs, on habeas Williams raised only one claim going to the admissibility of his statements to the police: that the police had elicited those statements without satisfying the Miranda requirements. See supra, at 684. In her answer, petitioner addressed only that claim. See Brief in Support of Answer in No. 90CV-70256 DT, p. 3 (ED Mich.). The District Court, nonetheless, without an eviden-tiary hearing or even argument, went beyond the habeas petition and found the statements Williams made after receiving the Miranda warnings to be involuntary under due process criteria. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner objected to the District Court’s due process enquiry on the ground that the habeas petition’s reference to Miranda rights had given her insufficient notice to address a due process claim. Brief for Respondent-Appellant in No. 90-2289, p. 6 (CA6). Petitioner pursues the objection here. See Pet. for Cert. 1; Brief for Petitioner 14-15, n. 2.
Williams effectively concedes that his habeas petition raised no involuntariness claim, but he argues that the matter was tried by the implied consent of the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b), and that petitioner can demonstrate no prejudice from the District Court’s action. See Brief for Respondent 41-42, n. 22. The record, however, reveals neither thought, word, nor deed of petitioner that could be taken as any sort of consent to the determination of an independent due process claim, and petitioner was manifestly prejudiced by the District Court’s failure to afford her an opportunity to present evidence bearing on that claim’s resolution. The District Court should not have addressed the involuntariness question in these circumstances.
> I — <
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The District Court mistakenly believed that the trial court had allowed the introduction of the statements Williams had made on April 12, and its ruling consequently extended to those statements as well. App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a-75a.
Justice Scalia argues in effect that the rule in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), should extend to all claims on federal habeas review. See post, at 719-720. With respect, that reasoning goes beyond the question on which we granted certiorari, Pet. for Cert. 1 (“where the premise of [a] Fifth Amendment ruling is a finding of a Miranda violation, where the petitioner has had one full and fair opportunity to raise the Miranda claim in state court, should collateral review of the same claim on a habeas corpus petition be precluded?”), and we see no good reason to address it in this case.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2264(a) provides: “The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
We have in the past declined to address the application of Stone in this context. See, e. g., Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 201, n. 3 (1989); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 87, n. 11 (1977).
Justice O’Connor is confident that many such claims would be unjustified, see post, at 708-709, but that is beside the point. Justifiability is not much of a gatekeeper on habeas.
It should indeed come as no surprise that one of the submissions arguing against the extension of Stone in this case comes to us from law enforcement organizations. See Brief for Police Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae.
The relevant part of Rule 15(b) provides: “When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.” See 28 U. S. C. §2254 Rule 11 (application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to habeas petitions); 1 J. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 17.2 (1988) (Rule 15 applies in habeas actions).
We need not address petitioner’s arguments that Williams failed to exhaust the involuntariness claim in the state courts and that the District Court applied a new rule under Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Of course, we also express no opinion on the merits of the involuntariness claim.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is the second time this marathon litigation has been before us. It began in 1959 as a suit for patent infringement brought by Hazeltine Research, Inc. (hereafter HRI), against Zenith. In 1963, Zenith filed a counterclaim against HRI alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as amended, 26 Stat. 209, 38 Stat. 731, 737, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, 15, 26, by reason of HRI’s participation in patent pools in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. These pools, it was claimed, operated to exclude Zenith from those foreign markets by refusing to grant patent licenses to American manufacturers seeking to export American-made radio and television sets. Trial was had without a jury. Zenith submitted telling evidence as to the existence and operation of the conspiracy and HRI’s participation in each of the markets. Zenith demonstrated the fact and extent of its business injury by estimating the percentage of the foreign market it would have enjoyed absent the conspiracy during the four years prior to 1963 and showing the portion it actually enjoyed during those years. The difference between the profits it actually made and the profits it would have made in a free market during the four years was the measure of the damages demanded.
A year after evidence was closed, the trial judge entered preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law favoring Zenith. He concluded that Zenith had been damaged $6,297,371 in the Canadian market, $9,248,926 in the English, and $692,555 in the Australian, a total of $16,238,872 before trebling. HRI then moved to amend its reply to Zenith’s counterclaim and to reopen the record for the taking of additional evidence. The motion sought leave to assert the defenses of limitations and release; the claim was that part or all of the damages awarded to Zenith for the four years 1959-1963 were caused by pre-1959 conduct and to that extent were barred by the statute of limitations, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, or by a release given by Zenith to certain American companies in 1957. HRI also sought leave to prove that until specified dates Zenith’s exclusion from the English and Australian markets had been due, not to1 the operation of the alleged patent pools, but to such matters as official embargoes, tariffs, and technical factors. The trial judge agreed to take additional evidence with respect to England and Australia but refused to reopen the record for other purposes or to modify his findings and conclusions concerning the Canadian market. He did, however, permit the limitations and release defenses to be filed and, after hearing evidence with respect to the English and Australian markets, reduced his award of damages with respect to them. 239 F. Supp. 51 (1965).
In the Court of Appeals, HRI asserted error on various grounds. Putting aside other issues, the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Zenith had failed to prove injury to its business in any of the three markets. 388 F. 2d 25 (1967). We, in turn, affirmed the judgment denying recovery for the alleged injury in the English and Australian markets, but reversed with respect to Canada, holding that Zenith’s evidence amply demonstrated the fact of damage in the Canadian market. 395 U. S. 100 (1969). We also noted that some portion of the damages proved and awarded resulted from conspiratorial conduct prior to 1959 and that the trial judge had either rejected on the merits the defenses of limitations and release or deemed them waived. Id., at 117 n. 13. We went no further, however, with respect to the issues surrounding either defense.
The Court of Appeals on remand accepted as duly proved that absent the conspiracy Zenith would have enjoyed a 16% share of the Canadian market and that the difference between 16% and the share it actually had was the measure of the total damages inflicted by the conspiracy during the four years 1959-1963. But recognizing that some portion of Zenith’s business injury resulted from conspiratorial conduct prior to 1959, the court went on to hold that the trial judge had not rejected the defenses of limitations and release on waiver grounds but had erroneously rejected them on their merits, and further that Zenith’s claim that the statute had been tolled had been waived by Zenith and was in any event unsound. Finally, the court ordered further evidence to be taken in the trial court to determine the extent to which, if any, the damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced by virtue of the defenses sustained in the Court of Appeals. 418 F. 2d 21 (1969).
We granted certiorari. 397 U. S. 979 (1970). Zenith’s principal contentions here are that the trial judge properly deemed the limitations and release defenses to have been waived, that if not waived, the defenses were without merit, and that in any event the statute of limitations was tolled by the pendency of a Government suit against HRI’s coconspirators. We need not decide whether the trial judge held the defenses waived or rejected them on the merits, since in our view, either course would have been legally sound. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals.
I
We deal first with Zenith’s claim that the defenses of limitations and release were properly held by the trial court to have been waived. To do so it is essential briefly to outline the course of the trial and evidence. Zenith’s 1963 counterclaim alleged the existence of the conspiracy and the impact on its business and prayed for damages and injunctive relief, but made no allegations as to the time period as to which damages were sought. These latter matters became clear during the pretrial proceedings and during the course of the trial itself. In its pretrial brief and opening statement Zenith asserted that the illegal pools had existed for many years; that Zenith had conspiratorially been refused a license to import into Canada; and that litigation had been threatened and potential distributors discouraged. The conspiracy was said to have been not only a longstanding but also a worldwide one, against certain members of which the United States Government had brought an antitrust action and Zenith itself had recovered $10,000,000 in 1957 in settlement of a civil treble-damage action. But Zenith disclosed that, although the conspiracy had been worldwide and long existing, it would seek to recover damages for restraint of its trade in the three foreign markets only during the “four-year statutory damage period.”
At trial Zenith introduced voluminous evidence with respect to the operations of the conspiracy and its impact on its business. The testimony with respect to Canada was that in a free market Zenith would have had the same share of the Canadian market as it enjoyed in the United States and that the existence and operation of the conspiracy had restricted its Canadian business. Specifically, Zenith claimed that in the four years after June 1, 1959, it had lost profits aggregating some $6,300,000 as the result of conspiratorial conduct by the Canadian patent pool during and prior to that period. Counsel made Zenith’s position perfectly clear in his summation and post-trial brief: except for the Canadian pool, Zenith would have had a 16% share of the Canadian market, but as a result of the pool it had only a 3% share. Zenith thus argued that it was entitled to the full difference between 16% and 3% for the entire four-year period. It also made similar claims with respect to the English and Australian markets.
Although Zenith’s counterclaim on its face sought to recover all damages suffered in past years without restriction, HRI pleaded neither limitations nor release in its reply to the counterclaim. Zenith instead revealed its own awareness of the statutory limitation period during the trial and expressly restricted its proof to damages suffered during the statutory four-year damage period. However, Zenith sought to recover all damages suffered during those years even though it was unmistakably clear that some of this damage had been caused by conspiratorial action prior to 1959. Yet, at no time during the trial did HRI suggest that the statute barred Zenith’s recovery of any part of its total damage suffered during that period. HRI did challenge Zenith’s claim that it would have had a 16% share of the Canadian market on the ground that the evidence was speculative — indeed, that it was so speculative that Zenith had failed entirely to sustain its burden of proving damage, but it interposed no objection to Zenith’s demand for all damages sustained during the four-year period, no matter when the operative acts had occurred. Not until one year after trial, when it learned that the judge’s findings and conclusions were unfavorable, did HRI assert that part of the post-1959 damage was the result of pre-1959 conduct and was barred either by the statute of limitations or by the release given by Zenith in 1957 in settlement of its suit against other American companies.
Other than a general attack on the sufficiency of Zenith’s proof of damages and a demand that the matter be relitigated, HRI’s post-trial motion had three principal branches. First, it sought leave to file the defense of limitations. The motion in effect asserted that the conspiracy, even if it had continued during the damage period, had committed no damaging overt acts during that period, all of Zenith’s damage being caused by pre-1959 operations of the pool. HRI asserted as a legal matter that the statute of limitations would therefore bar Zenith’s entire claim on the record then before the Court. Second, HRI sought to interpose the defense of release. The argument was that some or all of Zenith’s post-1959 damages were the consequence of pool activity occurring prior to the date of a 1957 release given to American companies which were coconspirators of HRI in the Canadian pool. That release, it was claimed, also released HRI. Third, HRI sought to reopen the record to show that until well into the four-year damage period Zenith’s inability to enter the English and Australian markets was due to official embargoes, other governmental policies and technical difficulties rather than to the operations of the patent pools.
The motion was thoroughly and extensively argued. With respect to the defenses of limitations and release, the trial court’s ruling, after Zenith objected to them as being “too late,” was expressed as follows: “Well, the record will show that leave is given to file them at this time, after proofs are closed and after findings have been made.” This ruling was immediately followed by the court’s refusal either to reopen the record for additional evidence with respect to Canada or to modify its judgment in any way as to that market. The record as to England and Australia, however, was reopened for further proof as to the operative forces other than the patent pools which in fact had prevented importation of Zenith’s products into those markets.
Arguably, since the trial judge permitted the limitations and release defenses to be filed but then rejected them by refusing to amend the judgment with respect to Canada, rejection was necessarily on the merits. But the record also yields to the construction that the two defenses were overruled because a just and sensible ruling on their merits would have required a reopening of the record for a virtual retrial of the issue of damages, an eventuality which the trial court deemed unwarranted in view of HRI’s delinquency in raising the defenses. If this was the course the trial judge took, we would not disturb his judgment.
At the time of the trial Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required that “[i]n pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively... release... statute of limitations... and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” Rule 12 (h) at that time provided that “[a] party waives all defenses and objections which he does not present” either by motion or in answer or reply. Based on these rules, Zenith claims that the trial court was required to, and did, hold the two defenses waived.
HRI contends that the District Court should have granted it leave to amend its answer under Rule 15 (a), which provides that such “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” HRI’s position is that the evidence in the record at the time it offered its defenses showed that all of the acts causing damage during the 1959-1963 period had occurred prior to 1959; from this it follows that Zenith had failed, according to HRI, to offer any evidence upon which an award of damages could have been sustained. In the alternative, HRI argues that the record showed that it had been released from all liability for damages flowing from pre-1957 acts. In either case, HRI urges that the damage award be set aside.
It is settled that the grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 (a) is within the discretion of the trial court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178, 182 (1962) (dictum). In a matter as substantial and complex as this one, where HRI claimed it had been misled or at the very least asked to be relieved of mistake or oversight, it might have been within the discretion of the trial judge to have permitted HRI to amend its pleadings to include therein the defenses of limitations and release. But, in deciding whether to permit such an amendment, the trial court was required to take into account any prejudice that Zenith would have suffered as a result, see Kanelos v. Kettler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 133, 136-137, n. 15, 406 F. 2d 951, 954-955, n. 15 (1968); United States v. 47 Bottles, More or Less, 320 F. 2d 564, 573-574 (CA3 1963); Caddy-Imler Creations v. Caddy, 299 F. 2d 79, 84 (CA9 1962); 3 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 [4] (2d ed. 1968), and here the prejudice to Zenith would have been substantial. Zenith’s theory that all of its damages suffered during the four-year period were legally recoverable had been made quite clear during the trial, and Zenith had proved up its damages in accordance with that theory. Meanwhile HRI had neither pleaded its defenses, objected to Zenith’s evidence, nor otherwise hinted that post-1959 damages caused by pre-1959 conduct were for any reason barred until long after the record had been closed. To have then sustained HRI’s defenses would have been to deny Zenith the opportunity to prove its recoverable damages — a denial that hardly comports with the letter or the spirit of Rule 15 (a). At the very minimum, if the defense of limitations or release was to be entertained and deemed to bar that part of Zenith’s damages resulting from the lingering consequences of past acts, Zenith would have been entitled to perfect its proof as to damage resulting from pool operations during the four-year period, as well as to prove, if it could, what damages it might have suffered in the future from those acts. To have permitted Zenith to perfect its proof would, of course, have required reopening of the record and a virtual retrial of the issue of damages.
The trial judge here might have permitted reopening. Like a motion under Rule 15 (a) to amend the pleadings, a motion to reopen to submit additional proof is addressed to his sound discretion. See, e. g., Swartz v. New York Central R. Co., 323 F. 2d 713, 714 (CA7 1963); Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 299 F. 2d 160, 169-170 (CA9 1961); Gas Ridge, Inc. v. Suburban Agricultural Properties, Inc., 150 F. 2d 363, 366, rehearing denied, 150 F. 2d 1020 (CA5 1945); 6A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 59.04 [13] (2d ed. 1966). But. the-record is clear that he refused to reopen with respect to damages in the Canadian market or otherwise to modify the Canadian judgment, and that he thereby rejected HRI’s proffered defenses. Although we are not privy to his unexpressed thinking and although his refusal can be read as a rejection of the defenses on the merits, it can also be read as a holding that the defenses were, in effect, waived by the untimeliness of their presentation and hence that the pleadings would not be amended, except as a matter of form, and that the trial would not be reopened.
On the assumption that the trial court did hold the defenses of limitations and release to have been waived, we cannot say that the judge abused his discretion or stressed too much the value of avoiding reopening a trial to litigate matters that HRI had had an opportunity, but neglected, to litigate. Nor is it irrelevant in this connection that HRI’s central claims during trial were that there was no conspiracy and that Zenith had suffered no damage at all. The defenses that HRI set out in the post-trial motions were in a sense inconsistent with these trial claims, for the defenses conceded, albeit only arguendo, that a conspiracy did exist and that Zenith, absent the conspiracy, would have controlled a sizable share of the Canadian market. HRI’s post-trial argument, in effect, was one of confession and avoidance showing that the conspiracy had been so successful in the pre-1959 period that it could be relatively or entirely quiescent from 1959 to 1963 and nonetheless cause Zenith substantial damages in those years. It is quite possible that HRI knew exactly what it was doing in not presenting this argument during trial and that it realized a need to present it only after it learned that its original arguments had not induced the court to hold in its favor.
Whatever HRI’s reasons for not offering its limitations and release defenses during trial, however, the trial court would not have erred in concluding that they were waived.
II
Assuming, however, that the District Judge rejected the defenses of limitations and release on the merits, as the Court of Appeals held, we confront the issue of whether it is consistent with the controlling limitations statute, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, to permit Zenith to recover all of the damages it suffered during the years 1959-1963 even though some undetermined portion of those damages was the proximate result of conduct occurring more than four years prior to the filing of the counterclaim. HRI contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that the statute permits the recovery only of those damages caused by overt acts committed during the four-year period. We do not agree.
A
We turn first to Zenith’s argument that, even if the statute of limitations were to be held applicable in this case, the statute was nonetheless tolled from November 24, 1958, to November 1, 1963, pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 16 (b) by reason of a Government antitrust action brought against various American companies participating along with HRI in the Canadian pool. If Zenith is correct in this respect and the running of the statute of limitations was suspended during the pend-ency of the Government suit, then it was entitled at the very least to sue in 1963 for any damage to its business occurring by reason of conspiratorial conduct at any time after November 24, 1954.
The Court of Appeals rejected the tolling argument. It had some doubt whether tolling was properly before it since Zenith had never entered a formal plea of tolling, and HRI now contends that Zenith’s failure to so plead in its original complaint bars it forever from raising such a claim. This contention is without merit. The cases on which HRI relies themselves establish that where, as here, a plaintiff has no reason to anticipate that a claim of limitations will be raised against him, he need not set forth his claim of tolling until the limitations claim is raised. See National & Transcontinental Trading Corp. v. International General Elec. Co., 15 F. R. D. 379, 382 (SDNY 1954). Cf. Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F. 2d 80, 88 (CA2 1961). Nor should Zenith be penalized for failing to enter a formal plea of tolling in response to HRI’s belated limitations plea, for Zenith can hardly be blamed for reading the remarks of the trial judge as a rejection of the limitations defense on the ground of waiver. Zenith was never unambiguously called upon to submit a formal plea; to hold under such circumstances that want of a submission amounts to a waiver would be to treat pleading as “a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome” — an approach we have consistently rejected. See Foman v. Davis, supra, at 181-182; United States v. Hougham, 364 U. S. 310, 317 (1960); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 48 (1957). The interests of justice thus clearly require that if HRI’s limitations defense is to be considered on its merits, Zenith’s claim of tolling must be dealt with as well.
The Court of Appeals did, in fact, consider the tolling issue on the merits, but concluded that tolling takes place only with respect to parties to a Government suit and hence that tolling did not occur here because HRI was not such a party. This was error. The language of 15 U. S. C. § 16 (b) expressly provides for tolling of the statute of limitations "in respect of every private right of action... based in whole or in part on any matter complained of” in the proceeding instituted by the Government. (Emphasis added.) On the face of this section, a private party who brings suit for a conspiracy against which the Government has already brought suit is undeniably basing its claim in whole or in part upon the matter complained of in the Government suit, even if the defendant named in the private suit was named neither as a defendant nor as a coconspirator by the Government. If, that is, the Government sues only certain conspirators, but also alleges and proves during trial that others were conspirators, the fact of the tolling of the statute against those so proved but not sued can hardly be denied. Nor could tolling be denied if a defendant had never been shown to be a conspirator by the evidence offered in the earlier Government suit, but then had been proved to be such in the subsequent private suit.
We find no indication in the legislative history of § 16 (b) that Congress intended it to toll the statute of limitations only against parties defendant in the Government action. Nor is anything cited to us in this respect. On the contrary, as we have said earlier, Congress, believing that “private antitrust litigation is one of the surest weapons for effective enforcement of the antitrust laws,” enacted § 16 (b) in order to “assist private litigants in utilizing any benefits they might cull from government antitrust actions.” Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 381 U. S. 311, 317-318 (1965). We see nothing destructive of Congress’ purpose in holding that § 16 (b) tolls the statute of limitations against all participants in a conspiracy which is the object of a Government suit, whether or not they are named as defendants or conspirators therein; indeed, to so hold materially furthers congressional policy by permitting private litigants to await the outcome of Government suits and use the benefits accruing therefrom.
It is true that the lower federal courts have until recently confined the operation of the section and held it applicable only to defendants named in the Government suit. See, e. g., Sun Theatre Corp. v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 213 F. 2d 284, 290-292 (CA7 1954); Momand v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., 172 F. 2d 37, 48 (CA1 1948). But these cases and others like them, as we have indicated, fly in the face of the language of the statute, are antithetical to its aims, and cannot be squared with our recent decisions in Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., supra, and Leh v. General Petroleum Corp., 382 U. S. 54 (1965). Minnesota Mining held that § 16 (b)’s tolling provision was not confined to those situations in which a Government decree, by virtue of § 16 (a), would be prima facie evidence against defendants in a private suit who had also been named as defendants in a Government suit. It rejected the view that §§ 16 (a) and 16 (b) are wholly interdependent and coextensive; on the contrary, § 16 (b) was given its full sweep. Leh, following Minnesota Mining, held that a private litigant was entitled to the benefit of tolling although the conspiracy he alleged covered a different time, named additional parties, and excluded some parties named in the prior Government suit. While Leh did not explicitly decide whether the statute would be tolled when the sole defendant in a private action covering the same ground as an earlier Government suit had been named neither as a conspirator nor as a party in the Government suit, we do not believe that such a case could be distinguished from Leh. Cases in the lower federal courts since Leh have also come to this conclusion. See New Jersey v. Morton Salt Co., 387 F. 2d 94 (CA3 1967); Vermont v. Cayuga Rock Salt Co., 276 F. Supp. 970 (Me. 1967); Michigan v. Morton Salt Co., 259 F. Supp. 35, 53-56 (Minn. 1966), aff’d sub nom. Hardy Salt Co. v. Illinois, 377 F. 2d 768 (CA8 1967).
We therefore hold that Zenith, although suing HRI, which was named neither as a party nor as a coconspirator in the Government suit, is not barred from obtaining the benefits of the tolling statute, since it is undisputed that the conspiracy in which HRI participated was at least in part the same conspiracy as was the object of the Government’s suit. From this it follows that the only issue still remaining upon HRI’s limitations claim is whether Zenith can recover in its 1963 suit for damages suffered after June 1, 1959, as the consequence of pre-1954 conspiratorial conduct.
B
The basic rule is that damages are recoverable under the federal antitrust acts only if suit therefor is “commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued,” 15 U. S. C. § 15b, plus any additional number of years during which the statute of limitations was tolled. Generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business. See, e. g., Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd., 185 F. 2d 196, 208 (CA9 1950); Bluefields S. S. Co. v. United Fruit Co., 243 F. 1, 20 (CA3 1917), appeal dismissed, 248 U. S. 595 (1919); 2361 State Corp. v. Sealy, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 845, 850 (ND Ill. 1967). This much is plain from the treble-damage statute itself. 15 U. S. C. § 15. In the context of a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws, such as the conspiracy in the instant case, this has usually been understood to mean that each time a plaintiff is injured by an act of the defendants a cause of action accrues to him to recover the damages caused by that act and that, as to those damages, the statute of limitations runs from the commission of the act. See, e. g., Crummer Co. v. Du Pont, 223 F. 2d 238, 247-248 (CA5 1955); Delta Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 644, 648 (ED La. 1958); Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 996, 1006 (Mass.1942), aff’d, 172 F. 2d, at 49. However, each separate cause of action that so accrues entitles a plaintiff to recover not only those damages which he has suffered at the date of accrual, but also those which he will suffer in the future from the particular invasion, including what he has suffered during and will predictably suffer after trial. See, e. g., Farbenfabriken Bayer, A. G. v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 589, 593 (NJ 1957); Momand v. Universal Film, Exchange, Inc., supra, at 1006. Cf. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U. S. 522, 536 (1915). Thus, if a plaintiff feels the adverse impact of an antitrust conspiracy on a particular date, a cause of action immediately accrues to him to recover all damages incurred by that date and all provable damages that will flow in the future from the acts of the conspirators on that date. To recover those damages, he must sue within the requisite number of years from the accrual of the action. On the other hand, it is hornbook law, in antitrust actions as in others, that even if injury and a cause of action have accrued as of a certain date, future damages that might arise from the conduct sued on are unrecoverable if the fact of their accrual is speculative or their amount and nature unprovable. Moe Light, Inc. v. Foreman, 238 F. 2d 817, 818 (CA6 1956); Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. De Clow, 124 F. 142, 143 (CA8 1903); Culley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 244 F. Supp. 710, 715 (Del. 1965). Cf. Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 139 U. S. 199, 206 (1891).
In antitrust and treble-damage actions, refusal to award future profits as too speculative is equivalent to holding that no cause of action has yet accrued for any but those damages already suffered. In these instances, the cause of action for future damages, if they ever occur, will accrue only on the date they are suffered; thereafter the plaintiff may sue to recover them at any time within four years from the date they were inflicted. Cf. Schenley Industries v. N. J. Wine & Spirit Wholesalers Assn., 272 F. Supp. 872, 887-888 (NJ 1967); Delta Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., supra, at 648-649. Otherwise future damages that could not be proved within four years of the conduct from which they flowed would be forever incapable of recovery, contrary to the congressional purpose that private actions serve “as a bulwark of antitrust enforcement,” Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134, 139 (1968), and that the antitrust laws fully “protect the victims of the forbidden practices as well as the public,” Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445, 454 (1957). See also Lawlor v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U. S. 322, 329 (1955).
As we have already seen, acceptance of Zenith’s tolling argument requires further consideration only of that portion of Zenith’s damages suffered during the 1959-1963 period as a result of pre-1954 conduct of the conspiracy. We must now determine whether Zenith could have recovered those damages if it had brought suit for them in 1954, for if it could not, it would follow for the reasons stated above that it must be permitted to recover them now.
We do not, of course, have the thinking of the district judge on this issue, and ordinarily the matter of future damages would very much depend on his informed discretion. But we are reluctant to return any issue in this litigation for another round of proceedings in the trial or appellate courts if we can fairly dispose of it at this juncture. After due consideration, we have determined that in the circumstances of this case, § 15b was no bar to any part of the damages awarded Zenith by the District Court insofar as the Canadian market was concerned.
Let us assume that Zenith in a treble-damage suit brought in 1954 had presented evidence similar to that which it presented in the instant suit, indicating that it would have had the same share of a free Canadian market as it did in the United States market. Assume also that it had presented evidence to the effect that, starting in 1954, when it had no sales in the Canadian market, it would have taken 10 years to reach that share in a free market. Given such evidence, the question would be whether a district court would have permitted Zenith to recover estimated profits upon 90% of its share of the hypothetical free Canadian market for its anticipated losses in 1955, 80% for its losses in 1956, and 70% for its 1957 losses, and so on.
We find it difficult to believe that Zenith could have convinced a District Court sitting in 1954 that, although it contemplated a free market from that time forward, it would still be suffering from provable injury more than five years later. It is true that the damages awarded Zenith in this case were based on estimates of its volume of business in a free market. But those estimates were for a past period of time; the size and conditions in the market were known and the competitive forces were identifiable. Zenith’s performance during the same period and under comparable conditions was a matter of record. It is quite another matter to predict market conditions and the performance of one competitor in that market five to 10 years hence. The proceedings before us put in stark relief the difficulties of proving the fact and the amount of damage during a period in the immediate past. Claims of future damage would have probably gotten short shrift in the lower courts if they had been pressed in this case. In our view, this is the very treatment such claims would have received had Zenith sued in 1954, and claimed damages for the decade of the sixties. The short of it is that Zenith asserted its cause of action for 1959-1963 damages well within the period during which § 15b entitled it to sue.
Ill
Entirely apart from its statute of limitations defense, HRI claims that whatever part of the 1959-1963 damages was caused by conspiratorial conduct prior to 1957 is unrecoverable because of a release executed in that year by Zenith in settlement of an antitrust action against other coconspirators in the Canadian patent pool. The release extended not only to past but also to all future damages arising out of pre-1957 conspiratorial acts. However, while it was a coconspirator in the Canadian pool, HRI was neither a party to the 1957 suit nor a party to the release, nor was it named in the release as one of the parties
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Court is advised that, on May 26, 1951, the Oklahoma Legislature repealed Okla. Stat., 1941 (Cum. Supp. 1949), Tit. 52, §§ 286.1-286.17, the constitutionality of which is drawn in question by these appeals. The causes are therefore ordered/ continued for such period as will enable appellants with all convenient speed to secure in an appropriate state proceeding a determination as to the effect of this repeal on the matters raised in these appeals.
Cause' continued.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether a district court order granting permissive intervention but denying intervention as of right is immediately appealable.
b-H
This case is part of the ongoing litigation concerning the Stringfellow Acid Pits, an abandoned hazardous waste disposal site near Glen Avon, California. Petitioners are 28 individuals, companies, or entities who formerly owned or operated the Acid Pits, or who allegedly produced or transported the wastes that were dumped at the disposal site. In 1983 the United States and the State of California filed suit against petitioners, claiming that the Acid Pits created a substantial danger to the surrounding area. The Government plaintiffs sought injunctive relief that would require petitioners to abate the release of harmful substances from the site, and to take remedial steps to correct the unsafe conditions. Both the United States and California also requested reimbursement for the costs incurred in bringing about the cleanup.
Shortly after the complaint was filed, respondent Concerned Neighbors in Action (CNA), a nonprofit organization whose members live near the dumpsite, moved to intervene in the litigation. CNA claimed that it was entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), because it had a substantial interest in the suit that would not be represented adequately by the existing parties. CNA also asserted that the citizen suit provisions of various environmental statutes allowed intervention as of right in these circumstances. Alternatively, CNA claimed that it should be allowed to intervene by permission pursuant to Rule 24(b).
The District Court denied the request to intervene as of right, but granted CNA’s application to become a permissive intervenor. The court concluded, however, that CNA’s right to participate should be subject to three conditions. First, it held that CNA could not assert any claim for relief that had not already been requested by one of the original parties. The court found that “allowing applicants to assert their individualized damage and other claims would burden and expand an already complex litigation, and could jeopardize the possibility of settlement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-19. Second, CNA could not intervene in the Government plaintiffs’ claim for recovery of the clean-up costs. Finally, in an effort to “minimize any delay and confusion involved in discovery,” the District Court ruled that CNA could not file any motions or conduct its own discovery unless it first conferred with all the original parties, and then obtained permission to go forward from at least one of these litigants. Id., at A-20. The court emphasized, though, that CNA had the right to attend all depositions, to participate to the extent not duplicative of the original parties, and to receive copies of all discovery material produced by the other litigants.
CNA filed an immediate appeal, protesting both the denial of the application to intervene as of right and the restrictions imposed on permissive intervention. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Court order was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. The court’s decision was largely based on the fact that CNA had been made a party to the litigation and could protect its interests fully during an appeal from the final judgment. The Ninth Circuit also noted that its decision was consistent with the results reached by other Courts of Appeals in similar cases. The court subsequently withdrew its opinion, however, concluding that the holding was inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. Relying on California v. Block, 690 F. 2d 753, 776 (1982), the court ruled that “[d]enial of intervention as of right is a final appealable order, despite the grant of permissive intervention.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-26. The court ordered further briefing on the merits of the intervention application, and ultimately held that CNA must be allowed to intervene as of right. United States v. Stringfellow, 755 F. 2d 1383 (1985) (order). See also 783 F. 2d 821 (1986) (opinion).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to whether this type of pretrial order is subject to immediate appeal. 476 U. S. 1157. We now vacate and remand.
II
CNA acknowledges that the District Court order in this case is not “final” in the traditional sense. The decision concerning CNA’s intervenor status clearly is not one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” See Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945). Instead, CNA argues that the order falls within one of the narrow categories of decisions that we have deemed final for purposes of review, even though the entire dispute has not yet been resolved.
A
CNA’s primary argument is that the District Court ruling is covered by the “collateral order” exception to § 1291. This doctrine recognizes that a limited class of prejudgment orders is sufficiently important and sufficiently separate from the underlying dispute that immediate appeal should be available. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949). To qualify as a collateral order, a decision must: (i) “conclusively determine the disputed question”; (ii) “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action”; and (iii) “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978) (footnote omitted). See also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 375 (1981).
Although a party seeking appeal must show that all three requirements are satisfied, we find it unnecessary to address each part of the test. We assume, arguendo, that the District Court order conclusively determined CNA’s right to intervene, and that the intervention issue is completely separate from the merits of the underlying action. We nevertheless find that the order is not “collateral” within the meaning of Coopers & Lybrand. We conclude that because CNA is now a party to the suit by virtue of its permissive intervention, it can obtain effective review of its claims on appeal from the final judgment.
An intervenor, whether by right or by permission, normally has the right to appeal an adverse final judgment by a trial court. See Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 280-283 (1946); Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 687 F. 2d 543 (CA1 1982). See also 3B J. Moore & J. Kennedy, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶24-15, pp. 24-169 — 24-170 (2d ed. 1985) (An intervenor may appeal from “all interlocutory and final orders that affect him . . . whether the right under which he intervened was originally absolute or discretionary”); 7C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1923, p. 517 (2d ed. 1986). Thus if CNA still wishes to challenge the denial of intervention as of right, or if it believes that the restrictions imposed by the District Court prevented it from protecting its interests, it can raise these claims before the Court of Appeals after the trial. That court then can decide whether the order was erroneous, and if so, whether CNA’s inability to participate more fully in the proceedings may have affected the final judgment. We therefore cannot conclude that CNA’s interests will be “irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal.” See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U. S. 424, 431 (1985).
CNA does not dispute that it has the right to pursue a post-trial appeal. But it argues that, given the realities of complex litigation, a dispute over the right to intervene must be resolved before trial if it is to have any practical significance. CNA argues that once the district court enters a remedial order in a case such as this, involving numerous parties and years of litigation, an appellate court will be reluctant to vacate the judgment because of an erroneous intervention order. CNA suggests that the incentives to affirm the trial court’s decision will be so strong at that point that the “right” to appeal will be academic at best, and thus CNA’s ability to press for the strongest possible clean-up order will indeed be “irretrievably lost.”
This contention may be true to some degree, but it is largely beside the point. Although it may be difficult for CNA to show that the harm from the intervention order is sufficiently great to overturn the final judgment, this has little bearing on whether CNA has the right to an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The difficulties of which CNA complains are the same as those faced by any party who is subject to an adverse pretrial order. A party who has had one of several claims dismissed before trial, for example, may similarly believe that the chances of overturning the judgment on this ground are small, even if the dismissal turns out to be erroneous. Yet unless the district court specifically holds otherwise, challenges to this type of order can be raised only after judgment. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b). See also 10 Wright, Miller, & Kane, supra, §2653, at 25-26, 31. CNA presents no compelling reason why the intervention order in this case should be treated differently. As a permissive intervenor, CNA will have the same rights of appeal from a final judgment as all other parties; we decline to extend the collateral order doctrine to provide more.
B
CNA also argues that because the District Court placed such onerous limitations on its right to participate in the case, the order should be construed as a complete denial of the right to intervene. CNA correctly notes that when an order prevents a putative intervenor from becoming a party in any respect, the order is subject to immediate review. Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 524-525 (1947). Even though CNA is now a party to the action, it maintains that the restrictions on discovery and the right to request additional relief so severely undermine its ability to influence the litigation that the order is not different in effect from one denying all participation. Indeed, CNA argues that unless it can challenge these restrictions immediately, it will be in a worse position than if the District Court had rejected its intervention application in full: CNA will be unable to participate effectively, and yet still will be bound by the final judgment because of its permissive-party status. We therefore are urged to give the District Court decision a “practical” interpretation and rule that the permissive-intervention order was a constructive denial.
We cannot accept this argument. In Railroad Trainmen, we found that the order denying all intervention was by necessity subject to immediate review, because the applicant “[could] not appeal from any subsequent order or judgment in the proceeding . . . .” 331 U. S., at 524. In that case the party seeking to intervene had no recourse other than pretrial review, since the trial court’s order terminated that party’s participation in the litigation. In the present case, however, CNA is a participant in the proceeding and has alternative means for challenging the order. Consequently, the justification for immediate review found in Railroad Trainmen is absent from this case. And while the District Court restricted CNA’s ability to participate as fully as it might wish, it is significant that none of the limitations interfere with CNA’s ability to raise its claims on postjudgment appeal. As noted, CNA was given access to discovery information and was permitted to participate to the extent not duplicative of other parties. We therefore refuse to find that the grant of permissive intervention, even though subject to conditions, should be treated as a complete denial of the right to participate.
C
Finally, CNA argues that the District Court order comes within the statutory exception to finality set forth in 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1). That section provides that a party may take an interlocutory appeal from an order “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.” CNA asserts that the order in this case constituted a “refusal” to grant an injunction in two respects. First, by ruling that CNA could not raise any claim not asserted by an original party, the District Court necessarily denied the injunctive relief CNA sought in its Complaint in Intervention. Second, by denying the right to file motions without the consent of another party, CNA claims that the order prevents it from even requesting, much less obtaining, a preliminary injunction.
This argument fails for the reasons discussed above. Even if we were convinced that the District Court order had the effect of denying an injunction, it still would not satisfy § 1292(a)(1). This Court has made it clear that not all denials of injunctive relief are immediately appealable; a party seeking review also must show that the order will have a “ ‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,’ and that the order can be ‘effectually challenged’ only by immediate appeal.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981) (quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 181 (1955)). Because we have concluded that CNA, during post-trial review, can challenge the limitations on its participation, we conclude that § 1292(a)(1) provides no basis for affirming the decision below.
I — I I — I t-H
As we have noted in the past, the finality rule of § 1291 protects a variety of interests that contribute to the efficiency of the legal system. Pretrial appeals may cause disruption, delay, and expense for the litigants; they also burden appellate courts by requiring immediate consideration of issues that may become moot or irrelevant by the end of trial. In addition, the finality doctrine protects the strong interest in allowing trial judges to supervise pretrial and trial procedures without undue interference. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S., at 374. Particularly in a complex case such as this, a district judge’s decision on how best to balance the rights of the parties against the need to keep the litigation from becoming unmanageable is entitled to great deference. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24(b)(2) (“In exercising its discretion [concerning permissive intervention] the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties”). The judge’s ability to conduct efficient and orderly trials would be frustrated, rather than furthered, by piecemeal review. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U. S., at 434.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides in part:
“(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the . . . subject of the action and . . . the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
“(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action:... (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”
CNA alleged that it had the right to intervene under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 88 Stat. 1690, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 300j-8, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 90 Stat. 2825, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 6972 (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), and the Clean Water Act, as added, 86 Stat. 888, 33 U. S. C. § 1365.
Section 1291 provides: “The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . .”
See Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 687 F. 2d 543, 549-550 (CA1 1982); Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 606 F. 2d 354, 357 (CA2 1979); see also Wheeler v. American Home Products Corp., 582 F. 2d 891, 896 (CA5 1977).
When CNA filed its application to intervene, it also lodged a proposed Complaint in Intervention that requested injunctive relief beyond that which was sought by the government plaintiffs. See United States v. Stringfellow, 783 F. 2d 821, 824 (CA9 1986).
CNA also argues that recent congressional action demonstrates that the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is plainly correct. In October 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Authorization Act of 1986 was signed into law. Pub. L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613. CNA claims that § 113(e) of these amendments shows that affected groups such as CNA are allowed to intervene as of right in proceedings designed to clean up hazardous waste sites. We express no opinion on the new legislation, because we find it irrelevant to the question before us. CNA’s argument addresses the merits of the District Court intervention order; we granted certiorari, however, only to decide whether this type of order is immediately appealable. The possibility that the District Court order is legally flawed has no bearing on our decision, given that “interlocutory orders are not appealable ‘on the mere ground that they may be erroneous.’ ” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 378 (1981) (citation omitted).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, in which certiorari was granted to consider whether the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit erred in reversing a judgment for damages awarded to the petitioner in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ground for the reversal was that the evidence was insufficient to allow a jury determination of the respondent’s alleged negligence, so that respondent’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.
The petitioner, working as a brakeman on July 12, 1952, injured his kneecap in a fall on a cinder roadbed at a point some 15 feet from a house track switch at Mount Olive, Illinois. He was alongside a track connecting to the switch and slipped on an unnoticed and partially covered cinder “about the size of [his] fist” embedded in the level but soft roadbed.
It is conceded that the clinker in the roadbed created a hazardous condition giving rise to respondent’s liability under the Act if the proofs raised a jury question of respondent’s alleged negligence in causing or permitting the clinker to be there. The Court of Appeals viewed the evidence as insufficient to raise a jury question because the petitioner did not adduce proofs showing what standard procedures were followed to prevent large clinkers from being used in road ballast and in inspecting roadbeds for hazards to firm footing. We do not think that the petitioner’s evidence was lacking in such proofs even if we assume, and we question, that he had that burden. On the contrary, we think there were probative facts in the evidence to justify with reason a jury finding of the negligence alleged.
“[I]n passing upon whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to the jury we need look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of a litigant against whom a peremptory-instruction has been given.” We think the jury could have found from- the proofs that, 3 weeks before the mishap, respondent elevated the house switch and the connecting tracks some 5 inches, using 15 cubic yards of cinder and chat ballast. Petitioner testified without objection, based on his knowledge and experience gleaned from 27 years of railroading, that the railroad’s custom and practice was to take precautions to prevent the presence of large clinkers in a railroad bed, both because “it doesn’t give good footing; and it cannot be tamped in under the ties for support.” Moreover, the respondent’s evidence supplied additional facts. The section foreman in charge of the repair work testified that he did not screen the ballast for large clinkers but merely visually inspected the ballast as it was shoveled by four laborers onto “the pushcart” before being taken to the site. His testimony was that the largest cinder he saw would be “say two inches in diameter. ... Of course, I have no way of knowing exactly, but about.” In this posture of the proofs, there is ample evidence for a jury to determine whether the procedure followed satisfied the standard to be expected from a prudent man in light of the hazard to be prevented.
We also think that a jury question was presented by the evidence bearing on the adequacy of respondent’s roadbed inspection practices used to discover hazards to firm footing. As the jury might find that the clinker was in the ballast used in the repair work, so also the jury might find, from the fact that it was in the roadbed for three weeks, that inspection was not properly made. There was evidence from which it could have been found that the clinker was not discovered either by the foreman in semiweekly inspections of the location, made in part to discover and remove hazards to workmen, or by a track inspector and a track supervisor making less frequent inspections. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence and to decide whether or not the inspections satisfied respondent’s duty to provide the petitioner with a safe place to work.
The Court of Appeals said: “That defendant placed the clinker in its roadbed as a part of the ballast used in the repair operation is merely one of several possibilities present. A finding that it did so can rest on nothing but speculation.” In this connection the Court of Appeals mentioned two other possible sources of the clinker. One was the L. & N. Railroad, whose main line and house tracks immediately adjoined and were connected to the respondent’s house switch by a cross-over track. Another was that some stranger may have brought the clinker onto respondent’s unfenced right-of-way. That there were other possible sources of the clinker would not, of course, justify a directed verdict in light of our conclusion that the evidence supports with reason a jury finding that the respondent negligently caused the clinker to be in the ballast used in the repair work and failed to use proper care to discover and remove it. Indeed, we do not think that the evidence would reasonably support a finding that the clinker came from another source.
Although we do not think that the case presents an issue of causation, if the quoted language of the Court of Appeals is read as holding that a jury finding could not reasonably be made that respondent’s negligence “in whole or in part” caused the petitioner’s injury, then what we said in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., ante, p. 500, at 505-507, also decided today, is pertinent:
“. . . But that would mean that there is no jury question in actions under this statute, although the employee’s proofs support with reason a verdict in his favor, unless the judge can say that the jury may exclude the idea that his injury was due to causes with which the defendant was not connected, or, stated another way, unless his proofs are so strong that the jury, on grounds of probability, may exclude a conclusion favorable to the defendant. That is not the governing principle defining the proof which requires a submission to the jury in these cases. . . .
“Under this statute the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. It does not matter that, from the evidence, the jury may also with reason, on grounds of probability, attribute the result to other causes, including the employee’s contributory negligence. Judicial appraisal of the proofs to determine whether a jury question is presented is narrowly limited to the single inquiry whether, with reason, the conclusion may be drawn that negligence of the employer played any part at all in the injury or death. Judges are to fix their sights primarily to make that appraisal and, if that test is met, are bound to find that a case for the jury is made out whether or not the evidence allows the jury a choice of other probabilities.”
We have considered the remaining questions, not passed upon by the Court of Appeals, and find them to be unsubstantial. Accordingly, we remand the case for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
The judgment is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Reed would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see post, p. 524.]
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting in this case, see post, p. 559.]
35 Stat. 65, as amended, 36 Stat. 291, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq.
351 U. S. 905.
228 F. 2d 257.
Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53, 57.
228 F. 2d, at 259.
Some speculation may have entered into the jury’s decision. However, this Court has stated: “It is no answer to say that the jury’s verdict involved speculation and conjecture. Whenever facts are in dispute or the evidence is such that fair-minded men may draw different inferences, a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference.” Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 653.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant, American Motorists Insurance Co., is an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in Texas with its principal office in Dallas County. As such, it is a “person” and an “inhabitant” of Texas having its “domicile” in Dallas County for the purposes of Texas’ general venue statute, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 1995 (1964). Snyder v. Pitts, 241 S. W. 2d 136 (Tex. 1951). Article 1995 provides, with specified exceptions: “No person who is an inhabitant of this State shall be sued out of the county in which he has his domicile . . . .” The exceptions pertinent to this case are Exceptions 23 and 27 of Art. 1995. Under Exception 23, suits against domestic corporations may be brought outside the domiciliary county upon proof by the plaintiff at a preliminary venue hearing, not only that the Texas corporation has an agency or representative in the county of suit and that plaintiff resided in or near such county at the time his cause of action arose, but also, by proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has a cause of action. Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Monteith, 158 S. W. 2d 63 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1941). Exception 27, on the other hand, allows suit against foreign corporations, including those like appellant, that have qualified to do business in Texas, to be brought “in any county where such company may have an agency or representative,” and the plaintiff is not required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of his cause of action at the preliminary venue hearing. The question for decision in this case, therefore, is whether Exception 27 effects an invidious discrimination against foreign corporations, constituting Exception 27 repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Appellee Starnes, a resident of McLennan County, sued appellant in the District Court for McLennan County under the uninsured-motorist provisions of a liability insurance policy issued to appellee by appellant. The automobile collision out of which this cause of action and appellee’s damages arose occurred in Tarrant County. Appellant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in the county of its residence, Dallas County. A plea of privilege is a verified pleading by which, under Texas practice, a defendant challenges the venue of a suit. Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 86. Appellee filed a controverting plea, a verified pleading by which, under Texas practice, the plaintiff states specifically the grounds relied upon to confer venue under one or more exceptions in Art. 1995. Ibid. The controverting plea asserted venue by virtue of both Exceptions 23 and 27, but at the preliminary venue hearing, appellee relied exclusively upon Exception 27 and a stipulation of the parties that appellant was a foreign corporation transacting business in Texas and that it had a local agent in McLennan County. Although appellant’s counsel inquired “if Plaintiff has any evidence other than that contained in the stipulation” and appellee’s counsel answered: “Not at this time,” App. 15, appellee was not required by the court, nor did he attempt, to offer evidence as to any of the elements of his cause of action. The District Court overruled appellant’s plea of privilege.
Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas presented the single question whether Exception 27 “is unconstitutionally discriminatory because it permits a foreign corporation to be venue bound without [plaintiff’s] proving a cause of action, but only . . . the existence within the venue county of defendant foreign corporation’s agent as compared with the requirement that a Texas domestic corporation can be venue bound under Subdivision 23 only if the existence of a cause of action is demonstrated.” 515 S. W. 2d 354, 355 (1974). The Court of Civil Appeals, relying upon a decision of the Texas Supreme Court, Commercial Ins. Co. v. Adams, 369 S. W. 2d 927 (1963), held that “exception 27, Article 1995 is not void and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as affording a wider venue action against foreign corporations than is afforded against domestic corporations under Section 23 of the same Article.” 515 S. W. 2d, at 355. The Supreme Court of Texas dismissed appellant’s application for writ of error “for want of jurisdiction.” We noted probable jurisdiction, 423 U. S. 819 (1975). We affirm.
We are unable to say that the treatment of foreign corporations effected by Exception 27 constitutes discrimination repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause. The gist of appellant’s argument is that, because Exception 27 does not require that plaintiff demonstrate the existence of his cause of action, there was “[djenied to appellant ... a virtually unique opportunity afforded to domestic corporations, to preview its adversary’s case in chief (except as to the extent of damages); to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses as to the nature and existence of the alleged cause of action; to obtain from the Court a venue ruling which would, under the circumstances, be tantamount to a judicial assessment of plaintiff’s cause of action; to nip a frivolous or baseless claim 'in the bud,’ before it could escalate into a lengthy, complex and time-consuming lawsuit; and finally, to obtain, by demanding a jury trial of the venue facts, either an early trial on the merits or at least a preliminary assessment by a jury of the plaintiff's credibility.” It was suggested at oral argument, however, that the actual burden imposed upon the plaintiff falls far short of proving his cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence. While Texas case law seems to reject proof of a prima facie case as sufficient, see Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Monteith, 158 S. W. 2d,.at 66-67, the parties suggest that in practice the venue proceedings are usually truncated and that prima facie proof is regarded as meeting the plaintiff’s burden. In that circumstance the domestic corporate defendant would not appear to enjoy any appreciable advantage denied the foreign corporate defendant. At most the plaintiff suing a domestic corporation is subjected to some measure of discovery. But Texas has a summary judgment procedure, Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 166-A, and broad pretrial discovery procedures, Rules 167-170, 177a, 186-215c, 737; and they are equally available to the foreign corporate defendant. We cannot say in that circumstance that the foreign corporate defendant suffers any discrimination in being denied comparable discovery available to the domestic corporation at a preliminary venue hearing. Por, as the Court said in an analogous context: “[I]t is fundamental rights which the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards and not the mere forum which a State may see proper to designate for the enforcement and protection of such rights. Given therefore a condition where fundamental rights are equally protected and preserved, it is impossible to say that the rights which are thus protected and preserved have been denied because the State has deemed best to provide for a trial in one forum or another. It is not under any view the mere tribunal into which a person is authorized to proceed by a State which determines whether the equal protection of the law has been afforded, but whether in the tribunals which the State has provided equal laws prevail.” Cincinnati Street R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U. S. 30, 36-37 (1904). We are not confined to the language of the statute under challenge in determining whether that statute has any discriminatory effect. Just as a statute nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation, Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235, 242 (1970); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, 17 n. 11 (1956), so may a statute discriminatory on its face be nondiscriminatory in its operation. There being no discriminatory effect achieved by the aspects of the Texas venue provisions calling for establishment of a cause of action, we have no difficulty in concluding that appellant’s equal protection challenge to Exception 27 must be rejected.
Beyond the superficial requirement of proof of a cause of action, the Texas venue statute, as noted, provides broader venue geographically for suits against foreign corporations than for suits against domestic corporations. Appellant, however, does not challenge this difference. See Tr. of Oral Arg. A-5. In any event, proof of cause of action aside, under Texas law, a domestic corporation may be sued in the plaintiff’s county of residence provided the corporation has an agency or representative in that county. The situation of appellant is precisely the same. It is undisputed that the appellant was sued in the plaintiff’s county of residence and that appellant had an agent in that county.
Affirmed.
Article 1995 provides in pertinent part:
“No person who is an inhabitant of this State shall be sued out of the county in which he has his domicile except in the following cases:
“23. Corporations and associations. — Suits against a private corporation, association, or joint stock company may be brought in the county in which its principal office is situated; or in the county in which the cause of action or part thereof arose; or in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action or part thereof arose, provided such corporation, association or company has an agency or representative in such county; or, if the corporation, association, or joint stock company had no agency or representative in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action or part thereof arose, then suit may be brought in the county nearest that in which plaintiff resided at said time in which the corporation, association or joint stock company then had an agency or representative. Suits against a railroad corporation, or against any assignee, trustee or receiver operating its railway, may also be brought in any county through or into which the railroad of such corporation extends or is operated. Suits against receivers of persons and corporations may also be brought as otherwise provided by law.
“27. Foreign corporations. — Foreign corporations, private or public, joint stock companies or associations, not incorporated by the laws of this State, and doing business within this State, may be sued in any county where the cause of action or a part thereof accrued, or in any county where such company may have an agency or representative, or in the county in which the principal office of such company may be situated; or, when the defendant corporation has no agent or representative in this State, then in the county where the plaintiffs or either of them, reside.”
Commercial Ins. Co. v. Adams was a per curiam affirmance of a holding of the Houston Court of Civil Appeals, 366 S. W. 2d 801 (1963), that Exception 27 is not void and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. In rejecting the contention that the difference in treatment of foreign corporations under Exception 27 from that of domestic corporations under Exception 23 violated equal protection, the Court of Civil Appeals stated:
“There is no contention that the same and equal laws are not applicable and administered in all counties of Texas. Subdivision 27 applies to all foreign corporations. It is a matter of common knowledge that many foreign corporations do business in this state without taking advantage of the laws of this state authorizing them to do business in Texas and subjecting them to regulation. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a plaintiff to ascertain the principal office of a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in this state. A foreign corporation qualified to do business in this state may designate as its principal office a county remote from the population centers of the state, in which it conducts little or no business since its principal office, in fact, ordinarily will be maintained in the state of incorporation. A domestic corporation would be likely to find such a procedure uneconomical. Competitive factors probably would dictate that its principal office be located where it intends to conduct its business. Thus the foreign corporation is favored over the domestic concern when it is permitted to choose any city as its principal place of business.
“There is little doubt that the difficulty of securing service on foreign corporations was a factor inducing the legislature to provide a wide venue for actions against them. . . .
“The degree of effective control which the state may exercise over domestic corporations as opposed to foreign corporations in general justifies the classification adopted by the state legislature. The state policy in this respect is not so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional. As regards foreign corporations submitting to a certain degree of control by qualifying to do business in the state, the justification is less evident, but nevertheless the state is not able to give its citizens the same assurance of effective redress for injuries committed by foreign corporations as it can in the case of domestic corporations. . . .
“It could well be that the legislature had in mind spreading litigation involving foreign corporations among the various courts of the state in order to avoid the possibility of increasing the congested condition of the dockets of the metropolitan courts. . . . The burden of proving unconstitutionality of this statute rests on appellant more heavily in view of the fact that the act attacked was undoubtedly constitutional when enacted and the question of its legality at this time arises, not by reason of a change in its provisions, but by reason of the enactment of a statute amending Section 23, and not because discriminatory burdens have been placed on foreign corporations, but because the same burden has been removed from domestic corporations.” 366 S. W. 2d, at 808-809.
Appellant has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), which requires that the judgment for which review here is sought be final. For the reasons stated in Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 558 (1963), the judgment presently before the Court is final for purposes of § 1257 (2).
Brief for Appellant 17-18. Texas Rule Civ. Proc. 87 provides that where a jury trial is demanded on a venue issue, “the court, in its discretion, may require the cause to be tried on its merits at the same time.” Despite the absence of any limitation of this provision to suits against domestic corporations, appellant’s argument implies that the provision is inapplicable to suits against foreign corporations, thereby denying them opportunity for an early trial on the merits. We have no occasion, however, to address the question whether, if applicable also to suits against foreign corporations, appellant could have eliminated this ground of their equal protection complaint simply by demanding a jury trial. No jury trial was demanded, and therefore we decide the equal protection issue in the context of the bench trial that occurred.
This was disclosed by appellee’s counsel at oral argument:
“[T]echnically, legally, according to decisions, it is preponderance of the evidence as a matter of actual truth and fact and then, in factual analysis, it was simply a matter of prima facie proof.
“Actually, the way the practice goes, a man makes out a prima facie case. He doesn’t show anything other than a prima facie case. The trial judge — I have never known of one to cite it just on weighing the evidence and actual facts. If he makes out a prima facie case, the plea of privilege is overruled.
“That was the law for many, many years in the State of Texas and then they changed it to preponderance of the evidence and of course, trial courts being jealous of their own jurisdiction, your Honor, if a man files a case in this Court, if he shows that there was a collision and his client says the light was green for him, the other— the defendant takes the stand, which they never do. The defendant never puts any evidence on a plea of privilege.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23.
Appellant’s counsel appeared tacitly to concede that this was the case:
“QUESTION: Normally, what is it, sort of a prima facie case and just hears the plaintiff?
“MR. WESTBROOK: No, sir, it has to go beyond that. In our trials court, he has to prove it by the preponderance of the evidence but of course, if a judge is the finder of facts in this kind of preponderance business, it is not likely to be upset that it was the preponderance of the evidence.” Id., at 10.
Where a jury trial is demanded on a venue issue, however, the proceedings are not truncated, for then, under Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 87, trial is usually also had on the merits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. But in that event, venue proceedings are effectively waived and the domestic defendant enjoys no advantage over the foreign defendant by virtue of any sort of opportunity to preview the plaintiff’s case.
Our conclusion makes unnecessary consideration of appellant’s argument that Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490 (1927), requires invalidation of Exception 27. Though more recent decisions raise the question whether Saunders continues to be good law, Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522 (1959); Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S. 580 (1935); Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499 (1931), as appellant argues, the Court in Saunders did conclude that the venue statute involved there treated foreign corporations without reasonable basis and arbitrarily. That statute allowed a suit for personal injuries to be brought against a foreign corporation in any county, without regard to whether the corporation maintained an agent there, whereas actions of the same character, if against a domestic corporation, had to be brought in a county where it had a place of business or in which its chief officer resided.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether a state court has jurisdiction to hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, where the veteran’s only means of satisfying this obligation is to utilize benefits received from the Veterans’ Administration under 38 U. S. C. § 314 as compensation for a service-connected disability.
HH
Appellant Charlie Wayne Rose is a totally disabled veteran of the Vietnam war. He married appellee Barbara Ann McNeil Rose in 1973, and the couple had two children before their marriage ended in October 1983, with a divorce decree from the Circuit Court for Washington County, Tennessee. In setting appellant’s financial responsibility for child support, the Circuit Court considered along with other factors identified by a Tennessee statute the “earning capacity, obligations and needs, and financial resources of each parent.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(3) (1984) (formerly Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-820 (1977)). Appellant’s income was then, and is now, composed entirely of benefits received from the Veterans’ and Social Security Administrations. Appellant received monthly: $1,211 in veterans’ disability benefits; $1,806 in veterans’ aid and attendance benefits; $90 in veterans’ dependents’ benefits; and $281 in Social Security disability benefits. The children received an additional $94 a month in Social Security children’s insurance benefits.
The Circuit Court ordered appellant to pay $800 per month as child support, and he did not appeal. From the record it appears that he initially paid appellee $706 monthly, contending that the remaining $94 was satisfied by the children’s insurance benefits appellee had received directly from the Social Security Administration. However, on appellee’s first petition for contempt, the Circuit Court clarified its order in March 1984 to require appellant to pay $800 per month in addition to the Social Security insurance benefits. Record 19.
The following month appellant paid for the support of his children only the $90 in dependents’ benefits he had received from the Veterans’ Administration. Appellee filed a second petition for contempt, seeking the remaining $710. Appellant responded with the assertion that only the Veterans’ Administration or Social Security Administration could order him to contribute additional sums for child support. Invoking the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, he sought a ruling from the Circuit Court that it lacked jurisdiction over the disability benefits he received from these federal agencies and that §36-820, pursuant to which the court had considered these benefits in setting the amount of child support, was null and void. Record 28-29.
The Circuit Court, after a hearing, found appellant in willful contempt for failing to pay child support. The court acknowledged that appellant could challenge the constitutionality of § 36-820, and could make the State of Tennessee a party to the action for such purposes, but it held that in the meantime he would have to comply with the order of child support. The court then ordered appellant incarcerated until he satisfied this obligation. App. to Juris. Statement 11a. Ten days later, appellant was released pursuant to an agreement between the parties that he would pay appellee moneys past due and, pending disposition of appeals, would each month pay $400 to appellee and deposit $400 into the registry of the Circuit Court. Record 39-40.
After becoming a party to this action, the State of Tennessee moved for summary judgment, arguing that § 36-820 was constitutional and thus the Circuit Court had properly asserted jurisdiction over appellant’s disability benefits in setting and enforcing his child support obligation. The court agreed. In a two-page order, it upheld the statute and concluded that it had validly exercised “jurisdiction to order support payments to be made from Federal Disability Income Benefits.” App. to Juris. Statement 14a.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting appellant’s contention that the Veterans’ and Social Security Administrations have exclusive jurisdiction to specify payment of child support from the disability benefits they provide. The appellate court first invoked precedent from this Court for the general rule that “state family law must not do major damage to clear and substantial federal interest[s],” id., at 3a, citing McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S. 210, 220 (1981), or else “the Supremacy Clause will demand that state law be overridden.” Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 581 (1979). It then determined that Congress had intended disability benefits to support the beneficiary and his dependents, and thus the Circuit Court’s order directing appellant to pay a portion of these benefits for the support of his children, or be held in contempt, did not undermine a substantial federal interest.
When the Supreme Court of Tennessee denied appellant’s application for permission to appeal, App. to Juris. Statement 22a, he filed a jurisdictional statement in this Court. He expressly abandoned his challenge to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over the $281 in Social Security disability benefits he receives each month, Juris. Statement 16, leaving only his claim that jurisdiction to award as child support a portion of his monthly veterans’ disability benefits and veterans’ aid and attendance benefits rests exclusively in the Veterans’ Administration. We noted probable jurisdiction, 478 U. S. 1003 (1986), and now affirm.
I — I HH
The Court of Appeals correctly identified the constitutional standard for determining whether § 36-820, as construed by the Tennessee courts to authorize an award of a veteran’s disability benefits as child support, conflicts with federal law and is therefore pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause. We have consistently recognized that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593-594 (1890); see Hisquierdo, supra, at 581; McCarty, supra, at 220. “On the rare occasion when state family law has come into conflict with a federal statute, this Court has limited review under the Supremacy Clause to a determination whether Congress has ‘positively required by direct enactment’ that state law be pre-empted.” Hisquierdo, supra, at 581, quoting Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 77 (1904). Before a state law governing domestic relations will be overridden, it “must do ‘major damage’ to ‘clear and substantial’ federal interests.” Hisquierdo, supra, at 581, quoting United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S. 341, 352 (1966).
Appellant claims that three provisions from Title 38 of the United States Code governing veterans’ benefits, and a combination of provisions from the Child Support Enforcement Act, 42 U. S. C. §651 et seq., conflict with, and evidence Congress’ intent to pre-empt, state statutes that are construed to give state courts jurisdiction over veterans’ disability benefits. We consider each in turn.
A
First, appellant relies on 38 U. S. C. § 3107(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. Ill), a provision that gives the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs discretionary authority to apportion disability compensation on behalf of a veteran’s children. Section 3107(a)(2) provides: “All or any part of the compensation . . . payable on account of any Veteran may ... if the veteran’s children are not in the custody of the veteran be apportioned as may be prescribed by the Administrator.” Appellant contends that this grant of authority is exclusive, and thus only the Administrator may issue an order directing him to pay appellee a portion of his disability benefits as child support. In the eyes of appellee and the State of Tennessee, § 3107 (a)(2) was intended simply to facilitate separate payment of benefits directly to a veteran’s children in amounts that may have previously been set by a state court, and does not displace the state court’s traditional enforcement remedies.
The parties cite no legislative history on the meaning of § 3107(a)(2), and our search has uncovered nothing of a dis-positive nature. Nor are the Administrator’s regulations for apportionment decisive. See 38 CFR §§3.450-3.461 (1986). Nowhere do the regulations specify that only the Administrator may define the child support obligation of a disabled veteran in the first instance. To the contrary, appellant, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, concedes that a state court may consider disability benefits as part of the veteran’s income in setting the amount of child support to be paid. However, the carefully constructed argument continues, the state court’s power to enforce its support order extends solely to income not derived from veterans’ disability benefits. To collect child support in cases where it can only be paid from disability benefits, a claim for apportionment must first be filed with the Administrator on behalf of the children. See § 3.452(a). The Administrator may then consider the state-court order in deciding how much, if any, of appellant’s disability benefits should be apportioned to the children. Reply Brief for Appellant 2; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, n. 13.
This jurisdictional framework finds little support in the statute and implementing regulations. Neither mentions the limited role appellant assigns the state court’s child support order or the restrictions appellant seeks to impose on that court’s ability to enforce such an order. The statute simply provides that disability benefits “may ... be apportioned as may be prescribed by the Administrator.” 38 U. S: C. § 3107(a)(2). The regulations broadly authorize apportionment if “the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children’s support.” 38 CFR §3.450(a)(l)(ii) (1986). In none of these provisions is there an express indication that the Administrator possesses exclusive authority to order payment of disability benefits as child support. Nor is it clear that Congress envisioned the Administrator making independent child support determinations in conflict with existing state-court orders. The statute gives no hint that exercise of the Administrator’s discretion may have this effect. The regulations contain few guidelines for apportionment and no specific procedures for bringing apportionment claims.
Apart from these inadequacies, to construe § 3107(a)(2) as appellant suggests could open for reconsideration a vast number of existing divorce decrees affecting disabled veterans and lead in future cases to piecemeal litigation before the state courts and the Administrator. Given the traditional authority of state courts over the issue of child support, their unparalleled familiarity with local economic factors affecting divorced parents and children, and their experience in applying state statutes such as Tennessee’s former § 36-820 that do contain detailed support guidelines and established procedures for allocating resources following divorce, we conclude that Congress would surely have been more explicit had it intended the Administrator’s apportionment power to displace a state court’s power to enforce an order of child support. Thus, we do not agree that the implicit pre-emption appellant finds in § 3107(a)(2). is “positively required by direct enactment,” or that the state court’s award of child support from appellant’s disability benefits does “major damage” to any “clear and substantial” federal interest created by this statute. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S., at 581.
B
To support his contention that exclusive jurisdiction over veterans’ disability benefits is vested in the Administrator, appellant next cites 38 U. S. C. § 211(a). This statute provides:
“[Decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents . . . shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision . . . Ibid.
Though § 211(a) makes no reference to state-court jurisdiction, appellant and the Solicitor General argue that its underlying purposes should nevertheless be deemed controlling here. These purposes, identified in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 370 (1974), are to achieve uniformity in the administration of veterans’ benefits and protect the Administrator from expensive and time-consuming litigation.
As already noted, however, we can find no clear indication that Congress intended the Administrator to make child support determinations contrary to the determinations of state courts. The interest in uniform administration of veterans’ benefits focuses, instead, on the technical interpretations of the statutes granting entitlements, particularly on the definitions and degrees of recognized disabilities and the application of the graduated benefit schedules. See id., at 370, n. 12; Hearing on H. R. 360 et al. before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 1962-1963 (1952). These are the issues Congress deemed especially well suited for administrative determination insulated from judicial review. Thus, even assuming that § 211(a) covers a contempt proceeding brought in state court against a disabled veteran to enforce an order of child support, that court is not reviewing the Administrator’s decision finding the veteran eligible for specific disability benefits. The uniformity of the Administrator’s decision is therefore not endangered. And since the Administrator is not a party in a contempt proceeding, no additional litigation burden is created. There being no “major damage” to the federal interests underlying § 211(a), we conclude that it does not pre-empt exercise of state-court jurisdiction to enforce a veteran’s child support obligation.
C
Appellant next claims that state-court jurisdiction is preempted by 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a), which provides that “[payments of benefits . . . under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration . . . made to, or on account of, a beneficiary . . . shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.” Though the legislative history for this provision is also sparse, it recognizes two purposes: to “avoid the possibility of the Veterans’ Administration . . . being placed in the position of a collection agency” and to “prevent the deprivation and depletion of the means of subsistence of veterans dependent upon these benefits as the main source of their income.” S. Rep. No. 94-1243, pp. 147-148 (1976). Neither purpose is constrained by allowing the state court in the present case to hold appellant in contempt for failing to pay child support. The contempt proceeding did not turn the Administrator into a collection agency; the Administrator was not obliged to participate in the proceeding or to pay benefits directly to appel-lee.' Nor did the exercise of state-court jurisdiction over appellant’s disability benefits deprive appellant of his means of subsistence contrary to Congress’ intent, for these benefits are not provided to support appellant alone.
Veterans’ disability benefits compensate for impaired earning capacity, H. R. Rep. No. 96-1155, p. 4 (1980), and are intended to “provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families.” S. Rep. No. 98-604, p. 24 (1984) (emphasis added). Additional compensation for dependents of disabled veterans is available under 38 U. S. C. §315, and in this case totaled $90 per month for appellant’s two children. But the paucity of the benefits available under §315 belies any contention that Congress intended these amounts alone to provide for the support of the children of disabled veterans. Moreover, as evidenced by § 3107(a)(2), the provision for apportionment we have already discussed, Congress clearly intended veterans’ disability benefits to be used, in part, for the support of veterans’ dependents. On this basis we may distinguish several of the Court’s prior decisions which held that state law governing domestic relations was pre-empted by federal statutes containing prohibitions similar to § 3101(a) against attachment, levy, or seizure of federal benefits.
In Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950), this Court rejected a widow’s community property claim to one-half the proceeds of a life insurance policy her husband, a deceased Army officer, had purchased during their marriage under a federally assisted program for members of the military. Because the federal statute creating the program gave the insured an express right to designate the beneficiary, this Court held that the entire proceeds must be paid to the husband’s mother as he had directed. Otherwise, state community property principles would have frustrated Congress’ unequivocal intent that the insured decide who should receive the policy proceeds. Id., at 658-659.
As we have noted in the present case, by contrast, state contempt proceedings to enforce a valid child support order coincide with Congress’ intent to provide veterans’ disability compensation for the benefit of both appellant and his dependents. Moreover, in reaching what was clearly an alternative holding in Wissner that a community property division of the insurance proceeds would constitute a “seizure” in violation of a provision against “attachment, levy, or seizure,” the Court was careful to identify a possible exception for alimony and child support cases. ' Id., at 659-660. The suggested basis for this exception was that family support obligations are deeply rooted moral responsibilities, while the community property concept is more akin to an amoral business relationship. Id., at 660.
The principles announced in Wissner were later applied in a case involving a conflict between state community property law and a federal statute providing retirement benefits for railroad employees. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572 (1979). There, we rejected a wife’s community property claim to a portion of her husband’s retirement annuity following their divorce, even though his entitlement to the benefits had accrued, in large part, during their married years. Congress, we held, had determined that the husband, as the retired railroad employee, should be the exclusive beneficiary. Id., at 583. And this right was protected by a statutory prohibition against “garnishment, attachment, or other legal process under any circumstances whatsoever.” Id., at 576, quoting § 14 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1345. As in Wissner, Congress’ precise specification of the intended beneficiary drew a direct conflict with the state community property law. We concluded that to divide the annuity proceeds would have frustrated the federal objective, and, therefore, the state law was pre-empted. 439 U. S., at 585. And again we discussed an exception to the antigarnishment statute for alimony and child support in non-community property cases. Id., at 587.
We visited Wissner once again in Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U. S. 46 (1981), where a state court had ordered an Army officer, as part of a divorce decree, to keep in force a life insurance policy he had purchased under a federally assisted program for military members, and to specify that the proceeds be paid in the event of his death to his former wife for the benefit of their children. Before his death, the husband had remarried and changed the policy’s beneficiary designation so that the proceeds would go to his new wife. We held that the state court’s divorce decree conflicted with and was therefore pre-empted by the express provision of the federal statute giving the husband an unqualified right to designate the policy beneficiary. Id., at 56-57. We also held that imposing a constructive trust on the policy proceeds for the benefit of the children would violate a statutory prohibition against “attachment, levy, or seizure,” 38 U. S. C. § 770(g), a prohibition identical in all pertinent respects to § 3101(a) in the present case. 454 U. S., at 60.
Admittedly, in Ridgway we rejected a proposed construction of § 770(g) that would have barred its application to the children’s equitable claim, 454 U. S., at 60-61, and we were unable to agree that the distinction between family support obligations and community property divisions would sustain an exception to the statute’s operation. Id., at 61-62, n. 11; see also id., at 68, 70 (Powell, J., dissenting). But the critical difference between Ridgway and the present case is that Congress has not made appellant the exclusive beneficiary of the disability benefits. As we have demonstrated, these benefits are intended to support not only the veteran, but the veteran’s family as well. Recognizing an exception to the application of § 3101(a)’s prohibition against attachment, levy, or seizure in this context would further, not undermine, the federal purpose in providing these benefits. Therefore, regardless of the merit of the distinction between the moral imperative of family support obligations and the businesslike justifications for community property division, we conclude that § 3101(a) does not extend to protect a veteran’s disability benefits from seizure where the veteran invokes that provision to avoid an otherwise valid order of child support.
D
Finally, appellant cites two provisions from the Child Support Enforcement Act that were designed to facilitate garnishment of federal funds where the intended recipient has failed to satisfy a legal obligation of child support. The first provision declares:
“[M]oneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States ... to any individual, including members of the armed services, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States . . . were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement, against such individual of his legal obligations to provide child support. . . .” 42 U. S. C. § 659(a) (1982 ed., Supp. III).
Appellant, however, also points to the statutory definition of an entitlement “based upon remuneration for employment,” which specifically excludes “any payments by the Veterans’ Administration as compensation for a service-connected disability....” § 662(f)(2). This exclusion, argues appellant, embodies Congress’ intent that veterans’ disability benefits not be subject to any legal process aimed at diverting funds for child support, including a state-court contempt proceeding of the sort invoked in this case.
But § 659(a) does not refer to any legal process. The provision was intended to create a limited waiver of sovereign immunity so that state courts could issue valid orders directed against agencies of the United States Government attaching funds in the possession of those agencies:
“The term ‘legal process’ means any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment . . . issued by [a state court]. . . and . . . directed to, and the purpose of which is to compel, a governmental entity, which holds moneys which are otherwise payable to an individual, to make a payment from such moneys to another party in order to satisfy a legal obligation of such individual to provide child support. . . .” § 662(e) (emphasis added).
See also 5 CFR §581.102(f) (1986); S. Rep. No. 93-1356, pp. 53-54 (1974). Waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed, and we find no indication in the statute that a state-court order of contempt issued against an individual is precluded where the individual’s income happens to be composed of veterans’ disability benefits. In this context, the Veterans’ Administration is not made a party to the action, and the state court issues no order directing the Administrator to pay benefits to anyone other than the veteran. Thus, while it may be true that these funds are exempt from garnishment or attachment while in the hands of the Administrator, we are not persuaded that once these funds are delivered to the veteran a state court cannot require that veteran to use them to satisfy an order of child support.
I — ( h-1 hH
We fully appreciate the physical sacrifice appellant made while in the military service of his country, and we acknowledge his needs as a totally disabled veteran for medical assistance and financial support. But we also recognize that pursuant to former Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-820 the Tennessee Circuit Court has properly taken into account appellant’s needs, along with the needs of his children, in setting his child support obligation. Neither the Veterans’ Benefits provisions of Title 38 nor the garnishment provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act of Title 42 indicate unequivocally that a veteran’s disability benefits are provided solely for that veteran’s support. We hold, therefore, that as enacted these federal statutes were not in conflict with, and thus did not pre-empt § 36-820. Nor did the Circuit Court’s efforts to enforce its order of child support by holding appellant in contempt transgress the congressional intent behind the federal statutes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee is
Affirmed.
These figures first appear in the record in May 1984, in pleadings filed by appellant as part of the contempt proceeding from which the present appeal is taken. Record 28. We presume that appellant received equal or comparable benefits at the time of the divorce. Congress has since increased slightly certain of the benefits, but for purposes of this appeal we use the figures provided at the time of the contempt proceeding.
Joined by the United States as amicus curiae, appellant contends that the lower courts are divided on the issue whether state courts may award alimony or child support out of benefits paid to a disabled veteran. Compare, e. g., Parker v. Parker, 335 Pa. Super. 348, 350-354, 484 A. 2d 168, 169-170 (1984); In re Gardner, 220 Wis. 493, 499-500, 264 N. W. 643, 646 (1936); Pishue v. Pishue, 32 Wash. 2d 750, 754-756, 203 P. 2d 1070, 1072-1073 (1949); Gaskins v. Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, 30 Cal. App. 2d 409, 416-418, 86 P. 2d 681, 684-685 (1939), with, e. g., Ex parte Burson, 615 S. W. 2d 192, 193 (Tex. 1981).
Construing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-820 (1977) (now codified as Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (1984)) to authorize an award of a portion of appellant’s veterans’ disability benefits and veterans’ aid and attendance benefits as child support, the courts below have rejected appellant’s contention that this statute conflicts with the federal disability benefits scheme administered by the Veterans’ Administration and is therefore pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art VI, cl. 2. Because the state statute has been applied over objection that its application was unconstitutional, we conclude that this case is properly before us as an appeal. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2); McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S. 210, 219-220, n. 12 (1981); R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice 112-113 (6th ed. 1986).
One regulation forbids apportionment “[w]here the total benefit payable to the disabled person does not permit payment of a reasonable amount to any apportionee.” 38 CFR §3.458 (1986). But there are no guidelines defining the reasonableness of a requested apportionment.
By contrast, supplementing the apportionment regulation upon which appellant relies, § 3.450, is a provision that allows disability benefits to be “specially apportioned” between the veteran and his or her dependents “where hardship is shown to exist.” § 3.451. A special apportionment is made “on the basis of the facts in the individual case as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest.” Ibid. This “hardship” regulation does specify certain factors for the Administrator to consider in making an apportionment: the “[a]mount of Veterans Administration benefits payable; other resources and income of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf apportionment is claimed; and special needs of the veteran, his or her dependents, and the apportionment claimants.” Ibid. It also provides that “[o]rdinarily apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veteran’s benefits would constitute undue hardship on him or her while apportionment of less than 20 percent of his or her benefits would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee.” Ibid. The fact that similar factors and quantitative guidelines are not listed in the provision for general apportionment suggests that not even the Administrator has interpreted 38 U. S. C. § 3107(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. Ill) to authorize routine child support determinations.
That children may rightfully expect to derive support from a portion of their veteran parent’s disability benefits is further evident in the regulation prohibiting apportionment once a child has been legally adopted by another person who, as a result of the adoption, assumes the support obligation. See 38 CFR § 3.458(d) (1986).
Consistent with the distinction suggested in Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 665 (1950), Congress had amended the Social Security Act to authorize garnishment of certain federal benefits, including railroad retirement annuities, for spousal and child support but not for community property divisions. 42 U. S. C. §§ 659 and 662. We construed these amendments to “expressly override” the anti-attachment provision for support claims, finding it “logical to conclude that Congress . . . thought that a family’s need for support could justify garnishment, even though it deflected other federal benefit programs from their intended goals, but that community property claims, which are not based on need, could not do so.” His- quierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S., at 587; see also McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U. S., at 230.
After our decision in Hisquierdo, supra, Congress amended the Railroad Retirement Act’s prohibition against garnishment and attachment so that retirement annuities could be characterized as community property. See 45 U. S. C. §231m(b)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. III) (enacted in 1983). A comparable congressional response followed our holding in McCarty, swpra, that military retirement benefits were the express personal entitlement of the retired military member and therefore could not, consistent with the intent of Congress, be divided as community property. See 10 U. S. C. § 1408(c)(1) (allowing treatment of retirement benefits as sole property of military member or as property shared with the member’s spouse “in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of [the state] court”); S. Rep. No. 97-502, p. 1 (1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
I.
This suit was initiated in November 1955 when the Government filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging that a contemplated merger between the G. R. Kinney Company, Inc. (Kinney), and the Brown Shoe Company, Inc. (Brown), through an exchange of Kinney for Brown stock, would violate § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 18. The Act, as amended, 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... 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.”
The complaint sought injunctive relief under § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 25, to restrain consummation of the merger.
A motion by the Government for a preliminary injunction pendente lite was denied, and the companies were permitted to merge provided, however, that their businesses be operated separately and that their assets be kept separately identifiable. The merger was then effected on May 1, 1956.
In the District Court, the Government contended that the effect of the merger of Brown — the third largest seller of shoes by dollar volume in the United States, a leading manufacturer of men’s, women’s, and children’s shoes, and a retailer with over 1,230 owned, operated or controlled retail outlets — and Kinney — the eighth largest company, by dollar volume, among those primarily engaged in selling shoes, itself a large manufacturer of shoes, and a retailer with over 350 retail outlets — “may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly” by eliminating actual or potential competition in the production of shoes for the national wholesale shoe market and in the sale of shoes at retail in the Nation, by foreclosing competition from “a market represented by Kinney’s retail outlets whose annual sales exceed $42,000,000,” and by enhancing Brown’s competitive advantage over other producers, distributors and sellers of shoes. The Government argued that the “line of commerce” affected by this merger is “footwear,” or alternatively, that the “line[s]” are “men’s,” “women’s,” and “children’s” shoes, separately considered, and that the “section of the country,” within which the anticompeti-tive effect of the merger is to be judged, is the Nation as a whole, or alternatively, each separate city or city and its immediate surrounding area in which the parties sell shoes at retail.
In the District Court, Brown contended that the merger would be shown not to endanger competition if the “line[s] of commerce” and the “section [s] of the country” were properly determined. Brown urged that not only were the age and sex of the intended customers to be considered in determining the relevant line of commerce, but that differences in grade of material, quality of workmanship, price, and customer use of shoes resulted in establishing different lines of commerce. While agreeing with the Government that, with regard to manufacturing, the relevant geographic market for assessing the effect of the merger upon competition is the country as a whole, Brown contended that with regard to retailing, the market must vary with economic reality from the central business district of a large city to a “standard metropolitan area” for a smaller community. Brown further contended that, both at the manufacturing level and at the retail level, the shoe industry enjoyed healthy competition and that the vigor of this competition would not, in any event, be diminished by the proposed merger because Kinney manufactured less than 0.5% and retailed less than 2% of the Nation's shoes.
The District Court rejected the broadest contentions of both parties. The District Court found that “there is one group of classifications which is understood and recognized by the entire industry and the public — the classification into'men's/ ‘women's’ and ‘children’s’ shoes separately and independently.” On the other hand, “[t]o classify shoes as a whole could be unfair and unjust; to classify them further would be impractical, unwarranted and unrealistic.”
Realizing that “the areas of effective competition for retailing purposes cannot be fixed with mathematical precision,” the District Court found that “when determined by economic reality, for retailing, a ‘section of the country’ is a city of 10,000 or more population and its immediate and contiguous surrounding area, regardless of name designation, and in which a Kinney store and a Brown (operated, franchise, or plan) [] store are located.”
The District Court rejected the Government’s contention that the combining of the manufacturing facilities of Brown and Kinney would substantially lessen competition in the production of men’s, women’s, or children’s shoes for the national wholesale market. However, the District Court did find that the likely foreclosure of other manufacturers from the market represented by Kinney’s retail outlets may substantially lessen competition in the manufacturers’ distribution of “men’s,” “women’s,” and “children’s” shoes, considered separately, throughout the Nation. The District Court also found that the merger may substantially lessen competition in retailing alone in “men’s,” “women’s,” and “children’s” shoes, considered separately, in every city of 10,000 or more population and its immediate surrounding area in which both a Kinney and a Brown store are located.
Brown’s contentions here differ only slightly from those made before the District Court. In order fully to understand and appraise these assertions, it is necessary to set out in some detail the District Court’s findings concerning the nature of the shoe industry and the place of Brown and Kinney within that industry.
The Industry.
The District Court found that although domestic shoe production was scattered among a large number of manufacturers, a small number of large companies occupied a commanding position. Thus, while the 24 largest manufacturers produced about 35% of the Nation’s shoes, the top 4 — -International, Endicott-Johnson, Brown (including Kinney) and General Shoe — alone produced approximately 23% of the Nation’s shoes or 65% of the production of the top 24.
In 1955, domestic production of nonrubber shoes was 509.2 million pairs, of which about 103.6 million pairs were men’s shoes, about 271 million pairs were women’s shoes, and about 134.6 million pairs were children’s shoes. The District Court found that men’s, women’s, and children’s shoes are normally produced in separate factories.
The public buys these shoes through about 70,000 retail outlets, only 22,000 of which, however, derive 50% or more of their gross receipts from the sale of shoes and are classified as “shoe stores” by the Census Bureau. These 22,000 shoe stores were found generally to sell (1) men’s shoes only, (2) women’s shoes only, (3) women’s and children’s shoes, or (4) men’s, women’s, and children’s shoes.
The District Court found a “definite trend” among shoe manufacturers to acquire retail outlets. For example, International Shoe Company had no retail outlets in 1945, but by 1956 had acquired 130; General Shoe Company had only 80 retail outlets in 1945 but had 526 by 1956; Shoe Corporation of America, in the same period, increased its retail holdings from 301 to 842; Melville Shoe Company from 536 to 947; and Endicott-Johnson from 488 to 540. Brown, itself, with no retail outlets of its own prior to 1951, had acquired 845 such outlets by 1956. Moreover, between 1950 and 1956 nine independent shoe store chains, operating 1,114 retail shoe stores, were found to have become subsidiaries of these large firms and to have ceased their independent operations.
And once the manufacturers acquired retail outlets, the District Court found there was a “definite trend” for the parent-manufacturers to supply an ever increasing percentage of the retail outlets’ needs, thereby foreclosing other manufacturers from effectively competing for the retail accounts. Manufacturer-dominated stores were found to be “drying up” the available outlets for independent producers.
Another “definite trend” found to exist in the shoe industry was a decrease in the number of plants manufacturing shoes. And there appears to have been a concomitant decrease in the number of firms manufacturing shoes. In 1947, there were 1,077 independent manufacturers of shoes, but by 1954 their number had decreased about 10% to 970.
Broioji Shoe.
Brown Shoe was found not only to have been a participant, but also a moving factor, in these industry trends. Although Brown had experimented several times with operating its own retail outlets, by 1945 it had disposed of them all. However, in 1951, Brown again began to seek retail outlets by acquiring the Nation’s largest operator of leased shoe departments, Wohl Shoe Company (Wohl), which operated 250 shoe departments in department stores throughout the United States. Between 1952 and 1955 Brown made a number of smaller acquisitions: Wetherby-Kayser Shoe Company (three retail stores), Barnes & Company (two stores), Reilly Shoe Company (two leased shoe departments), Richardson Shoe Store (one store), and Wohl Shoe Company of Dallas (not connected with Wohl) (leased shoe departments in Dallas). In 1954, Brown made another major acquisition: Regal Shoe Corporation which, at the time, operated one manufacturing plant producing men’s shoes and 110 retail outlets.
The acquisition of these corporations was found to lead to increased sales by Brown to the acquired companies. Thus although prior to Brown’s acquisition of Wohl in 1951, Wohl bought from Brown only 12.8% of its total purchases of shoes, it subsequently increased its purchases to 21.4% in 1952 and to 32.6% in 1955. Wetherby-Kayser’s purchases from Brown increased from 10.4% before acquisition to over 50% after. Regal, which had previously sold no shoes to Wohl and shoes worth only $89,000 to Brown, in 1956 sold shoes worth $265,000 to Wohl and $744,000 to Brown.
During the same period of time, Brown also acquired the stock or assets of seven companies engaged solely in shoe manufacturing. As a result, in 1955, Brown was the fourth largest shoe manufacturer- in the country, producing about 25.6 million pairs of shoes or about 4% of the Nation’s total footwear production.
Kinney.
Kinney is principally engaged in operating the largest family-style shoe store chain in the United States. At the time of trial, Kinney was found to be operating over 400 such stores in more than 270 cities. These stores were found to make about 1.2% of all national retail shoe sales by dollar volume. Moreover, in 1955 the Kinney stores sold approximately 8 million pairs of nonrubber shoes or about 1.6% of the national pairage sales of such shoes. Of these sales, approximately 1.1 million pairs were of men’s shoes or about 1% of the national pairage sales of men’s shoes; approximately 4.2 million pairs were of women’s shoes or about 1.5% of the national pairage sales of women’s shoes; and approximately 2.7 million pairs were of children’s shoes or about 2% of the national pair-age sales of children’s shoes.
In addition to this extensive retail activity, Kinney owned and operated four plants which manufactured men’s, women’s, and children’s shoes and whose combined output was 0.5% of the national shoe production in 1955, making Kinney the twelfth largest shoe manufacturer in the'United States.
Kinney stores were found to obtain about 20% of their shoes from Kinney’s own manufacturing plants. At the time of the merger, Kinney bought no shoes from Brown ; however, in line with Brown’s conceded reasons for acquiring Kinney, Brown had, by 1957, become the largest outside supplier of Kinney’s shoes, supplying 7.9% of all Kinney’s needs.
It is in this setting that the merger was considered and held to violate § 7 of the Clayton Act. The District Court ordered Brown to divest itself completely of all stock, share capital, assets or other interests it held in Kinney, to operate Kinney to the greatest degree possible as an independent concern pending complete divestiture, to refrain thereafter from acquiring or having any interest in Kinney’s business or assets, and to file with the court within 90 days a plan for carrying into effect the divestiture decreed. The District Court also stated it would retain jurisdiction over the cause to enable the parties to apply for such further relief as might be necessary to enforce and apply the judgment. Prior to its submission of a divestiture plan, Brown filed a notice of appeal in the District Court. It then filed a jurisdictional statement in this Court, seeking review of the judgment below as entered.
II.
Jurisdiction.
Appellant’s jurisdictional statement cites as the basis of our jurisdiction over this appeal § 2 of the Expediting Act of February 11, 1903, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. In a civil antitrust action in which the United States is the complainant that Act provides for a direct appeal to this Court from “the final judgment of the district court.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Government does not contest appellant’s claim of jurisdiction; on the contrary, it moved to have the judgment below summarily affirmed, conceding our present jurisdiction to review the merits of that judgment. We deferred ruling on the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and noted probable jurisdiction over the appeal. 363 U. S. 825.
It was suggested from the bench during the oral argument that, since the judgment of the District Court does not include a specific plan for the dissolution of the Brown-Kinney merger, but reserves such a ruling pending the filing of suggested plans for implementing divestiture, the judgment below is not “final” as contemplated by the Expediting Act. In response to that suggestion, both parties have filed briefs contending that we do have jurisdiction to dispose of the case on the merits in its present posture. However, the mere consent of the parties to the Court’s consideration and decision of the case cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction on the Court. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 17-18; People’s Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256, 260-261; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126, 127. Therefore, a review of the sources of the Court’s jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry appropriate to the disposition of every case that comes before us. Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 15 (1) (b), 23 (1) (b); Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U. S. 153; Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364; United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159.
The requirement that a final judgment shall have been entered in a case by a lower court before a right of appeal attaches has an ancient history in federal practice, first appearing in the Judiciary Act of 1789. With occasional modifications, the requirement has remained a cornerstone of the structure of appeals in the federal courts. The Court has adopted essentially practical tests for identifying those judgments which are, and those which are not, to be considered "final.” See, e. g., Cobble-dick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 326; Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 324 U. S. 548, 552; Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62, 69; Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546; DiBella v. United States, 369 U. S. 121, 124, 129; cf. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U. S. 206, 212; United States v. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U. S. 227, 232. A pragmatic approach to the question of finality has been considered essential to the achievement of the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”: the touchstones of federal procedure.
In most cases in which the Expediting Act has been cited as the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction, the issue of “finality” has not been raised or discussed by the parties or the Court. On but few occasions have particular orders in suits to which that Act is applicable been considered in the light of claims that they were insufficiently “final” so as to preclude appeal to this Court.- Compare Schine Chain Theatres v. United States, 329 U. S. 686, with Schine Chain Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110. The question has generally been passed over without comment in adjudications on the merits. While we are not bound by previous exercises of jurisdiction in cases in which our power to act was not questioned but was passed sub silentio, United States v. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U. S. 33, 38; United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 245 U. S. 166, 170, neither should we disregard the implications of an exercise of judicial authority assumed to be proper for over 40 years. Cf. Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 379-380; Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 125-126.
We think the decree of the District Court in this case had sufficient indicia of finality for us to hold that the judgment is properly appealable at this time. We note, first, that the District Court disposed of the entire complaint filed by the Government. Every prayer for relief was passed upon. Full divestiture by Brown of Kinney’s stock and assets was expressly required. Appellant was permanently enjoined from acquiring or having any further interest in the business, stock or assets of the other defendant in the suit. The single provision of the judgment by which its finality may be questioned is the one requiring appellant to propose in the immediate future a plan for carrying into effect the court’s order of divestiture. However, when we reach the merits of, and affirm, the judgment below, the sole remaining task for the District Court will be its acceptance of a plan for full divestiture, and the supervision of the plan so accepted. Further rulings of the District Court in administering its decree, facilitated by the fact that the defendants below have been required to maintain separate books pendente lite, are sufficiently independent of, and subordinate to, the issues presented by this appeal to make the case in its present posture a proper one for review now. Appellant here does not attack the full divestiture ordered by the District Court as such; it is appellant’s contention that under the facts of the case, as alleged and proved by the Government, no order of divestiture could have been proper. The propriety of divestiture was considered below and is disputed here on an “all or nothing” basis. It is ripe for review now, and will, thereafter, be foreclosed. Repetitive judicial consideration of the same question in a single suit will not occur here. Cf. Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, supra, at 127; Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233-234; Cobbledick v. United States, supra, at 325, 330.
A second consideration supporting our view is the character of the decree still to be entered in this suit. It will be an order of full divestiture. Such an order requires careful, and often extended, negotiation and formulation. This process does not take place in a vacuum, but, rather, in a changing market place, in which buyers and bankers must be found to accomplish the order of forced sale. The unsettling influence of uncertainty as to the affirmance of the initial, underlying decision compelling divestiture would only make still more difficult the task of assuring expeditious enforcement of the antitrust laws. The delay in withholding review of any of the issues in the case until the details of a divestiture had been approved by the District Court and reviewed here could well mean a change in market conditions sufficiently pronounced to render impractical or otherwise unenforceable the very plan of asset disposition for which the litigation was held. The public interest, as well as that of the parties, would lose by such procedure.
Lastly, holding the decree of the District Court in the instant case less than “final” and, thus, not appealable, would require a departure from a settled course of the Court's practice. It has consistently reviewed antitrust decrees contemplating either future divestiture or other comparable remedial action prior to the formulation and entry of the precise details of the relief ordered. No instance has been found in which the Court has reviewed a case following a divestiture decree such as the one we are asked to consider here, in which the party subject to that decree has later brought the case back to this Court with claims of error in the details of the divestiture finally approved. And only two years ago, we were unanimous in accepting jurisdiction, and in affirming the judgment of a District Court similar to the one entered here, in the only case under amended § 7 of the Clayton Act brought before us at a juncture comparable to the instant litigation. See Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn. v. United States, 362 U. S. 458, 472-473. A fear of piecemeal appeals because of our adherence to existing procedure can find no support in history. Thus, the substantial body of precedent for accepting jurisdiction over this case in its present posture supports the practical considerations previously discussed. We believe a contrary result would be inconsistent with the very purposes for which the Expediting Act was passed and that gave it its name.
HH l-H
Legislative History.
This case is one of the first to come before us in which the Government’s complaint is based upon allegations that the appellant has violated § 7 of the Clayton Act, as that section was amended in 1950. The amendments adopted in 1950 culminated extensive efforts over a number of years, on the parts of both the Federal Trade Commission and some members of Congress, to secure revision of a section of the antitrust laws considered by many observers to be ineffective in its then existing form. Sixteen bills to amend § 7 during the period 1943 to 1949 alone were introduced for consideration by the Congress, and full public hearings on proposed amendments were held in three separate sessions. In the light of this extensive legislative attention to the measure, and the broad, general language finally selected by Congress for the expression of its will, we think it appropriate to review the history of the amended Act in determining whether the judgment of the court below was consistent with the intent of the legislature. See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 591-592; Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 390-395; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 43-46, 49; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 324 U. S. 726, 734-737.
As enacted in 1914, § 7 of the original Clayton Act prohibited the acquisition by one corporation of the stock of another corporation when such acquisition would result in a substantial lessening of competition between the acquiring and the acquired companies, or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. The Act did not, by its explicit terms, or as construed by this Court, bar the acquisition by one corporation of the assets of another. Nor did it appear to preclude the acquisition of stock in any corporation other than a direct competitor. Although proponents of the 1950 amendments to the Act suggested that the terminology employed in these provisions was the result of accident or an unawareness that the acquisition of assets could be as inimical to competition as stock acquisition, a review of the legislative history of the original Clayton Act fails to support such views. The possibility of asset acquisition was discussed, but was not considered important to an Act then conceived to be directed primarily at the development of holding companies and at the secret acquisition of competitors through the purchase of all or parts of such competitors’ stock.
It was, however, not long before the Federal Trade Commission recognized deficiencies in the Act as first enacted. Its Annual Reports frequently suggested amendments, principally along two lines: first, to “plug the loophole” exempting asset acquisitions from coverage under the Act, and second, to require companies proposing a merger to give the Commission prior notification of their plans. The Final Report of the Temporary National Economic Committee also i ecommended changes focusing on these two proposals. Hearings were held on some bills incorporating either or both of these changes but, prior to the amendments adopted in 1950, none reached the floor of Congress for plenary consideration. Although the bill that was eventually to become amended § 7 was confined to embracing within the Act’s terms the acquisition of assets as well as stock, in the course of the hearings conducted in both the Eightieth and Eighty-first Congresses, a more far-reaching examination of the purposes and provisions of § 7 was undertaken. A review of the legislative history of these amendments provides no unmistakably clear indication of the precise standards the Congress wished the Federal Trade Commission and the courts to apply in judging the legality of particular mergers. However, sufficient expressions of a consistent point of view may be found in the hearings, committee reports of both the House and Senate and in floor debate to provide those charged with enforcing the Act with a usable frame of reference within which to evaluate any given merger.
The dominant theme pervading congressional consideration of the 1950 amendments was a fear of what was considered to be a rising tide of economic concentration in the American economy. Apprehension in this regard was bolstered by the publication in 1948 of the Federal Trade Commission’s study on corporate mergers. Statistics from this and other current studies were cited as evidence of the danger to the American economy in unchecked corporate expansions through mergers. Other considerations cited in support of the bill were the desirability of retaining "local control” over industry and the protection of small businesses. Throughout the recorded discussion may be found examples of Congress’ fear not only of accelerated concentration of economic power on economic grounds, but also of the threat to other values a trend toward concentration was thought to pose.
What were some of the factors, relevant to a judgment as to the validity of a given merger, specifically discussed by Congress in redrafting § 7?
First, there is no doubt that Congress did wish to “plug the loophole” and to include within the coverage of the Act the acquisition of assets no less than the acquisition of stock.
Second, by the deletion of the “acquiring-acquired” language in the original text, it hoped to make plain that § 7 applied not only to mergers between actual competitors, but also to vertical and conglomerate mergers whose effect may tend to lessen competition in any line of commerce in any section of the country.
Third, it is apparent that a keystone in the erection of a barrier to what Congress saw was the rising tide of economic concentration, was its provision of authority for arresting mergers at a time when the trend to a lessening of competition in a line of commerce was still in its incip-iency. Congress saw the process of concentration in American business as a dynamic force; it sought to assure the Federal Trade Commission and the courts the power to brake this force at its outset and before it gathered momentum.
Fourth, and closely related to the third, Congress rejected, as inappropriate to the problem it sought to remedy, the application to § 7 cases of the standards for judging the legality of business combinations adopted by the courts in dealing with cases arising under the Sherman Act, and which may have been applied to some early cases arising under original § 7.
Fifth, at the same time that it sought to create an effective tool for preventing all mergers having demonstrable anticompetitive effects, Congress recognized the stimulation to competition that might flow from particular mergers. When concern as to the Act’s breadth was expressed, supporters of the amendments indicated that it would not impede, for example, a merger between two small companies to enable the combination to compete more effectively with larger corporations dominating the relevant market, nor a merger between a corporation which is financially healthy and a failing one which no longer can be a vital competitive factor in the market. The deletion of the word “community” in the original Act’s description of the relevant geographic market is another illustration of Congress’ desire to indicate that its concern was with the adverse effects of a given merger on competition only in an economically significant “section” of the country. Taken as a whole, the legislative history illuminates congressional concern with the protection of competition, not competitors, and its desire to restrain mergers only to the extent that such combinations may tend to lessen competition.
Sixth, Congress neither adopted nor rejected specifically any particular tests for measuring the relevant markets, either as defined in terms of product or in terms of geographic locus of competition, within which the anti-competitive effects of a merger were to be judged. Nor did it adopt a definition of the word “substantially,” whether in quantitative terms of sales or assets or market shares or in designated qualitative terms, by which a merger’s effects on competition were to be measured.
Seventh, while providing no definite quantitative or qualitative tests by which enforcement agencies could gauge the effects of a given merger to determine whether it may “substantially” lessen competition or tend toward monopoly, Congress indicated plainly that a merger had to be functionally viewed, in the context of its particular industry. That is, whether the consolidation was to take place in an industry that was fragmented rather than concentrated, that had seen a recent trend toward domination by a few leaders or had remained fairly consistent in its distribution of market shares among the participating companies, that had experienced easy access to markets by suppliers and easy access to suppliers by buyers or had witnessed foreclosure of business, that had witnessed the ready entry of new competition or the erection of barriers to prospective entrants, all were aspects, varying in importance with the merger under consideration, which would properly be taken into account.
Eighth, Congress used the words “may be substantially to lessen competition” (emphasis supplied), to indicate that its concern was with probabilities, not certainties. Statutes existed for dealing with clear-cut menaces to competition; no statute was sought for dealing with ephemeral possibilities. Mergers with a probable anticompetitive effect were to be proscribed by this Act.
It is against this background that we return to the case before us.
IV.
The Vertical Aspects of the Merger.
Economic arrangements between companies standing in a supplier-customer relationship are characterized as “vertical.” The primary vice of a vertical merger or other arrangement tying a customer to a supplier is that, by foreclosing the competitors of either party from a segment of the market otherwise open to them, the arrangement may act as a “clog on competition,” Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 314, which “deprive[s]... rivals of a fair opportunity to compete.” H. R. Rep. No. 1191, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 8. Every extended vertical arrangement by its very nature, for at least a time, denies to competitors of the supplier the opportunity to compete for part or all of the trade of the customer-party to the vertical arrangement. However, the Clayton Act does not render unlawful all such vertical arrangements, but forbids only those whose effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly” “in any line of commerce in any section of the country.” Thus, as we have previously noted,
“[determination of the relevant market is a necessary predicate to a finding of a violation of the Clayton Act because the threatened monopoly must be one which will substantially lessen competition ‘within the area of effective competition.’ Substan-tiality can be determined only in terms of the market affected.”
The “area of effective competition” must be determined by reference to a product market (the “line of commerce”) and a geographic market (the “section of the country”).
The Product Market.
The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it. However, within this broad market, well-defined submarkets may exist which, in themselves, constitute product markets for antitrust purposes. United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 593-595. The boundaries of such a submarket may be determined by examining such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product’s peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors. Because § 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits any merger which may substantially lessen competition “in any line of commerce” (emphasis supplied), it is necessary to examine the effects of a merger in each such' economically significant submarket to determine if there is a reasonable probability that the merger will substantially lessen competition. If such a probability is found to exist, the merger is proscribed.
Applying these considerations to the present case, we conclude that the record supports the District Court’s finding that the relevant lines of commerce are men’s, women’s, and children’s shoes. These product lines are recognized by the public; each line is manufactured in separate plants; each has characteristics peculiar to itself rendering it generally noncompetitive with the others; and each is, of course, directed toward a distinct class of customers.
Appellant, however, contends that the District Court’s definitions fail to recognize sufficiently “price/quality” and ''age/sex” distinctions in shoes. Brown argues that the predominantly medium-priced shoes which it manufactures occupy a product market different from the predominantly low-priced shoes which Kinney sells. But agreement with that argument would be equivalent to holding that medium-priced shoes do not compete with low-priced shoes. We think the District Court properly found the facts to be otherwise. It would be unrealistic to accept Brown’s contention that, for example, men’s shoes selling below $8.99 are in a different product market from those selling above $9.00.
This is not to say, however, that “price/quality” differences, where they exist, are unimportant in analyzing a merger; they may be of importance in determining the likely effect of a merger. But the boundaries of the relevant market must be drawn with sufficient breadth to include the competing products of each of the merging companies and to recognize competition where, in fact, competition exists. Thus we agree with the District Court that in this case a further division of product lines based on “price/quality” differences would be “unrealistic.”
Brown’s contention that the District Court’s product market definitions should have recognized further “age/sex” distinctions raises a different problem. Brown’s sharpest criticism is directed at the District Court’s finding that children’s shoes constituted a single line of commerce. Brown argues, for example, that “a little boy-does not wear a little girl’s black patent leather pump” and that “[a] male baby cannot wear a growing boy’s shoes.” Thus Brown argues that “infants’ and babies’ ” shoes, “misses’ and children’s” shoes and “youths’ and boys’ ” shoes should each have been considered a separate line of commerce. Assuming, arguendo, that little boys’ shoes, for example, do have
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We noted probable jurisdiction in this case to decide whether § 52-542 of the Connecticut General Statutes requiring a bond for the protection of his landlord from a tenant who wished to appeal from a judgment in a summary eviction proceeding, offends either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if applied to foreclose appellate review for those too poor to post the bond, 394 U. S. 957 (1969).
Because of an ambiguity in the record concerning the underlying reason these appellants were denied an opportunity to appeal the trial court's judgment ordering that they be evicted, we now conclude that this appeal should be dismissed, DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U. S. 28 (1969); Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549 (1947).
After unsuccessfully litigating in the trial court a summary eviction proceeding begun by their landlords, appellants moved in the trial court for a waiver of the bond requirement so that they might appeal. The trial court, apparently of the view that it had the power to waive the statutory bond requirement in an appropriate case, denied appellants’ motion on a finding that “this appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay.” App. 23. Appellants sought review of the trial court’s denial of their motion in the Connecticut Circuit Court, and that court denied review and dismissed appellants’ appeal. It is unclear from that court’s opinion, however, whether it thought the bond requirement of § 52-542 left no room for a waiver, or instead based its refusal to hear appellants’ appeal in part on the trial court’s finding— cited in the Circuit Court’s opinion — that the appeal before it was taken only for purpose of delay. 5 Conn. Cir. 282, 250 A. 2d 527 (1968). Appellants’ petition to the Supreme Court of Connecticut to certify the case for review was declined.
In these circumstances, we deem it inappropriate for this Court to decide the constitutional issue tendered by appellants.
Dismissed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
At the time of the decisions below in this case, § 52-542 provided:
“Bond on appeal; stay of execution. When any appeal is taken by the defendant in an action of summary process, he shall give a sufficient bond with surety to the adverse party, to answer for all rents that may accrue or, where no lease had existed, for the reasonable value for such use and occupancy, during the pendency of such appeal, or which may be due at the time of its final disposal; and execution shall be stayed for five days from the date judgment has been rendered, but any Sunday or legal holiday intervening shall be excluded in computing such five days. No appeal shall be taken except within said period, and if an appeal is taken within said period execution shall be stayed until the final determination of the cause, unless it appears to the judge who tried the case that the appeal was taken for the purpose of delay; and if execution has not been stayed, as hereinbefore provided, execution may then issue, except as otherwise provided in sections 52-543 to 52-548, inclusive.”
This version of § 52-542 has been repealed and a revision substituted effective as of October 1, 1969, see Conn. Pub. Acts No. 296 (1969).
The opinion states in one place that “[a] sufficient bond with surety is essential to a valid appeal.” 5 Conn. Cir. 282, 285, 250 A. 2d 527, 529 (1968). The court also said that “[w]ant of bond with surety, where bond with surety is by statute a prerequisite of review, furnishes a sufficient ground of dismissal of the appeal.” Id., at 288, 250 A. 2d, at 531. At oral argument here, however, the State of Connecticut, appearing as amicus curiae, contended that the statutory bond requirement could, in an appropriate ease, be waived. The opinion of the Circuit Court did not expressly pass on this issue, which it appears was not settled under Connecticut law at the time of its decision. A subsequent decision of a Connecticut circuit court suggests that the bond requirement is an absolute and necessary condition for an appeal, but it too did not consider the waiver contention made by the State before this Court, see Housing Authority v. Jones, 5 Conn. Cir. 350, 252 A. 2d 465 (1968), Moreover, this decision did not consider the effect of the 1969 amendment to § 52-542, see n. 1, supra.
The opinion states in another place:
“On January 19, 1968, the trial court held a special hearing on the defendants’ application for waiver of security on appeal. The court found that no rent had been paid since May 1, 1967, nor had the defendants offered to pay any part of the rent due; that the record contained ‘dilatory tactics, and [was] loaded with defenses interposed to delay and obstruct the summary process action’; and that the ‘appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay.’ Accordingly, the court denied the application for waiver of security on appeal.” 5 Conn. Cir., at 284, 250 A. 2d, at 529.
The same Circuit Court, in later granting the landlord’s motion for an order terminating a stay of execution of the eviction order, expressly affirmed the trial court’s findings saying:
“We have before us the entire file in the case. The record and briefs comprise some 140 typewritten pages. Upon a review of the whole matter, we are satisfied that [the trial judge] was justified in concluding, as he did when he denied the defendants’ application for a waiver of security on appeal, ‘that this appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay.’ ” 5 Conn. Cir., at 290, 250 A. 2d, at 532.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
As part of its major effort to reduce the federal deficit through the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 494, Congress amended the statute authorizing Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to require that a family’s eligibility for benefits must take into account, with certain specified exceptions, the income of all parents, brothers, and sisters living in the same home. The principal question presented in this litigation is whether that requirement violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it is applied to require a family wishing to receive AFDC benefits to include within its unit a child for whom child support payments are being made by a noncustodial parent.
I
This litigation began in 1970. At that time the federal statute did not require that all parents and siblings be included in an AFDC filing unit. Thus, for example, if a teenage child had significant income of her own, perhaps from wages or perhaps in support payments from an absent parent, the other members of her family could exclude her from the filing unit in order to avoid disqualifying the entire family from benefits or reducing its level of benefits.
Beaty Mae Gilliard, one of the named class members in the 1970 suit, began receiving public assistance from North Carolina under AFDC in 1962. In February 1970, after her seventh child was born, the State automatically included him in the filing unit, thereby increasing the family’s monthly allotment from $217 to $227 to reflect the difference between the benefit for a family of seven and the benefit for a family of eight. Gilliard was, however, also receiving $43.33 each month in child support from the baby’s father. When a formal parental support order was entered in April 1970, the State credited the support payments against her account and reduced her monthly benefit to $184. Gilliard sued, contending that she had a statutory right to exclude her seventh child from the unit and thus to continue to receive the $217 benefit for a family of seven and also to retain the $43.33 paid by her youngest child’s father. A three-judge District Court agreed with her reading of the statute and entered an order requiring the State to reinstate her benefits at the $217 level and to reimburse her for the improper credits of $43 per month. Gilliard v. Craig, 331 F. Supp. 587 (WDNC 1971). The District Court also granted classwide relief. We affirmed that judgment. 409 U. S. 807 (1972). No constitutional question was decided at that time.
Congress amended the AFDC program in 1975 to require, as a condition of eligibility, that applicants for assistance must assign to the State any right to receive child support payments for any member of the family included in the filing unit. In response, North Carolina amended its laws to provide that the acceptance of public assistance on behalf of a dependent child would constitute an assignment of any right to support for that child. See N. C. Gen. Stat. § 110-137 (Supp. 1985). These amendments, however, did not harm recipients like Gilliard because they did not affect the right to define the family unit covered by an application and thereby to exclude children with independent income, such as a child for whom support payments were being made.
In 1983, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed certain amendments to the Social Security Act to “assure that limited Federal and State resources are spent as effectively as possible.” Letter of 25 May 1983, to the Honorable George Bush, President of the Senate, App. 168-169 (hereinafter Heckler Letter). One of the Secretary’s proposals was “to establish uniform rules on the family members who must file together for AFDC, and the situations in which income must be counted. In general, the parents, sisters, and brothers living together with a dependent child must all be included; the option of excluding a sibling with income, for example, would no longer be available.” Ibid. The Secretary stressed that the improveménts would result in an AFDC allocation program that “much more realistically reflects the actual home situation.” Id., at 169.
The Secretary’s proposal was not enacted in 1983, but one of the provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) established a standard filing unit for the AFDC program. The Senate Finance Committee estimated that the change would save $455 million during the next three fiscal years. S. Print No. 98-169, p. 980 (1984) (hereinafter Senate Print). It explained the purpose of the amendment in language that removes any possible ambiguity in the relevant text of the statute:
“Present Law
“There is no requirement in present law that parents and all siblings be included in the AFDC filing unit. Families applying for assistance may exclude from the filing unit certain family members who have income which might reduce the family benefit. For example, a family might choose to exclude a child who is receiving social security or child support payments, if the payments would reduce the family’s benefits by an amount greater than the amount payable on behalf of the child....
“Explanation of Provision
“The provision approved by the Committee would require States to include in the filing unit the parents and all dependent minor siblings (except SSI recipients and any stepbrothers and stepsisters) living with a child who applies for or receives AFDC....
“This change will end the present practice whereby families exclude members with income in order to maximize family benefits, and will ensure that the income of family members who live together and share expenses is recognized and counted as available to the family as a whole.” Ibid.
See also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 98-861, p. 1407 (1984).
Because the 1984 amendment forced families to include in the filing unit children for whom support payments were being received, the practical effect was that many families’ total income was reduced. The burden of the change was mitigated somewhat by a separate amendment providing that the first $50 of child support collected by the State must be remitted to the family and not counted as income for the purpose of determining its benefit level. See 42 U. S. C. §§602(a)(8)(A)(vi), 657(b)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Thus, the net effect of the 1984 amendments for a family comparable to Gilliard’s would include three changes: (1) the addition of the child receiving support would enlarge the filing unit and entitle the family to a somewhat larger benefit; (2) child support would be treated as family income and would be assigned to the State, thereby reducing the AFDC benefits by that amount; and (3) the reduction would be offset by $50 if that amount was collected from an absent parent. In sum, if the assigned support exceeded $50 plus the difference in the benefit level caused by adding the child or children receiving support, the family would suffer; if less than $50 and the difference in the benefit level was collected as support, it would not.
I — I I — 1
After North Carolina adopted regulations to comply with the 1984 amendments, some members of the class that had earlier obtained relief filed a motion to reopen the 1971 decree and obtain further relief on behalf of the class. The State impleaded the Secretary of Health and Human Services, contending that if the State’s compliance with the federal statute resulted in any liability to appellees, the Federal Government should share in any payment of additional AFDC benefits. The District Court found that North Carolina’s and the Department of Health and Human Services’ regulations were in conformance with the statute, but concluded that the statutory scheme violated both the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The court interpreted North Carolina law as imposing a duty on the custodial parent to use child support money exclusively for the benefit of the child for whom it had been obtained, and reasoned that a forced assignment of the support money to the State in exchange for AFDC benefits for the entire family was a taking of the child’s private property. Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F. Supp. 1529, 1551-1555 (WDNC 1986). Additionally, the court reasoned that the use of the child’s support money to reduce the Government’s AFDC expenditures was tantamount to punishing the child for exercising the fundamental right to live with his or her family. Id., at 1557. Because of the serious impact on the autonomy of the family — including the child’s potential relationship with his or her noncustodial parent — “special judicial scrutiny” was considered appropriate, id., at 1555-1557, and the deprivation of property and liberty effected by the statutory scheme could not, in the court’s view, survive such scrutiny. We noted probable jurisdiction, 479 U. S. 1004 (1986).
The District Court was undoubtedly correct in its perception that a number of needy families have suffered, and will' suffer, as a result of the implementation of the DEFRA amendments to the AFDC program. Such suffering is frequently the tragic byproduct of a decision to reduce or to modify benefits to a class of needy recipients. Under our structure of government, however, it is the function of Congress — not the courts — to determine whether the savings realized, and presumably used for other critical governmental functions, are significant enough to justify the costs to the individuals affected by such reductions. The Fifth Amendment “gives the federal courts no power to impose upon [Congress] their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy,” by telling it how “to reconcile the demands of... needy citizens with the finite resources available to meet those demands.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 486, 472 (1970). Unless the Legislative Branch’s decisions run afoul of some constitutional edict, any inequities created by such decisions must be remedied by the democratic processes. The District Court believed that the amendment at issue did conflict with both the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We consider these arguments in turn, and reject them.
t — I h-1 I — l
The precepts that govern our review of appellees’ due process and equal protection challenges to this program are similar to those we have applied in reviewing challenges to other parts of the Social Security Act:
“[0]ur review is deferential. ‘Governmental decisions to spend money to improve the general public welfare in one way and not another are “not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.’” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181, 185 (1976), quoting Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640 (1937).” Bowen v. Owens, 476 U. S. 340, 345 (1986).
This standard of review is premised on Congress’ “plenary power to define the scope and the duration of the entitlement to... benefits, and to increase, to decrease, or to terminate those benefits based on its appraisal of the relative importance of the recipients’ needs and the resources available to fund the program.” Atkins v. Parker, 472 U. S. 115, 129 (1985); see also Schweiker v. Hogan, 457 U. S. 569 (1982); Califano v. Boles, 443 U. S. 282, 296 (1979); California v. Aznavorian, 439 U. S. 170 (1978); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975).
The District Court had before it evidence that the DEFRA amendment was severely impacting some families. For example, some noncustodial parents stopped making their support payments because they believed that their payments were helping only the State, and not their children. 633 F. Supp., at 1542-1543. It is clear, however, that in the administration of a fund that is large enough to have a significant impact on the Nation’s deficit, general rules must be examined in light of the broad purposes they are intended to serve. The challenged amendment unquestionably serves Congress’ goal of decreasing federal expenditures. See Senate Print, at 981 (estimating that amendment in AFDC program will save $455 million during fiscal years 1984 through 1987); 130 Cong. Rec. 8368 (1984) (remarks of Sen. Dole). The evidence that a few noncustodial parents were willing to violate the law by not making court-ordered support payments does not alter the fact that the entire program has resulted in saving huge sums of money.
The rationality of the amendment denying a family the right to exclude a supported child from the filing unit is also supported by the Government’s separate interest in distributing benefits among competing needy families in a fair way. Given its perceived need to make cuts in the AFDC budget, Congress obviously sought to identify a group that would suffer less than others as a result of a reduction in benefits. When considering the plight of two five-person families, one of which receives no income at all while the other receives regular support payments for some of the minor children, it is surely reasonable for Congress to conclude that the former is in greater need than the latter. This conclusion is amply supported by Congress’ assumption that child support payments received are generally beneficial to the entire family unit, see Senate Print, at 980, and by “the common sense proposition that individuals living with others usually have reduced per capita costs because many of their expenses are shared.” Termini v. Califano, 611 F. 2d 367, 370 (CA2 1979); see also Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U. S. 635, 638-643 (1986).
It was therefore rational for Congress to adjust the AFDC program to reflect the fact that support money generally provides significant benefits for entire family units. This conclusion is not undermined by the fact that there are no doubt many families in which some — or perhaps all — of the support money is spent in a way that does not benefit the rest of the family. In determining how best to allocate limited funds among the extremely large class of needy families eligible for AFDC benefits, Congress is entitled to rely on a classwide presumption that custodial parents have used, and may legitimately use, support funds in a way that is beneficial to entire family units. As we have repeatedly explained:
“If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis/ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78. ‘The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69-70. ‘A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 485.
See also Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S., at 785. We have no doubt that the DEFRA amendment satisfies this test.
Appellees argue (and the District Court.ruled), however, that finding that Congress acted rationally is not enough to sustain this legislation. Rather, they claim that some form of “heightened scrutiny” is appropriate because the amendment interferes with a family’s fundamental right to live in the type of family unit it chooses. We conclude that the District Court erred in subjecting the DEFRA amendment to any form of heightened scrutiny. That some families may decide to modify their living arrangements in order to avoid the effect of the amendment, does not transform the amendment into an act whose design and direct effect are to “intrud[e] on choices concerning family living arrangements.” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977). As was the case with the marriage-related provision upheld in Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47 (1977), “Congress adopted this rule in the course of constructing a complex social welfare system that necessarily deals with the intimacies of family life. This is not a case in which government seeks to foist orthodoxy on the unwilling.” Id., at 54, n. 11.
Last Term we rejected a constitutional challenge to a provision in the Federal Food Stamp Program, which determines eligibility and benefit levels on a “household” rather than an individual basis. Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U. S. 635 (1986). We held that the guarantee of equal treatment in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was not violated by the statutory requirement that generally treated parents, children, and siblings who lived together as a single household, and explained:
“The disadvantaged class is that comprised by parents, children, and siblings. Close relatives are not a ‘suspect’ or ‘quasi-suspect’ class. As a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority or politically powerless. See, e. g., Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 313-314 (1976) (per curiam). In fact, quite the contrary is true.
“Nor does the statutory classification ‘directly and substantially’ interfere with family living arrangements and thereby burden a fundamental right. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386-387, and n. 12 (1978). See id., at 403-404 (Stevens, J., concurring); Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 58 (1977).” Id., at 638.
In light of this, we concluded in Lyng that the “District Court erred in judging the constitutionality of the statutory distinction under ‘heightened scrutiny.’” Ibid. In this case the District Court committed the same error. As in Lyng, the standard of review here is whether “Congress had a rational basis” for its decision. Id., at 639. And as in Lyng, “the justification for the statutory classification is obvious.” Id., at 642. The provisions at issue do not violate the Due Process Clause.
IV
Aside from holding that the amendment violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its equal protection component, the District Court invalidated the DEFRA amendments as a taking of private property without just compensation. The court based this holding on the premise that a child for whom support payments are made has a right to have the support money used exclusively in his or her “best interest.” Yet, the court reasoned, the requirements (1) that a custodial parent who applies for AFDC must include a child’s support money in computing family income, and (2) that the support must be assigned to the State, effectively converts the support funds that were once to be used exclusively for the child’s best interests into an AFDC check which, under federal law, must be used for the benefit of all the children. § 405, 42 U. S. C. § 605. Therefore, the District Court held that the State was “taking” that child’s right to exclusive use of the support money. In addressing this issue, it is helpful to look first at whether the State “takes” the child’s property when it considers the support payments as part of the family’s income in computing AFDC eligibility. We will then consider whether the requirement that support payments be assigned to the State requires a finding that the amendments violate the taking prohibition.
Some perspective on the issue is helpful here. Had no AFDC program ever existed until 1984, and had Congress then instituted a program that took into account support payments that a family receives, it is hard to believe that we would seriously entertain an argument that the new benefit program constituted a taking. Yet, somehow, once benefits are in place and Congress sees a need to reduce them in order to save money and to distribute limited resources more fairly, the “takings” label seems to have a bit more plausibility. For legal purposes though, the two situations are identical. See Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U. S. 41 (1986). Congress is not, by virtue of having instituted a social welfare program, bound to continue it at all, much less at the same benefit level. Thus, notwithstanding the technical legal arguments that have been advanced, it is imperative to recognize that the amendments at issue merely incorporate a definitional element into an entitlement program. It would be quite strange indeed if, by virtue of an offer to provide benefits to needy families through the entirely voluntary AFDC program, Congress or the States were deemed to have taken some of those very family members’ property.
The basic requirement that the AFDC filing unit must include all family members living in the home, and therefore that support payments made on behalf of a member of the family must be considered in determining that family’s level of benefits, does not even arguably take anyone’s property. The family members other than the child for whom the support is being paid certainly have no takings claim, since it is clear that they have no protected property rights to continued benefits at the same level. See Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, supra. Nor does the simple inclusion of the support income in the benefit calculation have any legal effect on the child’s right to have it used for his or her benefit. To the extent that a child has the right to have the support payments used in his or her “best interest,” he or she fully retains that right. Of course, the effect of counting the support payments as part of the filing unit’s income often reduces the family’s resources, and hence increases the chances that sharing of the support money will be appropriate. See n. 13, supra. But given the unquestioned premise that the Government has a right to reduce AFDC benefits generally, that result does not constitute a taking of private property without just compensation.
The only possible legal basis for appellees’ takings claim, therefore, is the requirement that an applicant for AFDC benefits must assign the support payments to the State, which then will remit the amount collected to the custodial parent to be used for the benefit of the entire family. This legal transformation in the status of the funds, the argument goes, modifies the child’s interest in the use of the money so dramatically that it constitutes a taking of the child’s property. As a practical matter, this argument places form over substance, and labels over reality. Although it is true that money which was earmarked for a specific child’s or children’s “best interest” becomes a part of a larger fund available for all of the children, the difference between these concepts is, as we have discussed, more theoretical than practical.
In evaluating whether governmental regulation of property constitutes a “taking” we have “eschewed the development of any set formula... and have relied instead on ad hoc, factual inquiries into the circumstances of each particular case.” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U. S. 211, 224 (1986).
“To aid in this determination, however, we have identified three factors which have ‘particular significance’: (1) ‘the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) ‘the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) ‘the character of the governmental action.’ Penn Central Transportation Co., [438 U. S. 104,] 124.” Id., at 224-225.
Here, each of these three factors refutes the conclusion that there has been a taking.
First, in evaluating the economic impact of the assignment, it is important to remember that it is the impact on the child, not on the entire family unit, that is relevant. Thus, the fact that the entire family’s net income may be reduced does not necessarily mean that the amount of money spent for the benefit of a supported child will be any less than the amount of the noncustodial parent’s support payments. The reality is that the money will usually continue to be used in the same manner that it was previously since the typical AFDC parent will have used the support money as part of the general family fund even without its being transferred through AFDC. See n. 13, supra. Moreovér, any diminution in the value of the support payments for the child is mitigated by the extra $50 that the family receives as a result of the assignment, by the extra AFDC benefits that are received by the inclusion of an additional family member in the unit, and by the fact that the State is using its owm enforcement power to collect the support payments, and is bearing the risk of nonpayment in any given month. Whatever the diminution in value of the child’s right to have support funds used for his or her “exclusive” benefit may be, it is not so substantial as to constitute a taking under our precedents. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 493-497 (1987); Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 131 (1978).
Second, the child receiving support payments holds no vested protectable expectation that his or her parent will continue to receive identical support payments on the child’s behalf, and that the child will enjoy the same rights with respect to them. See Layton v. Layton, 263 N. C. 453, 456, 139 S. E. 2d 732, 734 (1965) (support is “not a property right of the child”). The prospective right to support payments, and the child’s expectations with respect to the use of such funds, are clearly subject to modification by law, be it through judicial decree, state legislation, or congressional enactment. See N. C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.7 (1984) (modification of order for child support). For example, one of the chief criteria in assessing a child support obligation is the noncustodial parent’s ability to make payments, see Coggins v. Coggins, 260 N. C. 765, 133 S. E. 2d 700 (1963); Douglas, Factors in Determining Child Support, 36 Juvenile & Fam. Court J., No. 3, p. 27 (1985), and an adverse change in that parent’s ability may, of course, require a modification of the decree. 2 J. Atkinson, Modern Child Custody Practice § 10.25, pp. 527-528 (1986) (discussing reductions in support). Any right to have the State force a noncustodial parent to make payments is, like so many other legal rights (including AFDC payments themselves), subject to modification by “the public acts of government.” Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U. S. 315, 319 (1932); see generally Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U. S., at 51-56. As the District Court explained, Congress, and the States, through their implementing statutes and regulations, have modified those rights through passage of (and the States’ compliance with) the DEFRA amendments. See 633 F. Supp., at 1548-1551; Gorrie v. Bowen, 809 F. 2d 508, 521 (CA8 1987). This prospective change in the child’s expectations concerning future use of support payments is far from anything we have ever deemed a taking.
Finally, the character of the governmental action here militates against a finding that the States or Federal Government unconstitutionally take property through the AFDC program. It is obviously necessary for the Government to make hard choices and to balance various incentives in deciding how to allocate benefits in this type of program. But a decision to include child support as part of the family income certainly does not implicate the type of concerns that the Takings Clause protects. This is by no means an enactment that forces “some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960).
The law does not require any custodial parent to apply for AFDC benefits. Surely it is reasonable to presume that a parent who does make such an application does so because she or he is convinced that the family as a whole — as well as each child committed to her or his custody — will be better off with the benefits than without. In making such a decision, the parent is not taking a child’s property without just compensation; nor is the State doing so when it responds to that decision by supplementing the collections of support money with additional AFDC benefits.
y
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Stewart described the courts’ role in cases such as this:
“We do not decide today that the... regulation is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that [Congress] might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised. Conflicting claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure, certainly including the one before us. But the intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of this Court. The Constitution may impose certain procedural safeguards upon systems of welfare administration, Goldberg v. Kelly, [397 U. S. 254 (1970)]. But the Constitution does not empower this Court to second-guess... officials charged with the difficult responsibility of allocating limited public welfare funds among the myriad of potential recipients. ” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 487.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
“ ‘The AFDC program is based on a scheme of cooperative federalism.’ King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 316 (1968). Established by Title IV of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 627, ‘to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives who live with and care for them,’ Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251, 253 (1974), the federal program reimburses each State which chooses to participate with a percentage of the funds it expends. § 403, 42 U. S. C. § 603. In return, the State must administer its assistance program pursuant to a state plan that conforms to applicable federal statutes and regulations. § 402, 42 U. S. C. § 602.” Heckler v. Turner, 470 U. S. 184, 189 (1985).
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 494, which fills over 700 pages of the Statutes at Large, includes two major divisions, the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and the Spending Reduction Act of 1984. The amendment at issue in this case is found in the latter division, 98 Stat. 1145. As a result of that amendment, § 402(a)(38) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(38) (1982 ed., Supp. III) now provides, in pertinent part:
“A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must—
“(38) provide that in making the determination under paragraph (7) with respect to a dependent child and applying paragraph (8), the State agency shall (except as otherwise provided in this part) include—
“(A) any parent of such child, and
“(B) any brother or sister of such child, if such brother or sister meets the conditions described in clauses (1) and (2) of section 606(a) of this title, if such parent, brother, or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child, and any income of or available for such parent, brother, or sister shall be included in making such determination and applying such paragraph with respect to the family (notwithstanding section 405(j) of this title, in the case of benefits provided under subchapter II of this chapter)....”
Section 406(a), in turn, provides:
“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) at the option of the State, under the age of nineteen and a full-time student in a secondary school (or in the equivalent level of vocational or technical training), if before he attains age nineteen, he may reasonably be expected to complete the program of such secondary school (or such training).” 42 U. S. C. § 606(a).
The class was comprised of “persons who have been or may be subject to reduction of AFDC... benefits based upon unconstitutional or illegal claim of credit by administering agencies for outside income and other resources available to some but not all of a family group.” Gilliard, v. Craig, 331 F. Supp. 587, 588 (WDNC 1971).
Section 402(a)(26)(A) provides:
“[A]s a condition of eligibility for aid, each applicant or recipient will be required—
“(A) to assign to the State any rights to support from any other person such applicant may have (i) in his own behalf or in behalf of any other family member for whom the applicant is applying for or receiving aid, and (ii) which have accrued at the time such assignment is executed....” 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(26)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. III).
The 1975 amendment also amended § 402 to require recipients to
“cooperate with the State (i) in establishing the paternity of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid is claimed, and (ii) in obtaining support payments for such applicant and for a child with respect to whom such aid is claimed, or in obtaining any other other payments or property due such applicant or such child....’’ 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(26)(B) (1982 ed., Supp. III).
In support of the District Court’s judgment, appellees have asked us to adopt a construction of the statute that is completely inconsistent with the intent of Congress as explained in the Secretary’s request for the legislation, in the Senate Print, and in the Conference Report as well. Moreover, the arguments are inconsistent with the unambiguous regulations the Secretary has adopted to implement the statute. See 45 CFR § 206.10(a)(1)(vii) (1986). The District Court carefully considered these statutory arguments and rejected them. Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F. Supp. 1529, 1548 (WDNC 1986). We agree with that court’s analysis of the meaning of the statute and find no merit in appellees’ statutory arguments advanced in this Court. See also Gorrie v. Bowen, 809 F. 2d 508, 513-516 (CA8 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
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.