instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the' Court.
Respondent Fleuti is a Swiss national who was originally admitted to this country for permanent residence on October 9, 1952, and has been here continuously since except for a visit of “about a couple hours” duration to Ensenada, Mexico, in August 1956. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, of which petitioner Rosenberg is the Los Angeles District Director, sought in April 1959 to deport respondent on the ground that at the time of his return in 1956 he “was within one or more of the classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time of such entry,” Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 241 (a)(1), 66 Stat. 204, 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (a)(1). In particular, the Service alleged' that respondent had been “convicted' of a crime involving moral turpitude,” § 212 (a) (9), 66 Stat. 182, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (9), before his 1956 return, and had for that reason been excludable when he came back from his brief trip to Mexico. A deportation order issued on that ground, but it was discovered a few months later that the order was invalid, because the crime was a petty offense not of the magnitude encompassed within the statute. The deportation proceedings were thereupon reopened and a new charge was lodged against respondent: that he had been excludable at the time of his 1956 return, as an alien “afflicted with psychopathic personality,” §212 (a)(4), 66 Stat. 182, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a)(4), by reason of the fact that he was a homosexual. Deportation was ordered on this ground and Fleuti’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed, whereupon he brought the present action for declaratory judgment and review of the administrative action. It was stipulated that among the issues to be litigated was the question whether § 212 (a) (4) is “unconstitutional as being vague and ambiguous.” The trial court rejected,respondent’s contentions in this regard and in general, and granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the deportation order and enjoined its enforcement, holding that as applied to Fleuti § 212 (a).(4) was unconstitutionally vague in that homosexuality was not sufficiently encompassed within the term “psychopathic personality.” 302 F. 2d 652.
The Government petitioned this Court for certiorari, which we granted in order to consider the constitutionality of § 212 (a) (4) as applied to respondent Fleuti. 371 U. S. 859. Upon consideration of the case, however, and in accordance with the long-established principle that “we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable,” Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105; see also Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129; Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77; Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U. S. 384, we have concluded that there is a threshold issue of statutory interpretation in the case, the existence of which obviates.decision here as to whether §212 (a)(4) is constitutional. as applied to respondent.
That issue is whether Fleuti’s return to the United States from his afternoon trip to Ensenada, Mexico, in August 1956 constituted an “entry” within the meaning of § 101 (a) (13) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of. 1952, 66 Stat. 167, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a)(13), such that Fleuti was excludable for a condition existing at that time even though he had been permanently and continuously resident in this country for nearly four years prior thereto. Section 101 (a) (13), which has never been directly construed by this Court in relation to the kind of brief absence from the country that characterizes the present case, reads as follows:
“The term ‘entry’ means any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession, whether voluntarily or otherwise, except that an alien having a lawful permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as making an entry into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws if the alien proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his departure to a foreign port or place or to an outlying possession was not intended or reasonably to be expected by him or his presence in a foreign port or place or in an outlying possession was not voluntary: Provided, That no person whose departure from the United States was occasioned by deportation proceedings, extradition, or other legal process - shall be held to be entitled to such exception.”
The question we must consider, more specifically, is whether Fleuti’s short visit to Mexico can possibly be regarded, as a “departure to a foreign port or place . . . [that] was not intended,” within the meaning x»f the-exception to the term “entry” created by the statute. Whether the 1956 return was within that exception is crucial, because Fleuti concededly was not excludable as a “psychopathic personality” at the time of his 1952 entry.
The definition of “entry” as applied for various purposes in our immigration laws was evolved judicially, only becoming encased in statutory form with the inclusion of § 101 (a) (13) in the 1952 Act. In the early cases there was developed a judicial definition of “entry” which had harsh consequences for aliens. This viewpoint was expressed most restrictively in United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, in which the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice McReynolds, upheld deportation of an alien who, after 24 years of residence in this country following a lawful entry, was held to be excludable on his return from “a brie^ visit to Cuba,” id., at 423. The Court stated that “the word ‘entry’ . . . includes any coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States whether such coming be the first or any subsequent one.” Id., at 425. Although cases in the lower courts applying the strict re-entry doctrine to aliens who had. left the country for brief visits to Canada or Mexico or elsewhere were numerous, many courts, applied the doctrine in such instances with express reluctance and explicit recognition of its harsh consequences, and there were a few instances in which district judges refused to hold that aliens who had been absent from the country only briefly had made “entries” upon their return.
Reaction to the severe effects produced by adherence to the strict definition of “entry” resulted in a substantial inroad being made upon that definition in 1947 by a decision of the Second Circuit and a decision of this Court. The Second Circuit, in an' opinion by Judge Learned Hand, refused to allow a deportation which depended on the alien’s being regarded as having re-entered this country after having taken an overnight sleeper from Buffalo to Detroit on a route lying through Canada. Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878. Judge Hand'recognized that the alien “acquiesced in whatever route the railroad might choose to pull the car,” id., at 879, but held that it would be too harsh to impute the carrier’s intent to the alien, there being no showing that the alien knew he would be entering Canada. “Were it otherwise,” Judge Hand went on, “the alien would be subjected without means of protecting himself to the forfeiture of privileges which may be, and often are, of the most grave importance to him.” Ibid. If there were a duty upon aliens to inquire about a carrier’s route, it “would in practice become a trap, whose closing upon them would have no rational relation to anything they could foresee as-significant. We cannot believe that Congress meant to subject those who had acquired a residence, to the sport of chance, when the interests at stake may be so momentous.” Ibid. Concluding, Judge Hand said that if the alien’s return were held to be an “entry” under the circumstances, his “vested interest in his residence” would
“be forfeited because of perfectly lawful conduct which he could not possibly have supposed would result in anything of the sort. Caprice in the incidence of punishment is one of the indicia of tyranny, and nothing can be more disingenuous than to say that deportation in these circumstances is not punishment. It is well that we should be free to rid ourselves of those who abuse our hospitality.; but it is more important that the continued enjoyment of that hospitality once granted, shall not be subject to meaningless and irrational hazards.” Ibid.
Later the same year this Court, because of a conflict between Di Pasquale and Del Guercio v. Delgadillo, 159 F. 2d 130 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1947), granted certiorari in the latter case and reversed a deportation order affecting an alien who, upon rescue after his intercoastal merchant ship was torpedoed in the Caribbean during World War II, had been taken to Cuba to recuperate for a week before returning to this country. Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388. The Court pointed out that it was “the exigencies of war, not his voluntary act,” id., at 391, which put the alien on foreign soil, adding that “[w]e might as well hold that if he had been kidnapped and taken to Cuba, he made a statutory 'entry’ on his voluntary return. Respect for law does not thrive on captious interpretations.” Ibid. Since “[t]he stakes are indeed high and momentous for the alien who has acquired his residence here,” ibid., the Court held that
“[w]e will not attribute to Congress a purpose to make his right to remain here dependent on circumstances so fortuitous and capricious as those upon which the Immigration Service has here seized. The ha. ards to which we are now asked to subject the alien are too irrational to square with the statutory scheme.” Ibid.
The increased protection of returning resident aliens which-was brought about by the Delgadillo decision, both in its result and in its express approval of Di Pasquale, was reflected in at least two subsequent lower-court decisions' prior to the enactment of § 101 (a) (13). In Yukio Chai v. Bonham, 165 F. 2d 207 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1947), the court held that no “entry” had occurred after a ship carrying a resident alien back from seasonal cannery work in Alaska made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver, B. C., and in Carmichael v. Delaney, 170 F. 2d 239 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1948), the court held that a resident alien returning from wartime service with the United States Maritime Service during which he had stopped at many foreign ports made no “entry” because all of the movements of the ship to which he had been assigned were pursuant to Navy orders.
It was in light of all of these developments in the case law that § 101 (a) (13) was included in the immigration laws with the 1952 revision. As the House and Senate Committee Reports, the relevant material from which is quoted in the margin, make clear, the major congressional concern in codifying the definition of “entry” was with “the status of an alien who has previously entered the United States and resided therein . . . .” This concern was in the direction of ameliorating the harsh results visited upon resident aliens by the rule of United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, supra, as is indicated by the recognition that “the courts have departed from the rigidity of . . . [the earlier] rule,” and the statement that “[t]he bill . . . [gives] due recognition to the judicial precedents.” It must be. recognized, of course, that the only liberalizing decisions to which the Reports referred specifically were Di Pasquale and Delgadillo, and that there is no indication one way or the other in the legislative history of what Congress thought about the problem of resident aliens who leave the country for insignificantly short periods of time. Nevertheless, it requires but brief consideration of the policies underlying §101 (a) (13), and of certain other aspects of the rights of returning resident aliens, to conclude that Congress, in approving the judicial undermining of Volpe, supra, and the relief brought about by the Di Pasquale and Delgadillo decisions, could not have meant to limit the meaning of the exceptions it created in § 101 (a) (13) to the facts of those two cases.
The most basic guide to congressional intent as to the reach of the exceptions is the eloquent language of Di Pasquale and Delgadillo themselves, beginning with the recognition that the “interests at stake” for the resident alien are .“momentous,” 158 F. 2d, at 879, and that “[t]he stakes are indeed high and momentous for the alien who has acquired his residence here,” 332 U. S., at 391. This general premise of the two decisions impelled the more general conclusion that “it is . . . important that the continued enjoyment of . . . [our] hospitality once granted, shall not be subject to meaningless and irrational hazards.” 158 F. 2d, at 879. See also Delgadillo, supra, at .391. Coupling these essential principles of the two-decisions explicitly approved by Congress in enacting § 101 (a) (13) with the more general observation, appearing in Delgadillo as well as elsewhere, that “[d]eportation can be the equivalent of banishment or exile,” it is difficult to conceive that Congress meant its approval of the liberalization wrought by Di Pasquale and Delgadillo to be interpreted mechanistically to apply only to cases presenting factual situations identical to what was involved in those two decisions.
The idea that the exceptions to § 101 (a) (13) should be read nonrestrictively is given additional credence by the way in which the immigration laws define what constitutes “continuous residence” for an alien wishing to be naturalized. Section 316 of the 1952 Act, 66 Stat. 242-243, 8 U. S. C. § 1427, which liberalized previous law in some respects, provides that an alien who wishes to seek naturalization does not begin to endanger the five years of “continuous residence” in this country which must precede his application until he remains outside the .country for six months, and does not damage his position by cumulative temporary absences unless they total over half of the five years preceding the filing of his petition for naturalization. This enlightened concept of what constitutes a meaningful interruption of the continuous residence which must support a petition for naturalization, reflecting as it does a congressional judgment that an alien’s status is not necessarily to be endangered by his absence from the country, strengthens the foundation underlying a belief that the exceptions to § 101 (a) (13) should be read to protect resident aliens who are only briefly absent from the country. Of further, although less specific, effect in this regard is this Court’s holding in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, that the returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him, a holding which supports the general proposition that a resident alien who leaves this country is to be regarded as retaining certain basic rights.
Given that the congressional protection of returning resident aliens in § 101 (a) (13) is not to be woodenly construed, we turn specifically to construction of the exceptions contained in that section as they relate to resident aliens who leave the country briefly. What we face here is another harsh consequence of the strict “entry” doctrine which, while not governed directly by Delgadillo, nevertheless calls into play the same considerations, pp. 454-456; 458-459, supra, which led to the results specifically approved in the Congressional Committee Reports. It would be as “fortuitous and capricious,” and as “irrational to square with the statutory scheme,” Delgadillo, supra, at 391, to hold that an alien may necessarily be deported because he falls into one of the classes enumerated in § 212 (a) when he returns from “a couple hours” visit to Mexico as it would have been to uphold the order of deportation in Delgadillo: Certainly when an alien like Fleuti who has entered the country lawfully and has acquired a residence here steps across a border and, in effect, steps right back, subjecting him to exclusion for a condition for which he Could not have been deported had he remained in the country seems to be placing him at the mercy of the “sport of chance” and the “meaningless and irrational hazards” to which Judge Hand alluded. Di Pasquale, supra, at 879. In making such a casual trip the alien would seldom be aware that he was possibly walking into a trap, for the insignificance of a brief trip to Mexico or Canada bears little rational relation to the punitive consequence of subsequent excludability. There are, of course, valid policy reasons for saying that an alien wishing to retain his classification as a permanent resident of this country imperils his status by interrupting his residence too frequently or for an overly long period of time, but we discern no rational policy supporting application of a re-entry limitation in all cases in which a resident alien crosses an international border for a short visit. Certainly if that trip is innocent, casual, and brief, it is consistent with all the discernible signs of congressional purpose to hold that ihe “departure '. . . was not intended” within the meapiing and ameliorative intent of the exception to § 101 (a) (13). Congress unquestionably has the power to exclude all classes of undesirable aliens from this country, and the courts are charged with enforcing such exclusion when Congress has directed it, but we do not think Congress intended to exclude aliens long resident in this country after lawful entry who have merely stepped across an international border and returned in “about a couple of hours.” Such a holding would be inconsistent with' the general purpose of Congress in enacting § 101 (a) (13) to ameliorate the severe effects of the strict “entry” doctrine.
We conclude, then, that it effectuates congressional purpose to construe the intent exception to § 101 (a) (13) as meaning an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence. One major factor relevant to whether such intent can be inferred is, of course, the length of time the alien is absent. Another is the purpose of the visit, for if the purpose of leaving the country is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be regarded as meaningful. Still another is whether the alien has to procure any travel documents in order to make his trip, since the need to obtain such items might well cause the alien to consider more fully the implications involved in his leaving the country. Although the operation of these and other possibly relevant factors remains to be developed “by the-gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion,” Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 104, we declare today simply that an innocent, casual, and brief excursion by a resident alien outside this country’s borders may not have been “intended” as a departure disruptive of his resident alien status and therefore may not subject him to the consequences of an “entry” into' the country on his return. The more civilized application of our immigration laws given recognition by Congress in § 101 (a) (13) and other provisions of the 1952 Act protects the resident alien from unsuspected risks and unintended consequences pf such a wholly innocent action. Respondent here, so'far as appear^ from the record, is among those to be protected. However, because attention waá not'previously focused upon the application of § 101 (a) (13) to the case, the record contains no detailed description or characterization of his trip to Mexico in 1956, except for his testimony that he was gone “about a couple hours,” and that he was “just visiting; taking a trip.” That being the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the case for further consideration of the application of § 101 (a) (13) to this ease in light of our discussion herein. If it is determined that respondent did not “intend” to depart in the sense contemplated by § 101 (a) (13), the deportation order will not stand and adjudication of the constitutional issue reached by the court below will be obviated. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore vacated and the case remanded with directions that the parties be given leave to amend their pleadings to putin issue the question of “entry” in accordance with the foregoing, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
So ordered.
Although there is dictum on the point of Bonetti v. Rogers, 356 U. S. 691, 698-699, We regard it as not fully considered, since resolution of the issue was not crucial to decision of the case. Compare Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 213.
The 1952 Act became effective on December 24, 1952, and Fleuti entered the country for permanent residence on October 9, 1952, a fact which is of significance because §241 (a)(1) of the Act only commands the deportation of aliens “excludable by .the law existing at' the time of such entry ...” Hence, since respondent’s homosexuality did not make him excludable by any law existing at the time of his 1952 entry, it is critical to determine whether his return from a few hours in Mexico in 1956 was an “entry” in the statutory sense. If it was not, the question whether § 212 (a) (4) could constitutionally be applied to him need not be resolved.
Previous cases which contain the same general kind of language, but which are distinguishable on their facts, are Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78; Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279; and United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129. The only one of these cases which involved an absence from the country as extremely brief as Fleuti’s is Lewis v. Frick, and in that case deportation was premised on the fact that on his return from the trip in issue the alien had sought to bring a woman into the country for an immoral purpose. 233 U. S., at 297-300.
E. g., Ex parte Parianos, 23 F. 2d 918 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1928); United States ex rel. Medich v. Burmaster, 24 F. 2d 57 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1928); Cahan v. Carr, 47 F. 2d 604 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1931), cert. denied, 283 U. S. 862; Zurbrick v. Borg, 47 F. 2d 690 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1931); Taguchi v. Carr, 62 F. 2d 307 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1932); Ward v. De Barros, 75 F. 2d 34 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1935); Guarneri v. Kessler, 98 F. 2d 580 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 305 U. S. 648; Del Castillo v. Carr, 100 F. 2d 338 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1938); United States ex rel. Kowalenski v. Flynn, 17 F. 2d 524 (D. C. W. D. N. Y. 1927); United States ex rel. Siegel v. Reimer, 23 F. Supp. 643 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), aff’d, 97 F. 2d 1020 (C. A. 2d Cir. 4938).
E. g., Jackson v. Zurbrick, 59 F. 2d 937 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1932) ; Zurbrick v. Woodhead, 90 F. 2d 991 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1937); United States ex rel. Ueberall v. Williams, 187 F. 470 (D. C. S. D. N, Y. 1911); Guimond v. Howes, 9 F. 2d 412 (D. C. D. Maine 1925); Ex parte Piazzola, 18 F. 2d 114 (D. C. W. D. N. Y. 1926).
In re Michael Bonadino, D. C. W. D. N. Y., unreported, Dec. 20, 1924; United States ex rel. Valenti v. Karmuth, 1 F. Supp. 370 (D. C. N. D. N. Y. 1932); Annello ex rel. Annello v. Ward, 8 F. Supp. 797 (D. C. D. Mass. 1934).
It should be pointed out, however, that the Ninth Circuit has, subsequent to the decisions cited in the text, held specifically that length of time outside the country is still irrelevant to the question of “entry.” Schoeps v. Carmichael, 177 F. 2d 391 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U. S. 914; Pimental-Navarro v. Del Guercio, 256 F. 2d 877 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1958).
The House and Senate Committee Reports preceding enactment of the bill both contained the following relevant paragraph:
“Section 101 (a)(13) defines the term ‘entry.’ Frequent reference is made to the term ‘entry’ in the immigration laws, and many consequences relating to the entry and departure of aliens flow from its use, but the term is not precisely defined in the present law. Normally an entry occurs when the alien crosses the border of the United States and makes a physical entry, and the question of whether an entry has been made is susceptible of a precise determination. However, for- the purposes of determining the effect of a subsequent entry upon the status of an alien who has previously entered the United States and resided therein, the preciseness of the term ‘entry’ has not been found to be as apparent. Earlier judicial constructions of the term in the immigration laws, as set forth in Volpe v. Smith (289 U. S. 422 (1933)), generally held that the term ‘entry’ included any. coming of an alien from a, foreign. country to the United States whether such coming be the first or a subsequent one. More recently, the courts have departed.from the rigidity of that rule and have recognized that an alien does not make an entry upon his return to the United States from a foreign country where he had no intent to leave the United States (Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878 (C. C. A. 2d 1947)), or did not leave the country voluntarily (Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388 (1947)). The bill defines the term ‘entry’ as precisely as practicable, giving due recognition to the judicial precedents. Thus any. coming of an alien from a foreign port or place or an outlying possession into the United States is to be considered an entry, whether voluntary or otherwise, unless the Attorney General is satisfied that the departure of the alien, other than a deportee, from, this country was unintentional or was not voluntary.” H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1952) ; S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1952).
See Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284; Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 147; Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10; Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U. S. 637, 642-643.
Compare Bernard, American Immigration Policy (1950), 296; Gordon, When Does an Alien Enter the United States? 9 Fed. B. J. 248, 250, 258-259 (1948); Hofstein, The Returning Resident Alien, 10 Intra. L. Rev. 271, 273, 280 (1955); Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration (1953), 92; Maslow, Recasting Our Deportation Law: Proposals for Reform, 56 Col. L. Rev. 309, 327-329 (1956); Report of the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, Whom We Shall Welcome (1953), 179-180, 199-200; Note, Rights of Aliens in Exclusion Proceedings, 3 Utah L. Rev. 349, 350 n. 20 (1953); Note, Limitations on Congressional Power to Deport Resident Aliens Excludable as Psychopaths at Time of Entry, 68 Yale L. J. 931,937-938 n. 25 (1959).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we address the question whether the statutory-review scheme in the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1290, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV) (Mine Act or Act), prevents a district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a pre-enforcement challenge to the Act. We hold that it does.
I
Congress adopted the Mine Act “to protect the health and safety of the Nation’s' coal or other miners.” 30 U. S. C. § 801(g). The Act requires the Secretary of Labor or his representative to conduct periodic, unannounced health and safety inspections of the Nation’s mines. Section § 813(f) provides:
“[A] representative of the operator and a representative authorized by his miners shall be given an opportunity to accompany the Secretary or his authorized representative during the physical inspection of any coal or other mine... for the purpose of aiding such inspection and to participate in pre- or post-inspection conferences held at the mine.”
Regulations promulgated under this section define a miners’ representative as “[a]ny person or organization which represents two or more miners at a coal or other mine for the purposes of the Act.” 30 CFR § 40.1(b)(1) (1993).
In addition to exercising these “walk-around” inspection rights under § 813(f), persons designated as representatives of the miners may obtain certain health and safety information and promote health and safety enforcement. Once the mine employees designate one or more persons as their representatives, the employer must post at the mine information regarding these designees. 30 CFR § 40.4.
The Secretary has broad authority to compel immediate compliance with Mine Act provisions through the use of mandatory civil penalties, discretionary daily civil penalties, and other sanctions. Challenges to enforcement are reviewed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 30 U. S. C. §§815 and 823, which is independent of the Department of Labor, and by the appropriate United States court of appeals, § 816.
II
Petitioner Thunder Basin Coal Company operates a surface coal mine in Wyoming with approximately 500 nonunion employees. In 1990, petitioner’s employees selected two employees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), who were not employees of the mine, to serve as their miners’ representatives pursuant to § 813(f). Petitioner did not post the information regarding the miners’ representatives as required by 30 CFR §40.4, but complained to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) that the designation compromised its rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). App. 31. The MSHA district manager responded with a letter instructing petitioner to post the miners’ representative designations. Id., at 49.
Rather than post the designations and before receiving the MSHA letter, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming for pre-enforcement injunctive relief. Id., at 6. Petitioner contended that the designation of nonemployee UMWA “representatives” violated the principles of collective-bargaining representation under the NLRA as well as the company’s NLRA rights to exclude union organizers from its property. Id., at 9-10. Petitioner argued then, as it does here, that deprivation of these rights would harm the company irreparably by “giving] the union organizing advantages in terms of access, personal contact and knowledge that would not be available under the labor laws, as well as enhanced credibility flowing from the appearance of government imprimatur.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 14.
Petitioner additionally alleged that requiring it to challenge the MSHA’s interpretation of 30 U. S. C. § 813(f) and 30 CFR pt. 40 through the statutory-review process would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since the company would be forced to choose between violating the Act and incurring possible escalating daily penalties, or, on the other hand, complying with the designations and suffering irreparable harm. The District Court enjoined respondents from enforcing 30 CFR pt. 40, finding that petitioner had raised serious questions going to the merits and that it might face irreparable harm.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the Mine Act’s comprehensive enforcement and administrative-review scheme precluded district court jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims. 969 F. 2d 970 (1992). The court stated:
“[T]he gravamen of Thunder Basin’s case is a dispute over an anticipated citation and penalty____ Operators may not avoid the Mine Act’s administrative review process simply by filing in a district court before actually receiving an anticipated citation, order, or assessment of penalty.” Id., at 975.
To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, “would permit preemptive strikes that could seriously hamper effective enforcement of the Act, disrupting the review scheme Congress intended.” Ibid. The court also concluded that the Mine Act’s review procedures adequately protected petitioner’s due process rights. Ibid.
We granted certiorari on the jurisdictional question, 507 U. S. 971 (1993), to resolve a claimed conflict with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan, 774 F. 2d 693 (1985), amended, 781 F. 2d 57 (1986).
III
In cases involving delayed judicial review of final agency actions, we shall find that Congress has allocated initial review to an administrative body where such intent is “fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 351 (1984), quoting Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 157 (1970). Whether a statute is intended to preclude initial judicial review is determined from the statute’s language, structure, and purpose, its legislative history, Block, 467 U. S., at 345, and whether the claims can be afforded meaningful review. See, e. g., Board of Governors, FRS v. MCorp Financial, Inc., 502 U. S. 32 (1991); Whitney Nat. Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U. S. 411 (1965).
A
Applying this analysis to the review scheme before us, we conclude that the Mine Act precludes district court jurisdiction over the pre-enforcement challenge made here. The Act establishes a detailed structure for reviewing violations of “any mandatory health or safety standard, rule, order, or regulation promulgated” under the Act. § 814(a). A mine operator has 30 days to challenge before the Commission any citation issued under the Act, after which time an uncontested order becomes “final” and “not subject to review by any court or agency.” §§ 815(a) and (d). Timely challenges are heard before an administrative law judge (AU), § 823(d)(1), with possible Commission review. Only the Commission has authority actually to impose civil penalties proposed by the Secretary, § 820(i), and the Commission reviews all proposed civil penalties de novo according to six criteria. The Commission may grant temporary relief pending review of most orders, § 815(b)(2), and must expedite review where necessary, § 815(d).
Mine operators may challenge adverse Commission decisions in the appropriate court of appeals, § 816(a)(1), whose jurisdiction “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” except for possible Supreme Court review, ibid. The court of appeals must uphold findings of the Commission that are substantially supported by the record, ibid., but may grant temporary relief pending final determination of most proceedings, § 816(2).
Although the statute establishes that the Commission and the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to agency enforcement proceedings, the Act is facially silent with respect to pre-enforcement claims. The structure of the Mine Act, however, demonstrates that Congress intended to preclude challenges such as the present one. The Act’s comprehensive review process does not distinguish between pre-enforcement and postenforcement challenges, but applies to all violations of the Act and its regulations. § 814(a). Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, Reply Brief for Petitioner 3, actions before the Commission are initiated not by the Secretary but by a mine operator who claims to be aggrieved. See § 815(a). The Act expressly authorizes district court jurisdiction in only two provisions, §§ 818(a) and 820(j), which respectively empower the Secretary to enjoin habitual violations of health and safety standards and to coerce payment of civil penalties. Mine operators enjoy no corresponding right but are to complain to the Commission and then to the court of appeals.
B
The legislative history of the Mine Act confirms this interpretation. At the time of the Act’s passage, at least 1 worker was killed and 66 miners were disabled every working day in the Nation’s mines. See S. Rep. No. 95-181, p. 4 (1977), Legislative History of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Committee Print prepared for the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Human Resources), Ser. No. 95-2, p. 592 (1978) (Leg. Hist.). Frequent and tragic mining disasters testified to the ineffectiveness of then-existing enforcement measures. Under existing legislation, civil penalties were not always mandatory and were too low to compel compliance, and enforcement was hobbled by a cumbersome review process.
Congress expressed particular concern that under the previous Coal Act mine operators could contest civil-penalty assessments de novo in federal district court once the administrative review process was complete, thereby “seriously hampering] the collection of civil penalties.” Concluding that “rapid abatement of violations is essential for the protection of miners,” Leg. Hist. 618, Congress accordingly made improved penalties and enforcement measures a primary goal of the Act.
The 1977 Mine Act thus strengthened and streamlined health and safety enforcement requirements. The Act authorized the Secretary to compel payment of penalties and to enjoin habitual health and safety violators in federal district court. See Leg. Hist. 627; 30 U. S. C. §§ 820(j) and 818(a). Assessment of civil penalties was made mandatory for all mines, and Congress expressly eliminated the power of a mine operator to challenge a final penalty assessment de novo in district court. Cf. Whitney Nat. Bank, 379 U. S., at 420 (that “Congress rejected a proposal for a de novo review in the district courts of Board decisions” supports a finding of district court preclusion). We consider the legislative history and these amendments to be persuasive evidence that Congress intended to direct ordinary challenges under the Mine Act to a single review process.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136 (1967), is not to the contrary. In that case, this Court held that statutory review of certain provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended by the Drug Amendments of 1962, 76 Stat. 780, 21 U. S. C. §301 et seq., did not preclude district court jurisdiction over a preenforcement challenge to regulations promulgated under separate provisions of that Act. In so holding, the Court found that the presence of a statutory saving clause, see 387 U. S., at 144, and the statute’s legislative history demonstrated “rather conclusively that the specific review provisions were designed to give an additional remedy and not to cut down more traditional channels of review,” id., at 142. It concluded that Congress’ primary concern in adopting the administrative-review procedures was to supplement review of specific agency determinations over which traditional forms of review might be inadequate. Id., at 142-144. Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, no comparable statutory language or legislative intent is present here. Indeed, as discussed above, the Mine Act’s text and legislative history suggest precisely the opposite. The prospect that federal jurisdiction might thwart effective enforcement of the statute also was less immediate in Abbott Laboratories, since the Abbott petitioners did not attempt to stay enforcement of the challenged regulation pending judicial review, as petitioner did here. Id., at 155-156.
C
We turn to the question whether petitioner’s claims are of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within this statutory structure. This Court previously has upheld district court jurisdiction over claims considered “wholly ‘collateral’” to a statute’s review provisions and outside the agency’s expertise, Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 618 (1984), discussing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), particularly where a finding of preclusion could foreclose all meaningful judicial review. See Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U. S. 535, 544-545 (1988) (statutory prohibition of all judicial review of Veterans Administration benefits determinations did not preclude jurisdiction over an otherwise unreviewable collateral statutory claim); Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 678-680 (1986); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 373-374 (1974); Oestereich v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U. S. 233, 237-238 (1968); Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184, 190 (1958) (upholding injunction of agency action where petitioners had “no other means, within their control... to protect and enforce that right”). In Mathews v. Eldridge, for example, it was held that 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before the denial of Social Security disability benefits may be challenged in district court, was not intended to bar federal jurisdiction over a due process challenge that was “entirely collateral” to the denial of benefits, 424 U. S., at 330, and where the petitioner had made a colorable showing that full postdeprivation relief could not be obtained, id., at 331.
McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U. S. 479 (1991), similarly held that an alien could bring a due process challenge to Immigration and Naturalization Service amnesty determination procedures, despite an Immigration and Nationality Act provision expressly limiting judicial review of individual amnesty determinations to deportation or exclusion proceedings. See 8 U. S. C. § 1160(e). This Court held that the statutory language did not evidence an intent to preclude broad “pattern and practice” challenges to the program, 498 U. S., at 494, 497, and acknowledged that “if not allowed to pursue their claims in the District Court, respondents would not as a practical matter be able to obtain meaningful judicial review,” id., at 496.
An analogous situation is not presented here. Petitioner pressed two primary claims below: that the UMWA designation under § 813(f) violates the principles of collective bargaining under the NLRA and petitioner’s right “to exclude nonemployee union organizers from [its] property,” Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U. S. 527, 532 (1992), and that adjudication of petitioner’s claims through the statutory-review provisions will violate due process by depriving petitioner of meaningful review. Petitioner’s statutory claims at root require interpretation of the parties’ rights and duties under § 813(f) and 30 CFR pt. 40, and as such arise under the Mine Act and fall squarely within the Commission’s expertise. The Commission, which was established as an independent-review body to “develop a uniform and comprehensive interpretation” of the Mine Act, Hearing on the Nomination of Members of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission before the Senate Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1978), has extensive experience interpreting the walk-around rights and recently addressed the precise NLRA claims presented here. Although the Commission has no particular expertise in construing statutes other than the Mine Act, we conclude that exclusive review before the Commission is appropriate since “agency expertise [could] be brought to bear on” the statutory questions presented here. Whitney Nat. Bank, 379 U. S., at 420.
As for petitioner’s constitutional claim, we agree that “[adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought beyond the jurisdiction of administrative agencies,” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S., at 368, quoting Oestereich v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U. S., at 242 (Harlan, J., concurring in result); accord, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U. S. 99, 109 (1977). This rule is not mandatory, however, and is perhaps of less consequence where, as here, the reviewing body is not the agency itself but an independent Commission established exclusively to adjudicate Mine Act disputes. See Secretary v. Richardson, 3 F. M. S. H. R. C. 8, 18-20 (1981). The Commission has addressed constitutional questions in previous enforcement proceedings. Even if this were not the case, however, petitioner’s statutory and constitutional claims here can be meaningfully addressed in the Court of Appeals.
We conclude that the Mine Act’s comprehensive enforcement structure, combined with the legislative history’s clear concern with channeling and streamlining the enforcement process, establishes a “fairly discernible” intent to preclude district court review in the present case. See Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S., at 351. Petitioner’s claims are “pre-enforcement” only because the company sued before a citation was issued, and its claims turn on a question of statutory interpretation that can be meaningfully reviewed under the Mine Act. Had petitioner persisted in its refusal to post the designation, the Secretary would have been required to issue a citation and commence enforcement proceedings. See 30 U. S. C. §§ 815(a) and 820 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Nothing in the language and structure of the Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to allow mine operators to evade the statutory-review process by enjoining the Secretary from commencing enforcement proceedings, as petitioner sought to do here. To uphold the District Court’s jurisdiction in these circumstances would be inimical to the structure and the purposes of the Mine Act.
IV
Petitioner finally contends, in the alternative, that due process requires district court review because the absence of pre-enforcement declaratory relief before the Commission will subject petitioner to serious and irreparable harm. We need not consider this claim, however, because neither com-. pliance with, nor continued violation of, the statute will subject petitioner to a serious prehearing deprivation.
The record before us contains no evidence that petitioner will be subject to serious harm if it complies with 30 U. S. C. § 813(f) and 30 CFR pt. 40 by posting the designations, and the potential for abuse of the miners’ representative position appears limited. As the district manager of the MSHA stated to petitioner, designation as a miners’ representative does not convey “an uncontrolled access right to the mine property to engage in any activity that the miners’ representative wants.” App. 49. Statutory inspections of petitioner’s mine need occur only twice annually and are conducted with representatives of the Secretary and the operator. Because the miners’ representative cannot receive advance notice of an inspection, the ability of the non-employee UMWA designees to exercise these limited walk-around rights is speculative.'See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31; Brief for International Union, UMWA, as Amicus Curiae 11, n. 2. Although it is possible that a miners’ representative could abuse his privileges, we agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such abuse, entirely hypothetical on the record before us, cannot be remedied on an individual basis under the Mine Act. See 969 F. 2d, at 976-977, and n. 6; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 897 F. 2d 447, 452 (CA10 1990); Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Secretary, 15 F. M. S. H. R. C. 352, 361-362 (1993).
Nor will petitioner face any serious prehearing deprivation if it refuses to post the designations while challenging the Secretary’s interpretation. Although the Act’s civil penalties unquestionably may become onerous if petitioner chooses not to comply, the Secretary’s penalty assessments become final and payable only after full review by both the Commission and the appropriate court of appeals. 30 U. S. C. §§ 820(i) and 816. A mine operator may request that the Commission expedite its proceedings, § 815(d), and temporary relief of certain orders is available from the Commission and the court of appeals. §§ 815(b)(2) and 816(a)(2). Thus, this case does not present the situation confronted in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123,148 (1908), in which the practical effect of coercive penalties for noncompliance was to foreclose all access to the courts. Nor does this approach a situation in which compliance is sufficiently onerous and coercive penalties sufficiently potent that a constitutionally intolerable choice might be presented.
V
We conclude that the Mine Act’s administrative structure was intended to preclude district court jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims and that those claims can be meaningfully reviewed through that structure consistent with due process. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Underground mines must be inspected at least four times a year, and surface mines must be inspected at least twice annually. 30 U. S. C. § 813(a).
Miners’ representatives are entitled to receive “a copy of any order, citation, notice, or decision” issued by the Secretary to the mine operator, 30 U. S. C. § 819(b), as well as copies of certain mine health and safety records available to the Secretary regarding employee exposure to toxic or other harmful agents, § 813(c), daily mine inspections, 30 CFR § 77.1713, and plans for mine evacuation, §77.1101, roof control, §75.220, and employee training, §§ 48.3 and 48.23.
Miners’ representatives, among other things, may inform the Secretary of mine hazards, 30 U. S. C. § 813(g)(2), request immediate additional inspections of the mine when a violation or imminent danger exists, § 813(g)(1), and participate in proceedings before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, § 815(d). Representatives may request or challenge certain enforcement actions against a mine operator, §§ 815(d) and 817(e)(1), contest the time an operator is given to abate a Mine Act violation, § 815(d), and initiate proceedings to modify the application of health and safety standards, 30 CFR § 44.3.
The Secretary must issue a citation and recommend assessment of a civil penalty of up to $50,000 against any mine operator believed to have violated the Act. 30 U. S. C. §§ 814(a), 815(a), and 820(a). If an operator fails to abate the violation within the time allotted, the Secretary may assess additional daily civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day pending abatement. § 820(b). The Secretary’s representative also may issue a “withdrawal order,” directing all individuals to withdraw from the affected mine area, §§ 814(b) and (d), or pursue criminal penalties, § 820(d).
The MSHA is established within the Department of Labor and represents the Secretary in enforcing the Mine Act. 91 Stat. 1319, 29 U. S. C. § 557a.
Petitioner relied for this proposition on a similar case in which a mine operator refused to post the designation of a UMWA employee, a citation was issued, and the MSHA ordered abatement within 24 hours and threatened to impose daily civil penalties. See Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Secretary, 15 F. M. S. H. R. C. 352 (1993), appeal pending, No. 93-1250 (CADC). Kerr-McGee complied but contested the citation. An administrative law judge rejected the operator’s claim, and the Commission affirmed, holding that § 813(f) did not violate the NLRA. 15 F M. S. H. R. C., at 362-363. The Commission eventually fined Kerr-McGee a total of $300 for its noncompliance.
App. to Pet. for Cert. A-24. Before the Court of Appeals ruled on the appeal from the preliminary injunction, the District Court held a trial and entered a permanent injunction in favor of petitioner. See Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Martin, No. 91-CV-0050-B (D. Wyo., Mar. 13, 1992). The Court of Appeals subsequently denied petitioner’s motion to stay appeal of the preliminary injunction and to consolidate the two cases, finding conclusive its holding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. 969 F. 2d 970, 973, n. 3 (CA10 1992).
Because court of appeals review is available, this case does not implicate “ ‘the strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review.’ ” Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 672 (1986), quoting Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560, 567 (1975).
30 U. S. C. § 823(d)(2). The Commission exercises discretionary review over any case involving, among others, a “substantial question of law, policy or discretion,” § 823(d)(2)(A)(ii)(IV), and may review on its own initiative any decision “contrary to law or Commission policy” or in which “a novel question of policy has been presented,” § 823(d)(2)(B). Any ALJ decision not granted review by the Commission within 40 days becomes a “final decision of the Commission.” § 823(d)(1).
The statutory criteria are “the operator’s history of previous violations, the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the operator charged, whether the operator was negligent, the effect on the operator’s ability to continue in business, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance.” 30 U. S. C. §820(i).
Petitioner points to § 960, which provides that “no justice, judge, or court of the United States shall” enjoin enforcement of interim mandatory-health and safety standards, and to § 815(a), which provides that citations not contested in a timely manner are “not subject to review by any court or agency,” as evidence that Congress expressly prohibited federal jurisdiction when it so intended. Petitioner misconstrues § 960, which bars a certain form of relief but says nothing about the appropriate forum for a challenge. Section 815(a) similarly provides only that failure timely to challenge a citation precludes review before the Commission and court of appeals; it does not suggest that district court review is otherwise available. In light of the Act’s other provisions granting district courts jurisdiction over challenges brought only by the Secretary, §§ 818(a) and 820(j), petitioner’s argument based on the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is unpersuasive.
In February 1972, for example, 125 persons were killed when a mine dam broke at Buffalo Creek in West Virginia. Leg. Hist. 592. See generally G. Stern, The Buffalo Creek Disaster (1976). Ninety-one miners died of carbon monoxide asphyxiation in May 1972 at the Sunshine Silver Mine in Idaho. In July 1972, nine miners were killed in a mine fire in Blacks-ville, W. Va., and in March 1976, 23 miners and 3 federal inspectors died in methane gas explosions at the Scotia coal mine in Kentucky. Ibid.
The House and Senate Committee Reports observed that these accidents resulted from hazards that were remediable and that in many cases already had been the object of repeated enforcement efforts. See generally Leg. Hist. 362, 371, 592-593, 637. The 1972 Buffalo Creek disaster, for example, occurred after the mine had been assessed over $1.5 million in penalties, “not one cent of which had been paid.” Id., at 631. Sixty-two ventilation violations were noted in the two years prior to the Scotia gas explosions, but the imposed penalties failed to coerce compliance. Id., at 629-630.
The 1977 Mine Act renamed and amended the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (Coal- Act), 91 Stat. 1290, and repealed the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966, id., at 1322.
The Senate Report found it “unacceptable that years after enactment of these mine safety laws... [m]ine operators still find it cheaper to pay minimal civil penalties than to make the capital investments necessary to adequately abate unsafe or unhealthy conditions, and there is still' no means by which the government can bring habitual and chronic violators of the law into compliance.” Leg. Hist. 592; see also id., at 597.
Id., at 633. The Senate Report explained:
“The Committee firmly believes that to effectively induce compliance, the penalty must be paid by the operator in reasonably close time proximity to the occurrence of the underlying violation. A number of problems with the current penalty assessment and collection system interfere with this. Final determinations of penalties are not self-enforcing, and operators have the right to seek judicial review of penalty determinations, and may request a de novo trial on the issues in the U. S. District Courts. This encourages operators who are not pre-disposed to voluntarily pay assessed penalties to pursue cases through the elaborate administrative procedure and then to seek redress in the Courts. Since the District Courts are still reluctant to schedule trials on these cases, and the Department of Justice has been reluctant to pursue such cases in the courts, the matters generally languish at that stage, and the penalties go uncollected.” Id., at 604.
The Senate Report’s citation, see Leg. Hist. 602, of Bituminous Coal Operators’ Assn. v. Secretary of Interior, 547 F. 2d 240 (CA4 1977) (holding that pre-enforcement district court challenges were not precluded under the 1969 Coal Act), does not support petitioner’s claim that Congress intended to preserve district court jurisdiction over pre-enforcement suits. That case was cited for an unrelated proposition and does not constitute a “settled judicial construction” that Congress presumptively preserved. United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48, 55, n. 13 (1964); see also Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 207-209 (1993).
See Cyprus Empire Corp. v. Secretary, 15 F. M. S. H. R. C. 10 (1993) (striking workers’ entitlement to walk-around representation); Council of Southern Mountains, Inc. v. Martin County Coal Corp., 6 F. M. S. H. R. C. 206 (1984), aff’d sub nom. Council of Southern Mountains, Inc. v. FMS-HRC, 751 F. 2d 1418 (CADC 1985) (nonemployee miners’ representative entitlement to monitor training courses at the mine); Magma Copper Co. v. Secretary, 1 F. M. S. H. R. C. 1948 (1979), aff’d in part, 645 F. 2d 694 (CA9 1981) (compensation for multiple miners’ representatives).
See Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Secretary, 15 F. M. S. H. R. C. 352 (1993). The Commission concluded that there was “no basis” for limiting the designation of miners’ representatives to “member[s] of a union that also represents the miners for collective bargaining purposes under the NLRA,” id., at 361, since the “discrete safety and health purpose of the Mine Act.... render these NLRA principles inapplicable here,” id., at 362. The Commission noted that the preamble to 30 CFR pt. 40 expressly disapproves incorporation of the NLRA’s majoritarian representation principles, 15 F. M. S. H. R. C., at 359, and n. 8, and rejected petitioner’s property-rights claim, since “Lechmere does not reverse walkaround law as it has developed under the Mine Act.” Id., at 362. Cf. Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary, 10 F. M. S. H. R. C. 276 (1988), aff’d in part and rev’d in part sub nom. Utah Power & Light Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 897 F. 2d 447 (CA10 1990) (construing the Mine Act in light of the NLRA and concluding that a miners’ representative may be a nonemployee).
See Secretary v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 9 F. M. S. H. R. C. 1305, 1306-1307 (1987), aff’d, 920 F. 2d 738 (CA11 1990) (due process); Secretary v. Alabama By-Products Corp., 4 F. M. S. H. R. C. 2128, 2129-2130 (1982) (vagueness); Secretary v. Richardson, 3 F. M. S. H. R. C. 8, 21-28 (1981) (equal protection). Kaiser Coal Corp. v. Secretary, 10 F. M. S. H. R. C. 1165 (1988), does not suggest otherwise, but simply held that declaratory relief from the Commission was unavailable for a question already under consideration in the Court of Appeals.
Cf. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 762 (1975). This case thus does not present the “serious constitutional question” that would arise if an agency statute were construed to preclude all judicial review of a constitutional claim. See Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 681, n. 12 (1986).
Without addressing the merits of petitioner’s underlying claim, we note that petitioner appears to misconstrue Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U. S. 527 (1992). The right of employers to exclude union organizers from their private property emanates from state common law, and while this right is not superseded by the NLRA, nothing in the NLRA expressly protects it. To the contrary, this Court consistently has maintained that the NLRA may entitle union employees to obtain access to an employer’s property under limited circumstances. See id., at 537; NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105, 112 (1956). Moreover, in a related context, the Court has held that Congress’ interest in regulating the mining industry may justify limiting the private property interests of mine operators. See Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594 (1981) (unannounced Mine Act inspections do not violate the Fourth Amendment).
We note that petitioner expressly disavows any abstract challenge to the Mine Act’s statutory review scheme, but limits its due process claim to the present
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This tort action was removed from the Texas state courts to the United States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship but was remanded as having been “improperly removed” when it seemed that there was not complete diversity among the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by mandamus, ordered the District Court to vacate its remand order because the latter had employed erroneous principles in concluding that it was without jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals erred. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (c) provides for remanding a removed action when the district court determines that “the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction”; and when a remand has been ordered on these grounds, 28 U. S. C. § 1447 (d) unmistakably commands that the order “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .” The District Court’s remand order was plainly within the bounds of § 1447 (c) and hence was unreviewable by the Court of Appeals, by mandamus or otherwise. Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336 (1976), is not to the contrary, for there the District Court remanded “on grounds wholly different from those upon which § 1447 (c) permits remand." Id., at 344. Thermtron did not question but re-emphasized the rule that § 1447 (c) remands are not reviewable.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Petitioner LaRoyce Lathair Smith was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas County, Texas. Before the jury reached its sentence, the trial judge issued a supplemental “nullification instruction.” Ex parte Smith, 132 S. W. 3d 407, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). That instruction directed the jury to give effect to mitigation evidence, but allowed the jury to do so only by negating what would otherwise be affirmative responses to two special issues relating to deliberateness and future dangerousness. In Penry v. Johnson, 532 U. S. 782 (2001) (Penry II), we held a similar “nullification instruction” constitutionally inadequate because it did not allow the jury to give “ ‘full consideration and full effect to mitigating circumstances’” in choosing the defendant’s appropriate sentence. Id., at 797 (quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350, 381 (1993) (O’Connor, J., dissenting)). Despite our holding in Penry II, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected petitioner’s request for postconviction relief. The court reasoned that the instruction either was irrelevant because petitioner did not proffer “constitutionally significant” mitigation evidence, or was sufficiently distinguishable from the instruction in Penry II to survive constitutional scrutiny. 132 S. W. 3d, at 413, n. 21. We grant the petition for certiorari and petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and reverse.
I
In 1991, petitioner was convicted of brutally murdering one of his former co-workers at a Taco Bell in Dallas County. The victim and one of her co-workers were closing down the restaurant when petitioner and several friends asked to be let in to use the telephone. The two employees recognized petitioner and let him in. Petitioner then told his former co-workers to leave because he wanted to rob the restaurant. When they did not leave, petitioner killed one co-worker by pistol-whipping her and shooting her in the back. Petitioner also threatened, but did not harm, his other former coworker before exiting with his friends. The jury found petitioner guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the punishment phase, the jury was instructed on two special issues: first, whether the killing was deliberate; and second, whether the defendant posed a continuing danger to others. Approximately two years prior to the trial, we had held that presenting only these two special issues, without additional instructions regarding the jury’s duty to consider mitigation evidence, violated the Eighth Amendment. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 328 (1989) (Penry I). Shortly after petitioner’s trial, the Texas Legislature amended its capital sentencing scheme to require juries to take “into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant” in deciding whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence. Penry II, supra, at 803 (quoting Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(2)(e)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2001)). Petitioner, however, did not receive the benefit of the new statutory instruction at his trial. Instead, just as in Penry II, petitioner was sentenced pursuant to a supplemental instruction provided to the jury by the trial judge. That instruction read:
“ ‘You are instructed that you shall consider any evidence which, in your opinion, is mitigating. Mitigating evidence is evidence that reduces the Defendant’s personal or moral culpability or blameworthiness, and may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the Defendant’s character, record, background, or circumstances of the offense for which you have found him guilty. Our law does not specify what may or may not be considered as mitigating evidence. Neither does our law provide a formula for determining how much weight, if any, a mitigating circumstance deserves. You may hear evidence which, in your judgment, has no relationship to any of the Special Issues, but if you find such evidence is mitigating under these instructions, you shall consider it in the following instructions of the Court. You, and each of you, are the sole judges of what evidence, if any, is mitigating and how much weight, if any, the mitigating circumstances, if any, including those which have no relationship to any of the Special Issues, deserves.
“‘In answering the Special Issues submitted to you herein, if you believe that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the answers to the Special Issues are “Yes,” and you also believe from the mitigating evidence, if any, that the Defendant should not be sentenced to death, then you shall answer at least one of the Special Issues “No” in order to give effect to your belief that the death penalty should not be imposed due to the mitigating evidence presented to you. In this regard, you are further instructed that the State of Texas must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death sentence should be imposed despite the mitigating evidence, if any, admitted before you.
“‘You are instructed that you may deliberate as a body about mitigating circumstances, but you are not required to reach a unanimous verdict as to their existence or weight. When you vote about the Special Issues, each of you must decide for yourself whether mitigating circumstances exist and, if so, how much weight they deserve.’” 132 S. W. 3d, at 409.
Employing the framework of special issues modified by the supplemental nullification instruction, the jury considered a variety of mitigation evidence. Petitioner presented evidence that (1) he had been diagnosed with potentially organic learning disabilities and speech handicaps at an early age; (2) he had a verbal IQ score of 75 and a full IQ of 78 and, as a result, had been in special education classes throughout most of his time in school; (3) despite his low IQ and learning disabilities, his behavior at school was often exemplary; (4) his father was a drug addict who was involved with gang violence and other criminal activities, and regularly stole money from family members to support a drug addiction; and (5) he was only 19 when he committed the crime.
In response, the prosecution submitted evidence demonstrating that petitioner acted deliberately and cruelly. The prosecution emphasized that petitioner knew his victim, yet stabbed her repeatedly in numerous places on her body. With respect to petitioner’s future dangerousness, the prosecution stressed that petitioner had previously been convicted of misdemeanor assault and proffered evidence suggesting that he had violated several drug laws.
During closing arguments at the punishment phase, the prosecution reminded the jury of its duty to answer truthfully the two special issues of deliberateness and future dangerousness.
“Now, when we talked to you on voir dire, we talked to you about — and we spent a lot of time talking to you to determine whether or not you could follow the law. You told us two very important things when we talked to you. First of all, you told us that in the appropriate ease that you could give the death penalty. Secondly, you said, ‘Mr. Nancarrow, Ms. McDaniel, if you prove to me that the answers to those special issues should be yes, then I can answer them yes.’ If you wavered, if you hesitated one minute on that, then I guarantee you, you weren’t going to be on this jury. We believed you then, and we believe you now.” Pet. for Cert. 6.
The jury verdict form tracked the final reminders the prosecution gave the jury. The form made no mention of nullification. Nor did it say anything about mitigation evidence. Instead, the verdict form asked whether petitioner committed the act deliberately and whether there was a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. The jury was allowed to give “Yes” or “No” answers only. The jury answered both questions “Yes” and sentenced petitioner to death. App. 4 to Pet. for Cert.
On direct appeal, petitioner argued that our holding in Penry I rendered his jury instructions unconstitutional because the special issues did not allow the jury to give effect to his mitigation evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed petitioner’s sentence, reasoning that the nullification instruction provided an adequate vehicle through which the jury could consider petitioner’s evidence. We denied certiorari on May 15, 1995. Smith v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1112.
Petitioner filed an original writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in 1998. That suit was dismissed as untimely, but the Texas Legislature amended its criminal code in such a way as to allow petitioner to file a timely writ. Petitioner did so, claiming that his jury was instructed in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, petitioner argued that the jury instructions in his case ran afoul of our holding in Penry II. The court denied petitioner’s application on the merits. 132 S. W. 3d 407 (2004).
II
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion just prior to our decision in Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U. S. 274 (2004). In Tennard, we reversed the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to grant a certificate of appealability to a defendant who was sentenced under the Texas capital sentencing scheme prior to the legislative revisions which took place in the aftermath of Penry I. Tennard, relying upon Penry I, argued that Texas’ two special issues — deliberateness and future dangerousness — did not allow the jury to give effect to his mitigation evidence and that the trial court’s failure to issue a supplemental mitigation instruction that would allow the jury to give full effect to his evidence rendered his death sentence unconstitutional. ' The state court and the Fifth Circuit both held that the lack of an adequate mitigation instruction was irrelevant. The courts both determined that Tennard had failed to satisfy the Fifth Circuit’s threshold standard for “ ‘constitutionally relevant’ mitigating evidence, that is, evidence of a ‘uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own,’ and evidence that ‘the criminal act was attributable to this severe permanent condition.’ ” 542 U. S., at 281 (some internal quotation marks omitted).
Our rejection of that threshold test was central to our decision to reverse in Tennard. We held that “[t]he Fifth Circuit’s test has no foundation in the decisions of this Court. Neither Penry I nor its progeny screened mitigating evidence for ‘constitutional relevance’ before considering whether the jury instructions comported with the Eighth Amendment.” Id., at 284. Rather, we held that the jury must be given an effective vehicle with which to weigh mitigating evidence so long as the defendant has met a “low threshold for relevance,” which is satisfied by ““‘evidence which tends logically to prove or disprove some fact or circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to have mitigating value.”’” Id., at 284-285 (quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433, 440 (1990)).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals relied on precisely the same “screening test” we held constitutionally inadequate in Tennard. 132 S. W. 3d, at 413 (holding that mitigation evidence requires a special instruction only when that evidence passes the threshold test of “whether the defendant’s criminal act was ‘due to the uniquely severe permanent handicaps with which the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own’ ” (quoting Robertson v. Cockrell, 325 F. 3d 243, 251 (CA5 2003) (en banc))). Employing this test, the court concluded that petitioner’s low IQ and placement in special-education classes were irrelevant because they did not demonstrate that he suffered from a “severe disability.” 132 S. W. 3d, at 414. But, as we explained in Tennard, “[evidence of significantly impaired intellectual functioning is obviously evidence that ‘might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death.’” 542 U. S., at 288 (quoting Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 5 (1986); some internal quotation marks omitted). There is no question that a jury might well have considered petitioner’s IQ scores and history of participation in special-education classes as a reason to impose a sentence more lenient than death. Indeed, we have held that a defendant’s IQ score of 79, a score slightly higher than petitioner’s, constitutes relevant mitigation evidence. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 535 (2003); cf. Tennard, supra, at 288.
The state court also held that petitioner had offered “no evidence of any link or nexus between his troubled childhood or his limited mental abilities and this capital murder.” 132 S. W. 3d, at 414. We rejected the Fifth Circuit’s “nexus” requirement in Tennard, supra, at 287 (noting that none of our prior opinions “suggested that a mentally retarded individual must establish a nexus between her mental capacity and her crime before the Eighth Amendment prohibition on executing her is triggered” and holding that the jury must be allowed the opportunity to consider Penry evidence even if the defendant cannot establish “a nexus to the crime”).
That petitioner’s evidence was relevant for mitigation purposes is plain under our precedents, even those predating Tennard. See, e. g., Penry I, 492 U. S., at 319-322; Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 822 (1991); Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 377-378 (1990); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 114 (1982). The state court, however, erroneously relied on a test we never countenanced and now have unequivocally rejected. We therefore hold that the state court “assessed [petitioner’s legal] claim under an improper legal standard.” Tennard, supra, at 287. Because petitioner’s proffered evidence was relevant, the Eighth Amendment required the trial court to empower the jury with a vehicle capable of giving effect to that evidence. Whether the “nullification instruction” satisfied that charge is the question to which we now turn.
Ill
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that even if petitioner did proffer relevant mitigation evidence, the supplemental “nullification instruction” provided to the jury adequately allowed the jury to give effect to that evidence. The court found it significant that the supplemental instruction in this case “told the jury that it ‘shall’ consider all mitigating evidence, even evidence unrelated to the special issues, [and] it also told the jury how to answer the special issues to give effect to that mitigation evidence.” 132 S. W. 3d, at 416. The court also concluded that the nullification instruction made it clear to the jury that a “No” answer was required if it “believed that the death penalty was not warranted because of the mitigating circumstances.” Ibid.
In Penry II, we held that “the key under Penry I is that the jury be able to ‘consider and give effect to [a defendant’s mitigation] evidence in imposing sentence.’ ” 532 U. S., at 797 (quoting Penry I, supra, at 319); see 532 U. S., at 797 (“ ‘[A] sentencer [must] be allowed to give full consideration and full effect to mitigating circumstances’ ” (quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S., at 381 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); emphasis in Johnson)). We explained at length why the supplemental instruction employed by the Texas courts did not provide the jury with an adequate vehicle for expressing a “reasoned moral response” to all of the evidence relevant to the defendant’s culpability. 532 U. S., at 796. Although there are some distinctions between the Penry II supplemental instruction and the instruction petitioner’s jury received, those distinctions are constitutionally insignificant.
Penry II identified a broad and intractable problem — a problem that the state court ignored here — inherent in any requirement that the jury nullify special issues contained within a verdict form.
“We generally presume that jurors follow their instructions. Here, however, it would have been both logically and ethically impossible for a juror to follow both sets of instructions. Because Penry’s mitigating evidence did not fit within the scope of the special issues, answering those issues in the manner prescribed on the verdict form necessarily meant ignoring the command of the supplemental instruction. And answering the special issues in the mode prescribed by the supplemental instruction necessarily meant ignoring the verdict form instructions. Indeed, jurors who wanted to answer one of the special issues falsely to give effect to the mitigating evidence would have had to violate their oath to render a ‘“true verdict.’”
“The mechanism created by the supplemental instruction thus inserted ‘an element of capriciousness’ into the sentencing decision, ‘making the jurors’ power to avoid the death penalty dependent on their willingness’ to elevate the supplemental instruction over the verdict form instructions. There is, at the very least, ‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevented] the consideration’ of Penry’s mental retardation and childhood abuse. The supplemental instruction therefore provided an inadequate vehicle for the jury to make a reasoned moral response to Penry’s mitigating evidence.” Id., at 799-800 (citations omitted).
It is certainly true that the mandatory aspect of the nullification instruction made petitioner’s instruction distinct from Penry’s. Indeed, the “shall” command in the nullification instruction resolved the ambiguity inherent in the Penry II instruction, which we held was either a nullification instruction or an instruction that “ ‘shackled and confined’ ” Penry’s mitigating evidence within the scope of the imper-missibly narrow special issues. Id., at 798. That being said, the clearer instruction given to petitioner’s jury did not resolve the ethical problem described supra, at 46 and this page. To the contrary, the mandatory language in the charge could possibly have intensified the dilemma faced by ethical jurors. ' Just as in Penry II, petitioner’s jury was required by law to answer a verdict form that made no mention whatsoever of mitigation evidence. And just as in Penry II, the burden of proof on the State was tied by law to findings of deliberateness and future dangerousness that had little, if anything, to do with the mitigation evidence petitioner presented. Even if we were to assume that the jurors could easily and effectively have comprehended an orally delivered instruction directing them to disregard, in certain limited circumstances, a mandatory written instruction given at a later occasion, that would not change the fact that the “jury was essentially instructed to return a false answer to a special issue in order to avoid a death sentence.” Penry II, 532 U. S., at 801.
There is no principled distinction, for Eighth Amendment purposes, between the instruction given to petitioner’s jury and the instruction in Penry II. Petitioner’s evidence was relevant mitigation evidence for the jury under Tennard and ' Penry I. We therefore hold that the nullification instruction was constitutionally inadequate under Penry II. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The text of the special issues given to the jury was as follows: “(1) Was the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased committed deliberately, and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result? (2) Is there a probability that the defendant would commit' criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?” Pet. for Cert. 5.
The supplemental instruction in Penry II stated: “ ‘You are instructed that when you deliberate on the questions posed in the special issues, you are to consider mitigating circumstances, if any, supported by the evidence presented in both phases of the trial, whether presented by the state or the defendant. A mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of the defendant’s character and record or circumstances of the crime which you believe could make a death sentence inappropriate in this case. If you find that there are any mitigating circumstances in this case, you must decide how much weight they deserve, if any, and therefore, give effect and consideration to them in assessing the defendant’s personal culpability at the time you answer the special issue. If you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by a negative finding to the issue under consideration, rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response to the personal culpability of the defendant, a negative finding should be given to one of the special issues.’ ” 532 U. S., at 789-790 (emphasis added).
Four judges would have found petitioner’s claim procedurally defaulted. See 132 S. W. 3d, at 417 (Hervey, J., concurring); id., at 428 (Holcomb, J., concurring). The majority of the court, however, declined to adopt this holding and reached petitioner’s claims on the merits.
The concurring opinions below straightforwardly recognized this problem. See 132 S. W. 3d 407, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Hervey, J., concurring) (concluding that the “ ‘nullification’ instruction would, as a matter of federal constitutional law, suffer from the same defect as the one in Penry II had applicant presented any mitigating evidence that was beyond ‘the effective reach of the sentencer’ ” and conceding that the instruction given to petitioner may have been inadequate “as a matter of federal constitutional law”); id,., at 428 (Holcomb, J., concurring) (“The nullification instruction provided to Smith’s jury contained the same defects the Supreme Court identified in Penry II. Therefore, the jury was unconstitutionally precluded from considering and giving effect to Smith’s mitigating evidence”).
There is another similarity between this ease and Penry II. In Penry II, we found it significant that the prosecutor admonished the jury to “ ‘follow your oath, the evidence and the law’” prior to the deliberations in which the jury was required to fill out the verdict form. 532 U. S., at 802. We held that this statement sent the jury “mixed signals” and “only reminded the jurors that they had to answer the special issues dishonestly in order to give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence.” Ibid. The prosecutor here similarly reminded the jury that each and every one of them had promised to “follow the law” and return a “Yes” answer to the special issues so long as the State met its burden of proof. Pet. for Cert. 6. Thus, the nullification instruction presented the same ethical dilemma here and, what is more, it seems that despite the inclusion of the mandatory “shall” language, the nullification instruction may have been more confusing for the jury to implement in practice than the state court assumed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether a Mississippi tax laid upon the privilege of soliciting business for a laundry not licensed in. that State infringes the Commerce Clause.
Appellant operates a laundry and cleaning establishment in Memphis, Tennessee. In serving the area sur rounding Memphis, appellant sends ten of its trucks into eight Mississippi counties where its drivers pick up, deliver and collect for laundry and cleaning and seek to acquire new customers. Appellee, who is Chairman of the' State Tax Commission of the State of Mississippi, demanded that appellant pay $500 under the following provisions of the Mississippi “state-wide privilege tax law of 1944”:
“Sec. 3. Every person desiring to engage in any business, or exercise any privilege hereafter specified shall first, before commencing same, apply for, pay for, and procure from the state tax commissioner or commissioner of insurance,, a privilege license authorizing him to engage in the business or exercise the privilege specified therein, and the amount of tax shown in the following sections is hereby imposed for the privilege of engaging or continuing in the business set out therein.”
“Sec..45. Upon each person doing business as a transient vendor, or dealer, as defined in this section, and upon which a privilege tax is not specifically imposed by another section of this act, a tax for each county according to the following schedules:
“(t) Upon each person soliciting business for a laundry not licensed in this state as such, in each county..........$50.00
“(y) Provided however, that where any person subject to the payment of the tax imposed in this section, makes use of more than one vehicle in carrying on such business, the tax herein imposed shall be paid on each vehicle used in carrying on such business.”
After paying the $500 tax as demanded to prevent arrest of its drivers and seizure of its ten trucks, appellant sued for refund in a state court, claiming that the Mississippi tax act was not applicable to its operations and that, if so applied, the tax would violate the Commerce Clause. Judgment was entered for appellant in the trial court but the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding that appellant’s drivers were “transient vendors or dealers”, within the meaning of the statute and that application of the tax to appellant did not conflict with the Commerce Clause. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1257 (2).
In passing upon the validity of a state tax challenged under the Commerce Clause, we first look to the “operating incidence” of the tax. The Mississippi Act requires a “privilege license” and imposes a “privilege tax” upon appellant’s employees “soliciting business.” The Mississippi Supreme Court described the tax as follows:
“. . . The tax involved here is not a tax on interstate commerce, but a tax on a person soliciting business for a laundry not licensed in this state, a local activity which applies to residents and non-residents alike.”
The State may determine for itself the operating incidence of its tax. But it is for this Court to determine whether the tax, as construed by the highest court of the State, is or is not “a tax on interstate commerce.”
It would appear from portions of the opinion of the court below that the tax is laid upon the privilege of soliciting interstate business on the theory that solicitation of customers for interstate commerce is a local activity subject to state taxation. However, the opinion below may also be read as construing the statutory term “soliciting” more broadly, thereby resting the tax upon appellant’s activities apart' from soliciting new customers in Mississippi, namely the pick up and delivery of laundry and cleaning on regular routes within the State. Each construction of the statute raises different considerations. But clarification of the operating incidence of the tax is not required for disposition of this case since we find that the tax violates the Commerce Clause under either reading of the statute.
I.
In the long line of “drummer” cases, beginning with Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489 (1887), this Court has held that a tax imposed upon the solicitation of interstate business is a tax upon interstate commerce itself. Whether or not solicitation of interstate business may be regarded as a local incident of interstate commerce, the Court has not permitted state taxation to carve out this incident from the integral economic process of interstate commerce. As the Court noted last term in a case' involving door-to-door solicitation of interstate business,- “Interstate commerce itself knocks on the local door.”
If the Mississippi tax is imposed upon the privilege of soliciting interstate business, the tax stands on no better footing than á tax upon the privilege of doing interstate business. A tax so imposed cannot stand under the Commerce Clause. Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602, 608-609 (1951), and cases cited therein.
II.
On the assumption that the tax is imposed upon, appellant’s Mississippi activities of picking up and delivering laundry and cleaning, the “peddler” cases are invoked in support of the tax. Under that line of decisions, this Court has sustained state taxation upon itinerant hawkers and peddlers on the ground that the local sale and delivery of goods is an essentially intrastate process whether a retailer operates from'a fixed location or from a wagon. However, assuming for the purposes of this case that Mississippi imposes its $50 pér truck tax only upon the privilege of conducting intrastate activities, the tax must be held, invalid as one discriminating against interstate commerce.
The $50 per truck tax is applicable only to vehicles used by a person “soliciting business for a laundry not licensed in this state as such.” (Emphasis supplied.) Laundries licensed in Mississippi pay a fixed fee to the municipality in which located, plus a tax of $8 per truck upon each truck used in other municipalities. As a result, if appellant “solicits” business in a Mississippi municipality, it must pay a tax of $50 per truck while a competitor located in another Mississippi locality must pay a tax of only $8 per truck. The “peddler” cases are inapposite under such a showing of discrimination since they support state taxation only where no discrimination against interstate commerce appears either upon the face of the tax laws or in their practical operation.
To sum up, we hold that the tax before us infringes the Commerce Clause under either interpretation of the operating incidence of the tax. The Commerce Clause created the nation-wide area of free trade essential to this, country’s economic welfare- by removing state lines as impediments to intercourse between the states. The tax imposed in this case made the Mississippi state line into a local obstruction to the flow of interstate commerce that cannot stand under the Commerce Clause.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8.
Laws of Mississippi, 1944, c. 138, §§ 3, 45.
53 So. 2d 89 (1951). The Mississippi Supreme Court also rejected appellant’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not reach these issues under our disposition of the case.
Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602 (1951).
53 So. 2d at 90.
McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327 (1944); Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, 400-401 (1913).
Cases in this Court following the Robbins decision include: Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502 (1887); Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129 (1888); Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141 (1889); Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289 (1894); Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27 (1902); Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622 (1903); Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507 (1906); International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91 (1910); Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124 (1910); Crenshaw v. Arkansas, note 6, supra; Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 401 (1913); Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 665 (1914); Davis v. Virginia, 236 U. S. 697 (1915); Cheney Bros. Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 147 (1918); Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325 (1925); Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454 (1940); Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U. S. 416 (1946).
“The negotiation of sales of goods which are in another state, for the purpose of introducing them into the state in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce.” 120 U. S. at 497; Real Silk Hodery Mills v. Portland, note 7, supra, at 335.
Nippert v. Richmond, note 7, supra, at 422-423.
Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 636 (1951). In sustaining the ordinance before it as one that was neither an added financial burden on sales in commerce nor an exaction for the privilege of doing interstate commerce, the Court made the following statement pertinent to the instant case:
“While taxation and licensing of hawking or peddling, defined as selling and delivering in the state, has long been thought to show no violation of the Commerce Clause, solicitation of orders with subsequent interstate shipment has been immune from such an exaction.” 341 U. S. at 638.
In McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U. S. 33, 58 (1940), the Court sustained a tax “conditioned upon a local activity, delivery of goods within the state upon their purchase for consumption.” It was in that context that Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, supra, was referred to as resting upon discrimination inherent in fixed-sum license taxes. 309 U. S. at 56-57; Best & Co. v. Maxwell, note 7, supra, at 455-456; Nippert v. Richmond, note 7, supra, at 424 — 425. Compare Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 257-258 (1946).
In the leading opinion, Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296 (1895), the Court reaffirmed Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676 (1880), and other earlier cases. Subsequent additions to the line of “peddler cases” include: Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334 (1914); Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95 (1919); Caskey Baking Co. v. Virginia, 313 U. S. 117 (1941).
Nippert v. Richmond, note 7, supra; Best & Co. v. Maxwell, note 7, supra; Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc., 306 U. S. 375 (1939); Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 460-461 (1886); Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344 (1881); Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434 (1880); Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 (1876).
Laws of Mississippi, 1944, c. 137, § 110, imposes the following tax:
“Upon each person operating a laundry other than a hand laundry, as follows:
In municipalities of class 1...................... $120.00
In municipalities-of class 2.............-......... 80.00
In municipalities of classes 3 and 4.............. 60.00
In municipalities of classes 5, 6, 7 and elsewhere in the county..................................' 32.00
Upon each truck or other vehicle for such laundry in a municipality other than where the laundry is located .................................... -8.00”
Caskey Baking Co. v. Virginia, note 12, supra, at 119-120; Wagner v. Covington, note 12, supra, at 102; Emert v. Missouri, note 12, supra, at 311; Machine Co. v. Gage, note 12, supra, at 679.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189 (1824); Hood & Sons v. DuMond, 336 U. S. 525, 533-535, 538-539 (1949).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Bradford sued petitioner members of the North Carolina Board of Parole in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, claiming that petitioners were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accord him certain procedural rights in considering his eligibility for parole. Although respondent sought certification of the action as a class action, the District Court refused to so certify it and dismissed the complaint. On respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, that court sustained his claim that he was constitutionally entitled to procedural rights in connection with petitioners’ consideration of his application for parole. Because the conclusion of the Court of Appeals was at odds with the decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari on June 2, 1975, 421 U. S. 998, and the case was set for oral argument during the December calendar of this Court.
Respondent has now filed a suggestion of mootness with this Court, and petitioners have filed a response. It is undisputed that respondent was temporarily paroled on December 18, 1974, and that this status ripened into a complete release from supervision on March 25, 1975. From that date forward it is plain that respondent can have no interest whatever in the procedures followed by petitioners in granting parole.
Conceding this fact, petitioners urge that this is an issue which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review” as that term has been used in our cases dealing with mootness. Petitioners rely on Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U. S. 115 (1974), to support their contention that the case is not moot. But there the posture of the parties was quite different. Petitioner employer was engaged in cyclically recurring bargaining with the union representing its employees, and respondent state official was continuously following a policy of paying unemployment compensation benefits to strikers. Even though the particular strike which had been the occasion for the filing of the lawsuit was terminated, the Court held that it was enough that the petitioner employer showed “the existence of an immediate and definite governmental action or policy that has adversely affected and continues to affect a present interest,” and noted that “the great majority of economic strikes do not last long enough for complete judicial review of the controversies they engender.” Id., at 125-126. But in the instant case, respondent, who challenged the “governmental action or policy” in question, no longer has any present interest affected by that policy.
In Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), we reviewed in some detail the historical developments of the mootness doctrine in this Court. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498 (1911), was the first case to enunciate the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” branch of the law of mootness. There it was held that because of the short duration of the Interstate Commerce Commission order challenged, it was virtually impossible to litigate the validity of the order prior to its expiration. Because of this fact, and the additional fact that the same party would in all probability be subject to the same kind of order in the future, review was allowed even though the order in question had expired by its own terms. This case was followed by Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969); SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972); and Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), which applied the original concept of Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC to different fact situations, including a class action in Dunn.
Sosna decided that in the absence of a class action, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine was limited to the situation where two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. The instant case, not a class action, clearly does not satisfy the latter element. While petitioners will continue to administer the North Carolina parole system with respect to those who at any given moment are subject to their jurisdiction, there is no demonstrated probability that respondent will again be among that number. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974).
It appearing, therefore, that the case is moot, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Indianapolis School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 (1975); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. We hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to charge respondent’s request No. 12. The petitioner’s alleged choice of a more dangerous route did not, under the proofs, operate to bar recovery as a matter of law. The jury was properly instructed that the petitioner’s negligence, if any, was to be considered in mitigation of damages under the rule applicable in actions for personal injuries arising from maritime torts. Poye & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 408-409; cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U. S. 424.
For reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
[For memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 19.]
[Amended, post, p. 910, to provide for remand of the case to the Court of Appeals.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider petitioner’s claims that he was deprived of due process of law by the failure of the trial court to order a psychiatric examination with respect to his competence to stand trial and by the conduct in his absence of a portion of his trial on an indictment charging a capital offense.
I
In February 1969 an indictment was returned in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Mo., charging petitioner and two others with the forcible rape of petitioner’s wife. Following severance of petitioner’s case from those of the other defendants and a continuance, on May 27 his counsel filed a motion for a continuance until September, in order that petitioner might be examined and receive psychiatric treatment. Treatment had been suggested by a psychiatrist who had examined petitioner at his counsel’s request and whose report was attached to the motion. On the same date respondent, through the Assistant Circuit Attorney, filed a document stating that the State did not oppose the motion for a psychiatric examination. Apparently no action was taken on the motion, and petitioner’s case was continued until June 23, at which time his counsel objected to proceeding with the trial on the ground that he had understood the case would be continued until September and consequently was not prepared. He objected further “for the reason that the defendant is not a person of sound mind and should have a further psychiatric examination before the case should be forced to trial.” App. 19. The trial judge noted that the motion for a continuance was not in proper form and that, although petitioner’s counsel had agreed to file another, he had failed to do so, and he overruled his objections and directed that the case proceed to trial.
On June 24 a jury was empaneled, and the prosecution called petitioner’s wife as its first witness. She testified that petitioner participated with four of his acquaintances in forcibly raping her and subjecting her to other bizarre abuse and indignities, but that she had resumed living with him after the incident on the advice of petitioner’s psychiatrist and so that their children would be taken care of. On cross-examination, she testified that she had told petitioner’s attorney of her belief that her husband was sick and needed psychiatric care and that for these reasons she had signed a statement disavowing a desire to prosecute. She related that on several occasions when petitioner did not “get his way or [was] worried about something,” he would roll down the stairs. She could explain such behavior only by relating “what they told him many times at City Hospital, that is something he does upon hisself [sic].” Id., at 47. However, she also stated that she was not convinced petitioner was sick after talking to his psychiatrist, and that she had changed her. mind about not wanting to prosecute petitioner because, as she testified, he had “tried to choke me, tried to kill me” on the Sunday evening prior to trial. Id., at 52.
The prosecution called three more witnesses, but did not conclude its case, before adjournment on June 24. The following morning, petitioner did not appear. When the trial judge directed counsel to proceed, petitioner’s attorney moved for a mistrial “in view of the fact that the defendant, I am informed, shot himself this morning.” App. 63. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that he had already decided the matter would proceed for trial, and when petitioner’s counsel complained of the difficulty of proceeding without a client, the trial judge replied that the difficulty was brought about by petitioner, who was on bond and had a responsibility to be present. The prosecution then called four more witnesses and, after producing proof of a prior conviction, rested its case. Petitioner’s “Motion for Verdict of Acquittal,” including in effect a renewal of the motion for a mistrial, was denied, and his counsel stated that he had “no evidence to produce at this time under the circumstances.” Id., at 64. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and on July 21, 1969, petitioner, who had been in the hospital for three weeks recovering from a bullet wound in the abdomen, appeared, and the trial court fixed the penalty at life imprisonment.
Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, the burden of which was that the trial court had erred in proceeding with the trial when no evidence had been produced that his absence from the trial was voluntary. A hearing was held before the judge who had presided at trial. Petitioner testified that on June 25 he had gone to his brother’s house and that he remembered nothing concerning the shooting except that he felt a burning pain in his stomach and later woke up in the hospital. He testified he did not remember talking to anyone at the hospital. The State presented evidence that upon admission to the hospital petitioner stated that he had shot himself because of “'some problem with the law,’ ” id., at 90, and that he had told a policeman he had shot himself because “he was supposed to go to court for rape, and he didn’t do it; he rather be [sic] dead than to go to trial for something he didn’t do.” Id., at 97. The trial judge denied the motion. Stating that on the morning of petitioner’s failure to appear he had received information on the telephone which was checked with the hospital, the judge concluded that petitioner had the burden of showing that his absence was not voluntary and found on the basis of the evidence that his absence “ 'was due to his own voluntary act in shooting himself; done for the very purpose of avoiding trial.’ ” Id., at 103.
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, accepting the trial court’s finding, in ruling on petitioner’s motion for a new trial, that his absence was voluntary, and holding that there was “no logical basis” for positing a different rule with respect to waiver of the right to be present in capital cases than that which applies in felony cases generally. 462 S. W. 2d 677, 683-684. The Missouri Supreme Court also held that the denial of petitioner’s motion for a continuance of the trial in order to procure further psychiatric evaluation was not an abuse of discretion, noting that petitioner did not contend that he lacked the mental capacity to proceed with the trial.
In April 1971 petitioner filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence in the court where sentence had been imposed, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. He alleged that his rights under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.020 (2) (1969) and his constitutional rights had been violated by the failure to order a psychiatric examination prior to trial and by conducting the trial to conclusion in his absence. Petitioner also asserted that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel, a claim which is not before us.
In July 1971 a hearing was held on the motion; petitioner called two psychiatrists as witnesses. The psychiatrist who had examined petitioner prior to his trial testified that in his opinion there was reasonable cause to believe that a person who attempted to commit suicide in the midst of a trial might not be mentally competent to understand the proceedings against him. Another psychiatrist, whose duties included the examination of accused persons under Mo. Rev. Stat. c. 552, testified that in his opinion a man who was charged with raping his wife and attempted suicide during his trial was in need of a psychiatric evaluation to find out his mental condition, and that there should be an evaluation to determine whether the person was competent to assist in his own defense and whether he was “malingering or did it intentionally or if it was due to a true psychiatric disorder.” App. 156. The same psychiatrist stated that he had examined petitioner at City Hospital in 1965 and had found that he had psychiatric problems and was in need of care. Petitioner took the stand, repeating his previous testimony with respect to the shooting.
In June 1972 the sentencing judge denied petitioner’s Rule 27.26 motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that the provisions for psychiatric examinations and hearings under Mo. Rev. Stat. §552.020 (1969) comported with the requirements of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966), and that the test of incompetence to stand trial was that stated in Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960). It reasoned that it was necessary to examine the indicia of petitioner’s incompetence “at three different times— before the trial, during the trial after the suicide attempt, and at the time of the motion for new trial.” 498 S. W. 2d 838, 842.
As to the situation before trial, the court held that the psychiatric report attached to petitioner’s motion for a continuance did not raise a reasonable doubt of his fitness to proceed. Turning to the second time period, “during the trial after the suicide attempt,” the court held that Pate v. Robinson, supra, which involved a competence hearing rather than a competence examination followed by a hearing, did not require that the examination and hearing be held during the trial rather than immediately thereafter. With regard to the period after trial, and accepting petitioner’s contention that his was a “bona fide attempt at suicide,” the court was of the view that the legal significance of the attempt under Robinson should be evaluated without resort to the psychiatric testimony presented at the Rule 27.26 hearing, which was not before the trial judge. It held that petitioner’s suicide attempt did not create a reasonable doubt of his competence as a matter of law, that petitioner had failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of the procedures employed for protecting his rights, and that the finding of the trial court was not clearly erroneous.
Finally, the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of due process of law by the conduct of a portion of his trial in his absence; it noted that the State Supreme Court had upheld a finding of voluntary absence on petitioner’s direct appeal and concluded that the psychiatrists’ testimony at the Rule 27.26 hearing did not meet the burden of proof placed on petitioner. “Again we cannot hold the trial court’s finding to be clearly erroneous.” 498 S. W. 2d, at 843. We granted certiorari, and we now reverse.
II
It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial. Thus, Blackstone wrote that one who became “mad” after the commission of an offense should not be arraigned for it “because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought.” Similarly, if he became “mad” after pleading, he should not be tried, “for how can he make his defense?” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *24. See Youtsey v. United States, 97 F. 937, 940-946 (CA6 1899). Some have viewed the common-law prohibition “as a by-product of the ban against trials in absentia; the mentally incompetent defendant, though physically present in the courtroom, is in reality afforded no opportunity to defend himself.” Foote, A Comment on PreTrial Commitment of Criminal Defendants, 108 U. Pa. L. Rev. 832, 834 (1960). See Thomas v. Cunningham, 313 F. 2d 934, 938 (CA4 1963). For our purposes, it suffices to note that the prohibition is fundamental to an adversary system of justice. See generally Note, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 455, 457-459 (1967). Accordingly, as to federal cases, we have approved a test of incompetence which seeks to ascertain whether a criminal defendant “ Tas sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' ” Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S., at 402.
In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966), we held that the failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial. Although in Robinson we noted that Illinois “jealously guard [ed] this right,” id., at 385, we held that the failure of the state courts to invoke the statutory procedures deprived Robinson of the inquiry into the issue of his competence to stand trial to which, on the facts of the case, we concluded he was constitutionally entitled. The Court did not hold that the procedure prescribed by Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 104-2 (1963), was constitutionally mandated, although central to its discussion was the conclusion that the statutory procedure, if followed, was constitutionally adequate. See, e. g., United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427, 434-435 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 973 (1967); United States ex rel. Evans v. LaVallee, 446 F. 2d 782, 785-786 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1020 (1972). Nor did the Court prescribe a general standard with respect to the nature or quantum of evidence necessary to require resort to an adequate procedure. Rather, it noted that under the Illinois statute a hearing was required where the evidence raised a “ ‘bona fide doubt’ ” as to a defendant’s competence, and the Court concluded “that the evidence introduced on Robinson’s behalf entitled him to a hearing on this issue.” 383 U. S., at 385. See United States v. Marshall, 458 F. 2d 446, 450 (CA2 1972).
As was true of Illinois in Robinson, Missouri’s statutory scheme “jealously guards” a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Missouri Rev. Stat. § 552.020 (1) (1969) provides: “No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures.” Section 552.020 (2), see n. 6, provides that a judge or magistrate shall, “upon his own motion or upon motion filed by the state or by or on behalf of the accused,” order a psychiatric examination whenever he “has reasonable cause to believe that the accused has a mental disease or defect excluding fitness to proceed.” Section 552.020 (3) prescribes the contents of a report of the psychiatric examination, and § 552.030 (6) requires the court to hold a hearing if the opinion relative to fitness to proceed which is required to be included in the report is contested. In addition, the trial court may conduct a hearing on its own motion. Such a procedure is, on its face, constitutionally adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried while legally incompetent. Our task is to determine whether the proceedings in this case were consistent with petitioner’s right to a fair trial.
At the outset we are met by respondent's argument that the Court is bound by “limitations placed on proceedings under” Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. Brief for Respondent 23. Specifically, respondent notes that under Rule 27.26 (f) petitioner had “the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence,” and that the appellate-review function of the Missouri Court of Appeals was limited by Rule 27.26 (j) “to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court [were] clearly erroneous.” It urges that the Rule was “designed... to provide a valuable post-conviction remedy and not to provide another direct appeal...,” and expresses concern that “the state-federal relationship... remain in proper balance.” Brief for Respondent 22.
We share respondent's concern for this necessary balance, and we do not question the State's power, in post-conviction proceedings, to reallocate the respective burdens of the individual and the State and to delimit the scope of state appellate review. Cf. Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271, 279 (1945); Conner v. Wingo, 429 F. 2d 630, 637-639 (CA6 1970). At the same time we note that while proceedings under the Rule “ordinarily cannot be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors or as a substitute for a second appeal,” nevertheless “trial errors affecting constitutional rights may be raised even though the error could have been raised on appeal.” Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 27.26 (b) (3).
In the present case there is no dispute as to the evidence possibly relevant to petitioner's mental condition that was before the trial court prior to trial and thereafter. Rather, the dispute concerns the inferences that were to be drawn from the undisputed evidence and whether, in light of what was then known, the failure to'make further inquiry into petitioner's competence to stand trial, denied him a fair trial. In such circumstances we believe it is “incumbent upon us to analyze the facts in order that the appropriate enforcement of the federal right may be assured.” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 590 (1935). “When the corrective process is provided by the state but error, in relation to the federal question of constitutional violation, creeps into the record, we have the responsibility to review the state proceedings.” Hawk v. Olson, supra, at 276.
Ill
The sentencing judge and the Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that the psychiatric evaluation of petitioner attached to his pretrial motion for a continuance did not contain sufficient indicia of incompetence to stand trial to require further inquiry. Both courts mentioned aspects of the report suggesting competence, such as the impressions that petitioner did not have “any delusions, illusions, hallucinations...,” was “well oriented in all spheres,” and “was able, without trouble, to answer questions testing judgement,” but neither court mentioned the contrary data. The report also showed that petitioner, although cooperative in the examination, “had difficulty in participating well,” “had a difficult time relating,” and that he “was markedly circumstantial and irrelevant in his speech.” In addition, neither court felt that petitioner's episodic irrational acts described in the report or the psychiatrist’s diagnoses of “[b] orderline mental deficiency” and “[c]hronic [a] nxiety reaction with depression” created a sufficient doubt of competence to require further inquiry.
It does not appear that the examining psychiatrist was asked to address himself to medical facts bearing specifically on the issue of petitioner’s competence to stand trial, as distinguished from his mental and emotional condition generally. Thus, it is not surprising that before this Court the dispute centers on the inferences that could or should properly have been drawn from the report. Even where the issue is in focus we have recognized “the uncertainty of diagnosis in this field and the tentativeness of professional judgment.” Greenwood v. United States, 350 U. S. 366, 375 (1956). Here the inquiry is rendered more difficult by the fact that a defendant’s mental condition may be relevant to more than one legal issue, each governed by distinct rules reflecting quite different policies. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 739 (1972); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 388-389 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Weihofen, The Definition of Mental Illness, 21 Ohio St. L. J. 1 (1960).
Like the report itself, the motion for a continuance did not clearly suggest that petitioner’s competence to stand trial was the question sought to be resolved. While we have expressed doubt that the right to further inquiry upon the question can be waived, see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 384, it is nevertheless true that judges must depend to some extent on counsel to bring issues into focus. Petitioner’s somewhat inartfully drawn motion for a continuance probably fell short of appropriate assistance to the trial court in that regard. However, we are constrained to disagree with the sentencing judge that counsel’s pretrial contention that “the defendant is not a person of sound mind and should have a further psychiatric examination before the case should be forced to trial,” did not raise the issue of petitioner’s competence to stand trial. This statement also may have tended to blur the aspect of petitioner’s mental condition which would bear on his criminal responsibility and that which would bear on his competence to stand trial. However, at that stage, and with the obvious advantages of hindsight, it seems to us that it would have been, at the very least, the better practice to order an immediate examination under Mo. Rev. Code § 552.020 (2) (I960). It is unnecessary for us to decide whether such examination was constitutionally required on the basis of what was then known to the trial court since in our view the question was settled by later events.
IV
Turning to the situation at petitioner's trial, the state courts viewed the evidence as failing to show that during trial petitioner had acted in a manner that would cause the trial court to doubt his competence. The testimony of petitioner’s wife, some of which repeated and confirmed information contained in the psychiatric evaluation attached to petitioner’s motion for a continuance, was given little weight. Finally, the sentencing judge, relying on his finding on petitioner’s motion for a new trial and although stating “that it does not take a psychiatrist to know that such a man has a problem and indicates poor judgment,” App. 203, concluded that the “fact that Mr. Drope shot himself to avoid trial suggests very strongly an awareness of what was going on.” Id., at 208. The Missouri Court of Appeals, accepting arguendo petitioner's contention that his was “a bona fide attempt at suicide,” refused to conclude "that as a matter of law an attempt at suicide creates a reasonable doubt as to the movant’s competency to stand trial.” Id., at 222.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of making evaluations of the kind required in these circumstances, we conclude that the record reveals a failure to give proper weight to the information suggesting incompetence which came to light during trial. This is particularly so when viewed in the context of the events surrounding petitioner’s suicide attempt and against the background of the pretrial showing. Although a defendant’s demeanor during trial may be such as to obviate “the need for extensive reliance on psychiatric prediction concerning his capabilities,” Note, 81 Harv. L. Rev., at 469, we concluded in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 385-386, that “this reasoning offers no justification for ignoring the uncontradicted testimony of... [a] history of pronounced irrational behavior.” We do not mean to suggest that the indicia of such behavior in this case approximated those in Robinson, but we believe the Missouri courts failed to consider and give proper weight to the record evidence. Too little weight was given to the testimony of petitioner’s wife that on the Sunday prior to trial he tried to choke her to death. For a man whose fate depended in large measure on the indulgence of his wife, who had hesitated about pressing the prosecution, this hardly could be regarded as rational conduct. Moreover, in considering the indicia of petitioner’s incompetence separately, the state courts gave insufficient attention to the aggregate of those indicia in applying the objective standard of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.020 (2). We need not address the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that an attempt to commit suicide does not create a reasonable doubt of competence to stand trial as a matter of law. As was true of the psychiatric evaluation, petitioner’s attempt to commit suicide “did not stand alone.” Moore v. United States, 464 F. 2d 663, 666 (CA9 1972). We conclude that when considered together with the information available prior to trial and the testimony of petitioner’s wife at trial, the information concerning petitioner’s suicide attempt created a sufficient doubt of his competence to stand trial to require further inquiry on the question.
The import of our decision in Pate v. Robinson is that evidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but that even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient. There are, of course, no fixed or immutable signs which invariably indicate the need for further inquiry to determine fitness to proceed; the question is often a difficult one in which a wide range of manifestations and subtle nuances are implicated. That they are difficult to evaluate is suggested by the varying opinions trained psychiatrists can entertain on the same facts.
Here, the evidence of irrational behavior prior to trial was weaker than in Robinson, but there was no opinion evidence as to petitioner’s competence to stand trial. See n. 9, supra. Moreover, Robinson was present throughout his trial; petitioner was absent for a crucial portion of his trial. Petitioner’s absence bears on the analysis in two ways: first, it was due to an act which suggests a rather substantial degree of mental instability contemporaneous with the trial, see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 389 (Harlan, J., dissenting); second, as a result of petitioner’s absence the trial judge and defense counsel were no longer able to observe him in the context of the trial and to gauge from his demeanor whether he was able to cooperate with his attorney and to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him.
Even when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial court must always be alert to circumstances suggesting a change that would render the accused unable to meet the standards of competence to stand trial. Whatever the relationship between mental illness and incompetence to stand trial, in this case the bearing of the former on the latter was sufficiently likely that, in light of the evidence of petitioner’s behavior including his suicide attempt, and there being no opportunity without his presence to evaluate that bearing in fact, the correct course was to suspend the trial until such an evaluation could be made. That this might have aborted the trial is a hard reality, but we cannot fail to note that such a result might have been avoided by prompt psychiatric examination before trial, when it was sought by petitioner.
Y
Our resolution of the first issue raised by petitioner makes it unnecessary to decide whether, as he contends, it was constitutionally impermissible to conduct the remainder of his trial on a capital offense in his enforced absence from a self-inflicted wound. See Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442, 445 (1912). However, even assuming the right to be present was one that could be waived, what we have already said makes it clear that there was an insufficient inquiry to afford a basis for deciding the issue of waiver. Cf. Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 150 (1966); United States v. Silva, 418 F. 2d 328 (CA2 1969).
The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that, had further inquiry into petitioner's competence to stand trial been constitutionally mandated in this case, it would have been permissible to defer it until the trial had been completed. Such a procedure may have advantages, at least where the defendant is present at the trial and the appropriate inquiry is implemented with dispatch. See Note, 81 Harv. L. Rev., at 469; Hansford v. United States, 127 U. S. App. D. C. 359, 360, 384 F. 2d 311, 312 (1966) (rehearing en banc denied) (statement of Leventhal, J.); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S., at 741. However, because of petitioner’s absence during a critical stage of his trial, neither the judge nor counsel was able to observe him, and the hearing on his motion for a new trial, held approximately three months after the trial, was not informed by an inquiry into either his competence to stand trial or his capacity effectively to waive his right to be present.
The question remains whether petitioner’s due process rights would be adequately protected by remanding the case now for a psychiatric examination aimed at establishing whether petitioner was in fact competent to stand trial in 1969. Given the inherent difficulties of such a nunc pro tunc determination under the most favorable circumstances, see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S., at 386-387; Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S., at 403, we cannot conclude that such a procedure would be adequate here. Cf. Conner v. Wingo, 429 F. 2d, at 639-640. The State is free to retry petitioner, assuming, of course, that at the time of such trial he is competent to be tried.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The motion recites: “Comes now the Defendant, JAMES E. DROPE, and states to the court that he has had a psychiatric examination made by Dr. Joseph F. Shuman, M, D., a copy of which report is attached hereto.
“Defendant moves the court to continue his case until September, 1969 in order that he might receive an Examination, Evaluation and psychiatric treatment, as suggested by Dr. Shuman, at the Malcomb Bliss Hospital in the City of St. Louis, Missouri.” App. 7.
The report, in the form of a letter to petitioner’s attorney, states that the psychiatrist examined petitioner on February 20, 1969. In a section entitled “Past Medical History” it describes petitioner as “markedly agitated and upset,” noting that he “appeared to be cooperative in this examination, but he had difficulty in participating well.” The report continues: “The patient had a difficult time relating. He was markedly circumstantial and irrelevant in his speech.... There was no sign as to the presence of any delusions, illusions, hallucinations, obsessions, ideas of reference, compulsions or phobias at this time.
“In a simple IQ exam Mr. Drope was able to achieve a score in the low normal range.... Mr. Drope was well oriented in all spheres. With much difficulty he was able to explain a few abstractions.... He was able, without trouble, to answer questions testing judgement. He had much difficulty even doing the simple counting and calculation problems.” The report then recounts the details of a conversation between the psychiatrist and petitioner’s wife. The latter admitted that she had left petitioner on a number of occasions because of his sexual perversions and described the “strange behavior” of petitioner, including falling down flights of stairs, as an attempt to gain sympathy from her. In a section entitled “Impression,” the report states that petitioner had “always led a marginal existence,” that he had a “history of anti-social conduct,” but that there were no “strong signs of psychosis at this time.” It concludes that petitioner “certainly needs the aid of a psychiatrist,” and that he “'is a very neurotic individual who is also depressed and perhaps he is depressed for most of the time,” and it offers as diagnoses: “(1) Sociopathie personality disorder, sexual perversion. (2) Borderline mental deficiency. (3) Chronic Anxiety reaction with depression.” Id., at 11-12.
Petitioner was tried as a second offender under Mo. Rev. Stat. §556.280 (1969), having been convicted in 1958 of second-degree burglary and “stealing.”
As to the situation at trial, the Missouri Supreme Court stated: “We disagree with defendant’s contention that there is ‘no evidence upon the record’ that he voluntarily absented himself. The court made such a determination before proceeding with the trial, although the basis for that determination is not fully disclosed. However, when defendant is free on bond, and he does not appear at the appointed time, it is presumed that the absence is voluntary until established otherwise.” 462 S. W. 2d 677, 681 (1971).
At the time of petitioner’s trial, rape was punishable by death under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.260 (1969), and respondent had not waived the death penalty.
As petition for a writ of habeas corpus previously filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri had been dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 1971, for failure to exhaust available state remedies. See 28 U. S. C. §§2254 (b), (c).
Subdivision 2 of § 552.020 provides in pertinent part: “Whenever any judge or magistrate has reasonable cause to believe that the accused has a mental disease or defect excluding fitness to proceed he shall, upon his own motion or upon motion filed by the state or by or on behalf of the accused, by order of record, appoint one or more private physicians to make a psychiatric examination of the accused or shall direct the superintendent of a facility of the division of mental diseases to have the accused so examined by one or more physi-dans whom the superintendent shall designate.” Subdivision 3 delineates the requirements for reports of psychiatric examinations, and subdivision 6 requires the court to hold a hearing if the opinion relative to fitness to proceed which is required to be included in the report is contested.
“[T]he 'test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' ” See also Mo. Rev. Stat. §552.020 (1) (1969).
Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 (f) (1969), the “prisoner has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellate review is limited nnder Rule 27.26 (j) “to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous.”
In discussing the evidence adduced at Robinson's trial, the Court did, however, indicate that a history of irrational behavior is a relevant factor which, on the record before it, was sufficient to require further inquiry notwithstanding Robinson’s demeanor at trial and the stipulated opinion of a psychiatrist that Robinson knew the nature of the charges against him and could cooperate with counsel when the psychiatrist examined him two or three months before. See infra, at 180-181.
“But ‘issue of fact’ is a coat of many colors. It does not llover a conclusion drawn from uncontroverted happenings, when that conclusion incorporates standards of conduct or criteria for judgment which in themselves are decisive of constitutional rights. Such standards and criteria, measured against the requirements drawn from constitutional provisions, and their proper applications, are issues for this Court’s adjudication.... Especially in cases arising under the Due Process Clause is it important to distinguish between issues of fact that are here foreclosed and issues which, though cast in the form of determinations of fact, are the very issues to review which this Court sits.” Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 51 (1949) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). See also Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 605 (1961) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
See n. 1, supra. The Court of Appeals determined that the other diagnosis offered, “[s]ociopathic personality disorder, sexual perversion,” was excluded as a “mental disease or defect” under Missouri law. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.010 (1969),
In a colloquy with the trial judge, petitioner’s counsel noted that the examination and evaluation “could be done during the summer months and be ready for trial or else the examination would eliminate trial by September.” App. 17. (Emphasis added.)
The sentencing judge observed that “motions for psychiatric examinations have often been made merely for the purpose of delay,” and “estimated
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Social Security Act authorizes payment of disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income to individuals with disabilities. See 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §401 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V) (Title II disability insurance benefits); §1381 et seq. (Title XVI supplemental security income). For both types of benefits the Act defines the key term “disability” as an
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” § 423(d)(1)(A) (1994 ed.) (Title II) (emphasis added); accord, § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V) (Title XVI).
This case presents two questions about the Social Security Administration’s interpretation of this definition.
First, the Social Security Administration (which we shall call the Agency) reads the term “inability” as including a “12 month” requirement. In its view, the “inability” (to engage in any substantial gainful activity) must last, or must be expected to last, for at least 12 months. Second, the Agency reads the term “expected to last” as applicable only when the “inability” has not yet lasted 12 months. In the case of a later Agency determination — where the “inability” did not last 12 months — the Agency will automatically assume that the claimant failed to meet the duration requirement. It will not look back to decide hypothetically whether, despite the claimant’s actual return to work before 12 months expired, the “inability” nonetheless might have been expected to last that long.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held both these interpretations of the statute unlawful. We hold, to the contrary, that both fall within the Agency’s lawful interpretive authority. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). Consequently, we reverse.
I
In 1996 Cleveland Walton, the respondent, applied for both Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. The Agency found that (1) by October 31,1994, Walton had developed a serious mental illness involving both schizophrenia and associated depression; (2) the illness caused him then to lose his job as a full-time teacher; (3) by mid-1995 he began to work again part time as a cashier; and (4) by December 1995 he was working as a cashier full time.
The Agency concluded that Walton’s mental illness had prevented him from engaging in any significant work, i. e., from “engaging] in any substantial gainful activity,” for 11 months — from October 31, 1994 (when he lost his teaching job) until the end of September 1995 (when he earned income sufficient to rise to the level of “substantial gainful activity”). See 20 CFR §§404.1574, 416.974 (2001). And because the statute demanded an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity” lasting 12, not 11, months, Walton was not entitled to benefits.
Walton sought court review. The District Court affirmed the Agency’s decision, but the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Walton v. Apfel, 235 F. 3d 184, 186-187 (2000). The court said that the statute’s 12-month duration requirement modifies the word “impairment,” not the word “inability.” Id., at 189. It added that the statute’s “language ... leaves no doubt” that there is no similar “duration requirement” related to an “inability” (to engage in substantial gainful activity). Ibid. It concluded that, because the statute’s language “speaks clearly” and is “unambiguous,” Walton was entitled to receive benefits despite agency regulations restricting benefits to those unable to work for a 12-month period. Ibid.
The court went on to decide that, in any event, Walton qualified because, prior to Walton’s return to work, one would have “expected” his “inability” to last 12 months. Id., at 189-190. It conceded that the Agency had made Walton’s actual return to work determinative on this point. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(b), 1592(d)(2) (2001). But it found unlawful the Agency regulations that gave the Agency the benefit of hindsight — on the ground that they conflicted with the statute’s clear command. 235 F. 3d, at 190.
For either reason, the Fourth Circuit concluded, Walton became “entitled” to Title II benefits no later than April 1995, five months after the onset of his illness. See 42 U.S.C. §§423(a)(l)(D)(i), 423(a)(l)(D)(ii) (providing for a 5-month “waiting period” before a claimant is “entitled” to benefits), 423(c)(2)(A) (1994 ed.). It added that Walton’s later work as a cashier was legally beside the point. That work simply counted as part of a 9-month “trial work period,” which the statute grants to those “entitled” to Title II benefits, and which it permits them to perform without loss of benefits. § 422(c).
The Government sought certiorari. It pointed out that the Fourth Circuit’s first holding conflicts with those of other Circuits, compare 235 F. 3d, at 189-190, with Titus v. Sulli van, 4 F. 3d 590, 594-595 (CA8 1993), and Alexander v. Richardson, 451 F. 2d 1185 (CA10 1971). It added that the Fourth Circuit’s views were contrary to well-settled law and would create additional Social Security costs of $80 billion over 10 years. We granted the writ. We now reverse.
II
The statutory definition of “disability” has two parts. First, it requires a certain kind of “inability,” namely, an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity.” Second, it requires an “impairment,” namely, a “physical or mental impairment,” which provides “reason” for the “inability.” The statute adds that the “impairment” must be one that “has lasted or can be expected to last . . . not less than 12 months.” But what about the “inability”? Must it also last (or be expected to last) for the same amount of time?
The Agency has answered this question in the affirmative. Acting pursuant to statutory rulemaking authority, 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(a) (Title II), 1383(d)(1) (Title XVI), it has promulgated formal regulations that state that a claimant is not disabled “regardless of [his] medical condition,” if he is doing “substantial gainful activity.” 20 CFR § 404.1520(b) (2001). And the Agency has interpreted this regulation to mean that the claimant is not disabled if “within 12 months after the onset of an impairment ... the impairment no longer prevents substantial gainful activity.” 65 Fed. Reg. 42774 (2000). Courts grant an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations considerable legal leeway. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965). And no one here denies that the Agency has properly interpreted its own regulation.
Consequently, the legal question before us is whether the Agency’s interpretation of the statute is lawful. This Court has previously said that, if the statute speaks clearly “to the precise question at issue,” we “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842-843. If, however, the statute “is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,” we must sustain the Agency’s interpretation if it is “based on a permissible construction” of the Act. Id., at 843. Hence we must decide (1) whether the statute unambiguously forbids the Agency’s interpretation, and, if not, (2) whether the interpretation, for other reasons, exceeds the bounds of the permissible. Ibid.; see also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 227 (2001).
First, the statute does not unambiguously forbid the regulation. The Fourth Circuit believed the contrary primarily for a linguistic reason. It pointed out that, linguistically speaking, the statute’s “12-month” phrase modifies only the word “impairment,” not the word “inability.” And to that extent we agree. After all, the statute, in parallel phrasing, uses the words “which can be expected to result in death.” And that structurally parallel phrase makes sense in reference to an “impairment,” but makes no sense in reference to the “inability.”
Nonetheless, this linguistic point is insufficient. It shows that the particular statutory provision says nothing explicitly about the “inability’s” duration. But such silence, after all, normally creates ambiguity. It does not resolve it.
Moreover, a nearby provision of the statute says that an
“individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his . . . impairment... [is] of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot... engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (Title II); accord, § 1382c(a)(3)(B) (Title XVI).
In other words, the statute, in the two provisions, specifies that the “impairment” must last 12 months and also be severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in virtually any “substantial gainful work.” The statute, we concede, nowhere explicitly says that the “impairment” must be that severe (i e., severe enough to prevent “substantial gainful work”) for 12 months. But that is a fair inference from the language. See Brief for AARP et al. as Amici Curiae 13 (conceding that an impairment must remain of “disabling severity” for 12 months). At the very least the statute is ambiguous in that respect. And, if so, then it is an equally fair inference that the “inability” must last 12 months. That is because the latter statement (i. e., that the claimant must be unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity” for a year) is the virtual equivalent of the former statement (i. e., that the “impairment” must remain severe enough to prevent the claimant from engaging in “substantial gainful work” for a year). It simply rephrases the same point in a slightly different \yay.
Second, the Agency’s construction is “permissible.” The interpretation makes considerable sense in terms of the statute’s basic objectives. The statute demands some duration requirement. No one claims that the statute would permit an individual with a chronic illness — say, high blood pressure — to qualify for benefits if that illness, while itself lasting for a year, were to permit a claimant to return to work after only a week, or perhaps even a day, away from the job. The Agency’s interpretation supplies a duration requirement, which the statute demands, while doing so in a way that consistently reconciles the statutory “impairment” and “inability” language.
In addition, the Agency’s regulations reflect the Agency’s own longstanding interpretation. See Social Security Ruling 82-52, p. 106 (cum. ed. 1982) (“In considering ‘duration,’ it is the inability to engage in [substantial gainful activity] that must last the required 12-month period”); Disability Insurance State Manual §316 (Sept. 9, 1965), Government Lodging, Tab C, §316 (“Duration of impairment refers to that period of time during which an individual is continuously unable to engage in substantial gainful activity because of” an impairment); OASI Disability Insurance Letter No. 39 (Jan. 22, 1957), id., Tab A, p. 1 (duration requirement refers to the “expected duration of the medical impairment” at a “level of severity sufficient to preclude” substantial gainful activity”). And this Court will normally accord particular deference to an agency interpretation of “longstanding” duration. North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512, 522, n. 12 (1982).
Finally, Congress has frequently amended or reenacted the relevant provisions without change. E. g., Social Security Amendments of 1965, § 303(a)(1), 79 Stat. 366; see also S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. I, pp. 98-99 (1965) (“[T]he committee’s bill . . . provide[s] for the payment of disability benefits for an insured worker who has been or can be expected to be totally disabled throughout a continuous period of 12 calendar months” (emphasis added)); id., at 98 (rejecting effort to provide benefits to those with “short-term, temporary disabilities],” defined as inability to work for six months); H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, p. 56 (1971) (“No benefit is payable, however, unless the disability is expected to last (or has lasted) at least 12 consecutive months” (emphasis added)); S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 49 (1967) (“The committee also believes . . . that an individual who does substantial gainful work despite an impairment or impairments that otherwise might be considered disabling is not disabled for purposes of establishing a period of disability”). These circumstances provide further evidence — if more is needed — that Congress intended the Agency’s interpretation, or at least understood the interpretation as statutorily permissible. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 845-846 (1986).
Walton points in reply to Title II language stating that a claimant who is “under a disability . . . shall be entitled to a . . . benefit . . . beginning with the first month after” a “waiting period” of “five consecutive calendar months . . . throughout which” he “has been under a disability.” 42 U. S. C. §§423(a)(l)(D)(i), 423(c)(2)(A). He adds that this 5-month “waiting period” assures a lengthy period of time during which the applicant (who must be “under a disability” throughout) has been unable to work. And it thereby provides ironclad protection against the claimant who suffers a chronic, but only briefly disabling, disease, such as the claimant who suffers high blood pressure in our earlier example. See supra, at 219. This claim does not help Walton, however, for it shows, at most, that the Agency might have chosen other reasonable time periods — a matter not disputed. Regardless, Walton’s “waiting period” argument could work only in respect to Title II, not Title XVI. Title XVI has no waiting period, though it uses identical definitional language. And Walton does not explain why we should interpret the same statutory words differently in closely related contexts. See Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 342 (1994) (“ ‘[Identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning’ ” (quoting Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U. S. 851, 860 (1986) (some internal quotation marks omitted)).
Walton also asks us to disregard the Agency’s interpretation of its formal regulations on the ground that the Agency only recently enacted those regulations, perhaps in response to this litigation. We have previously rejected similar arguments. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 741 (1996); United States v. Morton, 467 U. S. 822, 835-836, n. 21 (1984).
Regardless, the Agency’s interpretation is one of long standing. See supra, at 220. And the fact that the Agency previously reached its interpretation through means less formal than “notice and comment” rulemaking, see 5 U. S. C. §553, does not automatically deprive that interpretation of the judicial deference otherwise its due. Cf. Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843 (stating, without delineation of means, that the “ ‘power of an administrative agency to administer a congres-sionally created ... program necessarily requires the formulation of policy’ ” (quoting Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U. S. 199, 231 (1974))). If this Court’s opinion in Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576 (2000), suggested an absolute rule to the contrary, our later opinion in United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218 (2001), denied the suggestion. Id., at 230-231 (“[T]he want of” notice and comment “does not decide the case”). Indeed, Mead pointed to instances in which the Court has applied Chevron deference to agency interpretations that did not emerge out of notice-and-comment rule-making. 533 U. S., at 230-231 (citing NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U. S. 251, 256-257 (1995)). It indicated that whether a court should give such deference depends in significant part upon the interpretive method used and the nature of the question at issue. 533 U. S., at 229-231. And it discussed at length why Chevron did not require deference in the circumstances there present — a discussion that would have been superfluous had the presence or absence of notice-and-comment rulemaking been dispositive. 533 U. S., at 231-234.
In this case, the interstitial nature of the legal question, the related expertise of the Agency, the importance of the question to administration of the statute, the complexity of that administration, and the careful consideration the Agency has given the question over a long period of time all indicate that Chevron provides the appropriate legal lens through which to view the legality of the Agency interpretation here at issue. See United States v. Mead Corp., supra; cf. also 1 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 1.7, 3.3 (3d ed. 1994).
For these reasons, we find the Agency’s interpretation lawful.
Ill
Walton’s second claim is more complex. For purposes of making that claim, Walton assumes what we have just decided, namely, that the statute’s “12 month” duration requirements apply to both the “impairment” and the “inability” to work requirements. Walton also concedes that he returned to work after 11 months. But Walton claims that his work from month 11 to month 12 does not count against him because it is part of a “trial work” period that the statute grants to those “entitled” to Title II benefits. See 42 U. S. C. § 422(c). And Walton adds, he was “entitle[d]” to benefits because — even though he returned to work after 11 months — his “impairment” and his “inability” to work were nonetheless “expected to last” for at least “12 months” before he returned to work.
To illustrate Walton’s argument, we simplify the actual circumstances. We imagine: (1) On January 1, Year One, Walton developed (a) a severe impairment, which (b) made him unable to work; (2) Eleven (not twelve) months later, on December 1, Year One, Walton returned to work; (3) On July 1, Year Two, the Agency adjudicated, and denied, Walton’s claim for benefits. Walton argues that, even though he returned to work after 11 months, had the Agency looked at the matter, not ex post, but as if it were looking prior to his return to work, the Agency would have had to conclude that both his “impairment” and his “inability” to work “can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” § 423(d)(1)(A). He consequently satisfied the 12-month duration requirement and became “entitled” to benefits before he returned to work; he was in turn entitled to a “trial work” period; and his subsequent work as a cashier, being “trial work,” should not count against him.
The Agency’s regulations plainly reject this view of the statute. They say, “You are not entitled to a trial work period” if “you perform work ... within 12 months of the onset of the impairment(s)... and before the date of any notice of determination or decision finding ... you ... disabled.” 20 CFR § 404.1592(d)(2) (2001). This regulation means that the Agency, deciding before the end of Year One, might have found that Walton’s impairment (or inability to work) “can be expected to last” for 12 months. But the Agency, deciding after Year One in which Walton in fact returned to work, would not ask whether his impairment (or inability to work) could have been expected to last 12 months.
The legal question is whether this Agency regulation is consistent with the statute. The Court of Appeals, accepting Walton’s view, concluded that it is not. It said that the Agency’s rules — permitting the use of hindsight when reviewing claims — are inconsistent with the statute’s plain language, 235 F. 3d, at 191. And, here, other courts have agreed. See Salamalekis v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 221 F. 3d 828 (CA6 2000); Newton v. Chater, 92 F. 3d 688 (CA8 1996); Walker v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 943 F. 2d 1257 (CA10 1991); McDonald v. Bowen, 818 F. 2d 559 (CA7 1986).
Nonetheless, we believe that Agency regulation is lawful. See Chevron, supra, at 843. The statute is ambiguous. It says nothing about how the Agency, when it adjudicates a matter after Year One, is to treat an earlier return to work. Its language “can be expected to last” 12 months, 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(1)(A), simply does not say as of what time the law measures the “expectation.” Indeed, from a linguistic perspective, the phrase “can be expected” foresees a decision-maker who is looking into the future, not a decisionmaker who is in the future, looking back into the past in order to see what then “was,” “could be,” or “could have been” expected. And read in context, the purpose of the phrase “can be expected to last” might be one of permitting the Agency to award benefits before 12 months have expired, not one of denying the Agency the benefit of hindsight. See 65 Fed. Reg., at 42780; cf. also S. Rep. No. 404, at 99.
At the same time, the Agency’s regulation seems a reasonable, hence permissible, interpretation of the statute. In effect it treats a pre-Agency-decision actual return to work, e. g., Walton’s return in December Year One, as if it were determinative of the expectation question. With Year Two’s hindsight, Walton’s “inability” to work “can” not “be expected to last 12 months.” And use of that hindsight avoids the need for the Year Two decisionmaker in effect to answer a highly unwieldy question in what grammarians might call the pluperfect future tense.
Of course, administrators and judges are capable of answering hypothetical questions of this kind. But here the question concerns what must be a eontrary-to-faet speculation about the future. It is a speculation that, however often raised, would rarely prove easy to resolve. And the statute’s purpose does not demand its resolution. Indeed, one might ask why, other things being equal, a claimant who returns to work too early ordinarily to qualify for benefits nonetheless should qualify if but only if that return was a kind of medical surprise. Of course, as Walton says, such a rule would help encourage (or at least not discourage) a claimant’s early return to work. See generally S. Rep. No. 1856,86th Cong., 2d Sess., 15-16 (1960). But the statute does not demand that the Agency make of this desirable end an overriding interpretive principle. And the Agency has recognized and addressed the problem of work disincentives in other ways. See, e. g., 20 CFR §§ 404.1574(c), 404.1575(d) (2001).
The statute’s complexity, the vast number of claims that it engenders, and the consequent need for agency expertise and administrative experience lead us to read the statute as delegating to the Agency considerable authority to fill in, through interpretation, matters of detail related to its administration. See Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 43-44 (1981). The interpretation at issue here is such a matter. The statute’s language is ambiguous. And the Agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
We conclude that the Agency’s regulation is lawful.
* * *
The judgment of the Fourth 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners Robert and Nadia Reid, husband and wife, are citizens of British Honduras. Robert Reid entered the United States at Chula Vista, California, in November 1968, falsely representing himself to be a citizen of the United States. Nadia Reid, employing the same technique, entered at the Chula Vista port of entry two months later. Petitioners have two children who were born in the United States since their entry.
In November 1971, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against petitioners, which were resolved adversely to them first by a special inquiry officer and then by the Board of Immigration Appeals. On petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a divided vote affirmed the finding of deportability. 492 F. 2d 251 (1974). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between this holding and the contrary conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F. 2d 244 (1970). 419 U. S. 823 (1974).
Because of the complexity of congressional enactments relating to immigration, some understanding of the structure of these laws is required before evaluating the legal contentions of petitioners. The McCarran-Walter Act, enacted by Congress in 1952, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq., although frequently amended since that date, remains the basic format of the immigration laws. “Although the McCarran-Walter Act has been repeatedly amended, it still is the basic statute dealing with immigration and nationality. The amendments have been fitted into the structure of the parent statute and most of the original enactment remains undisturbed.” 1 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure 1-13 to 1-14 (rev. ed. 1975).
Section 212 of the Act as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1182, specifies various grounds for exclusion of aliens seeking admission to this country. Section 241 of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1251, specifies grounds for deportation of aliens already in this country. Section 241 (a) specifies 18 different bases for deportation, among which only the first two need directly concern us:
“Any alien in the United States . .. shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who—
“(1) at the time of entry was within one or more of the classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time of such entry;
“(2) entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General or is in the United States in violation of this chapter or in violation of any other law of the United States
The INS seeks to deport petitioners under the provisions of §241 (a)(2), asserting that they entered the United States without inspection. Petitioners dispute none of the factual predicates upon which the INS bases its claim, but instead argue that their case is saved by the provisions of §241 (f), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
“The provisions of this section relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure, or have procured visas or other documentation, or entry into the United States by fraud or misrepresentation shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible at the time of entry who is the spouse, parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 75 Stat. 655, 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (f). (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to the benefits of § 241 (f) “by virtue of its explicit language.” This contention is plainly wrong, and for more than one reason.
The language of § 241 (f) tracks the provisions of § 212 (a) (19), 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (19), dealing with aliens who are excludable, and providing in pertinent part as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
“(19) Any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States, by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. . . (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus the “explicit language” of § 241 (f), upon which petitioners rely, waives deportation for aliens who are “excludable at the time of entry” by reason of the fraud specified in § 212 (a) (19), and for that reason deportable under the provisions of §241 (a)(1). If the INS were seeking to deport petitioners on this ground, they would be entitled to have applied to them the provisions of § 241 (f) because of the birth of their children after entry.
But the INS in this case does not rely on § 212 (a) (19), nor indeed on any of the other grounds for excludability under § 212, which are in turn made grounds for deportation by the language of § 241 (a)(1). It is instead relying on the separate provision of § 241 (a) (2), which does not depend in any way upon the fact that an alien was excludable at the time of his entry on one of the grounds specified in § 212 (a). Section 241 (a)(2) establishes as a separate ground for deportation, quite independently of whether the alien was excludable at the time of his arrival, the failure of an alien to present himself for inspection at the time he made his entry. If this ground is established by the admitted facts, nothing in the waiver provision of § 241 (f), which by its terms grants relief against deportation of aliens “on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry,” has any bearing on the case. Cf. Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U. S. 341, 343 (1932).
The issue before us, then, turns upon whether petitioners, who accomplished their entry into the United States by falsely asserting that they were citizens of this country, can be held to have “entered the United States without inspection.” Obviously not every misrepresentation on the part of an alien making an entry into the United States can be said to amount to an entry without inspection. But the Courts of Appeals have held that an alien who accomplishes entry into this country by making a willfully false representation that he is a United States citizen may be charged with entry without inspection. Ex parte Saadi, 26 F. 2d 458 (CA9), cert. denied, 278 U. S. 616 (1928); United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 62 F. 2d 808 (CA7), aff'd on other grounds, 289 U. S. 422, 424 (1933); Ben Huie v. INS, 349 F. 2d 1014 (CA9 1965). We agree with these holdings, and conclude that an alien making an entry into this country who falsely represents himself to be a citizen would not only be excludable under § 212 (a) (19) if he were detected at the time of his entry, but has also so significantly frustrated the process for inspecting incoming aliens that he is also deportable as one who has “entered the United States without inspection.” In reaching this conclusion we subscribe to the reasoning of Chief Judge Aldrich, writing for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Goon Mee Heung v. INS, 380 F. 2d 236, 237, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 975 (1967) :
“Whatever the effect other misrepresentations may arguably have on an alien's being legally considered to have been inspected upon entering the country, we do not now consider; we are here concerned solely with an entry under a fraudulent claim of citizenship. Aliens who enter as citizens, rather than as aliens, are treated substantially differently by immigration authorities. The examination to which citizens are subjected is likely to be considerably more perfunctory than that accorded aliens. Gordon & Rosen-field, Immigration Law and Procedure § 316d (1966). Also, aliens are required to fill out alien registration forms, copies of which are retained by the immigration authorities. 8 C. F. R. §§ 235.4,264.1; 8 U. S. C. §§ 1201 (b), 1301-1306. Fingerprinting is required for most aliens. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1201 (b), 1301-1302. The net effect, therefore, of a person’s entering the country as an admitted alien is that the immigration authorities, in addition to making a closer examination of his right to enter in the first place, require and obtain information and a variety of records that enable them to keep track of the alien after his entry. Since none of these requirements is applicable to citizens, an alien who enters by claiming to be a citizen has effectively put himself in a quite different position from other admitted aliens, one more comparable to that of a person who slips over the border and who has, therefore, clearly not been inspected.”
Petitioners rely upon this Court’s decision in INS v. Errico, 385 U. S. 214 (1966). There the Court decided two companion cases involving fraudulent representations by aliens in connection with quota requirements which existed at the time Errico was decided, but which were prospectively repealed in 1965. Errico, a native of Italy, falsely represented to the authorities that he was a skilled mechanic with specialized experience in repairing foreign automobiles. On the basis of that representation he was granted first-preference-quota status under the statutory preference scheme then in effect, entered the United States with his wife, and later fathered a child by her.
Scott, a native of Jamaica, contracted a marriage with a United States citizen by proxy solely for the purpose of obtaining nonquota status for her entry into the country. She never lived with her husband and never intended to do so. After entering the United States in 1958, she gave birth to an illegitimate child, who thereby became an American citizen at birth.
When the INS discovered the fraud in each of these cases, it sought to deport both Errico and Scott on the grounds that they were “within one or more of the classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at the time” of their entry, and therefore deportable under §241 (a)(1). The INS did not rely on the provisions of §212 (a) (19), making excludable an alien who has procured a visa or other documentation or entry by fraud, nor indeed did it rely on any other of the subsections of § 212 dealing with excludable aliens. Instead it relied on an entirely separate portion of the statute, § 211, 8 U. S. C. § 1181 (a) (1964 ed.), prospectively amended in 1965, but reading, as applicable to Errico and Scott, as follows:
“No immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such immigrant visa of the accompanying parent, (2) is properly chargeable to the quota specified in the immigrant visa, (3) is a nonquota immigrant if specified as such in the immigrant visa, (4) is of the proper status under the quota specified in the immigrant visa, and (5) is otherwise admissible under this chapter.”
The INS contended that Errico fell within the proscription of § 211 (a)(4), and that Scott fell within the proscription of § 211 (a)(3), and that therefore § 211 (a) prohibited their admission into the United States as of the time of their entry. It apparently reasoned from these admitted facts that both Errico and Scott were therefore “excludable” at the time of their entry within the meaning of § 241 (a) (1).
Section 211 of the Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 181-182, is entitled Documentary Requirements. Section 212 of the same Act, 66 Stat. 182-188, is entitled General Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas and Excluded from Admission. INS could clearly have proceeded against either Scott or Errico under §212 (a) (19), on the basis of their procuring a visa or other documentation by fraud or misrepresentation. Just as clearly Scott and Errico could have then asserted their claim to the benefit of §241 (f), waiving deportation based upon fraud for aliens who had given birth to children after their entry and who were otherwise admissible. Instead the INS relied on the provisions of § 211 (a), which deal with the general subject of the necessary documentation for admission of immigrants, rather than with the general subject of excludable aliens. Rather than questioning whether a failure to comply with §211 (a) (3) or (4) by itself rendered an alien “excludable” as that term is used in § 241 (a)(1), the Court in Errico implicitly treated it as doing so and went on to hold that § 241 (f) “saves from deportation an alien who misrepresents his status for the purpose of evading quota restrictions, if he has the necessary familial relationship to a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.” INS v. Errico, 385 U. S., at 215.
Errico was decided by a divided Court over a strong dissenting opinion. Even the most expansive view of its holding could not avail these petitioners, since § 241 (f) which it construed applies by its terms only to “the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry.” Here, as we have noted, INS seeks to deport petitioners, not under the provisions of §241 (a)(1), relating to aliens excludable at the time of entry, but instead under the provisions of § 241 (a)(2), relating to aliens who do not present themselves for inspection. Yet there is no doubt that the broad language used in some portions of the Court's opinion in Errico has led one Court of Appeals to apply the provisions of § 241 (f) to a, case indistinguishable from petitioners’, Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F. 2d 244 (CA9 1970), and to decisions of other Courts of Appeals in related areas which may be summarized in the language of Macduff: “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.”
Aliens entering the United States under temporary visitor permits, who acquire one of the specified familial relationships described in § 241 (f) after entry, have argued with varying results that their fraudulent intent upon entry to remain in this country permanently cloaks them with immunity from deportation even though they overstayed their visitor permits. Acceptance of this theory leads to the conclusion that § 241 (f) waives a substantive ground for deportation based on overstay if the alien can affirmatively prove his fraudulent intent at the time of entry, but grants no relief to aliens with exactly the same familial relationship who are unable to satisfactorily establish their dishonesty. See Cabuco-Flores v. INS, 477 F. 2d 108 (CA9), cert. denied sub nom. Mangabat v. INS, 414 U. S. 841 (1973); cf. Jolley v. INS, 441 F. 2d 1245 (CA5 1971). Balking at such an irrational result, one court has gone so far as to declare that § 241 (f) waives deportability under §241 (a)(1) even though no fraud is involved if the alien is able merely to establish the requisite familial tie. In re Yuen Lan Horn, 289 F. Supp. 204 (SDNY 1968).
Nor has there been agreement among those courts which have construed § 241 (f) to waive substantive grounds for deportation under § 212 other than for fraud delineated in §212 (a) (19) as to which other grounds are waived. While some courts have found that § 241 (f) waives any deportation charge to which fraud is “germane” others have found it waives “quantitative” but not “qualitative” grounds where its requirements are met. Still others have required that “but for” the misrepresentation, the alien meet the substantive requirements of the Act while at least one court has discerned in Errico a test requiring that the aliens' fraudulent statement be taken as true, with determination on such hypothetical facts whether the alien would be deportable. Cabuco-Flores v. INS, supra, at 110.
We do not believe that § 241 (f) as interpreted by Errico requires such results. We adhere to the holding of that case, which we take to be that where the INS chooses not to seek deportation under the obviously available provisions of § 212 (a) (19) relating to the fraudulent procurement of visas, documentation, or entry, but instead asserts a failure to comply with those separate requirements of §211 (a), dealing with compliance with quota requirements, as a ground for deportation under § 241 (a)(1), § 241 (f) waives the fraud on the part of the alien in showing compliance with the provisions of § 211 (a). In view of the language of § 241 (f) and the cognate provisions of §212 (a) (19), we do not believe Errico’s holding may properly be read to extend the waiver provisions of § 241 (f) to any of the grounds of excludability specified in § 212 (a) other than subsection (19). This conclusion, by extending the waiver provision of § 241 (f) not only to deportation based on excludability under § 212 (a) (19), but to a claim of de-portability based on fraudulent misrepresentation in order to satisfy the requirements of § 211 (a), gives due weight to the concern expressed in Errico that the provisions of § 241 (f) were intended to apply to some misrepresentations that were material to the admissions procedure. It likewise gives weight to our belief that Congress, in enacting § 241 (f), was intent upon granting relief to limited classes of aliens whose fraud was of such a nature that it was more than counterbalanced by after-acquired family ties; it did not intend to arm the dishonest alien seeking admission to our country with a sword by which he could avoid the numerous substantive grounds for exclusion unrelated to fraud, which are set forth in § 212 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See also United States v. Osuna-Picos, 443 F. 2d 907 (CA9 1971); Gonzalez de Moreno v. INS, 492 F. 2d 532 (CA5 1974); Gonzalez v. INS, 493 F. 2d 461 (CA5 1974); Bufalino v. INS, 473 F. 2d 728 (CA3), cert. denied, 412 U. S. 928 (1973).
Entry without inspection is ground for deportation under §241 (a) (2) even though the alien was not excludable at the time of entry under § 241 (a) (1). 1C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 4.8b (rev. ed. 1975). It is a basis for deportation wholly independent of any basis for deportation which may exist under § 241 (a) (1).
Section 211 of the Act was amended by § 9 of the Act of Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 917, in connection with revision of the numerical quota system established by the Act. Since § 241 (a) (1) deals with excludability under the immigration law as it existed at the time of entry, the Court in Errico looked to § 211 as it existed prior to the amendment. INS v. Errico, 385 U. S. 214, 215 n. 2 (1966).
For an example of the differing results within one Circuit, see Muslemi v. INS, 408 F. 2d 1196 (CA9 1969); Vitales v. INS, 443 F. 2d 343 (CA9 1971), vacated, 406 U. S. 983 (1972); Cabuco-Flores v. INS, 477 F. 2d 108 (CA9), cert. denied sub nom. Mangabat v. INS, 414 U. S. 841 (1973). Other Circuits have generally held § 241 (f) not available on similar facts. De Vargas v. INS, 409 F. 2d 335 (CA5 1968); Ferrante v. INS, 399 F. 2d 98 (CA6 1968) ; Milande v. INS, 484 F. 2d 774 (CA7 1973); Preux v. INS, 484 F. 2d 396 (CA10 1973).
See Muslemi v. INS, supra, at 1199.
See, e. g., Godoy v. Rosenberg, 415 F. 2d 1266 (CA9 1969); Jolley v. INS, 441 F. 2d 1245 (CA5 1971). It is, of course, difficult to determine which grounds for exclusion fit which characterization. Arguably, for example, the failure to obtain the required certification by the Secretary of Labor dealt with in Godoy v. Rosenberg, supra, could as easily have been characterized as “qualitative.” The Ninth Circuit in Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 439 F. 2d 244, 246 (1970), found evasion of inspection a “quantitative” ground while the Third Circuit in Bufalino v. INS, 473 F. 2d, at 731, found it a “qualitative” ground not subject to § 241 (f) waiver.
See, e. g., Loos v. INS, 407 F. 2d 651 (CA7 1969).
The legislative history of this provision, designed primarily to prevent the deportation of refugees from totalitarian nations for harmless misrepresentations made solely to escape persecution, is fully consistent with our interpretation of the provision. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2096, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 128 (1952); H. R. Doc. No. 329, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1956); H. R. Doc. No. 85, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1957); H. R. Rep. No. 1199, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1957); 103 Cong. Rec. 15487-15499, 16298-16310 (1957); H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 37-38 (1961). The predecessor of current § 241 (f), § 7 of the Immigration Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 640, was consistently described during debate by its supporters as making minor adjustments in the immigration and naturalization system. Congressman Celler, a sponsor of the bill enacting § 7, summarized it during House debate in these words (after summarizing a nonrelated provision of § 7):
“This section also provides for leniency in the consideration of visa applications made by close relatives of United States citizens and aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who in the past may have procured documentation for entry by misrepresentation.” 103 Cong. Rec. 16301 (1957).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Act) sets forth employment rules concerning minimum wages, maximum hours, and overtime pay. 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. The Act contains an antiretaliation provision that forbids employers
“to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the Act], or has testified or is about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” § 215(a)(3) (emphasis added).
We must decide whether the statutory term “filed any complaint” includes oral as well as written complaints within its scope. We conclude that it does.
I
The petitioner, Kevin Kasten, brought this antiretaliation lawsuit against his former employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation. Kasten says that Saint-Gobain located its timeclocks between the area where Kasten and other workers put on (and take off) their work-related protective gear and the area where they carry out their assigned tasks. That location prevented workers from receiving credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their work clothes — contrary to the Act’s requirements. In a related suit the District Court agreed with Kasten, finding that Saint-Gobain’s “practice of not compensating ... for time spent donning and doffing certain required protective gear and walking to work areas” violated the Act. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 556 F. Supp. 2d 941, 954 (WD Wis. 2008). In this suit Kasten claims unlawful retaliation. He says that Saint-Gobain discharged him because he orally complained to Saint-Gobain officials about the timeclocks.
In particular, Kasten says that he repeatedly called the unlawful timeclock location to Saint-Gobain’s attention — in accordance with Saint-Gobain’s internal grievance-resolution procedure. See Brief for Petitioner 4 (quoting SaintGobain’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct as imposing upon every employee “the responsibility to report . . . suspected violations of . . . any applicable law of which he or she becomes aware”); id., at 4-5 (quoting Saint-Gobain’s Employee Policy Handbook as instructing employees with “questions, complaints, and problems” to “[c]ontact” their “supervisor^] immediately” and if necessary “take the issue to the next level of management,” then to the “local Human Resources Manager,” then to “Human Resources” personnel at the “Regional” or “Headquarters” level).
Kasten adds that he “raised a concern” with his shift supervisor that “it was illegal for the time clocks to be where they were” because of Saint-Gobain’s exclusion of “the time you come in and start doing stuff”; he told a human resources employee that “if they were to get challenged on” the location in court, “they would lose”; he told his lead operator that the location was illegal and that he “was thinking about starting a lawsuit about the placement of the time clocks”; and he told the human resources manager and the operations manager that he thought the location was illegal and that the company would “lose” in court. Record in No. 3:07-cv-00686-bbc (WD Wis.), Doe. 87-3, pp. 31-34 (deposition of Kevin Kasten). This activity, Kasten concludes, led the company to discipline him and, in December 2006, to dismiss him.
Saint-Gobain presents a different version of events. It denies that Kasten made any significant complaint about the timeelock location. And it says that it dismissed Kasten simply because Kasten, after being repeatedly warned, failed to record his comings and goings on the timeelock.
For present purposes we accept Kasten’s version of these contested events as valid. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 380 (2007). That is because the District Court entered summary judgment in Saint-Gobain’s favor. 619 F. Supp. 2d 608, 610 (WD Wis. 2008). And it did so, not because it doubted Kasten’s ability to prove the facts he alleged, but because it thought the Act did not protect oral complaints. Id., at 611-613. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Act’s antiretaliation provision does not cover oral complaints. 570 F. 3d 834, 838-840 (2009).
Kasten sought certiorari. And in light of conflict among the Circuits as to whether an oral complaint is protected, we granted Kasten’s petition. Compare Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, L. L. C., 529 F. 3d 617, 625-626 (CA5 2008) (antiretaliation provision covers oral complaints); Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F. 3d 997, 1007 (CA9 1999) (en banc) (same), with Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F. 3d 46, 55-56 (CA2 1993) (antiretaliation provision does not cover informal complaints to supervisors). See also Pacheco v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 365 F. 3d 1199, 1206 (CA10 2004) (antiretaliation provision covers unofficial assertion of rights); EEOC v. White & Son Enterprises, 881 F. 2d 1006, 1011-1012 (CA11 1989) (same); Moore v. Freeman, 355 F. 3d 558, 562-563 (CA6 2004) (assuming without discussion that oral complaints are covered); Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F. 2d 179, 181 (CA8 1975) (same).
II
The sole question presented is whether “an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act” is “protected conduct under the [Act’s] anti-retaliation provision.” Pet. for Cert. i. The Act protects employees who have “filed any complaint,” 29 U. S. C. § 215(a)(3), and interpretation of this phrase “depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and context of the statute, and consulting any precedents or authorities that inform the analysis,” Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 486 (2006). This analysis leads us to conclude that the language of the provision, considered in isolation, may be open to competing interpretations. But considering the provision in conjunction with the purpose and context leads us to conclude that only one interpretation is permissible.
A
We begin with the text of the statute. The word “filed” has different relevant meanings in different contexts. Some dictionary definitions of the word contemplate a writing. See, e. g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 945 (2d ed. 1934) (def. 4(a)) (to file is to “deliver (a paper or instrument) to the proper officer so that it is received by him to be kept on file, or among the records of his office” (emphasis added)); Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 462 (1983) (def. 2(a)) (one definition of “file” is “to place among official records as prescribed by law”).
But other dictionaries provide different definitions that permit the use of the word “file” in conjunction with oral material. One can, for example, file an oral statement that enters a matter “into the order of business.” 1 Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language 920 (rev. ed. 1938) (def. 2) (to file is to “present in the regular way, as to a judicial or legislative body, so that it shall go upon the records or into the order of business”). This possibility is significant because it means that dictionary meanings, even if considered alone, do not necessarily limit the scope of the statutory phrase to written complaints. Cf. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 555 U. S. 271, 277 (2009) (looking for the “limits” of a linguistic phrase rather than what “exemplifies]” its application).
In addition to the dictionary definitions, we have found that legislators, administrators, and judges have all sometimes used the word “file” in conjunction with oral statements. Thus state statutes sometimes contemplate oral filings. See, e. g., Alaska Stat. § 47.32.090(a) (2008) (“file a verbal or written complaint”); Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 17055(a) (West 2006) (“file an administrative complaint orally or in writing”); D. C. Code § 7-1231.12(a)(2)(B) (2001) (“filing his or her grievance, orally or in writing”); Ga. Code Ann. §§31-8-124(a), (c), 31-8-134(b) (2009) (“to file a grievance,” a person may “submit an oral or written complaint”); Ind. Code § 27-8-28-14(a) (2009) (“file a grievance orally or in writing”); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 34-B, §5604(3)(B) (2009) (“filed through an oral request”); Miss. Code Ann. § 69-47-23(4) (2005) (“file a written or oral complaint”); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 198.088.3(3) (2009) (to have a complaint “filed,” a person “shall write or cause to be written his grievance or shall state it orally”); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§618.336(2)(a), 618.341(l)(a) (2009) (“oral or written complaint filed”); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-12 (West 2008) (“written or oral complaint may be filed”); N. Y. Ins. Law Ann. §§ 3217-a(a)(7), 4324(a)(7) (West 2006) (“file a grievance orally”); N. Y. Pub. Health Law Ann. § 4408(l)(g) (West Supp. 2010) (“file a grievance orally”); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 40, §§991.2141(a)-(b) (Purdon 1999) (“file a . . . written or oral complaint”); Tex. Ins. Code Ann. §§ 1305.401(a)-(b) (West 2009) (“oral or written complaint” must be “file[d]”); Wash. Rev. Code §§90.64.030(3), (5) (2008) (“complaints have been filed ... as the result of either an oral or a written complaint”).
Regulations promulgated by various federal agencies sometimes permit complaints to be filed orally. See, e. g., 32 CFR §842.20 (2010) (“[fjiling a claim” may proceed “orally or in writing”); 42 CFR § 422.564(d)(1) (2009) (“file a grievance . . . either orally or in writing”); § 423.564(d)(1) (same); §438.402(b)(3)(i) (“file a grievance either orally or in writing”); § 494.180(e) (“file an oral or written grievance”); 49 CFR § 1503.629(c) (2009) (“[f]iling of motions .. . must be in writing or orally on the record” (emphasis deleted)); 42 CFR § 438.402(b)(3)(ii) (2009) (“file an appeal either orally or in writing”).
And a review of contemporaneous judicial usage, cf. Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452, 475 (2002), shows that oral filings were a known phenomenon when the Act was passed. See, e. g., Reed Oil Co. v. Cain, 169 Ark. 309, 312, 275 S. W. 333, 334 (1925) (“appellee filed ... an oral complaint”); Tingler v. Lahti, 87 W. Va. 499, 503, 105 S. E. 810, 812 (1921) (“complaint subsequently filed, either oral or written”); Ex parte Mosgrove, 47 Okla. Crim. 40, 287 P. 795 (1930) (only “complaint ... filed against him” was “oral complaint of the town marshal”); Indian Fred v. State, 36 Ariz. 48, 52-53, 282 P. 930, 932 (1929) (“filed an oral motion to quash”); Dunn v. State, 60 Okla. Crim. 201, 203, 63 P. 2d 772, 773 (1936) (“filed an oral demurrer”); Morrison v. Lewis, 58 Ga. App. 677, 199 S. E. 782 (1938) (“filed an oral motion” demurring); Brock v. Cullum Bros., 263 S. W. 335 (Tex. Civ. App. 1924) (“filed an oral motion to quash”); Fike v. Allen, 269 S. W. 179, 180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925) (“filed oral pleadings”).
Filings may more often be made in writing. See, e.g., Ritter v. United States, 28 F. 2d 265, 267 (CA3 1928) (finding words “file a claim'for refund” to require a written request in context of Tax Code). But we are interested in the filing of “any complaint.” So even if the word “filéd,” considered alone, might suggest a narrow interpretation limited to writings, the phrase “any complaint” suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint. See, e. g., Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848, 856 (2009). The upshot is that the three-word phrase, taken by itself, cannot answer the interpretive question.
We can look further to other appearances of the word “filed” in the Act. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 226 (1994) (examining “contextual indications” of the meaning of a term). That word (or a variant) appears in numerous other provisions. But its appearance elsewhere in the Act does not resolve the linguistic question before us. Some of those other provisions (1) involve filed material that, unlike a complaint, is of a kind that is virtually always in writing. See, e. g., 29 U. S. C. §203(Z) (employers must “have on file an unexpired certificate” (emphasis added)); § 210(a) (Secretary must “file in the court the record of the industry committee” (emphasis added)); ibid, (industry committee must “file” its findings and recommendations). Others (2) specifically require a writing, see, e. g., § 214(c)(5)(A) (requiring employee's “consent in writing” to join collective action to be “filed” (emphasis added)); § 216(b) (same). And the remainder (3) leave the oral/written question unresolved — just as does the provision before us. See, e. g., § 210(b) (prohibiting a stay unless movant “file[s] in court an undertaking” (emphasis added)); § 214(c)(5)(A) (employee “may file ... a petition” for review of a special wage rate (emphasis added)).
Looking beyond the Act, we find other statutes that contain antiretaliation provisions. Those statutes, however, use somewhat different language. See, e. g., § 158(a)(4) (protecting an employee who has “filed charges or given testimony”); § 623(d) (protecting those who “opposed any [unlawful] practice” (emphasis added)); 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-3(a), 12203(a) (same); 29 U. S. C. § 2615(a)(2) (similar). See also, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 2087(a)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. Ill) (“provided ... to the employer . . . information relating to any violation” (emphasis added)); § 2651(a) (2006 ed.) (similar); 30 U. S. C. § 815(c)(1) (“filed or made a complaint” (emphasis added)); 42 U. S. C. § 5851(a)(1)(A) (“notified his employer” (emphasis added)); 49 U. S. C. § 42121(a)(1) (“provided . . . information” (emphasis added)); § 60129(a)(1) (same). Some of this language is broader than the phrase before us, but, given the fact that the phrase before us lends itself linguistically to the broader, “oral” interpretation, the use of broader language elsewhere may mean (1) that Congress wanted to limit the scope of the phrase before us to writings, or (2) that Congress did not believe the different phraseology made a significant difference in this respect. The language alone does not tell us whether Congress, if intending to protect orally expressed grievances elsewhere, did or did not intend to leave those oral grievances unprotected here.
The bottom line is that the text, taken alone, cannot provide a conclusive answer to our interpretive question. The phrase “filed any complaint” might, or might not, encompass oral complaints. We must look further.
B
1
Several functional considerations indicate that Congress intended the antiretaliation provision to eover oral, as well as written, “complaint[s].” First, an interpretation that limited the provision’s coverage to written complaints would undermine the Act’s basic objectives. The Act seeks to prohibit “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.” 29 U. S. C. § 202(a). It does so in part by setting forth substantive wage, hour, and overtime standards. It relies for enforcement of these standards, not upon “continuing detailed federal supervision or inspection of payrolls,” but upon “information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied.” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292 (1960). And its antiretaliation provision makes this enforcement scheme effective by preventing “fear of economic retaliation” from inducing workers “quietly to accept substandard conditions.” Ibid.
Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme’s effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act’s complaint procedure by those who would find it 'difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated, or overworked workers? President Franklin Roosevelt pointed out at the time that these were the workers most in need of the Act’s help. See Message to Congress, May 24,1937, H. R. Doc. No. 255, 75th Cong, 1st Sess., 4 (seeking a bill to help the poorest of “those who toil in factory”).
In the years prior to the passage of the Act, illiteracy rates were particularly high among the poor. See E. Gordon & E. Gordon, Literacy in America 273 (2003) (one-quarter of World War I conscripts were illiterate); Dept, of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population: The Labor Force (Sample Statistics): Occupational Characteristics 60 (1943) (20.8% of manufacturing laborers in 1940 had less than five years of schooling). Those rates remained high in certain industries for many years after the Act’s passage. In 1948, for example, the National War Labor Board wrote:
“In many plants where there is a high degree of illiteracy, the writing of grievances by employees works a substantial hardship. In other plants where there is considerable dirt and special clothes must be worn, it is often not practicable to write up grievances during work hours.” 1 The Termination Report of the National War Labor Board, p. 122.
To limit the scope of the antiretaliation provision to the filing of written complaints would also take needed flexibility from those charged with the Act’s enforcement. It could prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods of receiving complaints. And insofar as the antiretaliation provision covers complaints made to employers (a matter we need not decide, see infra, at 16-17), it would discourage the use of desirable informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance with the Act. Cf. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, 764 (1998) (reading Title YII to encourage the development of effective grievance procedures to deter misconduct); D. McPherson, C. Gates, & K. Rogers, Resolving Grievances: A Practical Approach 38-40 (1983) (describing the significant benefits of unwritten complaints).
Given the need for effective enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), this Court has broadly interpreted the language of the NLRA’s antiretaliation provision — “filed charges or given testimony,” 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(4) — as protecting workers who neither filed charges nor were “called formally to testify” but simply “participate[d] in a [National Labor Relations] Board investigation.” NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U. S. 117, 123 (1972) (emphasis added). The similar enforcement needs of this related statute argue for an interpretation of the word “complaint” that would provide “broad rather than narrow protection to the employee,” id., at 122 (and would do so here without pressing statutory language to its limit). See also Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U. S. 590, 597 (1944) (the Act’s “remedial and humanitarian . . . purpose” cautions against “narrow, grudging” interpretations of its language).
Saint-Gobain replies that worker protection is not the only relevant statutory objective. The Act also seeks to establish an enforcement system that is fair to employers. To do so, the employer must have fair notice that an employee is making a complaint that could subject the employer to a later claim of retaliation. If oral complaints suffice, Saint-Gobain adds, employers too often will be left in a state of uncertainty about whether an employee (particularly an employee who seems unusually angry at the moment) is in fact making a complaint about an Act violation or just letting off steam.
We agree with Saint-Gobain that the statute requires fair notice. Although the dictionary definitions, statutes, regulations, and judicial opinions we considered, see supra, at 7-10, do not distinguish between writings and oral statements, they do suggest that a “filing” is a serious occasion, rather than a triviality. As such, the phrase “filed any complaint” contemplates some degree of formality, certainly to the point where the recipient has been given fair notice that a grievance has been lodged and does, or should, reasonably understand the matter as part of its business concerns.
Moreover, the statute prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee “because such employee has filed any complaint.” §215(a)(3) (emphasis added). And it is difficult to see how an employer who does not (or should not) know an employee has made a complaint could discriminate because of that complaint. But we also believe that a fair notice requirement does not necessarily mean that notice must be in writing.
At oral argument, the Government said that a complaint is “filed” when “a reasonable, objective person would have understood the employee” to have “put the employer on notice that [the] employee is asserting statutory rights under the [Act].” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23, 26. We agree. To fall within the scope of the antiretaliation provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for théir protection. This standard can be met, however, by oral complaints, as well as by written ones.
2
Second, given Congress’ delegation of enforcement powers to federal administrative agencies, we also give a degree of weight to their views about the meaning of this enforcement language. See 29 U. S. C. § 216(c) (vesting enforcement power in Secretary of Labor); Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 5 U. S. C. App. § 1, p. 664 (transferring to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement of this antiretaliation provision as part of its Equal Pay Act enforcement responsibilities); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944) (giving weight to a persuasive articulation of views within an agency’s area of expertise).
The Secretary of Labor has consistently held the view that the words “filed any complaint” cover oral,, as well as written, complaints. The Department of Labor articulated that view in an enforcement action filed many years ago, Goldberg v. Zenger, 43 CCH LC ¶ 31,155, pp. 40,985, 40,986 (D Utah 1961). It has subsequently reaffirmed that view in briefs. See, e. g., Brief for Secretary of Labor as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in Lambert v. Ackerley, No. 96-36017 etc. (CA9), pp. 6-7. And more recently it has acted in accordance with that view by creating a hotline to receive oral complaints, see Dept, of Labor, Compliance Assistance by Law— The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), http://www.dol.gov/ compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm (as visited Mar. 18, 2011, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (directing participants who wish to “file a complaint” to contact a local office “or call the Department’s Toll-Free Wage and Hour Help Line at 1-866-4-U S-WAGE ”).
The EEOC has set forth a similar view in its Compliance Manual, Vol. 2, § 8-II(B)(l), p. 8-3, and n. 12 (1998), and in multiple briefs, see, e. g., Brief for EEOC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in Lambert v. Ackerley, No. 96-36017 etc. (CA9), pp. 8-13; Brief for Appellee in EEOC v. White & Son Enterprises, Inc., No. 88-7658 (CA11), pp. 29-30.
These agency views are reasonable. They are consistent with the Act. The length of time the agencies have held them suggests that they reflect careful consideration, not “post hoc rationalization].” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn, of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 50 (1983). And they consequently add force to our conclusion. Skidmore, supra, at 140; cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 229, 234-235 (2001) (Court sometimes finds judicial deference intended even in absence of rulemaking authority); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687, 703-704, and n. 18 (1995) (agency views, where the law counsels deference, can clarify otherwise ambiguous statutory provisions).
3
Finally, we note that Saint-Gobain invokes the “rule of lenity” in support of its “written complaint” interpretation. That rule applies primarily to the interpretation of criminal statutes. It leads us to favor a more lenient interpretation of a criminal statute “when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.” United States v. Shabani, 513 U. S. 10, 17 (1994). We agree with Saint-Gobain that those who violate the anti-retaliation provision before us are subject to criminal sanction, 29 U. S. C. § 216(a). And we have said that the rule of lenity can apply when a statute with criminal sanctions is applied in a noncriminal context. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11, n. 8 (2004). But after engaging in traditional methods of statutory interpretation, we cannot find that the statute remains sufficiently ambiguous to warrant application of the rule of lenity here.
C
Alternatively, Saint-Gobain claims that it should prevail because Kasten complained to a private employer, not to the Government; and, in Saint-Gobain’s view, the antiretaliation provision applies only to complaints filed with the Government. Saint-Gobain advanced this claim in the lower courts, which held to the contrary. 570 F. 3d, at 837-838; 619 F. Supp. 2d, at 613. But Saint-Gobain said nothing about it in response to Kasten’s petition for certiorari. Indeed, it did not mention the claim in this Court until it filed its brief on the merits.
We do not normally consider a separate legal question not raised in the certiorari briefs. See this Court’s Rule 15.2; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75, n. 13 (1996). We see no reason to make an exception here. Resolution of the Government/private employer question is not a “ ‘ “predicate to an intelligent resolution”’” of the oral/written question that we granted certiorari to decide. See ibid, (quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 38 (1996)). That is to say, we can decide the oral/written question separately — on its own. And we have done so. Thus, we state no view on the merits of Saint-Gobain’s alternative claim. Cf. post, at 18-21 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
* * *
We conclude that the Seventh Circuit erred in determining that oral complaints cannot fall within the scope of the phrase “filed any complaint” in the Act’s antiretaliation provision. We leave it to the lower courts to decide whether Kasten will be able to satisfy the Act’s notice requirement. We vacate the Circuit’s judgment and remand the case 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:
|
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Keene Corporation has been sued by thousands of plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to asbestos fibers and dust released from products made by Keene and by a company it acquired. In trying to recoup some of the money it was paying to litigate and settle the cases, Keene filed two complaints against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. When it filed each complaint, however, Keene had a similar claim pending against the Government in another court. We hold that 28 U. S. C. § 1500 consequently precludes Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over Keene’s actions and affirm the dismissal of its complaints.
r — i
Through its subsidiary Keene Building Products Corporation, Keene manufactured and sold thermal insulation and acoustical products containing asbestos, as did a company it acquired in 1968, Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc. In the mid-1970’s, plaintiffs began suing Keene in tort, alleging injury or death from exposure to asbestos fibers. In a typical case filed against Keene and other defendants in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Miller v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., No. 78-1283E, the plaintiff alleged, on behalf of the estate of one Dzon, that the decedent had died of lung cancer caused by asbestos fibers and dust inhaled during employment in 1948 and 1944. In June 1979, Keene filed a third-party complaint against the United States, alleging that any asbestos products to which Dzon was exposed had been supplied to the Government in accordance with specifications set out in Government contracts, and seeking indemnification or contribution from the Government for any damages Keene might have to pay the plaintiff. This third-party action ended, however, in May 1980, when the District Court granted Keene’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its complaint.
In the meantime, in December 1979, with the Miller third-party action still pending, Keene filed the first of its two complaints in issue here, seeking damages from the United States in the Court of Federal Claims “for any amounts which have been, or which may be recovered from Keene by the claimants, by settlement or judgment.” Keene Corp. v. United States, No. 579-79C (Keene I), App. to Pet. for Cert. H15. The “claimants” are defined as the plaintiffs in the more than 2,500 lawsuits filed against Keene “by persons alleging personal injury or death from inhalation of asbestos fibers contained in thermal insulation products” manufactured or sold by Keene or its subsidiaries. Id., at H3. Keene alleges conformance with Government specifications in the inclusion of asbestos within the thermal insulation products Keene supplied to Government shipyards and other projects funded or controlled by the Government, and Keene further claims that the Government even sold it some of the asbestos fiber used in its products. Keene’s theory of recovery is breach by the United States of implied warranties in contracts between the Government and Keene, a theory only the Court of Federal Claims may entertain, given the amount of damages requested, under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Keene’s next move against the Government came the following month when it filed a 23-count complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Keene Corp. v. United States, No. 80-CIV-0401(GLG). The pleadings tracked, almost verbatim, the lengthy factual allegations of Keene I, but the action was recast in terms of various tort theories, again seeking damages for any amounts paid by Keene to asbestos claimants. Keene also added a takings claim for the Government’s allegedly improper recoupment, under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U. S. C. § 8132, of money paid by Keene to claimants covered by the Act. For this, Keene sought restitution of “the amounts of money which have been, or which may be, recouped by [the United States] from claimants from judgments and settlements paid by Keene,” App. 37, as well as an injunction against the Government’s collection of FECA refunds thereafter. This suit suffered dismissal in September 1981, on the basis of sovereign immunity, which the court held unaffected by any waiver found in the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Suits in Admiralty Act, and the Public Vessels Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F. 2d 836 (CA2 1983), and we denied certiorari, 464 U. S. 864 (1983).
Only five days before the Southern District’s dismissal of that omnibus action, Keene returned to the Court of Federal Claims with the second of the complaints in issue here. Keene Corp. v. United States, No. 585-81C (Keene II). Although this one, too, repeats many of the factual allegations of Keene I, it adopts one of the theories raised in the Southern District case, seeking payment for “the amounts of money that [the United States] has recouped” under FECA from asbestos claimants paid by Keene. App. to Pet. for Cert. F10-F11. Again, the recoupments are said to be takings of Keene’s property without due process and just compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment. See 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1) (covering, inter alia, certain claims “founded... upon the Constitution”).
After the Court of Federal Claims raised the present jurisdictional issue sua sponte in similar actions brought by Johns-Manville, the Government invoked 28 U. S. C. § 1500 in moving to dismiss both Keene I and Keene II, as well as like actions by five other asbestos product manufacturers. With trial imminent in the Johns-Manville cases, the Court of Federal Claims initially granted the motion to dismiss only as to them. Keene Corp. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 197 (1987). That decision was affirmed on appeal, Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F. 2d 1556 (CA Fed. 1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1066 (1989), and the Court of Federal Claims then entered dismissals in Keene I and Keene II, among other cases, finding that when Keene had filed both Keene I and Keene II, it had the same claims pending in other courts. 17 Cl. Ct. 146 (1989). While a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on the ground that § 1500 was inapplicable because no other claim had been pending elsewhere when the Court of Federal Claims entertained and acted upon the Government’s motion to dismiss, UNR Industries, Inc. v. United States, 911 F. 2d 654 (1990), the Court of Appeals, en banc, subsequently vacated the panel opinion, 926 F. 2d 1109 (1990), and affirmed the trial court’s dismissals, 962 F. 2d 1013 (1992). We granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 939 (1992).
HH HH
The authority cited for dismissing Keene’s complamts for want of jurisdiction was 28 U. S. C. § 1500 (1988 ed., Supp. IV):
“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.”
The lineage of this text runs back more than a century to the aftermath of the Civil War, when residents of the Confederacy who had involuntarily parted with property (usually cotton) during the war sued the United States for compensation in the Court of Claims, under the Abandoned Property Collection Act, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 820 (1863). When these cotton claimants had difficulty meeting the statutory condition that they must have given no aid or comfort to participants in the rebellion, see §8 of the Act, they resorted to separate suits in other courts seeking compensation not from the Government as such but from federal officials, and not under the statutory cause of action but on tort theories such as conversion. See Schwartz, Section 1500 of the Judicial Code and Duplicate Suits Against the Government and Its Agents, 55 Geo. L. J. 573, 574-580 (1967). It was these duplicative lawsuits that induced Congress to prohibit anyone from filing or prosecuting in the Court of Claims “any claim... for or in respect to which he... shall have commenced and has pending” an action in any other court against an officer or agent of the United States. Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71, § 8, 15 Stat. 77. The statute has long outlived the cotton claimants, having been incorporated with minor changes into § 1067 of the Revised Statutes of 1878; then reenacted without further change as § 154 of the Judicial Code of 1911, Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 281, § 154, 36 Stat. 1138, 28 U. S. C. §260 (1940 ed.); and finally adopted in its present form by the Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 942, 28 U. S. C. § 1500.
Keene argues it was error for the courts below to apply the statute by focusing on facts as of the time Keene filed its complaints (instead of the time of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss) and to ignore differences said to exist between the Court of Federal Claims actions and those filed in the District Courts. Neither assignment of error will stand.
A
Congress has the constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, see Finley v. United States, 490 U. S. 545, 548 (1989), and, once the lines are drawn, “limits upon federal jurisdiction... must be neither disregarded nor evaded,” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). In § 1500, Congress has employed its power to provide that the Court of Federal Claims “shall not have jurisdiction” over a claim, “for or in respect to which” the plaintiff “has [a suit or process] pending” in any other court. In applying the jurisdictional bar here by looking to the facts existing when Keene filed each of its complaints, the Court of Federal Claims followed the longstanding principle that “the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.” Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824) (Marshall, C. J.); see Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U. S. 49, 69 (1987) (opinion of Scalia, J.); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 289-290 (1938); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Peoria & P.U.R. Co., 270 U. S. 580, 586 (1926).
While acknowledging what it calls this “general rule” that subject-matter jurisdiction turns on the facts upon filing, Keene would have us dispense with the rule here. Brief for Petitioner 33. Assuming that we could, however, Keene gives us nothing to convince us that we should. Keene argues that if §1500 spoke of “jurisdiction to render judgment” instead of “jurisdiction” pure and simple, the phrase would “all but preclude” application of the time-of-filing rule. Id., at 34. But, without deciding whether such a change of terms would carry such significance, we have only to say that § 1500 speaks of “jurisdiction,” without more, whereas some nearby sections of Title 28 use the longer phrase. This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out. “ ‘[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (citation omitted).
Keene’s next appeal, to statutory history, is no more availing. The immediate predecessor of § 1500, § 154 of the Judicial Code of 1911, provided that “[n]o person shall file or prosecute in the Court of Claims... any claim for or in respect to which he... has pending in any other court any suit or process....” Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 154, 36 Stat. 1138. With this express prohibition against filing claims for which another suit was pending, there could, of course, have been no doubt that at least a time-of-filing rule applied. See Shapiro v. United States, 168 F. 2d 625, 626 (CA3 1948) (§ 154 “forbids the filing” of a Little Tucker Act claim when a related suit is pending); British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 488, 439 (1939) (per curiam) (dismissing a claim under §154 where, “[a]t the time the petition was filed in this court, the plaintiff... had pending in the District Court... a suit based upon the same claim”), cert. denied, 310 U. S. 627 (1940); New Jersey Worsted Mills v. United States, 80 Ct. Cl. 640, 641, 9 F. Supp. 605, 606 (1935) (per curiam) (“[W]e think it clear that the plaintiff was not permitted even to file its claim in this court”). Although Keene urges us to see significance in the deletion of the “file or prosecute” language in favor of the current reference to “jurisdiction” in the comprehensive revision of the Judicial Code completed in 1948, we do not presume that the revision worked a change in the underlying substantive law “unless an intent to make such [a] ehang[e] is clearly expressed.” Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227 (1957) (footnote omitted); see Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 831, n. 4 (1989); Finley v. United States, supra, at 554; Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 151, 162 (1972). On the point in issue here, there is no such clear expression in the shift from specific language to the general, and the Reviser's Note to §1500 indicates nothing more than a change “in phraseology,” see H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A140 (1947); cf. Newman-Green, supra, at 831. Since Keene, indeed, comes up with nothing to the contrary, we read the statute as continuing to bar jurisdiction over the claim of a plaintiff who, upon filing, has an action pending in any other court “for or in respect to” the same claim.
B
The statutory notion of comparable claims is more elusive. _ By precluding jurisdiction over the claim of a plaintiff with a suit pending in another court “for or in respect to” the same claim, § 1500 requires a comparison between the claims raised in the Court of Federal Claims and in the other lawsuit. The exact nature of the things to be compared is not illuminated, however, by the awkward formulation of § 1500. Nor does it advance the ball very far to recognize from the statute’s later reference to “the cause of action alleged in such suit or process,” that the term “claim” is used here synonymously with “cause of action,” see Black’s Law Dictionary 247 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “claim” as “cause of action”), since, as both parties admit, “cause of action,” like “claim,” can carry a variety of meanings. See Brief for Petitioner 18; Brief for United States 15; see also Johns-Manville Corp., 855 F. 2d, at 1560.
Fortunately, though, we can turn to earlier readings of the word “claim” as it appears in this statute. The phrase “any claim... for or in respect to which” has remained unchanged since the statute was first adopted in 1868, see Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71, § 8, 15 Stat. 77, and prior encounters with § 154 of the Judicial Code of 1911, the immediate predecessor to §1500, shed some light on the issue. Corona Coal Co. v. United States, 263 U. S. 537 (1924), was an action brought against the United States in the Court of Claims, seeking compensation for coal requisitioned by the Government. Before bringing its appeal to this Court, the plaintiff sued the President’s agent in Federal District Court, “the causes of action therein set forth being the same as that set forth in the [Court of Claims] case.” Id., at 539. After noting that the causes of action “arose out of” the same factual setting, we applied §154 and dismissed the appeal. Id., at 539-540. Later that year, we had the case of a plaintiff seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the Court of Claims from reinstating a suit it had dismissed earlier, without prejudice, on the plaintiff’s own motion. Ex parte Skinner & Eddy Corp., 265 U. S. 86 (1924). Skinner & Eddy had sued the United States in the Court of Claims for nearly $17.5 million; “[t]he largest item of the claim was for anticipated profits on 25 vessels” covered by an order, later canceled, by the United States Emergency Fleet Corporation. Id., at 91. After the Court of Claims had granted its motion to dismiss, Skinner & Eddy sued the Emergency Fleet Corporation in state court “on substantially the same causes of action as those sued for in the Court of Claims.” Id., at 92. There was no question that the factual predicate of each action was the same, except for the omission from the state court action of any demand for anticipated profits, thus limiting the damages sought to $9.1 million. We issued the writ of mandamus, holding that § 154 prevented the Court of Claims from exercising jurisdiction over the claims it had dismissed earlier, given the intervening state court suit.
A few years later, the Court of Claims settled a key question only foreshadowed by Skinner & Eddy: whether § 154 applied when the Court of Claims action and the “other” suit proceeded under different legal theories. In British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 438 (1939) (per curiam), after the plaintiff had surrendered his gold bullion to the Government (in compliance with executive orders and regulations that took this country off the gold standard), he sued in the Court of Claims on allegations that he had been underpaid by more than $4.3 million. Earlier the same day, the plaintiff had filed a suit in Federal District Court “for the recovery of the same amount for the same gold bullion surrendered.” Id., at 439. The Court of Claims observed that “[t]he only distinction between the two suits instituted in the District Court and in this court is that the action in the District Court was made to sound in tort and the action in this eourt was alleged on contract.” Id., at 440. Because the two actions were based on the same operative facts, the eourt dismissed the Court of Claims action for lack of jurisdiction, finding it to be “clear that the word ‘claim/ as used in section 154,... has no reference to the legal theory upon which a claimant seeks to enforce his demand.” Ibid.
These precedents demonstrate that under the immediate predecessor of § 1500, the comparison of the two cases for purposes of possible dismissal would turn on whether the plaintiff’s other suit was based on substantially the same operative facts as the Court of Claims action, at least if there was some overlap in the relief requested. See Skinner & Eddy, supra; Corona Coal, supra. That the two actions were based on different legal theories did not matter. See British American Tobacco, supra. Since Keene has given us no reason to doubt that these cases represented settled law when Congress reenacted the “claim for or in respect to which” language in 1948, see 62 Stat. 942, we apply the presumption that Congress was aware of these earlier judicial interpretations and, in effect, adopted them. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978); cf. United States v. Powell, 379 U. S. 48, 55, n. 13 (1964) (presumption does not apply when there is no “settled judicial construction” at the time of reenactment). The decision in British American Tobacco strikes us, moreover, as a sensible reading of the statute, for it honors Congress’s decision to limit Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction not only as to claims “for... which” the plaintiff has sued in another court, but as to those “in respect to which” he has sued elsewhere as well. While the latter language does not set the limits of claim identity with any precision, it does make it clear that Congress did not intend the statute to be rendered useless by a narrow concept of identity providing a correspondingly liberal opportunity to maintain two suits arising from the same factual foundation.
Keene nonetheless argues, for the first time in its merits brief, that “[a] claim brought outside the [Court of Federal Claims] is ‘for or in respect to’ a claim in the [Court of Federal Claims only] when claim-splitting law would treat them as the same — i. e., require them to be joined in a single suit — if the two claims were both brought against the United States.” Brief for Petitioner 20. Under this theory, § 1500 would not apply to a Court of Federal Claims plaintiff unless his suit pending in the other court rested on a legal theory that could have been pleaded (as Keene’s could not have been) in the Court of Federal Claims. But this reinterpretation of § 1500 is bound to fail, not because novelty is always fatal in the construction of an old statute, but because the novel proposition in Keene’s suggested reading would have rendered the statute useless, in all or nearly all instances, to effect the very object it was originally enacted to accomplish. Keene fails to explain how the original statute would have applied to the cotton claimants, whose tort actions brought in other courts were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, just as tort cases are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims today. Keene's theory was squarely rejected in British American Tobacco, and it must be rejected again this time.
H-Í
Finally, Keene takes the tack that if we adopt the Court of Appeals’s construction of § 1500, we will be announcing “a new rule of law” that ought to be applied only prospectively under the test set out in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971). Brief for Petitioner 42-43. Even assuming that this call for “pure prospectivity,” see James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529, 544 (1991) (opinion of Souter, J.), might fairly fall within the questions presented, there is no need to address it because, as the Government points out, Keene’s claims were dismissed under well-settled law.
The Court of Appeals, to be sure, announced that it was overruling five cases: Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 389, 343 F. 2d 943 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 976 (1966); Gasman v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 647 (1956); Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 864 F. 2d 137 (CA Fed. 1988); Brown v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 343, 358 F. 2d 1002 (1966) (per curiam); and Hossein v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 727 (1978) (per curiam). And while Keene contends that nothing less than these repudiations of precedent would have sufficed to dismiss its suits, we read the five eases as supporting neither Keene’s position that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over its cases nor its plea for pure prospectivity of the overruling decision.
In applying §1500 to the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to consider, much less repudiate, the “judicially created exceptions” to § 1500 found in Tecon Engineers, Casman, and Boston Five. See 962 F. 2d, at 1021. Tecon Engineers held that a later filed action in another court does not oust the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over an earlier filed complaint; our decision turns on Keene’s earlier filed District Court actions, and even Keene now concedes it to be “unnecessary for the Court to address the Tecon question” in ruling on the dismissal of Keene’s claims. Reply Brief for Petitioner 14, n. 14; see n. 4, supra. Thé Casman court recognized an exception (followed in Boston Five) for plaintiffs who seek distinctly different types of relief in the two courts; here, Keene had sought monetary relief in each of the cases pending when it filed the complaints seeking monetary relief in Keene I and Keene II. See n. 6, supra. In Brown, the Court of Claims reinstated a claim after the plaintiff’s District Court action for the same claim had been dismissed, on the grounds that the other suit was “no longer 'pending’” and had itself been dismissed because jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Claims. 175 Ct. Cl., at 348, 358 F. 2d, at 1004. Brown’s narrow reasoning, that § 1500 does not apply after dismissal of an earlier filed District Court suit brought in derogation of the Court of Federal Claims’s exclusive jurisdiction, was echoed in Hossein, a per curiam order citing neither Brown, nor any other case, on this point. See also Boston Five, supra, at 139-140 (following Hossein). Since Keene’s District Court actions were not, and could not have been, dismissed on the ground of falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, Keene gets no support from Brown and Hossein. Thus, there is no “new principle of law” at work in ruling against Keene, see Chevron Oil, supra, at 106, and no need to plunge into retroactivity analysis.
IV
We have said nothing until now about Keene’s several policy arguments, and now can only answer that Keene addresses the wrong forum. It may well be, as Keene argues, that § 1500 operates in some circumstances to deprive plaintiffs of an opportunity to assert rights that Congress has generally made available to them “under the complex legal and jurisdictional schemes that govern claims against the Government.” Brief for Petitioner 15. The trial judge in this case was not the first to call this statute anachronistic, see 12 Cl. Ct., at 205; A. C. Seeman, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 386, 389 (1984), and there is a good argument that, even when first enacted, the statute did not actually perform the preclusion function emphasized by its sponsor, see Schwartz, 55 Geo. L. J., at 579. But the “proper theater” for such arguments, as we told another disappointed claimant many years ago, “is the halls of Congress, for that branch of the government has limited the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.” Smoot’s Case, 15 Wall. 36, 45 (1873). We enjoy no “liberty to add an exception... to remove apparent hardship,” Corona Coal, 263 U. S., at 540, and therefore enforce the statute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Keene actually filed its complaints in the old Court of Claims. Soon thereafter, Congress transferred the trial functions of the Court of Claims to a newly created “United States Claims Court.” Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, § 133, 96 Stat. 39-41. The Claims Court has just been renamed the “United States Court of Federal Claims.” See Court of Federal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act of 1992, § 902, 106 Stat. 4616. To avoid confusion, we will refer to the trial court in this case by its latest name.
When Keene filed its complaints, §1600 referred to the “Court of Claims” rather than the “United States Court of Federal Claims.” See 28 U. S. C. § 1600 (1976 ed.). Section 1500 has since been amended twice, first to substitute “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims,” Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, § 133(e)(1), 96 Stat. 40, and then to substitute “Court of Federal Claims” for “Claims Court,” Court of Federal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act of 1992, § 902(a), 106 Stat. 4516. See also n. 1, supra.
On this score, Keene cites Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826 (1989), for the proposition that the Court can rely on practical considerations to create exceptions to the time-of-ñling rule. Brief for Petitioner 35-36. We need not decide whether Keene’s reading is accurate, for Keene has not shown that we should, even if we could. We do note, however, that Newman-Green reiterated the principle that "[t]he existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.” 490 U. S., at 830.
We do not decide whether the statute also continues to bar a plaintiff from prosecuting a claim in the Court of Federal Claims while he has pending a later-filed suit in another court "for or in respect to” the same claim. Cf. Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 389, 343 F. 2d 943 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 976 (1966). As the dissenting judge noted below, this case does not raise that issue. UNR Industries, Inc. v. United States, 962 F. 2d 1013, 1030, n. 5 (CA Fed. 1992) (Plager, J., dissenting).
We have had one other encounter with this statute, in Matson Navigation Co. v. United States, 284 U. S. 852 (1932), where we relied on the plain words of § 154 to hold that the statute did not apply where the Court of Claims plaintiff had brought suit in another court against the United States, rather than against an agent of the United States, for the same claim. When Congress reenacted the statute in 1948, it added the phrase "against the United States” to close this loophole. See Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 942; Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F. 2d 1556, 1566-1567, and n. 15 (CA Fed. 1988).
Because the issue is not presented on the facts of this case, we need not decide whether two actions based on the same operative facts, but seeking completely different relief, would implicate § 1500. Cf. Casman v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 647 (1956); Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 864 F. 2d 137 (CA Fed. 1988).
Keene argued in its petition for certiorari that the claim it raised in its third-party action in Miller was not based on the same facts as its complaint in Keene I. Keene did not press this argument after we granted the writ, and, in any event, we see no reason to disturb the rulings to the contrary by both courts below. See 962 F. 2d, at 1024 (“[W]e have no quarrel with the [Court of Federal Claims] determination that the underlying facts in Miller and Keene I are the same”).
It is not that Keene has not tried to meet the objection. Keene assumes, contrary to the plain text, that the statute here is not jurisdictional, arguing instead that it was meant to supplement the formalistic 19th-century concept of res judicata. According to Keene, res judicata would not have barred a cotton claimant from instigating an action against a federal officer who had acted for the Government, even though the claimant had lost an otherwise identical action against the Government itself (and vice versa), the difference between the named defendants being significant at that time. On the assumption that the statute eliminated nonidentity of parties defendant as a barrier to the application of res judicata, Keene then argues that causes of action were treated as identical in those days if the same evidence was used to prove multiple claims. On this view of the law, Keene concludes, multiple cotton claims would have been treated as the same, and the statute would have barred the Court of Claims suit, just as Congress intended. Reply Brief for Petitioner 7. Even on its own terms, however, this argument fails, for the Court of Claims in 1868 had no jurisdiction to try a tort action for conversion, however similar it might have been for res judicata purposes to the statutory action within that court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, under Keene’s claim-splitting theory, the conversion action would not have been treated as identical with the statutory action; each would have survived, leaving the statute useless to solve the problem Congress was addressing.
Keene claims that its view represents “well-established law,” citing Allied Materials & Equipment Co. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 714 (1976) (per curiam), and Casman v. United States, supra. Brief for Petitioner 15. In Casman, however, the plaintiff was seeking completely different relief in the Court of Claims and the District Court, and later eases have read Casman as limited to that situation. See Johns-Manville Corp., 855 F. 2d, at 1566-
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1927, a Washington statute has required each major political party to have a State Committee consisting of two persons from each county in the State. The question presented by this appeal is whether the Washington Supreme Court correctly held that this statute does not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The powers of the Democratic State Committee are derived from two sources: the authorizing statute and the Charter of the Democratic Party of Washington. The statute gives the State Committee the power to call conventions, to provide for the election of delegates to national conventions and for the nomination of Presidential electors, and to fill vacancies on the party ticket.
The principal activities performed by the State Committee are authorized by the Charter of the Democratic Party of Washington. The Charter provides that the State Committee shall act as the party’s governing body when the Convention is in adjournment. And it gives the State Committee authority to organize and administer the party’s administrative apparatus, to raise and distribute funds to candidates, to conduct workshops, to instruct candidates on effective campaign procedures and organization, and generally to further the party’s objectives of influencing policy and electing its adherents to public office.
Under both party rules and state law, the State Convention rather than the State Committee is the governing body of the party. The Charter explicitly provides that the Convention is “the highest policy-making authority within the State Democratic Party.” And the State Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the “state convention of a major political party is the ultimate repository of statewide party authority. . . . [T]he state convention is implicitly empowered to establish the permanent state organization of the party, create committees, delegate authority, and promulgate, adopt, ratify, amend, repeal or enforce intraparty statewide rules and regulations.”
In 1976, the State Democratic Convention adopted a Charter amendment directing that the State Committee include members other than those specified by state statute. The Charter amendment provided that in addition to the two delegates from each of the State's 39 counties, there should be one representative elected from each of the State’s 49 legislative districts. Pursuant to this Charter amendment new legislative district representatives were elected to serve on the State Committee. At the January 1977 meeting of the State Committee, a motion to seat these newly elected representatives was ruled out of order, apparently in reliance on the statutory definition of the composition of the Committee.
Thereafter, members and officers of the State Democratic Party, including four who had been elected as legislative district representatives, instituted this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in the King County Superior Court. Among their contentions was a claim that the statutory restriction on the composition of the Democratic State Committee violated their rights to freedom of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Superior Court granted appellants’ motion for a partial summary judgment. On appeal, a divided State Supreme Court reversed that part of the trial court’s judgment that invalidated the statutory definition of the central Committee. The state court reasoned that although “ ‘substantial burdens’ ” on the right to associate for political purposes are invalid unless “ ‘essential to serve a compelling state interest,’ ” these appellants failed to establish that this statute had imposed any such burden on their attempts to achieve the objectives of the Democratic Party. Since this initial burden had not been met, the court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statute.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 439 U. S. 1044, and now affirm the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court.
The requirement that political parties form central or county committees composed of specified representatives from each district is common in the laws of the States. These laws are part of broader election regulations that recognize the critical role played by political parties in the process of selecting and electing candidates for state and national office. The State's interest in ensuring that this process is conducted in a fair and orderly fashion is unquestionably legitimate; “as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730. That interest is served by a state statute requiring that a representative central committee be established, and entrusting that committee with authority to perform limited functions, such as filling vacancies on the party ticket, providing for the nomination of Presidential electors and delegates to national conventions, and calling statewide conventions. Such functions are directly related to the orderly participation of the political party in the electoral process.
Appellants have raised no objection to the Committee’s performance of these tasks. Rather, it is the Committee’s other activities — those involving “purely internal party decisions,” Brief for Appellants 5 n. 11 — that concern appellants and give rise to their constitutional attack on the statute.
The Committee does play a significant role in internal party affairs: The appellants’ description of its activities makes this clear:
“Between state conventions, the Democratic State Committee is the statewide party governing body. It meets at least four times each year, exercises the party’s policy-making functions, directs the party’s administrative apparatus, raises and distributes funds to Democratic candidates, conducts workshops to instruct candidates on effective campaign procedures and organization, and seeks generally to further the party’s objectives of influencing policy and electing its adherents to public office. Insofar as is relevant here, the state committee is purely an internal party governing body.” Id., at 4-5 (footnotes omitted).
None of these activities, however, is required by statute to be performed by the Committee. With respect to each, the source of the Committee’s authority is the Charter adopted by the Democratic Party.
In short, all of the “internal party decisions” which appellants claim should not be made by a statutorily composed Committee are made not because of anything in the statute, but because of delegations of authority from the Convention itself. Nothing in the statute required the party to authorize such decisionmaking by the Committee; as far as the statutory scheme is concerned, there is no reason why the Convention could not have created an entirely new committee or one, for example, composed of members of the State Committee and such additional membership as might be desired to perform the political functions now performed by the State Committee. The fact that it did not choose such an alternative course is hardly the responsibility of the state legislature.
The answer to appellants’ claims of a substantial burden on First Amendment rights, then, turns out to be a simple one. There can be no complaint that the party’s right to govern itself has been substantially burdened by statute when the source of the complaint is the party’s own decision to confer critical authority on the State Committee. The elected legislative representatives who claim that they have been unable to participate in the internal policymaking of the Committee should address their complaint to the party which has chosen to entrust those tasks to the Committee, rather than to the state legislature. Instead of persuading us that this, is a case in which a state statute has imposed substantial burdens on the party’s right to govern its affairs, appellants’ own statement of the facts establishes that it is the party’s exercise of that very right that is the source of whatever burdens they suffer.
The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Washington Rev. Code §29.42.020 (1976) provides:
“State Committee. The state committee of each major political party shall consist of one committeeman and one committeewoman from each county elected by the county committee at its organization meeting. It shall have a chairman and vice chairman who must be of opposite sexes. This committee shall meet during January of each odd-numbered year for the purpose of organization at a time and place designated by a sufficient notice to all the newly elected state committeemen and committeewomen by the authorized officers of the retiring committee. For the purpose of this section a notice mailed at least one week prior to the date of the meeting shall constitute sufficient notice. At its organizational meeting it shall elect its chairman and vice chairman, and such officers as its bylaws may provide, and adopt bylaws, rules and regulations. It shall have power to:
“(1) Call conventions at such time and place and under such circumstances and for such purposes as the call to convention shall designate. The manner, number and procedure for selection of state convention delegates shall be subject to the committee’s rules and regulations duly adopted;
“(2) Provide for the election of delegates to national conventions;
“(3) Fill vacancies on the ticket for any federal or state office to be voted on by the electors of more than one county;
“(4) Provide for the nomination of presidential electors; and
“(5) Perform all functions inherent in such an organization. “Notwithstanding any provision of this [1972 amendatory act], the committee shall not set rules which shall govern the conduct of the actual proceedings at a party state convention.”
Between 1909 and 1927, the statute provided for one member to be elected from each county.
A “major political party” is defined as “a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year . . . .” Wash. Rev. Code §29.01.090 (Supp. 1977).
The First Amendment provides in pertinent part:
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 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.
Charter, Art. IV (G) (1), App. 10.
Charter, Arts. IV (G)(1), (2), (5), App. 10-11; Charter, Art. VII (C)(1), App. 19.
Charter, Art. Y (F) (5), App. 15.
King County Republican Central Committee v. Republican State Committee, 79 Wash. 2d 202, 211-212, 484 P. 2d 387, 392 (1971). See also 90 Wash. 2d 298, 313, 582 P. 2d 487, 496 (1978) (case below).
An appeal from that ruling was defeated by a vote of 56 to 17. App. 4 — 5.
Appellants also challenged the requirement of Wash. Rev. Code §§29.42.020 and 29.42.030 (1976) that the two persons elected as county delegates be one man and one woman. Appellants argued that this requirement violates the Washington State Equal Rights Amendment, Wash. Const., Art. XXXI. The Washington Supreme Court rejected the claim, 90 Wash. 2d, at 308, 582 P. 2d, at 493. Appellants do not seek review here of the “one man and one woman” requirements of the statute. Nor do they raise any claim based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See n. 12, infra.
90 Wash. 2d 298, 582 P. 2d 487 (1978).
Id., at 309, 582 P. 2d, at 493, quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 729.
In 23 States, political parties are required by state law to establish state central committees composed of an equal number of committee members from each unit of representation. See Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 8660, 9160 (West Supp. 1979); Fla. Stat. § 103.111 (1977); Idaho Code § 34-504 (Supp. 1978); Ind. Code § 3-1-2-1 (1976); Iowa Code §43.111 (1979); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-3804 (Supp. 1978); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 52, §1 (West 1975); Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.597 (1970); Miss. Code Ann. § 23-1-3 (Supp. 1978); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.621 (1978); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §23-3403 (Supp. 1977); Nev. Rev. Stat. §293.153 (1975); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 19:5-4 (West Supp. 1979); N. D. Cent. Code § 16-17-11 (1971); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3517.03 (1972); S. C. Code § 7-9-90 (1976); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 12-5-16 (1975); Tenn. Code Ann. §2-1304 (Supp. 1978); Tex. Elec. Code Ann., Art. 13.38 (Vernon Supp. 1978); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17, § 730 (1968); Wash. Rev. Code § 29.42.020 (1976); W. Va. Code §3-1-9 (1979); Wyo. Stat. §§ 22-4^105 — 22-4^110 (1977). Election laws in five States establish state party central committees in which the number of committee members from each unit of representation bears a rough relationship to party membership. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-233 (1975); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-14-108 (2) (Supp. 1976); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:285 (1) (West Supp. 1979); Ore. Rev. Stat. §248.075 (1977); Utah Code Ann. §20-4-2 (1976).
Political parties are required to establish county central committees comprised of an equal number of committee members from each unit of representation by state law in 21 States. See Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 8820-8825, 9320-9325 (West 1977) (limited to certain counties); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1 — 14—108 (1) (1973); Fla. Stat. § 103.111 (1977); Idaho Code § 34r-502 (Supp. 1978); Ind. Code § 3-1-2-1 (1976); Kah. Stat. Ann. §25-3802 (1973); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:285 (9) (West Supp. 1979); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 33, § 11-2 (Supp. 1978); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 52, § 9 (West 1975); Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.599 (1970); Miss. Code Ann. § 23-1-3 (Supp. 1978); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.607 (1978); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §§ 23-3401, 23-3402 (Supp. 1977); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 19-5-3 (West Supp. 1979); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3517.03 (1972); S. C. Code § 7-9-60 (1976); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 12-5-13, 12-5-14 (1975); Tex. Elec. Code Ann., Art. 13.18 (Vernon Supp. 1978); Wash. Rev. Code §29.42.030 (1976); W. Va. Code §3-1-9 (1979); Wis. Stat. §8.17 (1975).
See Note, Equal Representation of Party Members on Political Party Central Committees, 88 Yale L. J. 167, 168-169, and nn. 5-6 (1978).
Since appellants do not claim that these statutory requirements impose any impermissible burdens, we have no occasion to consider whether whatever burdens they do impose are justified by the legitimate state interests served by these requirements. By appellants’ own admission, the Committee’s electoral functions are performed rarely; moreover, when they are performed, they conform with the one-person, one-vote principle.
“Although the state committee on rare occasions performs certain ballot access functions, see RCW 29.18.150 and 29.42.020 (filling vacancies on certain party tickets and nominating presidential electors) and Wash. Const, art. II, § 15 (selecting nominees for certain interim legislative positions), when it does so it is constitutionally required to comply with the principle of one-person, one-vote. See, e. g., Seergy v. Kings County Republican County Comm., 459 F. 2d 308, 313-14 (2d Cir. 1972); Fahey v. Darigan, 405 F. Supp. 1386, 1392 (D. R. I. 1975). The state committee has recognized this and has stipulated to the entry of an injunction ordering that the state committee be:
“enjoined from filling vacancies on the Democratic ticket for any federal or state office to be voted on by the electors of more than one county or selecting Democratic nominees for interim legislative appointments to represent multi-county districts by any method that contravenes the one-person, one-vote rule.
“Cunningham v. Washington State Democratic Comm., Civ. No. C75-901 (WD Wash., permanent injunction entered Nov. 28, 1977). As a result of this injunction, RCW 29.42.020 — which results in gross deviations from one-person, one-vote — has been superseded insofar as applied to the state committee when it performs electoral functions.” Brief for Appellants 5 n. 11.
In addition to its enumerated functions, the Committee is authorized by Wash. Rev. Code §29.42.020 (1976) to “[p]erform all functions inherent in such an organization.” See n. 1, swpra. The Committee’s role in internal party affairs, however, is clearly not “inherent” in its performance of the limited electoral functions authorized by statute.
Indeed, it is the Charter provisions, rather than the state statute, which appellants themselves cite as authority for their description of the Committee activities at issue here. See Brief for Appellants 4 nn. 5-10. Thus, it is Art. IV (G) (1) of the Charter which provides that the Committee is the statewide governing body, shall raise funds for candidates, and shall exercise the party’s policymaking functions. And it is subsection (2) of that same Article which authorizes the Committee to direct the party’s administrative apparatus, while subsection (5) requires it to meet at least four times per year. Finally, the source of the Committee’s authority to conduct workshops for candidates is found in Art. VII (C)(1) of the Charter.
Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, upan which appellants place their primary reliance, does not support their claim here. In Cousins, unlike this case, there was a substantial burden on associational freedoms. This fact alone distinguishes the two cases, and renders Cousins inapposite.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158, provides:
“Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
“(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act.”
Section 7 of the Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157, provides:
“Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .”
This case presents the issue whether an employer’s retaliatory discharge of an employee who gave a written sworn statement to a National Labor Relations Board field examiner investigating an unfair labor practice charge filed against the employer, but who had not filed the charge or testified at a formal hearing on it, constitutes a violation of §8 (a)(1) or of §8 (a) (4) of the Act. The Board, with one member not participating, unanimously held that it was. 177 N. L. R. B. 504 (1969). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, by a unanimous panel vote, held otherwise and denied enforcement. 435 F. 2d 1296 (1971). The Court of Appeals did not reach other issues raised by the employer. We granted certiorari in order to review a decision that appeared to have an important impact upon the administration of the Act. 404 U. S. 821 (1971).
I
There is testimony in the record, credited by the trial examiner and adopted by the Board, to the following effect:
The respondent Robert Scrivener is a small electrical contractor in Springfield, Missouri. He does business as an individual proprietor under the name of AA Electric Company. On March 18, 1968, five of Scrivener’s six employees signed cards authorizing a union to represent them in collective bargaining. The next day business agent Moore advised Mr. Scrivener of the union’s majority status and asked to negotiate a contract. Scrivener examined the cards, but refused the request.
Mr. Scrivener then visited his jobsites and complained to his employees about their action. On March 20 he dismissed card-signers Cockrum, Smith, and Wilson, and hired Hunt, a journeyman, and Station, a helper. Hunt had worked for Scrivener on prior occasions.
On March 21 the union filed charges with the Board alleging that the company had violated §§8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. On March 26 the three dischargees returned to work. The next day, however, Cockrum and Smith again were released on the ground that there was a lack of work. The two new employees and Perry-man, the sole nonsigner among the six original employees, were retained. Smith was again recalled on April 1 and, with the other card-signers, except Cockrum, continued to work until April 18.
On April 17 a field examiner from the Board’s regional office met with Mr. Scrivener and discussed the charges that had been filed. That evening the examiner interviewed the five card-signers at the union hall. He took affidavits or sworn statements from all except Cockrum who was not then working for Scrivener. On April 18 Scrivener inquired of at least two of the men whether they had met and been interviewed by the examiner the evening before. At the end of the day Scrivener dismissed the four who had given the statements; he did so with the explanation that he had no work for them to do. Perryman, Hunt, and Statton continued to work on the three houses and the 11-unit apartment building the company had under construction at the time.
On May 13 the union filed an amended charge adding the allegation that the dismissal of the four men on April 18 was because they had given the statements to the examiner in connection with the earlier charge, and that this was a violation of § 8 (a)(1) and §8 (a)(4). Three of the men returned to work in May or early June. The fourth was never recalled.
A complaint was issued on both the original charge and the added allegation.
II
The Board, in agreement with the trial examiner, concluded that the April 18 dismissal of the four employees was “in retaliation against them for having met with and given evidence to a Board field examiner investigating unfair labor practice charges which had been filed against” Scrivener; that “[t]he investigation of charges filed is an integral and essential stage of Board proceedings”; and that this conduct violated § 8 (a)(1) and § 8 (a)(4). 177 N. L. R. B., at 504. The customary order to cease and desist, to reinstate the four employees with back pay, and to post notices was issued. The Board concluded, however, in disagreement with the trial examiner and with one member dissenting, “that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein over the alleged independent and unrelated violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act,” and dismissed those portions of the complaint. Id., at 504, 505.
The Court of Appeals, per curiam, relying on its earlier decision in NLRB v. Ritchie Mfg. Co., 354 F. 2d 90 (CA8 1965), held that §8 (a) (4) does not “encompass discharge of employees for giving written sworn statements to Board field examiners.” In Ritchie the court had stated, “We are reluctant to hold that § 8 (a) (4) can be extended to cover preliminary preparations for giving testimony.” 854 F. 2d, at 101. In the present case, the court refused to uphold the Board’s finding that the challenged discharges violated §8 (a)(1) as well as § 8 (a)(4) since “[t]o do so would be to overrule Ritchie implicitly, and we are not prepared to take that action.” 435 F. 2d, at 1297.
Ill
The view of the Court of Appeals is that § 8 (a) (4) of the Act serves to protect an employee against an employer’s reprisal only for filing an unfair labor practice charge or for giving testimony at a formal hearing, and that it affords him no protection for otherwise participating in the investigative stage or, in particular, for giving an affidavit or sworn statement to the investigating field examiner.
We disagree for several reasons.
1. Construing § 8 (a) (4) to protect the employee during the investigative stages, as well as in connection with the filing of a formal charge or the giving of formal testimony, comports with the objective of that section. Mr. Justice Black, in no uncertain terms, spelled out the congressional purpose:
“Congress has made it clear that it wishes all persons with information about such practices to be completely free from coercion against reporting them to the Board. This is shown by its adoption of § 8 (a) (4) which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges. And it has been held that it is unlawful for an employer to seek to restrain an employee in the exercise of his right to file charges” (citations omitted). Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm’n, 389 U. S. 235, 238 (1967).
This complete freedom is necessary, it has been said, “to prevent the Board’s channels of information from being dried up by employer intimidation of prospective complainants and witnesses.” John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. NLRB, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 261, 263, 191 F. 2d 483, 485 (1951). It is also consistent with the fact that the Board does not initiate its own proceedings; implementation is dependent “upon the initiative of individual persons.” Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm’n, supra, 389 U. S., at 238; NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U. S. 418, 424 (1968).
2. The Act’s reference in § 8 (a) (4) to an employee who “has filed charges or given testimony,” could be read strictly and confined in its reach to formal charges and formal testimony. It can also be read more broadly. On textual analysis alone, the presence of the preceding words “to discharge or otherwise discriminate” reveals, we think, particularly by the word “otherwise,” an intent on the part of Congress to afford broad rather than narrow protection to the employee. This would be consistent with § 8 (a)(4)’s purpose and objective hereinabove described. A similar question with respect to the word “evidence” in §§ 11 (1) and (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 161 (1) and (2), was considered in NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U. S. 759, 768-769 (1969), and was resolved by a broad and not a narrow construction. That precedent is pertinent here.
3. This broad interpretation of § 8 (a) (4) accords with the Labor Board’s view entertained for more than 35 years. Section 8 (a) (4) had its origin in the National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. 195. Executive Order No. 6711, issued May 15, 1934, under that Act (10 NRA Codes of Fair Competition 949), provided, “No employer . . . shall dismiss or demote any employee for making a complaint or giving evidence with respect to an alleged violation . . . The first Labor Board interpreted that phrase to protect the employee not only as to formal testimony, but also as to the giving of information relating to violations of the NIRA. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 1 N. L. R. B. Dec. 192 (1934) (affidavits); Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 2 N. L. R. B. Dec. 147, 148 (1935) (state court testimony). In § 8 (a)(4) the word “testimony,” rather than “evidence,” appears. But the new language was described as “merely a reiteration” of the Executive Order language and it was stated that the “need for this provision is attested” by the above-cited Board decisions. Comparison of S. 2926 (73d Cong.) and S. 1958 (74th Cong.), Senate Committee Print 29, 1 Leg. Hist, of National Labor Relations Act 1319, 1355 (1949).
4. This interpretation, in our view, also squares with the practicalities of appropriate agency action. An employee who participates in a Board investigation may not be called formally to testify or may be discharged before any hearing at which he could testify. His contribution might be merely cumulative or the case may be settled or dismissed before hearing. Which employees receive statutory protection should not turn on the vagaries of the selection process or on other events that have no relation to the need for protection. It would make less than complete sense to protect the employee because he participates in the formal inception of the process (by filing a charge) or in the final, formal presentation, but not to protect his participation in the important developmental stages that fall between these two points in time. This would be unequal and inconsistent protection and is not the protection needed to preserve the integrity of the Board process in its entirety.
5. The Board’s subpoena power also supports this interpretation. Section 11 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 161, gives the Board this power for “the purpose of all hearings and investigations.” Once an employee has been subpoenaed he should be protected from retaliatory action regardless of whether he has filed a charge or has actually testified. Judge Lumbard pertinently described it:
“It is, we think, a permissible inference that Congress intended the protection to be as broad as the [subpoena] power.” Pedersen v. NLRB, 234 F. 2d 417, 420 (CA2 1956).
Under this reasoning, if employees of Scrivener had been subpoenaed, they would have been protected. There is no basis for denying similar protection to the voluntary participant.
6. The approach to § 8 (a) (4) generally has been a liberal one in order fully to effectuate the section’s remedial purpose. In M & S Steel Co. v. NLRB, 353 F. 2d 80 (CA5 1965), the court sustained the Board’s finding, 148 N. L. R. B. 789, 792-795 (1964), that § 8 (a) (4) was violated by the discharge of an employee, Williams, because he gave a statement to a field examiner. In NLRB v. Dal-Tex Optical Co., 310 F. 2d 58, 60-61 (CA5 1962), the court sustained the Board, 131 N. L. R. B. 715, 721 (1961), in affording protection to an employee, Whitaker, who appeared but did not testify at a Board hearing. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. NLRB, supra, and NLRB v. Syracuse Stamping Co., 208 F. 2d 77, 79-80 (CA2 1953).
We are aware of no substantial countervailing considerations. We therefore conclude that an employer’s discharge of an employee because the employee gave a written sworn statement to a Board field examiner investigating an unfair labor practice charge filed against the employer constitutes a violation of § 8 (a) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether the employer’s action is also a violation of § 8 (a)(1), and we expressly refrain from so doing.
IY
A final comment about the jurisdictional aspects of the case is perhaps in order. The Board found that Scrivener’s operations were too small to satisfy the Board’s self-imposed and published $50,000 outflow-inflow jurisdictional standard for non-retail enterprises. See Siemons Mailing Service, 122 N. L. R. B. 81, 85 (1958). It also found, however, that Scrivener’s operations were sufficient to “have an impact on and affect interstate commerce,” 177 N. L. R. B., at 504, and thus were within the Board’s statutory jurisdiction as defined by § 10 (a) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (a).
This prompted the Board to assert jurisdiction over the §§ 8 (a)(1) and (4) claim of retaliation, but to refuse to exercise jurisdiction over the original §§ 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) claims on the ground that the latter would have “no immediate impact on the vindication of the right of an individual to resort to the Board’s processes . . . 177 N. L. R. B., at 505. Scrivener, as a consequence, complains that relief for him against a claimed unfair labor practice on the part of the union is unavailable.
The employer’s complaint of jurisdictional unfairness is understandable. See, however, Pedersen v. NLRB, supra, 234 F. 2d 417. As we read the opinion of the Court of Appeals, this issue and that of the sufficiency of the evidence, and perhaps others, were not reached when that court decided the § 8 (a) (4) issue as it did. We note that that court described the Board’s jurisdiction to act as “marginal.” 435 F. 2d, at 1296. In any event, this and any other issues may be canvassed on remand.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Local 453, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AEL-CIO.
Apparently all the Ritchie employee did was “to prepare to testify.” 354 F. 2d, at 101.
The three Justices who concurred in the result joined Part III of the plurality opinion. 394 U. S., at 769.
We do not regard three Board cases, Albert J. Bartson, 23 N. L. R. B. 666, 673-674 (1940); F. W. Poe Mfg. Co., 27 N. L. R. B. 1257, 1270 (1940); and The Kramer Co., 29 N. L. R. B. 921, 935 (1941), cited by the amicus, as indicative of a contrary Board interpretation. In each of those cases the employee had filed a charge. The Board’s reference, in each opinion, to that fact and its further reference, in the last two cases, to the “express statutory protection afforded employees” by § 8 (a) (4), are expected and natural references and do not, in our view, indicate a narrow approach to the statute.
We are not persuaded that the reach of § 8 (a) (3), 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a) (3), and the criminal penalty provided by § 12, 29 U. S. C. § 162, provide the required protection that justifies a narrow reading of §8 (a) (4).
But cf. Hoover Design Corp. v. NLRB, 402 F. 2d 987 (CA6 1968) (employee who “threatened to go to the Board” or file charges).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Labor unions have a statutory duty to distribute campaign literature to their membership in response to the reasonable request of any candidate for union office. In this case the union denied such a request because the candidate wanted the literature mailed in advance of the union’s nominating convention and a union rule prohibited such preconvention mailing. The question presented is whether a court must evaluate the reasonableness of the union’s rule before it decides whether the candidate’s request was reasonable. Like the Court of Appeals and the District Court, we conclude that the statute requires us to give a negative answer to that question.
I
The International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots (Union) represents about 8,500 members employed in, or in work related to, the maritime industry. Many of the members are away from home for extended periods of time because they work on ships that ply the high seas. Elections of Union officers are conducted every four years by means of a mail ballot. An international ballot committee, which oversees the election, is elected at the convention, and an impartial balloting agency, which conducts the balloting, is also selected by the delegates at the convention. App. 36, 25-26. The ballots are mailed to the membership no later than 30 days after the convention at which candidates are nominated, and must be returned within the ensuing 90-day period. Union rules authorize the mailing of campaign literature at the candidate’s expense after nominations have been made but not before. Any Union member in good standing may be a candidate; moreover, a candidate may nominate himself.
Respondent was an unsuccessful candidate for Union office in 1980 and 1984. On May 9, 1988, he formally advised the international secretary-treasurer of the Union that he would be a candidate in the election to be held in the fall and requested that the Union provide him with mailing labels containing the names and addresses of voting Union members to be given to a mailing service so that he could arrange, at his own expense, for a timely mailing of “election literature prior to the Convention.” Id., at 41.
On June 2, 1988, respondent wrote to the international president of the Union advising him that he would be a candidate for that office, that he intended to send his first mailing to the membership on July 6, and that he had not “had the courtesy of a reply” to his earlier letter to the secretary-treasurer. Id., at 43. Five days later, the secretary-treasurer provided respondent with the following explanation as to why his request could not be accommodated:
“Although I can understand your eagerness in wanting to send out your campaign literature early, please be advised that as soon as the rules are established for mailing campaign literature, all candidates will be notified at the same time.
“As the practice has been in the past, and the Constitution prescribes, the IOMM&P Convention is the event in which all candidates officially are nominated to run for a particular office. Only after the Convention takes place, and when the Impartial Balloting Agency is designated, will the mailing agency to handle campaign literature be designated. Please refer to Article V, Section 10 of the International Constitution. This procedure has been established so that each candidate will have a fair and equal amount of time in which to adequately reach the membership and to prohibit any one candidate from having an edge over the other.” Id., at 44-45.
On June 15, respondent appealed that denial to the Union general executive board, repeating his desire for action by July 5. Id., at 46. On July 6, the General Executive Board denied his appeal. Five days later, respondent filed this action under § 401(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 73 Stat. 532, 29 U. S. C. § 481(c). In his complaint, respondent alleged that the convention was scheduled to begin on August 22 and that he wanted “to encourage the membership to. begin consideration of his candidacy and of the issues he hope[d] to raise during his campaign before the deadline for making nominations, both in order to persuade the membership that he should be nominated and elected, and to attract support from individuals who might otherwise be inclined to run for office themselves or to encourage other members to do so.” App. 8-9.
Two weeks later, after both sides had filed affidavits and a hearing had been held, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction directing the Union and its two main officers “within forty-eight hours, and again in response to any future requests” to deliver the names and addresses of the Union members to a mailing service acceptable to the parties. Id., at 74. The order also provided that respondent should pay for the costs of the mailing service. Id., at 74-75. The District Court based its decision on alternative grounds. First, it held that the clear language of § 401(c) required it to focus on the reasonableness of respondent’s request rather than on the reasonableness of the Union rule under which the request was denied. In addition, the District Court concluded that the request to make a campaign distribution approximately one month before the convention was “clearly reasonable,” and that if the application of a Union rule resulted in the rejection of such a request, the rule was invalid. Id., at 77.
Second, and alternatively, the District Court held that even if the standard of review is the reasonableness of the Union rule, rather than the reasonableness of respondent’s request, the rule was unreasonable because preconvention campaigning was essential to introducing a candidate and his ideas to Union members and because the postconvention ballot period of 90 days was inadequate for effective campaigning in a Union whose members’ work kept them away from home for substantial periods of time. Id., at 77-78.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Brown v. Lowen, 857 F. 2d 216 (1988). The majority held that the question whether respondent was entitled to have his request granted depended “entirely on whether his request may be said to be reasonable.” Id., at 217. This conclusion involved “nothing more than a reading of the plain language of the statute,” ibid., and was búttressed by the statutory purpose of ensuring Union democracy:
“When the union bureaucracy has exclusive control of the union membership lists, with addresses, as in this case, and that bureaucracy has continuous contact with the union membership and particularly the local union officers, the advantages of incumbency over any attempt of an insurgent to promote his candidacy before or after the quadrennial nominating convention of the union are obvious. By requiring unions to comply with all reasonable requests of candidates for access to the union lists these advantages of incumbency are reasonably moderated. And it was to provide that very moderation of the advantages of incumbency which was the intention of the Act.” Id., at 218.
The majority found nothing unreasonable in respondent’s request and rejected the Union’s argument that it could limit the time in which literature could be distributed in order to avoid discrimination, “since any candidate, whether an incumbent or an insurgent, has the same rights as the plaintiff.” Ibid.
The dissenting judge found nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in the Union’s election procedures. According to the dissent, a candidate’s request that did not conform to a reasonable union rule was itself “per se unreasonable.” Id., at 219. After a rehearing en banc, by a vote of 8 to 2, the Court of Appeals adopted the majority’s holding and affirmed the District Court. Brown v. Lowen, 889 F. 2d 58 (1989) (per curiam). We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 935 (1990), to resolve the conflict between the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case and an earlier decision by the Third Circuit in Donovan v. Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters, 797 F. 2d 140 (1986).
II
Three important propositions are undisputed. First, even though respondent’s campaign literature has been distributed and even though he lost the election by a small margin, the case is not moot. Respondent has run for office before and may well do so again. The likelihood that the Union’s rule would again present an obstacle to a preconvention mailing by respondent makes this controversy sufficiently capable of repetition to preserve our jurisdiction. See, e. g., Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969) (“The problem is therefore ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 515 [(1911)]”).
Second, even though respondent’s candidacy had not been certified at a postconvention meeting of the Union impartial ballot committee in accordance with the Union’s formal election procedures, it is clear that respondent was a “bona fide candidate for office” within the meaning of the statute when he made his preconvention request to distribute campaign literature. 29 U. S. C. § 481(c). Section 401(e) of the LMRDA guarantees the right of every union member in good standing to be a candidate subject to the “reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed” by the union. The Union, in accordance with our opinions in Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S. 492 (1968), and Steelworkers v. Usery, 429 U. S. 305 (1977), does not contend that it would be reasonable to refuse to recognize an eligible candidate until after the nominating process is completed. As we explained in Wirtz:
“Congress plainly did not intend that the authorization in § 401(e) of ‘reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed’ should be given a broad reach. The contrary is implicit in the legislative history of the section and in its wording that ‘every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office . . . . ’ This conclusion is buttressed by other provisions of the Act which stress freedom of members to nominate candidates for office. Unduly restrictive candidacy qualifications can result in the abuses of entrenched leadership that the LMRDA was expressly enacted to curb. The check of democratic elections as a preventive measure is seriously impaired by candidacy qualifications which substantially deplete the ranks of those who might run in opposition to incumbents.
“It follows therefore that whether the Local 6 bylaw is a ‘reasonable qualification’ within the meaning of § 401(e) must be measured in terms of its consistency with the Act’s command to unions to conduct ‘free and democratic’ union elections.” 391 U. S., at 499 (footnote omitted).
Third, apart from the fact that respondent’s request violated the Union rule against preconvention mailings, there is no basis for contending that the request was not “reasonable” within the meaning of § 401(c). No question is raised about respondent’s responsibility for the cost of the mailing or about any administrative problem in complying with his request. The sole issue is whether the Union rule rendered an otherwise reasonable request unreasonable.
HH HH
The text, structure, and purpose of Title IV of the LMRDA all support the conclusion that our inquiry should focus primarily on the reasonableness of the candidate’s request rather than on the reasonableness of the Union’s rule curtailing the period in which campaign literature may be mailed.
The language of § 401(c) explicitly instructs the Union and its officers “to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s expense campaign literature . . . 29 U. S. C. § 481(c) (emphasis added). The language of the statute plainly requires unions to comply with “all reasonable requests,” and just as plainly does not require union members to comply with “all reasonable rules” when making such requests. Unlike the member’s right to run for union office, which is created by § 401(e) and made expressly subject to the “reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed” by the Union, and unlike the member’s speech and voting rights, which are governed by sections of the LMRDA such as §§ 101(a)(1) and 101(a)(2), 29 U. S. C. §§ 411(a)(1) and 411(a) (2), and are made “subject to reasonable rules” in the union constitution, the § 401(c) right is unqualified. Moreover, unlike other rights created by Title IV that are judicially enforceable only in actions brought by the Secretary of Labor, the § 401(c) right is directly enforceable in an action brought by the individual union member. Thus, as the language of the statute suggests, Congress gave this right pertaining to campaign literature a special status that it did not confer upon other rights it granted to union members.
The special purpose of Title IV was to ensure free and democratic union elections. See Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers, 389 U. S. 463, 470 (1968). The statutory guarantees are specifically designed to offset the “inherent advantage over potential rank and file challengers” possessed by incumbent union leadership. Id., at 474. One of the advantages identified by Archibald Cox in his testimony in support of the Act is the incumbents’ control of “the union newspaper which is the chief vehicle for communication with the members.” A broad interpretation of the candidate’s right to distribute literature commenting on the positions advocated in the union press is consistent with the statute’s basic purpose.
The Union advances three related arguments in support of its position that mailing requests should be considered unreasonable if they do not comply with nondiscriminatory rules that have been, adopted through democratic procedures. First, the Union correctly notes that any fair election must be conducted in accordance with predetermined rules, and that the reasonableness of any election-related request must be evaluated in view of those rules. Second, it argues that the rule at issue furthers its duty to avoid discrimination in the conduct of the election. Third, it relies on the congressional policy of avoiding unnecessary intervention in the internal affairs of labor unions.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Rules must, of course, be adopted to govern the process of nominating candidates, casting ballots, and counting votes. Moreover, in connection with the process of distributing campaign literature to the membership, rules that establish the procedures for making mailing requests, selecting a mailing agent, and paying the cost of the mailing are no doubt desirable. The justifications underlying such rules (uniformity of treatment, reduction of administrative burdens) and the fair notice provided to candidates by the existence and publication of such rules all would be relevant in determining whether a request is reasonable. But these concerns in no way dictate a rule prohibiting mailings before a nominating convention. Here, in particular, a preconvention mailing would not place any burden on the Union because the candidate must assume the cost of the mailing. Moreover, in union elections, as in political elections, it is fair to assume that more, rather than less, freedom in the exchange of views will contribute to the democratic process. Here, respondent, by his request for a preconvention mailing, hoped to provide Union members with “more information” with which to inform their voting decisions. App. 14.
The concern about discrimination among individual candidates is surely satisfied by a rule that allows any candidate access to the membership before the convention as well as by a rule that denies all candidates such access. Indeed, arguably opening the channels of communication to all candidates as soon as possible better serves the interest in leveling the playing field because it offsets the inherent advantage that incumbents and their allies may possess through their control of the union press and the electoral lists during the four years in which they have been in office.
The policy of avoiding unnecessary intervention into internal union affairs is reflected in several provisions of the LMRDA. We have already referred to the fact that the right to hold union office protected by § 401(e) is “subject to . . . reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed.” 29 U. S. C. § 481(e). Similarly, the provision in § 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 411(a)(1), governing the right to nominate candidates, to vote in elections, and to attend union meetings is expressly made subject to the union’s “reasonable rules and regulations.” Moreover, the member’s right to speak freely at union meetings is “subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings.” 29 U. S. C. §411(a)(2). These expressions of respect for internal union rules are notably absent in § 401(c).
Section 401(c) simply prescribes a straightforward test: Is the candidate’s distribution request reasonable? Having dispensed with the Union’s argument that a request is per se unreasonable simply because it conflicts with a union rule, we need only note again that in this case the Union does not advance any other reason for suggesting that respondent’s request was unreasonable. The Union does not contend, for example, that respondent’s request caused administrative or financial hardship to the Union or that it discriminated against any other candidate. In the absence of any showing by the Union as to the unreasonableness of the request, we hold, consistent with the lower courts’ findings, that respondent’s request was reasonable and must be granted.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
In the 1980 and 1984 Union elections, the ballots were mailed on the 30th day. App. 57.
An affidavit of the international president of the Union describes the procedure:
“The procedure followed under the IOMM&P Constitution for distribution of campaign literature does not permit access to the mailing list for distribution until after nominations have been made. No candidate, including incumbents, may use the mailing list for this purpose before this time. The International Ballot Committee meets after the close of the convention and reviews the qualifications of candidates to ensure their eligibility. Candidates are required to accept nomination within ten days and to certify that they are not prevented from holding office (Article V, section 5). Once all candidates are certified, the Impartial Balloting Agency notifies all candidates at the same time of the conditions for distribution of literature. The mailing agency is selected by the Impartial Balloting Agency and is not the same mailing agency used for other communications to members.” Id., at 60-61.
Between conventions, the Union is governed by a general executive board, consisting of the international officers and the vice presidents. Id., at 18-19.
Section 401(c) of the LMRDA provides:
“Every national or international labor organization, except a federation of national or international labor organizations, and every local labor organization, and its officers, shall be under a duty, enforceable at the suit of any bona fide candidate for office in such labor organization in the district court of the United States in which such labor organization maintains its principal office, to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s expense campaign literature in aid of such person’s candidacy to all members in good standing of such labor organization and to refrain from discrimination in favor of or against any candidate with respect to the use of lists of members, and whenever such labor organizations or its officers authorize the distribution by mail or otherwise to members of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate or of the labor organization itself with reference to such election, similar distribution at the request of any other bona fide candidate shall be made by such labor organization and its officers, with equal treatment as to the expense of such distribution. Every bona fide candidate shall have the right, once within 30 days prior to an election of a labor organization in which he is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the labor organization who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring membership therein as a condition of employment, which list shall be maintained and kept at the principal office of such labor organization by a designated official thereof. Adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided, including the right of any candidate to have an observer at the polls and at the counting of the ballots.” 29 U. S. C. § 481(c) (emphasis added).
A few days after the lawsuit was filed, a representative of the Department of Labor wrote letters to both parties expressing the view that the Union’s denial of respondent’s request violated § 401(c) and was therefore unlawful. See App. 52-54; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4.
The Court of Appeals explained that “[alt]hough the order of the district judge related to an application for a preliminary injunction, the granting of the motion in effect constituted a decision on the merits,” and thus, it reviewed the case on the merits, and “affirmfed] the decision of the district court as one on the merits.” 857 F. 2d, at 216.
Although the Secretary of Labor had not participated in any of the earlier stages of this litigation, she filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of respondent and participated in oral argument before the en banc panel.
Indeed, because of irregularities in the conduct of the 1988 election, the Secretary of Labor has persuaded the District Court to order a new election. Respondent remains a candidate for the office of international president in that election. However, presumably at this time no question concerning preconvention mailings remains open in connection with the 1988 election.
Section 401(e) provides in relevant part:
“In any election required by this section which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice, without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization or any member thereof.” 29 U. S. C. § 481(e).
“‘[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972)); see General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U. S. 530, 537-538, 541 (1990).
Hearings on S. 505 et al. before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 134 (1959). Consistent with Archibald Cox’s observations, the Union newspaper here was also “the principal and only regular source of news which members have about union affairs.” App. 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:
|
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the early morning of November 20, 1975, respondent Ralph Riley awoke with severe pains in his neck, shoulders, and arms, which later were attributed by physicians to an exacerbation of an arthritic condition. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that this “injury” was sufficient to invoke the “statutory presumption of compensability,” § 20(a) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. (part 2) 1436, 33 U. S. C. § 920(a), and vacated the administrative denial of disability benefits. We granted certiorari, 450 U. S. 979, and we now reverse.
Contending that he was permanently and totally disabled by the arthritic condition, Riley’s retained counsel filed with the Deputy Commissioner a claim for compensation under the Act. See 33 U. S. C. § 913. On standard form LS-203, in response to the direction to “[djescribe in full how the accident occurred,” Riley wrote that on November 19, 1975, he was “[ljifting duct work with co-worker, weighing approximately 500 pounds, felt sharp pain in neck and sat down.” App. 111.
An evidentiary hearing was convened before an Administrative Law Judge. After construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Riley and resolving all doubts in his favor, the Administrative Law Judge found “that Claimant sustained no injury within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Act on November 19, 1975, as alleged, and that Claimant and Sutherland [Riley’s co-workerj gave false testimony as to the happening of the accident.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24A.
A divided panel of the Benefits Review Board affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. In dissent, Member Miller stated:
“The Act does not require that claimant prove an accident in order to establish a claim. To the contrary, compensation is payable under the Act if claimant is disabled because of injury which is causally related to his employment. 33 U. S. C. §§902(10), 902(2).” 9 BRBS 936, 940 (1979) (emphasis in origina:!).
Member Miller defined an injury as “something go[ne] wrong within the human frame.” Ibid. Riley suffered such an injury when he awoke on November 20 with severe pain. Therefore, Member Miller would have remanded the case for a determination of “the real issue in this case,” which “is not whether claimant sustained an accident at work but whether claimant’s injury is causally related to his employment.” Ibid. That determination was to be made in light of the § 20(a) presumption, which “places the burden on employer to prove by substantial evidence that claimant’s injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.” Ibid.
On Riley’s petition for review, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the Benefits Review Board, agreeing with Member Miller’s position. Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 200 U. S. App. D. C. 402, 627 F. 2d 455 (1980). The court stated that “it can hardly be disputed that petitioner suffered an ‘injury^ when he awakened in pain on November 20, 1975.” Id., at 405, 627 F. 2d, at 458. The court then turned its “attention to the statutory presumption and the range of situations to which this Court has applied it.” Ibid. It construed its earlier cases as holding “that an injury need not have occurred during working hours” and “need not be traceable to any particular work-related incident to be compensable.” Id., at 405-406, 627 F. 2d, at 458-459.
“The foregoing cases make clear the pervasive scope of the statutory presumption of compensability. Indeed, no decision of this Court has ever failed to apply the presumption to any facet of any claim before it. We now hold expressly that where a claimant has been injured, the Act requires that, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, a claimant be given the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that the injury arose out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment.” Id., at 406, 627 F. 2d, at 459.
The question for remand was not whether Riley’s “injury” stemmed from a “work-related incident,” but whether it was “ ‘employment-bred. ’ ” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals erred because it overlooked (1) the statutory language that relates the § 20(a) presumption to the employee’s claim, and (2) the statutory definition of the term “injury.”
I
The Court of Appeals’ first error was its invocation of the § 20(a) presumption in support of a claim that was not made by Riley. Riley claimed that he suffered an injury at work on November 19 when he was lifting duct work and felt a sharp pain in his neck. The Administrative Law Judge found as a matter of fact that the accident had not occurred; this finding is no longer challenged. The Court of Appeals’ theory of recovery was that Riley suffered an injury at home in bed on November 20 and that Riley was entitled to .a presumption that this injury was “employment-bred.”
Section 20(a), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1436, provides that “[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this Act it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this Act.” The coverage of the presumption is debatable, but one thing is clear: the presumption applies to the claim. Even if a claimant has an unfettered right to amend his claim to conform to the proof, the presumption by its terms cannot apply to a claim that has never been made.
Section 13 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 913, provides that a claimant must timely file a claim with the Deputy Commissioner. The content of the claim is not specified in that section. But § 12(b), 33 U. S. C. § 912(b), requires that the claimant timely give the Deputy Commissioner and his employer notice of his injury, and provides further that “[s]uch notice . . . shall contain ... a statement of the time, place, nature, and cause of the injury.” The claim, like the notice required by § 12 and like the pleadings required in any type of litigation, serves the purposes of notifying the adverse party of the allegations and of confining the issues to be tried and adjudicated.
In Riley’s claim, he alleged that he suffered an accidental injury in the course of his employment on November 19. No claim has ever been made that the “injury” occurred at home and that it was somehow “employment-bred.” Even if such a vague claim stated a prima facie case of compensability, the statutory presumption does not require the administrative law judge to address and the employer to rebut every conceivable theory of recovery. At least when the claimant is represented by counsel, as Riley was, there is no reason to depart from the specific statutory direction that a claim be made and that the presumption, however construed, attach to the claim.
II
The Court of Appeals’ second error was its incorrect use of the term “injury.” The court stated that Riley’s attack of pain in the early morning of November 20 was an “injury” compensable under the Act if the employer did not disprove by substantial evidence that the “injury” was “employment-bred.” The fact that “‘something unexpectedly goes wrong with the human frame,’” 200 U. S. App. D. C., at 405, 627 F. 2d, at 458 (quoting Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 183, 407 F. 2d 307, 313 (1968)), however, does not establish an “injury” within the meaning of the Act. The mere existence of a physical impairment is plainly insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the employer.
Section 3(a) provides that “[c]ompensation shall be payable under this Act in respect of disability... of an employee, but only if the disability . . . results from an injury.” 44 Stat. (part 2) 1426, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 903(a). Injury is defined as an “accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of employment.” 33 U. S. C. §902(2). Arising “out of” and “in the course of” employment are separate elements: the former refers to injury causation; the latter refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Not only must the injury have been caused by the employment, it also must have arisen during the employment.
A prima facie “claim for compensation,” to which the statutory presumption refers, must at least allege an injury that arose in the course of employment as well as out of employment. The “injury” noticed by the Court of Appeals, however, arose in bed, not in the course of employment. Even if the Court of Appeals simply mislabeled the early morning attack of pain as the “injury” itself rather than as a manifestation of an earlier injury, the claim envisioned by the Court of Appeals did not allege any facts that would establish that Riley suffered an injury that arose in the course of employment. The statutory presumption is no substitute for the allegations necessary to state a prima facie case.
Ill
Riley’s claim stated a prima facie case of compensability; if the Administrative Law Judge had believed Riley’s allegations, he would have found that Riley’s attack of pain in the early morning of November 20 was caused by an injury suffered when Riley was lifting duct work on the job on November 19. The judge, however, disbelieved Riley’s allegations and marshaled substantial evidence to support his findings. The statutory presumption did not require him to adjudicate any claim that was not made, and the Court of Appeals erred in remanding for that purpose. Nor could the statutory presumption have aided Riley had he made the claim envisioned by the Court of Appeals — that he suffered an “injury” at home — for such a claim omits the requirement that a compen-sable injury arise in the course of employment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Injury” and “statutory presumption of compensability” are terms employed by the Court of Appeals. See Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 200 U. S. App. D. C. 402, 627 F. 2d 455 (1980). As we explain below, the use of the term “injury” to describe Riley’s early morning attack of pain is incorrect. We do not decide the scope of the § 20(a) presumption, or, a fortiori, the appropriateness of the Court of Appeals’ characterization of it.
Apparently, it is undisputed that Riley is permanently and totally disabled. Brief for Respondent Riley 5, n.
The form continues with a further instruction:
“Relate the events which resulted in the injury or occupational disease. Tell what the injured was doing at the time of the accident. Tell what happened and how it happened. Name any objects or substances involved and tell how they were involved. Give full details on all factors which led or contributed to the accident. If more space is needed, continue on reverse.” App. 111.
The cases cited by the Court of Appeals do not support this proposition. In Butler v. District Parking Management Co., 124 U. S. App. D. C. 195, 363 F. 2d 682 (1966), the claimant became ill at work and the illness was diagnosed as a schizophrenic reaction. In Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 407 F. 2d 307 (1968), the employee collapsed from a heart attack at work. In Mitchell v. Woodworth, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 21, 449 F. 2d 1097 (1971), the employee died of a cerebral vascular accident shortly after collapsing at work.
We need not resolve that debate in this case. It seems fair to assume, however, that the § 20(a) presumption is of the same nature as the presumption created by § 20(d) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 920(d), as construed in Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U. S. 280, 285-287, and the presumption defined in Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See also Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248.
“This statement must be more than a mere declaration that the employee has received an injury or is suffering from an illness that is related to his employment; it must contain enough details about the nature and extent of the injury or disease to allow the employer to conduct a prompt and complete investigation of the claim so that no prejudice will ensue.” 1A E. Jhirad, A. Sann, N. Golden, & B. Chase, Benedict on Admiralty § 71, p. 4-5 (7th ed. 1981).
See generally F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure §2.1 (2d ed. 1977). Of course, the workmen’s compensation process is much more simplified than modem civil litigation. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of the system:
“The adjective law of workmen’s compensation, like the substantive, takes its tone from the beneficent and remedial character of the legislation. Procedure is generally summary and informal. . . . The whole idea is to get away from the cumbersome procedures and technicalities of pleading, and to reach a right decision by the shortest and quickest possible route. ... On the other hand, as every lawyer knows, there is a point beyond which the sweeping-aside of ‘technicalities' cannot go, since evidentiary and procedural rules usually have an irreducible hard core of necessary function that cannot be dispensed with in any orderly investigation of the merits of a case.” 3 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation §78.10, p. 15-2(1976).
Professor Larson writes that an informal substitute for a claim may be acceptable if it “identif[ies] the claimant, indicate[s] that a compensable injury has occurred, and convey[s] the idea that compensation is expected,” id., § 78.11, p. 15-9; that “considerable liberality is usually shown in allowing amendment of pleadings to correct. . . defects,” unless the “effect is one of undue surprise or prejudice to the opposing party,” id., at 15-11; and that “wide latitude is allowed” as to variance between pleading and proof, “[b]ut if the variance is so great that the defendant is prejudiced by having to deal at the hearing with an injury entirely different from the one pleaded, the variance may be held fatal,” id., at 15 — 13—15-14. Riley had the benefit of these liberal pleading rules; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals applied the statutory presumption to a claim that was not fairly supported by the existing claim or by the evidentiary record. As Professor Larson warns, “[n]o amount of informality can alter the elementary requirement that the claimant allege and prove the substance of all essential elements in his case.” Id., at 15-12.
“If the employer or carrier declines to pay any compensation on or before the thirtieth day after receiving written notice of a claim for compensation having been filed from the deputy commissioner, on the ground that there is no liability for compensation within the provisions of this chapter and the person seeking benefits shall thereafter have utilized the services of an attorney at law in the successful prosecution of his claim, there shall be awarded, in addition to the award of compensation, in a compensation order, a reasonable attorney’s fee against the employer or carrier in an amount approved by the deputy commissioner, Board, or court, as the case may be. which shall be paid directly by the employer or carrier to the attorney for the claimant in a lump sum after the compensation order becomes final.” 33 U. S. C. § 928(a).
See, e. g., Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U. S. 503; Thom v. Sinclair, [1917] A. C. 127; 1A Benedict on Admiralty, supra, §43; 1 A. Larson, supra, § 6.10, at 3-2 — 3-3 (1978).
The Act was enacted to create a federal workmen’s compensation statute for maritime employments after this Court held that state workmen’s compensation statutes constitutionally could not apply to injured maritime workers. See generally Nogueira v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 281 U. S. 128. Workmen’s compensation legislation has never been intended to provide life or disability insurance for covered employees. The required connection between the death or disability and employment distinguishes the workmen’s compensation program from such an insurance program, and the separate requirements that the injury arise out of and in the course of employment are the means for assuring, to the extent possible, that the work connection is proved. See W. Dodd, Administration of Workmen’s Compensation 681 (1936); see generally Cudahy Packing Co. v. Parramore, 263 U. S. 418, 422-424.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellants, mothers of illegitimate children receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance, and the children, commenced this action challenging § 52-440b, Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. (1973), which requires the mother of an illegitimate child to divulge to designated officials the name of the putative father of the child. Noncompliance with the statute is a contempt punishable by imprisonment up to one year and a fine of up to $200. A three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of § 52-440b against appellants’ claims of denial of due process and equal protection and invasion of appellants’ right to privacy, and also concluded that the statute did not conflict with the purpose and objectives of the Social Security Act. We noted probable jurisdiction, 415 U. S. 912 (1974). However, since that time Pub. L. 93-647, 88 Stat. 2337, was enacted. Public L. 93-647 amends § 402 (a) of the Social Security Act to require parents, as a condition of eligibility for AFDC assistance, to cooperate with state efforts to locate and obtain support from absent parents but provides no punitive sanctions comparable to those provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. § 52-440b (1973). Section 402 (a), as amended, 88 Stat. 2359, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), provides in pertinent part:
“A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must
“(26) provide that, as a condition of eligibility for aid, each applicant or recipient will be required—
“(B) 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 payments or property due such applicant or such child and that, if the relative with whom the child is living is found to be ineligible because of failure to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, any aid for which such child is eligible will be provided in the form of protective payments as described in section [606 (b) (2) of this title] (without regard to subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such section) ...
We vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further consideration in light of Pub. L. 93-647, and, if a relevant state criminal proceeding is pending, also for further consideration in light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975).
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs except with respect to Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975).
Section 52-440b, Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev., provides:
“(a) If the mother of any child bom out of wedlock, or the mother of any child bom to any married woman during marriage which child shall be found not to be issue of the marriage terminated by a divorce decree or by decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, fails or refuses to disclose the name of the putative father of such child under oath to the welfare commissioner, if such child is a recipient of public assistance, or to a selectman of a town in which such child resides, if such child is a recipient of general assistance, or otherwise to a guardian or a guardian ad litem of such child, such mother may be cited to appear before any judge of the circuit court and compelled to disclose the name of the putative father under oath and to institute an action to establish the paternity of said child.
“(b) Any woman who, having been cited to appear before a judge of the circuit court pursuant to subsection (a), fails to appear or fails to disclose or fails to prosecute a paternity action may be found to be in contempt of said court and may be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The right to the use and occupancy of a church in the city of New York is in dispute.
The right to such use is claimed by appellee, a corporation created in 1925 by an act of the Legislature of New York, Laws of New York 1925, c. 463, for the purpose of acquiring a cathedral for the Russian Orthodox Church in North America as a central place of worship and residence of the ruling archbishop “in accordance with the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of Eastern Confession as taught by the holy scriptures, holy tradition, seven oecumenical councils and holy fathers of that church.”
The corporate right is sought to be enforced so that the head of the American churches, religiously affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church, may occupy the Cathedral. At the present time that head is the Metropolitan of All America and Canada, the Archbishop of New York, Leonty, who like his predecessors was elected to his ecclesiastical office by a sobor of the American churches.
That claimed right of the corporation to use and occupancy for the archbishop chosen by the American churches is opposed by appellants who are in possession. Benjamin Fedchenkoff bases his right on an appointment in 1934 by the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, to wit, the Patriarch locum tenens of Moscow and all Russia and its Holy Synod, as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands. The other defendant-appellant is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, also acknowledging the spiritual and administrative control of the Moscow hierarchy.
Determination of the right to use and occupy Saint Nicholas depends upon whether the appointment of Benjamin by the Patriarch or the election of the Archbishop for North America by the convention of the American churches validly selects the ruling hierarch for the American churches. The Court of Appeals of New York, reversing the lower court, determined that the prelate appointed by the Moscow ecclesiastical authorities was not entitled to the Cathedral and directed the entry of a judgment that appellee corporation be reinvested with the possession and administration of the temporalities of St. Nicholas Cathedral. St. Nicholas Cathedral v. Kedroff, 302 N. Y. 1, 33, 96 N. E. 2d 56, 74. This determination was made on the authority of Article 5-C of the Religious Corporations Law of New York, 302 N. Y., at 24 et seg., 96 N. E. 2d, at 68 et seq., against appellants’ contention that this New York statute, as construed, violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Because of the constitutional questions thus generally involved, we noted probable jurisdiction, and, after argument and submission of the case last term, ordered re-argument and requested counsel to include a discussion of whether the judgment might be sustained on state grounds. 343 U. S. 972. Both parties concluded that it could not, and the unequivocal remittitur of the New York Court of Appeals, 302 N. Y. 689, 98 N. E. 2d 485, specifically stating the constitutionality of the statute as the necessary ground for decision, compels this view and precludes any doubt as to the propriety of our determination of the constitutional issue on the merits. Grayson v. Harris, 267 U. S. 352; Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95. The case now has been reargued and submitted.
Article 5-C was added to the Religious Corporations Law of New York in 1945 and provided both for the incorporation and administration of Russian Orthodox churches. Clarifying amendments were added in 1948. The purpose of the article was to bring all the New York churches, formerly subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the Most Sacred Governing Synod in Moscow or the Patriarch of Moscow, into an administratively autonomous metropolitan district. That district was North American in area, created pursuant to resolutions adopted at a sobor held at Detroit in 1924. This declared autonomy was made effective by a further legislative requirement that all the churches formerly administratively subject to the Moscow synod and patriarchate should for the future be governed by the ecclesiastical body and hierarchy of the American metropolitan district. The foregoing analysis follows the interpretation of this article by the Court of Appeals of New York, an interpretation binding upon us.
Article 5-C is challenged as invalid under the constitutional prohibition against interference with the exercise of religion. The appellants’ contention, of course, is based on the theory that the principles of the First Amendment are made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth. See Stokes, Church and State in the United States (1950), vol. 1, c. VIII.
The Russian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous member of the Eastern Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. It sprang from the Church of Constantinople in the Tenth Century. The schism of 1054 A. D. split the Universal Church into those of the East and the West. Gradually self-government was assumed by the Russian Church until in the Sixteenth Century its autonomy was recognized and a Patriarch of Moscow appeared. Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, c. V. For the next one hundred years the development of the church kept pace with the growth of power of the Czars but it increasingly became a part of the civil government — a state church. Throughout that period it also remained an hierarchical church with a Patriarch at its head, governed by the conventions or sobors called by him. However, from the time of Peter the Great until 1917 no sobor was held. No patriarch ruled or was chosen. During that time the church was governed by a Holy Synod, a group of ecclesiastics with a Chief Procurator representative of the government as a member.
Late in the Eighteenth Century the Russian Church entered the missionary field in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. From there churches spread slowly down the Pacific Coast and later, with the Slavic immigration, to our eastern cities, particularly to Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Pittsburgh and New York. The character of the administrative unit changed with the years as is indicated by the changes in its name. See note 2. In 1904 when a diocese of North America was created its first archbishop, Tikhon, shortly thereafter established himself in his seat at Saint Nicholas Cathedral. His appointment came from the Holy Synod of Russia as did those of his successors in order Platon and Evdokim. Under those appointments the successive archbishops occupied the Cathedral and residence of Saint Nicholas under the administrative authority of the Holy Synod.
In 1917 Archbishop Evdokim returned to Russia permanently. Early that year an All Russian Sobor was held, the first since Peter the Great. It occurred during the interlude of political freedom following the fall of the Czar. A patriarch was elected and installed — Tikhon who had been the first American Archbishop. Uncertainties as to the succession to and administration of the American archbishopric made their appearance following this sobor and were largely induced by the almost contemporaneous political disturbances which culminated swiftly in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Russian Orthodox Church was drawn into this maelstrom. After a few years the Patriarch was imprisoned. There were suggestions of his counterrevolutionary activity. Church power was transferred, partly through a sobor considered by many as non-canonical, to a Supreme Church Council. The declared reforms were said to have resulted in a “Living Church” or sometimes in a “Renovated Church.” Circumstances and pressures changed. Patriarch Tikhon was released from prison and died in 1925. He named three bishops as locum tenens for the patriarchal throne. It was one of these, Sergius, who in 1933 appointed the appellant Benjamin as Archbishop. The Church was registered as a religious organization under Soviet law in 1927. Thereafter the Russian Church and the Russian State approached if not a reconciliation at least an adjustment which eventuated by 1943 in the election of Sergius, one of the bishops named as locum tenens by Tikhon, to the Patriarchate. The Living or Renovated Church, whether deemed a reformed, a schismatic or a new church, apparently withered away. After Sergius’ death a new Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexi, was chosen Patriarch in 1945 at Moscow at a sobor recognized by all parties to this litigation as a true sobor held in accordance with the church canons.
The Russian upheaval caused repercussions in the North American Diocese. That Diocese at the time of the Soviet Revolution recognized the spiritual and administrative control of Moscow. White Russians, both lay and clerical, found asylum in America from the revolutionary conflicts, strengthening the feeling of abhorrence of the secular attitude of the new Russian Government. The church members already here, immigrants and native-born, while habituated to look to Moscow for religious direction, were accustomed to our theory of separation between church and state. The Russian turmoil, the restraints on religious activities and the evolution of a new ecclesiastical hierarchy in the form of the “Living Church,” deemed noncanonical or schismatic by most churchmen, made very difficult Russian administration of the American diocese. Furthermore, Patriarch Tik-hon, on November 20,1920, issued Decision No. 362 relating to church administration for troublesome times. This granted a large measure of autonomy, when the Russian ruling authority was unable to function, subject to “confirmation later to the Central Church Authority when it is re-established.” Naturally the growing number of American-born members of the Russian Church did not cling to a hierarchy identified with their country of remote origin with the same national feeling that moved their immigrant ancestors. These facts and forces generated in America a separatist movement.
That movement brought about the arrangements at the Detroit Sobor of 1924 for a temporary American administration of the church on account of the disturbances in Russia. This was followed by the declarations of autonomy of the successive sobors since that date, a spate of litigation concerning control of the various churches and occupancy of ecclesiastical positions, the New York legislation (known as Article 5-C, notes 2 and 3, swpra), and this controversy.
Delegates from the North American Diocese intended to be represented at an admittedly canonical Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church held in 1945 at Moscow. They did riot arrive in time on account of delays, responsibility for which has not been fixed. The following stipulation appears as to their later actions while at Moscow:
“It is stipulated that Bishop Alexi and Father Dzvonchik, representing the local group of American Churches under Bishop Theophilus, appeared before the Patriarch and the members of his Synod in Moscow, presented a written report on the condition of the American Church, with a request for autonomy and a few days later received from the Patriarch the Ukase....”
There came to the Russian Church in America this Ukase of the Moscow Patriarchy of February 14 or 16, 1945, covering Moscow’s requirements for reunion of the American Orthodox Church with the Russian. It required for reunion that the Russian Church in America hold promptly an “all American Orthodox Church Sobor” ; that it express the decision of the dioceses to reunite with the Russian Mother Church, declare the agreement of the American Orthodox Church to abstain “from political activities against the U. S. S. R.” and so direct its parishes, and elect a Metropolitan subject to confirmation by the Moscow Patriarchy. The decree said, “In view of the distance of the American Metropolitan District from the Russian Mother Church... the Metropolitan-Exarch... may be given some extended powers by the Moscow Patriarchy....”
The American congregations speaking through their Cleveland Sobor of 1946 refused the proffered arrangement and resolved in part:
“That any administrative recognition of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is hereby terminated, retaining, however, our spiritual and brotherly relations with all parts of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad....”
This ended the efforts to compose the differences between the Mother Church and its American offspring, and this litigation followed. We understand the above factual summary corresponds substantially with the factual basis for determination formulated by the Court of Appeals of New York. From those circumstances it seems clear that the Russian Orthodox Church was, until the Russian Revolution, an hierarchical church with unquestioned paramount jurisdiction in the governing body in Russia over the American Metropolitanate. Nothing indicates that either the Sacred Synod or the succeeding Patriarchs relinquished that authority or recognized the autonomy of the American church. The Court of Appeals decision proceeds, we understand, upon the same assumption. 302 N. Y., at 5, 23, 24, 96 N. E. 2d, at 57, 68, 69. That court did consider “whether there exists in Moscow at the present time a true central organization of the Russian Orthodox Church capable of functioning as the head of a free international religious body.” It concluded that this aspect of the controversy had not been sufficiently developed to justify a judgment upon that ground. 302 N. Y., at 22-24, 96 N. E. 2d, at 67-69.
The Religious Corporations Law. — The New York Court of Appeals depended for its judgment, refusing recognition to Archbishop Benjamin, the appointee of the Moscow Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, upon Article 5-C of the Religious Corporations Law, quoted and analyzed at notes 2 and 3, supra. Certainly a legislature is free to act upon such information as it may have as to the necessity for legislation. But an enactment by a legislature cannot validate action which the Constitution prohibits, and we think that the statute here in question passes the constitutional limits. We conclude that Article 5-C undertook by its terms to transfer the control of the New York churches of the Russian Orthodox religion from the central governing hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod, to the governing authorities of the Russian Church in America, a church organization limited to the diocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands. This transfer takes place by virtue of the statute. Such a law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. It prohibits in this country the free exercise of religion. Legislation tha¡t regulates church administration, the operation of the churches, the appointment of clergy, by requiring conformity to church statutes “adopted at a general convention (sobor) held in the City of New York on or about or between October fifth to eighth, nineteen hundred thirty-seven, and any amendments thereto,” note 3, supra, prohibits the free exercise of religion. Although this statute requires the New York churches to “in all other respects conform to, maintain and follow the faith, doctrine, ritual, communion, discipline, canon law, traditions and usages of the Eastern Confession (Eastern Orthodox or Greek Catholic Church),” their conformity is by legislative fiat and subject to legislative will. Should the state assert power to change the statute requiring conformity to ancient faith and doctrine to one establishing a different doctrine, the invalidity would be unmistakable.
Although § 5 of the Religious Corporations Law had long controlled religious corporations, the Court of Appeals held that its rule was not based on any constitutional requirement or prohibition. Since certain events of which the Court took judicial notice indicated to it that the Russian Government exercised control over the central church authorities and that the American church acted to protect its pulpits and faith from such influences, the Court of Appeals felt that the Legislature’s reasonable belief in such conditions justified the State in enacting a law to free the American group from infiltration of such atheistic or subversive influences.
This legislation, Art. 5-C, in the view of the Court of Appeals, gave the use of the churches to the Russian Church in America on the theory that this church would most faithfully carry out the purposes of the religious trust. Thus dangers of political use of church pulpits would be minimized. Legislative power to punish subversive action cannot be doubted. If such action should be actually attempted by a cleric, neither his robe nor his pulpit would be a defense. But in this case no problem of punishment for the violation of law arises. There is no charge of subversive or hostile action by any ecclesiastic. Here there is a transfer by statute of control over churches. This violates our rule of separation between church and state. That conclusion results from the purpose, meaning and effect of the New York legislation stated above, considered in the light of the history and decisions considered below.
Hierarchical churches may be defined as those organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head. In Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, they are spoken of in like terms. That opinion has been given consideration in subsequent church litigation — state and national. The opinion itself, however, did not turn on either the establishment or the prohibition of the free exercise of religion. It was a church controversy in the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church of Louisville, Kentucky, arising out of the slavery conflict and was filled with the acrimony of that period. It was decided here at the 1871 Term. “The government of the [Presbyterian] church is exercised by and through an ascending series of ‘judicatories,’ known as Church Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and a General Assembly.” Id., at 681. The opinion of this Court assumed without question that the Louisville church, its property and its officers were originally and up to the beginning of the disagreements subjected to the operation of the laws of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. Id., at 683. The actual possession of the church property was in trustees; its operation or use controlled by the Session composed of elders. Both were groups elected at intervals by the members.
In May of 1865 the General Assembly, the highest judicatory of the church, made a declaration of loyalty to the Federal Government denouncing slavery, and directed that new members with contrary views should not be received. The Louisville Presbytery, the immediate superior of the Walnut Street Church, promptly issued a Declaration and Testimony, refusing obedience and calling for resistance to the alleged usurpation of authority. The Louisville Presbytery divided as did the Walnut Street Church and the proslavery group obtained admission into the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States. In June 1867 the Presbyterian General Assembly for the United States declared the Presbytery and Synod recognized by the proslavery party were “in no sense a true and lawful Synod and Presbytery in connection with and under the care and authority of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.” They were “permanently excluded from connection with or representation in the Assembly. By the same resolution the Synod and Presbytery adhered to by those whom [the proslavery party] opposed were declared to be the true and lawful Presbytery of Louisville, and Synod of Kentucky.” Id., at 692.
Litigation started in 1866 with a suit in the state court by certain of the antislavery group to have declared their right to act as duly elected additional elders “in the management of the church property for purposes of religious worship.” Id., at 685. As the Court of Appeals of Kentucky thought that certain acts of the Louisville Presbytery and the General Assembly of the United States, in pronouncing the additional elders duly elected, were void as beyond their functions, id., at 693, it refused the plea of the antislavery group and left the proslavery elders and trustees in control of the Walnut Street Church.
Thereupon a new suit, Watson v. Jones, was begun by alleged members of the church to secure the use of the Walnut Street Church for the antislavery group. This suit was to decide not the validity of an election of elders fought out in Watson v. Avery, supra, but which one of two bodies should be recognized as entitled to the use of the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church. It was determined that plaintiffs had a beneficial interest in the church property and therefore a standing to sue for its proper use, if they were members. Id., at 697, 714. A schism was recognized. Id., at 717. It was held:
“The trustees obviously hold possession for the use of the persons who by the constitution, usages, and laws of the Presbyterian body, are entitled to that use.” Id., at 720.
They were required to recognize “the true uses of the trust.” Id., at 722. Then turning to the consideration of an hierarchical church, as defined in n. 15, supra, and, as it found the Presbyterian Church to be, this Court said:
“In this class of cases we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority is, that, whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.” Id., at 727.
As the General Assembly of the Church had recognized the antislavery group “as the regular and lawful Walnut Street Church and officers,” id., at 694, newly elected, and the trial court had found complainants members of that group, and had entered a decree adjudging that this group’s duly chosen and elected pastor, ruling elders and trustees “respectively entitled to exercise whatever authority in the said church, or over its members or property, rightfully belonged to pastor, elders, and trustees, respectively, in churches in connection with ‘The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/ Old School, and according to the regulations and usages of that church,” id., at 698, this Court affirmed the decree.
In affirming, the Court recognized the contrariety of views between jurists as to civil jurisdiction over church adjudications having an effect upon property or its uses, when the civil courts determine the church judicatory has violated the church’s organic law. Its ruling is summed up in these words:
“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” Id., at 728-729.
This is applicable to “questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law,” id., at 727. This controversy concerning the right to use St. Nicholas Cathedral is strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government, the power of the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church to appoint the ruling hierarch of the archdiocese of North America. No one disputes that such power did lie in that Authority prior to the Russian Revolution.
Watson v. Jones, although it contains a reference to the relations of church and state under our system of laws, was decided without depending upon prohibition of state interference with the free exercise of religion. It was decided in 1871, before judicial recognition of the coercive power of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the limitations of the First Amendment against state action. It long antedated the 1938 decisions of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins and Ruhlin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 304 U. S. 64 and 202, and, therefore, even though federal jurisdiction in the case depended solely on diversity, the holding was based on general law rather than Kentucky law. The opinion radiates, however, a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation — in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Freedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven, we think, must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.
Legislative Power. — The Court of Appeals of New York recognized, generally, the soundness of the philosophy of ecclesiastical control of church administration and polity but concluded that the exercise of that control was not free from legislative interference. That Court presented forcefully the argument supporting legislative power to act on its own knowledge of “the Soviet attitude toward things religious.” 302 N. Y., at 32-33, 96 N. E. 2d, at 74. It was said:
“The Legislature realized that the North American church, in order to be free of Soviet interference in its affairs, had declared its temporary administrative autonomy in 1924, pursuant to the ukase of 1920, while retaining full spiritual communion with the patriarchate, and that there was a real danger that those properties and temporalities long enjoyed and used by the Russian Orthodox Church worshippers in this State would be taken from them by the representatives of the patriarchate.” 302 N. Y., at 33, 96 N. E. 2d, at 74.
It was thought that American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, supported the thesis that where there is some specific evil, found as a fact, “some infringement upon traditional liberties was justifiable” to effect a cure. 302 N. Y., at 31, 96 N. E. 2d, at 73. On that reasoning it was thought permissible, in view “of the changed situation of the patriarchate in Russia,” to replace it with the Russian Church in America as the ruling authority over the administration of the church. The legal basis for this legislative substitution was found in the theory that the Russian Church in America “was the trustee which'may be relied upon to carry out more effectively and faithfully the purposes of this religious trust (Carrier v. Carrier, 226 N. Y. 114).’ ” 302 N. Y., at 30, 96 N. E. 2d, at 72. Mindful of the authority of the Court of Appeals in its interpretation of the powers of its own legislature and with respect for its standing and ability, we do not agree with its statement as to legislative power over religious organizations.
In our view the Douds case may not be interpreted to validate New York’s Article 5-C. That case involved the validity of § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 146, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (h). That section forbade the N. L. R. B. from acting at the suggestion of a labor organization Unless affidavits of its officers were filed denying affiliation with subversive organizations or belief in the overthrow of this Government by force or other unconstitutional means. We upheld the enactment as a proper exercise of the power to protect commerce from the evil of disruption from strikes so politically inspired. In so doing we said, “legitimate attempts to protect the public, not from the remote possible effects of noxious ideologies, but from present excesses of direct, active conduct, are not presumptively bad because they interfere with and, in some of its manifestations, restrain the exercise of First Amendment rights.” 339 U. S., at 399. And added, “But insofar as the problem is one of drawing inferences concerning the need for regulation of particular forms of conduct from conflicting evidence, this Court is in no position to substitute its judgment as to the necessity or desirability of the statute for that of Congress.” Id., at 400. It is an exaggeration to say that those sound statements point to a legislative power to take away from a church’s governing body and its duly ordained representative the possession and use of a building held in trust for the purposes for which it is being employed because of an apprehension, even though reasonable, that it may be employed for improper purposes. In Douds we saw nothing that was aimed at the free expression of views. Unions could have officers with such affiliations and political purposes as they might choose but the Government was not compelled to allow those officers an opportunity to disrupt commerce for their own political ends. We looked upon the affidavit requirement as an assurance that disruptive forces would not utilize a government agency to accomplish their purposes. Id., at 403.
In upholding the validity of Article 5-C, the New York Court of Appeals apparently assumes Article 5-C does nothing more than permit the trustees of the Cathedral to use it for services consistent with the desires of the members of the Russian Church in America. Its reach goes far beyond that point. By fiat it displaces one church administrator with another. It passes the control of matters strictly ecclesiastical from one church authority to another. It thus intrudes for the benefit of one segment of a church the power of the state into the forbidden area of religious freedom contrary to the principles of the First Amendment. Such prohibition differs from the restriction of a right to deal with Government allowed in Douds, in that the Union in the Douds case had no such constitutionally protected right. New York’s Article 5-C directly prohibits the free exercise of an ecclesiastical right, the Church’s choice of its hierarchy.
We do not think that New York’s legislative application of a cy-pres doctrine to this trust avoids the constitutional rule against prohibition of the free exercise of religion. Late Corporation of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, relied upon by the appellee, does not support its argument. There the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had been incorporated as a religious corporation by the State of Deseret, with subsequent confirmation by the Territory of Utah. Its property was held for religious and charitable purposes. That charter was revoked by Congress and some of the property of the church was escheated to the United States for the use of the common schools of Utah. This Court upheld the revocation of the charter, relying on the reserved power of the Congress over the acts of territories, 136 U. S., at 45-46. The seizure of the property was bottomed on the general rule that where a charitable corporation is dissolved for unlawful practices, id., at 49-50, the sovereign takes and distributes the property according to the cy-pres doctrine to objects of charity and usefulness, e. g., schools. Id., at 47, 50-51. A failure of the charitable purpose could have the same effect. Id., at 59. None of these elements exist to support the validity of the New York statute putting the Russian Orthodox churches of New York under the administration of the Russian Church in America. See notes 2 and 3, supra.
The record before us shows no schism over faith or doctrine between the Russian Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church. It shows administrative control of the North American Diocese by the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, including the appointment of the ruling hierarch in North America from the foundation of the diocese until the Russian Revolution. We find nothing that indicates a relinquishment of this power by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Ours is a government which by the “law of its being” allows no statute, state or national, that prohibits the free exercise of religion. There are occasions when civil courts must draw lines between the responsibilities of church and state for the disposition or use of property. Even in those cases when the property right follows as an incident from decisions of the church custom or law on ecclesiastical issues, the church rule controls. This under our Constitution necessarily follows in order that there may be free exercise of religion.
The decree of the Court of Appeals of New York must be reversed, and the case remanded to that court for such further action as it deems proper and not in contravention of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Asobor is a convention of bishops, clergymen and laymen with superior powers, with the assistance of which the church officials rule their dioceses or districts.
There is no problem of title. It is in the appellee corporation. The issue is the right of use. St. Nicholas Cathedral v. Kedroff, 302 N. Y. 1, 20, 96 N. E. 2d 56, 66-67.
The deed to the Cathedral Corporation required the grantee to hold the property in accordance with the terms of the Act of 1925, set out at the opening of this opinion. As said by the Court of Appeals, 302 N. Y., at 20, 96 N. E. 2d, at 66:
“Plaintiff does not dispute this trust theory, but on the contrary relies upon it. Plaintiff has endeavored to prove that the beneficial use of the property today rightfully belongs to the Russian church in America (Religious Corporations Law, § 105) which was forced to declare its administrative autonomy at the Detroit sobor of 1924 in order to preserve and adhere to those principles and practices fundamental to the Russian Orthodox faith, free from the influence of an atheistic and antireligious foreign civil government.”
See also Religious Corporations Law, § 5, 50 McKinney’s N. Y. Laws § 5.
50 McKinney’s N. Y. Laws § 105:
“The ‘Russian Church in America’, as that term is used anywhere in this article, refers to that group of churches, cathedrals, chapels, congregations, societies, parishes, committees and other religious organizations of the Eastern Confession (Eastern Orthodox or Greek Catholic Church) which were known as (a) Russian American Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church from in or about seventeen hundred ninety-three to in or about eighteen hundred seventy; (b) Diocese of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands of the Russian Orthodox Church from in or about eighteen hundred seventy to in or about nineteen hundred four; (c) Diocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands (or Alaska) of the Russian Orthodox Church from in or about nineteen hundred four to in or about nineteen hundred twenty-four; and (d) Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America since in or about nineteen hundred twenty-four; and were subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the Most Sacred Governing Synod in Moscow until in or about nineteen hundred seventeen, later the Patriarchate of Moscow, but now constitute an administratively autonomous metropolitan district created pursuant to resolutions adopted at a general convention (sobor) of said district held at Detroit, Michigan, on or about or between April second to fourth, nineteen hundred twenty-four.
“A ‘Russian Orthodox church’, as that term is used anywhere in this article, is a church, cathedral, chap [t] el, congregation, society, parish, committee or other religious organization founded and established for the purpose and with the intent of adhering to, and being subject to the administrative jurisdiction of said mission, diocese or autonomous metropolitan district hereinabove defined as the Russian Church in America.”
Id., § 107:
“1. Every Russian Orthodox church in this state, whether incorporated before or after the creation of said autonomous metropolitan district, and whether incorporated or reincorporated pursuant to this article or any other article of the religious corporations law
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses on the 1984 version of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated by the Department of Transportation under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,80 Stat. 718,15 U. S. C. §1381 et seq. (1988 ed.). The standard, FMVSS 208, required auto manufacturers to equip some but not all of their 1987 vehicles with passive restraints. We ask whether the Act pre-empts a state common-law tort action in which the plaintiff claims that the defendant auto manufacturer, who was in compliance with the standard, should nonetheless have equipped a 1987 automobile with airbags. We conclude that the Act, taken together with FMVSS 208, pre-empts the lawsuit.
I
In 1992, petitioner Alexis Geier, driving a 1987 Honda Accord, collided with a tree and was seriously injured. The car was equipped with manual shoulder and lap belts which Geier had buckled up at the time. The car was not equipped with airbags or other passive restraint devices.
Geier and her parents, also petitioners, sued the car’s manufacturer, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., and its affiliates (hereinafter American Honda), under District of Columbia tort law. They claimed, among other things, that American Honda had designed its car negligently and defectively because it lacked a driver’s side airbag. App. 3. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit. The court noted that FMVSS 208 gave ear manufacturers a choice as to whether to install airbags. And the court concluded that petitioners’ lawsuit, because it sought to establish a different safety standard — i. e., an airbag requirement — was expressly preempted by a provision of the Act which pre-empts “any safety standard” that is not identical to a federal safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance, 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d) (1988 ed.); Civ. No. 95-CV-0064 (D. D. C., Dec. 9, 1997), App. 17. (We, like the courts below and the parties, refer to the pre-1994 version of the statute throughout the opinion; it has been recodified at 49 U. S. C. § 30101 et seq.)
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s conclusion but on somewhat different reasoning. It had doubts, given the existence of the Act’s “saving” clause, 15 U. S. C. § 1397(k) (1988 ed.), that petitioners’ lawsuit involved the potential creation of the kind of “safety standard” to which the Safety Act’s express pre-emption provision refers. But it declined to resolve that question because it found that petitioners’ state-law tort claims posed an obstacle to the accomplishment of FMVSS 208’s objectives. For that reason, it found that those claims conflicted with FMVSS 208, and that, under ordinary pre-emption principles, the Act consequently pre-empted the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals thus affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. 166 F. 3d 1236,1238-1243 (CADC 1999).
Several state courts have held to the contrary, namely, that neither the Act’s express pre-emption nor FMVSS 208 preempts a “no airbag” tort suit. See, e. g., Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 92 N. Y. 2d 35, 43-53, 699 N. E. 2d 376, 379-386 (1998); Minton v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 80 Ohio St. 3d 62, 70-79, 684 N. E. 2d 648, 655-661 (1997); Munroe v. Galati, 189 Ariz. 113, 115-119, 938 P. 2d 1114, 1116-1120 (1997); Wilson v. Pleasant, 660 N. E. 2d 327, 330-339 (Ind. 1995); Tebbetts v. Ford Motor Co., 140 N. H. 203, 206-207, 665 A. 2d 345, 347-348 (1995). All of the Federal Circuit Courts that have considered the question, however, have found pre-emption. One rested its conclusion on the Act’s express pre-emption provision. See, e.g., Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 110 F. 3d 1410, 1413-1415 (CA9 1997). Others, such as the Court of Appeals below, have instead found preemption under ordinary pre-emption principles by virtue of the conflict such suits pose to FMVSS 208’s objectives, and thus to the Act itself. See, e. g., Montag v. Honda Motor Co., 75 F. 3d 1414, 1417 (CA10 1996); Pokorny v. Ford Motor Co., 902 F. 2d 1116, 1121-1125 (CA3 1990); Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 875 F. 2d 816, 825-827 (CA11 1989); Wood v. General Motors Corp., 865 F. 2d 395, 412-414 (CA1 1988). We granted certiorari to resolve these differences. We now hold that this kind of “no airbag” lawsuit conflicts with the objectives of FMVSS 208, a standard authorized by the Act, and is therefore pre-empted by the Act.
In reaching our conclusion, we consider three subsidiary questions. First, does the Act’s express pre-emption provision pre-empt this lawsuit? We think not. Second, do ordinary pre-emption principles nonetheless apply? We hold that they do. Third, does this lawsuit actually conflict with FMVSS 208, hence with the Act itself? We hold that it does.
II
We first ask whether the Safety Act’s express pre-emption provision pre-empts this tort action. The provision reads as follows:
“Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment[,] any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.” 15 U. S. C. § 1892(d) (1988 ed.).
American Honda points out that a majority of this Court has said that a somewhat similar statutory provision in a different federal statute — a provision that uses the word “requirements” — may well expressly pre-empt similar tort actions. See, e. g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 502-504 (1996) (plurality opinion); id., at 503-505 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 509-512 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Petitioners reply that this statute speaks of pre-empting a state-law “safety standard,” not a “requirement,” and that a tort action does not involve a safety standard. Hence, they conclude, the express pre-emption provision does not apply.
We need not determine the precise significance of the use of the word “standard,” rather than “requirement,” however, for the Act contains another provision, which resolves the disagreement. That provision, a “saving” clause, says that “[c]ompliance with” a federal safety standard “does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.” 15 U. S. C. § 1397(k) (1988 ed.). The saving clause assumes that there are some significant number of common-law liability eases to save. And a reading of the express pre-emption provision that excludes common-law tort actions gives actual meaning to the saving clause’s literal language, while leaving adequate room for state tort law to operate — for example, where federal law creates only a floor, i. e., a minimum safety standard. See, e. g., Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21 (explaining that common-law claim that a vehicle is defectively designed because it lacks antilock brakes would not be pre-empted by 49 CFR §571.105 (1999), a safety standard establishing minimum requirements for brake performance). Without the saving clause, a broad reading of the express pre-emption provision arguably might pre-empt those actions, for, as we have just mentioned, it is possible to read the pre-emption provision, standing alone, as applying to standards imposed in common-law tort actions, as well as standards contained in state legislation or regulations. And if so, it would pre-empt all nonidentical state standards established in tort actions covering the same aspect of pei'-■formance as an applicable federal standard, even if the federal standard merely established a minimum standard. On that broad reading of the pre-emption clause little, if any, potential “liability at common law” would remain. And few, if any, state tort actions would remain for the saving clause to save. We have found no convincing indication that Congress wanted to pre-empt, not only state statutes and regulations, but also common-law tort actions, in such circumstances. Hence the broad reading cannot be correct. The language of the pre-emption provision permits a narrow reading that excludes common-law actions. Given the presence of the saving clause, we conclude that the pre-emption clause must be so read.
HH f — 1 1 — 1
We have just said that the saving clause at least removes tort actions from the scope of the express pre-emption clause. Does it do more? In particular, does it foreclose or limit the operation of ordinary pre-emption principles insofar as those principles instruct us to read statutes as preempting state laws (including common-law rules) that “actually conflict” with the statute or federal standards promulgated thereunder? Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982). Petitioners concede, as they must in light of Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280 (1995), that the pre-emption provision, by itself, does not foreclose (through negative implication) “any possibility of implied [conflict] pre-emption,” id., at 288 (discussing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 517-518 (1992)). But they argue that the saving clause has that very effect.
We recognize that, when this Court previously considered the pre-emptive effect of the statute’s ianguage, it appeared to leave open the question of how, or the extent to which, the saving clause saves state-law tort actions that conflict with federal regulations promulgated under the Act. See Freightliner, supra, at 287, n. 3 (declining to address whether the saving clause prevents a manufacturer from “us[ing] a federal safety standard to immunize itself from state common-law liability”). We now conclude that the saving clause (like the express pre-emption provision) does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles.
Nothing in the language of the saving clause suggests an intent to save state-law tort actions that conflict with federal regulations. The words “Compliance” and “does not exempt,” 15 U. S. C. § 1397(k) (1988 ed.), sound as if they simply bar a special kind of defense, namely, a defense that compliance with a federal standard automatically exempts a defendant from state law, whether the Federal Government meant that standard to be an absolute requirement or only a minimum one. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 4(b), Comment ~e (1997) (distinguishing between state-law compliance defense and a federal claim of preemption). It is difficult to understand why Congress would have insisted on a compliance-with-federal-regulation precondition to the provision’s applicability had it wished the Act to “save” all state-law tort actions, regardless of their potential threat to the objectives of federal safety standards promulgated under that Act. Nor does our interpretation conflict with the purpose of the saving provision, say, by rendering it ineffectual. As we have previously explained, the saving provision still makes clear that the express pre-emption provision does not of its own force pre-empt common-law tort actions. And it thereby preserves those actions that seek to establish greater safety than the minimum safety achieved by a federal regulation intended to provide a floor. See supra, at 867-868.
Moreover, this Court has repeatedly “decline[d] to give broad effect to saving clauses where doing so would upset the careful regulatory scheme established by federal law.” United States v. Locke, ante, at 106-107; see American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc., 524 U. S. 214, 227-228 (1998) (AT&T); Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 446 (1907). We find this concern applicable in the present ease. And we conclude that the saving clause foresees — it does not foreclose— the possibility that a federal safety standard will pre-empt a state common-law tort action with which it conflicts. We do not imderstand the dissent to disagree, for it acknowledges that ordinary pre-emption principles apply, at least sometimes. Post, at 899-900 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
Neither do we believe that the pre-emption provision, the saving provision, or both together, create some kind of “special burden” beyond that inherent in ordinary pre-emption principles — which “special burden” would specially disfavor pre-emption here. Cf. post, at 898-899. The two provisions, read together, reflect a neutral policy, not a specially favorable or unfavorable policy, toward the application of ordinary conflict pre-emption principles. On the one hand, the pre-emption provision itself reflects a desire to subject the industry to a single, uniform set of federal safety standards. Its pre-emption of all state standards, even those that might stand in harmony with federal law, suggests an intent to avoid the conflict, uncertainty, cost, and occasional risk to safety itself that too many different safety-standard cooks might otherwise create. See H. R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 17 (1966) (“Basically, this preemption subsection is intended to result in uniformity of standards so that the public as well as industry will be guided by one set of criteria rather than by a multiplicity of diverse standards”); S. Rep. No. 1301,89th Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1966). This policy by itself favors pre-emption of state tort suits, for the rules of law that judges and juries create or apply in such suits may themselves similarly create uncertainty and even conflict, say, when different juries in different States reach different decisions on similar facts.
On the other hand, the saving clause reflects a congressional determination that occasional nonuniformity is a small price to pay for a system in which juries not only create, but also enforce, safety standards, while simultaneously providing necessary compensation to victims. That policy by itself disfavors pre-emption, at least some of the time. But we can find nothing in any natural reading of the two provisions that would favor one set of policies over the other where a jury-imposed safety standard actually conflicts with a federal safety standard.
Why, in any event, would Congress not have wanted ordinary pre-emption principles to apply where an actual conflict with a federal objective is at stake? Some such principle is needed. In its absence, state law could impose legal duties that would conflict directly with federal regulatory mandates, say, by premising liability upon the presence of the very windshield retention requirements that federal law requires. See, e. g., 49 CFR § 571.212 (1999). Insofar as petitioners’ argument would permit common-law actions that "actually conflict” with federal regulations, it would take from those who would enforce a federal law the very ability to achieve the law’s congressionally mandated objectives that the Constitution, through the operation of ordinary preemption principles, seeks to protect. To the extent that such an interpretation of the saving provision reads into a particular federal law toleration of a conflict that those principles would otherwise forbid, it permits that law to defeat its own objectives, or potentially, as the Court has put it before, to “‘destroy itself.’” AT&T, supra, at 228 (quoting Abilene Cotton, supra, at 446). We do not claim that Congress lacks the constitutional power to write a statute that mandates such a complex type of state/federal relationship. Cf. post, at 900, n. 16. But there is no reason to believe Congress has done so here.
The dissent, as we have said, contends nonetheless that the express pre-emption and saving provisions here, taken together, create a “special burden,” which a court must impose “on a party” who claims conflict pre-emption under those principles. Post, at 898. But nothing in the Safety Act’s language refers to any “special burden.” Nor can one find the basis for a “special burden” in this Court’s precedents. It is true that, in Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U. S. 280 (1995), the Court said, in the context of interpreting the Safety Act, that “[a]t bestS” there is an “inference that an express pre-emption clause forecloses implied pre-emption.” Id., at 289 (emphasis added). But the Court made this statement in the course of rejecting the more absolute, argument that the presence of the express pre-emption provision entirely foreclosed the possibility of conflict pre-emption. Id., at 288. The statement, headed with the qualifier “[a]t best,” and made in a case where, without any need for inferences or “special burdens,” state law obviously would survive, see id., at 289-290, simply preserves a legal possibility. This Court did not hold that the Safety Act does create a “special burden,” or still less that such a burden necessarily arises from the limits of an express pre-emption provision. And considerations of language, purpose, and administrative workability, together with the principles underlying this Court’s pre-emption doctrine discussed above, make clear that the express pre-emption provision imposes no unusual, “special burden” against pre-emption. For similar reasons, we do not see the basis for interpreting the saving clause to impose any such burden.
A “special burden” would also promise practical difficulty by further complicating well-established pre-emption principles that already are difficult to apply. The dissent does not contend that this “special burden” would apply in a case in which state law penalizes what federal law requires — i. e., a case of impossibility. See post, at 892-893, n. 6, 900, n. 16. But if it would not apply in such a ease, then how, or when, would it apply? This Court, when describing conflict preemption, has spoken of pre-empting state law that “under the circumstances of th[e] particular ease... stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” — whether that “obstacle” goes by the name of “conflicting; contrary to;... repugnance; difference; irreconcilability; inconsistency; violation; curtailment;... interference,” or the like. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941); see Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 526 (1977). The Court has not previously driven a legal wedge — only a terminological one — between “conflicts” that prevent or frustrate the accomplishment of a federal objective and “conflicts” that make it “impossible” for private parties to comply with both state and federal law. Rather, it has said that both forms of conflicting state law are “nullified” by the Supremacy Clause, De la Cuesta, 458 U. S., at 152-153; see Locke, ante, at 109; English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 78-79 (1990), and it has assumed that Congress would not want either kind of conflict. The Court has thus refused to read general “saving” provisions to tolerate actual conflict both in cases involving impossibility, see, e. g., AT&T, 524 U. S., at 228, and in “frustration-of-purpose” eases, see, e. g., Locke, ante, at 103-112; International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U. S. 481, 493-494 (1987); see also Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U. S. 311, 328-331 (1981). We see no grounds, then, for attempting to distinguish among types of federal-state conflict for purposes of analyzing whether such a conflict warrants pre-emption in a particular case. That kind of analysis, moreover, would engender legal uncertainty with its inevitable systemwide costs (e.g., conflicts, delay, and expense) as courts tried sensibly to distinguish among varieties of “conflict” (which often shade, one into the other) when applying this complicated rule to the many federal statutes that contain some form of an express pre-emption provision, a saving provision, or as here, both. Nothing in the statute suggests Congress wanted to complicate ordinary experience-proved principles of conflict pre-emption with an added “special burden.” Indeed, the dissent’s willingness to impose a “special burden” here stems ultimately from its view that “frustration-of-purpos[e]’’ conflict pre-emption is a freewheeling, “inadequately considered” doctrine that might well be “eliminate^].” Post, at 907-908, and n. 22. In a word, ordinary pre-emption principles, grounded in longstanding precedent, Hines, supra, at 67, apply. We would not further complicate the law with complex new doctrine.
IV
The basic question, then, is whether a common-law “no airbag” action like the one before us actually conflicts with FMVSS 208. We hold that it does.
In petitioners’ and the dissent’s view, FMVSS 208 sets a minimum airbag standard. As far as FMVSS 208 is concerned, the more airbags, and the sooner, the better. But that was not the Secretary’s view. The Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) comments, which accompanied the promulgation of FMVSS 208, make clear that the standard deliberately provided the manufacturer with a range of choices among different passive restraint devices. Those choices would bring about a mix of different devices introduced gradually over time; and FMVSS 208 would thereby lower costs, overcome technical safety problems, encourage technological development, and win widespread consumer acceptance — all of which would promote FMVSS 208’s safety objectives. See generally 49 Fed. Reg. 28962 (1984).
A
The history of FMVSS 208 helps explain why and how DOT sought these objectives. See generally Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 34-38 (1983). In 1967, DOT, understanding that seatbelts would save many lives, required manufacturers to install manual seatbelts in all automobiles. 32 Fed. Reg. 2408, 2415. It became apparent, however, that most occupants simply would not buckle up their belts. See 34 Fed. Reg. 11148 (1969). DOT then began to investigate the feasibility of requiring “passive restraints,” such as airbags and automatic seatbelts. Ibid. In 1970, it amended FMVSS 208 to include some passive protection requirements, 35 Fed. Reg. 16927, while making clear that airbags were one of several “equally acceptable” devices and that it neither “ 'favored’ [n]or expected the introduction of airbag systems.” Ibid. In 1971, it added an express provision permitting compliance through the use of nondetachable passive belts, 36 Fed. Reg. 12858, 12859, and in 1972, it mandated full passive protection for all front seat occupants for vehicles manufactured after August 15, 1975, 37 Fed. Reg. 3911. Although the agency’s focus was originally on airbags, 34 Fed. Reg. 11148 (1969) (notice of proposed rule-making); State Farm, 463 U. S., at 35, n. 4; see also id., at 46, n. 11 (noting view of commentators that, as of 1970, FMVSS 208 was “ ‘a de facto airbag mandate’ ” because of the state of passive restraint technology), at no point did FMVSS 208 formally require the use of airbags. From the start, as in 1984, it permitted passive restraint options.
DOT gave manufacturers a further choice for new vehicles manufactured between 1972 and August 1975. Manufacturers could either install a passive restraint device such as automatic seatbelts or airbags or retain manual belts and add an “ignition interlock” device that in effect forced occupants to buckle up by preventing the ignition otherwise from turning on. 37 Fed. Reg. 3911 (1972). The interlock soon became popular with manufacturers. And in 1974, when the agency approved the use of detachable automatic seatbelts, it conditioned that approval by providing that such systems must include an interlock system and a continuous warning buzzer to encourage reattachment of the belt. 39 Fed. Reg. 14593. But the interlock and buzzer devices were most unpopular with the public. And Congress, responding to public pressure, passed a law that forbade DOT from requiring, or permitting compliance by means of, such devices. Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, § 109,88 Stat. 1482 (previously codified at 15 U. S. C. § 1410b(b) (1988 ed.)).
That experience influenced DOT’S subsequent passive restraint initiatives. In 1976, DOT Secretary William T. Coleman, Jr., fearing continued public resistance, suspended the passive restraint requirements. He sought to win public acceptance for a variety of passive restraint devices through a demonstration project that would involve about half a million new automobiles. State Farm, supra, at 37. But his successor, Brock Adams, canceled the project, instead amending FMVSS 208 to require passive restraints, principally either airbags or passive seatbelts. 42 Fed. Reg. 34289 (1977).
Andrew Lewis, a new DOT Secretary in a new administration, rescinded the Adams requirements, primarily because DOT learned that the industry planned to satisfy those requirements almost exclusively through the installation of detachable automatic seatbelts. 46 Fed. Reg. 53419-53420 (1981). This Court held the rescission unlawful. State Farm, supra, at 34, 46. And the stage was set for then-DOT Secretary, Elizabeth Dole, to amend FMVSS 208 once again, promulgating the version that is now before us. 49 Fed. Reg. 28962 (1984).
B
Read in light of this history, DOT’s own contemporaneous explanation of FMVSS 208 makes clear that the 1984 version of FMVSS 208 reflected the following significant considerations. First, buckled up seatbelts are a vital ingredient of automobile safety. Id., at 29003; State Farm, supra, at 52 (“We start with the accepted ground that if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries”). Second, despite the enormous and unnecessary risks that a passenger runs by not buckling up manual lap and shoulder belts, more than 80% of front seat passengers would leave their manual seatbelts unbuckled. 49 Fed. Reg. 28983 (1984) (estimating that only 12.5% of front seat passengers buckled up manual belts). Third, airbags could make up for the dangers caused by unbuckled manual belts, but they could not make up for them entirely. Id., at 28986 (concluding that, although an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt was the most “effective” system, airbags alone were less effective than buckled up manual lap and shoulder belts).
Fourth, passive restraint systems had their own disadvantages, for example, the dangers associated with, intrusiveness of, and corresponding public dislike for, nondetachable automatic belts. Id., at 28992-28993. Fifth, airbags brought with them their own special risks to safety, such as the risk of danger to out-of-position occupants (usually children) in small cars. Id., at 28992, 29001; see also 65 Fed. Reg. 30680, 30681-30682 (2000) (finding 158 confirmed airbag-induced fatalities as of April 2000, and amending rule to add new requirements, test,procedures, and injury criteria to ensure that “future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious airbag-induced injuries than current air bags, particularly for small women and young children”); U. S. Dept, of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Accident Sampling System Crash-worthiness Data System 1991-1993, p. viii (Aug. 1995) (finding that airbags caused approximately 54,000 injuries between 1991 and 1993).
Sixth, airbags were expected to be significantly more expensive than other passive restraint devices, raising the average cost of a vehicle price $320 for full frontal airbags over the cost of a car with manual lap and shoulder seatbelts (and potentially much more if production volumes were low). 49 Fed. Reg. 28990 (1984). And the agency worried that the high replacement cost — estimated to be $800 — could lead ear owners to refuse to replace them after deployment. Id., at 28990, 29000-29001; see also id., at 28990 (estimating total investment costs for mandatory airbag requirement at $1.3 billion compared to $500 million for automatic seatbelts). Seventh, the public, for reasons of cost, fear, or physical intrusiveness, might resist installation or use of any of the then-available passive restraint devices, id., at 28987-28989 — a particular concern with respect to airbags, id., at 29001 (noting that “[a]irbags engendered the largest quantity of, and most vociferously worded, comments”).
FMVSS 208 reflected these considerations in several ways. Most importantly, that standard deliberately sought variety — a mix of several different passive restraint systems. It did so by setting a performance requirement for passive restraint devices and allowing manufacturers to choose among different passive restraint mechanisms, such as airbags, automatic belts, or other passive restraint technologies to satisfy that requirement. Id., at 28996. And DOT explained why FMVSS 208 sought the mix of devices that it expected its performance standard to produce. Id., at 28997. DOT wrote that it had rejected a proposed FMVSS 208 “all airbag” standard because of safety concerns (perceived or real) associated with airbags, which concerns threatened a “backlash” more easily overcome “if airbags” were “not the only way of complying.” Id., at 29001. It added that a mix of devices would help develop data on comparative effectiveness, would allow the industry time to overcome the safety problems and the high production costs associated with airbags, and would facilitate the development of alternative, cheaper, and safer passive restraint systems. Id., at 29001-29002. And it would thereby build public confidence, id., at 29001-29002, necessary to avoid another interlock-type fiasco.
The 1984 FMVSS 208 standard also deliberately sought a gradual phase-in of passive restraints. Id., at 28999-29000. It required the manufacturers to equip only 10% of their car fleet manufactured after September 1,1986, with passive restraints. Id., at 28999. It then increased the percentage in three annual stages, up to 100% of the new car fleet for cars manufactured after September 1, 1989. Ibid. And it explained that the phased-in requirement would allow more time for manufacturers to develop airbags or other, better, safer passive restraint systems. It would help develop information about the comparative effectiveness of different systems, would lead to a mix in which airbags and other non-seatbelt passive restraint systems played a more prominent role than would otherwise result, and would promote public acceptance. Id., at 29000-29001.
Of course, as the dissent points out, post, at 908, FMVSS 208 did not guarantee the mix by setting a ceiling for each different passive restraint device. In fact, it provided a form of extra credit for airbag installation (and other nonbelt passive restraint devices) under which each airbag-installed vehicle counted as 1.5 vehicles for purposes of meeting FMVSS 208’s passive restraint requirement. 49 CFR §571.208, S4.1.3.4(a)(1) (1999); 49 Fed. Reg. 29000 (1984). But why should DOT have bothered to impose an airbag ceiling when the practical threat to the mix it desired arose from the likelihood that manufacturers would install, not too many airbags too quickly, but too few or none at all? After all, only a few years earlier, Secretary Dole’s predecessor had discovered that manufacturers intended to meet the then-current passive restraint requirement almost entirely (more than 99%) through the installation of more affordable automatic belt systems. 46 Fed. Reg. 53421 (1981); State Farm, 463 U. S., at 38. The extra credit, as DOT explained, was designed to “encourage manufacturers to equip at least some of their cars with airbags.” 49 Fed. Reg. 29001 (1984) (emphasis added) (responding to comment that failure to mandate airbags might mean the “end of... airbag technology”); see also id., at 29000 (explaining that the extra credit for airbags “should promote the development of what may be better alternatives to automatic belts than would otherwise be developed” (emphasis added)). The credit provision reinforces the point that FMVSS 208 sought a gradually developing mix of passive restraint devices; it does not show the contrary.
Finally, FMVSS 208’s passive restraint requirement was conditional. DOT believed that ordinary manual lap and shoulder belts would produce about the same amount of safety as passive restraints, and at significantly lower costs — if only auto occupants would buckle up. See id., at 28997-28998. Thus, FMVSS 208 provided for rescission of its passive restraint requirement if, by September 1, 1989, two-thirds of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Article of War 92, 10 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. IV) § 1564, which, prior to the adoption of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, governed trials for murder or rape before courts-martial, contained a proviso “That no person shall be tried by court-martial for murder or rape committed within the geographical limits of the States of the Union and the District of Columbia in time of peace.”
The question for decision concerns the meaning of the words “in time of peace” in the context of Article 92.
Petitioner, while serving with the United States Army in France, was convicted by a court-martial, dishonorably discharged, and sentenced to prison for 20 years. He was serving that sentence in the custody of the Army at Camp Cooke, California, when he was convicted by a court-martial of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. This offense occurred on June 10, 1949, at Camp Cooke. The question is whether June 10, 1949, was “in time of peace” as the term was used in the 92d Article. The question was raised by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the jurisdiction of the court-martial. Both the District Court (148 F. Supp. 23) and the Court of Appeals (248 F. 2d 783) ruled against petitioner. We granted certiorari, 356 U. S. 911.
The Germans surrendered on May 8, 1945 (59 Stat. 1857), the Japanese on September 2,1945 (59 Stat. 1733). The President on December 31, 1946, proclaimed the cessation of hostilities, adding that “a state of war still exists.” 61 Stat. 1048. In 1947, Senate Joint Resolution 123 was passed (61 Stat. 449) which terminated, inter alia, several provisions of the Articles of War but did not mention Article 92. The war with Germany terminated October 19, 1951, by a Joint Resolution of Congress (65 Stat. 451) and a Presidential Proclamation (66 Stat. c3). And on April 28, 1952, the formal declaration of peace and termination of war with Japan was proclaimed by the President (66 Stat. c31), that being the effective date of the Japanese Peace Treaty. Since June 10, 1949 — the critical date involved here — preceded these latter dates, and since no previous action by the political branches of our Government had specifically lifted Article 92 from the “state of war” category, it is argued that we were not then “in time of peace” for the purposes of Article 92. That argument gains support from a dictum in Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U. S. 1, 9-10, that the term “in time of peace” as used in Article 92 “signifies peace in the complete sense, officially declared.” Of like tenor are generalized statements that the termination of a “state of war” is “a political act” of the other branches of Government, not the Judiciary. See Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 169. We do not think that either of those authorities is dispositive of the present controversy. A more particularized and discriminating analysis must be made. We deal with a term that must be construed in light of the precise facts of each case and the impact of the particular statute involved. Congress in drafting laws may decide that the Nation may be “at war” for one purpose, and “at peace” for another. It may use the same words broadly in one context, narrowly in another. The problem of judicial interpretation is to determine whether “in the sense of this law” peace had arrived. United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, 69. Only mischief can result if those terms are given one meaning regardless of the statutory context.
In the Kahn case, the offense was committed on July 29, 1918, and the trial started November 4, 1918 — both dates being before the Armistice. It is, therefore, clear that the offense was not committed “in time of peace.” Moreover, a military tribunal whose jurisdiction over a case attaches in a time of actual war does not lose jurisdiction because hostilities cease. Once a military court acquires jurisdiction that jurisdiction continues until the end of the trial and the imposition of the sentence. See Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U. S. 365, 383. The broad comments of the Court in the Kahn case on the meaning of the term “in time of peace” as used in Article 92 were, therefore, quite unnecessary for the decision.
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, belongs in a special category of cases dealing with the power of the Executive or the Congress to deal with the aftermath of problems which a state of war brings and which a cessation of hostilities does not necessarily dispel. That case concerns the power of the President to remove an alien enemy after hostilities have ended but before the political branches have declared the state of war ended. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, involves the constitutionality under the war power of a prohibition law passed in 1918 after the armistice with Germany was signed and to be operative “until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States.” Woods v. Miller Co., 333 U. S. 138, concerns the constitutionality of control of housing rentals promulgated after hostilities were ended and before peace was formally declared. These cases deal with the reach of the war power, as a source of regulatory authority over national affairs, in the aftermath of hostilities. The earlier case of McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426, is likewise irrelevant to our problem. It was a suit for back pay by an officer, the outcome of which turned on a statute which allowed dismissal of an officer from the service “in time of peace” only by court-martial. The President had made the dismissal; and the Court held that such action, being before August 20, 1866, when the Presidential Proclamation announced the end of the rebellion and the existence of peace, was lawful, since there was extrinsic evidence that Congress did not intend the statute to be effective until the date of the Proclamation.
Our problem is not controlled by those cases. We deal with the term “in time of peace” in the setting of a grant of power to military tribunals to try people for capital offenses. Did Congress design a broad or a narrow grant of authority? Is the authority of a court-martial to try a soldier for a civil crime, such as murder or rape, to be generously or strictly construed? Cf. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304.
We do not write on a clean slate. The attitude cf a free society toward the jurisdiction of military tribunals — our reluctance to give them authority to try people for nonmilitary offenses — has a long history.
We reviewed both British and American history, touching on this point, in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 23-30. We pointed out the great alarms sounded when James II authorized the trial of soldiers for nonmilitary crimes and the American protests that mounted when British courts-martial impinged on the domain of civil courts in this country. The views of Blackstone on military jurisdiction became deeply imbedded in our thinking: “The necessity of order and discipline in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance; and therefore it ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when the king’s courts are open for all persons to receive justice according to the laws of the land.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 413. And see Hale, History and Analysis of the Common Law of England (1st ed. 1713), 40-41. We spoke in that tradition in Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 22, “Free countries of the world have tried to restrict military tribunals to the narrowest jurisdiction deemed absolutely essential to maintaining discipline among troops in active service.”
The power to try soldiers for the capital crimes of murder and rape was long withheld. Not until 1863 was authority granted. 12 Stat. 736. And then it was restricted to times of “war, insurrection, or rebellion.” The theory was that the civil courts, being open, were wholly qualified to handle these cases. As Col. William Winthrop wrote in Military Law and Precedents (2d ed. 1920) 667, about this 1863 law:
“Its main object evidently was to provide for the punishment of these crimes in localities where, in consequence of military occupation, or the prevalence of martial law, the action of the civil courts is suspended, or their authority can not be exercised with the promptitude and efficiency required by the exigencies of the period and the necessities of military government.”
Civil courts were, indeed, thought to be better qualified than military tribunals to try nonmilitary offenses. They have a more deeply engrained judicial attitude, a more thorough indoctrination in the procedural safeguards necessary for a fair trial. Moreover, important constitutional guarantees come into play once the citizen— whether soldier or civilian — is charged with a capital crime such as murder or rape. The most significant of these is the right to trial by jury, one of the most important safeguards against tyranny which our law has designed. We must assume that the Congress, as well as the courts, was alive to the importance of those constitutional guarantees when it gave Article 92 its particular phrasing. Statutory language is construed to conform as near as may be to traditional guarantees that protect the rights of the citizen. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 301-304; Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U. S. 115; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 129. We will attribute to Congress a purpose to guard jealously against the dilution of the liberties of the citizen that would result if the jurisdiction of military tribunals were enlarged at the expense of civil courts. General Enoch H. Crowder, Judge Advocate General, in testifying in favor of the forerunner of the present proviso of Article 92, spoke of the protection it extended the officer and soldier by securing them “a trial by their peers.” We think the proviso should be read generously to achieve that end.
We refused in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304, to construe “martial law,” as used in an Act of Congress, broadly so as to supplant all civilian laws and to substitute military for judicial trials of civilians not charged with violations of the law of war. We imputed to Congress an attitude that was more consonant with our traditions of civil liberties. We approach the analysis of the term “in time of peace” as used in Article 92 in the same manner. Whatever may have been the plan of a later Congress in continuing some controls long after hostilities ceased, we cannot readily assume that the earlier Congress used “in time of peace” in Article 92 to deny soldiers or civilians the- benefit of jury trials for capital offenses four years after all hostilities had ceased. To hold otherwise would be to make substantial rights turn on a fiction. We will not presume that Congress used the words “in time of peace” in that sense. The meaning attributed to them is at war with common sense, destructive of civil rights, and unnecessary for realization of the balanced scheme promulgated by the Articles of War. We hold that June 10,1949, was “in time of peace” as those words were used in Article 92. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other questions presented, including the constitutional issues which have been much mooted.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
64 Stat. 108, 10 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 801 et seq., enacted May 5, 1950. For the present provisions governing murder and rape see Articles 118, 120.
Article 92 read as follows:
“Any person subject to military law found guilty of murder shall suffer death or imprisonment for life, as a court-martial may direct; but if found guilty of murder not premeditated, he shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Any person subject to military law who is found guilty of rape shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct: Provided, That no person shall be tried by court-martial for murder or rape committed within the geographical limits of the States of the Union and the District of Columbia in time of peace.”
See H. R. Rep. No. 2682, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 799, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 339, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.
In Givens v. Zerbst, 255 U. S. 11, a companion ease to the Kahn case, the crime was committed on September 28, 1918, and the court-martial convened on October 30, 1918.
Prior to that time only state courts could try a soldier for murder or rape. Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509, 514. And that Act was construed as not giving the military exclusive jurisdiction.
“With the known hostility of the American people to any interference by the military with the regular administration of justice in the civil courts, no such intention should be ascribed to Congress in the absence of clear and direct language to that effect.” Id.
We said in Toth v. Quarles, supra, pp. 17-19:
. . there is a great difference between trial by jury and trial by selected members of the military forces. It is true that military personnel because of their training and experience may be especially competent to try soldiers for infractions of military rules. Such training is no doubt particularly important where an offense charged against a soldier is purely military, such as disobedience of an order, leaving post, etc. But whether right or wrong, the premise underlying the constitutional method for determining guilt or innocence in federal courts is that laymen are better than specialists to perform this task. This idea is inherent in the institution of trial by jury.
“Juries fairly chosen from different walks of life bring into the jury box a variety of different experiences, feelings, intuitions and habits. Such juries may reach completely different conclusions than would be reached by specialists in any single field, including specialists in the military field. On many occasions, fully known to the Founders of this country, jurors — plain people — have manfully stood up in defense of liberty against the importunities of judges and despite prevailing hysteria and prejudices. The acquittal of William Penn is an illustrious example. Unfortunately, instances could also be cited where jurors have themselves betrayed the cause of justice by verdicts based on prejudice or pressures. In such circumstances independent trial judges and independent appellate judges have a most important place under our constitutional plan since they have power to set aside convictions.”
See S. Rep. No. 130, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 88'.
General Crowder was opposed to a proposal of the General Staff that capital crimes even when committed in this country be tried by court-martial as well as by civil courts. He said, “We never have had that law, and I doubt very much whether it is desirable to divorce the Army to that extent from accountability in the civil courts. . . . I think that here in the United States proper the Army should be under the same accountability as civilians for capital crimes.” Id., at 32.
The method employed by the Executive and the Congress in terminating wartime controls was different at the end of World War II than it was when World War I terminated. In the earlier war most of the legislation dependent on the existence of a state of war was terminated at one time. See 41 Stat. 1359, H. R. Rep. No. 1111, 66th Cong., 3d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 706, 66th Cong., 3d Sess. At the end of World War II Congress acted more selectively. See H. R. Rep. No. 2682, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. Thus Congress by S. J. Res. 123, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., declared that, for the purpose of construing specified statutes (among them certain Articles of War — but not Article 92), the effective date of the Resolution should be deemed the termination date of the state of war. The fact that Article 92 was not in that list leaves the problem where it was at the time the law was enacted. The failure to repeal, alter, or amend this law plainly has no bearing on its original purpose.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 the question whether erroneous oral and written advice given by a Government employee to a benefits claimant may give rise to estoppel against the Government and so entitle the claimant to a monetary payment not otherwise permitted by law. We hold that payments of money from the Federal Treasury are limited to those authorized by statute, and we reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals.
I
Not wishing to exceed a statutory limit on earnings that would disqualify him from a disability annuity, respondent Charles Richmond sought advice from a federal employee and received erroneous information. As a result he earned more than permitted by the eligibility requirements of the relevant statute and lost six months of benefits. Respondent now claims that the erroneous and unauthorized advice should give rise to equitable estoppel against the Government, and that we should order payment of the benefits contrary to the statutory terms. Even on the assumption that much equity subsists in respondent’s claim, we cannot agree with him or the Court of Appeals that we have authority to order the payment he seeks.
Respondent was a welder at the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego, California. He left this position in 1981 after petitioner, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), approved his application for a disability retirement. OPM determined that respondent’s impaired eyesight prevented him from performing his job and made him eligible for a disability annuity under 5 U. S. C. § 8337(a). Section 8337(a) provides this benefit for disabled federal employees who have completed five years of service. The statute directs, however, that the entitlement to disability payments will end if the retired employee is “restored to an earning capacity fairly comparable to the current rate of pay of the position occupied at the time of retirement.” § 8337(d).
The statutory rules for restoration of earning capacity are central to this case. Prior to 1982, an individual was deemed restored to earning capacity, and so rendered ineligible for a disability annuity, if
“in each of 2 succeeding calendar years the income of the annuitant from wages or self-employment... equals at least 80 percent of the current rate of pay of the position occupied immediately before retirement.” 5 U. S. C. § 8337(d) (1976 ed.) (emphasis added).
The provision was amended in 1982 by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. 97-253, 96 Stat. 792, to change the measuring period for restoration of earning capacity from two years to one:
“Earning capacity is deemed restored if in any calendar year the income of the annuitant from wages or self-employment or both equals at least 80 percent of the current rate of pay of the position occupied immediately before retirement.” 5 U. S. C. § 8337(d) (emphasis added).
After taking disability retirement for his vision impairment, respondent undertook part-time employment as a schoolbus driver. From 1982 to 1985, respondent earned an average of $12,494 in this job, leaving him under the 80% limit for entitlement to continued annuity payments. In 1986, however, he had an opportunity to earn extra money by working overtime. Respondent asked an employee relations specialist at the Navy Public Works Center’s Civilian Personnel Department for information about how much he could earn without exceeding the 80% eligibility limit. Relying upon the terms of the repealed pre-1982 statute, under which respondent could retain the annuity unless his income exceeded the 80% limit in two consecutive years, the specialist gave respondent incorrect advice. The specialist also gave respondent a copy of Attachment 4 to Federal Personnel Manual Letter 831-64, published by OPM, which also stated the former 2-year eligibility rule. The OPM form was correct when written in 1981; but when given to respondent, the form was out of date and therefore inaccurate. Respondent returned to the Navy in January 1987 and again was advised in error that eligibility would be determined under the old 2-year rule.
After receiving the erroneous information, respondent concluded that he could take on the extra work as a schoolbus driver in 1986 while still receiving full disability benefits for impaired vision so long as he kept his income for the previous and following years below the statutory level. He earned $19,936 during 1986, exceeding the statutory eligibility limit. OPM discontinued respondent’s disability annuity on June 30, 1987. The annuity was restored on January 1, 1988, since respondent did not earn more than allowed by the statute in 1987. Respondent thus lost his disability payments for a 6-month period, for a total amount of $3,993.
Respondent appealed the denial of benefits to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). He argued that the erroneous advice given him by the Navy personnel should estop OPM and bar its finding him ineligible for benefits under the statute. The MSPB rejected this argument, noting that the officials who misinformed respondent were from the Navy, not OPM. The MSPB observed that, “[h]ad [respondent] directed his request for information to the OPM, presumably, he would have learned of the change in the law.” The MSPB held that “OPM cannot be estopped from enforcing a statutorily imposed requirement for retirement eligibility.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. The MSPB denied respondent’s petition for review, and respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, accepting respondent’s contention that the misinformation from Navy personnel estopped the Government, and that the es-toppel required payment of disability benefits despite the statutory provision to the contrary. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the longstanding rule that “ordinarily the government may not be estopped because of erroneous or unauthorized statements of government employees when the asserted estoppel would nullify a requirement prescribed by Congress.” 862 F. 2d 294, 296 (1988). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals focused on this Court’s statement in an earlier case that “we are hesitant... to say that there are no cases” where the Government might be estopped. Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U. S. 51, 60 (1984). The Court of Appeals then discussed other Court of Appeals and District Court opinions that had applied estoppel against the Government.
The Court of Appeals majority decided that “[b]ased on the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that the estoppel against the government is not foreclosed and based on court of appeals rulings applying estoppel against the government, our view is that estoppel is properly applied against the government in the present case.” 862 F. 2d, at 299. The Court reasoned that the provision of the out-of-date OPM form was “affirmative misconduct” that should estop the Government from denying respondent benefits in accordance with the statute. The facts of this case, it held, are “sufficiently unusual and extreme that no concern is warranted about exposing the public treasury to estoppel in broad or numerous categories of cases.” Id., at 301. Judge Mayer dissented, stating that the majority opinion made “a chasm out of the crack the Supreme Court left open in Community Health Services,” and that the award of benefits to respondent “contravenes the express mandate of Congress in 5 U. S. C. § 8337(d)... and Supreme Court precedent.” Id., at 301, 303.
We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 806 (1989).
II
From our earliest cases, we have recognized that equitable estoppel will not lie against the Government as it lies against private litigants. In Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, 7 Cranch 366 (1813), we held that the Government could not be bound by the mistaken representations of an agent unless it were clear that the representations were within the scope of the agent's authority. In The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666 (1869), we held that the Government could not be compelled to honor bills of exchange issued by the Secretary of War where there was no statutory authority for the issuance of the bills. In Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 408-409 (1917), we dismissed the argument that unauthorized representations by agents of the Government estopped the United States to prevent erection of power houses and transmission lines across a public forest in violation of a statute: “Of this it is enough to say that the United States is neither bound nor estopped by acts of its officers or agents in entering into an arrangement or agreement to do or cause to be done what the law does not sanction or permit.”
The principles of these and many other cases were reiterated in Federal Crop Ins. Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380 (1947), the leading case in our modern line of estoppel decisions. In Merrill, a farmer applied for insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act to cover his wheat farming operations. An agent of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation advised the farmer that his entire crop qualified for insurance, and the farmer obtained insurance through the Corporation. After the crop was lost, it was discovered that the agent’s advice had been in error, and that part of the farmer’s crop was reseeded wheat, not eligible for federal insurance under the applicable regulation. While we recognized the serious hardship caused by the agent’s misinformation, we nonetheless rejected the argument that his representations estopped the Government to deny insurance benefits. We recognized that “not even the temptations of a hard case” will provide a basis for ordering recovery contrary to the terms of the regulation, for to do so would disregard “the duty of all courts to observe the conditions defined by Congress for charging the public treasury.” Id., at 385-386.
Despite the clarity of these earlier decisions, dicta in our more recent cases have suggested the possibility that there might be some situation in which estoppel against the Government could be appropriate. The genesis of this idea appears to be an observation found at the end of our opinion in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961). In that case, petitioner brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish his American citizenship. After discussing petitioner’s two statutory claims at length, we rejected the final argument that a consular official’s erroneous advice to petitioner’s mother that she could not return to the United States while pregnant prevented petitioner from having been born in the United States and thus deprived him of United States citizenship. Our discussion was limited to the observation that in light of the fact that no legal obstacle prevented petitioner’s mother from returning to the United States,
“what may have been only the consular official’s well-meant advice—'I am sorry, Mrs., you cannot [return to the United States] in that condition’—falls far short of misconduct such as might prevent the United States from relying on petitioner’s foreign birth. In this situation, we need not stop to inquire whether, as some lower courts have held, there may be circumstances in which the United States is estopped to deny citizenship because of the conduct of its officials.” Id., at 314-315.
The proposition about which we did not “stop to inquire” in Kennedy has since taken on something of a life of its own. Our own opinions have continued to mention the possibility, in the course of rejecting estoppel arguments, that some type of “affirmative misconduct” might give rise to estoppel against the Government. See INS v. Hibi, 414 U. S. 5, 8 (1973) (per curiam) (“While the issue of whether ‘affirmative misconduct’ on the part of the Government might estop it from denying citizenship was left open in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 314, 315 (1961), no conduct of the sort there adverted to was involved here”); Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U. S. 785, 788 (1981) (per curiam) (denying an estoppel claim for Social Security benefits on the authority of Merrill, supra, but observing that the Court “has never decided what type of conduct by a Government employee will estop the Government from insisting upon compliance with valid regulations governing the distribution of welfare benefits”); INS v. Miranda, 459 U. S. 14, 19 (1982) (per curiam) (“This case does not require us to reach the question we reserved in Hibi, whether affirmative misconduct in a particular case would estop the Government from enforcing the immigration laws”); Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U. S., at 60 (“We have left the issue open in the past, and do so again today”).
The language in our decisions has spawned numerous claims for equitable estoppel in the lower courts. As Justice Marshall stated in dissent in Hansen, supra, “[t]he question of when the Government may be equitably estopped has divided the distinguished panel of the Court of Appeals in this case, has received inconsistent treatment from other Courts of Appeals, and has been the subject of considerable ferment.” 450 U. S., at 791 (citing cases). Since that observation was made, federal courts have continued to accept estoppel claims under a variety of rationales and analyses. In sum, Courts of Appeals have taken our statements as an invitation to search for an appropriate case in which to apply estoppel against the Government, yet we have reversed every finding of estoppel that we have reviewed. Indeed, no less than three of our most recent decisions in this area have been summary reversals of decisions upholding estoppel claims. See Hibi, supra; Hansen, supra; Miranda, supra. Summary reversals of courts of appeals are unusual under any circumstances. The extraordinary number of such dispositions in this single area of the law provides a good indication that our approach to these cases has provided inadequate guidance for the federal courts and served only to invite and prolong needless litigation.
The Solicitor General proposes to remedy the present confusion in this area of the law with a sweeping rule. As it has in the past, the Government asks us to adopt “a flat rule that estoppel may not in any circumstances run against the Government.” Community Health Services, supra, at 60. The Government bases its broad rule first upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Noting that the “‘United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued,’” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, 538 (1980), petitioner asserts that the courts are without jurisdiction to entertain a suit to compel the Government to act contrary to a statute, no matter what the context or circumstances. See Brief for Petitioner 12-13. Petitioner advances as a second basis for this rule the doctrine of separation of powers. Petitioner contends that to recognize estoppel based on the misrepresentations of Executive Branch officials would give those misrepresentations the force of law, and thereby invade the legislative province reserved to Congress. This rationale, too, supports the petitioner’s contention that estoppel may never justify an order requiring executive action contrary to a relevant statute, no matter what statute or what facts are involved.
We have recognized before that the “arguments the Government advances for the rule are substantial.” Community Health Services, supra, at 60. And we agree that this case should be decided under a clearer form of analysis than “we will know an estoppel when we see one.” Hansen, supra, at 792 (Marshall, J., dissenting). But it remains true that we need not embrace a rule that no estoppel will lie against the Government in any case in order to decide this case. We leave for another day whether an estoppel claim could ever succeed against the Government. A narrower ground of decision is sufficient to address the type of suit presented here, a claim for payment of money from the Public Treasury contrary to a statutory appropriation.
III
The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, provides that: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” For the particular type of claim at issue here, a claim for money from the Federal Treasury, the Clause provides an explicit rule of decision. Money may be paid out only through an appropriation made by law; in other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute. All parties here agree that the award respondent seeks would be in direct contravention of the federal statute upon which his ultimate claim to the funds must rest, 5 U. S. C. § 8337. The point is made clearer when the appropriation supporting the benefits sought by respondent is examined. In the same subchapter of the United States Code as the eligibility requirements, Congress established the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. § 8348(a)(1)(A). That section states in pertinent part: “The Fund... is appropriated for the payment of... benefits as provided by this subchapter....” (Emphasis added.) The benefits respondent claims were not “provided by” the relevant provision of the subchapter; rather, they were specifically denied. It follows that Congress has appropriated no money for the payment of the benefits respondent seeks, and the Constitution prohibits that any money “be drawn from the Treasury” to pay them. Our cases underscore the straightforward and explicit command of the Appropriations Clause. “It means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.” Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U. S. 308, 321 (1937) (citing Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 291 (1851)). In Reeside, supra, we addressed a claim brought by the holder of a judgment of indebtedness against the United States that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States should be ordered to enter the claim upon the books of the Treasury so that the debt might be paid. In rejecting petitioner’s claim for relief, we stated as an alternative ground for decision that if
“the petition in this case was allowed so far as to order the verdict against the United States to be entered on the books of the Treasury Department, the plaintiff would be as far from having a claim on the Secretary or Treasurer to pay it as now. The difficulty in the way is the want of any appropriation by Congress to pay this claim. It is a well-known constitutional provision, that no money can be taken or drawn from the Treasury except under an appropriation by Congress. See Constitution, art. 1, § 9 (1 Stat. at Large, 15).
“However much money may be in the Treasury at any one time, not a dollar of it can be used in the payment of any thing not thus previously sanctioned. Any other course would give to the fiscal officers a most dangerous discretion.” Id., at 291.
The command of the Clause is not limited to the relief available in a judicial proceeding seeking payment of public funds. Any exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to one of the other branches of Government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury. We have held, for example, that while the President’s pardon power may remove all disabilities from one convicted of treason, that power does not extend to an order to repay from the Treasury the proceeds derived from the sale of the convict’s forfeited property:
“So, also, if the proceeds have been paid into the treasury, the right to them has so far become vested in the United States that they can only be secured to the former owner of the property through an act of Congress. Moneys once in the treasury can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law. However large, therefore, may be the power of pardon possessed by the President, and however extended may be its application, there is this limit to it, as there is to all his powers,—it cannot touch moneys in the treasury of the United States, except expressly authorized by act of Congress.” Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 154 (1877).
Just as the pardon power cannot override the command of the Appropriations Clause, so too judicial use of the equitable doctrine of estoppel cannot grant respondent a money remedy that Congress has not authorized. See INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U. S. 875, 883 (1988) (“‘Courts of equity can no more disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law’”).
We have not had occasion in past cases presenting claims of estoppel against the Government to discuss the Appropriations Clause, for reasons that are apparent. Given the strict rule against estoppel applied as early as 1813 in Lee v. Munroe & Thornton, 7 Cranch 366, claims of estoppel could be dismissed on that ground without more. In our cases following Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961), reserving the possibility that estoppel might lie on some facts, we have held only that the particular facts presented were insufficient. As discussed supra, at 423-424, we decline today to accept the Solicitor General’s argument for an across-the-board no-estoppel rule. But this makes it all the more important to state the law and to settle the matter of estoppel as a basis for money claims against the Government.
Our decision is consistent with both the holdings and the rationale expressed in our estoppel precedents. Even our recent cases evince a most strict approach to estoppel claims involving public funds. See Community Health Services, 467 U. S., at 63 (“Protection of the public fisc requires that those who seek public funds act with scrupulous regard for the requirements of law”). The course of our jurisprudence shows why: Opinions have differed on whether this Court has ever accepted an estoppel claim in other contexts, see id., at 60 (suggesting that United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp., 411 U. S. 655 (1973) (PICCO), was decided on estoppel grounds); 467 U. S., at 68 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (PICCO not an estoppel case), but not a single case has upheld an estoppel claim against the Government for the payment of money. And our cases denying estoppel are animated by the same concerns that prompted the Framers to include the Appropriations Clause in the Constitution. As Justice Story described the Clause:
“The object is apparent upon the slightest examination. It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money. As all the taxes raised from the people, as well as revenues arising from other sources, are to be applied to the discharge of the expenses, and debts, and other engagements of the government, it is highly proper, that congress should possess the power to decide how and when any money should be applied for these purposes. If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure. The power to control and direct the appropriations, constitutes a most useful and salutary check upon profusion and extravagance, as well as upon corrupt influence and public peculation....” 2 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348 (3d ed. 1858).
The obvious practical consideration cited by Justice Story for adherence to the requirement of the Clause is the necessity, existing now as much as at the time the Constitution was ratified, of preventing fraud and corruption. We have long ago accepted this ground as a reason that claims for estoppel cannot be entertained where public money is at stake, refusing to “introduce a rule against an abuse, of which, by improper collusions, it would be very difficult for the public to protect itself.” Lee, supra, at 370. But the Clause has a more fundamental and comprehensive purpose, of direct relevance to the case before us. It is to assure that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor of Government agents or the individual pleas of litigants.
Extended to its logical conclusion, operation of estoppel against the Government in the context of payment of money from the Treasury could in fact render the Appropriations Clause a nullity. If agents of the Executive were able, by their unauthorized oral or written statements to citizens, to obligate the Treasury for the payment of funds, the control over public funds that the Clause reposes in Congress in effect could be transferred to the Executive. If, for example, the President or Executive Branch officials were displeased with a new restriction on benefits imposed by Congress to ease burdens on the fisc (such as the restriction imposed by the statutory change in this case) and sought to evade them, agency officials could advise citizens that the restrictions were inapplicable. Estoppel would give this advice the practical force of law, in violation of the Constitution.
It may be argued that a rule against estoppel could have the opposite result, that the Executive might frustrate congressional intent to appropriate benefits by instructing its agents to give claimants erroneous advice that would deprive them of the benefits. But Congress may always exercise its power to expand recoveries for those who rely on mistaken advice should it choose to do so. In numerous other contexts where Congress has been concerned at the possibility of significant detrimental reliance on the erroneous advice of Government agents, it has provided appropriate legislative relief. See, e. g., Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U. S. C. §§ 437f and 438(e); Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 57b—4; Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77s(a); Truth in Lending Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1640(f); Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 259; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U. S. C. § 1028; Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, § 8018, 102 Stat. 3794.
One example is of particular relevance. In Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U. S. 785 (1981), we rejected an estoppel claim made by a Social Security claimant who failed to file a timely written application for benefits as required by the relevant statute. Congress then addressed such situations in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 by providing that for claims to old age, survivors, and disability insurance, and for supplemental security income:
“In any case in which it is determined to the satisfaction of the Secretary that an individual failed as of any date to apply for monthly insurance benefits under this title by reason of misinformation provided to such individual by any officer or employee of the Social Security Administration relating to such individual’s eligibility for benefits under this title, such individual shall be deemed to have applied for such benefits on the later of [the date on which the misinformation was given or the date upon which the applicant became eligible for benefits apart from the application requirement].” Pub. L. 101-239, § 10302, 103 Stat. 2481.
The equities are the same whether executive officials’ erroneous advice has the effect of frustrating congressional intent to withhold funds or to pay them. In the absence of estoppel for money claims, Congress has ready means to see that payments are made to those who rely on erroneous Government advice. Judicial adoption of estoppel based on agency misinformation would, on the other hand, vest authority in these agents that Congress would be powerless to constrain.
The provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., also provide a strong indication of Congress’ general approach to claims based on governmental misconduct, and suggest that it has considered and rejected the possibility of an additional exercise of its appropriation power to fund claims similar to those advanced here. The FTCA provides authorization in certain circumstances for suits by citizens against the Federal Government for torts committed by Government agents. Yet the FTCA by its terms excludes both negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims from its coverage. See § 2680(h). The claim brought by respondent is in practical effect one for misrepresentation, despite the application of the “estoppel” label. We would be most hesitant to create a judicial doctrine of estoppel that would nullify a congressional decision against authorization of the same class of claims.
Indeed, it would be most anomalous for a judicial order to require a Government official, such as the officers of OPM, to make an extrastatutory payment of federal funds. It is a federal crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for any Government officer or employee to knowingly spend money in excess of that appropriated by Congress. See 31 U. S. C. §§ 1341, 1350. If an executive officer on his own initiative had decided that, in fairness, respondent should receive benefits despite the statutory bar, the official would risk prosecution. That respondent now seeks a court order to effect the same result serves to highlight the weakness and novelty of his claim.
The whole history and practice with respect to claims against the United States reveals the impossibility of an estoppel claim for money in violation of a statute. Congress’ early practice was to adjudicate each individual money claim against the United States, on the ground that the Appropriations Clause forbade even a delegation of individual adjudicatory functions where payment of funds from the Treasury was involved. See W. Cowen, P. Nichols, & M. Bennett, The United States Court of Claims, A History, 216 Ct. Cl. 1, 5 (1978). As the business of the Federal Legislature has grown, Congress has placed the individual adjudication of claims based on the Constitution, statutes, or contracts, or on specific authorizations of suit against the Government, with the Judiciary. See, e. g., the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 1491. But Congress has always reserved to itself the power to address claims of the very type presented by respondent, those founded not on any statutory authority, but upon the claim that “the equities and circumstances of a case create a moral obligation on the part of the Government to extend relief to an individual.” Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Supplemental Rules of Procedure for Private Claims Bills, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (Comm. Print 1989).
In so-called “congressional reference” cases, Congress refers proposed private bills to the United States Claims Court for an initial determination of the merits of the claim, but retains final authority over the ultimate appropriation. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1492, 2509(c). Congress continues to employ private legislation to provide remedies in individual cases of hardship. See, e. g., Priv. L. 99-3, 100 Stat. 4314, and 131 Cong. Rec. 9675 (1985) (waiving statutory deadline under 5 U. S. C. § 8337(d) where petitioner failed to make timely application due to misinformation of Government personnel officer); Priv. L. 100-37, 102 Stat. 4860, and H. R. Rep. No. 291, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987) (awarding funds lost by servicemen who joined wrong retirement plan in reliance on erroneous advice). Where sympathetic facts arise, cf. post, at 435-436 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), these examples show the means by which those facts can be addressed. In short, respondent asks us to create by judicial innovation an authority over funds that is assigned by the Constitution to Congress alone, and that Congress has not seen fit to delegate.
Congress has, of course, made a general appropriation of funds to pay judgments against the United States rendered under its various authorizations for suits against the Government, such as the Tucker Act and the FTCA. See 31 U. S. C. § 1304. But respondent’s claim for relief does not arise under any of these provisions. Rather, he sought and obtained an order of enrollment in the disability annuity plan, 5 U. S. C. § 8337, in direct violation of that plan’s requirements. See 862 F. 2d, at 301 (remanding respondent’s case to the MSPB “with instructions to direct the agency to issue the withheld disability benefits to Mr. Richmond”).
The general appropriation for payment of judgments, in any event, does not create an all-purpose fund for judicial disbursement. A law that identifies the source of funds is not to be confused with the conditions prescribed for their payment. Rather, funds may be paid out only on the basis of a judgment based on a substantive right to compensation based on the express terms of a specific statute. This principle is set forth in our leading case on jurisdiction over claims against the Government, United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392 (1976). As stated in Justice Blackmun’s opinion for the Court:
“Where the United States is the defendant and the plaintiff is not suing for money improperly exacted or retained, the basis of the federal claim—whether it be the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation—does not create a cause of action for money damages unless... that basis ‘in itself... can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.’” Id., at 401-402.
Given this rule, as well as our many precedents establishing that authorizations for suits against the Government must be strictly construed in its favor, see, e. g., Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310, 318 (1986); McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25, 27 (1951), we cannot accept the suggestion, post, at 438-440 (Marshall, J., dissenting), that the terms of a statute should be ignored based on the facts of individual cases. Here the relevant statute by its terms excludes respondent’s claim, and his remedy must lie with Congress.
Respondent would have us ignore these obstacles on the ground that estoppel against the Government would have beneficial effects. But we are unwilling to “tamper with these established principles because it might be thought that they should be responsive to a particular conception of enlightened governmental policy.” Testan, supra, at 400. And respondent’s attempts to justify estoppel on grounds of public policy are suspect on their own terms. Even short of collusion by individual officers or improper executive attempts to frustrate legislative policy, acceptance of estoppel claims for Government funds could have pernicious effects. It ignores reality to expect that the Government will be able to “secure perfect performance from its hundreds of thousands of employees scattered throughout the continent.” Hansen v. Harris, 619 F. 2d 942, 964 (CA2 1980) (Friendly, J., dissenting), rev’d sub nom. Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U. S. 785 (1981). To open the door to estoppel claims would only invite endless litigation over both real and imagined claims of misinformation by disgruntled citizens, imposing an unpredictable drain on the public fisc. Even if most claims were rejected in the end, the burden of defending such estoppel claims would itself be substantial.
Also questionable is the suggestion that if the Government is not bound by its agents’ statements, then citizens will not trust them and will instead seek private advice from lawyers, accountants, and others, creating wasteful expenses. Although mistakes occur, we may assume with confidence that Government agents attempt conscientious performance of their duties and in most cases provide free and valuable information to those who seek advice about Government programs. A rule of estoppel might create not more reliable advice, but less advice. See Hansen, supra, at 788-789, and n. 5. The natural consequence of a rule that made the Government liable for the statements of its agents would be a decision to cut back and impose strict controls upon
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, brought under § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a), concerns ERISA’s preemption and saving clauses. The preemption clause, § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), broadly states that ERISA provisions “shall supersede... State laws” to the extent that those laws “relate to any employee benefit plan.” The saving clause, § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), phrased with similar breadth, exempts from preemption “any law of any State which regulates insurance.” The key words “regulates insurance” in § 514(b)(2)(A), and “relate to” in § 514(a), once again require interpretation, for their meaning is not “plain”; sensible construction of ERISA, our decisions indicate, requires that we measure these words in context. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 47 (1987) (noting that repeated calls for interpretation are not surprising in view of “the wide variety of state statutory and decisional law arguably affected” by ERISA’s preemption and saving clauses).
The context here is a suit to recover disability benefits under an ERISA-governed insurance policy issued by defendant-petitioner UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM). Plaintiff-respondent John E. Ward submitted his proof of claim to UNUM outside the time limit set in the policy, and UNUM therefore denied Ward’s claim.
and reversing the District Court’s summary judgment for UNUM, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied on decisional law in California, the State in which Ward worked and in which his employer operated. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment rested on two grounds. That court relied first on California’s “notice-prejudice” rule, under which an insurer cannot avoid liability although the proof of claim is untimely, unless the insurer shows it was prejudiced by the delay. The notice-prejudice rule is saved from preemption, the Court of Appeals held, because it is “law... which regulates insurance.” See Ward v. Management Analysis Co. Employee Disability Benefit Plan, 135 F. 3d 1276, 1280 (1998).
The Court of Appeals announced a further reversing the District Court’s judgment for UNUM, one that would come into play if the insurer proved prejudice due to the delayed notice. Under California’s decisions, the Ninth Circuit said, the employer could be deemed an agent of the insurer in administering group insurance policies. Ward’s employer knew of his disability within the time the policy allowed for proof of claim. The Ninth Circuit held that the generally applicable agency law reflected in the California eases does not “relate to” employee benefit plans, and therefore is not preempted. See id., at 1281-1283, 1287-1288.
We granted the Court of Appeals’ first disposition, and reverse the second. California’s notice-prejudice rule, we agree, is a “law... which regulates insurance,” and is therefore saved from preemption by ERISA. California’s agency law, we further hold, does “relate to” employee benefit plans, and therefore does not occupy ground outside ERISA’s preemption clause.
I
UNUM issued a long-term group disability policy to Management Analysis Company (MAC) as an insured welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA, effective November 1, 1983. The policy provides that proofs of claim must be furnished to UNUM, at the latest, one year and 180 days after the onset of disability.
Ward was employed by MAC from 1983 Throughout this period, premiums for the disability policy were deducted from Ward’s paycheck. Under the admitted facts of the case, Ward became permanently disabled with severe leg pain on the date of his resignation, May 5, 1992. See 135 F. 3d, at 1280.
Ward’s condition was diagnosed as diabetic neuropathy in December 1992. In late February or early March 1993, he qualified for state disability benefits and thereupon informed MAC of his disability and inquired about continuing health insurance benefits. In July 1993, Ward received a determination of eligibility for Social Security disability benefits and forwarded a copy of this determination to MAC’S human resources division. See id., at 1279. In April 1994, Ward discovered among his papers a booklet describing the long-term disability plan and asked MAG whether the plan covered his condition. When MAC told him he was covered, Ward completed an application for benefits and forwarded it to MAC. In turn, and after filling in the employer information section, MAC forwarded the application to UNUM. UNUM received proof of Ward’s claim on April 11, 1994. See ibid. This notice was late under the terms of the policy, which required submission of proof of claim by November 5, 1993. See id., at 1280. By letter dated April 13, 1994, UNUM advised Ward that his claim was denied as untimely. See id., at 1279.
In September 1994, Ward filed suit against the MAC plan under §502 of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1132, to recover the disability benefits provided by the plan. UNUM appeared as a defendant and answered on behalf of itself and the plan. See 135 P. 3d, at 1279. To the District Court, Ward argued that under Elfstrom v. New York Life Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 2d 503, 512, 432 P. 2d 731, 737 (1967) (en banc), a California employer that administers an insured group health plan should be deemed to act as the agent of the insurance company. Therefore, Ward asserted, his notice of permanent disability to MAC, in February or March 1993, sufficed to supply timely notice to UNUM. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The District Court rejected this argument, concluding that the agency rule announced in Elfstrom “relate[s] to” ERISA plans; hence it is preempted under § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The District Court further held that the Elfstrom rule is not saved from preemption as a law that “regulates insurance” within the compass of ERISA’s insurance saving clause, § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A). App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a. Accordingly, the court rendered summary judgment in UNUM’s favor. See id., at 33a.
The Court of tifying two grounds on which Ward might prevail. First, following the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Cisneros v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 134 F. 3d 939 (1998), the appeals court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is saved from ERISA preemption as a law that “regulates insurance”; under the notice-prejudice rule, Ward’s late notice would not preclude his ERISA claim absent proof that the insurer suffered actual prejudice because of the delay. See 135 F. 3d, at 1280. Second, and contingently, the Ninth Circuit held that the Elfstrom rule, under which the employer could be deemed an agent of the insurer, does not “relate to” employee benefit plans, and therefore is not preempted by reason of ERISA. See 135 F. 3d, at 1287 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court accordingly remanded the case to the District Court for a determination whether UNUM suffered actual prejudice on account of the late submission of Ward’s notice of claim; and if so, whether, under the reasoning of Elfstrom, Ward could nevertheless prevail because he had timely filed his claim. See 135 F. 3d, at 1289.
HH
California’s notice-prejudice rule prescribes:
“[A] defense based on an insured’s failure to give timely notice [of a claim] requires the insurer to prove that it suffered substantial prejudice. Prejudice is not presumed from delayed notice alone. The insurer must show actual prejudice, not the mere possibility of prejudice.” Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 12 Cal. App. 4th 715, 760-761, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 815, 845 (1st Dist. 1993) (citations omitted).
The parties agree that the notice-prejudice rule falls under ERISA’s preemption clause, § 514(a), as a state law that “relate[s] to” an employee benefit plan. Their dispute hinges on this question: Does the rule “regulat[e] insurance” and thus escape preemption under the saving clause, § 514(b)(2)(A).
Our precedent provides a framework for resolving whether a state law “regulates insurance” within the meaning of the saving clause. First, we ask whether, from a “common-sense view of the matter,” the contested prescription regulates insurance. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 740 (1985); see Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 48. Second, we consider three factors employed to determine whether the regulation fits within the “business of insurance” as that phrase is used in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq.: “first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry.” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 743 (emphasis, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 48-49.
A
The Ninth Circuit concluded that California’s notice-prejudice rule “regulates insurance” as a matter of common sense. See Cisneros, 134 E 3d, at 945. We do not normally disturb an appeals court’s judgment on an issue so heavily dependent on analysis of state law, see Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 181-182 (1976), and we lack cause to do so here. The California notice-prejudice rule controls the terms of the insurance relationship by “requiring the insurer to prove prejudice before enforcing proof-of-claim requirements.” Cisneros, 134 F.3d, at 945. As the Ninth Circuit observed, the rule, by its very terms, “is directed specifically at the insurance industry and is applicable only to insurance contracts.” Ibid.; see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 (“[0]ur survey of California law reveals no cases where the state courts apply the notice-prejudice rule as such outside the insurance area. Nor is this surprising, given that the rule is stated in terms of prejudice to an ‘insurer’ resulting from untimeliness of notice.”). The rule thus appears to satisfy the common-sense view as a regulation that homes in on the insurance industry and does “not just have an impact on [that] industry.” Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 50.
UNUM and its urge cuit’s common-sense conclusion that the notice-prejudice rule is merely an industry-specific application of the general principle that “disproportionate forfeiture should be avoided in the enforcement of contracts.” See Brief for American Council of Life Insurance et al. as Amici Curiae 13; Brief for Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies as Amicus Curiae 5 (“[Njotice-prejudice is merely a branch of the broad doctrine of harmless error.”). Given the tenet from which the notice-prejudice rule springs, UNUM maintains, the rule resembles the Mississippi law at issue in Pilot Life; under that law, punitive damages could be sought for “bad faith” in denying claims without any reasonably arguable basis for the refusal to pay. See 481 U. S., at 50. We determined in Pilot Life that although Mississippi had “identified its law of bad faith with the insurance industry, the roots of this law are firmly planted in the general principles of Mississippi tort and contract law.” Ibid. “Any breach of contract,” we observed, “and not merely breach of an insurance contract, may lead to liability for punitive damages under [the Mississippi common law of bad faith].” Ibid. Accordingly, we concluded, the Mississippi law did not “regulate] insurance” within the meaning of ERISA’s saving clause. Ibid.
We do not find it fair to bracket California’s notice-prejudice rule for insurance contracts with Mississippi’s broad gauged “bad faith” claim for relief. Insurance policies like UNUM’s frame timely notice provisions as conditions precedent to be satisfied by the insured before an insurer’s contractual obligation arises. See 1 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts § 726, p. 657 (9th ed. 1987); Zurn Engineers v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 61 Cal. App. 3d 493, 499, 132 Cal. Rptr. 206, 210 (2d Dist. 1976). Ordinarily, “failure to comply with conditions precedent... prevents an action by the defaulting party to enforce the contract.” 14 Cal. Jur. 3d, Contracts §245, p. 542 (3d ed. 1974). A recent California decision, Platt Pacific Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal. 4th 307, 862 P. 2d 158 (1993) (en bane), is illustrative. In that case, the California Supreme Court adhered to the normal course: It refused to excuse a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a contractual requirement to timely demand arbitration, although there was no allegation that the defendant had been prejudiced by the plaintiff’s lapse. The plaintiff had forfeited the right to pursue arbitration, the court concluded, for “the condition precedent [of a timely demand] was neither legally excused nor changed by modification of the parties’ written agreement.” Id., at 321, 862 P. 2d, at 167. “A contrary conclusion,” the court stated, “would undermine the law of contracts by vesting in one contracting party the power to unilaterally convert the other contracting party’s conditional obligation into an independent, unconditional obligation notwithstanding the terms of the agreement.” Id., at 314, 862 P. 2d, at 162.
It is no doubt true that out the maxim that “law abhors a forfeiture” and that the notice-prejudice rule is an application of that maxim. But it is an application of a special order, a rule mandatory for insurance contracts, not a principle a court may pliably employ when the circumstances so warrant. Tellingly, UNUM has identified no California authority outside the insurance-specific notice-prejudice context indicating that as a matter of law, failure to abide by a contractual time condition does not work a forfeiture absent prejudice. Outside the notice-prejudice context, the burden of justifying a departure from a contract’s written terms generally rests with the party seeking the departure. See, e. g., American Bankers Mortgage Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 75 F. 3d 1401, 1413 (CA9 1996); CQL Original Products, Inc. v. National Hockey League Players’ Assn., 39 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1357-1358, n. 6, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412, 418, n. 6 (4th Dist. 1995). In short, the notice-prejudice rule is distinctive most notably because it is a rule firmly applied to insurance contracts, not a general principle guiding a court’s discretion in a range of matters.
California’s insistence that insurers show prejudice before they may deny coverage because of late notice is grounded in policy concerns specific to the insurance industry See Brief for Council of State Governments et al. as Amici Curiae 10-14. That grounding is key to our decision. Announcing the notice-prejudice rule in Campbell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 60 Cal. 2d 303, 384 P. 2d 155 (1963) (en banc), the California Supreme Court emphasized the “public policy of this state” in favor of compensating insureds. Id., at 307, 384 P. 2d, at 157; see ibid, (weighing the relative burdens of notice-prejudice on insurers and insureds). Subsequent notice-prejudice rulings have likewise focused on insurance industry policy and governance. See, e. g., Hanover Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 241 Cal. App. 2d 558, 570, 50 Cal. Rptr. 704, 712 (1st Dist. 1966) (public policy respecting compensation of insured injured parties); Northwestern Title Security Co. v. Flack, 6 Cal. App. 3d 134, 143-144, 85 Cal. Rptr. 693, 698 (1st Dist. 1970) (extending notice-prejudice rule to “elaims-type” policies, rejecting contention that sound public policy required limitation of rule to “occurrence-type” policies); Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1348,1359-1360, 270 Cal. Rptr. 779, 784-785 (2d Dist. 1990) (evaluating insurance industry public policy considerations in reaching the opposite conclusion). Decisions of courts in other States similarly indicate that the notice-prejudice rule addresses policy concerns specific to insurance. See, e.g., Cooper v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 51 N. J. 86, 94, 237 A. 2d 870, 874 (1968) (failure to adopt notice-prejudice would “disserve the public interest, for insurance is an instrument of a social policy that the victims of negligence be compensated”); Great American Ins. Co. v. C. G. Tate Construction Co., 303 N. C. 387, 395, 279 S. E. 2d 769, 774 (1981) (“The [notice-prejudice] rule we adopt today has the advantages of promoting social policy and fulfilling the reasonable expectations of the purchaser while fully protecting the ability of the insurer to protect its own interests.”); Alcazar v. Hayes, 982 S. W. 2d 845, 851-853 (Tenn. 1998) (surveying the “compelling public policy justifications” that support departing from traditional contract interpretation in favor of notice-prejudice).
In sum, the Ninth Circuit properly concluded that notice-prejudice is a rule of law governing the insurance relationship distinctively. We reject UNUM’s contention that the rule merely restates a general principle disfavoring forfeitures and conclude instead that notice-prejudice, as a matter of common sense, regulates insurance.
B
We next consider the criteria used to determine whether a state law regulates the “business of insurance” within the meaning of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Preliminarily, we reject UNUM’s assertion that a state regulation must satisfy all three McCarran-Ferguson factors in order to “regulate insurance” under ERISA’s saving clause. Our precedent is more supple than UNUM conceives it to be. We have indicated that the McCarran-Ferguson factors are “considerations [to be] weighed” in determining whether a state law regulates insurance, Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 49, and that “[n]one of these criteria is necessarily determinative in itself,” Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U. S. 119, 129 (1982). In Metropolitan Life, the case in which we first used the McCarran-Ferguson formulation to assess whether a state law “regulates insurance” for purposes of ERISA’s saving clause, we called the McCarran-Ferguson factors “relevant”; we did not describe them as “required.” See 471 U. S., at 743; O’Connor v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 146 F. 3d 959, 963 (CADC 1998) (“That the factors are merely ‘relevant’ suggests that they need not all point in the same direction, else they would be ‘required.’”). As the Ninth Circuit correctly recognized, Metropolitan Life asked first whether the law there in question “fit a common-sense understanding of insurance regulation,” Cisneros, 134 F. 3d, at 945, and then looked to the McCarran-Ferguson factors as cheeking points or “guideposts, not separate essential elements... that must each be satisfied” to save the State’s law, id., at 946.
The first McCarran-Ferguson factor asks whether the at issue “has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk.” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 743 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit determined that the notice-prejudice rule does not satisfy that criterion because it “does not alter the allocation of risk for which the parties initially contracted, namely the risk of lost income from long-term disability.” Cisneros, 134 F. 3d, at 946. The United States as amicus curiae, however, suggests that the notice-prejudice rule might be found to satisfy the McCarran-Ferguson “risk-spreading” factor: “Insofar as the notice-prejudice rule shifts the risk of late notice and stale evidence from the insured to the insurance company in some instances, it has the effect of raising premiums and spreading risk among policyholders.” Brief for United States as Ami-cus Curiae 14. We need not pursue this point, because the remaining McCarran-Ferguson factors, verifying the common-sense view, are securely satisfied.
Meeting as “an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured.” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 743. California’s rule changes the bargain between insurer and insured; it “effectively creates a mandatory contract term” that requires the insurer to prove prejudice before enforcing a timeliness-of-elaim provision. Cisneros, 134 F. 3d, at 946. As the Ninth Circuit stated: “The [notice-prejudice] rule dictates the terms of the relationship between the insurer and the insured, and consequently, is integral to that relationship.” Ibid.
The third McCarran-Ferguson factor — which asks whether the rule is limited to entities within the insurance industry— is also well met. As earlier explained, see supra, at 368-373, California’s notice-prejudice rule focuses on the insurance industry. The rule “does not merely have an impact on the insurance industry; it is aimed at it.” FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U. S. 52, 61 (1990).
HH
UNUM and its amici assert that even if the notice-prejudice rule is saved under 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), it is nonetheless preempted because it conflicts with substantive provisions of ERISA in three ways. UNUM first contends that the notice-prejudice rule, by altering the notice provisions of the insurance contract, conflicts with ERISA’s requirement that plan fiduciaries act “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.” § 1104(a)(1)(D). According to UNUM, § 1104(a)(1)(D) preempts any state law contrary to a written plan term. See Brief for Petitioner 32-33; Tr. of Oral Arg. 8.
UNUM’s “contra plan term” argument overlooks controlling precedent and makes scant sense. We have repeatedly held that state laws mandating insurance contract terms are saved from preemption under § 1144(b)(2)(A). See Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 758 (“Massachusetts’ mandated-benefit law is a ‘law which regulates insurance’ and so is not pre-empted by ERISA as it applies to insurance contracts purchased for plans subject to ERISA.”); FMC Corp., 498 U. S., at 64 (“[I]f a plan is insured, a State may regulate it indirectly through regulation of its insurer and its insurer’s insurance contracts.”). Under UNUM’s interpretation of § 1104(a)(1)(D), however, States would be powerless to alter the terms of the insurance relationship in ERISA plans; insurers could displace any state regulation simply by inserting a contrary term in plan documents. This interpretation would virtually “rea[d] the saving clause out of ERISA.” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 741.
UNUM next vision, § 502(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a), preempts any action for plan benefits brought under state rules such as notice-prejudice. Whatever the merits of UNUM’s view of § 502(a)’s preemptive force, the issue is not implicated here. Ward sued under § 502(a)(1)(B) “to recover benefits due... under the terms of his plan.” The notice-prejudice rule supplied the relevant rule of decision for this § 502(a) suit. The case therefore does not raise the question whether § 502(a) provides the sole launching ground for an ERISA enforcement action.
Finally, we reject UNUM’s suggestion that the notice-prejudice rule conflicts with §503 of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1133, which requires plans to provide notice and the opportunity for review of denied claims, or with Department of Labor regulations providing that “[a] claim is filed when the requirements of a reasonable claim filing procedure... have been met,” 29 CFR §2560.503-1(d) (1998). By allowing a longer period to file than the minimum filing terms mandated by federal law, the notice-prejudice rule complements rather than contradicts ERISA and the regulations. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19, n. 9.
IV
Ward successfully maintained in the Ninth Circuit that MAG had timely notice of his disability and that his notice to MAG could be found to have served as notice to UNUM on the theory that MAC, as administrator of the group policy, acted as UNUM’s agent. The policy itself provides otherwise:
“For all purposes of this policy, the policyholder [MAC] acts on its own behalf or as agent of the employee. Under no circumstances will the policyholder be deemed the agent of the Company [UNUM] without a written authorization.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a.
California law rendered that policy provision ineffective, the Ninth Circuit appeared to conclude, because under the rule stated in Elfstrom v. New York Life Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 2d, at 512, 432 P. 2d, at 737, “the employer is the agent of the insurer in performing the duties of administering group insurance policies.” Thus, the Ninth Circuit instructed that, on remand, if UNUM was found to have suffered actual prejudice on account of Ward’s late notice of claim, the District Court should then determine whether the claim was timely under Elfstrom. 135 F. 3d, at 1289.
Ward does not argue in this Court as comprehended by the Ninth Circuit, is a law that “regulates insurance.” See Brief for Respondent 35 (the Ninth Circuit applied “general principles of agency law,” not a rule determining when “employers who administer insured plans are agents of the insurer as a matter of law”). Indeed, it is difficult to tell from the Court of Appeals opinion precisely what rule or principle that court derived from Elfstrom. See Brief for Respondent 35 (“[T]he court below did not actually apply the Elfstrom rule in this case.”); 135 F. 3d, at 1283, and n. 6 (endorsing the reasoning of Paulson v. Western Life Ins. Co, 292 Ore. 38, 636 P. 2d 935 (1981), an Oregon Supreme Court decision that purported to reconcile Elf-strom with an apparently conflicting body of case law). Whatever the contours of Elfstrom may be, the Ninth Circuit held that the state law emerging from that case does not “relatfe] to” an ERISA plan within the meaning of § 1144(a), and therefore escapes preemption. See 135 F. 3d, at 1287.
In this determination, the Ninth Circuit was The Court of Appeals stated, without elaboration, that Elf-strom does not dictate “the manner in which the plan will be administered,” and therefore is consistent with this Court’s ERISA preemption precedent. Ibid.; see New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 657-658 (1995) (identifying among laws that “relat[e] to” employee benefit plans those that “mandat[e] employee benefit structures or their administration”). The Ninth Circuit’s statement is not firmly grounded.
As persuasively urged by the United States in its amicus curiae brief, deeming the policyholder-employer the agent of the insurer would have a marked effect on plan administration. It would “fore[e] the employer, as plan administrator, to assume a role, with attendant legal duties and consequences, that it has not undertaken voluntarily”; it would affect “not merely the plan’s bookkeeping obligations regarding to whom benefits checks must be sent, but [would] also regulat[e] the basic services that a plan may or must provide to its participants and beneficiaries.” Brief 27. Satisfied that the Elfstrom rule “relate[s] to” ERISA plans, we reject the Ninth Circuit’s contrary determination.
* * *
For the reasons stated, 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.
Common-law rules developed by decisions of state courts are “State law” under ERISA. See 29 U. S. C. § 1144(c)(1) (“The term ‘State law' includes all laws, decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having the effect of law.”).
State laws that purport to regulate insurance by “deemfingF a plan to be an insurance company are outside the saving clause and remain subject to preemption. See § 1144(b)(2)(B). Self-insured ERISA plans, therefore, are generally sheltered from state insurance regulation. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 747 (1985). Because this case does not involve a self-insured plan, this limitation on state regulatory authority is not at issue here.
UNUM cites a handful of California cases of this genre. They do not cast doubt on our disposition. In Conservatorship of Rand, 49 Cal. App. 4th 835, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 119 (4th Dist. 1996), the court found that a county court rule governing notice to a conservatee of potential liability for fees and coste did not comply with statutory notice requirements, but excused the defective notice because the conservatee had suffered no prejudice. See id., at 838-841, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d, at 121-123. Rand was not a contract case at all; it concerned the consequences of a court’s violation of a state-created notice provision in the context of a judicial proceeding. Industrial Asphalt Inc. v. Garrett Corp., 180 Cal. App. 3d 1001, 226 Cal. Rptr. 17 (2d Dist. 1986), concerned the notice requirements imposed by California’s mechanics lien law and turned on principles of statutory rather than contract interpretation. See id., at 1005-1006, 226 Cal. Rptr., at 18-19. In Industrial Asphalt, moreover, the complaining party had received actual notice of the claim underlying the lien. Ibid. Neither ease suggests that California courts are generally unwilling or reluctant to enforce time conditions in private contracts as written.
The older decisions on which UNUM relies are no more instructive. The contract at issue in Ballard v. MacCallum, 15 Cal. 2d 439, 101 P. 2d 692 (1940) (en banc), contained contradictory clauses, some appearing to provide for forfeiture in the event of default, others appearing to contemplate an opportunity to cure. See id., at 442, 101 P. 2d, at 694. The court invoked a general presumption against forfeitures only to resolve the conflict. See id., at 444, 101 P. 2d, at 695. Finally, in Henck v. Lake Hemet Water Co., 9 Cal. 2d 136, 69 P. 2d 849 (1937) (en banc), a water supplier attempted to escape the terms of a long-term delivery contract on the ground that the water recipient had not timely made annual payment. The California Supreme Court rejected the supplier’s plea, observing that “in a proper case,” equity permits a court to excuse a lapse like the recipient’s in order to avoid forfeiture. See id., at 141, 142, 69 P. 2d, at 852. The Henck court carefully weighed the competing interests of the parties and relied in part on the water supplier’s fault in inducing the late payment. See id., at 144-145, 69 P. 2d, at 853; c£ Restatement (Second) of Contracts §229, Comment c, Reporter’s Note (1979) (courts are likely to excuse obligor’s failure strictly to adhere to a performance timetable where obligee has induced the failure).
These decisions support the uncontested propositions that the law disfavors forfeitures and that in case-specific circumstances California courts will excuse the breach of a time or notice provision in order to avoid an inequitable forfeiture. None of the decisions even remotely suggests that failures to comply with contractual notice periods are excused as a matter of law absent prejudice; none, therefore, suggests that the notice-prejudice rule is merely a routine application of a general antiforfeiture principle.
§229 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1979), and urges that the notice-prejudice rule fits within its compass. Section 229 provides that “[t]o the extent that the non-occurrence of a condition would cause disproportionate forfeiture, a court may excuse the nonoccurrence of that condition unless its occurrence was a material part of the agreed exchange.” The notice-prejudice rule, however, is mandatory rather than permissive; it requires California courts to excuse a failure to provide timely notice whenever the insurer cannot carry the burden of showing actual prejudice, and it allows no argument over the materiality of the time prescription.
We reject UNUM’s suggestion that because the notice-prejudice rule regulates only the administration of insurance policies, not their substantive terms, it cannot be an integral part of the policy relationship. See Metropolitan
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention, Convention, or Berne), which took effect in 1886, is the principal accord governing international copyright relations. Latecomer to the international copyright regime launched by Berne, the United States joined the Convention in 1989. To perfect U. S. implementation of Berne, and as part of our response to the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, Congress, in 1994, gave works enjoying copyright protection abroad the same full term of protection available to U. S. works. Congress did so in § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which grants copyright protection to preexisting works of Berne member countries, protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had failed to comply with U. S. statutory formalities (formalities Congress no longer requires as prerequisites to copyright protection).
The URAA accords no protection to a foreign work after its full copyright term has expired, causing it to fall into the public domain, whether under the laws of the country of origin or of this country. Works encompassed by §514 are granted the protection they would have enjoyed had the United States maintained copyright relations with the author’s country or removed formalities incompatible with Berne. Foreign authors, however, gain no credit for the protection they lacked in years prior to §514’s enactment. They therefore enjoy fewer total years of exclusivity than do their U. S. counterparts. As a consequence of the barriers to U. S. copyright protection prior to the enactment of § 514, foreign works “restored” to protection by the measure had entered the public domain in this country. To cushion the impact of their placement in protected status, Congress included in § 514 ameliorating accommodations for parties who had exploited affected works before the URAA was enacted.
Petitioners include orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works § 514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that the Constitution’s Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, and First Amendment both decree the invalidity of § 514. Under those prescriptions of our highest law, petitioners assert, a work that has entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must forever remain there.
In accord with the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, we conclude that § 514 does not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress’ authority. Neither the Copyright and Patent Clause nor the First Amendment, we hold, makes the public domain, in any and all cases, a territory that works may never exit.
I
A
Members of the Berne Union agree to treat authors from other member countries as well as they treat their own. Berne Convention, Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, Arts. 1, 5(1), 828 U. N. T. S. 221, 225, 231-233. Nationals of a member country, as well as any author who publishes in one of Berne’s 164 member states, thus enjoy copyright protection in nations across the globe. Arts. 2(6), 3. Each country, moreover, must afford at least the minimum level of protection specified by Berne. The copyright term must span the author’s lifetime, plus at least 50 additional years, whether or not the author has complied with a member state’s legal formalities. Arts. 5(2), 7(1). And, as relevant here, a work must be protected abroad unless its copyright term has expired in either the country where protection is claimed or the country of origin. Art. 18(l)-(2).
A different system of transnational copyright protection long prevailed in this country. Until 1891, foreign works were categorically excluded from Copyright Act protection. Throughout most of the,20th century, the only eligible foreign authors were those whose countries granted reciprocal rights to U. S. authors and whose works were printed in the United States. See Act of Mar. 3, 1891, §§ 3, 13, 26 Stat. 1107,1110; Patry, The United States and International Copyright Law, 40 Houston L. Rev. 749, 750 (2003). For domestic and foreign authors alike, protection hinged on compliance with notice, registration, and renewal formalities.
The United States became party to Berne’s multilateral, formality-free copyright regime in 1989. Initially, Congress adopted a “minimalist approach” to compliance with the Convention. H. R. Rep. No. 100-609, p. 7 (1988) (hereinafter BCIA House Report). The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA), 102 Stat. 2853, made “only those changes to American copyright law that [were] clearly required under the treaty’s provisions,” BCIA House Report, at 7. Despite Berne’s instruction that member countries— including “new accessions to the Union” — protect foreign works under copyright in the country of origin, Art. 18(1) and (4), 828 U. N. T. S., at 251, the BCIA accorded no protection for “any work that is in the public domain in the United States,” § 12, 102 Stat. 2860. Protection of future foreign works, the BCIA indicated, satisfied Article 18. See § 2(3), 102 Stat. 2853 (“The amendments made by this Act, together with the law as it exists on the date of the enactment of this Act, satisfy the obligations of the United States in adhering to the Berne Convention....”). Congress indicated, however, that it had not definitively rejected “retroactive” protection for pre-existing foreign works; instead it had punted on this issue of Berne’s implementation, deferring consideration until “a more thorough examination of Constitutional, commercial, and consumer considerations is possible.” BCIA House Report, at 51, 52.
The minimalist approach essayed by the United States did not sit well with other Berne members. While negotiations were ongoing over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexican authorities complained about the United States’ refusal to grant protection, in accord with Article 18, to Mexican works that remained under copyright domestically. See Intellectual Property and International Issues, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, House Committee on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 168 (1991) (statement of Ralph Oman, U. S. Register of Copyrights). The Register of Copyrights also reported “questions” from Turkey, Egypt, and Austria. Ibid. Thailand and Russia balked at proteet-ing U. S. works, copyrighted here but in those countries’ public domains, until the United States reciprocated with respect to their authors’ works. URAA Joint Hearing 137 (statement of Ira S. Shapiro, General Counsel, Office of the U. S. Trade Representative (USTR)); id., at 208 (statement of Professor Shira Perlmutter); id., at 291 (statement of Jason S. Berman, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)).
Berne, however, did not provide a potent enforcement mechanism. The Convention contemplates dispute resolution before the International Court of Justice. Art. 33(1). But it specifies no sanctions for noncompliance and allows parties, at any time, to declare themselves “not... bound” by the Convention’s dispute resolution provision. Art. 33(2)-(3), 828 U. N. T. S., at 277. Unsurprisingly, no enforcement actions were launched before 1994. D. Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement 213, and n. 134 (3d ed. 2008). Although “several Berne Union Members disagreed with [our] interpretation of Article 18,” the USTR told Congress, the Berne Convention did “not provide a meaningful dispute resolution process.” URAA Joint Hearing 137 (statement of Shapiro). This shortcoming left Congress “free to adopt a minimalist approach and evade Article 18.” Karp, Pinal Report, Berne Article 18 Study on Retroactive United States Copyright Protection for Berne and other Works, 20 Colum.-VLA J. L. & Arts 157, 172 (1996).
The landscape changed in 1994. The Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations produced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The United States joined both. TRIPS mandates, on pain of WTO enforcement, implementation of Berne’s first 21 articles. TRIPS, Art. 9.1, 33 I. L. M. 1197, 1201 (requiring adherence to all but the “moral rights” provisions of Article 6bis). The WTO gave teeth to the Convention’s requirements: Noncompliance with a WTO ruling could subject member countries to tariffs or cross-sector retaliation. See Gervais, supra, at 213; 7 W. Patry, Copyright §24:1, pp. 24-8 to 24-9 (2011). The specter of WTO enforcement proceedings bolstered the credibility of our trading partners’ threats to challenge the United States for inadequate compliance with Article 18. See URAA Joint Hearing 137 (statement of Shapiro, USTR) (“It is likely that other WTO members would challenge the current U. S. implementation of Berne Article 18 under [WTO] procedures.”).
Congress’ response to the Uruguay agreements put to rest any questions concerning U. S. compliance with Article 18. Section 514 of the URAA, 108 Stat. 4976 (codified at 17 U. S. C. § 104A, 109(a)), extended copyright to works that garnered protection in their countries of origin, but had no right to exclusivity in the United States for any of three reasons: lack of copyright relations between the country of origin and the United States at the time of publication; lack of subject-matter protection for sound recordings fixed before 1972; and failure to comply with U. S. statutory formalities (e.g., failure to provide notice of copyright status, or to register and renew a copyright). See § 104A(h)(6)(B)-(C).
Works that have fallen into the public domain after the expiration of a full copyright term — either in the United States or the country of origin — receive no further protection under §514. Ibid, Copyrights “restored” under URAA § 514 “subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted... if the work never entered the public domain.” § 104A(a)(l)(B). Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U. S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously. See § 302(a) (copyrights generally expire 70 years after the author’s death). Restored works, however, receive no compensatory time for the period of exclusivity they would have enjoyed before §514’s enactment, had they been protected at the outset in the United States. Their total term, therefore, falls short of that available to similarly situated U. S. works.
The URAA’s disturbance of the public domain hardly escaped Congress’ attention. Section 514 imposed no liability for any use of foreign works occurring before restoration. In addition, anyone remained free to copy and use restored works for one year following §514⅛ enactment. See 17 U. S. C. § 104A(h)(2)(A). Concerns about § 514⅛ compatibility with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause led Congress to include additional protections for “reliance parties”— those who had, before the URAA’s enactment, used or acquired a foreign work then in the public domain. See § 104A(h)(3)-(4). Reliance parties may continue to exploit a restored work until the owner of the restored copyright gives notice of intent to enforce — either by filing with the U. S. Copyright Office within two years of restoration, or by actually notifying the reliance party. § 104A(c), (d)(2)(A)(i), and (B)(i). After that, reliance parties may continue to exploit existing copies for a grace period of one year. § 104A(d)(2)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii). Finally, anyone who, before the URAA’s enactment, created a “derivative work” based on a restored work may indefinitely exploit the derivation upon payment to the copyright holder of “reasonable compensation,” to be set by a district judge if the parties cannot agree. § 104A(d)(3).
B
In 2001, petitioners filed this lawsuit challenging §514. They maintain that Congress, when it passed the URAA, exceeded its authority under the Copyright Clause and transgressed First Amendment limitations. The District Court granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment. Golan v. Gonzales, No. Civ. Ol-B-1854, 2005 WL 914754 (D Colo., Apr. 20, 2005). In rejecting petitioners’ Copyright Clause argument, the court stated that Congress “has historically demonstrated little compunction about removing copyrightable materials from the public domain.” Id., at *14. The court next declined to part from “the settled rule that private censorship via copyright enforcement does not implicate First Amendment concerns.” Id., at *17.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part. Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F. 3d 1179 (2007). The public domain, it agreed, was not a “threshold that Congress” was powerless to “traverse in both directions.” Id., at 1187 (internal quotations marks omitted). But §514, as the Court of Appeals read our decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003), required further First Amendment inspection, 501 F. 3d, at 1187. The measure “‘altered the traditional contours of copyright protection,’ ” the court said— specifically, the “bedrock principle” that once works enter the public domain, they do not leave. Ibid, (quoting Eldred, 537 U. S., at 221). The case was remanded with an instruction to the District Court to address the First Amendment claim in light of the Tenth Circuit’s opinion.
On remand, the District Court’s starting premise was un-eontested: Section 514 does not regulate speech on the basis of its content; therefore the law would be upheld if “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.” 611 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1170-1171 (Colo. 2009) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989)). Summary judgment was due petitioners, the court concluded, because § 514’s constriction of the public domain was not justified by any of the asserted federal interests: compliance with Berne, securing greater protection for U. S. authors abroad, or remediation of the inequitable treatment suffered by foreign authors whose works lacked protection in the United States. 611 F. Supp. 2d, at 1172-1177.
The Tenth Circuit reversed. Deferring to Congress’ predictive judgments in matters relating to foreign affairs, the appellate court held that §514 survived First Amendment scrutiny. Specifically, the court determined that the law was narrowly tailored to fit the important government aim of protecting U. S. copyright holders’ interests abroad. 609 F. 3d 1076 (2010);
We granted certiorari to consider petitioners’ challenge to § 514 under both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment, 562 U. S. 1270 (2011), and now affirm.
II
We first address petitioners’ argument that Congress lacked authority, under the Copyright Clause, to enact § 514. The Constitution states that “Congress shall have Power... [t]o promote the Progress of Science... by securing for limited Times to Authors... the exclusive Right to their... Writings.” Art. I, §8, cl. 8. Petitioners find in this grant of authority an impenetrable barrier to the extension of copyright protection to authors whose writings, for whatever reason, are in the public domain. We see no such barrier in the text of the Copyright Clause, historical practice, or our precedents.
A
The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. Symposium, Congressional Power and Limitations Inherent in the Copyright Clause, 30 Colum. J. L. & Arts 259, 266 (2007). Petitioners’ contrary argument relies primarily on the Constitution’s confinement of a copyright’s lifespan to a “limited Tim[e].” “Removing works from the public domain,” they contend, “violates the ‘limited [t]imes’ restriction by turning a fixed and predictable period into one that can be reset or resurrected at any time, even after it expires.” Brief for Petitioners 22.
Our decision in Eldred is largely dispositive of petitioners’ limited-time argument. There we addressed the question whether Congress violated the Copyright Clause when it extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. 537 U. S., at 192-193 (upholding Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)). Ruling that Congress acted within constitutional bounds, we declined to infer from the text of the Copyright Clause “the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever‘fixed’or‘inalterable.’” Id., at 199. “The word ‘limited,’ ” we observed, “does not convey a meaning so constricted.” Ibid. Rather, the term is best understood to mean “confine[d] within certain bounds,” “restrained],” or “circumscribed.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). The construction petitioners tender closely resembles the definition rejected in Eldred and is similarly infirm.
The terms afforded works restored by §514 are no less “limited” than those the CTEA lengthened. In light of El-dred, petitioners do not here contend that the term Congress has granted U. S. authors — their lifetimes, plus 70 years— is unlimited. See 17 U. S. C. § 302(a). Nor do petitioners explain why terms of the same duration, as applied to foreign works, are not equally “circumscribed” and “confined.” See Eldred, 537 U. S., at 199. Indeed, as earlier noted, see supra, at 307, 315, the copyrights of restored foreign works typically last for fewer years than those of their domestic counterparts.
The difference, petitioners say, is that the limited time had already passed for works in the public domain. What was that limited term for foreign works once excluded from U. S. copyright protection? Exactly “zero,” petitioners respond. Brief for Petitioners 22 (works in question “received a specific term of protection... sometimes expressly set to zero”; “at the end of that period,” they “entered the public domain”); Tr. of Oral Arg. 52 (by “refusing to provide any protection for a work,” Congress “set[s] the term at zero,” and thereby “tell[s] us when the end has come”). We find scant sense in this argument, for surely a “limited time” of exclusivity must begin before it may end.
Carried to its logical conclusion, petitioners persist, the Government’s position would allow Congress to institute a second “limited” term after the first expires, a third after that, and so on. Thus, as long as Congress legislated in installments, perpetual copyright terms would be achievable. As in Eldred, the hypothetical legislative misbehavior petitioners posit is far afield from the case before us. See 537 U. S., at 198-200, 209-210. In aligning the United States with other nations bound by the Berne Convention, and thereby according equitable treatment to once disfavored foreign authors, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a regime of perpetual copyrights.
B
Historical practice corroborates our reading of the Copyright Clause to permit full U. S. compliance with Berne. Undoubtedly, federal copyright legislation generally has not affected works in the public domain. Section 514⅛ disturbance of that domain, petitioners argue, distinguishes their suit from Eldred’s. In adopting the CTEA, petitioners note, Congress acted in accord with “an unbroken congressional practice” of granting preexpiration term extensions, 537 U. S., at 200. No comparable practice, they maintain, supports §514.
On occasion, however, Congress has seen fit to protect works once freely available. Notably, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted protection to many works previously in the public domain. Act of May 31, 1790 (1790 Act), § 1, 1 Stat. 124 (covering “any map, chart, book, or books already printed within these United States”). Before the Act launched a uniform national system, three States provided no statutory copyright protection at all. Of those that did afford some protection, seven failed to protect maps; eight did not cover previously published books; and all ten denied protection to works that failed to comply with formalities. The First Congress, it thus appears, did not view the public domain as inviolate. As we have recognized, the “construction placed upon the Constitution by [the drafters of] the first [copyright] act of 1790, and the act of 1802... men who were contemporary with [the Constitution’s] formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it, is of itself entitled to very great weight.” Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 57 (1884).
Subsequent actions confirm that Congress has not understood the Copyright Clause to preclude protection for existing works. Several private bills restored the copyrights of works that previously had been in the public domain. See Act of Feb. 19, 1849 (Corson Act), ch. 57, 9 Stat. 763; Act of June 23, 1874 (Helmuth Act), ch. 534, 18 Stat. 618; Act of Feb. 17, 1898 (Jones Act), ch. 29, 30 Stat. 1396. These bills were unchallenged in court.
Analogous patent statutes, however, were upheld in litigation. In 1808, Congress passed a private bill restoring patent protection to Oliver Evans’ flour mill. When Evans sued for infringement, first Chief Justice Marshall in the Circuit Court, Evans v. Jordan, 8 F. Cas. 872 (No. 4,564) (Va. 1813), and then Justice Bushrod Washington for this Court, Evans v. Jordan, 9 Craneh 199 (1815), upheld the restored patent’s validity. After the patent’s expiration, the Court said, “a general right to use [Evans’] discovery was not so vested in the public” as to allow the defendant to continue using the machinery, which he had constructed between the patent’s expiration and the bill’s passage. Id., at 202. See also Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 F. Cas..648, 650 (No. 1,518) (CC Mass. 1839) (Story, J.) (“I never have entertained any doubt of the constitutional authority of congress” to “give a patent for an invention, which... was in public use and enjoyed by the community at the time of the passage of the act.”).
This Court again upheld Congress’ restoration of an invention to protected status in McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202 (1843). There we enforced an 1839 amendment that recognized a patent on an invention despite its prior use by the inventor’s employer. Absent such dispensation, the employer’s use would have rendered the invention unpatentable, and therefore open to exploitation without the inventor’s leave. Id., at 206-209.
Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting patents and copyrights to inventions and works that had lost protection. An 1832 statute authorized a new patent for any inventor whose failure, “by inadvertence, accident, or mistake,” to comply with statutory formalities rendered the original patent “invalid or inoperative.” Act of July 3, §3, 4 Stat. 559. An 1893 measure similarly allowed authors who had not timely deposited their work to receive “all the rights and privileges” the Copyright Act affords, if they made the required deposit by March 1, 1893. Act of Mar. 3, ch. 215, 27 Stat. 743. And in 1919 and 1941, Congress authorized the President to issue proclamations granting protection to foreign works that had fallen into the public domain during World Wars I and II. See Act of Dec. 18, 1919, ch. 11, 41 Stat. 368; Act of Sept. 25, 1941, ch. 421, 55 Stat. 732.
Pointing to dictum in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U. S. 1 (1966), petitioners would have us look past this history. In Graham, we stated that “Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials already available.” Id., at 6; post, at 358. But as we explained in Eldred, this passage did not speak to the constitutional limits on Congress’ copyright and patent authority. Rather, it “addressed an invention’s very eligibility for patent protection.” 537 U. S., at 202, n. 7.
Installing a federal copyright system and ameliorating the interruptions of global war, it is true, presented Congress with extraordinary situations. Yet the TRIPS accord, leading the United States to comply in full measure with Berne, was also a signal event. See supra, at 312-313; cf. Eldred, 537 U. S., at 259, 264-265 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (acknowledging importance of international uniformity advanced by U. S. efforts to conform to the Berne Convention). Given the authority we hold Congress has, we will not second-guess the political choice Congress made between leaving the public domain untouched and embracing Berne unstintingly. Cf. id., at 212-213.
C
Petitioners’ ultimate argument as to the Copyright and Patent Clause concerns its initial words. Congress is empowered to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by enacting systems of copyright and patent protection. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, el. 8. Perhaps counterintu-itively for the contemporary reader, Congress’ copyright authority is tied to the progress of science; its patent authority, to the progress of the useful arts. See Graham, 383 U. S., at 5, and n. 1; Evans, 8 F. Cas., at 873 (Marshall, J.).
The “Progress of Science,” petitioners acknowledge, refers broadly to “the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.” Brief for Petitioners 21; accord post, at 344-345. They nevertheless argue that federal legislation cannot serve the Clause’s aim unless the legislation “spur[s] the creation of... new works.” Brief for Petitioners 24; accord post, at 345, 351, 360. Because § 514 deals solely with works already created, petitioners urge, it “provides no plausible incentive to create new works” and is therefore invalid. Reply Brief 4.
The creation of at least one new work, however, is not the sole way Congress may promote knowledge and learning. In Eldred, we rejected an argument nearly identical to the one petitioners rehearse. The Eldred petitioners urged that the “CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights categorically fails to ‘promote the Progress of Science,’... because it does not stimulate the creation of new works.” 537 U. S., at 211-212. In response to this argument, we held that the Copyright Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate to induce new works. Rather, we explained, the Clause “empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body’s judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.” Id., at 222. And those permissible ends, we held, extended beyond the creation of new works. See id., at 205-206 (rejecting the notion that “ ‘the only way to promote the progress of science [is] to provide incentives to create new works’” (quoting Perlmutter, Participation in the International Copyright System as a Means To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, 36 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 323, 332 (2002))).
Even were we writing on a clean slate, petitioners’ argument would be unavailing. Nothing in the text of the Copyright Clause confines the “Progress of Science” exclusively to “incentives for creation.” Id., at 324, n. 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence from the founding, moreover, suggests that inducing dissemination — as opposed to creation — was viewed as an appropriate means to promote science. See Nachbar, Constructing Copyright’s Mythology, 6 Green Bag 2d 37,44 (2002) (“The scope of copyright protection existing at the time of the framing,” trained as it was on “publication, not creation,” “is inconsistent with claims that copyright must promote creative activity in order to be valid.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Until 1976, in fact, Congress made “federal copyright contingent on publication[,] [thereby] providing incentives not primarily for creation,” but for dissemination. Perlmutter, supra, at 324, n. 5. Our decisions correspondingly recognize that “copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539,558 (1985) (emphasis added). See also Eldred, 537 U. S., at 206.
Considered against this backdrop, §514 falls comfortably within Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. Congress rationally could have concluded that adherence to Berne “promotes the diffusion of knowledge,” Brief for Petitioners 4. A well-functioning international copyright system would likely encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. See URAA Joint Hearing 189 (statement of Professor Perlmutter). Full compliance with Berne, Congress had reason to believe, would expand the foreign markets available to U. S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U. S. works abroad, S. Rep. No. 103-412, pp. 224, 225 (1994); URAA Joint Hearing 291 (statement of Berman, RIA A); id., at 244, 247 (statement of Smith, IIPA), thereby benefiting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process.
The provision of incentives for the creation of new works is surely an essential means to advance the spread of knowledge and learning. We hold, however, that it is not the sole means Congress may use “[t]o promote the Progress of Science.” See Perlmutter, supra, at 332 (United States would “lose all flexibility” were the provision of incentives to create the exclusive way to promote the progress of science). Congress determined that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. We have no warrant to reject the rational judgment Congress made.
III
A
We next explain why the First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by § 514. To do so, we first recapitulate the relevant part of our pathmarking decision in Eldred. The petitioners in Eldred, like those here, argued that Congress had violated not only the “limited Times” prescription of the Copyright Clause. In addition, and independently, the Eldred petitioners charged, Congress had offended the First Amendment’s freedom of expression guarantee. The CTEA’s 20-year enlargement of a copyright’s duration, we held in Eldred, offended neither provision.
Concerning the First Amendment, we recognized that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright. Noting that the “Copyright Clause and the First Amendment were adopted close in time,” 537 U. S., at 219, we observed that the Framers regarded copyright protection not simply as a limit on the manner in which expressive works may be used. They also saw copyright as an “engine of free expression[:] By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” Ibid, (quoting Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 558 (internal quotation marks omitted)); see id., at 546.(“rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors”).
We then described the “traditional contours” of copyright protection, i. e., the “idea/expression dichotomy” and the “fair use” defense. Both are recognized in our jurisprudence as “built-in First Amendment accommodations.” El-dred, 537 U. S., at 219; see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 560 (First Amendment protections are “embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas,” and in the “latitude for scholarship and comment” safeguarded by the fair use defense).
The idea/expression dichotomy is codified at 17 U. S. C. § 102(b): “In no case does copyright protec[t]... any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery... described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in [the copyrighted] work.” “Due to this [idea/ expression] distinction, every idea, theory, and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public exploitation at the moment of publication”; the author’s expression alone gains copyright protection. Eldred, 537 U. S., at 219; see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 556 (“idea/expression dichotomy strikefe] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author’s expression” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The second “traditional contour,” the fair use defense, is codified at 17 U. S. C. § 107: “[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” This limitation on exclusivity “allows the public to use not only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also [the author’s] expression itself in certain circumstances.” Eldred, 537 U. S., at 219; see id., at 220 (“fair use defense affords considerable latitude for scholarship and comment,... even for parody” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Given the “speech-protective purposes and
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question of how to determine the amount of restitution a possessor of child pornography must pay to the victim whose childhood abuse appears in the pornographic materials possessed. The relevant statutory provisions are set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2259. Enacted as a component of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, § 2259 requires district courts to award restitution for certain federal criminal offenses, including child-pornography possession.
Petitioner Doyle Randall Paroline pleaded guilty to such an offense. He admitted to possessing between 150 and 300 images of child pornography, which included two that depicted the sexual exploitation of a young girl, now a young woman, who goes by the pseudonym "Amy" for this litigation. The question is what causal relationship must be established between the defendant's conduct and a victim's losses for purposes of determining the right to, and the amount of, restitution under § 2259.
I
Three decades ago, this Court observed that "the exploitive use of children in the production of pornography has become a serious national problem." New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 749, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). The demand for child pornography harms children in part because it drives production, which involves child abuse. The harms caused by child pornography, however, are still more extensive because child pornography is "a permanent record" of the depicted child's abuse, and "the harm to the child is exacerbated by [its] circulation." Id., at 759, 102 S.Ct. 3348. Because child pornography is now traded with ease on the Internet, "the number of still images and videos memorializing the sexual assault and other sexual exploitation of children, many very young in age, has grown exponentially." United States Sentencing Comm'n, P. Saris et al., Federal Child Pornography Offenses 3 (2012) (hereinafter Sentencing Comm'n Report).
One person whose story illustrates the devastating harm caused by child pornography is the respondent victim in this case. When she was eight and nine years old, she was sexually abused by her uncle in order to produce child pornography. Her uncle was prosecuted, required to pay about $6,000 in restitution, and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The victim underwent an initial course of therapy beginning in 1998 and continuing into 1999. By the end of this period, her therapist's notes reported that she was " 'back to normal' "; her involvement in dance and other age-appropriate activities, and the support of her family, justified an optimistic assessment. App. 70-71. Her functioning appeared to decline in her teenage years, however; and a major blow to her recovery came when, at the age of 17, she learned that images of her abuse were being trafficked on the Internet. Id., at 71. The digital images were available nationwide and no doubt worldwide. Though the exact scale of the trade in her images is unknown, the possessors to date easily number in the thousands. The knowledge that her images were circulated far and wide renewed the victim's trauma and made it difficult for her to recover from her abuse. As she explained in a victim impact statement submitted to the District Court in this case:
"Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again. It hurts me to know someone is looking at them-at me-when I was just a little girl being abused for the camera. I did not choose to be there, but now I am there forever in pictures that people are using to do sick things. I want it all erased. I want it all stopped. But I am powerless to stop it just like I was powerless to stop my uncle.... My life and my feelings are worse now because the crime has never really stopped and will never really stop.... It's like I am being abused over and over and over again." Id., at 60-61.
The victim says in her statement that her fear and trauma make it difficult for her to trust others or to feel that she has control over what happens to her. Id., at 63.
The full extent of this victim's suffering is hard to grasp. Her abuser took away her childhood, her self-conception of her innocence, and her freedom from the kind of nightmares and memories that most others will never know. These crimes were compounded by the distribution of images of her abuser's horrific acts, which meant the wrongs inflicted upon her were in effect repeated; for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her.
Petitioner Paroline is one of the individuals who possessed this victim's images. In 2009, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252. 672 F.Supp.2d 781, 783 (E.D.Tex.2009). Paroline admitted to knowing possession of between 150 and 300 images of child pornography, two of which depicted the respondent victim. Ibid. The victim sought restitution under § 2259, asking for close to $3.4 million, consisting of nearly $3 million in lost income and about $500,000 in future treatment and counseling costs. App. 52, 104. She also sought attorney's fees and costs. 672 F.Supp.2d, at 783. The parties submitted competing expert reports. They stipulated that the victim did not know who Paroline was and that none of her claimed losses flowed from any specific knowledge about him or his offense conduct. Id., at 792, and n. 11; App. 230.
After briefing and hearings, the District Court declined to award restitution. 672 F.Supp.2d, at 793. The District Court observed that "everyone involved with child pornography-from the abusers and producers to the end-users and possessors-contribute[s] to [the victim's] ongoing harm." Id., at 792. But it concluded that the Government had the burden of proving the amount of the victim's losses "directly produced by Paroline that would not have occurred without his possession of her images." Id., at 791. The District Court found that, under this standard, the Government had failed to meet its burden of proving what losses, if any, were proximately caused by Paroline's offense. It thus held that "an award of restitution is not appropriate in this case." Id., at 793.
The victim sought a writ of mandamus, asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to direct the District Court to order Paroline to pay restitution in the amount requested. In re Amy, 591 F.3d 792, 793 (2009). The Court of Appeals denied relief. Id., at 795. The victim sought rehearing. Her rehearing request was granted, as was her petition for a writ of mandamus. In re Amy Unknown, 636 F.3d 190, 201 (2011).
The Fifth Circuit reheard the case en banc along with another case, in which the defendant, Michael Wright, had raised similar issues in appealing an order of restitution under § 2259, see United States v. Wright, 639 F.3d 679, 681 (2011) ( per curiam ). As relevant, the Court of Appeals set out to determine the level of proof required to award restitution to victims in cases like this. It held that § 2259 did not limit restitution to losses proximately caused by the defendant, and each defendant who possessed the victim's images should be made liable for the victim's entire losses from the trade in her images, even though other offenders played a role in causing those losses. In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749, 772-774 (2012) (en banc).
Paroline sought review here. Certiorari was granted to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over the proper causation inquiry for purposes of determining the entitlement to and amount of restitution under § 2259. 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2886, 186 L.Ed.2d 932 (2013). For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated.
II
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a) provides that a district court "shall order restitution for any offense" under Chapter 110 of Title 18, which covers a number of offenses involving the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography in particular. Paroline was convicted of knowingly possessing child pornography under § 2252, a Chapter 110 offense.
Section 2259 states a broad restitutionary purpose: It requires district courts to order defendants "to pay the victim... the full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the court," § 2259(b)(1), and expressly states that "[t]he issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory," § 2259(b)(4)(A). Section 2259(b)(2) provides that "[a]n order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664," which in turn provides in relevant part that "[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the attorney for the Government," § 3664(e).
The threshold question the Court faces is whether § 2259 limits restitution to those losses proximately caused by the defendant's offense conduct. The Fifth Circuit held that it does not, contrary to the holdings of other Courts of Appeals to have addressed the question. Compare, e.g.,701 F.3d, at 752 (no general proximate-cause requirement applies under § 2259), with United States v. Rogers, 714 F.3d 82, 89 (C.A.1 2013) (general proximate-cause requirement applies under § 2259); United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1, 20 (C.A.10 2013) (same); United States v. Fast, 709 F.3d 712, 721-722 (C.A.8 2013) (same); United States v. Laraneta, 700 F.3d 983, 989-990 (C.A.7 2012) (same); United States v. Burgess, 684 F.3d 445, 456-457 (C.A.4 2012) (same); United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 659 (C.A.6 2012) (same); United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147, 153 (C.A.2 2011) (same); United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251, 1261 (C.A.9 2011) (same); United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 535 (C.A.D.C.2011) (same); United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204, 1208-1209 (C.A.11 2011) (same).
As a general matter, to say one event proximately caused another is a way of making two separate but related assertions. First, it means the former event caused the latter. This is known as actual cause or cause in fact. The concept of actual cause "is not a metaphysical one but an ordinary, matter-of-fact inquiry into the existence... of a causal relation as laypeople would view it." 4 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Torts § 20.2, p. 100 (3d ed. 2007).
Every event has many causes, however, see ibid., and only some of them are proximate, as the law uses that term. So to say that one event was a proximate cause of another means that it was not just any cause, but one with a sufficient connection to the result. The idea of proximate cause, as distinct from actual cause or cause in fact, defies easy summary. It is "a flexible concept," Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, 654, 128 S.Ct. 2131, 170 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2008), that generally "refers to the basic requirement that... there must be'some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged,' " CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2630, 2645, 180 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011) (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992)). The concept of proximate causation is applicable in both criminal and tort law, and the analysis is parallel in many instances. 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4(c), p. 471 (2d ed. 2003) (hereinafter LaFave). Proximate cause is often explicated in terms of foreseeability or the scope of the risk created by the predicate conduct. See, e.g., ibid.; 1 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 29, p. 493 (2005) (hereinafter Restatement). A requirement of proximate cause thus serves, inter alia, to preclude liability in situations where the causal link between conduct and result is so attenuated that the consequence is more aptly described as mere fortuity. Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830, 838-839, 116 S.Ct. 1813, 135 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996).
All parties agree § 2259 imposes some causation requirement. The statute defines a victim as "the individual harmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this chapter." § 2259(c). The words "as a result of" plainly suggest causation. See Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 680, 690-691, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012); see also Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 881, 886-887, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014). And a straightforward reading of § 2259(c) indicates that the term "a crime" refers to the offense of conviction. Cf. Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990). So if the defendant's offense conduct did not cause harm to an individual, that individual is by definition not a "victim" entitled to restitution under § 2259.
As noted above, § 2259 requires a court to order restitution for "the full amount of the victim's losses," § 2259(b)(1), which the statute defines to include "any costs incurred by the victim" for six enumerated categories of expense, § 2259(b)(3). The reference to "costs incurred by the victim" is most naturally understood as costs stemming from the source that qualifies an individual as a "victim" in the first place-namely, ones arising "as a result of" the offense. Thus, as is typically the case with criminal restitution, § 2259 is intended to compensate victims for losses caused by the offense of conviction. See id., at 416, 110 S.Ct. 1979. This is an important point, for it means the central concern of the causal inquiry must be the conduct of the particular defendant from whom restitution is sought.
But there is a further question whether restitution under § 2259 is limited to losses proximately caused by the offense. As noted, a requirement of proximate cause is more restrictive than a requirement of factual cause alone. Even if § 2259 made no express reference to proximate causation, the Court might well hold that a showing of proximate cause was required. Proximate cause is a standard aspect of causation in criminal law and the law of torts. See 1 LaFave § 6.4(a), at 464-466; W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 41, p. 263 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser and Keeton). Given proximate cause's traditional role in causation analysis, this Court has more than once found a proximate-cause requirement built into a statute that did not expressly impose one. See Holmes, supra, at 265-268, 112 S.Ct. 1311;Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 529-536, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983); see also CSX Transp., Inc., supra, at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2646 (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting) ("We have applied the standard requirement of proximate cause to actions under federal statutes where the text did not expressly provide for it"); Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., ante, at 13-14.
Here, however, the interpretive task is easier, for the requirement of proximate cause is in the statute's text. The statute enumerates six categories of covered losses. § 2259(b)(3). These include certain medical services, § 2259(b)(3)(A); physical and occupational therapy, § 2259(b)(3)(B); transportation, temporary housing, and child care, § 2259(b)(3)(C); lost income, § 2259(b)(3)(D); attorney's fees and costs, § 2259(b)(3)(E); and a final catchall category for "any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense," § 2259(b)(3)(F).
The victim argues that because the "proximate result" language appears only in the final, catchall category of losses set forth at § 2259(b)(3)(F), the statute has no proximate-cause requirement for losses falling within the prior enumerated categories.
She justifies this reading of § 2259(b) in part on the grammatical rule of the last antecedent, "according to which a limiting clause or phrase... should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003). But that rule is "not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning." Ibid. The Court has not applied it in a mechanical way where it would require accepting "unlikely premises." United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 425, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009).
Other canons of statutory construction, moreover, work against the reading the victim suggests. "When several words are followed by a clause which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all." Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348, 40 S.Ct. 516, 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920). Furthermore, "[i]t is... a familiar canon of statutory construction that [catchall] clauses are to be read as bringing within a statute categories similar in type to those specifically enumerated." Federal Maritime Comm'n v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 734, 93 S.Ct. 1773, 36 L.Ed.2d 620 (1973). Here, § 2259(b)(3)(F) defines a broad, final category of "other losses suffered... as a proximate result of the offense." That category is most naturally understood as a summary of the type of losses covered- i.e., losses suffered as a proximate result of the offense.
The victim says that if Congress had wanted to limit the losses recoverable under § 2259 to those proximately caused by the offense, it could have written the statute the same way it wrote § 2327, which provides for restitution to victims of telemarketing fraud. Section 2327, which is written and structured much like § 2259, simply defines the term "full amount of the victim's losses" as "all losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense." § 2327(b)(3). In essence the victim argues that the first five categories of losses enumerated in § 2259(b)(3) would be superfluous if all were governed by a proximate-cause requirement. That, however, is unpersuasive. The first five categories provide guidance to district courts as to the specific types of losses Congress thought would often be the proximate result of a Chapter 110 offense and could as a general matter be included in an award of restitution.
Reading the statute to impose a general proximate-cause limitation accords with common sense. As noted above, proximate cause forecloses liability in situations where the causal link between conduct and result is so attenuated that the so-called consequence is more akin to mere fortuity. For example, suppose the traumatized victim of a Chapter 110 offender needed therapy and had a car accident on the way to her therapist's office. The resulting medical costs, in a literal sense, would be a factual result of the offense. But it would be strange indeed to make a defendant pay restitution for these costs. The victim herself concedes Congress did not intend costs like these to be recoverable under § 2259. Brief for Respondent Amy 45. But she claims that it is unnecessary to "read... into" § 2259 a proximate-cause limitation in order to exclude costs of that sort. Ibid. She says the statute "contextually and inferentially require[s] a nexus for why" the losses were sustained- i.e., a sufficient connection to child pornography. Id., at 46.
The victim may be right that the concept of proximate cause is not necessary to impose sensible limitations on restitution for remote consequences. But one very effective way, and perhaps the most obvious way, of excluding costs like those arising from the hypothetical car accident described above would be to incorporate a proximate-cause limitation into the statute. Congress did so, and for reasons given above the proximate-cause requirement applies to all the losses described in § 2259. Restitution is therefore proper under § 2259 only to the extent the defendant's offense proximately caused a victim's losses.
III
There remains the difficult question of how to apply the statute's causation requirements in this case. The problem stems from the somewhat atypical causal process underlying the losses the victim claims here. It is perhaps simple enough for the victim to prove the aggregate losses, including the costs of psychiatric treatment and lost income, that stem from the ongoing traffic in her images as a whole. (Complications may arise in disaggregating losses sustained as a result of the initial physical abuse, but those questions may be set aside for present purposes.) These losses may be called, for convenience's sake, a victim's "general losses." The difficulty is in determining the "full amount" of those general losses, if any, that are the proximate result of the offense conduct of a particular defendant who is one of thousands who have possessed and will in the future possess the victim's images but who has no other connection to the victim.
In determining the amount of general losses a defendant must pay under § 2259 the ultimate question is how much of these losses were the "proximate result," § 2259(b)(3)(F), of that individual's offense. But the most difficult aspect of this inquiry concerns the threshold requirement of causation in fact. To be sure, the requirement of proximate causation, as distinct from mere causation in fact, would prevent holding any possessor liable for losses caused in only a remote sense. But the victim's costs of treatment and lost income resulting from the trauma of knowing that images of her abuse are being viewed over and over are direct and foreseeable results of child-pornography crimes, including possession, assuming the prerequisite of factual causation is satisfied. The primary problem, then, is the proper standard of causation in fact.
A
The traditional way to prove that one event was a factual cause of another is to show that the latter would not have occurred "but for" the former. This approach is a familiar part of our legal tradition, see 1 LaFave § 6.4(b), at 467-468; Prosser and Keeton § 41, at 266, and no party disputes that a showing of but-for causation would satisfy § 2259's factual-causation requirement. Sometimes that showing could be made with little difficulty. For example, but-for causation could be shown with ease in many cases involving producers of child pornography, see § 2251(a); parents who permit their children to be used for child-pornography production, see § 2251(b); individuals who sell children for such purposes, see § 2251A; or the initial distributor of the pornographic images of a child, see § 2252.
In this case, however, a showing of but-for causation cannot be made. The District Court found that the Government failed to prove specific losses caused by Paroline in a but-for sense and recognized that it would be "incredibly difficult" to do so in a case like this. 672 F.Supp.2d, at 791-793. That finding has a solid foundation in the record, and it is all but unchallenged in this Court. See Brief for Respondent Amy 63; Brief for United States 19, 25. But see Supp. Brief for United States 8-10. From the victim's perspective, Paroline was just one of thousands of anonymous possessors. To be sure, the victim's precise degree of trauma likely bears a relation to the total number of offenders; it would probably be less if only 10 rather than thousands had seen her images. But it is not possible to prove that her losses would be less (and by how much) but for one possessor's individual role in the large, loosely connected network through which her images circulate. See Sentencing Comm'n Report, at ii, xx. Even without Paroline's offense, thousands would have viewed and would in the future view the victim's images, so it cannot be shown that her trauma and attendant losses would have been any different but for Paroline's offense. That is especially so given the parties' stipulation that the victim had no knowledge of Paroline. See supra, at 1736 - 1737.
Recognizing that losses cannot be substantiated under a but-for approach where the defendant is an anonymous possessor of images in wide circulation on the Internet, the victim and the Government urge the Court to read § 2259 to require a less restrictive causation standard, at least in this and similar child-pornography cases. They are correct to note that courts have departed from the but-for standard where circumstances warrant, especially where the combined conduct of multiple wrongdoers produces a bad outcome. See Burrage, 571 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 890 (acknowledging "the undoubted reality that courts have not always required strict but-for causality, even where criminal liability is at issue").
The victim and the Government look to the literature on criminal and tort law for alternatives to the but-for test. The Court has noted that the "most common" exception to the but-for causation requirement is applied where "multiple sufficient causes independently... produce a result," ibid.; see also 1 LaFave § 6.4(b), at 467-469; 1 Restatement § 27, at 376. This exception is an ill fit here, as all parties seem to recognize. Paroline's possession of two images of the victim was surely not sufficient to cause her entire losses from the ongoing trade in her images. Nor is there a practical way to isolate some subset of the victim's general losses that Paroline's conduct alone would have been sufficient to cause. See Brief for United States 26, n. 11.
Understandably, the victim and the Government thus concentrate on a handful of less demanding causation tests endorsed by authorities on tort law. One prominent treatise suggests that "[w]hen the conduct of two or more actors is so related to an event that their combined conduct, viewed as a whole, is a but-for cause of the event, and application of the but-for rule to them individually would absolve all of them, the conduct of each is a cause in fact of the event." Prosser and Keeton § 41, at 268. The Restatement adopts a similar exception for "[m]ultiple sufficient causal sets." 1 Restatement § 27, Comment f, at 380-381. This is where a wrongdoer's conduct, though alone "insufficient... to cause the plaintiff's harm," is, "when combined with conduct by other persons," "more than sufficient to cause the harm." Ibid. The Restatement offers as an example a case in which three people independently but simultaneously lean on a car, creating enough combined force to roll it off a cliff. Ibid. Even if each exerted too little force to move the car, and the force exerted by any two was sufficient to the move the car, each individual is a factual cause of the car's destruction. Ibid. The Government argues that these authorities "provide ample support for an 'aggregate' causation theory," Brief for United States 18, and that such a theory would best effectuate congressional intent in cases like this, id., at 18-19. The victim says much the same. Brief for Respondent Amy 42-43.
These alternative causal tests are a kind of legal fiction or construct. If the conduct of a wrongdoer is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce an outcome, that conduct cannot in a strict sense be said to have caused the outcome. Nonetheless, tort law teaches that alternative and less demanding causal standards are necessary in certain circumstances to vindicate the law's purposes. It would be anomalous to turn away a person harmed by the combined acts of many wrongdoers simply because none of those wrongdoers alone caused the harm. And it would be nonsensical to adopt a rule whereby individuals hurt by the combined wrongful acts of many (and thus in many instances hurt more badly than otherwise) would have no redress, whereas individuals hurt by the acts of one person alone would have a remedy. Those are the principles that underlie the various aggregate causation tests the victim and the Government cite, and they are sound principles.
These alternative causal standards, though salutary when applied in a judicious manner, also can be taken too far. That is illustrated by the victim's suggested approach to applying § 2259 in cases like this. The victim says that under the strict logic of these alternative causal tests, each possessor of her images is a part of a causal set sufficient to produce her ongoing trauma, so each possessor should be treated as a cause in fact of all the trauma and all the attendant losses incurred as a result of the entire ongoing traffic in her images. Id., at 43. And she argues that if this premise is accepted the further requirement of proximate causation poses no barrier, for she seeks restitution only for those losses that are the direct and foreseeable result of child-pornography offenses. Because the statute requires restitution for the "full amount of the victim's losses," including "any... losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense," § 2259(b), she argues that restitution is required for the entire aggregately caused amount.
The striking outcome of this reasoning-that each possessor of the victim's images would bear the consequences of the acts of the many thousands who possessed those images-illustrates why the Court has been reluctant to adopt aggregate causation logic in an incautious manner, especially in interpreting criminal statutes where there is no language expressly suggesting Congress intended that approach. See Burrage, 571 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 890-891. Even if one were to refer just to the law of torts, it would be a major step to say there is a sufficient causal link between the injury and the wrong so that all the victim's general losses were "suffered... as a proximate result of [Paroline's] offense," § 2259(b)(3)(F).
And there is special reason not to do so in the context of criminal restitution. Aside from the manifest procedural differences between criminal sentencing and civil tort lawsuits, restitution serves purposes that differ from (though they overlap with) the purposes of tort law. See, e.g.,Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49, n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 353, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986) (noting that restitution is, inter alia, "an effective rehabilitative penalty"). Legal fictions developed in the law of torts cannot be imported into criminal restitution and applied to their utmost limits without due consideration of these differences.
Contrary to the victim's suggestion, this is not akin to a case in which a "gang of ruffians" collectively beats a person, or in which a woman is "gang raped by five men on one night or by five men on five sequential nights." Brief for Respondent Amy 55. First, this case does not involve a set of wrongdoers acting in concert, see Prosser and Keeton § 52, at 346 (discussing full liability for a joint enterprise); for Paroline had no contact with the overwhelming majority of the offenders for whose actions the victim would hold him accountable. Second, adopting the victim's approach would make an individual possessor liable for the combined consequences of the acts of not just 2, 5, or even 100 independently acting offenders; but instead, a number that may reach into the tens of thousands. See Brief for Respondent Amy 65.
It is unclear whether it could ever be sensible to embrace the fiction that this victim's entire losses were the "proximate result," § 2259(b)(3)(F), of a single possessor's offense. Paroline's contribution to the causal process underlying the victim's losses was very minor, both compared to the combined acts of all other relevant offenders, and in comparison to the contributions of other individual offenders, particularly distributors (who may have caused hundreds or thousands of further viewings) and the initial producer of the child pornography. See 1 Restatement § 36, and Comment a, at 597-598 (recognizing a rule excluding from liability individuals whose contribution to a causal set that factually caused the outcome "pales by comparison to the other contributions to that causal set"). But see id., § 27, Reporters' Note, Comment i, at 395 ("The conclusion that none of" two dozen small contributions to a sufficient causal set was a cause of the outcome "is obviously untenable"). Congress gave
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), we held that amendments made to chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, do not apply to cases pending in federal court on April 24, 1996 — AEDPA’s effective date. In this case we consider when a capital ha-beas case becomes “pending” for purposes of the rule announced in Lindh.
I
Respondent Robert Garceau brutally killed his girlfriend Maureen Bautista and her 14-year-old son, Telesforo Bau-tista. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed respondent’s conviction and sentence, People v. Garceau, 6 Cal. 4th 140, 862 P. 2d 664 (1993), and denied on the merits his petition for state postconviction relief. We denied certio-rari. 513 U. S. 848 (1994).
On May 12,1995, respondent filed a motion for the appointment of federal habeas counsel and an application for a stay of execution in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court promptly issued a 45-day stay of execution. On June 26, 1995, the District Court appointed counsel and extended the stay of execution for another 120 days. On August 1, 1995, the State filed a motion to vacate the stay, in part because respondent had failed to file a “specification of nonfrivolous issues,” as required by local court rules. Brief for Respondent 2. Respondent cured that defect, and, on October 13, 1995, the District Court denied the State’s motion and ordered that the habeas petition be filed within nine months. Respondent filed his application for habeas relief on July 2, 1996.
Although respondent’s habeas application was filed after AEDPA’s effective date, the District Court, following Circuit precedent, concluded that the application was not subject to AEDPA. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 31-32 (citing Lindh, supra; Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of Cal., 163 F. 3d 530, 540 (CA9 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 526 U. S. 1060 (1999)). On the merits, however, the District Court ruled that respondent was not entitled to ha-beas relief. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Like the District Court, the Ninth Circuit concluded AEDPA does not apply to respondent’s application. 275 F. 3d 769, 772, n. 1 (2001). Unlike the District Court, however, the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief for reasons that are not relevant to our discussion here. Id., at 777-778. We granted certiorari. 536 U. S. 990 (2001).
II
As already noted, we held in Lindh that the new provisions of chapter 153 of Title 28 do not apply to cases pending as of the date AEDPA became effective. Lindh, however, had no occasion to elaborate on the precise time when a case becomes “pending” for purposes of chapter 153 because in that case petitioner’s habeas application had been filed prior to AEDPA’s effective date. See Lindh, supra, at 323 (noting that petitioner filed his federal habeas application on July 9, 1992). Since Lindh, the Courts of Appeals have divided on the question whether AEDPA applies to a habeas application filed after AEDPA’s effective date if the applicant sought the appointment of counsel or a stay of execution (or both) prior to that date. Five Courts of Appeals have ruled that AEDPA applies, see, e. g., Isaacs v. Head, 300 F. 3d 1232, 1245-1246 (CA11 2002); Moore v. Gibson, 195 F. 3d 1152, 1160-1163 (CA10 1999); Gosier v. Welborn, 175 F. 3d 504, 506 (CA7 1999); Williams v. Coyle, 167 F. 3d 1036, 1037-1040 (CA6 1999); Williams v. Cain, 125 F. 3d 269, 273-274 (CA5 1997), while the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held it does not, Calderon, supra, at 539-540. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the majority of the Courts of Appeals.
Congress enacted AEDPA to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases, see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 386 (2000) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“Congress wished to curb delays, to prevent ‘retrials’ on federal habeas, and to give effect to state convictions to the extent possible under law”); see also id., at 404 (majority opinion), and “to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 436 (2000). One of the methods Congress used to advance these objectives was the adoption of an amended 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). Williams, 529 U. S., at 404 (“It cannot be disputed that Congress viewed § 2254(d)(1) as an important means by which its goals for habeas reform would be achieved”). As we have explained before, § 2254(d) places “new constraint^] on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of ha-beas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court.” Id., at 412. Our cases make clear that AEDPA in general and § 2254(d) in particular focus in large measure on revising the standards used for evaluating the merits of a habeas application. See id., at 412-413; Lindh, supra, at 329 (noting that “amended § 2254(d) . . . governs standards affecting entitlement to relief”); see also Early v. Packer, 537 U. S. 3 (2002) (per curiam) (applying AEDPA’s standards); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19 (2002) (per curiam) (same).
Because of AEDPA’s heavy emphasis on the standards governing the review of the merits of a habeas application, we interpret the rule announced in Lindh in view of that emphasis, as have the majority of the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F. 3d 876, 880 (CA7 1997) (“[T]he motion for counsel is not itself a petition, because it does not call for (or even permit) a decision on the merits. And it is ‘the merits’ that the amended § 2254(d)(1) is all about”); Isaacs, supra, at 1245 (same); Coyle, supra, at 1040 (same). Thus, whether AEDPA applies to a state prisoner turns on what was before a federal court on the date AEDPA became effective. If, on that date, the state prisoner had before a federal court an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, then amended § 2254(d) does not apply. Otherwise, an application filed after AEDPA’s effective date should be reviewed under AEDPA, even if other filings by that same applicant — such as, for example, a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay of execution — were presented to a federal court prior to AEDPA’s effective date.
A review of the amended chapter 153 supports our conclusion. For instance, § 2254(e)(1) provides that, “[i]n a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.” (Emphasis added.) Under the Ninth Circuit’s view, the presumption established in § 2254(e)(1) would rarely apply in a capital case. If, as the Ninth Circuit held, a capital habeas case can be commenced (and, therefore, may become pending for purposes of Lindh) with the filing of a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay, then § 2254(e)(1), which by its terms applies only to a proceeding “instituted” by “an application for a writ of habeas corpus,” would not apply to any capital prisoners whose first filing in federal court is a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay. This would make § 2254(e)(1) applicable only to those capital prisoners who did not need counsel and did not seek a stay. AEDPA’s text, however, contains no indication that § 2254(e)(1) was intended to have such a limited scope. Nor is it reasonable to believe that Congress meant for a capital prisoner to avoid the application of the stringent requirements of § 2254(e)(1) simply by filing a request for counsel or a motion for a stay before filing an actual application for habeas relief. Other provisions of chapter 153 likewise - support our view. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 2241(d) (indicating that the power to grant a writ is not triggered except by “application for a writ of habeas corpus”); § 2244(a) (providing that federal judges are not required to “entertain” a second or successive “application for a writ of habeas corpus” except as provided for by statute).
Finally, our conclusion is reinforced by the procedural rules governing §2254 cases. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 explains that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in the context of habeas suits to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Habeas Corpus Rules. See 28 U. S. C. §2254 Rule 11; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 81(a)(2); Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U. S. 482, 489 (1975) (per curiam). Nothing in the Habeas Corpus Rules contradicts Rule 3. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that a habeas suit begins with the filing of an application for habeas corpus relief — the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.
H-I H-l 1 — 1
Respondent asks us to determine the scope of the rule announced in Lindh by looking at some of the provisions of chapter 154 of Title 28. But our task in this case is to apply Lindh to an action under chapter 153; thus, the precise phrasing of provisions in chapter 154 is inapposite to our inquiry here.
Moreover, respondent’s argument that our holding in McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849 (1994), should inform our decision here is unpersuasive. To begin with, McFarland involved the interpretation of §2251, not §2254, which is at issue here. And, as the Courts of Appeals have recognized, see Isaacs, 300 F. 3d, at 1242-1246 (collecting and discussing authorities), the Court’s ruling in McFarland must be understood in light of the Court’s concern to protect the right to counsel contained in 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B). McFarland, 512 U. S., at 855 (“This interpretation is the only one that gives meaning to the statute as a practical matter”); id., at 856 (“Requiring an indigent capital petitioner to proceed without counsel in order to obtain counsel thus would expose him to the substantial risk that his habeas claims never would be heard on the merits. Congress legislated against this legal backdrop in adopting § 848(q)(4)(B), and we safely assume that it did not intend for the express requirement of counsel to be defeated in this manner”); id., at 857 (“Even if the District Court had granted McFarland’s motion for appointment of counsel and had found an attorney to represent him, this appointment would have been meaningless unless McFarland’s execution also was stayed”). Thus, McFarland cannot carry the day for respondent.
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit’s and respondent’s reliance on Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236 (1998), is misplaced. In Hohn, we considered whether this Court has jurisdiction to review a court of appeals’ denial of a certificate of appealability (COA). To answer that question we focused on the text of 28 U. S. C. § 1254, which “confines our jurisdiction to ‘[c]ases in’ the courts of appeals.” Hohn, supra, at 241 (citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 741-742 (1982)). Although we concluded that an application for a COA constituted a case within the meaning of § 1254, we did not provide an all-purpose definition of the term “case.” Thus, while Hohn might support an argument that respondent’s request for appointment of counsel and his motion for a stay of execution began a “case” that could be reviewed on appeal, see, e. g., Gosier, 175 F. 3d, at 506 (“[A] request for counsel is a ‘case’ in the sense that it is subject to appellate review (and, if need be, review by the Supreme Court)”), it says nothing about whether a request for counsel or motion for a stay suffices to create a “case” that is “pending” within the meaning of the Lindh rule.
•fc 'K
In sum, we hold that, for purposes of applying the rule announced in Lindh, a case does not become “pending” until an actual application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court. Because respondent’s federal habeas corpus application was not filed until after AEDPA’s effective date, that application is subject to AEDPA’s amendments. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor contends that we may have misapplied our test because a filing labeled “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues” placed the merits of respondent’s claims before the District Court before AEDPA’s effective date. Post, at 211 (opinion concurring in judgment). That is simply not so. Respondent’s “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues” plainly stated that “[biased on a preliminary review of case materials, counsel believes the following federal constitutional issues exist in this case and are among the issues that may be raised on [Garceau’s] behalf in a petition for habeas corpus.” App. to Brief in Opposition 227 (emphasis added). The clear import of this language is that the filing itself did not seek any relief on the merits or place the merits of respondent’s claims before the District Court for decision. Rather, the document simply alerted the District Court as to some of the possible claims that might be raised by respondent in the future. Indeed, the habeas corpus application respondent eventually filed contained numerous issues that were not mentioned in the “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues.”
In view of the question on which we granted certiorari, we decline petitioner’s request to rule on the merits of respondent's habeas application.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Title III of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 645, 39 U. S. C. §4009 (1964 ed., Supp. IY), under which a person may require that a mailer remove his name from its mailing lists and stop all future mailings to the householder. The appellants are publishers, distributors, owners, and operators of mail order houses, mailing list brokers, and owners and operators of mail service organizations whose business activities are affected by the challenged statute.
A brief description of the statutory framework will facilitate our analysis of the questions raised in this appeal. Section 4009 is entitled “Prohibition of pandering advertisements in the mails.” It provides a procedure 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.” 39 U. S. C. § 4009 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
Subsection (b) mandates the Postmaster General, upon receipt of a notice from the addressee specifying that he has received advertisements found by him to be within the statutory category, to issue on the addressee's request an order directing the sender and his agents or assigns to refrain from further mailings to the named addressee. Additionally, subsection (c) requires the Postmaster General to order the affected sender to delete the name of the designated addressee from all mailing lists owned or controlled by the sender and prohibits the sale, rental, exchange, or other transactions involving mailing lists bearing the name of the designated addressee.
If the Postmaster General has reason to believe that an order issued under this section has been violated, subsection (d) authorizes him to notify the sender by registered or certified mail of his belief and the reasons therefor, and grant him an opportunity to respond and have a hearing on whether a violation has occurred.
If the Postmaster General thereafter determines that the order has been or is being violated, he is authorized to request the Attorney General to seek an order from a United States District Court directing compliance with the prohibitory order. Subsection (e) grants to the district court jurisdiction to issue a compliance order upon application of the Attorney General.
Appellants initiated an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California upon a complaint and petition for declaratory relief on the ground that 39 U. S. C. §4009 (1964 ed., Supp. IV) is unconstitutional. They alleged that they had received numerous prohibitory orders pursuant to the provisions of the statute. Appellants contended that the section violates their rights of free speech and due process guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Additionally, appellants argued that the section is unconstitutionally vague, without standards, and ambiguous.
A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284 and it determined that the section was constitutional when interpreted to prohibit advertisements similar to those initially mailed to the addressee. 300 F. Supp. 1036.
The District Court construed subsections (b) and (c) to prohibit “advertisements similar” to those initially mailed to the addressee. Future mailings, in the view of the District Court, “are to be measured by the objectionable material of such first mailing.” 300 F. Supp., at 1041. In our view Congress did not intend so restrictive a scope to those provisions.
I. Background and Congressional Objectives
Section 4009 was a response to public and congressional concern with use of mail facilities to distribute unsolicited advertisements that recipients found to be offensive because of their lewd and salacious character. Such mail was found to be pressed upon minors as well as adults who did not seek and did not want it. Use of mailing lists of youth organizations was part of the mode of doing business. At the congressional hearings it developed that complaints to the Postmaster General had increased from 50,000 to 250,000 annually. The legislative history, including testimony of child psychology specialists and psychiatrists before the House Committee on the Post Office and the Civil Service, reflected concern over the impact of the materials on the development of children. A declared objective of Congress was to protect minors and the privacy of homes from such material and to place the judgment of what constitutes an offensive invasion of those interests in the hands of the addressee.
To accomplish these objectives Congress provided in subsection (a) that the mailer is subject to an order "to refrain from further mailings of such materials to designated addressees.” Subsection (b) states that the Postmaster General shall direct the sender to refrain from “further mailings to the named addressees.” Subsection (c) in describing the Postmaster’s order states that it shall “expressly prohibit the sender . . . from making any further mailings to the designated addressees . . . .” Subsection (c) also requires the sender to delete the addressee’s name “from all mailing lists” and prohibits the sale, transfer, and exchange of lists bearing the addressee’s name.
There are three plausible constructions of the statute, with respect to the scope of the prohibitory order. The order could prohibit all future mailings to the addressees, all future mailings of advertising material to the addressees, or all future mailings of similar materials.
The seeming internal statutory inconsistency is undoubtedly a residue of the language of the section as it was initially proposed. The section as originally reported by the House Committee prohibited “further mailings of such pandering advertisements,” § 4009 (a), “further mailings of such matter,” § 4009 (b), and “any further mailings of pandering advertisements,” § 4009 (c). H. R. Rep. No. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 (1967). The section required the Postmaster General to make a determination whether the particular piece of mail came within the proscribed class of pandering advertisements, “as that term is used in the Ginzburg case.” Id., at 69.
The section was subsequently amended by the House of Representatives to eliminate from the Post Office any censorship function. Congressman Waldie, who proposed the amendment, envisioned a minimal role for the Post Office. The amendment was intended to remove “the right of the Government to involve itself in any determination of the content and nature of these objectionable materials . . . .” 113 Cong. Rec. 28660 (1967). The only determination left for the Postmaster General is whether or not the mailer has removed the addressee’s name from the mailing list. Statements by the proponents of the legislation in both the House and Senate manifested an intent to prohibit all further mailings from the sender. In describing the effect of his proposed amendment Congressman Waldie stated:
“So I have said in my amendment that if you receive literature in your household that you consider objectionable . . . you can inform the Postmaster General to have your name stricken from that mailer’s mailing list.” 113 Cong. Rec. 28660.
The Senate Committee Report on the bill contained similar language:
“If a person receives an advertisement which . . . he . . . believes to be erotically arousing ... he may notify the Postmaster General of his determination. The Postmaster General is then required to issue an order to the sender directing him to refrain from sending any further mailings of any kind to such person.” S. Rep. No. 801, 9fith Cong., 1st Sess., 38.
Senator Monroney, a major proponent of the legislation in the Senate, described the bill as follows:
“With respect to the test contained in the bill, if the addressee declared it to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative, the Postmaster General would have to notify the sender to send no more mail to that address . . . .” 113 Cong. Rec. 34231 (1967).
The legislative history of subsection (a) thus supports an interpretation that prohibits all future mailings independent of any objective test. This reading is consistent with the provisions of related subsections in the section. Subsection (c) provides that the Postmaster General “shall also direct the sender and his agents or assigns to delete immediately the names of the designated addressees from all mailing lists owned or controlled by the sender or his agents or assigns and, further, shall prohibit the sender and his agents or assigns from the sale, rental, exchange, or other transaction involving mailing lists bearing the names of the designated addressees.” 39 U. S. C. § 4009 (c) (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
It would be anomalous to read the statute to affect only similar material or advertisements and yet require the Postmaster General to order the sender to remove the addressee’s name from all mailing lists in his actual or constructive possession. The section was intended to allow the addressee complete and unfettered discretion in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender. See n. 6, infra. The impact of this aspect of the statute is on the mailer, not the mail. The interpretation of the statute that most completely effectuates that intent is one that prohibits any further mailings. Limiting the prohibitory order to similar materials or advertisements is open to at least two criticisms: (a) it would expose the householder to further burdens of scrutinizing the mail for objectionable material and possible harassment, and (b) it would interpose the Postmaster General between the sender and the addressee and, at the least, create the appearance if not the substance of governmental censorship. It is difficult to see how the Postmaster General could decide whether the materials were “similar” or possessing touting or pandering characteristics without an evaluation suspiciously like censorship. Additionally, such an interpretation would be incompatible with the unequivocal language in subsection (c).
II. First Amendment Contentions
The essence of appellants’ argument is that the statute violates their constitutional right to communicate. One sentence in appellants’ brief perhaps characterizes their entire position:
“The freedom to communicate orally and by the written word and, indeed, in every manner whatsoever is imperative to a free and sane society.” Brief for Appellants 15.
Without doubt the public postal system, is an indispensable adjunct of every civilized society and communication is imperative to a healthy social order. But the right of every person “to be let alone” must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate. *
In today’s complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today’s merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman’s mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive.
In Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943), Mr. Justice Black, for the Court, while supporting the “[fjreedom to distribute information to every citizen,” id., at 146, acknowledged a limitation in terms of leaving “with the homeowner himself” the power to decide “whether distributors of literature may lawfully call at a home.” Id., at 148. Weighing the highly important right to communicate, but without trying to determine where it fits into constitutional imperatives, against the very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matter we do not want, it seems to us that a mailer’s right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.
The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property. See Martin v. Struthers, supra; cf. Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S. E. 2d 369, appeal dismissed, 335 U. S. 875 (1948). In this case the mailer’s right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that “a man’s home is his castle” into which “not even the king may enter” has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another. See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967).
Both the absoluteness of the citizen’s right under § 4009 and its finality are essential; what may not be provocative to one person may well be to another. In operative effect the power of the householder under the statute is unlimited; he may prohibit the mailing of a dry goods catalog because he objects to the contents — or indeed the text of the language touting the merchandise. Congress provided this sweeping power not only to protect privacy but to avoid possible constitutional questions that might arise from vesting the power to make any discretionary evaluation of the material in a governmental official.
In effect, Congress has erected a wall — or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall — that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. The continuing operative effect of a mailing ban once imposed presents no constitutional obstacles; the citizen cannot be put to the burden of determining on repeated occasions whether the offending mailer has altered its material so as to make it acceptable. Nor should the householder have to risk that offensive material come into the hands of his children before it can be stopped.
We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even "good” ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often “captives” outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does, not mean we must be captives everywhere. See Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451 (1952). The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person’s domain.
The statutory scheme at issue accords to the sender an “opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233, 246 (1944). It thus comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The statutory scheme accomplishes this by providing that the Postmaster General shall issue a prohibitory order to the sender on the request of the complaining addressee. Only if the sender violates the terms of the order is the Postmaster General authorized to serve a complaint on the sender, who is then allowed 15 days to respond. The sender can then secure an administrative hearing. The sender may question whether the initial material mailed to the addressee was an advertisement and whether he sent any subsequent mailings. If the Postmaster General thereafter determines that the prohibitory order has been violated, he is authorized to request the Attorney General to make application in a United States District Court for a compliance order; a second hearing is required if an order is to be entered.
The only administrative action not preceded by a full hearing is the initial issuance of the prohibitory order. Since the sender risks no immediate sanction by failing to comply with that order — it is only a predicate for later steps — it cannot be said that this aspect of the procedure denies due process. It is sufficient that all available defenses, such as proof that no mail was sent, may be presented to a competent tribunal before a contempt finding can be made. See Nickey v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 393, 396 (1934).
The appellants also contend that the requirement that the sender remove the addressee’s name from all mailing lists in his possession violates the Fifth Amendment because it constitutes a taking without due process of law. The appellants are not prohibited from using, selling, or exchanging their mailing lists; they are simply required to delete the names of the complaining addressees from the lists and cease all mailings to those persons.
Appellants next contend that compliance with the statute is confiscatory because the costs attending removal of the names are prohibitive. We agree with the conclusion of the District Court that the “burden does not amount to a violation of due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Particularly when in the context presently before this Court it is being applied to commercial enterprises.” 300 F. Supp., at 1041. See California State Auto Ins. Bureau v. Maloney, 341 U. S. 105 (1951).
There is no merit to the appellants’ allegations that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. A statute is fatally vague only when it exposes a potential actor to some risk or detriment without giving him fair warning of the nature of the proscribed conduct. United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174, 176 (1952). Here the appellants know precisely what they must do on receipt of a prohibitory order. The complainants’ names must be removed from the sender’s mailing lists and he must refrain from future mailings to the named addressees. The sender is exposed to a contempt sanction only if he continues to mail to a particular addressee after administrative and judicial proceedings. Appellants run no substantial risk of miscalculation.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Subsection (g) provides that upon the addressee’s request the order shall include the names of the addressee’s minor children who reside with him and who have not attained their nineteenth birthday.
Judge Hufstedler, concurring specially but without dissent, would require the District Court prior to issuing a compliance order to determine de novo whether the sender is a person who has mailed or has caused to be mailed any pandering advertisements.
Senator Hruska spoke similarly: “Title III would allow the recipient of obscene mail to return it to the Postmaster General with a request that the Postmaster General notify the sender to stop mailings to, the addressee 113 Cong. Rec. 34232 (1967).
Subsection (d) vests the Postmaster General with the duty to determine whether the sender has violated the order. This determination was intended to be primarily a ministerial one involving an adjudication whether the initial material was an advertisement and whether the sender mailed materials to the addressee more than 30 days after the receipt of the prohibitory order. An interpreta.tion which requires the Postmaster General to determine whether the subsequent material was pandering and/or similar would tend to place him “astride the flow of mail . . . .” Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 306 (1965).
Although subsection (h) specifically excludes the pre-complaint hearing from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 554 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. IV), the Post Office Department has promulgated regulations setting forth procedures governing the departmental administrative hearings. 39 CFR pt. 916.
The function of the district court is similar to that of the Postmaster General. It is to determine whether the initial mailing included advertising material and whether there was a mailing by the sender to the addressee more than 30 days after receipt of the order. We reject the suggestions that the section should be read to require the district judge to make a determination of the addressee’s good faith, or to conduct an independent adjudication of the pandering nature of the material. The statute was intended to entrust unreviewable discretion to the addressee to determine whether or not the advertisement was "erotically arousing or sexually provocative.” “[T]he sole determination as to whether the literature you receive is objectionable or not is within your discretion and you are not second-guessed on that discretion.” 113 Cong. Rec. 28660 (1967) (remarks of Congressman Waldie).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States sued in the District Court to condemn certain property needed for the construction of the Trinity River Dam and Reservoir in California, to obtain immediate possession of it, and to secure title to it, the complaint asking that the United States be allowed to reserve authority to have the validity of mining claims determined in administrative proceedings before the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. The District Court allowed the United States a writ of possession; but no other issues in the action have been determined. See 185 F. Supp. 290.
The United States later instituted a contest proceeding in the local land office of the Bureau seeking an administrative determination of the validity of respondents’ mining claims and alleged that the land embraced within respondents’ claims is nonmineral in character and that minerals have not been found within the limits of the claims in sufficient quantities to constitute a valid discovery. Respondents, who had 30 days to answer the administrative complaint or have the allegations taken as confessed, brought the present suit to enjoin the officials of the Department of the Interior from proceeding with the administrative action. The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States. 185 F. Supp. 290. The Court of Appeals reversed, 293 F. 2d 553. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted. 368 U. S. 983.
We deal here with a unique form of property. A mining claim on public lands is a possessory interest in land that is “mineral in character” and as respects which discovery “within the limits of the claim” has been made. Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450, 456. The discovery must be of such a character that “a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine.” Castle v. Womble, 19 L. D. 455, 457; Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313, 322; Cameron v. United States, supra, p. 459. A locator who does not carry his claim to patent does not lose his mineral claim, though he does take the risk that his claim will no longer support the issuance of a patent. United States v. Houston, 66 L. D. 161, 165. It must be shown before a patent issues that at the time of the application for patent “the claim is valuable for minerals,” worked-out claims not qualifying. United States v. Logomarcini, 60 L. D. 371, 373.
Respondents’ mining claims are unpatented, the title to the lands in controversy still being in the United States. The claims are, however, valid against the United States if there has been a discovery of mineral within the limits of the claim, if the land& are still mineral, and if other statutory requirements have been met. Cameron v. United States, supra. The determination of the validity of claims against the public lands was entrusted to the General Land-Office in 1812 (2 Stat. 716) and transferred to the Department of the Interior on its creation in 1849. 9 Stat. 395. Since that time, the Department has been granted plenary authority over the administration of public lands, including mineral lands; and it has been given broad authority to issue regulations concerning them. Cameron v. United States, supra—an opinion written by Mr. Justice Van Devanter, who, as Assistant Attorney General for the Interior L>epartment from 1897 to 1903, did more than any other person to give character and distinction to the administration of the public lands— illustrates the special role of the Department of the Interior in that field. Cameron claimed a valid mineral discovery on public lands. His claim was rejected in administrative proceedings. Cameron, however, would not vacate the land and the United States sued to oust him. The Court said:
“By general statutory provisions the execution of the laws regulating the acquisition of rights in the public lands and the general care of these lands is confided to the land department, as a special tribunal; and the Secretary of the Interior, as .the head of the department, is charged with seeing that this authority is rightly exercised to the end that valid claims may be recognized, invalid ones eliminated, and the rights of the public preserved. . . .
“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.
“Of course, the land department has no power to strike down any claim arbitrarily, but so long as the legal title remains in the Government it does have power, after proper notice and upon adequate hearing, to determine whether the claim is valid and, if it be found invalid, to declare it null and void.” 252 U. S. 450, 459-460.
“Due process in such case implies notice and a hearing. But this does not require that the hearing must be in the courts, or forbid an inquiry and determination in the Land Department.” Orchard v. Alexander, 157 U. S. 372, 383. If a patent has not issued, controversies over the claims “should be solved by appeal to the land department and not to the courts.” Brow v. Hitchcock, 173 U. S. 473, 477. And see Northern Pacific R. Co. v. McComas, 250 U. S. 387, 392.
The Court of Appeals wrote nothing in derogation of these principles. It concluded, however, that since the United States went into the District Court to condemn these property interests and to get immediate possession, the validity of the claims was, of necessity, left to judicial determination. Its conclusion rested primarily on Rule 71A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule, after describing the way in which the issue of compensation shall be determined, concludes with the sentence “Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.”
Yet courts that try issues sometimes wait,until the administrative agency that has special competence in the field has ruled on them. The controversies within the Court over the appropriateness of that procedure in given situations is well known, though there is no dispute over the soundness of the* Abilene doctrine, adumbrated by Chief Justice White in Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426. It is difficult to imagine a more appropriate case for invocation of the jurisdiction of an administrative agency for determination of one of the issues involved in a judicial proceeding. Cf. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U. S. 478; Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U. S. 134, 146-151. Congress has entrusted the Department of the Interior with the management of the public domain and prescribed the process by which claims against the public domain may be perfected. The United States, which holds legal title to the lands, plainly can prescribe the procedure which any claimant must follow to acquire rights in the public sector.
Respondents protest, saying that if they are remitted to the administrative proceeding, they will suffer disadvantages in that the procedures before the District Court are much less onerous on claimants than those before the Department of the Interior. We express no views on those contentions, as each of them can appropriately be raised in the administrative proceedings and reserved for judicial review.
The United States is not foreclosed from insisting on resort to the administrative proceedings for a determination of the validity of those claims. It may take property pursuant to its power of eminent domain, either by entering into physical possession of the property without a court order, or by instituting condemnation proceedings under various Acts of Congress. United States v. Dow, 357 U. S. 17, 21. Title to the property passes later, though the entry into possession marks the taking, gives rise to the claim for compensation, and fixes the date as of which the property is to be valued. Id., p. 22. Institution of suit is one way to obtain immediate possession; and we see nothing incompatible between the use of that means to obtain possession and the use of the administrative proceedings to determine title. Cf. United States v. 93.970 Acres, 360 U. S. 328. No purpose would be served by forcing the United States to abandon that orderly procedure in favor of physical seizure, leaving the claimant to a suit under the Tucker Act. See United States v. Dow, supra, p. 21.
We conclude that the institution of the suit in the District Court was an appropriate way of obtaining immediate possession, that it was not inconsistent with the administrative remedy for determining the validity of the mining claims, and that the District Court acted properly in holding its hand until the issue of the validity of the claims has been resolved by the agency entrusted by Congress with the task:
Reversed.
See S. Doc. No. 113, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 120, stating that the project will require 10,000 acres.
See Appeals and Contests Regulation of the Bureau of Land Management, 43 CFR, 1962 Supp., §221.67.
Id., §221.64.
30 U. S. C. §§21, 22, 26; General Mining Regulation of the Bureau of Land Management, 43 CFR §§ 185.1-185.3.
See 5 TJ. S. C. § 485; 43 U. S. C. § 2.
See 30 U. S. C. § 22, 43 U. S. C. § 1201.
Claimants today may appeal the Examiner’s decision to the Director of the Bureau (43 CFR., 1962 Supp., §221.1), from him to the Secretary {id., § 221.31), and from there to the courts. Foster v. Seaton, 271 F. 2d 836.
We are told that nine hearing Examiners are assigned to mining-claim cases, that mining claims comprise from 75% to 85% of their hearings, and that in the fiscal year 1960-1961, 322 mining-law cases (involving 1,162 separate claims) were brought before the hearing Examiners. Of these, 81 cases (343 claims) were closed on procedural grounds without a hearing; in 241 eases (involving 819 claims), hearings on the merits were held and decisions rendered by the hearing Examiner; in 90 of these cases, appeals were taken to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
In the fiscal year 1961 there were a total of 27,228 mining-claim adjudication cases closed during the year. These included 7,457 title-transfer cases (e. g., patent applications and land-disposition conflicts), and approximately 20,000 mining-claim investigations by the Bureau’s mining engineers for the purpose of determining validity or invalidity. See Annual Report, Director, Bureau of Land Management, 1961, pt. 4, pp. 86-120 (Statistical Appendix).
Respondents say (1) that in the District Court value would be determined as of the time of the taking, while before the agency value is determined as of the date of the hearing before the Examiner; (2) that the strictures on proof of “discovery” in the administrative proceedings are so great that they could not be satisfied unless the Trinity Basin Reservoir were drained; (3) that in the District Court value could be established by a showing of valuable deposits of gold, while before the Examiner a claim could be established only on proof that mines were actually operating at a profit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner, a California motorist, was involved in an automobile collision on March 18, 1971. Both drivers filed accident reports with the California Department of Motor Vehicles as required by the California Financial Responsibility Laws. Without affording petitioner a hearing on the question of potential liability, and based solely on the contents of the accident reports, the Department found that there was a reasonable possibility that a judgment might be recovered against petitioner as a result of the accident. Since petitioner was uninsured and could not deposit security, his license was suspended. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that prior to suspension “a hearing is required and that at such a hearing the licensee is entitled to review the reports or other evidence upon which the department contemplates determining that he is possibly responsible for the accident, and to present reports or testimony to establish his claim of nonculpability, all within reasonable due process procedures which the department may employ.” Rios v. Cozens, 7 Cal. 3d 792, 799, 499 P. 2d 979, 984 (1972).
We are unable to determine, however, whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both. In reaching its result in this case, the California court relied primarily upon this Court’s decisions in Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971), and Jennings v. Mahoney, 404 U. S. 25 (1971), but also cited its own decisions in Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 Cal. 3d 536, 488 P. 2d 13 (1971); Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal. 3d 258, 486 P. 2d 1242 (1971); McCallop v. Carberry, 1 Cal. 3d 903, 464 P.2d 122 (1970), and Cline v. Credit Bureau of Santa Clara Valley, 1 Cal. 3d 908, 464 P. 2d 125 (1970), which apparently were premised upon both the state and federal provisions. In addition, the court in Rios specifically overruled its own prior decisions in Orr v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 220, 454 P. 2d 712 (1969), and Escobedo v. State of California, 35 Cal. 2d 870, 222 P. 2d 1 (1950), which had upheld the procedures here under attack under both the state and federal provisions. Thus, as in Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194, 196-197 (1965), “[w]hile we might speculate from the choice of words used in the opinion, and the authorities cited by the court, which provision was the basis for the judgment of the state court, we are unable to say with any degree of certainty that the judgment of the California Supreme Court was not based on an adequate and independent nonfederal ground.” We therefore grant the State of California’s petition for certio-rari, vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California, and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972); Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, supra; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939).
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Officer Rochelle Brosseau, a member of the Puyallup, Washington, Police Department, shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he attempted to flee from law enforcement authorities in his vehicle. Haugen subsequently filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. He alleged that the shot fired by Brosseau constituted excessive force and violated his federal constitutional rights. The District Court granted summary judgment to Brosseau after finding she was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 339 F. 3d 857 (2003). Following the two-step process set out in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 (2001), the Court of Appeals found, first, that Brosseau had violated Haugen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and, second, that the right violated was clearly established and thus Brosseau was not entitled to qualified immunity. Brosseau then petitioned for writ of certiorari, requesting that we review both of the Court of Appeals’ determinations. We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.
The material facts, construed in a light most favorable to Haugen, are as follows. On the day before the fracas, Glen Tamburello went to the police station and reported to Bros-seau that Haugen, a former crime partner of his, had stolen tools from his shop. Brosseau later learned that there was a felony no-bail warrant out for Haugen’s arrest on drug and other offenses. The next morning, Haugen was spray painting his Jeep Cherokee in his mother’s driveway. Tambur-ello learned of Haugen’s whereabouts, and he and cohort Matt Atwood drove a pickup truck to Haugen’s mother’s house to pay Haugen a visit. A fight ensued, which was witnessed by a neighbor who called 911.
Brosseau heard a report that the men were fighting in Haugen’s mother’s yard and responded. When she arrived, Tamburello and Atwood were attempting to get Haugen into Tamburello’s pickup. Brosseau’s arrival created a distraction, which provided Haugen the opportunity to get away. Haugen ran through his mother’s yard and hid in the neighborhood. Brosseau requested assistance, and, shortly thereafter, two officers arrived with a K-9 to help track Haugen down. During the search, which lasted about 30 to 45 minutes, officers instructed Tamburello and Atwood to remain in Tamburello’s pickup. They instructed Deanna Nocera, Haugen’s girlfriend who was also present with her 3-year-old daughter, to remain in her small car with her daughter. Tamburello’s pickup was parked in the street in front of the driveway; Nocera’s small car was parked in the driveway in front of and facing the Jeep; and the Jeep was in the driveway facing Nocera’s car and angled somewhat to the left. The Jeep was parked about 4 feet away from Nocera’s car and 20 to 30 feet away from Tamburello’s pickup.
An officer radioed from down the street that a neighbor had seen a man in her backyard. Brosseau ran in that direction, and Haugen appeared. He ran past the front of his mother’s house and then turned and ran into the driveway. With Brosseau still in pursuit, he jumped into the driver’s side of the Jeep and closed and locked the door. Brosseau believed that he was running to the Jeep to retrieve a weapon.
Brosseau arrived at the Jeep, pointed her gun at Haugen, and ordered him to get out of the vehicle. Haugen ignored her command and continued to look for the keys so he could get the Jeep started. Brosseau repeated her commands and hit the driver’s side window several times with her handgun, which failed to deter Haugen. On the third or fourth try, the window shattered. Brosseau unsuccessfully attempted to grab the keys and struck Haugen on the head with the barrel and butt of her gun. Haugen, still undeterred, succeeded in starting the Jeep. As the Jeep started or shortly after it began to move, Brosseau jumped back and to the left. She fired one shot through the rear driver’s side window at a forward angle, hitting Haugen in the back. She later explained that she shot Haugen because she was “‘fearful for the other officers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area, [and] for the occupied vehicles in [Haugen’s] path and for any other citizens who might be in the area.’ ” 339 F. 3d, at 865.
Despite being hit, Haugen, in his words, “ ‘st[ood] on the gas’ navigated the “ ‘small, tight space’ ” to avoid the other vehicles; swerved across the neighbor’s lawn; and continued down the street. Id., at 882. After about a half block, Haugen realized that he had been shot and brought the Jeep to a halt. He suffered a collapsed lung and was airlifted to a hospital. He survived the shooting and subsequently pleaded guilty to the felony of “eluding.” Wash. Rev. Code §46.61.024 (1994). By so pleading, he admitted that he drove his Jeep in a manner indicating “a wanton or wilful disregard for the lives ... of others.” Ibid. He subsequently brought this § 1983 action against Brosseau.
* * *
When confronted with a claim of qualified immunity, a court must ask first the following question: “Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S., at 201. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the constitutional question in this case is governed by the principles enunciated in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), and Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989). These cases establish that claims of excessive force are to be judged under the Fourth Amendment’s “‘objective reasonableness’” standard. Id., at 388. Specifically with regard to deadly force, we explained in Garner that it is unreasonable for an officer to “seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.” 471 U. S., at 11. But “[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.” Ibid.
We express no view as to the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision on the constitutional question itself. We believe that, however that question is decided, the Court of Appeals was wrong on the issue of qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S., at 206 (qualified immunity operates “to protect officers from the sometimes 'hazy border between excessive and acceptable force’”). Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct. If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to liability or, indeed, even the burdens of litigation.
It is important to emphasize that this inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id., at 201. As we previously said in this very context:
“[T]here is no doubt that Graham v. Connor, supra, clearly establishes the general proposition that use of force is contrary to the Fourth Amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness. Yet that is not enough. Rather, we emphasized in Anderson [v. Creighton] ‘that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ 483 U. S. [635,] 640 [(1987)]. The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id., at 201-202.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged this statement of law, but then proceeded to find fair warning in the general tests set out in Graham and Garner. 339 F. 3d, at 873-874. In so doing, it was mistaken. Graham and Garner, following the lead of the Fourth Amendment’s text, are cast at a high level of generality. See Graham v. Connor, supra, at 396 (“'[T]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application’ ”). Of course, in an obvious case, these standards can “clearly establish” the answer, even without a body of relevant case law. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 738 (2002) (noting in a case where the Eighth Amendment violation was “obvious” that there need not be a materially similar case for the right to be clearly established). See also Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F. 3d 1275, 1283 (CA11 2002) (explaining in a Fourth Amendment case involving an officer shooting a fleeing suspect in a vehicle that, “when we look at decisions such as Garner and Graham, we see some tests to guide us in determining the law in many different kinds of circumstances; but we do not see the kind of clear law (clear answers) that would apply” to the situation at hand). The present case is far from the obvious one where Graham and Garner alone offer a basis for decision.
We therefore turn to ask whether, at the time of Bros-seau’s actions, it was “ ‘ “clearly established” ’ ” in this more “‘particularized’” sense that she was violating Haugen’s Fourth Amendment right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S., at 202. The parties point us to only a handful of cases relevant to the “situation [Brosseau] confronted”: whether to shoot a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture through vehicular flight, when persons in the immediate area are at risk from that flight. Ibid. Specifically, Brosseau points us to Cole v. Bone, 993 F. 2d 1328 (CA8 1993), and Smith v. Freland, 954 F. 2d 343 (CA6 1992).
In these cases, the courts found no Fourth Amendment violation when an officer shot a fleeing suspect who presented a risk to others. Cole v. Bone, supra, at 1333 (holding the officer “had probable cause to believe that the truck posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to innocent motorists as well as to the officers themselves”); Smith v. Freland, 954 F. 2d, at 347 (noting “a car can be a deadly weapon” and holding the officer’s decision to stop the car from possibly injuring others was reasonable). Smith is closer to this case. There, the officer and suspect engaged in a car chase, which appeared to be at an end when the officer cornered the suspect at the back of a dead-end residential street. The suspect, however, freed his car and began speeding down the street. At this point, the officer fired a shot, which killed the suspect. The court held the officer’s decision was reasonable and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It noted that the suspect, like Haugen here, “had proven he would do almost anything to avoid capture” and that he posed a major threat to, among others, the officers at the end of. the street. Ibid.
Haugen points us to Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F. 3d 230 (CA7 1993), where the court found summary judgment inappropriate on a Fourth Amendment claim involving a fleeing suspect. There, the court concluded that the threat created by the fleeing suspect’s failure to brake when an officer suddenly stepped in front of his just-started car was not a sufficiently grave threat to justify the use of deadly force. Id., at 234.
These three cases taken together undoubtedly show that this area is one in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case. None of them squarely governs the case here; they do suggest that Brosseau’s actions fell in the “‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.’” Saucier v. Katz, supra, at 206. The cases by no means “clearly establish” that Brosseau’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Haugen also asserted pendent state-law claims and claims against the city and police department. These claims are not presently before us.
Because this case arises in the posture of a motion for summary judgment, we are required to view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, Haugen. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001).
We have no occasion in this case to reconsider our instruction in Saucier v. Katz, supra, that lower courts decide the constitutional question prior to deciding the qualified immunity question. We exercise our summary reversal procedure here simply to correct a clear misapprehension of the qualified immunity standard.
The parties point us to a number of other cases in this vein that postdate the conduct in question, i. e., Brosseau’s February 21, 1999, shooting of Haugen. See Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. Breen, 352 F. 3d 756, 763 (CA2 2003); Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F. 3d 1275, 1281-1282 (CA11 2002); Scott v. Clay County, 205 F. 3d 867, 877 (CA6 2000); McCaslin v. Wilkins, 183 F. 3d 775, 778-779 (CA8 1999); Abraham v. Raso, 183 F. 3d 279, 288-296 (CA3 1999). These decisions, of course, could not have given fair notice to Brosseau and are of no use in the clearly established inquiry.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In February 1955 petitioner was arrested in connection with a recent homicide and attempted robbery. The next morning at a probable-cause hearing, but unassisted by counsel, he pleaded guilty to counts of murder and assault with intent to rob. Six days later at his arraignment, and again unaided by counsel, he pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with first-degree murder. After being assigned counsel for trial he took the stand in his own defense and again pleaded not guilty to the indictment, asserting instead that he lacked the premeditation necessary for first-degree murder. On cross-examination, the district attorney questioned him about his prior statements at the preliminary hearing and introduced his plea of guilty for the purpose of refreshing his memory. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty and imposed a sentence of death, since commuted to life imprisonment. On direct review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, he assigned as error the admission at trial of his prior plea. The court rejected his claim by affirming the conviction.
In 1966 petitioner sought post-conviction relief from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the ground that our supervening decision in White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59, rendered his conviction void. While recognizing a “close similarity” between his case and White, that court nonetheless reaffirmed the judgment below on the ground that White was not retroactive. Petitioner comes here by petition for a writ- of certiorari. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
In White v. Maryland an accused pleaded guilty when arraigned at a preliminary hearing, and at that time had no counsel to represent him. We held that Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, was applicable, as only the aid of counsel could have enabled the accused to know all the defenses available to him and to plead intelligently. White v. Maryland is indistinguishable in principle from the present case; and we hold that it is applicable here although it was not decided until after the arraignment and trial in the instant case.
The right to counsel at the trial (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335); on appeal (Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353); and at the other “critical” stages of the criminal proceedings (Hamilton v. Alabama, supra) have all been made retroactive, since the “denial of the right must almost invariably deny a fair trial.” See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297.
Reversed.
For the distinction drawn between the right-to-counsel cases and those arising under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, see also Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for our decision is whether a refusal by an American longshoremen’s union to unload cargoes shipped from the Soviet Union is an illegal secondary boycott under § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 61 Stat. 141, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158(b)(4).
I — I
On January 9, 1980, Thomas Gleason, president of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), ordered ILA members to stop handling cargoes arriving from or destined for the Soviet Union. Gleason took this action to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. In obedience to the order, longshoremen up and down the east and gulf coasts refused to service ships carrying Russian cargoes.
Respondent Allied International, Inc. (Allied), is an American company that imports Russian wood products for resale in the United States. Allied contracts with Waterman Steamship Lines (Waterman), an American corporation operating ships of United States registry, for shipment of the wood from Leningrad to ports on the east and gulf coasts of the United States. Waterman, in turn, employs the steve-doring company of John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Inc. (Clark), to unload its ships docking in Boston. Under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement between ILA Local 799 and the Boston Shipping Association, of which Clark is a member, Clark obtains its longshoring employees through the union hiring hall.
As a result of the boycott, Allied’s shipments were disrupted completely. Ultimately, Allied was forced to renegotiate its Russian contracts, substantially reducing its purchases and jeopardizing its ability to supply its own customers. App. 24a-28a. On March 31, 1980, after union offlcals informed Allied that ILA members would continue to refuse to unload any Russian cargo, Allied brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Claiming that the boycott violated the prohibition against secondary boycotts in § 8(b)(4) of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 158(b)(4), Allied sued for damages under §303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 158, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 187, which creates a private damages remedy for the victims of secondary boycotts. At about the same time, Allied filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board under § 10(b) of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b).
Finding that Allied had not alleged a violation of §8(b) (4)(B), the District Court dismissed Allied’s complaint. 492 F. Supp. 334 (1980). The court characterized the ILA boycott as a purely political, primary boycott of Russian goods. So described, the boycott was not within the scope of § 8(b)(4).
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of Allied’s complaint and remanded for further proceedings. 640 F. 2d 1368 (1981). As an initial matter, and in agreement with the District Court, the court found that the effects of the ILA boycott were “in commerce” within the meaning of the NLRA as interpreted by a long line of decisions of this Court. The court held further that the ILA boycott, as described in Allied’s averments, was within § 8(b)(4)’s prohibition of secondary boycotts, despite its political purpose, and that resort to such behavior was not protected activity under the First Amendment.
We granted certiorari to determine the coverage of the secondary boycott provisions of the NLRA in this setting. 454 U. S. 814 (1981). We affirm.
II
Our starting point in a case of this kind must be the language of the statute. By its exact terms the secondary boycott provisions of § 8(b)(4)(B) of the NLRA would appear to be aimed precisely at the sort of activity alleged in this case. Section 8(b)(4)(B) governs activities designed to influence individuals employed by “any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce.” Certainly Allied, Waterman, and Clark were engaged “in commerce,” and Allied alleges that the effect of the ILA action was to obstruct commerce up and down the east and gulf coasts. Just as plainly, it would appear that the ILA boycott fell within § 8(b)(4)(B)’s prohibition of secondary boycotts. Allied alleges that by inducing members of the union to refuse to handle Russian cargoes, the ILA boycott was designed to force Allied, Waterman, and Clark “to cease doing business” with one another and “to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in” Russian products.
Notwithstanding the language of the statute, petitioners argue that their conduct was not “in commerce” as our decisions have interpreted that term. They argue as well that even if the ILA activity were within the jurisdictional scope of § 8(b)(4), the boycott was not the sort of secondary boycott Congress intended to proscribe. We address these arguments in turn.
A
In a line of cases beginning with Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U. S. 138 (1957), the Court has held that the “maritime operations of foreign-flag ships employing alien seamen are not in ‘commerce’ ” as this term is used in the NLRA. Thus, in Benz the Court held that picketing by an American union in support of striking foreign crew-members of a foreign-flag vessel was not governed by the Act. Relying upon the legislative history of the NLRA and the longstanding principles of comity in the treatment of foreign vessels, the Court held that the labor laws were not designed “to resolve labor disputes between nationals of other countries operating ships under foreign laws.” Id., at 143.
More recently in Windward Shipping, Ltd. v. American Radio Assn., 415 U. S. 104 (1974), and American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S.S. Assn., 419 U. S. 215 (1974), the Court again identified the limits to the jurisdictional reach of the labor laws in the context of foreign vessels. In Windward, American maritime unions picketed foreign-flag vessels to call attention to the lower wages paid to foreign seamen and to the adverse effect of these lower wages on American seamen. Finding that the picketing was designed to raise the operating costs of foreign vessels and that it had “more than a negligible impact on the ‘maritime operations’ of these foreign ships,” 415 U. S., at 114, the Court held that the union’s activity was not “in commerce” under the labor laws. Id., at 115.
Facing the identical activity by maritime unions in Mobile, the Court reached the same conclusion. The complainants in Mobile were not foreign shipowners, as in Windward, but parties feeling the secondary effects of the union’s protest— American stevedoring companies and an American shipper. The Court held that this change in complaining parties did not alter the jurisdictional reach of the Act. The Benz line of cases did not permit “a bifurcated view of the effects of a single group of pickets at a single site.” Mobile, supra, at 222. The refusal of American stevedores to cross the picket lines “was a crucial part of the mechanism by which the maritime operations of the foreign ships were to be affected.” 419 U. S., at 224.
Applying the principles developed in these cases to the circumstances here, we find that the ILA’s activity was “in commerce” and within the scope of the NLRA. Unlike the situation in every case from Benz through Mobile, the ILA’s refusal to unload Allied’s shipments in no way affected the maritime operations of foreign ships. The boycott here did not aim at altering the terms of employment of foreign crews on foreign-flag vessels. It did not seek to extend the bill of rights developed for American workers and American employers to foreign seamen and foreign shipowners. The longstanding tradition of restraint in applying the laws of this country to ships of a foreign country — a tradition that lies at the heart of Benz and every subsequent decision — therefore is irrelevant to this case. As the Court of Appeals explained, this drama was “played out by an all-American cast.” 640 F. 2d, at 1374. “[A]n American union has ordered its members not to work for an American stevedore which had contracted to service an American ship carrying goods of an American importer.” Id., at 1372. In these circumstances, the clear language of the statute needs no further explication.
B
The secondary boycott provisions in § 8(b)(4)(B) prohibit a union from inducing employees to refuse to handle goods with the object of forcing any person to cease doing business with any other person. By its terms the statutory prohibition applies to the undisputed facts of this case. The ILA has no dispute with Allied, Waterman, or Clark. It does not seek any labor objective from these employers. Its sole complaint is with the foreign and military policy of the Soviet Union.. As understandable and even commendable as the ILA’s ultimate objectives may be, the certain effect of its action is to impose a heavy burden on neutral employers. And it is just such a burden, as well as widening of industrial strife, that the secondary boycott provisions were designed to prevent. As the NLRB explained in ruling upon the Regional Director’s complaint against the ILA:
“It is difficult to imagine a situation that falls more squarely within the scope of Section 8(b)(4) than the one before us today. Here, the Union’s sole dispute is with the USSR over its invasion of Afghanistan. Allied, Waterman, and Clark have nothing to do with this dispute. Yet the Union’s actions in furtherance of its disagreement with Soviet foreign policy have brought direct economic pressure on all three parties and have resulted in a substantial cessation of business. Thus, the conduct alleged in this case is precisely the type of conduct Congress intended the National Labor Relations Act to regulate.” International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO (Allied International, Inc.), 257 N. L. R. B. 1075, 1078-1079 (1981) (footnote omitted).
Nor can it be argued that the ILA’s action was outside of the prohibition on secondary boycotts because its object was not to halt business between Allied, Clark, and Waterman with respect to Russian goods, but simply to free ILA members from the morally repugnant duty of handling Russian goods. Such an argument misses the point. Undoubtedly many secondary boycotts have the object of freeing employees from handling goods from an objectionable source. Nonetheless, when a purely secondary boycott “reasonably can be expected to threaten neutral parties with ruin or substantial loss,” NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U. S. 607, 614 (1980), the pressure on secondary parties must be viewed as at least one of the objects of the boycott or the statutory prohibition would be rendered meaningless. The union must take responsibility for the “foreseeable consequences” of its conduct. Id., at 614, n. 9; see NLRB v. Operating Engineers, 400 U. S. 297, 304-305 (1971). Here the union was fully aware of the losses it was inflicting upon Allied. It is undisputed that Allied officials endeavored to persuade ILA leaders to allow it to fulfill its Russian contracts. On the basis of the record before it, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that Allied had alleged a violation of § 8(b)(4).
Neither is it a defense to the application of § 8(b)(4) that the reason for the ILA boycott was not a labor dispute with a primary employer but a political dispute with a foreign nation. Section 8(b)(4) contains no such limitation. In the plainest of language it prohibits “forcing . . . any person to cease . . . handling . . . the products of any other producer ... or to cease doing business with any other person.” The legislative history does not indicate that political disputes should be excluded from the scope of § 8(b)(4). The prohibition was drafted broadly to protect neutral parties, “the helpless victims of quarrels that do not concern them at all.” H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1947). Despite criticism from President Truman as well as from some legislators that the secondary boycott provision was too sweeping, the Congress refused to narrow its scope. Recognizing that “[ijllegal boycotts take many forms,” id., at 24, Congress intended its prohibition to reach broadly.
We would create a large and undefinable exception to the statute if we accepted the argument that “political” boycotts are exempt from the secondary boycott provision. The distinction between labor and political objectives would be difficult to draw in many cases. In the absence of any limiting language in the statute or legislative history, we find no reason to conclude that Congress intended such a potentially expansive exception to a statutory provision purposefully drafted in broadest terms.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that it is “more rather than less objectionable that a national labor union has chosen to marshal against neutral parties the considerable powers derived by its locals and itself under the federal labor laws in aid of a random political objective far removed from what has traditionally been thought to be the realm of legitimate union activity.” 640 F. 2d, at 1378. In light of the statutory language and purpose, we decline to create a far-reaching exemption from the statutory provision for “political” secondary boycotts.
Ill
Application of § 8(b)(4) to the ILA’s activity in this case will not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the ILA and its members. We have consistently rejected the claim that secondary picketing by labor unions in violation of § 8(b)(4) is protected activity under the First Amendment. See, e. g., NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, supra, at 616; American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S.S. Assn., 419 U. S., at 229-231. Cf. NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 63 (1964). It would seem even clearer that conduct designed not to communicate but to coerce merits still less consideration under the First Amendment. The labor laws reflect a careful balancing of interests. See NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U. S., at 617 (Blackmun, J., concurring). There are many ways in which a union and its individual members may express their opposition to Russian foreign policy without infringing upon the rights of others.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The directive provided:
“In response to overwhelming demands by the rank and file members of the Union, the leadership of ILA today ordered immediate suspension in handling all Russian ships and all Russian cargoes in ports from Maine to Texas and Puerto Rico where ILA workers are employed.
“This order is effective across the board on all vessels and all cargoes. Grain and other foods as well as high valued general freight. However, any Russian ship now in process of loading or discharging at a waterfront will be worked until completion.
“The reason for this action should be apparent in light of international events that have affected relations between the U. S. and the Soviet Union.
“However, the decision by the Union leadership was made necessary by the demands of the workers.
“It is their will to refuse to work Russian vessels and Russian cargoes under present conditions in the world.
“People are upset and they refuse to continue the business as usual policy as long as the Russians insist on being international bully boys. It is a decision in which the Union leadership concurs.” App. 10a-11a.
Several lawsuits have resulted from the ILA’s Russian boycott. See Baldovin v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 626 F. 2d 445 (CA5 1980); New Orleans S.S. Assn. v. General Longshore Workers, ILA, 626 F. 2d 455 (CA5 1980), cert. granted sub nom. Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Longshoremen, 450 U. S. 1029 (1981).
Article 40 of the collective-bargaining agreement contains a broad no-strike, no-lockout clause:
“The Employers agree that there shall be no lockout or work stoppage by the Employers, and the Union agrees that there shall be no strike or work stoppage by the employees. The right of the employees not to cross a bona-fide picket line is recognized by the Employers.” App. 29a.
Section 8(b) provides in relevant part:
“It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—
“(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . . .”
Section 303 of the LMRA, 61 Stat. 158, as amended and as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 187, provides in pertinent part:
“(a) It shall be unlawful, for the purpose of this section only, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any labor organization to engage in any activity or conduct defined as an unfair labor practice in section 158(b)(4) of this title.
“(b) Whoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason [of] any violation of subsection (a) of this section may sue therefor in any district court of the United States . . . and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of the suit.”
Allied also alleged that the ILA boycott violated the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, and amounted to a tortious interference with Allied’s business relationships in violation of admiralty law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of these claims, and they are not before us now. See 640 F. 2d 1368, 1379-1382 (CA1 1981).
On March 26, 1980, the Regional Director issued an unfair labor practice complaint against the ILA and filed a request for a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court. Finding that the ILA boycott was a political dispute outside the scope of § 8(b)(4)(B), the District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction. Walsh v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 488 F. Supp. 524 (Mass. 1980). The Court of Appeals affirmed on a different theory. Walsh v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 630 F. 2d 864 (CA1 1980). It found that the denial of the Board’s earlier request for injunctive relief against the boycott in Baldovin v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., Civ. No. 80-259 (SD Tex. Feb. 15, 1980), aff’d, 626 F. 2d 445 (CA5 1980), had preclusive effect.
Allied’s suit for damages was consolidated with Walsh v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., supra. In dismissing Allied’s claim for damages, the District Court relied upon its characterization of the ILA boycott in Walsh as the law of the case. 492 F. Supp., at 336.
“ ‘The ILA had not induced a strike against Allied, Waterman, or Clark . . . ; nor does it seek to pressure those employers not to deal with one another. No picket lines have been established and no other employees have been prevented from work. . . . This is a primary boycott of Russian goods, with incidental effects upon those employers who deal in such goods. As such, the actions of the respondents may not be prohibited by §§8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(b).’” Ibid., quoting Walsh v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., 488 F. Supp., at 530-531.
In so holding, the court differed with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Baldovin v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., supra.
The NLRB reached the same conclusion in its decision upon the Regional Director’s complaint against the ILA. See n. 7, supra. The Board held that the ILA’s refusal to unload Allied’s shipments was “in commerce” and amounted to a secondary boycott in violation of §§ 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The Board issued a cease-and-desist order to Local 799 requiring it to unload Allied’s shipments. International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO (Allied International, Inc.), 257 N. L. R. B. 1075 (1981). Petitions to review the Board’s decision and order were filed by both the ILA and Allied and are now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The terms “commerce” and “affecting commerce” are defined in §§ 2(6) and (7), 29 U. S. C. §§ 152(6) and (7), as amended by the LMRA, as follows:
“(6) The term ‘commerce’ means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country.
“(7) The term ‘affecting commerce’ means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
“At first blush, it might appear too plain for discussion that the ILA’s refusal to unload Allied’s goods affects both commerce and a person engaged in commerce. Allied, Waterman and Clark are American companies and the ILA is an American union. All engage regularly in business affecting the transportation of goods among the several states. Indeed, the instant dispute arose when the ILA’s actions allegedly impeded Allied’s ability to move its wood products from Boston to other ports along the East coast, and Allied contends that the ILA continues to frustrate its ability to transport its goods into this country.” 640 F. 2d, at 1371.
See McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U. S. 10 (1963); Incres S.S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, 372 U. S. 24 (1963); Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co., 397 U. S. 195 (1970); Windward Shipping, Ltd. v. American Radio Assn., 415 U. S. 104 (1974); American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S.S. Assn., 419 U. S. 215 (1974).
Incres S.S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, supra, at 27. The Court noted in a later case that the “term ‘in commerce,’ as used in the LMRA, is obviously not self-defining.” Windward Shipping, Ltd. v. American Radio Assn., supra, at 112.
The Court adhered to a similar approach in the companion cases of McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, supra, and Incres S.S. Co. v. Maritime Workers, supra. In McCulloch the Court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not have jurisdiction to determine the union representation of a foreign crew aboard a foreign vessel. In lucres the Court held that organizational picketing by an American union seeking to organize foreign seamen on a foreign-flag vessel also was outside the Board’s jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in the NLRA over the ILA boycott is consistent with two further considerations. The ILA boycott is a national boycott affecting ports throughout the United States. Were the effects of this boycott not “in commerce,” complaining parties such as Allied could seek relief in state courts. The possibility of conflicting decisions by a multitude of state courts frustrates one of the basic purposes of the NLRA — to establish a uniform national labor policy. Moreover, the ILA boycott commenced just a few days after President Carter ordered a boycott on exports to the Soviet Union. It differed in significant respects from that embargo. See 16 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 42 (1980). On February 16, 1980, the Legal Adviser of the State Department informed the Attorney General “that the Department of State believes that the action of the ILA conflicts with significant U. S. foreign policy interests.” Supplementary Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Attachment A. Federal jurisdiction is supported by the national interests affected by the ILA boycott. See International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO (Allied International, Inc.), 257 N. L. R. B., at 1077 (“this case presents the novel situation of a labor union establishing a national boycott contravening a Federal policy”).
In Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U. S. 93, 98 (1958), the Court described the elements of a § 8(b)(4) violation as threefold: “Employees must be induced; they must be induced to engage in a strike or concerted refusal; an object must be to force or require their employer or another person to cease doing business with a third person.”
“We think it plain that the ILA was not engaged in primary activity and that the boycott against Allied’s goods was ‘calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere.’ The ILA concedes it has no dispute with Clark, Waterman or Allied, and there is no suggestion that it seeks to affect the labor relations of any of these employers. It is also plain that these ‘unoffending employers’ have been embroiled in a ‘controversy not their own’ as a result of union action which ‘reasonably could be expected’ to ‘threaten a neutral party with ruin or substantial loss.’” 640 F. 2d, at 1377.
Justice Frankfurter explained that Congress “aimed to restrict the area of industrial conflict insofar as this could be achieved by prohibiting the most obvious, widespread, and, as Congress evidently judged, dangerous practice of unions to widen that conflict: the coercion of neutral employers.” Carpenters v. NLRB, supra, at 100.
The Court frequently has described the purpose of the secondary boycott provisions as twofold: the preservation of the right of labor organizations to place pressure on employers with whom there is a primary dispute as well as the protection of neutral employers and employees from the labor disputes of others. See, e. g., NLRB v. Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675, 692 (1951) (noting the “dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own”). In the circumstances of this ease, however, only the second of these objectives has any relevance. The ILA had no dispute with Allied, Waterman, or Clark. See n. 19, supra.
“It is not necessary to find that the sole object” of the boycott was the disruption of business of neutral parties. NLRB v. Denver Building Trades Council, supra, at 689.
As both the Court of Appeals and the NLRB noted, such a result is particularly appropriate in this case since it is not even arguable that Allied was feeling the secondary effects of a primary dispute protected by the Act. See 640 F. 2d, at 1376, n. 6; 257 N. L. R. B., at 1082. We are not faced in this case with the often difficult task of characterizing union activity as either protected primary or prohibited secondary activity. See Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 667, 673-674 (1961).
Responding to the claim that there were “good secondary boycotts and bad secondary boycotts,” Senator Taft stated: “Our committee heard evidence for weeks and never succeeded in having anyone tell us any difference between different kinds of secondary boycotts. So we have so broadened the provision dealing with secondary boycotts as to make them an unfair labor practice.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4198 (1947).
In NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 63 (1964), the Court concluded that Congress did not intend to bar “all peaceful consumer picketing at secondary sites” (emphasis added).
Cf. Plumbers & Pipefitters v. Plumbers & Pipefitters, 452 U. S. 615 (1981) (rejecting view that § 801(a) of the LMRA applies only to disputes between local and parent unions concerning labor-management relations).
In Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 341 U. S. 694, 705 (1951), the Court held: “The prohibition of inducement or encouragement of secondary pressure by § 8(b)(4)(A) carries no unconstitutional abridgement of free speech. The inducement or encouragement in the instant case took the form of picketing .... [W]e recently have recognized the constitutional right of states to proscribe picketing in furtherance of comparably unlawful objectives. There is no reason why Congress may not do likewise” (footnote omitted).
Cf. NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U. S. 607, 619 (1980) (“The statutory ban in this case affects only that aspect of the union’s efforts to communicate its views that calls for an automatic response to a signal, rather than a reasoned response to an idea”) (Stevens, J., concurring); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376 (1968) (“This Court has held that when ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
When the events in this case occurred, the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, 12 U. S. C. §§ 1461-1470, provided for the chartering and regulation of federal savings and loan associations (FSLA’s). Section 1464(a) authorized the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) “under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, to provide for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation” of FSLA’s, and to issue charters, “giving primary consideration to the best practices of thrift institutions in the United States.” In this case the FHLBB and the Federal Home Loan Bank--Dallas (FHLB-D) undertook to advise about and oversee certain aspects of the operation of a thrift institution. Their conduct in this respect was challenged by a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. (FTCA), asserting that the FHLBB and FHLB-D had been negligent in carrying out their supervisory activities. The question before us is whether certain actions taken by the FHLBB and FHLB-D are within the “discretionary function” exception to the liability of the United States under the FTCA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit answered this question in the negative. We have the contrary view and reverse.
8-4
This FTCA suit arises from the supervision by federal regulators of the activities of Independent American Savings Association (IASA), a Texas-chartered and federally insured savings and loan. Respondent Thomas M. Gaubert was IASA’s chairman of the board and largest shareholder. In 1984, officials at the FHLBB sought to have IASA merge with Investex Savings, a failing Texas thrift. Because the FHLBB and FHLB-D were concerned about Gaubert’s other financial dealings, they requested that he sign a “neutralization agreement” which effectively removed him from IASA’s management. They also asked him to post a $25 million interest in real property as security for his personal guarantee that IASA’s net worth would exceed regulatory mínimums. Gaubert agreed to both conditions. Federal officials then provided regulatory and financial advice to enable IASA to consummate the merger with Investex. Throughout this period, the regulators instituted no formal action against IASA. Instead, they relied on the likelihood that IASA and Gaubert would follow their suggestions and advice.
In the spring of 1986, the regulators threatened to close IASA unless its management and board of directors were replaced; all of the directors agreed to resign. The new officers and directors, including the chief executive officer who was a former FHLB-D employee, were recommended by FHLB-D. After the new management took over, FHLB-D officials became more involved in IASA’s day-today business. They recommended the hiring of a certain consultant to advise IASA on operational and financial matters; they advised IASA concerning whether, when, and how its subsidiaries should be placed into bankruptcy; they mediated salary disputes; they reviewed the draft of a complaint to be used in litigation; they urged IASA to convert from state to federal charter; and they actively intervened when the Texas Savings and Loan Department attempted to install a supervisory agent at IASA. In each instance, FHLB-D’s advice was followed.
Although IASA was thought to be financially sound while Gaubert managed the thrift, the new directors soon announced that IASA had a substantial negative net worth. On May 20, 1987, Gaubert filed an administrative tort claim with the FHLBB, FHLB-D, and FSLIC, seeking $75 million in damages for the lost value of his shares and $25 million for the property he had forfeited under his personal guarantee. That same day, the FSLIC assumed the receivership of IASA. After Gaubert’s administrative claim was denied six months later, he filed the instant FTCA suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. His amended complaint sought $100 million in damages for the alleged • negligence of federal officials in selecting the new officers and directors and in participating in the day-today management of IASA. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the United States, finding that all of the challenged actions of the regulators fell within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, found in 28 U. S. C. § 2680(a). No. CA 3-87-2989-T (Sept. 28, 1988), App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 885 F. 2d 1284 (1989). Relying on this Court’s decision in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61 (1955), the court distinguished between “policy decisions,” which fall within the exception, and “operational actions,” which do not. 885 F. 2d, at 1287. After claiming further support for this distinction in this Court’s decisions in United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U. S. 797 (1984), and Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U. S. 531 (1988), the court explained:
“The authority of the FHLBB and FHLB-Dallas to take the actions that were taken in this case, although not guided by regulations, is unchallenged. The FHLBB and FHLB-Dallas officials did not have regulations telling them, at every turn, how to accomplish their goals for IASA; this fact, however, does not automatically render their decisions discretionary and immune from FTC A suits. Only policy oriented decisions enjoy such immunity. Thus, the FHLBB and FHLB-Dallas officials were only protected by the discretionary function exception until their actions became operational in nature and thus crossed the line established in Indian Towing.” 885 F. 2d, at 1289 (citations and footnote omitted).
In the court’s view, that line was crossed when the regulators “began to advise IASA management and participate in management decisions.” Id., at 1290. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims which concerned the merger, neutralization agreement, personal guarantee, and replacement of IASA management, but reversed the dismissal of the claims which concerned the regulators’ activities after they assumed a supervisory role in IASA’s day-to-day affairs. We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 935 (1990), and now reverse.
H-l 1 — 1
The liability of the United States under the FTC A is subject to the various exceptions contained in §2680, including the “discretionary function” exception at issue here. That exception provides that the Government is not liable for
“[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U. S. C. § 2680(a).
The exception covers only acts that are discretionary in nature, acts that “involv[e] an element of judgment or choice,” Berkovitz, supra, at 536; see also Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 34 (1953); and “it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor” that governs whether the exception applies. Varig Airlines, supra, at 813. The requirement of judgment or choice is not satisfied if a “federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow,” because “the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive.” Berkovitz, 486 U. S., at 536.
Furthermore, even “assuming the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment,” it remains to be decided “whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” Ibid. See Varig Airlines, 467 U. S., at 813. Because the purpose of the exception is to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort,” id., at 814, when properly construed, the exception “protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” Berkovitz, supra, at 537.
Where Congress has delegated the authority to an independent agency or to the Executive Branch to implement the general provisions of a regulatory statute and to issue regulations to that end, there is no doubt that planning-level decisions establishing programs are protected by the discretionary function exception, as is the promulgation of regulations by which the agencies are to carry out the programs. In addition, the actions of Government agents involving the necessary element of choice and grounded in the social, economic, or political goals of the statute and regulations are protected.
Thus, in Dalehite, the exception barred recovery for claims arising from a massive fertilizer explosion. The fertilizer had been manufactured, packaged, and prepared for export pursuant to detailed regulations as part of a comprehensive federal program aimed at increasing the food supply in occupied areas after World War II. 346 U. S., at 19-21. Not only was the cabinet-level decision to institute the fertilizer program discretionary, but so were the decisions concerning the specific requirements for manufacturing the fertilizer. Id., at 37-38. Nearly 30 years later, in Varig Airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration’s actions in formulating and implementing a “spot-check” plan for airplane inspection were protected by the discretionary function exception because of the agency’s authority to establish safety standards for airplanes. 467 U. S., at 815. Actions taken in furtherance of the program were likewise protected, even if those particular actions were negligent. Id., at 820. Most recently, in Berkovitz, we examined a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the licensing of laboratories to produce polio vaccine and the release to the public of particular drugs. 486 U. S., at 533. We found that some of the claims fell outside the exception, because the agency employees had failed to follow the specific directions contained in the applicable regulations, i. e., in those instances, there was no room for choice or judgment. Id., at 542-543. We then remanded the case for an analysis of the remaining claims in light of the applicable regulations. Id., at 544.
Under the applicable precedents, therefore, if a regulation mandates particular conduct, and the employee obeys the direction, the Government will be protected because the action will be deemed in furtherance of the policies which led to the promulgation of the regulation. See Dalehite, supra, at 36. If the employee violates the mandatory regulation, there will be no shelter from liability because there is no room for choice and the action will be contrary to policy. On the other hand, if a regulation allows the employee discretion, the very existence of the regulation creates a strong presumption that a discretionary act authorized by the regulation involves consideration of the same policies which led to the promulgation of the regulations.
Not all agencies issue comprehensive regulations, however. Some establish policy on a case-by-case basis, whether through adjudicatory proceedings or through administration of agency programs. Others promulgate regulations on some topics, but not on others. In addition, an agency may rely on internal guidelines rather than on published regulations. In any event, it will most often be true that the general aims and policies of the controlling statute will be evident from its text.
When established governmental policy, as expressed or implied by statute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a Government agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent’s acts are grounded in policy when exercising that discretion. For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must allege facts which would support a finding .that the challenged actions are not the kind of conduct that can be said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime. The focus of the inquiry is not on the agent’s subjective intent in exercising the discretion conferred by statute or regulation, but on the nature of the actions taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis.
1 — 1 I — i 1 — l
In light of our eases and their interpretation of § 2680(a), it is clear that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exception does not reach decisions made at the operational or management level of the bank involved in this case. A discretionary act is one that involves choice or judgment; there is nothing in that description that refers exclusively to policy-making or planning functions. Day-to-day management of banking affairs, like the management of other businesses, regularly requires judgment as to which of a range of permissible courses is the wisest. Discretionary conduct is not confined to the policy or planning level. “[I]t is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a given case.” Varig Airlines, supra, at 813.
In Varig Airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration had devised a system of “spot-checking” airplanes. We held that not only was this act discretionary but so too were the acts of agency employees in executing the program since they had a range of discretion to exercise in deciding how to carry out the spot-check activity. 467 U. S., at 820. Likewise in Berkovitz, although holding that some acts on the operational level were not discretionary and therefore were without the exception, we recognized that other acts, if held to be discretionary on remand, would be protected. 486 U. S., at 545.
The Court’s first use of the term “operational” in connection with the discretionary function exception occurred in Dalehite, where the Court noted that “[t]he decisions held culpable were all responsibly made at a planning rather than operational level and involved considerations more or less important to the practicability of the Government’s fertilizer program.” 346 U. S., at 42. Gaubert relies upon this statement as support for his argument that the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate analysis to the allegations of the amended complaint, but the distinction in Dalehite was merely description of the level at which the challenged conduct occurred. There was no suggestion that decisions made at an operational level could not also be based on policy.
Neither is the decision below supported by Indian Towing. There the Coast Guard had negligently failed to maintain a lighthouse by allowing the light to go out. The United States was held liable, not because the negligence occurred at the operational level but because making sure the light was operational “did not involve any permissible exercise of policy judgment.” Berkovitz, 486 U. S., at 538, n. 3. Indeed, the Government did not even claim the benefit of the exception but unsuccessfully urged that maintaining the light was a governmental function for which it could not be liable. The Court of Appeals misinterpreted Berkovitz’s reference to Indian Towing as perpetuating a nonexistent dichotomy between discretionary functions and operational activities. 885 F. 2d, at 1289. Consequently, once the court determined that some of the actions challenged by Gaubert occurred at an operational level, it concluded, incorrectly, that those actions must necessarily have been outside the scope of the discretionary function exception.
} — 1
We now inquire whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that some of the acts alleged in Gaubert’s amended complaint were not discretionary acts within the meaning of § 2680(a). The decision we review was entered on a motion to dismiss. We therefore “accept all of the factual allegations in [Gaubert’s] complaint as true” and ask whether the allegations state a claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Berkovitz, supra, at 540.
The Court of Appeals dismissed several of the allegations in the amended complaint on the ground that the challenged activities fell within the discretionary function exception. These allegations concerned “the decision to merge IASA with Investex and seek a neutralization agreement from Gaubert,” as well as “the decision to replace the IASA Board of Directors with FHLBB approved persons, and the actions taken to effectuate that decision.” 885 F. 2d, at 1290. Gaubert has not challenged this aspect of the court’s ruling. Consequently, we review only those allegations in the amended complaint which the Court of Appeals viewed as surviving the Government’s motion to dismiss.
These claims asserted that the regulators had achieved “a constant federal presence” at IASA. App. 14, ¶ 33. In describing this presence, the amended complaint alleged that the regulators “consulted] as to day-to-day affairs and operations of IASA,” id., at 14, ¶ 33a; “participated in management decisions” at IASA board meetings, id., at 14, ¶33^ “became involved in giving advice, making recommendations, urging, or directing action or procedures at IASA,” id., at 14, ¶33€; and.“advised their hand-picked directors and officers on a variety of subjects,” id., at 14, ¶34. Specifically, the complaint enumerated seven instances or kinds of objectionable official involvement. First, the regulators “arranged for the hiring for IASA of . . . consultants on operational and financial matters and asset management. ” Id., at 14, ¶ 34a. Second, the officials “urged or directed that IASA convert from a state-chartered savings and loan to a federally-chartered savings and loan in part so that it could become the exclusive government entity with power to control IASA.” Id., at 14, ¶ 34b. Third, the regulators “gave advice and made recommendations concerning whether, when, and how to place IASA subsidiaries into bankruptcy.” Id., at 15, ¶34c. Fourth, the officials “mediated salary disputes between IASA and its senior officers.” Id., at 15, ¶34d. Fifth, the regulators “reviewed a draft complaint in litigation” that IASA’s board contemplated filing and were “so actively involved in giving advice, making recommendations, and directing matters related to IASA’s litigation policy that they were able successfully to stall the Board of Directors’ ultimate decision to file the complaint until the Bank Board in Washington had reviewed, advised on, and commented on the draft.” Id., at 15, ¶346 (emphasis in original). Sixth, the regulators “actively intervened with the Texas Savings and Loan Department (IASA’s principal regulator) when the State attempted to install a supervisory agent at IASA.” Id., at 15, ¶ 34f. Finally, the FHLB-D president wrote the IASA board of directors “affirming that his agency had placed that Board of Directors into office, and describing their mutual goal to protect the FSLIC insurance fund.” Id., at 15-16, ¶ 34g. According to Gaubert, the losses he suffered were caused by the regulators’ “assumption of the duty to participate in, and to make, the day-to-day decisions at IASA and [the] negligent discharge of that assumed duty.” Id., at 17, ¶39. Moreover, he alleged that “[t]he involvement of the FHLB-Dallas in the affairs of IASA went beyond its normal regulatory activity, and the agency actually substituted its decisions for those of the directors and officers of the association.” Id., at 19, ¶55.
We first inquire whether the challenged actions were discretionary, or whether they were instead controlled by mandatory statutes or regulations. Berkovitz, supra, at 536. Although the FHLBB, which oversaw the other agencies at issue, had promulgated extensive regulations which were then in effect, see 12 CFR §§500-591 (1986), neither party has identified formal regulations governing the conduct in question. As already noted, 12 U. S. C. § 1464(a) authorizes the FHLBB to examine and regulate FSLA’s, “giving primary consideration to the best practices of thrift institutions in the United States.” Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals recognized that the agencies possessed broad statutory authority to supervise financial institutions. The relevant statutory provisions were not mandatory, but left to the judgment of the agency the decision of when to institute proceedings against a financial institution and which mechanism to use. For example, the FSLIC had authority to terminate an institution’s insured status, issue cease-and-desist orders, and suspend or remove an institution’s officers, if “in the opinion of the Corporation” such action was warranted because the institution or its officers were engaging in an “unsafe or unsound practice” in connection with the business of the institution. 12 U. S. C. §§ 1730(b)(1), (e)(1), (g)(1). The FHLBB had parallel authority to issue cease- and-desist orders and suspend or remove an institution’s officers. §§ 1464(d)(2)(A), (d)(4)(a). Although the statute enumerated specific grounds warranting an appointment by the FHLBB of a conservator or receiver, the determination of whether any of these grounds existed depended upon “the opinion of the Board.” § 1464(d)(6)(A). The agencies here were not bound to act in a particular way; the exercise of their authority involved a great “element of judgment or choice.” Berkovitz, supra, at 536.
We are unconvinced by Gaubert’s assertion that because thé agencies did not institute formal proceedings against IASA, they had no discretion to take informal actions as they did. Although the statutes provided only for formal proceedings, there is nothing in the language or structure of the statutes that prevented the regulators from invoking less formal means of supervision of financial institutions. Not only was there no statutory or regulatory mandate which compelled the regulators to act in a particular way, but there was no prohibition against the use of supervisory mechanisms not specifically set forth in statute or regulation.
This is the view of the FHLBB; for in a resolution passed in 1982, the FHLBB adopted “a formal statement of policy regarding the Bank Board’s use of supervisory actions,” which provided in part:
“In carrying out its supervisory responsibilities with respect to thrift institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (‘FSLIC’), . . . it is the policy of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board that violations of law or regulation, and unsafe or unsound practices will not be tolerated and will result in the initiation of strong supervisory and/or enforcement action by the Board. It is the Bank Board’s goal to minimize, and where possible, to prevent losses occasioned by violations or unsafe and unsound practices by taking prompt and effective supervisory action. . . .
“The Board recognizes that supervisory actions must be tailored to each case, and that such actions will vary according to the severity of the violation of law or regulation or the unsafe or unsound practice, as well as to the responsiveness and willingness of the association to take corrective action. The following guidance should be considered for all supervisory actions.
“In each case, based upon an assessment of management’s willingness to take appropriate corrective action and the potential harm to the institution if corrective action is not effected, the staff must weigh the appropriateness of available supervisory actions. If the potential harm is slight and there is a substantial probability that management will correct the situation, informal supervisory guidance and oversight is appropriate. If some potential harm to the institution or its customers is likely, a supervisory agreement should be promptly negotiated and implemented. If substantial financial harm may occur to the institution, its customers, or the FSLIC and there is substantial doubt that corrections will be made promptly, a cease-and-desist order should be sought immediately through the Office of General Counsel.” FHLBB Resolution No. 82-381 (May 26, 1982), reprinted in Brief for Respondent 4a-6a.
From this statement it is clear that the regulators had the discretion to supervise I AS A through informal means, rather than invoke statutory sanctions.
Gaubert also argues that the challenged actions fall outside the discretionary function exception because they involved the mere application of technical skills and business expertise. Brief for Respondent 33. But this is just another way of saying that the considerations involving the day-to-day management of a business concern such as IASA are so precisely formulated that decisions at the operational level never involve the exercise of discretion within the meaning of § 2680(a), a notion that we have already rejected in disapproving the rationale of the Court of Appeals’ decision. It may be that certain decisions resting on mathematical calculations, for example, involve no choice or judgment in carrying out the calculations, but the regulatory acts alleged here are not of that genre. Rather, it is plain to us that each of the challenged actions involved the exercise of choice and judgment.
We are also convinced that each of the regulatory actions in question involved the kind of policy judgment that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. The FHLBB Resolution quoted above, coupled with the relevant statutory provisions, established governmental policy which is presumed to have been furthered when the regulators exercised their discretion to choose from various courses of action in supervising IASA. Although Gaubert contends that day-to-day decisions concerning IASA’s affairs did not implicate social, economic, or political policies, even the Court of Appeals recognized that these day-to-day “operational” decisions were undertaken for policy reasons of primary concern to the regulatory agencies:
“[T]he federal regulators here had two discrete purposes in mind as they commenced day-to-day operations at IASA. First, they sought to protect the solvency of the savings and loan industry at large, and maintain the public’s confidence in that industry. Second, they sought to preserve the assets of IASA for the benefit of depositors and shareholders, of which Gaubert was one.” 885 F. 2d, at 1290.
Consequently, Gaubert’s assertion that the day-to-day involvement of the regulators with IASA is actionable because it went beyond “normal regulatory activity” is insupportable.
We find nothing in Gaubert’s amended complaint effectively alleging that the discretionary acts performed by the regulators were not entitled to the exemption. By Gaubert’s own admission, the regulators replaced IASA’s management in order to protect the FSLIC’s insurance fund; thus it cannot be disputed that this action was based on public policy considerations. The regulators’ actions in urging IASA to convert to federal charter and in intervening with the state agency were directly related to public policy considerations regarding federal oversight of the thrift industry. So were advising the hiring of a financial consultant, advising when to place IASA subsidiaries into bankruptcy, intervening on IASA’s behalf with Texas officials, advising on litigation policy, and mediating salary disputes. There are no allegations that the regulators gave anything other than the kind of advice that was within the purview of the policies behind the statutes.
There is no doubt that in advising IASA the regulators used the power of persuasion to accomplish their goals. Nevertheless, we long ago recognized that regulators have the authority to use such tactics in supervising financial institutions. In United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321 (1963), the Court considered the wide array of supervisory tools available to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve System in overseeing banks. Noting the “frequent and intensive” nature of bank examinations and the “detailed periodic reports” banks were required to submit, the Court found that “the agencies maintain virtually a day-to-day surveillance of the American banking system.” Id., at 329. Moreover, the agencies’ ability to terminate a bank’s insured status and invoke other less drastic sanctions meant that “recommendations by the agencies concerning banking practices tend to be followed by bankers without the necessity of formal compliance proceedings.” Id., at 330. These statements apply with equal force to supervision by federal agencies of the savings and loan industry. More than 30 years ago, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made similar observations in a case involving allegations that the FHLBB had improperly pressured a savings and loan’s directors to resign. See Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Callander, 256 F. 2d 410 (1958). The court noted that “[w]hen a governmental agency holds such great powers over its offspring, even to the point of appointing a conservator or receiver to replace the management ... , it is difficult to hold that an informal request, even demand, to clean house would amount to an abuse of the statutory powers and discretion of the agency.” Id., at 414-415. Consequently, neither the pervasiveness of the regulators’ presence at IASA nor the forcefulness of their recommendations is sufficient to alter the supervisory nature of the regulators’ actions.
In the end, Gaubert’s amended complaint alleges nothing more than negligence on the part of the regulators. Indeed, the two substantive counts seek relief for “negligent selection of directors and officers” and “negligent involvement in day-to-day operations.” App. 17, 18. Gaubert asserts that the discretionary function exception protects only those acts of negligence which occur in the course of establishing broad policies, rather than individual acts of negligence which occur in the course of day-to-day activities. Brief for Respondent 39. But we have already disposed of that submission. See supra, at 325. If the routine or frequent nature of a decision were sufficient to remove an otherwise discretionary act from the scope of the exception, then countless policy-based decisions by regulators exercising day-to-day supervisory authority would be actionable. This is not the rule of our cases.
V
Because from the face of the amended complaint, it is apparent that all of the challenged actions of the federal regulators involved the exercise of discretion in furtherance of public policy goals, the Court of Appeals erred in failing to find the claims barred by the discretionary function exception of the FTC A. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Subsequent to the events at issue here, and in response to the current crisis in the thrift industry, Congress enacted comprehensive changes to the statutory scheme concerning thrift regulation by means of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. FIRREA abolished the FHLBB and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), two of the agencies at issue here, and repealed the statutory provisions governing those agencies’ conduct. §§ 401, 407, 103 Stat. 354-357, 363. At the same time, it granted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the newly established Office of Thrift Supervision discretionary enforcement authority similar to that enjoyed by the former agencies. §§ 201, 301, 103 Stat. 187-188, 277-343.
Section 1464(a) stated in full:
“In order to provide thrift institutions for the deposit or investment of funds and for the extension of credit for homes and other goods and services, the Board is authorized, under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe, to provide for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation of associations to be known as Federal savings and loan associations, or Federal savings banks, and to issue charters therefor, giving primary consideration to the best practices of thrift institutions in the United States. The lending and investment authorities are conferred by this section to provide such institutions the flexibility necessary to maintain their role of providing credit for housing.”
FHLB-D was one of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB’s) established by the FHLBB pursuant to 12 U. S. C. § 1423. The FHLBB was specifically empowered to authorize the performance by FHLB personnel of “any function” of the FHLBB, except for adjudications and the promulgation of rules and regulations. 12 U. S. C. § 1437(a).
The FTCA, subject to various exceptions, waives sovereign immunity from suits for negligent or wrongful acts of Government employees.
Gaubert was required by statute to seek relief from the agencies prior to filing an FTCA suit. See 28 U. S. C. § 2675.
Citing 12 U. S. C. § 1464, the court determined that the FHLBB had broad discretionary authority to regulate the savings and loan industry. Although acknowledging that most of Gaubert’s allegations involved the regulators’ activity prior to the date of receivership, the court stressed that had the regulators invoked their statutory authority to place IASA in receivership earlier, all of the challenged actions would have fallen within the exception. The court also pointed out that had IASA and Gaubert failed to cooperate with the regulators, receivership likely would have followed sooner. In the District Court’s view, “[t]he fact that [Gaubert] cooperated when he could have refused will not give [him] a cause of action where he otherwise would have none.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a-25a. Moreover, because the decision to place IASA in receivership involved the exercise of discretion, the decision not to do so at an earlier date was necessarily discretionary as well. The court viewed the decision to supervise IASA’s activities first by informal means as an extension of the discretionary decision to postpone receivership.
There are obviously discretionary acts performed by a Government agent that are within the scope of his employment but not within the discretionary function exception because these acts cannot be said to be based on the purposes that the regulatory regime seeks to accomplish. If one of the officials involved in this case drove an automobile on a mission connected with his official duties and negligently collided with another car, the exception would not apply. Although driving requires the constant exercise of discretion, the official’s decisions in exercising that discretion can hardly be said to be grounded in regulatory policy.
As explained above, the agencies at issue here have since been abolished, although they have been replaced by agencies possessing similar discretionary authority. See n. 1, supra.
We note that in a recent opinion by Judge Garza, who also wrote the opinion at issue here, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to extend its decision in Gaubert to impose liability on the FDIC for failure to institute statutory receivership proceedings against a thrift. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Mmakat, 907 F. 2d 546, 552 (1990).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon in this case to determine whether the funds petitioners transferred to their two sons while they served as full-time, unpaid missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) are deductible as charitable contributions “to or for the use of” the Church, pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 170 (1982 ed.).
I
Petitioners, Harold and Enid Davis, and their sons, Benjamin and Cecil, are members of the Church. According to the stipulated facts, the Church operates a worldwide missionary program involving 25,000 persons each year. Most of these missionaries are young men between ages 19 and 22. If the Church determines that a candidate is qualified to become a missionary, the president of the Church sends a letter calling the candidate to missionary service in a specified geographical location. A follow-up letter from the missionary department lists the items of clothing the missionary will need, provides specific information relating to the mission, and sets forth the estimated amount of money needed to support the missionary service. This amount varies according to the location of the mission and reflects an estimate of the amount the missionary will actually need.
The missionary’s parents generally provide the necessary funds to support their son or daughter during the period of missionary service. If they are unable to do so, the Church will locate another donor from the local congregation or use money donated to the Church’s general missionary funds. The Church believes that having individual donors send the necessary funds directly to the missionary benefits the Church in several important ways. Specifically, it “fosters the Church doctrine of sacrifice and consecration in the lives of its people” as well as reducing the administrative and bookkeeping requirements which would otherwise be imposed upon the Church. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a.
After accepting the call, the missionary candidate receives priesthood ordinances to serve as an official missionary and minister of the Church. During the missionary service, the mission president (leader of the mission) controls many aspects of the missionaries’ lives, including the manner of dress and grooming. Missionaries are required to conform to a daily schedule which calls for at least 10 hours per day of actual missionary work in addition to study time, mealtime, and planning time. Mission rules forbid dating, movies, plays, certain sports, and other activities; missionaries are not allowed to take vacations or travel for personal purposes.
Missionaries receive some supervision over their use of funds. The Missionary Handbook instructs missionaries that “[t]he money you receive for your support is sacred and should be spent wisely and only for missionary work. Keep expenses at a minimum. . . . Keep a financial record of all expenditures.” App. 13. The mission presidents give similar instructions to the missionaries under their supervision. Although missionaries are not required to obtain advance approval of each expenditure they make from their personal checking account, they do submit weekly reports to their group leader listing the amount of time spent in Church service, the type of missionary work accomplished, and a report of the total expenses for the week and month to date. If a missionary begins to accumulate surplus funds, he is expected to take action to reduce the amount of donations sent to him. The mission president may alter his estimates of the amounts required each month to take into account changing circumstances.
Benjamin and Cecil Davis both applied to become missionaries. In 1979, the Church notified Benjamin by letter that he had been called to missionary service at the New York Mission. A second letter informed him of the estimated amount of money which would be needed to support his service. In 1980, Cecil Davis was notified that he had been called to missionary service at the New Zealand-Cook Island Mission. Cecil also received a second letter informing him about the mission and the amount of money he would need. Petitioners notified their bishop that they would provide the funds requested by the Church to meet their sons’ mission expenses. According to petitioners, both sons made a commitment with them to use the money only in accordance with the Church’s instructions.
Petitioners transferred to Benjamin’s personal checking account, on which he was the sole authorized signatory, $8,480.89 in 1980 and $4,135 in 1981. During 1981, petitioners transferred $1,518 to Cecil’s personal checking account, on which he was the sole authorized signatory. Benjamin and Cecil used this money primarily to pay for rent, food, transportation, and personal needs while on their missions. Benjamin also spent approximately $20 per month to purchase religious tracts and other materials used during his missionary work. Neither Benjamin nor Cecil was required to seek or sought specific approval of each expenditure made from his personal checking account. However, each week Benjamin and Cecil submitted a report of the total expenses for the week and month to date. At the end of their service, Cecil had no money remaining in his account; Benjamin had $150 which he used to purchase a camera. (Petitioners do not claim a deduction for this amount.)
In their joint tax returns filed in 1980 and 1981, petitioners claimed their sons as dependents, but did not claim a charitable contribution deduction under 26 U. S. C. § 170 for the funds sent their sons during their missionary service. On April 16, 1984, petitioners filed an amended income tax return for the years 1980 and 1981, claiming additional charitable contributions of the $3,480.89 and $4,882 paid to their sons during the missionary service. In J anuary 1985, the Internal Revenue Service disallowed the refunds. Petitioners filed a refund suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. In September 1986, petitioners filed a second set of amended returns, limiting their charitable deductions to the amounts indicated by the Church and correcting the number of dependents claimed for each year.
In District Court, petitioners and the United States both moved for summary judgment. 664 F. Supp. 468 (Idaho 1987). Petitioners argued that the payments they made to support their sons’ missionary services were charitable contributions “for the use of” the Church. Alternatively, they claimed the payments were deductible under Treas. Reg. 1.170A-l(g), 26 CFR §1.170A-l(g) (1989), which allows the deduction of “unreimbursed expenditures made incident to the rendition of services to an organization contributions to which are deductible.” The District Court ruled in favor of the United States. It rejected petitioners’ claimed deduction for unreimbursed expenditures because petitioners were not themselves performing donated services, and it held that petitioners’ payments to their sons were not “for the use of” the Church because the Church lacked sufficient possession and control of the funds. 664 F. Supp., at 471-472.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 861 F. 2d 558 (1988). The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim that the transferred funds were deductible contributions because they conferred a benefit on the Church. Id., at 561. Instead, the Court of Appeals held that contributions are deductible only when the recipient charity exercises control over the donated funds. Id., at 562. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the beneficiary of a charitable contribution must be indefinite, see Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 167 (1883), and that this requirement cannot be met when the taxpayer makes a contribution directly to the intended beneficiary. In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Church lacked actual control over the disposition of the funds and thus they were not deductible. 861F. 2d, at 562. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that § 1.170A-l(g) did not apply to petitioners, as the regulation permits a deduction for unreimbursed expenses only by the taxpayer who performed the charitable service. Id., at 564.
Because the Court of Appeals’ decision conflicted with White v. United States, 725 F. 2d 1269, 1270-1272 (CA10 1984), and Brinley v. Commissioner, 782 F. 2d 1326, 1336 (CA5 1986), we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 953 (1990), and now affirm.
II
Under § 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat. 58, as amended, 26 U. S. C. § 170 (1982 ed.), a taxpayer may claim a deduction for a charitable contribution only if the contribution is made “to or for the use of” a qualified organization. This section provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) Allowance of deduction.
“(1) General rule. —There shall be allowed as a deduction any charitable contribution (as defined in subsection (c)) payment of which is made within the taxable year. A charitable contribution shall be allowable as a deduction only if verified under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
“(c) Charitable contribution defined. — For purposes of this section, the term ‘charitable contribution’ means a contribution or gift to or for the use of—
“(2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation—
“(B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Petitioners contend that the funds they transferred to their sons’ accounts are deductible as contributions “for the use of” the Church. Alternatively, petitioners claim these funds are unreimbursed expenditures under Treasury Regulation §1.170A-l(g) and therefore are deductible as contributions “to” the Church. We first consider whether the payments at issue here are “for the use of” the Church within the meaning of § 170.
On its face, the phrase “for the use of” could support any number of different meanings. See, e. g., Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1950) (“use” defined in general usage as “to convert to one’s service”; “to employ”; or, in law, “use imports a trust” relationship). Petitioners contend that the phrase “for the use of” must be given its broadest meaning as describing “the entire array of fiduciary relationships in which one person conveys money or property to someone else to hold or employ in some manner for the benefit of a third person.” Brief for Petitioners 17. Under this reading, no legally enforceable relationship need exist between the recipient of the donated funds and the qualified donee; in effect, any intermediary may handle the funds in any way that would arguably benefit a charitable organization, regardless of how indirect or tangential the benefit might be. Petitioners also advance a second, somewhat narrower interpretation, specifically that a contribution is “for the use of” a qualified organization within the meaning of § 170 so long as the donee has “a reasonable ability to ensure that the contribution primarily serves the organization’s charitable purposes.” Id., at 26. In this case, petitioners argue that their payments at least meet this second interpretation. They point to the Church’s role in requesting the funds, setting the amount to be donated, and requiring weekly expense sheets from the missionaries. The Service, on the other hand, has historically defined “for the use of” as conveying “a similar meaning as ‘in trust for.’” See, e. g., I. T. 1867, II — 2 Cum. Bull. 155 (1923).
Although the language of § 170 would support the interpretation of either the Service or petitioners, the events leading to the enactment of the 1921 amendment adding the phrase “for the use of” to § 170 indicate that Congress had a specific meaning of “for the use of” in mind. The original version of § 170, promulgated in the War Revenue Act of 1917, ch. 63, § 1201(2), 40 Stat. 330, did not allow deductions for gifts “for the use of” a qualified donee. Rather, it allowed individuals to deduct only “[contributions or gifts . . . to corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes. ...” In interpreting this provision in the Act (and in the subsequent Revenue Act of 1918, ch. 18, §214(a)(ll), 40 Stat. 1068), the Bureau of Internal Revenue stated that “[contributions to a trust company (a corporation) in trust to invest and disburse them for a charitable purpose are not allowable deductions under [§ 170].” O. D. 669, 3 Cum. Bull. 187 (1920). In hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance on the proposed Revenue Act of 1921, representatives of charitable foundations requested an amendment making gifts to trust companies and similar donees deductible even though a trustee, rather than a charitable organization, held legal title to the funds. Hearings on Proposed Revenue Act of 1921 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 521 (1921). Testimony before the Committee indicated that numerous communities had established charitable trusts, charitable foundations, or community chests so that individuals could donate money to a trustee who held, invested, and reinvested the principal, and then turned the principal over to a committee that distributed the funds for charitable purposes. Id., at 522-526; see also H. R. Rep. No. 350, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1921) (House Comm, on Ways and Means) (amendments “would allow the deduction, under proper restriction, of contributions or gifts to a community chest fund or foundation”); S. Rep. No. 275, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1921). Responding to these concerns, Congress overruled the Bureau’s interpretation of § 170 (then § 214(a)(ll)) by adding the phrase “for the use of. . . any corporation, or community chest, fund, or foundation. . .’’to the charitable deduction provision of the Revenue Act of 1921, ch. 136, § 214(a)(ll), 42 Stat. 241. In light of these events, it can be inferred that Congress’ use of the phrase “for the use of” related to its purpose in amending § 170 of allowing taxpayers to deduct contributions made to trusts, foundations, and similar donees. An interpretation of “for the use of” as conveying a similar meaning as “in trust for” would be consistent with this goal.
It would have been quite natural for Congress to use the phrase “for the use of” to indicate its intent of allowing deductions for donations in trust, as this phrase would have suggested a trust relationship to the members of the 67th Congress. From the dawn of English common law through the present, the word “use” has been employed to refer to various forms of trust arrangements. See 1 G. Bogert, Trusts and Trustees § 2, p. 9 (1935); Black’s Law Dictionary 1382 (5th ed. 1979) (“Uses and trusts are not so much different things as different aspects of the same subject. A use regards principally the beneficial interest; a trust regards principally the nominal ownership”). In the early part of this century, the word “use” was technically employed to refer to a passive trust, but less formally used as a synonym for the word “trust.” See Bogert, swpra, at 9 (“The words ‘use’ and ‘trust’ are employed as synonyms frequently by writers and judges”); 1 R. Baldes, Perry on Trusts and Trustees §298 (7th ed. 1929) (“A use, a trust, and a confidence is one and the same thing . . .”); 1 Restatement of Trusts §§67-72 (Effect of Statute of Uses) (1935). The phrases “to the use of” or “for the use of” were frequently used in describing trust arrangements. See, e. g., United States v. Bowling, 256 U. S. 484, 486 (1921); Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U. S. 319, 321 (1921); Rand v. United States, 249 U. S. 503, 508 (1919). Given that this meaning of the word “use” precisely corresponded with Congress’ purpose for amending the statute, it appears likely that in choosing the phrase “for the use of” Congress was referring to donations made in trust or in a similar legal arrangement.
This understanding is confirmed by the Bureau’s initial interpretation of the phrase. It is significant that almost immediately following the amendment of §170, the Commissioner interpreted the phrase “for the use of” as “intended to convey a similar meaning as ‘in trust for.’” I. T. 1867, II — 2 Cum. Bull. 155 (1923). Rejecting a taxpayer’s claim that a gift to a volunteer fire company was deductible as a contribution for the use of the municipality, the Bureau noted that “[i]t does not appear that the municipality in any way has any control over the property of the incorporated volunteer fire company or that it has any voice in the manner in which such property should be used. Upon dissolution of the company, the property would not escheat to the State. A right of appropriation or enjoyment of the property of the fire company does not rest in the municipality.” Ibid. The Service adhered to its interpretation that “for the use of” conveys “a similar meaning as ‘in trust for’ ” in subsequent rulings permitting taxpayers to deduct the value of gifts irrevocably transferred to a trust for the benefit of qualified organizations. See, e. g., Rev. Rul. 55-275, 1955-1 Cum. Bull. 295; Rev. Rul. 194, 1953-2 Cum. Bull. 128; I. T. 3707, 1945 Cum. Bull. 114. Numerous judicial decisions have relied on this interpretation. See, e. g., Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 676 F. 2d 35, 40 (CA2 1982); Orr v. United States, 343 F. 2d 553, 557-558 (CA5 1965); Thomason v. Commissioner, 2 T. C. 441, 444 (1943); Danz v. Commissioner, 18 T. C. 454, 464 (1952), aff’d on other grounds, 231 F. 2d 673 (CA9 1955), cert. denied, 352 U. S. 828 (1956). Congress’ reenactment of the statute in 1954, using the same language, indicates its apparent satisfaction with the prevailing interpretation of the statute. See Cammarano v. United States, 358 U. S. 498, 510 (1959); McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U. S. 488, 492-493 (1931).
The Commissioner’s interpretation of “for the use of” thus appears to be entirely faithful to Congress’ understanding and intent in using that phrase. Moreover, the Commissioner’s interpretation is consistent with the purposes of § 170 as a whole. In enacting § 170, “Congress sought to provide tax benefits to charitable organizations, to encourage the development of private institutions that serve a useful public purpose or supplement or take the place of public institutions of the same kind.” Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 588 (1983). The Commissioner’s interpretation of “for the use of” assures that contributions will in fact foster such development because it requires contributions to be made in trust or in some similar legal arrangement. A defining characteristic of a trust arrangement is that the beneficiary has the legal power to enforce the trustee’s duty to comply with the terms of the trust. See, e. g., 3 W. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 200 (4th ed. 1988); 1 Restatement of Trusts § 200 (1935). A qualified beneficiary of a bona fide trust for charitable purposes would have both the incentive and legal authority to ensure that donated funds are properly used. If the trust contributes funds to a range of charitable organizations so that no single beneficiary could enforce its terms, the trustee’s duty can be enforced by the Attorney General under the laws of most States. See 4A W. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts §391 (4th ed. 1989); G. Bogert, Trusts and Trustees §411 (2d ed. 1977). Although the Service’s interpretation does not require that the qualified organization take actual possession of the contribution, it nevertheless reflects that the beneficiary must have significant legal rights with respect to the disposition of donated funds.
Petitioners argue that any interpretation of “for the use of” that requires a qualified donee to have the same degree of control over contributed funds as a beneficiary would have over a trust res would make “for the use of” redundant, meaning no more than “to.” We disagree. When Congress amended § 170, it was fully aware of the Bureau’s ruling that the original statutory deduction for contributions “to” a qualified organization could not be claimed for contributions made in trust for the organization. See O. D. 669, 3 Cum. Bull. 187 (1920). Accordingly, Congress amended the statute specifically to overcome this interpretation. Moreover, a contribution made in trust for a charity does not give the charity immediate possession and control, as does a donation directly to a charity. Unlike a contribution that must go “to” a qualified organization, a contribution “for the use of” a donee may go to a trustee with the discretion to select among a number of qualified donees to whom the funds may be disbursed. See, e. g., Bowman v. Commissioner, 16 B. T. A. 1157, 1163-1164 (1929). Furthermore, a taxpayer may generally claim an immediate deduction for a gift to a trustee, even though receipt of the gift by the charity is delayed. Recognizing this characteristic of gifts in trust, Congress further amended § 170 in 1964 in order to encourage donations “to” a charity, because donations “in trust for” a charity “often do not find their way into operating philanthropic endeavors for extended periods of time.” S. Rep. No. 830, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 59-60 (1964).
Although the Service’s interpretive rulings do not have the force and effect of regulations, see Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U. S. 126, 132 (1947), we give an agency’s interpretations and practices considerable weight where they involve the contemporaneous construction of a statute and where they have been in long use. See, e. g., Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315 (1933). Under the circumstances presented here, we think there is good reason to accept the Service’s interpretation of “for the use of.” The denial of deductions for donations in trust that prompted Congress to amend § 170, the accepted meaning of “use” as synonymous with the term “trust,” and the Service’s contemporaneous and longstanding construction of § 170 constitute strong evidence in favor of this interpretation.
Although the language of the statute may also bear petitioners’ interpretation, they have failed to establish that their interpretation is compelled by the statutory language. To the contrary, there is no evidence that Congress intended the phrase “for the use of” to be interpreted as referring to fiduciary relationships in general or as referring to a type of relationship that gives a qualified organization a reasonable ability to supervise the use of contributed funds. Rather, as noted above, there are strong indications that Congress intended a more specific meaning. Moreover, petitioners’ interpretations would tend to undermine the purposes of § 170 by allowing taxpayers to claim deductions for funds transferred to children or other relatives for their own personal use. Because a recipient of donated funds need not have any legal relationship with a qualified organization, the Service would face virtually insurmountable administrative difficulties in verifying that any particular expenditure benefited a qualified donee. Cf. § 170(a)(1). Although there is no suggestion whatsoever in this case that the transferred funds were used for an improper purpose, it is clear that petitioners’ interpretation would create an opportunity for tax evasion that others might be eager to exploit. See, e. g., Scialabba, Kurtzman, & Steinhart, Mail-Order Ministries Under the Section 170 Charitable Contribution Deduction: The First Amendment Restrictions, the Minister’s Burden of Proof, and the Effect of TRA ’86, 11 Campbell L. Rev. 1 (1988); Note, “I Know It When I See It”: Mail-Order Ministry Tax Fraud and the Problem of a Constitutionally Acceptable Definition of Religion, 25 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 113 (1987). We need not determine whether petitioners’ interpretation of “for the use of” would have been a permissible one had the Service decided to adopt it, though we note that the Service may retain some flexibility to adopt other interpretations in the future. It is sufficient to decide this case that the Service’s longstanding interpretation is both consistent with the statutory language and fully implements Congress’ apparent purpose in adopting it. Accordingly, we conclude that a gift or contribution is “for the use of” a qualified organization when it is held in a legally enforceable trust for the qualified organization or in a similar legal arrangement.
Viewing the record here in the light most favorable to petitioners, as we must after a grant of summary judgment for the United States, we discern no evidence that petitioners transferred funds to their sons “in trust for” the Church. It is undisputed that petitioners transferred the money to their sons’ personal bank accounts on which the sons were the sole authorized signatories. Nothing in the record indicates that petitioners took any steps normally associated with creating a trust or similar legal arrangement. Although the sons may have promised to use the money “in accordance with Church guidelines,” see App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a, they did not have any legal obligation to do so; there is no evidence that the guidelines have any legally binding effect. Nor does the record support the assertion, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20, that the Church might have a legal entitlement to the money or a civil cause of action against missionaries who used their parents’ money for purposes not approved by the Church. We conclude that, because petitioners did not donate the funds in trust for the Church, or in a similarly enforceable legal arrangement for the benefit of the Church, the funds were not donated “for the use of” the Church for purposes of § 170.
Ill
Petitioners contend, in the alternative, that their transfer of funds into their sons’ account was a contribution “to” the Church under Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-l(g), 26 CFR §1.170A-l(g) (1989), which provides:
“Contributions of services. No deduction is allowable under section 170 for a contribution of services. However, unreimbursed expenditures made incident to the rendition of services to an organization contributions to which are deductible may constitute a deductible contribution. For example, the cost of a uniform without general utility which is required to be worn in performing donated services is deductible. Similarly, out-of-pocket transportation expenses necessarily incurred in performing donated services are deductible. Reasonable expenditures for meals and lodging necessarily incurred while away from home in the course of performing donated services also are deductible. For the purposes of this paragraph, the phrase ‘while away from home! has the same meaning as that phrase is used for purposes of section 162 and the regulations thereunder.”
Petitioners assert that this regulation allows them to claim deductions for their sons’ unreimbursed expenditures incident to their sons’ contribution of services. We disagree. The plain language of § 1.170A-l(g) indicates that taxpayers may claim deductions only for expenditures made in connection with their own contributions of service to charities. Unless there is a specific statutory provision to the contrary, a taxpayer ordinarily reports his own income and takes his own deductions. See, e. g., Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U. S. 733, 739-740 (1949) (“[T]he first principle of income taxation [is] that income must be taxed to him who earns it”); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 435, 440-441 (1934) (“[T]axpayer who sustain[s] the loss is the one to whom the deduction shall be allowed”). Section 1.170A-l(g) is thus most naturally read as referring to the individual taxpayer, who may deduct only those “unreimbursed expenditures” incurred in connection with the taxpayer’s own “rendition of services to [a qualified] organization.” This interpretation of the regulation is consistent with the Revenue Ruling that was the precursor to § 1.170A-l(g). See Rev. Rul. 55-4, 1955-1 Cum. Bull. 291 (“A taxpayer who gives his services gratuitously to an association, contributions to which are deductible under [§ 170] and who incurs unreimbursed traveling expenses . . . may deduct the amount of such unreimbursed expenses in computing his net income . . .”). It would strain the language of the regulation to read it, as petitioners suggest, as allowing a deduction for expenses made incident to a third party’s rendition of services rather than to the taxpayer’s own contribution of services. Similarly, the taxpayer is clearly intended to be the subject of the other provisions in the regulation. For example, it is most natural to read the regulation as referring to a taxpayer who incurs expenditures for meals and lodging while away from his home, not while a third party is away from his home.
Petitioners’ interpretation not only strains the language of the statute, but would also allow manipulation of §1.170A-1(g) for tax evasion purposes. See Note, Does Charity Begin at Home? The Tax Status of a Payment to an Individual as a Charitable Deduction, 83 Mich, L. Rev. 1428, 1434-1435 (1985); Brinley v. Commissioner, 782 F. 2d, at 1338 (Hill, J. dissenting). For example, parents might be tempted to transfer funds to their children in amounts greater than needed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in donating services to a charity. Parents and children might attempt to claim a deduction for the same expenditure. Controlling such abuses would place a heavy administrative burden on the Service, which would not only have to monitor the taxpayer’s records, but also correlate them with the records of the third party. To the extent petitioners’ interpretation lessens the likelihood that claimed charitable contributions actually served a charitable purpose, it is inconsistent with § 170.
Petitioners cite judicial decisions that allowed taxpayers to claim deductions for the expenses of third parties who assisted the taxpayers in rendering services to qualified organizations. See, e. g., Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 676 F. 2d 35 (CA2 1982); McCollum v. Commissioner, 37 TCM 1817 (1978); Smith v. Commissioner, 60 T. C. 988 (1973). These cases are inapposite, as petitioners do not claim that they were independently rendering services to the Church, assisted by their sons.
We conclude that § 1.170A-l(g) does not allow taxpayers to claim a deduction for expenses not incurred in connection with the taxpayers’ own rendition of services to a qualified organization. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to a deduction under § 1.170A-l(g).
Petitioners also assert that because their sons are agents of. the Church authorized to receive payments to support their own missionary efforts, payments made to their sons are payments to the Church. Because this argument was neither raised before nor decided by the Court of Appeals, we decline to address it here. See, e. g., Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U. S. 346, 362 (1981); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 551-552, n. 5 (1980).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioners’ transfer of funds into their sons’ accounts was not a contribution “to or for the use of” the Church for purposes of § 170. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Commissioner has adopted the holding in Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 676 F. 2d 35, 42 (CA2 1982), that unreimbursed expenses are contributions “to” the Church rather than “for the use of” the Church. See Rev. Rui. 84-61, 1984-1 Cum. Bull. 40.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Sunal and Kulick registered under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 57 Stat. 597, 50 U. S. C. App. § 301, et seq. Each is a Jehovah’s Witness and each claimed the exemption granted by Congress to regular or duly ordained ministers of religion. § 5 (d). The local boards, after proceedings unnecessary to relate here, denied the claimed exemptions and classified these registrants as I-A. They exhausted their administrative remedies but were unable to effect a change in their classifications. Thereafter they were ordered to report for induction — Sunal on October 25, 1944, Kulick on November 9, 1944. Each reported but refused to submit to induction. Each was thereupon indicted, tried and convicted under § 11 of the Act for refusing to submit to induction. Sunal was sentenced on March 22, 1945, Kulick on May 7, 1945, each to imprisonment for a term of years. Neither appealed.
At the trial each offered evidence to show that his selective service classification was invalid. The trial courts held, however, that such evidence was inadmissible, that the classification was final and not open to attack in the criminal trial. On February 4, 1946, we decided Estep v. United States and Smith v. United States, 327 U. S. 114. These cases held on comparable facts that a registrant, who had exhausted his administrative remedies and thus obviated the rule of Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549, was entitled, when tried under § 11, to defend on the ground that his local board exceeded its jurisdiction in making the classification — for example, that it had no basis in fact. 327 U. S. pp. 122-123.
It is plain, therefore, that the trial courts erred in denying Sunal and Kulick the defense which they tendered. Shortly after the Estep and Smith cases were decided, petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed on behalf of Sunal and Kulick. In each case it was held that habeas corpus was an available remedy. In Sunal’s case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that there was a basis in fact for the classification and affirmed a judgment discharging the writ. 157 F. 2d 165. In Kulick’s case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a District Court holding that there was evidence to support the classification, 66 F. Supp. 183, and ruled, without examining the evidence, that since Kulick had been deprived of the defense he should be discharged from custody without prejudice to further prosecution. 157 F. 2d 811. The cases are here on petitions for writs of certiorari, which we granted because of the importance of the questions presented.
The normal and customary method of correcting errors of the trial is by appeal. Appeals could have been taken in these cases, but they were not. It cannot be said that absence of counsel made the appeals unavailable as a practical matter. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 467. Defendants had counsel. Nor was there any other barrier to the perfection of their appeals. Cf. Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U. S. 255. Moreover, this is not a situation where the facts relied on were dehors the record and therefore not open to consideration and review on appeal. See Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 104; United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220, 221. And see Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 274-275. The error was of record in each case. It is said, however, that the failure to appeal was excusable, since under the decisions as they then stood — March 22, 1945, and May 7, 1945— the lower courts had consistently ruled that the selective service classification could not be attacked in a prosecution under § 11. See Estep v. United States, supra, p. 123, n. 15. It is also pointed out that on April 30, 1945, we had denied certiorari in a case which sought to raise the same point, and that Estep v. United States, supra, and Smith v. United States, supra, were brought here and decided after Sunal’s and Kulick’s time for appeal had passed. The argument is that since the state of the law made the appeals seem futile, it would be unfair to those registrants to conclude them by their failure to appeal.
We put to one side comparable problems respecting the use of habeas corpus in the federal courts to challenge convictions obtained in the state courts. See New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 104-105; United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U. S. 13; Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, 116-117. So far as convictions obtained in the federal courts are concerned, the general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed to do service for an appeal. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, supra, p. 274. There have been, however, some exceptions. That is to say, the writ has at times been entertained either without consideration of the adequacy of relief by the appellate route or where an appeal would have afforded an adequate remedy. Illustrative are those instances where the conviction was under a federal statute alleged to be unconstitutional, where there was a conviction by a federal court whose jurisdiction over the person or the offense was challenged, where the trial or sentence by a federal court violated specific constitutional guaranties. It is plain, however, that the writ is not designed for collateral review of errors of law committed by the trial court — the existence of any evidence to support the conviction, irregularities in the grand jury procedure, departure from a statutory grant of time in which to prepare for trial, and other errors in trial procedure which do not cross the jurisdictional line. Cf. Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255.
Yet the latter rule is not an absolute one; and the situations in which habeas corpus has done service for an appeal are the exceptions. Thus where the jurisdiction of the federal court which tried the case is challenged or where the constitutionality of the federal statute under which conviction was had is attacked, habeas corpus is increasingly denied in case an appellate procedure was available for correction of the error. Yet, on the other hand, where the error was flagrant and there was no other remedy available for its correction, relief by habeas corpus has sometimes been granted. As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 27, the rule which requires resort to appellate procedure for the correction of errors “is not one defining power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise of power.” That rule is, therefore, “not so inflexible that it may not yield to exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.” Id. p. 27. That case was deemed to involve “exceptional circumstances” by reason of the fact that it indicated “a conflict between state and federal authorities on a question of law involving concerns of large importance affecting their respective jurisdictions.” Id. p. 27. The Court accordingly entertained the writ to examine into the jurisdiction of the court to render the judgment of conviction.
The same course was followed in Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, where petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt for committing perjury. The Court did not require the petitioner to pursue any appellate route but issued an original writ and discharged him, holding that perjury without more was not punishable as a contempt. That situation was deemed exceptional in view of “the nature of the case, of the relation which the question which it involves bears generally to the power and duty of courts in the performance of their functions, of the dangerous effect on the liberty of the citizen when called upon as a witness in a court which might result if the erroneous doctrine upon which the order under review was based were not promptly corrected ....’’ Id. p. 384. Cf. Craig v. Hecht, supra.
The Circuit Courts of Appeals thought that the facts of the present cases likewise presented exceptional circumstances which justified resort to habeas corpus though no appeals were taken. In their view the failure to appeal was excusable, since relief by that route seemed quite futile.
But denial of certiorari by this Court in the earlier case imported no expression of opinion on the merits. House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 48, and cases cited. The same chief counsel represented the defendants in the present cases and those in the Estep and Smith cases. At the time these defendants were convicted the Estep and Smith cases were pending before the appellate courts. The petition in the Smith case was, indeed, filed here about two weeks before Kulick’s conviction and about a month after Sunal’s conviction. The same road was open to Sunal and Kulick as the one Smith and Estep took. Why the legal strategy counseled taking appeals in the Smith and Estep cases and not in these we do not know. Perhaps it was based on the facts of these two cases. For the question of law had not been decided by the Court; and counsel was pressing for a decision here. The case, therefore, is not one where the law was changed after the time for appeal had expired. Cf. Warring v. Colpoys, 122 F. 2d 642. It is rather a situation where at the time of the convictions the definitive ruling on the question of law had not crystallized. Of course, if Sunal and Kulick had pursued the appellate course and failed, their cases would be quite different. But since they chose not to pursue the remedy which they had, we do not think they should now be allowed to justify their failure by saying they deemed any appeal futile.
We are dealing here with a problem which has radiations far beyond the present cases. The courts which tried the defendants had jurisdiction over their persons and over the offense. They committed an error of law in excluding the defense which was tendered. That error did not go to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Congress, moreover, has provided a regular, orderly method for correction of all such errors by granting an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and by vesting us with certiorari jurisdiction. It is not uncommon after a trial is ended and the time for appeal has passed to discover that a shift in the law or the impact of a new decision has given increased relevance to a point made at the trial but not pursued on appeal. Cf. Warring v. Colpoys, supra. If in such circumstances, habeas corpus could be used to correct the error, the writ would become a delayed motion for a new trial, renewed from time to time as the legal climate changed. Error which was not deemed sufficiently adequate to warrant an appeal would acquire new implications. Every error is potentially reversible error; and many rulings of the trial court spell the difference between conviction and acquittal. If defendants who accept the judgment of conviction and do not appeal can later renew their attack on the judgment by habeas corpus, litigation in these criminal cases will be interminable. Wise judicial administration of the federal courts counsels against such course, at least where the error does not trench on any constitutional rights of defendants nor involve the jurisdiction of the trial court.
An endeavor is made to magnify the error in these trials to constitutional proportions by asserting that the refusal of the proffered evidence robbed the trial of vitality by depriving defendants of their only real defense. But as much might be said of many rulings during a criminal trial. Defendants received throughout an opportunity to be heard and enjoyed all procedural guaranties granted by the Constitution. Error in ruling on the question of law did not infect the trial with lack of procedural due process. As stated by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490, 494, “When a hearing is allowed but there is error in conducting it or in limiting its scope, the remedy is by appeal. When an opportunity to be heard is denied altogether, the ensuing mandate of the court is void, and the prisoner confined thereunder may have recourse to habeas corpus to put an end to the restraint.”
It is said that the contrary position was indicated by the following statement in Estep v. United States, supra, pp. 124-125,
“But if we now hold that a registrant could not defend at his trial on the ground that the local board had no jurisdiction in the premises, it would seem that the way would then be open to him to challenge the jurisdiction of the local board after conviction by habeas corpus. The court would then be sending men to jail today when it was apparent that they would have to be released tomorrow.”
We were there examining the alternative pressed on us— that the classification could not be attacked at the trial. If we denied the defense, we concluded that habeas corpus would lie the moment after conviction.' For one convicted of violating an illegal order of a selective service board, like one convicted of violating an unconstitutional statute, should be afforded an opportunity at some stage to establish the fact. And where no other opportunity existed, habeas corpus would be the appropriate remedy. But that was an additional reason for allowing the defense in the criminal trial, not a statement that defendants prosecuted under § 11 had an alternative of'defending at the trial on the basis of an illegal classification or resorting to habeas corpus after conviction. These registrants had available a method of obtaining the right to defend their prosecutions under § 11 on that ground. They did not use it. And since we find no exceptional circumstances which excuse their failure, habeas corpus may not now be used as a substitute.
Accordingly Sunal v. Large will be affirmed and Alexander v. Kulick will be reversed.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Burton concurs in the result.
Sunal in 1942 was classified as a conscientious objector and ordered to report for work of national importance. On his failure to do so he was convicted under the Act and a fine and term of imprisonment were imposed. The events with which we are now concerned relate to his classification after his discharge from prison.
The Smith case was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals on April 4, 1945, 148 F. 2d 288; the petition for certiorari was filed April 25, 1945, and granted May 28, 1945. 325 U. S. 846. The Estep case was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals on July 6, 1945, 150 F. 2d 768; the petition for certiorari was filed August 3, 1945, and granted October 8, 1945. 326 U. S. 703.
We therefore lay to one side cases such as Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304, and Eagles v. United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, where the order of the agency under which petitioner was detained was not subject to judicial review.
Rinko v. United States, 325 U. S. 851. We also denied certiorari in Flakowicz v. United States, 325 U. S. 851; but it, like Falbo v. United States, supra, was one where the administrative remedies had not been exhausted, there being an additional examination which the registrant had not taken. See Gibson v. United States, 329 U. S. 338.
See note 2, supra.
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 371; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731; Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 488; Matter of Gregory, 219 U. S. 210; Baender v. Barnett, 255 U. S. 224.
Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19.
Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (double jeopardy); In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274 (same); In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (same); Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (self-incrimination); Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417 (requirement of indictment); Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1 (same); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 (jury trial); Johnson v. Zerbst, supra (right to counsel); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275 (same); Waley v. Johnston, supra (coerced plea of guilty).
Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442.
Ex parte Harding, 120 U. S. 782; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U. S. 146.
McMicking v. Schields, 238 U. S. 99. The rule is even more strict where habeas corpus is sought before trial. See Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245.
In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420.
Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20 (removal case). In removal cases habeas corpus is available not to weigh the evidence to support the accusation but to determine whether there is an entire lack of evidence to support it. Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 84. It is also available to determine whether removal to the district in question violates a constitutional right of the accused, Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, or whether the court before which it is proposed to take and try the accused has jurisdiction over the offense. Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224. But habeas corpus will not be entertained to pass on the question of jurisdiction where it involves consideration of many facts and seriously controverted questions of law. Rodman v. Pothier; 264 U. S. 399; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219.
The remedy of habeas corpus extends to a ease where a person “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or of a law ... of the United States ...” R. S. § 753,28 U. S. C. § 453.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in the Hague, is a tribunal established pursuant to the United Nations Charter to adjudicate disputes between member states. In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31) (Avena), that tribunal considered a claim brought by Mexico against the United States. The ICJ held that, based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named Mexican nation als were entitled to review and reconsideration of their state-court convictions and sentences in the United States. This was so regardless of any forfeiture of the right to raise Vienna Convention claims because of a failure to comply with generally applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions.
In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U. S. 331 (2006) — issued after Avena but involving individuals who were not named in the Avena judgment — we held that, contrary to the ICJ's determination, the Vienna Convention did not preclude the application of state default rules. After the Avena decision, President George W. Bush determined, through a Memorandum for the Attorney General (Feb. 28, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 187a (Memorandum or President’s Memorandum), that the United States would “discharge its international obligations” under Avena “by having State courts give effect to the decision.”
Petitioner José Ernesto Medellin, who had been convicted and sentenced in Texas state court for murder, is one of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the Avena decision. Relying on the ICJ’s decision and the President's Memorandum, Medellin filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin’s application as an abuse of the writ under state law, given Medellin’s failure to raise his Vienna Convention claim in a timely manner under state law. We granted certiorari to decide two questions. First, is the ICJ’s judgment in Avena directly enforceable as domestic law in a state court in the United States? Second, does the President’s Memorandum independently require the States to provide review and reconsideration of the claims of the 51 Mexican nationals named in Avena without regard to state procedural default rules? We conclude that neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. We therefore affirm the decision below.
I
A
In 1969, the United States, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention), Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 77, T. I. A. S. No. 6820, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention (Optional Protocol or Protocol), Apr. 24,1963, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 325, T. I. A. S. No. 6820. The preamble to the Convention provides that its purpose is to “contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations.” 21 U. S. T., at 79; Sanchez-Llamas, supra, at 337. Toward that end, Article 36 of the Convention was drafted to “facilitat[e] the exercise of consular functions.” Art. 36(1), 21 U. S. T., at 100. It provides that if a person detained by a foreign country “so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State” of such detention, and “inform the [detainee] of his righ[t]” to request assistance from the consul of his own state. Art. 36(l)(b), id., at 101.
The Optional Protocol provides a venue for the resolution of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention. Art. I, 21 U. S. T., at 326. Under the Protocol, such disputes “shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” and “may accordingly be brought before the [ICJ]... by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.” Ibid.
The IC J is “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.” United Nations Charter, Art. 92, 59 Stat. 1051, T. S. No. 993 (1945). It was established in 1945 pursuant to the United Nations Charter. The ICJ Statute — annexed to the U. N. Charter — provides the organizational framework and governing procedures for cases brought before the ICJ. Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute), 59 Stat. 1055, T. S. No. 993 (1945).
Under Article 94(1) of the U. N. Charter, “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the [ICJ] in any case to which it is a party.” 59 Stat. 1051. The ICJ’s jurisdiction in any particular case, however, is dependent upon the consent of the parties. See Art. 36, id., at 1060. The ICJ Statute delineates two ways in which a nation may consent to ICJ jurisdiction: It may consent generally to jurisdiction on any question arising under a treaty or general international law, Art. 36(2), ibid., or it may consent specifically to jurisdiction over a particular category of cases or disputes pursuant to a separate treaty, Art. 36(1), ibid. The United States originally consented to the general jurisdiction of the ICJ when it filed a declaration recognizing compulsory jurisdiction under Art. 36(2) in 1946. The United States withdrew from general ICJ jurisdiction in 1985. See U. S. Dept, of State Letter and Statement Concerning Termination of Acceptance of ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction (Oct. 7, 1985), reprinted in 24 I. L. M. 1742 (1985). By ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, the United States consented to the specific jurisdiction of the ICJ with respect to claims arising out of the Vienna Convention. On March 7, 2005, subsequent to the ICJ’s judgment in Avena, the United States gave notice of withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention. Letter from Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, to Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
B
Petitioner José Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national, has lived in the United States since preschool. A member of the “Black and Whites” gang, Medellin was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas for the gang rape and brutal murders of two Houston teenagers.
On June 24,1993,14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena were walking home when they encountered Medellin and several fellow gang members. Medellin attempted to engage Elizabeth in conversation. When she tried to run, petitioner threw her to the ground. Jennifer was grabbed by other gang members when she, in response to her friend’s cries, ran back to help. The gang members raped both girls for over an hour. Then, to prevent their victims from identifying them, Medellin and his fellow gang members murdered the girls and discarded their bodies in a wooded area. Medellin was personally responsible for strangling at least one of the girls with her own shoelace.
Medellin was arrested at approximately 4 a.m. on June 29, 1993. A few hours later, between 5:54 and 7:23 a.m., Medellin was given Miranda warnings; he then signed a written waiver and gave a detailed written confession. App. to Brief for Respondent 32-36. Local law enforcement officers did not, however, inform Medellin of his Vienna Convention right to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention. Brief for Petitioner 6-7. Medellin was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Medellìn v. State, No. 71,997 (Tex. Crim. App., May 16, 1997), App. to Brief for Respondent 2-31.
Medellin first raised his Vienna Convention claim in his first application for state postconviction relief. The state trial court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted because Medellin had failed to raise it at trial or on direct review. The trial court also rejected the Vienna Convention claim on the merits, finding that Medellin had “fail[ed] to show that any non-notification of the Mexican authorities impacted on the validity of his conviction or punishment.” Id., at 62. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Id., at 64-65.
Medellin then filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court. The District Court denied relief, holding that Medellin’s Vienna Convention claim was procedurally defaulted and that Medellin had failed to show prejudice arising from the Vienna Convention violation. See Medellin v. Cockrell, Civ. Action No. H-01-4078 (SD Tex., June 26, 2003), App. to Brief for Respondent 66, 86-92.
While Medellin’s application for a certificate of appealability was pending in the Fifth Circuit, the ICJ issued its decision in Avena. The ICJ held that the United States had violated Article 36(l)(b) of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform the 51 named Mexican nationals, including Medellin, of their Vienna Convention rights. 2004 I. C. J., at 53-55. In the ICJ’s determination, the United States was obligated “to provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the [affected] Mexican nationals.” Id., at 72, ¶ 153(9). The ICJ indicated that such review was required without regard to state procedural default rules. Id., at 56-57.
The Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Medellín v. Dretke, 371 F. 3d 270, 281 (2004). The court concluded that the Vienna Convention did not confer individually enforceable rights. Id., at 280. The court further ruled that it was in any event bound by this Court’s decision in Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 375 (1998) (per curiam), which held that Vienna Convention claims are subject to procedural default rules, rather than by the ICJ’s contrary decision in Avena. 371 F. 3d, at 280.
This Court granted certiorari. Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U. S. 660, 661 (2005) (per curiam) (Medellín I). Before we heard oral argument, however, President George W. Bush issued his Memorandum for the United States Attorney General, providing:
“I have determined, pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 187a.
Medellin, relying on the President’s Memorandum and the ICJ’s decision in Avena, filed a second application for habeas relief in state court. Ex parte Medellín, 223 S. W. 3d 315, 322-323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Because the state-court proceedings might have provided Medellin with the review and reconsideration he requested, and because his claim for federal relief might otherwise have been barred, we dismissed his petition for certiorari as improvidently granted. Medellín I, supra, at 664.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently dismissed Medellin’s second state habeas application as an abuse of the writ. 223 S. W. 3d, at 352. In the court’s view, neither the Avena decision nor the President’s Memorandum was “binding federal law” that could displace the State’s limitations on the filing of successive habeas applications. 223 S. W. 3d, at 352. We again granted certiorari. 550 U. S. 917 (2007).
II
Medellin first contends that the ICJ’s judgment in Avena constitutes a “binding” obligation on the state and federal courts of the United States. He argues that “by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, the treaties requiring compliance with the Avena judgment are already the ‘Law of the Land’ by which all state and federal courts in this country are ‘bound.’” Reply Brief for Petitioner 1. Accordingly, Medellin argues, Avena is a binding federal rule of decision that pre-empts contrary state limitations on successive habeas petitions.
No one disputes that the Avena decision — a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to IC J jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes — constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States. But not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts. The question we confront here is whether the Avena judgment has automatic domestic legal effect such that the judgment of its own force applies in state and federal courts.
This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that — while they constitute international law commitments — do not by. themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Perckeman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is “equivalent to an act of the legislature,” and hence self-executing, when it “operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, “[treaty] stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect.” Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). In sum, while treaties “may comprise international commitments... they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).
A treaty is, of course, “primarily a compact between independent nations.” Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 598 (1884). It ordinarily “depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it.” Ibid.; see also The Federalist No. 33, p. 207 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (comparing laws that individuals are “bound to observe” as “the supreme law of the land” with “a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties”). “If these [interests] fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations.... It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.” Head Money Cases, supra, at 598. Only “[i]f the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require no legislation to make them operative, [will] they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment.” Whitney, supra, at 194.
Medellin and his amici nonetheless contend that the Optional Protocol, U. N. Charter, and ICJ Statute supply the “relevant obligation” to give the Avena judgment binding effect in the domestic courts of the United States. Reply Brief for Petitioner 5-6. Because none of these treaty sources creates binding federal law in the absence of implementing legislation, and because it is uncontested that no such legislation exists, we conclude that the Avena judgment is not automatically binding domestic law.
A
The interpretation of a treaty, like the interpretation of a statute, begins with its text. Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 396-397 (1985). Because a treaty ratified by the United States is “an agreement among sovereign powers,” we have also considered as “aids to its interpretation” the negotiation and drafting history of the treaty as well as “the postratification understanding” of signatory nations. Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U. S. 217, 226 (1996); see also United States v. Stuart, 489 U. S. 353, 365-366 (1989); Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 431-432 (1943).
As a signatory to the Optional Protocol, the United States agreed to submit disputes arising out of the Vienna Convention to the ICJ. The Protocol provides: “Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” Art. I, 21 U. S. T., at 326. Of course, submitting to jurisdiction and agreeing to be bound are two different things. A party could, for example, agree to compulsory nonbinding arbitration. Such an agreement would require the party to appear before the arbitral tribunal without obligating the party to treat the tribunal’s decision as binding. See, e. g., North American Free Trade Agreement, U. S.-Can.-Mex., Art. 2018(1), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I. L. M. 605, 697 (1993) (“On receipt of the final report of [the arbitral panel requested by a Party to the agreement], the disputing Parties shall agree on the resolution of the dispute, which normally shall conform with the determinations and recommendations of the panel”).
The most natural reading of the Optional Protocol is as a bare grant of jurisdiction. It provides only that “[disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” and “may accordingly be brought before the [ICJ]... by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.” Art. I, 21 U. S. T., at 326. The Protocol says nothing about the effect of an ICJ decision and does not itself commit signatories to comply with an ICJ judgment. The Protocol is similarly silent as to any enforcement mechanism.
The obligation on the part of signatory nations to comply with ICJ judgments derives not from the Optional Protocol, but rather from Article 94 of the U. N. Charter — the provision that specifically addresses the effect of ICJ decisions. Article 94(1) provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the [ICJ] in any case to which it is a party.” 59 Stat. 1051 (emphasis added). The Executive Branch contends that the phrase “undertakes to comply” is not “an acknowledgement that an ICJ decision will have immediate legal effect in the courts of U. N. members,” but rather “a commitment on the part of U. N. members to take future action through their political branches to comply with an ICJ decision.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Medellín I, O. T. 2004, No. 04-5928, p. 34.
We agree with this construction of Article 94. The Article is not a directive to domestic courts. It does not provide that the United States “shall” or “must” comply with an ICJ decision, nor indicate that the Senate that ratified the U. N. Charter intended to vest ICJ decisions with immediate legal effect in domestic courts. Instead, “[t]he words of Article 94... call upon governments to take certain action.” Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F. 2d 929, 938 (CADC 1988) (quoting Diggs v. Richardson, 555 F. 2d 848, 851 (CADC 1976); internal quotation marks omitted). See also Foster, 2 Pet., at 314, 315 (holding a treaty non-self-executing because its text— “ ‘all... grants of land... shall be ratified and confirmed’ ”— did not “act directly on the grants” but rather “pledge[d] the faith of the United States to pass acts which shall ratify and confirm them”). In other words, the U. N. Charter reads like “a compact between independent nations” that “depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it.” Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., at 598.
The remainder of Article 94 confirms that the U. N. Charter does not contemplate the automatic enforceability of ICJ decisions in domestic courts. Article 94(2) — the enforcement provision — provides the sole remedy for noncompliance: referral to the United Nations Security Council by an aggrieved state. 59 Stat. 1051.
The U. N. Charter’s provision of an express diplomatic— that is, nonjudicial — remedy is itself evidence that ICJ judgments were not meant to be enforceable in domestic courts. See Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U. S., at 347. And even this “quintessentially international remed[y],” id., at 355, is not absolute. First, the Security Council must “dee[m] necessary” the issuance of a recommendation or measure to effectuate the judgment. Art. 94(2), 59 Stat. 1051. Second, as the President and Senate were undoubtedly aware in subscribing to the U. N. Charter and Optional Protocol, the United States retained the unqualified right to exercise its veto of any Security Council resolution.
This was the understanding of the Executive Branch when the President agreed to the U. N. Charter and the declaration accepting general compulsory ICJ jurisdiction. See, e. g., The Charter of the United Nations for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 124-125 (1945) (“[I]f a state fails to perform its obligations under a judgment of the [ICJ], the other party may have recourse to the Security Council”); id., at 286 (statement of Leo Pasvolsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for International Organizations and Security Affairs) (“[W]hen the Court has rendered a judgment and one of the parties refuses to accept it, then the dispute becomes political rather than legal. It is as a political dispute that the matter is referred to the Security Council”); A Resolution Proposing Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice: Hearings on S. Res. 196 before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 142 (1946) (statement of Charles Fahy, State Dept. Legal Adviser) (while parties that accept ICJ jurisdiction have “a moral obligation” to comply with ICJ decisions, Article 94(2) provides the exclusive means of enforcement).
If ICJ judgments were instead regarded as automatically enforceable domestic law, they would be immediately and directly binding on state and federal courts pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Mexico or the ICJ would have no need to proceed to the Security Council to enforce the judgment in this case. Noncompliance with an ICJ judgment through exercise of the Security Council veto — always regarded as an option by the Executive and ratifying Senate during and after consideration of the U. N. Charter, Optional Protocol, and ICJ Statute — would no longer be a viable alternative.
There would be nothing to veto. In light of the U. N. Charter’s remedial scheme, there is no reason to believe that the President and Senate signed up for such a result.
In sum, Medellin’s view that ICJ decisions are automatically enforceable as domestic law is fatally undermined by the enforcement structure established by Article 94. His construction would eliminate the option of noncompliance contemplated by Article 94(2), undermining the ability of the political branches to determine whether and how to comply with an ICJ judgment. Those sensitive foreign policy decisions would instead be transferred to state and federal courts charged with applying an ICJ judgment directly as domestic law. And those courts would not be empowered to decide whether to comply with the judgment — again, always regarded as an option by the political branches — any more than courts may consider whether to comply with any other species of domestic law. This result would be particularly anomalous in light of the principle that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our Government is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative — ‘the political’ — Departments.” Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297, 302 (1918).
The ICJ Statute, incorporated into the U. N. Charter, provides further evidence that the ICJ’s judgment in Avena does not automatically constitute federal law judicially enforceable in United States courts. Art. 59, 59 Stat. 1062. To begin with, the ICJ’s “principal purpose” is said to be to “arbitrate particular disputes between national governments.” Sanchez-Llamas, supra, at 355 (citing 59 Stat. 1055). Accordingly, the ICJ can hear disputes only between nations, not individuals. Art. 34(1), id., at 1059 (“Only states [i. e., countries] may be parties in cases before the [ICJ]”). More important, Article 59 of the statute provides that “[t]he decision of the [ICJ] has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” Id., at 1062 (emphasis added). The dissent does not explain how Medellin, an individual, can be a party to the ICJ proceeding.
Medellin argues that because the Avena case involves him, it is clear that he — and the 50 other Mexican nationals named in the Avena decision — should be regarded as parties to the Avena judgment. Brief for Petitioner 21-22. But cases before the ICJ are often precipitated by disputes involving particular persons or entities, disputes that a nation elects to take up as its own. See, e. g., Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I. C. J. 3 (Judgment of Feb. 5) (claim brought by Belgium on behalf of Belgian nationals and shareholders); Case Concerning the Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (Fr. v. Egypt), 1950 I. C. J. 59 (Order of Mar. 29) (claim brought by France on behalf of French nationals and protected persons in Egypt); Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (U. K. v. Iran), 1952 I. C. J. 93, 112 (Judgment of July 22) (claim brought by the United Kingdom on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company). That has never been understood to alter the express and established rules that only nation-states may be parties before the ICJ, Art. 34, 59 Stat. 1059, and — contrary to the position of the dissent, post, at 559 — that ICJ judgments are binding only between those parties, Art. 59, 59 Stat. 1062.
It is, moreover, well settled that the United States’ interpretation of a treaty “is entitled to great weight.” Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176, 184-185 (1982); see also El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 168 (1999). The Executive Branch has unfailingly adhered to its view that the relevant treaties do not create domestically enforceable federal law. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4, 27-29.
The pertinent international agreements, therefore, do not provide for implementation of ICJ judgments through direct enforcement in domestic courts, and “where a treaty does not provide a particular remedy, either expressly or implicitly, it is not for the federal courts to impose one on the States through lawmaking of their own.” Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U. S., at 347.
B
The dissent faults our analysis because it “looks for the wrong thing (explicit textual expression about self-execution) using the wrong standard (clarity) in the wrong place (the treaty language).” Post, at 562. Given our obligation to interpret treaty provisions to determine whether they are self-executing, we have to confess that we do think it rather important to look to the treaty language to see what it has to say about the issue. That is after all what the Senate looks to in deciding whether to approve the treaty.
The interpretive approach employed by the Court today— resorting to the text — is hardly novel. In two early cases involving an 1819 land-grant treaty between Spain and the United States, Chief Justice Marshall found the language of the treaty dispositive. In Foster, after distinguishing between self-executing treaties (those “equivalent to an act of the legislature”) and non-self-executing treaties (those “the legislature must execute”), Chief Justice Marshall held that the 1819 treaty was non-self-executing. 2 Pet., at 314. Four years later, the Supreme Court considered another claim under the same treaty, but concluded that the treaty was self-executing. See Percheman, 7 Pet., at 87. The reason was not because the treaty was sometimes self-executing and sometimes not, but because “the language of” the Spanish translation (brought to the Court's attention for the first time) indicated the parties' intent to ratify and confirm the land grant “by force of the instrument itself.” Id., at 89.
As against this time-honored textual approach, the dissent proposes a multifactor, judgment-by-judgment analysis that would “jettiso[n] relative predictability for the open-ended rough-and-tumble of factors.” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U. S. 527, 547 (1995).
The dissent’s novel approach to deciding which (or, more accurately, when) treaties give rise to directly enforceable federal law is arrestingly indeterminate. Treaty language is barely probative. Post, at 549 (“[T]he absence or presence of language in a treaty about a provision’s self-execution proves nothing at all”). Determining whether treaties themselves create federal law is sometimes committed to the political branches and sometimes to the judiciary. Post, at 549-550. Of those committed to the judiciary, the courts pick and choose which shall be binding United States law— trumping not only state but other federal law as well — and which shall not. Post, at 550-562. They do this on the basis of a multifactor, “context-specific” inquiry. Post, at 549. Even then, the same treaty sometimes gives rise to United States law and sometimes does not, again depending on an ad hoc judicial assessment. Post, at 550-562.
Our Framers established a careful set of procedures that must be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution — vesting that decision in the political branches, subject to checks and balances. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 7. They also recognized that treaties could create federal law, but again through the political branches, with the President making the treaty and the Senate approving it. Art. II, § 2. The dissent’s understanding of the treaty route, depending on an ad hoc judgment of the judiciary without looking to the treaty language — the very language negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate — cannot readily be ascribed to those same Framers.
The dissent’s approach risks the United States’ involvement in international agreements. It is hard to believe that the United States would enter into treaties that are sometimes enforceable and sometimes not. Such a treaty would be the equivalent of writing a blank check to the judiciary. Senators could never be quite sure what the treaties on which they were voting meant. Only a judge could say for sure and only at some future date. This uncertainty could hobble the United States’ efforts to negotiate and sign international agreements.
In this case, the dissent — for a grab bag of no less than seven reasons — would tell us that this particular ICJ judgment is federal law. Post, at 549-562. That is no sort of guidance. Nor is it any answer to say that the federal courts will diligently police international agreements and enforce the decisions of international tribunals only when they should be enforced. Ibid. The point of a non-self-executing treaty is that it “addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court.” Foster, supra, at 314 (emphasis added); Whitney, 124 U. S., at 195. See also Foster, supra, at 307 (“The judiciary is not that department of the government, to which the assertion of its interests against foreign powers is confided”). The dissent’s contrary approach would assign to the courts — not the political branches — the primary role in deciding when and how international agreements will be enforced. To read a treaty so that it sometimes has the effect of domestic law and sometimes does not is tantamount to vesting with the judiciary the power not only to interpret but also to create the law.
C
Our conclusion that Avena does not by itself constitute binding federal law is confirmed by the “postratification understanding” of signatory nations. See Zicherman, 516 U. S., at 226. There are currently 47 nations that are parties to the Optional Protocol and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna Convention. Yet neither Medellin nor his amici have identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts. In determining that the Vienna Convention did not require certain relief in United States courts in Sanchez-Llamas, we found it pertinent that the requested relief would not be available under the treaty in any other signatory country. See 548 U. S., at 343-344, and n. 3. So too here the lack of any basis for supposing that any other country would treat ICJ judgments as directly enforceable as a matter of its domestic law strongly suggests that the treaty should not be so viewed in our courts.
Our conclusion is further supported by general principles of interpretation. To begin with, we reiterated in Sanchez-Llamas what we held in Breard, that “ ‘absent a clear and express statement to the contrary, the procedural rules of the forum State govern the implementation of the treaty in that State.’ ” 548 U. S., at 351 (quoting Breard, 523 U. S
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Defendants convicted of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) are subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence and an increased maximum sentence if they have "a prior conviction... under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." § 2252(b)(2).
The question before us is whether the phrase "involving a minor or ward" modifies all items in the list of predicate crimes ("aggravated sexual abuse," "sexual abuse," and "abusive sexual conduct") or only the one item that immediately precedes it ("abusive sexual conduct"). Below, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined several other Courts of Appeals in holding that it modifies only "abusive sexual conduct." The Eighth Circuit has reached the contrary result. We granted certiorari to resolve that split. 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2350, 192 L.Ed.2d 143 (2015). We affirm the Second Circuit's holding that the phrase "involving a minor or ward" in § 2252(b)(2) modifies only "abusive sexual conduct."
I
In April 2000, Avondale Lockhart was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 130.65(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2015). The crime involved his then-53-year-old girlfriend. Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), in No. 11-CR-231-01, p. 13, ¶¶ 47-48. Eleven years later, Lockhart was indicted in the Eastern District of New York for attempting to receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and for possessing child pornography in violation of § 2252(a)(4)(b). Lockhart pleaded guilty to the possession offense and the Government dismissed the receipt offense.
Lockhart's presentence report calculated a guidelines range of 78 to 97 months for the possession offense. But the report also concluded that Lockhart was subject to § 2252(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum because his prior New York abuse conviction related "to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." PSR ¶¶ 87-88.
Lockhart objected, arguing that the statutory phrase "involving a minor or ward" applies to all three listed crimes: "aggravated sexual abuse," "sexual abuse," and "abusive sexual conduct." He therefore contended that his prior conviction for sexual abuse involving an adult fell outside the enhancement's ambit. The District Court rejected Lockhart's argument and applied the mandatory minimum. The Second Circuit affirmed his sentence. 749 F.3d 148 (C.A.2 2014).
II
Section 2252(b)(2) reads in full:
"Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate [18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) ] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but... if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years."
This case concerns that provision's list of state sexual-abuse offenses. The issue before us is whether the limiting phrase that appears at the end of that list-"involving a minor or ward"-applies to all three predicate crimes preceding it in the list or only the final predicate crime. We hold that "involving a minor or ward" modifies only "abusive sexual conduct," the antecedent immediately preceding it. Although § 2252(b)(2)'s list of state predicates is awkwardly phrased (to put it charitably), the provision's text and context together reveal a straightforward reading. A timeworn textual canon is confirmed by the structure and internal logic of the statutory scheme.
A
Consider the text. When this Court has interpreted statutes that include a list of terms or phrases followed by a limiting clause, we have typically applied an interpretive strategy called the "rule of the last antecedent." See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003). The rule provides that "a limiting clause or phrase... should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows." Ibid. ; see also Black's Law Dictionary 1532-1533 (10th ed. 2014) ("[Q]ualifying words or phrases modify the words or phrases immediately preceding them and not words or phrases more remote, unless the extension is necessary from the context or the spirit of the entire writing"); A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 144 (2012).
This Court has applied the rule from our earliest decisions to our more recent. See, e.g., Sims Lessee v. Irvine, 3 Dall. 425, 444, n., 1 L.Ed. 665 (1799) ; FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389, n. 4, 79 S.Ct. 818, 3 L.Ed.2d 893 (1959) ; Barnhart, 540 U.S., at 26, 124 S.Ct. 376. The rule reflects the basic intuition that when a modifier appears at the end of a list, it is easier to apply that modifier only to the item directly before it. That is particularly true where it takes more than a little mental energy to process the individual entries in the list, making it a heavy lift to carry the modifier across them all. For example, imagine you are the general manager of the Yankees and you are rounding out your 2016 roster. You tell your scouts to find a defensive catcher, a quick-footed shortstop, or a pitcher from last year's World Champion Kansas City Royals. It would be natural for your scouts to confine their search for a pitcher to last year's championship team, but to look more broadly for catchers and shortstops.
Applied here, the last antecedent principle suggests that the phrase "involving a minor or ward" modifies only the phrase that it immediately follows: "abusive sexual conduct." As a corollary, it also suggests that the phrases "aggravated sexual abuse" and "sexual abuse" are not so constrained.
Of course, as with any canon of statutory interpretation, the rule of the last antecedent "is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning." Barnhart, 540 U.S., at 26, 124 S.Ct. 376 ; see also Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989) ("It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme"). For instance, take " 'the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States.' " Post, at 964, n. 1 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). A reader intuitively applies "of the United States" to "the laws," "the treaties" and "the constitution" because (among other things) laws, treaties, and the constitution are often cited together, because readers are used to seeing "of the United States" modify each of them, and because the listed items are simple and parallel without unexpected internal modifiers or structure. Section 2252(b)(2), by contrast, does not contain items that readers are used to seeing listed together or a concluding modifier that readers are accustomed to applying to each of them. And the varied syntax of each item in the list makes it hard for the reader to carry the final modifying clause across all three.
More importantly, here the interpretation urged by the rule of the last antecedent is not overcome by other indicia of meaning. To the contrary, § 2252(b)(2)'s context fortifies the meaning that principle commands.
B
Our inquiry into § 2252(b)(2)'s context begins with the internal logic of that provision. Section 2252(b)(2) establishes sentencing minimums and maximums for three categories of offenders. The first third of the section imposes a 10-year maximum sentence on offenders with no prior convictions. The second third imposes a 10-year minimum and 20-year maximum on offenders who have previously violated a federal offense listed within various chapters of the Federal Criminal Code. And the last third imposes the same minimum and maximum on offenders who have previously committed state "sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward" as well as a number of state crimes related to the possession and distribution of child pornography.
Among the chapters of the Federal Criminal Code that can trigger § 2252(b)(2)'s recidivist enhancement are crimes "under... chapter 109A." Chapter 109A criminalizes a range of sexual-abuse offenses involving adults or minors and wards. And it places those federal sexual-abuse crimes under headings that use language nearly identical to the language § 2252(b)(2) uses to enumerate the three categories of state sexual-abuse predicates. The first section in Chapter 109A is titled "Aggravated sexual abuse." 18 U.S.C. § 2241. The second is titled "Sexual abuse." § 2242. And the third is titled "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward." § 2243. Applying the rule of the last antecedent, those sections mirror precisely the order, precisely the divisions, and nearly precisely the words used to describe the three state sexual-abuse predicate crimes in § 2252(b)(2) : "aggravated sexual abuse," "sexual abuse," and "abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward."
This similarity appears to be more than a coincidence. We cannot state with certainty that Congress used Chapter 109A as a template for the list of state predicates set out in § 2252(b)(2), but we cannot ignore the parallel, particularly because the headings in Chapter 109A were in place when Congress amended the statute to add § 2252(b)(2)'s state sexual-abuse predicates.
If Congress had intended to limit each of the state predicates to conduct "involving a minor or ward," we doubt it would have followed, or thought it needed to follow, so closely the structure and language of Chapter 109A. The conclusion that Congress followed the federal template is supported by the fact that Congress did nothing to indicate that offenders with prior federal sexual-abuse convictions are more culpable, harmful, or worthy of enhanced punishment than offenders with nearly identical state priors. We therefore see no reason to interpret § 2252(b)(2) so that "[s]exual abuse" that occurs in the Second Circuit courthouse triggers the sentence enhancement, but "sexual abuse" that occurs next door in the Manhattan municipal building does not.
III
A
Lockhart argues, to the contrary, that the phrase "involving a minor or ward"
should be interpreted to modify all three state sexual-abuse predicates. He first contends, as does our dissenting colleague, that the so-called series-qualifier principle supports his reading. This principle, Lockhart says, requires a modifier to apply to all items in a series when such an application would represent a natural construction. Brief for Petitioner 12; post, at 970.
This Court has long acknowledged that structural or contextual evidence may "rebut the last antecedent inference." Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 344, n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 694, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005). For instance, in Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 40 S.Ct. 516, 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920), on which Lockhart relies, this Court declined to apply the rule of the last antecedent where "[n]o reason appears why" a modifying clause is not "applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last" and where "special reasons exist for so construing the clause in question." Id., at 348, 40 S.Ct. 516. In United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971), this Court declined to apply the rule of the last antecedent where "there is no reason consistent with any discernable purpose of the statute to apply" the limiting phrase to the last antecedent alone. Id., at 341, 92 S.Ct. 515. Likewise, in Jama, the Court suggested that the rule would not be appropriate where the "modifying clause appear[s]... at the end of a single, integrated list." 543 U.S., at 344, n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 694. And, most recently, in Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014), the Court noted that the rule need not be applied "in a mechanical way where it would require accepting 'unlikely premises.' " Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1721.
But in none of those cases did the Court describe, much less apply, a countervailing grammatical mandate that could bear the weight that either Lockhart or the dissent places on the series qualifier principle. Instead, the Court simply observed that sometimes context weighs against the application of the rule of the last antecedent. Barnhart, 540 U.S., at 26, 124 S.Ct. 376. Whether a modifier is "applicable as much to the first... as to the last" words in a list, whether a set of items form a "single, integrated list," and whether the application of the rule would require acceptance of an "unlikely premise" are fundamentally contextual questions.
Lockhart attempts to identify contextual indicia that he says rebut the rule of the last antecedent, but those indicia hurt rather than help his prospects. He points out that the final two state predicates, "sexual abuse" and "abusive sexual conduct," are "nearly synonymous as a matter of everyday speech." Brief for Petitioner 17. And, of course, anyone who commits "aggravated sexual abuse" has also necessarily committed "sexual abuse." So, he posits, the items in the list are sufficiently similar that a limiting phrase could apply equally to all three of them.
But Lockhart's effort to demonstrate some similarity among the items in the list of state predicates reveals far too much similarity. The three state predicate crimes are not just related on Lockhart's reading; they are hopelessly redundant. Any conduct that would qualify as "aggravated sexual abuse... involving a minor or ward" or "sexual abuse... involving a minor or ward" would also qualify as "abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." We take no position today on the meaning of the terms "aggravated sexual abuse," "sexual abuse," and "abusive sexual conduct," including their similarities and differences. But it is clear that applying the limiting phrase to all three items would risk running headlong into the rule against superfluity by transforming a list of separate predicates into a set of synonyms describing the same predicate. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) ("We assume that Congress used two terms because it intended each term to have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning").
Applying the limiting phrase "involving a minor or ward" more sparingly, by contrast, preserves some distinction between the categories of state predicates by limiting only the third category to conduct "involving a minor or ward." We recognize that this interpretation does not eliminate all superfluity between "aggravated sexual abuse" and "sexual abuse." See United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 137, 127 S.Ct. 2331, 168 L.Ed.2d 28 (2007) ( "[O]ur hesitancy to construe statutes to render language superfluous does not require us to avoid surplusage at all costs. It is appropriate to tolerate a degree of surplusage"). But there is a ready explanation for the redundancy that remains: It follows the categories in Chapter 109A's federal template. See supra, at 964. We see no similar explanation for Lockhart's complete collapse of the list.
The dissent offers a suggestion rooted in its impressions about how people ordinarily speak and write. Post, at 969 - 971. The problem is that, as even the dissent acknowledges, § 2252(b)(2)'s list of state predicates is hardly intuitive. No one would mistake its odd repetition and inelegant phrasing for a reflection of the accumulated wisdom of everyday speech patterns. It would be as if a friend asked you to get her tart lemons, sour lemons, or sour fruit from Mexico. If you brought back lemons from California, but your friend insisted that she was using customary speech and obviously asked for Mexican fruit only, you would be forgiven for disagreeing on both counts.
Faced with § 2252(b)(2)'s inartful drafting, then, do we interpret the provision by viewing it as a clear, commonsense list best construed as if conversational English? Or do we look around to see if there might be some provenance to its peculiarity? With Chapter 109A so readily at hand, we are unpersuaded by our dissenting colleague's invocation of basic examples from day-to-day life. Whatever the validity of the dissent's broader point, this simply is not a case in which colloquial practice is of much use. Section 2252(b)(2)'s list is hardly the way an average person, or even an average lawyer, would set about to describe the relevant conduct if they had started from scratch.
B
Lockhart next takes aim at our construction of § 2252(b)(2) to avoid disparity between the state and federal sexual-abuse predicates. He contends that other disparities between state and federal predicates in § 2252(b)(2) indicate that parity was not Congress' concern. For example, § 2252(b)(2) imposes the recidivist enhancement on offenders with prior federal convictions under Chapter 71 of Title 18, which governs obscenity. See §§ 1461-1470. Yet § 2252(b)(2) does not impose a similar enhancement for offenses under state obscenity laws. Similarly, § 2252(b)(2)'s neighbor provision, § 2252(b)(1), creates a mandatory minimum for sex trafficking involving children, but not sex trafficking involving adults.
However, our construction of § 2252(b)(2)'s sexual-abuse predicates does not rely on a general assumption that Congress sought full parity between all of the federal and state predicates in § 2252(b)(2). It relies instead on contextual cues particular to the sexual-abuse predicates. To enumerate the state sexual-abuse predicates, Congress used language similar to that in Chapter 109A of the Federal Criminal Code, which describes crimes involving both adults and children. See supra, at 964. We therefore assume that the same language used to describe the state sexual-abuse predicates also describes conduct involving both adults and children.
C
Lockhart, joined by the dissent, see post, at 973 - 974, next says that the provision's legislative history supports the view that Congress deliberately structured § 2252(b)(2) to treat state and federal predicates differently. They rely on two sources. The first is a reference in a Report from the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-26. That Act was the first to add the language at issue here-"aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward"-to the U.S. Code. (It was initially added to § 2252(b)(1), then added two years later to § 2252(b)(2) ).
The Report noted that the enhancement applies to persons with prior convictions "under any State child abuse law or law relating to the production, receipt or distribution of child pornography." See S.Rep. No. 104-358, p. 9 (1996). But that reference incompletely describes the state pornography production and distribution predicates, which cover not only "production, receipt, or distributing of child pornography," as the Report indicates, but also "production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography," § 2252(b)(2). For the reasons discussed, we have no trouble concluding that the Report also incompletely describes the state sexual-abuse predicates.
Lockhart and the dissent also rely on a letter sent from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the House of Representative's Committee on the Judiciary commenting on the proposed "Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998." H.R.Rep. No. 105-557, pp. 26-34 (1998). In the letter, DOJ provides commentary on the then-present state of §§ 2252(b)(1) and 2252(b)(2), noting that although there is a "5-year mandatory minimum sentence for individuals charged with receipt or distribution of child pornography and who have prior state convictions for child molestation" pursuant to § 2252(b)(1), there is "no enhanced provision for those individuals charged with possession of child pornography who have prior convictions for child abuse" pursuant to § 2252(b)(2). Id., at 31. That letter, they say, demonstrates that DOJ understood the language at issue here to impose a sentencing enhancement only for prior state convictions involving children.
We doubt that DOJ was trying to describe the full reach of the language in § 2252(b)(1), as the dissent suggests. To the contrary, there are several clues that the letter was relaying on just one of the provision's many salient features. For instance, the letter's references to "child molestation" and "child abuse" do not encompass a large number of state crimes that are unambiguously covered by "abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward"-namely, crimes involving "wards." Wards can be minors, but they can also be adults. See, e.g., § 2243(b) (defining "wards" as persons who are "in official detention" and "under... custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority"). Moreover, we doubt that DOJ intended to express a belief that the potentially broad scope of serious crimes encompassed by "aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and abusive sexual conduct" reaches no further than state crimes that would traditionally be characterized as "child molestation" or "child abuse."
Thus, Congress' amendment to the provision did give "DOJ just what it wanted," post, at 973. But the amendment also did more than that. We therefore think it unnecessary to restrict our interpretation of the provision to the parts of it that DOJ chose to highlight in its letter. Just as importantly, the terse descriptions of the provision in the Senate Report and DOJ letter do nothing to explain why Congress would have wanted to apply the mandatory minimum to individuals convicted in federal court of sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse involving an adult, but not to individuals convicted in state court of the same. The legislative history, in short, "hardly speaks with [a] clarity of purpose" through which we can discern Congress' statutory objective. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 483, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).
The best explanation Lockhart can muster is a basic administrability concern: Congress "knew what conduct it was capturing under federal law and could be confident that all covered federal offenses were proper predicates. But Congress did not have the same familiarity with the varied and mutable sexual-abuse laws of all fifty states." Brief for Petitioner 27. Perhaps Congress worried that state laws punishing relatively minor offenses like public lewdness or indecent exposure involving an adult would be swept into § 2252(b)(2). Id., at 28. But the risk Lockhart identifies is minimal. Whether the terms in § 2252(b)(2) are given their "generic" meaning, see Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013) ; Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), or are defined in light of their federal counterparts-which we do not decide-they are unlikely to sweep in the bizarre or unexpected state offenses that worry Lockhart.
D
Finally, Lockhart asks us to apply the rule of lenity. We have used the lenity principle to resolve ambiguity in favor of the defendant only "at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed" when the ordinary canons of statutory construction have revealed no satisfactory construction. Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 596, 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961). That is not the case here. To be sure, Lockhart contends that if we applied a different principle of statutory construction-namely, his "series-qualifier principle"-we would arrive at an alternative construction of § 2252(b)(2). But the arguable availability of multiple, divergent principles of statutory construction cannot automatically trigger the rule of lenity. Cf. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395, 401 (1950) ("[T]here are two opposing canons on almost every point"). Here, the rule of the last antecedent is well supported by context and Lockhart's alternative is not. We will not apply the rule of lenity to override a sensible grammatical principle buttressed by the statute's text and structure.
* * *
We conclude that the text and structure of § 2252(b)(2) confirm that the provision applies to prior state convictions for "sexual abuse" and "aggravated sexual abuse," whether or not the convictions involved a minor or ward. We therefore hold that Lockhart's prior conviction for sexual abuse of an adult is encompassed by § 2252(b)(2). The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed.
So ordered.
Justice KAGAN, with whom Justice BREYER joins, dissenting.
Imagine a friend told you that she hoped to meet "an actor, director, or producer involved with the new Star Wars movie." You would know immediately that she wanted to meet an actor from the Star Wars cast-not an actor in, for example, the latest Zoolander. Suppose a real estate agent promised to find a client "a house, condo, or apartment in New York." Wouldn't the potential buyer be annoyed if the agent sent him information about condos in Maryland or California? And consider a law imposing a penalty for the "violation of any statute, rule, or regulation relating to insider trading." Surely a person would have cause to protest if punished under that provision for violating a traffic statute. The reason in all three cases is the same: Everyone understands that the modifying phrase-"involved with the new Star Wars movie," "in New York," "relating to insider trading"-applies to each term in the preceding list, not just the last.
That ordinary understanding of how English works, in speech and writing alike, should decide this case. Avondale Lockhart is subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing child pornography if, but only if, he has a prior state-law conviction for "aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). The Court today, relying on what is called the "rule of the last antecedent," reads the phrase "involving a minor or ward" as modifying only the final term in that three-item list. But properly read, the modifier applies to each of the terms-just as in the examples above. That normal construction finds support in uncommonly clear-cut legislative history, which states in so many words that the three predicate crimes all involve abuse of children. And if any doubt remained, the rule of lenity would command the same result: Lockhart's prior conviction for sexual abuse of an adult does not trigger § 2252(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum penalty. I respectfully dissent.
I
Begin where the majority does-with the rule of the last antecedent. See ante, at 962. This Court most fully discussed that principle in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003), which considered a statute providing that an individual qualifies as disabled if "he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Id., at 21-22, 124 S.Ct. 376 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) ) (emphasis added). The Court held, invoking the last-antecedent rule, that the italicized phrase modifies only the term "substantial gainful work," and not the term "previous work" occurring earlier in the sentence. Two points are of especial note. First, Barnhart contained a significant caveat: The last-antecedent rule "can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning." 540 U.S., at 26, 124 S.Ct. 376 ; see, e.g., Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 330-331, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993) (refusing to apply the rule when a contrary interpretation was "the more reasonable one"). Second, the grammatical structure of the provision in Barnhart is nothing like that of the statute in this case: The modifying phrase does not, as here, immediately follow a list of multiple, parallel terms. That is true as well in the other instances in which this Court has followed the rule. See, e.g., Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 125 S.Ct. 694, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005) ; Batchelor v. United States, 156 U.S. 426, 15 S.Ct. 446, 39 L.Ed. 478 (1895) ; Sims Lessee v. Irvine, 3 Dall. 425, 1 L.Ed. 665 (1799).
Indeed, this Court has made clear that the last-antecedent rule does not generally apply to the grammatical construction present here: when "[t]he modifying clause appear[s]... at the end of a single, integrated list." Jama, 543 U.S., at 344, n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 694. Then, the exact opposite is usually true: As in the examples beginning this opinion, the modifying phrase refers alike to each of the list's terms. A leading treatise puts the point as follows: "When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series," a modifier at the end of the list "normally applies to the entire series." A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147 (2012); compare id., at 152 ("When the syntax involves something other than [such] a parallel series of nouns or verbs," the modifier "normally applies only to the nearest reasonable referent"). That interpretive practice of applying the modifier to the whole list boasts a fancy name-the "series-qualifier canon," see Black's Law Dictionary 1574 (10th ed. 2014)-but, as my opening examples show, it reflects the completely ordinary way that people speak and listen, write and read.
Even the exception to the series-qualifier principle is intuitive, emphasizing both its common-sensical basis and its customary usage. When the nouns in a list are so disparate that the modifying clause does not make sense when applied to them all, then the last-antecedent rule takes over. Suppose your friend told you not that she wants to meet "an actor, director, or producer involved with Star Wars," but instead that she hopes someday to meet "a President, Supreme Court Justice, or actor involved with Star Wars." Presumably, you would know that she wants to meet a President or Justice even if that person has no connection to the famed film franchise. But so long as the modifying clause "is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last," this Court has stated, "the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all." Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1721, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014) (quoting Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348, 40 S.Ct. 516, 64 L.Ed. 944 (1920) ). In other words, the modifier then qualifies not just the last antecedent but the whole series.
As the majority itself must acknowledge, see ante, at 964 - 965, this Court has repeatedly applied the series-qualifier rule in just that manner. In Paroline, for example, this Court considered a statute requiring possessors of child pornography to pay restitution to the individuals whose abuse is recorded in those materials. The law defines such a victim's losses to include "medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; lost income; attorneys' fees, as well as other costs incurred; and any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense." 18 U.S.C. §§ 2259(b)(3)(A)-(F) (lettering omitted). The victim bringing the lawsuit invoked the last-antecedent rule to argue that the modifier at the end of the provision-"as a proximate result of the offense"-pertained only to the last item in the preceding list, and not to any of the others. See 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1721. But the Court rejected that view: It recited the "canon[ ] of statutory construction," derived from the "natural" use of language, that "[w]hen several words are followed by a clause" that can sensibly modify them all, it should be understood to do so. Ibid. Thus, the Court read the proximate-cause requirement to cover each and every term in the list.
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a municipality to prohibit the posting of “For Sale” or “Sold” signs when the municipality acts to stem what it perceives as the flight of white homeowners from a racially integrated community.
Petitioner Linmark Associates, a New Jersey corporation, owned a piece of realty in the township of Willingboro, N. J. Petitioner decided to sell its property, and on March 26, 1974, listed it with petitioner Mellman, a real estate agent. To attract interest in the property, petitioners desired to place a “For Sale” sign on the lawn. Willingboro, however, narrowly limits the types of signs that can be erected on land in the township. Although prior to March 1974 “For Sale” and “Sold” signs were permitted subject to certain restrictions not at issue here, on March 18, 1974, the Township Council enacted Ordinance 5-1974, repealing the statutory authorization for such signs on all but model homes. Petitioners brought this action against both the township and the building inspector charged with enforcing the ban on “For Sale” signs, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court granted a declaration of unconstitutionality, but a divided Court of Appeals reversed, 535 F. 2d 786 (CA3 1976). We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 938 (1976), and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
The township of Willingboro is a residential community located in southern New Jersey near Fort Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and offices of several national corporations. The township was developed as a middle-income community by Levitt & Sons, beginning in the late 1950’s. It is served by over 80 real estate agents.
During the 1960’s Willingboro underwent rapid growth. The white population increased by almost 350%, and the nonwhite population rose from 60 to over 5,000, or from .005 % of the population to 11.7%. As of the 1970 census, almost 44,000 people resided in Willingboro. In the 1970’s, however, the population growth slowed; from 1970 to 1973, the latest year for which figures were available at the time of trial, Willingboro’s population rose by only 3%. More significantly, the white population actually declined by almost 2,000 in this interval, a drop of over 5%, while the non white population grew by more than 3,000, an increase of approximately 60%. By 1973, nonwhites constituted 18.2% of the township’s population.
At the trial in this case respondents presented testimony from two real estate agents, two members of the Township Council, and three members of the Human Relations Commission, all of whom agreed that a major cause in the decline in the white population was “panic selling” — that is, selling by whites who feared that the township was becoming all black, and that property values would decline. One real estate agent estimated that the reason 80% of the sellers gave for their decision to sell was that “the whole town was for sale, and they didn’t want to be caught in any bind.” App. in No. 75-1448 (CA3), pp. 219a-220a. Respondents’ witnesses also testified that in their view “For Sale” and “Sold” signs were a major catalyst of these fears.
William Kearns, the Mayor of Willingboro during the year preceding enactment of the ordinance and a member of the Council when the ordinance was enacted, testified concerning the events leading up to its passage. Id., at 183a-186a. According to Kearns, beginning at least in 1973 the community became concerned about the changing population. At a town meeting in February 1973, called to discuss “Willingboro, to sell or not to sell,” a member of the community suggested that real estate signs be banned. The suggestion received the overwhelming support of those attending the meeting. Kearns brought the proposal to the Township Council, which requested the Township Solicitor to study it. The Council also contacted National Neighbors, a nationwide organization promoting integrated housing, and obtained the names of other communities that had prohibited “For Sale” signs. After obtaining a favorable report from Shaker Heights, Ohio, on its ordinance, and after receiving an endorsement of the proposed ban from the Willingboro Human Relations Commission, the Council began drafting legislation.
Rather than following its usual procedure of conducting a public hearing only after the proposed law had received preliminary Council approval, the Council scheduled two public meetings on Ordinance 5-1974. The first took place in February 1974, before the initial Council vote, and the second in March 1974, after the vote. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the ordinance was approved unanimously.
The transcripts of the Council hearings were introduced into evidence at trial. They reveal that at the hearings the Council received important information bearing on the need for and likely impact of the ordinance. With respect to the justification for the ordinance, the Council was told (a) that a study of Willingboro home sales in 1973 revealed that the turnover rate was roughly 11%, App. in No. 75-1448 (CA3), p. 89a; (b) that in February 1974 — a typical month — 230 “For Sale” signs were posted among the 11,000 houses in the community, id., at 94a, 37a; and (c) that the Willingboro Tax Assessor had reported that “by and large the increased value of Willingboro properties was way ahead of . . . comparable communities.” Id., at 106a. With respect to the projected effect of the ordinance, several real estate agents reported that 30%-35% of their purchaser-clients came to them because they had seen one of the agent’s “For Sale” or “Sold” signs, id., at 33a, 47a, 49a, 57a, and one agent estimated, based on his experience in a neighboring community that had already banned signs, that selling realty without signs takes twice as long as selling with signs, id., at 42a.
The transcripts of the Council hearings also reveal that the hearings provided useful barometers of public sentiment toward the proposed ordinance. The Council was told, for example, that surveys in two areas of the township found overwhelming support for the law, id., at 29a, 84a. In addition, at least at the second meeting, the citizens, who were not real estate agents and who spoke, favored the proposed ordinance by a sizable margin. Interestingly, however, at both meetings those defending the ordinance focused primarily on aesthetic considerations and on the effect of signs — and transiency generally — on property values. Few speakers directly referred to the changing racial composition of Willingboro in supporting the proposed law.
Although the ordinance had been in effect for nine months prior to trial, no statistical data were presented concerning its impact. Respondents’ witnesses all agreed, however, that the number of persons selling or considering selling their houses because of racial fears had declined sharply. But several of these witnesses also testified that the number of sales in Willingboro had not declined since the ordinance was enacted. Moreover, respondents’ real-estate-agent witnesses both stated that their business had increased by 25% since the ordinance was enacted, id., at 164a, 226a, and one of these agents reported that the racial composition of his clientele remained unchanged, id., at 160a.
The District Court did not make specific findings of fact. In the course of its opinion, however, the court stated that Willingboro “is to a large extent a transient community, partly due to its proximity to the military facility at Fort Dix and in part due to the numerous transfers of real estate.” The court also stated that there was “no evidence” that whites were leaving Willingboro en masse as “For Sale” signs appeared, but “merely an indication that its residents are concerned that there may be a large influx of minority groups moving in to the town with the resultant effect being a reduction in property values.” The Court of Appeals essentially accepted these “findings,” although it found that Willingboro was experiencing “incipient” panic selling, 535 F. 2d, at 799, and that a “fear psychology [had] developed,” id., at 790.
II
A
The starting point for analysis of petitioners’ First Amendment claim must be the two recent decisions in which this Court has eroded the “commercial speech” exception to the First Amendment. In Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975), decided less than two years ago, this Court for the first time expressed its dissatisfaction with the then-prevalent approach of resolving a class of First Amendment claims simply by categorizing the speech as “commercial.” Id., at 826. “Regardless of the particular label,” we stated, “a court may not escape the task of assessing the First Amendment interest at stake and weighing it against the public interest allegedly served by the regulation.” Ibid. After conducting such an analysis in Bigelow we concluded that Virginia could not constitutionally punish the publisher of a newspaper for printing an abortion referral agency’s paid advertisement which not only promoted the agency’s services but also contained information about the availability of abortions.
One year later, in Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976), we went further. Conceding that “[s]ome fragment of hope for the continuing validity of a 'commercial speech’ exception arguably might have persisted because of the subject matter of the advertisement in Bigelow,” id., at 760, we held quite simply, that commercial speech is not “wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment,” id., at 761. Although recognizing that “[s]ome forms of commercial speech regulations”- — such as regulation of false or misleading speech — “are surely permissible,” id., at 770, we had little difficulty in finding that Virginia’s ban on the advertising of prescription drug prices by pharmacists was unconstitutional.
Respondents contend, as they must, that the “For Sale” signs banned in Willingboro are constitutionally distinguishable from the abortion and drug advertisements we have previously considered. It is to the distinctions respondents advance that we now turn.
B
If the Willingboro law is to be treated differently from those invalidated in Bigelow and Virginia Pharmacy Bd., it cannot be because the speakers — or listeners — have a lesser First Amendment interest in the subject matter of the speech that is regulated here. Persons desiring to sell their homes are just as interested in communicating that fact as are sellers of other goods and services. Similarly, would-be purchasers of realty are no less interested in receiving information about available property than are purchasers of other commodities in receiving like information about those commodities. And the societal interest in “the free flow of commercial information,” Virginia Pharmacy Bd., supra, at 764, is in no way lessened by the fact that the subject of the commercial information here is realty rather than abortions or drugs.
Respondents nevertheless argue that First Amendment concerns are less directly implicated by Willingboro’s ordinance because it restricts only one method of communication. This distinction is not without significance to First Amendment analysis, since laws regulating the time, place, or manner of speech stand on a different footing from laws prohibiting speech altogether. Cf., e. g., Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972). Respondents’ effort to defend the ordinance on this ground is unpersuasive, however, for two reasons.
First, serious questions exist as to whether the ordinance “leave [s] open ample alternative channels for communication,” Virginia Pharmacy Bd., supra, at 771. Although in theory sellers remain free to employ a number of different alternatives, in practice realty is not marketed through leaflets, sound trucks, demonstrations, or the like. The options to which sellers realistically are relegated — primarily newspaper advertising and listing with real estate agents — involve more cost and less autonomy than “For Sale” signs; cf. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 146 (1943); Kovacs v. Cooper, supra, at 102-103 (Black, J., dissenting); are less likely to reach persons not deliberately seeking sales information, cf. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 388-389 (1968) (Harlan, J., concurring); and may be less effective media for communicating the message that is conveyed by a “For Sale” sign in front of the house to be sold, cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 25-26 (1971). The alternatives, then, are far from satisfactory.
Second, the Willingboro ordinance is not genuinely concerned with the place of the speech — front lawns — or the manner of the speech — signs. The township has not prohibited all lawn signs — or all lawn signs of a particular size or shape — in order to promote aesthetic values or any other value “unrelated to the suppression of free expression,” United States v. O’Brien, supra, at 377. Nor has it acted to restrict a mode of communication that “intrudes on the privacy of the home, . . . makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure,” Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975), or otherwise reaches a group the township has a right to protect. And respondents have not demonstrated that the place or manner of the speech produces a detrimental “secondary effect” on society, Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U. S. 50, 71 n. 34 (1976). Rather, Willingboro has proscribed particular types of signs based on their content because it fears their “primary” effect — that they will cause those receiving the information to act upon it. That the proscription applies only to one mode of communication, therefore, does not transform this into a “time, place, or manner” case. See, e. g., Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972); Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 510 (1969). If the ordinance is to be sustained, it must be on the basis of the township’s interest in regulating the content of the communication, and not on any interest in regulating the form.
C
Respondents do seek to distinguish Bigelow and Virginia Pharmacy Bd. by relying on the vital goal this ordinance serves: namely, promoting stable, racially integrated housing. There can be no question about the importance of achieving this goal. This Court has expressly recognized that substantial benefits flow to both whites and blacks from interracial association and that Congress has made a strong national commitment to promote integrated housing. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972).
That this ordinance was enacted to achieve an important governmental objective, however, does not distinguish the case from Virginia Pharmacy Bd. In that case the State argued that its prohibition on prescription drug price advertising furthered the health and safety of state residents by preventing low cost, low quality pharmacists from driving reputable pharmacists out of business. We expressly recognized the “strong interest” of a State in maintaining “professionalism on the part of licensed pharmacists.” 425 U. S., at 766. But we nevertheless found the Virginia law unconstitutional because we were unpersuaded that the law was necessary to achieve this objective, and were convinced that in any event, the First Amendment disabled the State from achieving its goal by restricting the free flow of truthful information. For the same reasons we conclude that the Willingboro ordinance at issue here is also constitutionally infirm.
The record here demonstrates that respondents failed to establish that this ordinance is needed to assure that Willingboro remains an integrated community. As the District Court concluded, the evidence does not support the Council’s apparent fears that Willingboro was experiencing a substantial incidence of panic selling by white homeowners. A fortiori, the evidence does not establish that “For Sale” signs in front of 2% of Willingboro homes were a major cause of panic selling. And the record does not confirm the township’s assumption that proscribing such signs will reduce public awareness of realty sales and thereby decrease public concern over selling.
The constitutional defect in this ordinance, however, is far more basic. The Township Council here, like the Virginia Assembly in Virginia Pharmacy Bd., acted to prevent its residents from obtaining certain information. That information, which pertains to sales activity in Willingboro, is of vital interest to Willingboro residents, since it may bear on one of the most important decisions they have a right to make: where to live and raise their families. The Council has sought to restrict the free flow of these data because it fears that otherwise homeowners will make decisions inimical to what the Council views as the homeowners’ self-interest and the corporate interest of the township: they will choose to leave town. The Council’s concern, then, was not with any commercial aspect of “For Sale” signs — with offerors communicating offers to offerees — but with the substance of the information communicated to Willingboro citizens. If dissemination of this information can be restricted, then every locality in the country can suppress any facts that reflect poorly on the locality, so long as a plausible claim can be made that disclosure would cause the recipients of the information to act “irrationally.” Virginia Pharmacy Bd. denies government such sweeping powers. As we said there in rejecting Virginia’s claim that the only way it could enable its citizens to find their self-interest was to deny them information that is neither false nor misleading:
“There is ... an alternative to this highly paternalistic approach. That alternative is to assume that this information is not in itself harmful, that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them. . . . But the choice among these alternative approaches is not ours to make or the Virginia General Assembly’s. It is precisely this kind of choice, between the dangers of suppressing information, and the dangers of its misuse if it is freely available, that the First Amendment makes for us.” 425 U. S., at 770.
Or as Mr. Justice Brandéis put it: “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. Only an emergency can justify repression.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 377 (1927) (concurring opinion).
Since we can find no meaningful distinction between Ordinance 5-1974 and the statute overturned in Virginia Pharmacy Bd., we must conclude that this ordinance violates the First Amendment.
Ill
In invalidating this law, we by no means leave Willingboro defenseless in its effort to promote integrated housing. The township obviously remains free to continue “the process of education” it has already begun. It can give widespread publicity — through “Not for Sale” signs or other methods— to the number of whites remaining in Willingboro. And it surely can endeavor to create inducements to retain individuals who are considering selling their homes.
Beyond this, we reaffirm our statement in Virginia Pharmacy Bd. that the “commonsense differences between speech that does ‘no more than propose a commercial transaction/ Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. [376,] 385 [(1973)], and other varieties . . . suggest that a different degree of protection is necessary to insure that the flow of truthful and legitimate commercial information is unimpaired.” 425 U. S., at 771-772, n. 24. Laws dealing with false or misleading signs, and laws requiring such signs to “appear in such a form, or include such additional information ... as [is] necessary to prevent [their] being deceptive,” ibid., therefore, would raise very different constitutional questions. We leave those questions for another day, and simply hold that the ordinance under review here, which impairs “the flow of truthful and legitimate commercial information” is constitutionally infirm.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Respondents report that according to a deed on file in Burlington County, N. J,, petitioner Linmark Associates’ property was sold on April 21, 1976, while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals. Brief for Respondents 8 n. 2. This does not moot this case, however, since at least as to petitioner Mellman, the real estate agent, there plainly is an “immediate prospect,” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459-460 (1974), that he will desire to place “For Sale” signs on other property in Willingboro, and thus there remains a controversy “of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).
At the beginning of the first hearing, the then Mayor estimated that 1,100 houses are sold each year, a 10% turnover rate. App. in No. 75-1488 (CA3), p. 37a.
Another real estate agent reported that on January 7, 1974, in the Twin Hills section of Willingboro, 32 signs were posted among the 920 houses. He further stated that during the preceding year, the highest number of signs in Twin Hills at any one time was 62. Id., at 77a-78a.
At trial, one of respondents’ real-estate-agent witnesses testified that he had surveyed the number of signs in August 1973 and found more than 230; he did not recall, however, how many signs were standing at that time. Id., at 225a.
At trial, petitioner Mellman corroborated this figure based on his own business. Id., at 135a.
One of the two “surveys” took the form of an effort by citizens in the Rittenhouse Park section of Willingboro to ban “For Sale” signs. That effort attracted the support of 70% of the homeowners in the section.
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of Virginia Pharmacy Bd. when it issued its decision in this case. To some extent the court anticipated that decision, recognizing that the fact that “a communication is commercial in nature does not ipso facto strip the communication of its First Amendment protections.” 535 F. 2d 786, 795 (CA3 1976). But the court premised its analysis on a sharp dichotomy between commercial and "pure” or noncommercial speech, id., at 794, and concluded that commercial speech ma,y be restricted if its “impact be found detrimental” by a municipality, and if "the limitation on any pure speech element [is] minimal,” id., at 795. After Virginia Pharmacy Bd. it is clear that commercial speech cannot be banned because of an unsubstantiated belief that its impact is “detrimental.”
Accordingly, we do not decide whether a, ban on signs or a limitation on the number of signs could survive constitutional scrutiny if it were unrelated to the suppression of free expression. See Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F. 2d 1360, 1368-1369 (CA9 1976); cf. Markham Advertising Co. v. State, 73 Wash. 2d 405, 439 P. 2d 248 (1968), appeal dismissed, 393 U. S. 316 (1969).
Cf. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582, 585-586 (DC 1971), summarily aff’d, 405 U. S. 1000 (1972).
As the District Court itself observed, its finding concerning the lack of panic selling distinguishes this case from Barrick Realty, Inc. v. City of Gary, 491 F. 2d 161 (CA7 1974), in which Gary, Indiana's, prohibition on “For Sale” signs was upheld on a record indicating that such signs were causing “whites to move en masse and blacks to replace them.” Id., at 163-164. We express no view as to whether Barrick Realty can survive Bigelow and Virginia Pharmacy Bd.
While this assumption is certainly plausible, it is also possible that eliminating signs will cause homeowners to turn to other sources for information, so that their awareness of — and concern over — selling will be unaffected. Indeed, banning signs actually may fuel public anxiety over sales activity by increasing homeowners’ dependence on rumor and surmise. See Laska & Hewitt, Are Laws Against “For Sale” Signs Constitutional? Substantive Due Process Revisited, 4 Real Estate L. J. 153, 160-162 (1975) (reporting on a study finding such an adverse effect from a ban on “For Sale” signs).
The fact that sales volume remained unchanged in Willingboro in the first nine months after the ordinance was enacted suggests that it did not affect public concern over selling, if that concern was a significant cause of housing turnover.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Skilling v. United States, ante, p. 358.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, a jury returned a legally impermissible verdict. The trial judge did not realize the error until shortly after he excused the jury. He brought the jury back and ordered them to deliberate again to correct the mistake. The question before us is whether a federal district court can recall a jury it has discharged, or whether the court can remedy the error only by ordering a new trial.
This Court now holds that a federal district court has the inherent power to rescind a jury discharge order and recall a jury for further deliberations after identifying an error in the jury's verdict. Because the potential of tainting jurors and the jury process after discharge is extraordinarily high, however, this power is limited in duration and scope, and must be exercised carefully to avoid any potential prejudice.
I
Petitioner Rocky Dietz was driving through an intersection in Bozeman, Montana, when Hillary Bouldin ran the red light and T-boned Dietz. As a result of the accident, Dietz suffered injuries to his lower back that caused him severe pain. He sought physical therapy, steroid injections, and other medications to treat his pain. Dietz sued Bouldin for negligence. Bouldin removed the case to Federal District Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.
At trial, Bouldin admitted that he was at fault for the accident and that Dietz was injured as a result. Bouldin also stipulated that Dietz' medical expenses of $10,136 were reasonable and necessary as a result of the collision. The only disputed issue at trial for the jury to resolve was whether Dietz was entitled to damages above $10,136.
During deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note asking: " 'Has the $10,136 medical expenses been paid; and if so, by whom?' " App. 36. The court discussed the note with the parties' attorneys and told them he was unsure whether the jurors understood that their verdict could not be less than that stipulated amount, and that a mistrial would be required if the jury did not return a verdict of at least $10,136. The judge, however, with the consent of both parties, told the jury that the information they sought was not relevant to the verdict.
The jury returned a verdict in Dietz' favor but awarded him $0 in damages. The judge thanked the jury for its service and ordered them "discharged," telling the jurors they were "free to go." App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a. The jurors gathered their things and left the courtroom.
A few minutes later, the court ordered the clerk to bring the jurors back. Speaking with counsel outside the jury's presence, the court explained that it had "just stopped the jury from leaving the building," after realizing that the $0 verdict was not "legally possible in view of stipulated damages exceeding $10,000." Id., at 26a. The court suggested two alternatives: (1) order a new trial or (2) reempanel the jurors, instructing them to award at least the stipulated damages, and ordering them to deliberate anew.
Dietz' attorney objected to reempaneling the discharged jurors, arguing that the jury was no longer capable of returning a fair and impartial verdict. The court reiterated that none of the jurors had left the building, and asked the clerk whether any had even left the floor where the courtroom was located. The clerk explained that only one juror had left the building to get a hotel receipt and bring it back.
Before the jurors returned, the judge told the parties that he planned to order the jury to deliberate again and reach a different verdict. The judge explained that he would "hate to just throw away the money and time that's been expended in this trial." Id ., at 28a. When the jurors returned to the courtroom, the judge questioned them as a group and confirmed that they had not spoken to anyone about the case.
The judge explained to the jurors the mistake in not awarding the stipulated damages. He informed the jurors that he was reempaneling them and would ask them to start over with clarifying instructions. He asked the jurors to confirm that they understood their duty and to return the next morning to deliberate anew. The next day, the reassembled jury returned a verdict awarding Dietz $15,000 in damages.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 794 F.3d 1093 (2015). The court held that a district court could reempanel the jury shortly after dismissal as long as during the period of dismissal, the jurors were not exposed to any outside influences that would compromise their ability to reconsider the verdict fairly. This Court granted Dietz' petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve confusion in the Courts of Appeals on whether and when a federal district court has the authority to recall a jury after discharging it. 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 896, 193 L.Ed.2d 788 (2016). See Wagner v. Jones, 758 F.3d 1030, 1034-1035 (C.A.8 2014), cert. denied, 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1529, 191 L.Ed.2d 558 (2015) ; United States v. Figueroa, 683 F.3d 69, 72-73 (C.A.3 2012) ; United States v. Rojas, 617 F.3d 669, 677-678 (C.A.2 2010) ; United States v. Marinari, 32 F.3d 1209, 1214 (C.A.7 1994) ; Summers v. United States, 11 F.2d 583, 585-587 (C.A.4 1926).
II
A
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set out many of the specific powers of a federal district court. But they are not all encompassing. They make no provision, for example, for the power of a judge to hear a motion in limine, a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, or many other standard procedural devices trial courts around the country use every day in service of Rule 1's paramount command: the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of disputes.
Accordingly, this Court has long recognized that a district court possesses inherent powers that are "governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) ; see also United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). Although this Court has never precisely delineated the outer boundaries of a district court's inherent powers, the Court has recognized certain limits on those powers.
First, the exercise of an inherent power must be a "reasonable response to the problems and needs" confronting the court's fair administration of justice. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823-824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). Second, the exercise of an inherent power cannot be contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district court's power contained in a rule or statute. See id., at 823, 116 S.Ct. 1777 ; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83(b) (districts courts can "regulate [their] practice in any manner consistent with federal law"); see, e.g., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988) (holding that a district court cannot invoke its inherent power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) ). These two principles-an inherent power must be a reasonable response to a specific problem and the power cannot contradict any express rule or statute-support the conclusion that a district judge has a limited inherent power to rescind a discharge order and recall a jury in a civil case where the court discovers an error in the jury's verdict.
First, rescinding a discharge order and recalling the jury can be a reasonable response to correcting an error in the jury's verdict in certain circumstances. In the normal course, when a court recognizes an error in a verdict before it discharges the jury, it has the express power to give the jury a curative instruction and order them to continue deliberating. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 51(b)(3) ("The court ... may instruct the jury at any time before the jury is discharged"); 4 L. Sand et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil ¶ 78.01, Instruction 78-10, p. 78-31 (2015) (Sand) (when a jury returns an inconsistent verdict, "[r]esubmitting the verdict ... to resolve the inconsistencies is often the preferable course"). The decision to recall a jury to give them what would be an identical predischarge curative instruction could be, depending on the circumstances, similarly reasonable.
This conclusion is buttressed by this Court's prior cases affirming a district court's inherent authority in analogous circumstances. For example, the Court has recognized that a district court ordinarily has the power to modify or rescind its orders at any point prior to final judgment in a civil case. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States, 320 U.S. 1, 47-48, 63 S.Ct. 1393, 87 L.Ed. 1731 (1943) ; see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b) (district court can revise partial final judgment order absent certification of finality); Fernandez v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 642, 644, 5 L.Ed.2d 683 (1961) (Harlan, J., in chambers) (district court has inherent power to revoke order granting bail).
Here, the District Court rescinded its order discharging the jury before it issued a final judgment. Rescinding the discharge order restores the legal status quo before the court dismissed the jury. The District Court is thus free to reinstruct the jury under Rule 51(b)(3).
This Court has also held that district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases. See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936) (district court has inherent power to stay proceedings pending resolution of parallel actions in other courts); Link, 370 U.S., at 631-632, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (district court has inherent power to dismiss case sua sponte for failure to prosecute); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (district court has inherent power to vacate judgment procured by fraud);
United States v. Morgan, 307 U.S. 183, 197-198, 59 S.Ct. 795, 83 L.Ed. 1211 (1939) (district court has inherent power to stay disbursement of funds until revised payments are finally adjudicated).
This Court's recognition of these other inherent powers designed to resolve cases expeditiously is consistent with recognizing an inherent power to recall a discharged jury and reempanel the jurors with curative instructions. Compared to the alternative of conducting a new trial, recall can save the parties, the court, and society the costly time and litigation expense of conducting a new trial with a new set of jurors.
Second, rescinding a discharge order to recall a jury does not violate any other rule or statute. Rule 51(b)(3) states that a court "may instruct the jury at any time before the jury is discharged." A judge obviously cannot instruct a jury that is discharged-it is no longer there. But there is no implicit limitation in Rule 51(b)(3) that prohibits a court from rescinding its discharge order and reassembling the jury. See Link, 370 U.S., at 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte ). Other rules dealing with postverdict remedies such as a motion for a new trial or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, see Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 50(b), 59(a)(1)(A), similarly do not place limits on a court's ability to rescind a prior order discharging a jury. Accordingly, a federal district court can rescind a discharge order and recall a jury in a civil case as an exercise of its inherent powers.
B
Just because a district court has the inherent power to rescind a discharge order does not mean that it is appropriate to use that power in every case. Because the exercise of an inherent power in the interest of promoting efficiency may risk undermining other vital interests related to the fair administration of justice, a district court's inherent powers must be exercised with restraint. See Chambers, 501 U.S., at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123 ("Because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion").
The inherent power to rescind a discharge order and recall a dismissed jury, therefore, must be carefully circumscribed, especially in light of the guarantee of an impartial jury that is vital to the fair administration of justice. This Court's precedents implementing this guarantee have noted various external influences that can taint a juror. E.g., Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) ("In a criminal case, any private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial"). Parties can accordingly ask that a juror be excused during trial for good cause, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 47(c), or challenge jury verdicts based on improper extraneous influences such as prejudicial information not admitted into evidence, comments from a court employee about the defendant, or bribes offered to a juror, Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 521, 529, 190 L.Ed.2d 422 (2014) (citing Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987) ); see also Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149-150, 13 S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892) (external prejudicial information); Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 365, 87 S.Ct. 468, 17 L.Ed.2d 420 (1966) (per curiam ) (bailiff comments on defendant);
Remmer, 347 U.S., at 228-230, 74 S.Ct. 450 (bribe offered to juror).
The potential for taint looms even larger when a jury is reassembled after being discharged. While discharged, jurors are freed from instructions from the court requiring them not to discuss the case with others outside the jury room and to avoid external prejudicial information. See, e.g., 4 Sand ¶ 71.02 (standard instruction to avoid extraneous influences); see also id., ¶ 71.01, Instructions 71-12 to 71-14 (avoid publicity). For example, it is not uncommon for attorneys or court staff to talk to jurors postdischarge for their feedback on the trial. See 1 K. O'Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 9:8 (6th ed. 2006) (debating appropriateness of practice).
Any suggestion of prejudice in recalling a discharged jury should counsel a district court not to exercise its inherent power. A district court that is considering whether it should rescind a discharge order and recall a jury to correct an error or instead order a new trial should, of course, determine whether any juror has been directly tainted-for example, if a juror discusses the strength of the evidence with nonjurors or overhears others talking about the strength of the evidence. But the court should also take into account at least the following additional factors that can indirectly create prejudice in this context, any of which standing alone could be dispositive in a particular case.
First, the length of delay between discharge and recall. The longer the jury has been discharged, the greater the likelihood of prejudice. Freed from the crucible of the jury's group decisionmaking enterprise, discharged jurors may begin to forget key facts, arguments, or instructions from the court. In taking off their juror "hats" and returning to their lives, they may lose sight of the vital collective role they played in the impartial administration of justice. And they are more likely to be exposed to potentially prejudicial sources of information or discuss the case with others, even if they do not realize they have done so or forget when questioned after being recalled by the court. How long is too long is left to the discretion of the district court, but it could be as short as even a few minutes, depending on the case.
Second, whether the jurors have spoken to anyone about the case after discharge. This could include court staff, attorneys and litigants, press and sketch artists, witnesses, spouses, friends, and so on. Even apparently innocuous comments about the case from someone like a courtroom deputy such as "job well done" may be sufficient to taint a discharged juror who might then resist reconsidering her decision.
Third, the reaction to the verdict. Trials are society's way of channeling disputes into fair and impartial resolutions. But these disputes can be bitter and emotional. And, depending on the case, those emotions may be broadcasted to the jury in response to their verdict. Shock, gasps, crying, cheers, and yelling are common reactions to a jury verdict-whether as a verdict is announced in the courtroom or seen in the corridors after discharge.
In such a case, there is a high risk that emotional reactions will cause jurors to begin to reconsider their decision and ask themselves, "Did I make the right call?" Of course, this concern would be present even in a decision to reinstruct the jury to fix an error after the verdict is announced but before they are discharged. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 51(b)(3). Even so, after discharging jurors from their obligations and the passage of time, a judge should be reluctant to reempanel a jury that has witnessed emotional reactions to its verdict.
In considering these and any other relevant factors, courts should also ask to what extent just-dismissed jurors accessed their smartphones or the internet, which provide other avenues for potential prejudice. It is a now-ingrained instinct to check our phones whenever possible. Immediately after discharge, a juror could text something about the case to a spouse, research an aspect of the evidence on Google, or read reactions to a verdict on Twitter. Prejudice can come through a whisper or a byte.
Finally, we caution that our recognition here of a court's inherent power to recall a jury is limited to civil cases only. Given additional concerns in criminal cases, such as attachment of the double jeopardy bar, we do not address here whether it would be appropriate to recall a jury after discharge in a criminal case. See Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 473-474, 125 S.Ct. 1129, 160 L.Ed.2d 914 (2005).
Applying these factors, the District Court here did not abuse its discretion by rescinding its discharge order and recalling the jury to deliberate further. The jury was out for only a few minutes after discharge. Only one juror may have left the courthouse, apparently to retrieve a hotel receipt. The jurors did not speak to any person about the case after discharge. There is no indication in the record that this run-of-the-mill civil case-where the parties agreed that the defendant was liable and disputed damages only-generated any kind of emotional reaction or electronic exchanges or searches that could have tainted the jury. There was no apparent potential for prejudice by recalling the jury here.
III
Dietz asks us to impose a categorical bar on reempaneling a jury after it has been discharged. He contends that, at common law, a jury once discharged could never be brought back together again. Accordingly, he argues, without a " 'long unquestioned' power" of courts recalling juries, a federal district court lacks the inherent power to rescind a discharge order. See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 426-427, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) (district court lacked inherent authority to grant untimely motion for judgment of acquittal).
We disagree. Even assuming that the common-law tradition is as clear as Dietz contends, but see, e.g., Prussel v. Knowles, 5 Miss. 90, 95-97 (1839) (allowing postdischarge recall), the common law is less helpful to understanding modern civil trial practice. At common law, any error in the process of rendering a verdict, no matter how technical or inconsequential, could be remedied only by ordering a new trial. But modern trial practice did away with this system, replacing it with the harmless-error standard now embodied in Rule 61. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 758, 760, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (recognizing predecessor statute to Rule 61 codified the "salutary policy" of "substitu[ing] judgment for automatic ... rules").
Jury practice itself no longer follows the strictures of the common law. The common law required that juries be sequestered from the rest of society until they reached a verdict. Tellier, Separation or Dispersal of Jury in Civil Case After Submission, 77 A.L.R.2d 1086 (1961). This generally meant no going home at night, no lunch breaks, no dispersing at all until they reached a verdict. Id., § 2; see also Lester v. Stanley, 15 F.Cas. 396, 396-397 (No. 8,277) (Conn.1808) (Livingston, Circuit Justice) (following common law). Courts are no longer required to impose these requirements on juries in order to prevent possible prejudice. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (cases requiring sequestration to avoid trial publicity "are relatively rare"); Drake v. Clark, 14 F.3d 351, 358 (C.A.7 1994) ("Sequestration is an extreme measure, one of the most burdensome tools of the many available to assure a fair trial"). Accordingly, while courts should not think they are generally free to discover new inherent powers that are contrary to civil practice as recognized in the common law, see Carlisle, 517 U.S., at 426-427, 116 S.Ct. 1460 the advent of modern federal trial practice limits the common law's relevance as to the specific question whether a judge can recall a just-discharged jury.
Dietz also argues that the nature of a jury's deliberative process means that something about the jury is irrevocably broken once the jurors are told they are free to go. According to Dietz, with their bond broken, the jurors cannot be brought back together again as a "jury." In other words, once a jury is discharged, a court can never put the jury back together again by rescinding its discharge order-legally or metaphysically.
We reject this "Humpty Dumpty" theory of the jury. Juries are of course an integral and special part of the American system of civil justice. Our system cannot function without the dedication of citizens coming together to perform their civic duty and resolve disputes.
But there is nothing about the jury as an entity that ceases to exist simply because the judge tells the jury that they are excused from further service. A discharge order is not a magical invocation. It is an order, like any other order.
And, like any order, it can be issued by mistake. All judges make mistakes. (Even us.) See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in judgment) ("We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final"). There is no benefit to imposing a rule that says that as soon as a jury is free to go a judge categorically cannot rescind that order to correct an easily identified and fixable mistake, even as the jurors are still in the courtroom collecting their things.
Dietz does not suggest the Court adopt a magic-words rule, but instead urges the adoption of a "functional" discharge test based on whether the jurors remain within the "presence and control" of the district court, where control is limited to the courtroom itself. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-7. Similarly, the dissent suggests that it is the chance "to mingle with bystanders" that creates a discharge that cannot be undone. Post, at 1897 - 1898 (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). These tests do not avoid the problems that Dietz and the dissent identify with a prejudice inquiry. Under a courtroom test, what if a juror has one foot over the line? What if she just stepped out to use the restroom? Under a courthouse test, what if she is just outside the doors? Reached her car in the parking lot? Under a bystander test, is a courtroom deputy in the jury room a mingling bystander? There is no good reason to prefer a test based on geography or identity over an inquiry focused on potential prejudice.
Finally, Dietz argues that the District Court in this case erred by questioning the discharged jurors as a group before reempaneling them instead of questioning each and every juror individually. While individual questioning could be the better practice in many circumstances, Dietz' attorney raised no objection to this part of the court's process. We decline to review this forfeited objection. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 46.
* * *
Federal district courts have a limited inherent power to rescind a discharge order and recall a jury in a civil case. District courts should exercise this power cautiously and courts of appeals should review its invocation carefully. That was done here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore
Affirmed.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice KENNEDY joins, dissenting.
Justice Holmes famously quipped, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV." The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 469 (1897). But old rules often stand the test of time because wisdom underlies them. The common-law rule prohibiting a judge from recalling the jury after it is discharged is one such rule. Even though contemporary jurors are not formally sequestered as they were at common law, they are still subject to significant restrictions designed to prevent undue influence. And in today's world of cellphones, wireless Internet, and 24/7 news coverage, the rationale that undergirds the bright-line rule supplied by the common law is even more relevant: Jurors may easily come across prejudicial information when, after trial, the court lifts their restrictions on outside information. I would therefore hew to that rule rather than adopt the majority's malleable multifactor test for prejudice. I respectfully dissent.
At common law, once the judge discharged the jury and the jury could interact with the public, the judge could not recall the jury to amend the verdict. See Sargent v. State, 11 Ohio 472, 473 (1842) ; Mills v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. 751, 752 (1836) ; Little v. Larrabee, 2 Me. 37, 40 (1822). It was not " 'the mere announcement' " that the jury was discharged, but rather the chance to " 'mingl[e] with the bystanders' " that triggered the prohibition against recalling them. Summers v. United States, 11 F.2d 583, 586 (C.A.4 1926) (quoting A. Abbott, A Brief for the Trial of Criminal Cases 730 (2d ed. 1902)). At that point, the court could not fix a substantive error made by the jury, including "returning a verdict against the wrong party ; or, if not so, for a larger or smaller sum than they intended." Little, supra, at 39; see also Jackson v. Williamson, 2 T.R. 281, 281-282, 100 Eng. Rep. 153 (K.B. 1788) (refusing to allow an amendment to the verdict after the jury was discharged even though all jurors signed an affidavit explaining that they intended to award more in damages).
The theory underpinning this rule was simple: Jurors, as the judges of fact, must avoid the possibility of prejudice. They have long been prohibited from having ex parte communications with the parties during a trial or receiving evidence in private. 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *375-*376. But once the jury is discharged, the jurors "become accessible to the parties and subject to their influence." Little, supra, at 39. In drawing the line at the opportunity to mingle, the common-law rule was prophylactic. But that is a desirable feature when public confidence in the judicial system is at stake.
It is true, as the Court explains, that jurors are no longer sequestered from the public. Ante, at 1895. But remnants of sequestration remain. Jurors are prohibited from ex parte contact with the parties and the judge. They are not allowed to gather outside information about the case. And, courthouses have private rooms for jurors, to shield them from ex parte information during recesses and deliberations.
Even without full sequestration, the common-law rule remains sensible and administrable. After discharge, the court has no power to impose restrictions on jurors, and jurors are no longer under oath to obey them. Jurors may access their cellphones and get public information about the case. They may talk to counsel or the parties. They may overhear comments in the hallway as they leave the courtroom. And they may reflect on the case-away from the pressure of the jury room-in a way that could induce them to change their minds. The resulting prejudice can be hard to detect. And a litigant who suddenly finds himself on the losing end of a materially different verdict may be left to wonder what may have happened in the interval between the jury's discharge and its new verdict. Granting a new trial may be inconvenient, but at least litigants and the public will be more confident that the verdict was not contaminated by improper influence after the trial has ended. And under this bright-line rule, district courts would take greater care in discharging the jury.
In contrast, the only thing that is clear about the majority's multifactor test is that it will produce more litigation. This multifactor test may aid in identifying relevant facts for analysis, but-like most multifactor tests-it leaves courts adrift once those facts have been identified. The majority instructs district judges to look at "the length of delay between discharge and recall," "whether the jurors have spoken to anyone about the case after discharge," "the reaction to the verdict," and whether jurors have had access to their cellphones or the Internet. Ante, at 1894 - 1895. But in collecting these factors, the majority offers little guidance on how courts should apply them. Is one hour too long? How about two hours or two days? Does a single Internet search by a juror preclude recalling the entire jury? How many factors must be present to shift the balance against recalling the jury? All the majority says is that any factor "standing alone could be dispositive in a particular case." Ante, at 1894 - 1895 (emphasis added).
The majority's factors thus raise more questions than they answer. Parties will expend enormous effort litigating and appealing these questions. And when the Courts of Appeals inevitably fail to agree on what constitutes prejudice, we will be called on again to sort it out. As the Court of King's Bench recognized over two centuries ago, "it was better that the present plaintiff should suffer an inconvenience" than to head down this murky path. Jackson, supra, at 282, 100 Eng. Rep., at 153.
All rules have their drawbacks. The common-law rule, on occasion, may unnecessarily force a district court to redo a trial for a minor substantive mistake in the verdict. But the majority's multifactor test will only create more confusion. It would be much simpler to instruct the district courts, when they find a mistake in the verdict after the jury is dismissed, to hold a new trial.
The jurors here had the chance to mingle with the outside world after the District Court's discharge order released them from their oaths. After the announcement of discharge, the jurors entered public spaces in which interaction with nonjurors was possible. At that point, the jurors no longer were within the court's control and, therefore, were in fact discharged. Although the record does not indicate one way or the other, it is also possible that the jurors had access to cellphones or other wireless devices in circumstances where they understood themselves to have been released from any directions or limitations the judge had imposed on the use of those devices during trial.
Because the District Court reconvened the jury after discharge to deliberate anew, I would reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the verdict and remand for a new trial. I respectfully dissent.
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507-508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947).
Although courts could not fix substantive errors by recalling the jury, they could correct clerical errors in the reporting of the verdict. See Little v. Larrabee, 2 Me. 37, 38 (1822).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The primary question in these cases is whether the statutory time limit for filing charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1970 ed.) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit in the District Court. Secondarily, we resolve a dispute as to whether retroactive seniority was a proper remedy in these Title VII cases.
I
In 1970, the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association (ALSSA), then the collective-bargaining agent of Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight attendants, brought a class action alleging that TWA practiced unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII by its policy of grounding all female flight cabin attendants who became mothers, while their male counterparts who became fathers were permitted to continue flying. After collective bargaining eliminated the challenged practice prospectively, the parties in the case reached a tentative settlement. The settlement, which provided neither backpay nor retroactive seniority, was approved by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however, found the union to be an inadequate representative of the class because of the inherent conflict between the interests of current and former employees. It remanded the case with instructions that the District Court name individual members of the class to replace ALSSA as the class representative. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. American Airlines, Inc., 490 F. 2d 636 (1973).
Upon remand, petitioners in No. 78-1545 were appointed as class representatives. TWA moved to amend its answer to assert that the claims of plaintiffs and other class members were barred by Title VIPs “statute of limitations” because they had failed to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the statutory time limit. 1 App. 89a. Although the District Court granted the motion to amend, it noted that the “delay in pleading the defense of limitations may well ultimately constitute a waiver of the defense.” Id., at 101a.
Subsequently, on October 15, 1976, the District Court denied TWA’s motion to exclude class members who had not filed timely charges with the EEOC. In support of its motion, TWA argued that instead of an affirmative defense analogous to a statute of limitations, timely filing with the EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequisite not subject to waiver by any action of the defendants. While the District Court agreed that the filing requirements of Title VII are jurisdictional, it denied the motion on the basis that any violation by the airline continued against all the class members until the airline changed the challenged policy. Id., at 131a-132a. On October 19, 1976, the District Court granted the motion of the plaintiff class for summary judgment on the issue of TWA's liability for violating Title VII. Id., at 133a-134a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of October 18, 1976, granting summary judgment on liability, expressly holding that “TWA’s no motherhood policy . . . provides a clear example of sex discrimination prohibited by §2000e-2(a).” In re Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings in the Airline Cases, 582 F. 2d 1142, 1145 (1978). It declined, however, “to extend the continuing violation theory, as did the district court, so as to include in the plaintiff class those employees who were permanently terminated more than 90 days before the filing of EEOC charges.” Id., at 1149.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that timely filing of EEOC charges was a jurisdictional prerequisite. Because TWA could not waive the timely-filing requirement, the Court of Appeals found that approximately 92% of the plaintiffs’ claims were jurisdictionally barred by the failure of those plaintiffs to have filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC within 90 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The Court of Appeals, however, stayed its mandate pending the filing of petitions in this Court. Petitions for certiorari were filed by the plaintiff class, No. 78-1545, and by TWA, No. 78-1549. This Court granted motions to defer consideration of the petitions pending completion of settlement proceedings in the District Court. 442 U. S. 916 (1979).
In connection with the settlement proceedings, the District Court designated two subclasses. Subclass A, consisting of some 30 women, comprised those who were terminated on or after March 2, 1970, as well as those who were discharged earlier, but who had accepted reinstatement in ground duty positions. Subclass B, numbering some 400 women, covered all other members of the class and consisted of those whose claims the Court of Appeals had found to be jurisdictionally barred for failure to satisfy the timely-filing requirement. 2 App. 3.
The proposed settlement divided $3 million between the two groups. It also provided each class member with full company and union seniority from the date of termination. The agreement specified that “in the event of the timely objection of any interested person, it is agreed that the amount of seniority and credit for length of service for the compensation period will be determined by the Court in its discretion, pursuant to the provisions of Section 706(g), and all other applicable provisions of law, without contest or objection by TWA.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 80-951, p. 29a.
The Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (union), which had replaced ALSSA as the collective-bargaining agent for the flight attendants, was permitted to intervene and to object to the settlement. On the basis that the Court of Appeals had not issued the mandate in its jurisdictional decision, the District Court rejected the union’s challenge to its jurisdiction over Subclass B. Id., at 14a-15a. After holding three days of hearings, the District Court approved the settlement and awarded competitive seniority. It explicitly found that full restoration of retroactive seniority would not have an unusual adverse impact upon currently employed flight attendants in any way atypical of Title VII cases. Id., at 18a-19a.
The union appealed. It argued that, because of the Court of Appeals’ earlier opinion, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement or to order retroactive seniority with respect to Subclass B. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that “the principles favoring settlement of class action lawsuits remain the same regardless of whether the disputed legal issues center on the jurisdiction of the court over the action. ” Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 630 F. 2d 1164, 1169 (1980). It further explained that the question of jurisdiction as to Subclass B had not been finally determined because a challenge to its decision was pending before this Court and observed that the Courts of Appeals were split on the issue. The Court of Appeals noted that the District Court clearly had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims of Subclass A. It concluded: “Where, as here, the jurisdictional question is not settled with finality, parties should not be forced to litigate the issue of jurisdiction if they can arrive at a settlement that is otherwise appropriate for district court approval.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of seniority. According to the court, the settlement served the public policy of remedying past acts of sex discrimination and the consequences of those past acts. Moreover, “[t]he right to have its objections heard does not, of course, give the intervenor the right to block any settlement to which it objects.” Ibid.
The union petitioned for certiorari, No. 80-951. We granted its petition together with the petitions in No. 78-1545 and No. 78-1549, 450 U. S. 979 (1981), but later removed the TWA case, No. 78-1549, from the argument docket and limited the grant in No. 80-951. 451 U. S. 980 (1981).
II
The single question in No. 78-1545 is whether the timely filing of an EEOC charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII suit in federal court or whether the requirement is subject to waiver and estoppel. In reaching its decision that the requirement is jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit relied on its reading of the statutory language, the absence of any indication to the contrary in the legislative history, and references in several of our cases to the 90-day filing requirement as “jurisdictional.” Other Courts of Appeals that have examined the same materials have reached the opposite conclusion.
We hold that filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. The structure of Title VII, the congressional policy underlying it, and the reasoning of our cases all lead to this conclusion.
The provision granting district courts jurisdiction under Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-5(e) and (f), does not limit jurisdiction to those cases in which there has been a timely filing with the EEOC. It contains no reference to the timely-filing requirement. The provision specifying the time for filing charges with the EEOC appears as an entirely separate provision, and it does not speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts. The legislative history of the filing provision is sparse, but Senator Humphrey did characterize the time period for filing a claim as a “period of limitations,” 110 Cong. Rec. 12723 (1964), and Senator Case described its purpose as preventing the pressing of “stale” claims, id., at 7243, the end served by a statute of limitations.
Although subsequent legislative history is not dispositive, see Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572, 596 (1980); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 686, n. 7 (1979), the legislative history of the 1972 amendments also indicates that Congress intended the filing period to operate as a statute of limitations instead of a jurisdictional requirement. In the final Conference Committee section-by-section analysis of H. R. 1746, The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, 118 Cong. Rec. 7166, 7167 (1972), the Committee not only termed the filing period a “time limitation,” but explained:
“This subsection as amended provides that charges be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Court decisions under the present law have shown an inclination to interpret this time limitation so as to give the aggrieved person the maximum benefit of the law; it is not intended that such court decisions should be in any way circumscribed by the extension of the time limitations in this subsection.”
This result is entirely consistent with prior case law. Although our cases contain scattered references to the timely-filing requirement as jurisdictional, the legal character of the requirement was not at issue in those cases, and as or more often in the same or other cases, we have referred to the provision as a limitations statute.
More weighty inferences however, are to be drawn from other cases. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (1976), was a Title VII suit against an employer and a union. The District Court denied relief for unnamed class members on the ground that those individuals had not filed administrative charges under the provisions of Title VII and that relief for them was thus not appropriate. The Court of Appeals did not disturb this ruling, but we reversed, saying:
“The District Court stated two reasons for its denial of seniority relief for the unnamed class members. The first was that those individuals had not filed administrative charges under the provision of Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and therefore class relief of this sort was not appropriate. We rejected this justification for denial of class-based relief in the context of backpay awards in Albemarle Paper [Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 (1975),] and . . . reject it here. This justification for denying class-based relief in Title VII suits has been unanimously rejected by the courts of appeals, and Congress ratified that construction by the 1972 amendments. . . .” Id., at 771 (footnote omitted).
If the timely-filing requirement were to limit the jurisdiction of the District Court to those claimants who have filed timely charges with the EEOC, the District Courts in Franks and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 (1975), would have been without jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of those who had not filed as well as without jurisdiction to award them seniority. We did not so hold. Furthermore, we noted that Congress had approved the Court of Appeals cases that awarded relief to class members who had not exhausted administrative remedies before the EEOC. It is evident that in doing so, Congress necessarily adopted the view that the provision for filing charges with the EEOC should not be construed to erect a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in the district court.
In Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 (1972), we announced a guiding principle for construing the provisions of Title VII. Declining to read literally another filing provision of Title VII, we explained that a technical reading would be “particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.” Id., at 527. That principle must be applied here as well.
The reasoning of other cases assumes that the filing requirement is not jurisdictional. In Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229 (1976), we rejected the argument that the timely-filing requirement should be tolled because the plaintiff had been pursuing a grievance procedure set up in the collective-bargaining agreement. We did not reach this decision on the basis that the 180-day period was jurisdictional. Instead, we considered the merits of a series of arguments that grievance procedures should toll the requirement. Such reasoning would have been gratuitous if the filing requirement were a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Similarly, we did not sua sponte dismiss the action in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807 (1980), on the basis that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with a related Title VII time provision. Instead, we merely observed in a footnote that “[petitioner did not assert respondent’s failure to file the action within 90 days as a defense.” Id., at 811, n. 9.
By holding compliance with the filing period to be not a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a Title VII suit, but a requirement subject to waiver as well as tolling when equity so requires, we honor the remedial purpose of the legislation as a whole without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement, to give prompt notice to the employer.
We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals in No. 78-1545.
H-i H-l Í — i
In No. 80-951, the union challenges on several grounds the District Court’s authority to award, over the union’s objection, retroactive seniority to the members of Subclass B. We have already rejected the union’s first contention, namely, that the District Court had no jurisdiction to award relief to those who had not complied with Title VII’s filing requirement. The union also contends that in any event there has been no finding of discrimination with respect to Subclass B members and that the predicate for relief under § 706(g) is therefore missing. This contention is also without merit.
The District Court unquestionably found an unlawful discrimination against the plaintiff class, and the class at that time had not been subdivided into Subclasses A and B. Summary judgment ran in favor of the entire class, including both those members who had filed timely charges and those who had not. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment order as well as the finding of a discriminatory employment practice. The court went on, however, to hold that the District Court had no jurisdiction over claims by those who had not met the filing requirement and that those individuals should have been excluded from the class prior to the grant of summary judgment. But as we have now held, that ruling is erroneous. The District Court did have jurisdiction over nonfiling class members. Thus, there was no jurisdictional barrier to its finding of discrimination with respect to the entire class. With the reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment in No. 78-1545 and our dismissal of No. 78-1549, which had challenged the affirmance of the summary judgment order, the order that found classwide discrimination remains intact and is final. The award of retroactive seniority to members of Subclass B as well as Subclass A is not infirm for want of a finding of a discriminatory employment practice.
Equally meritless is the union’s contention that retroactive seniority contrary to the collective-bargaining agreement should not be awarded over the objection of a union that has not itself been found guilty of discrimination. In Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S., at 764, we read the legislative history of Title VII as giving
“emphatic confirmation that federal courts are empowered to fashion such relief as the particular circumstances of a case may require to effect restitution, making whole in so far as possible the victims of . . . discrimination . . . .”
While recognizing that backpay was the only remedy specifically mentioned in the provision, we reasoned that adequate relief might be denied without a seniority remedy. We concluded that the class-based seniority relief for identifiable vie-tims of illegal discrimination is a form of relief generally appropriate under § 706(g).
In Franks, the District Court had found both that the employer had engaged in discrimination and that the discriminatory practices were perpetuated in the collective-bargaining agreements with the unions. 424 U. S., at 751. Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977), however, makes it clear that once there has been a finding of discrimination by the employer, an award of retroactive seniority is appropriate even if there is no finding that the union has also illegally discriminated. In Teamsters, the parties agreed to a decree which provided that the District Court would decide “whether any discriminatees should be awarded additional equitable relief such as retroactive seniority.” Id., at 331, n. 4. Although we held that the union had not violated Title VII by agreeing to and maintaining the seniority system, we nonetheless directed the union to remain in the litigation as a defendant so that full relief could be awarded the victims of the employer’s post-Act discrimination. Id., at 356, n. 43. Here, as in Teamsters, the settlement left to the District Court the final decision as to retroactive seniority.
In resolving the seniority issue, the District Court gave the union all the process that was due it under Title VII in our cases. The union was allowed to intervene. The District Court heard its objections, made appropriate findings, and determined that retroactive seniority should be awarded. The Court of Appeals agreed with that determination, and we have eliminated from our consideration here the question whether on the facts of these cases the Court of Appeals and the District Court were in error in this respect.
Accordingly, the judgment in No. 78-1545 is reversed and the judgment in No. 80-951 is affirmed.
So ordered.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these eases.
The class was defined as all female flight cabin attendants who were terminated from employment with TWA on or after July 2, 1965, for reasons of pregnancy. The Court of Appeals assumed the class to include only those who would have resumed flight duty after becoming mothers but for TWA’s policy. In re Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings in the Airline Cases, 582 F. 2d 1142, 1147, and n. 9 (CA7 1978). The class thus included both former employees and current employees, that is, both those who declined and those who accepted ground positions.
When suit was filed, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(d) (1970 ed.) required charges to be filed within 90 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. In 1972, this provision was amended to extend the time limit to 180 days and is now codified as § 2000e-5(e).
Section 706(g) of Title VII, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(g) provides:
“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay ... , or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. ...”
The Court of Appeals relied on language in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 779, n. 41 (1976):
“[D]istrict courts should take as their starting point the presumption in favor of rightful-place seniority relief, and proceed with further legal analysis from that point; and . . . such relief may not be denied on the abstract basis of adverse impact upon interests of other employees but rather only on the basis of unusual adverse impact arising from facts and circumstances that would not be generally found in Title VII cases.”
In No. 78-1549, TWA contends (a) that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of liability, (b) that TWA should be required to grant only prospective relief to plaintiffs, and (c) that the Court of Appeals erred in defining the subclass of plaintiffs who had filed timely charges with the EEOC. In view of our decision in No. 78-1545 and No. 80-951, we now dismiss the petition in No. 78-1549 as improvidently granted.
See Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U. S. 229, 240 (1976); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553, 555, n. 4 (1977); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 47 (1974); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 798 (1973).
See Carlile v. South Routt School District Re 3-J, 652 F. 2d 981 (CA10 1981); Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 640 F. 2d 584 (CA5 1981); Leake v. University of Cincinnati, 605 F. 2d 255 (CA6 1979); Hart v. J. T. Baker Chemical Corp., 598 F. 2d 829 (CA3 1979); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 185 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 567 F. 2d 429 (1976).
One of the questions on which we granted certiorari in No. 80-951 was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the District Court’s approval of the settlement of jurisdictionally barred claims. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explicitly declined to follow McArthur v. Southern Airways, Inc., 569 F. 2d 276 (CA5 1978) (en banc). Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. TWA, 630 F. 2d 1164, 1168-1169 (1980). In McArthur, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the approval of a settlement agreement in a Title VII class action, holding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Because of our holding in No. 78-1545 that timely filing with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, this issue need not be resolved.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 2000e — 5(f)(3), for example, reads:
“Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter. Such an action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office. ...”
Section 2000e-5(e), the amended version of the filing provision, reads simply: “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred . . . .”
The Senate Labor Committee’s section-by-section analysis of the amendments explained that “[t]his subsection would permit... a limitation period similar to that contained in the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended.” S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 37 (1971). We have recognized that the National Labor Relations Act was “the model for Title VIPs remedial provisons,” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 366 (1977). Because the time requirement for filing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act operates as a statute of limitations subject to recognized equitable doctrines and not as a restriction of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see NLRB v. Local 264, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 529 F. 2d 778, 781-785 (CA8 1976); Shumate v. NLRB, 452 F. 2d 717, 720 (CA4 1971); NLRB v. A. E. Nettleton Co., 241 F. 2d 130, 133 (CA2 1957); NLRB v. Itasca Cotton Mfg. Co., 179 F. 2d 504, 506-507 (CA5 1950), the time limitations under Title VII should be treated likewise.
Moreover, when Congress in 1978 revised the filing requirement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), which was modeled after Title VII, see Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750 (1979), the House Conference •Report explicitly stated that “the ‘charge’ requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining an action under the ADEA and that therefore equitable modification for failing to file within the time period will be available to plaintiffs under this Act.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-950, p. 12.
As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit points out in its opinion in Coke, supra, at 588-589, references to the filing requirement as a statute of limitations have come to dominate in our opinions:
“The trend of the Supreme Court cases is also significant. In the early cases, the Court in dicta referred to such time provisions using the label ‘jurisdictional prerequisite.’ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 . . . (1973); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 . . . (1974). In the 1976 Robbins & Myers decision the jurisdictional label was used once, but there were numerous references to ‘tolling the limitations period,’ 429 U. S. at 239,. . . and other labels obviously referring to a statute of limitations, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction. See also United Air Lines v. Evans, 431 U. S. 553 . . . (1977), in which both labels are used. From and after late 1977, all nine justices have concurred in opinions containing dicta using the limitations label to the exclusion of the jurisdictional label. Occidental Life Insurance Company v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 371-[3]72 . . . (1977); United Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 391-[3]92 . . , (1977); Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, 818-823 . . . (1980), Delaware State College v. Ricks, [449] U. S. [250]. . . (1980).”
In Robbins & Myers, we also held that the expanded 180-day “limitations period,” enacted by the 1972 amendments, was retroactive. 429 U. S., at 244. This holding presupposes that the requirement is not jurisdictional. Moreover, in reaching this conclusion, we quoted from Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 316 (1945): “[C]ertainly it cannot be said that lifting the bar of a statute of limitation so as to restore a remedy lost through mere lapse of time is per se an offense against the Fourteenth Amendment.” Several Courts of Appeals have read Robbins & Myers as implicitly approving equitable tolling. Coke v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 640 F. 2d, at 588; Hart v. J. T. Baker Chemical Corp., 598 F. 2d, at 833; Smith v. American President Lines, Ltd., 571 F. 2d 102, 108-109 (CA2 1978).
In noting that the union in Teamsters properly remained a defendant in the litigation, we cited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). The union here was not joined under Rule 19 when individuals replaced the union as class representatives, but intervened later. Cf. EEOC v. Mac-Millan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F. 2d 1086, 1095 (CA6 1974) (joinder under Rule 19(a) provides union with full opportunity to participate in litigation and formulation of proposed relief, although as practical matter union does not play role in litigation until court finds violation of Title VII).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
. When this case was here the last time, we held that the acquisition of Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation by El Paso Natural Gas.Company violated § 7 of the Clayton Act; and we directed the District Court “to order divestiture without delay.” United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651, 662. That was on April 6, 1964. It is now nearly three years later , and, as we shall see, no divestiture in any meaningful sense has been directed. The United States, now an appellee, maintains that the issues respecting divestiture are not before us. The threshold question does indeed involve another matter. Appellants were denied intervention by the District Court and came, here by way of appeal, 32 Stat. 823, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted .probable jurisdiction. 382 U. S. 970.
I.
The initial question concerning intervention turns on a construction of Rule 24 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitled “Intervention of Right.” At the time the District Court ruled on the motions that Rule provided in relevant part, “Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... (3) when the applicant is so situated, as to be adversely affected by'. . . disposition of property which is in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court or an officer thereof.” As amended effective July 1, 1966, subsequent to the time these motions to intervene were denied, Rule 24 (a) ('2) provides that there may be intervention of right, “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.”
California, one of the appellants, is a State where El Paso sells most of its gas and its purpose in intervening was to assure that Pacific Northwest, illegally merged with El Pasó, or its successor, would be restored as an effective competitor in California. As we noted in the prior opinion, Pacific Northwest had been “a substantial factor in the California market at the time it was acquired by EÍ Paso.” 376 U. S., at 658. It was to restore that “competitive factor” that divestiture was ordered. Id., at 658-662. Southern California Edison, another appellant, is a large industrial user of natural gas purchasing from El Paso sources and desirous of retaining competition in California. Cascade Natural Gas is a distributor in Oregon and Washington, and its sole supplier of natural gas was Pacific Northwest and will be the New Company created under the divestiture plan. Cascade maintains that there has been a grossly unfair division of gas reserves between El Paso and the New Company, particularly in the southwest field known as the San Juan Basin. Moreover, the District Court approved contracts between El Paso and the New Company for delivery of gas both from Canada and from the San Juan Basin, and allowed El Paso unilaterally and without application to the Federal Power Commission, to saddle new and allegedly onerous prices and other conditions on the New Company. Moreover, the stock of' West Coast Transmission Co., Ltd., was ordered sold for the benefit of El Paso. Pacific Northwest had owned about a fourth of West Coast Transmission’s stock, and that ownership gave Pacific Northwest, it is said, special insight into and access to the Canadian gas supply. These factors, implicating the ability of Pacific Northwest to perform in the future, give Cascade, it is argued, standing to intervene.^.
Under old Rule 24 (a) (3) those “adversely affected” by a disposition of property would usually be those who have an interest in the property. But we cannot read it to mean exclusively that group.
Rule 24 (a) (3) was not merely a restatement of existing federal practice at law and in equity. If it had been, there would be force in the argument that the rigidity of the older cases remains unaltered, restricting intervention as of right very narrowly, as for example where there is a fund in court to which a third party asserts a right that would be lost absent intervention. Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U. S. 311, 316; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 218 F. 336, 339. But the Advisory Committee stated that Rule 24 “amplifies and restates the present federal practice at law and in equity.” We therefore know that some elasticity was injected; and the question is, how much. As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Central Trust Co. case, “It is not always easy to draw the line.” Ibid.
In Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States 312 U. S. 502, a consent decree was entered in an anti.-' trust suit, designed to protect Panhandle from Columbia which had acquired domination of the former to stifle
its competition. . The decree sought' to assure opportunities for competition by Panhandle. A security holder of Panhandle sought to intervene on Panhandle’s behalf when the consent decree was reopened and was denied that right. We reversed, noting at the outset that “the circumstances under which interested outsiders should be allowed to become participants in a litigation is, barring very special circumstances, a matter for the nisi prius court. But where the t .forcement of a public law also demands distinct safeguarding of private interests by giving them a formal status in the decree, the power to enforce rights thus sanctioned is not left to the public authorities nor put in the keeping of the district court’s discretion.” Id., at 506.
' ■ We noted that Panhandle’s economic independence was “at the heart of the controversy.” Ibid. In the present case protection of California interests in a competitive system was at the heart of our mandate directing divestiture. For it was the absorption of Pacific Northwest by El Paso that stifled that competition and disadvantaged the California interests. It was indeed their interests, as part of the public interest in a competitive system, that our mandate was designed to protect. In that sense the present case is very close to Pipe Line Co. Apart from that but in the spirit of Pipe Line Co. we think that California and Southern California Edison qualify as intervenors under Rule 24 (a)(3). Certainly these two appellants are “so situated” geographically as to be “adversely affected” within the ú.aning of Rule 24 (a) (3) by a merger that reduces the competitive factor in natural gas available to Californians. We conclude that it was error to deny them intervention. We need not decide whether Cascade could have intervened as of right under that Rule. For there is now in effect a new version of Rule 24 (a) which in subsection (2) recognizes as a proper element in intervention “ i interest” in the “transaction which is the subject of the action.” This Rule applies to “further proceedings” in pending actions. 383 U. S. 1031. Since the entire merits of the case must be reopened to give California and Southern California Edison an opportunity to be heard as of right as intervenors, we conclude that the new Rule 24 (a)(2) is broad enough to include Cascade also; and ás we shall see the “existing parties” have fallen far short of representing its interests. We therefore reverse the District Court in each of these appeals and remand with directions to allow each appellant to intervene as of right, to vacate the order of divestiture and to have de novo hearings on the type of divestiture we envisioned and made plain in our opinion in 376 U. S. 651
The necessity for new hearings needs a word of explanation;
The United States on oral argument stated that the decree to which it agreed and which it urges • us to approve was made in “settlement” of the litigation. We do not question the authority of the Attorney General to settle suits after, as well as before, they reach here. The Department of Justice, however, by stipulation or otherwise has no authority to circumscribe the power of the courts to see that our mandate is carried out. No one, except this Court, has authority to alter or modify our mandate. United States v. du Pont & Co., 366 U. S. 316, 325. Our direction was that the District Court provide for “divestiture without delay.”. That mandate in the context of the opinion plainly meant that Pacific Northwest or a new company be at once restored to a position where it could compete with El Paso in the California market.
Wé do not undertake to write the decree. But we do suggest guidelines that should be followed:
(1) Gas Reserves. The gas reserves granted the New Company must be no less in relation to present existing reserves than. Pacific Northwest had when it was independent; and the new gas reserves developed since the merger must be equitably divided between El Paso and the New Company. We are told by the interveners that El Paso gets the new reserves in the San Juan Básin— which due to their geographical propinquity to California are critical to competition in that market. But the merged company, which discovered them,. represented the interests both of El Paso and of Pacific Northwest. We do riot know whát an equitable division would require. Hearings are necessary, followed by meticulous findings made in light of the competitive requirements to which we have adverted.
As already indicated, the proposed decree provides the terms of contracts' imposed on the New Company respecting the purchase and gathering of gas from various sources. It is urged that these contracts are onerous, detrimental to the New Company, and partial to El Paso interests. We do not pass upon the wisdom or desirability of the proposed contracts. It is enough to note that they were proposed by El Paso, that the changes, reluctantly acceded to by the Government, will redound to the substantial benefit of El Paso, and that the New Company has had no opportunity to evaluate the advisability of the terms or to negotiate for better terms. Nor has the Federal Power Commission had the opportunity to pass upon the contracts. The terms of these contracts should be negotiated by the New Company under such restrictions as the Natural Gas Act may impose.
• (2) Financial Aspects. As noted, El Paso is allowed to sell the stock of West Coast Transmission Co., Ltd., brought into the merger by Pacific Northwest, and keep the proceeds, which if stock prices at the time of the proposed divestiture are considered might result, it is alleged, in a profit of $10,000,000 or more, while-the New Company gets the stock of Northwest Production Co. which from 1960-1963 showed heavy losses. It is charged that by the proposed decree El Paso is'saving the cream for itself and foisting the “cats and dogs” on the New Company. It is also earnestly argued that the New Company will sorely need the valuable and fairly liquid stock of West Coast Transmission if it is to have the working capital necessary to restore the competitive balance that the merger destroyed.' These are highly relevant arguments. Certainly a plan of divestiture of the kind we envisaged must establish a New Company in the same or comparable competitive position that Pacific Northwest was in when the illegal merger obliterated it.
It is also pointed out that some. $53,000,000 of taxable losses which Pacific Northwest had were utilized by El Paso during the years following the ill-starred merger. It is argued that since ttíese tax loss carry-overs were in a real sense an asset of Pacific Northwest utilized by El Paso, the New Company should receive other assets or a reduction in debt of equivalent value.. These allegations, if proven, require remuneration of some kind to the New Company. For it must be a viable, healthy unit, as ■ able to compete as Pacific Northwest was when it was acquired by El Paso.
(3) Control of El Paso. The divestiture decree'provides that El Paso is to cause the formation of the New Company,- whose chief executive shall be approved By El Paso, the Government, and the court. The new company is to file an application with the Federal Power Commission “at the earliest practicable date” requesting the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to acquire, own, and operate the properties to be received from El Paso. When the necessary certificates, authorizations, and orders are obtained from the FPC, El Paso is to transfer to the New Company the properties and assets set forth in the plan of divestiture, generally those which El Paso received from Pacific Northwest. In return, the New Company is to assume certain of El Paso’s indebtedness and issue to El Paso all its common stock. El Paso is to transfer the New Company stock to the New Company’s chief executive, as voting trustee. The New Company’s chief executive shall release the stock only in accordance with the plan for divestment of El Paso’s interest in the stock. Under the plan, El Paso is ordered completely to divest itself of all interest in the New Company stock within three years after the transfer of the assets to the New Company. Alternate methods of divestment are provided. (1) El Paso may, within 18 months of the transfer, distribute at least 80% of the shares to holders of El Paso common stock who are willing to exchange their El Paso shares for New Company shares, and who shall own no other El Paso shares immediately after the exchange. The remainder of New Company stock would be disposed of by- a public offering. (2) If El Paso does not dispose of the New Company stock under the first alternative, it is to dispose of the New Company stock “by one or more sales to the public.” At such public offering no El Paso officer or. director and no owner of El Paso’s capital stock, in excess of one-half of one percent of the total shares outstanding, shall be permitted to purchase New Company stock.
Thus, the El Paso-Pacific Northwest combination will not begin to be severed until the regulatory approvals have been obtained. Complete divestiture is not required until three years after the transfer of assets. An earlier divestiture is permissible, but divestiture is mandatory only after three years. During the interregnum, between the entry of the decree and the regulatory approvals, and between the transfer of assets and El Paso’s eventual disposition of the New Company stock, El Paso will continue to reap the benefits of the illegal combination. Moreover, prior to the eventual disposition of the New Company stock, all the stock is to- be voted by the New Company’s chief executive. The chief executive is to be approved by El Paso, and El Paso is the beneficial owner of the stock to be voted by him. Even though the chief' executive is subject to the ultimate control and supervision of the. District Court, there is danger that he may vote the New Company stock in a manner calculated ■ to perpetuate the very conditions which led us to order severance oí the illegal combination.
Even after the mandatory disposition of the new company, stock there is considerable danger that El Paso interests may end up controlling the New Company. The decree, to be sure, provides that neither El Paso officers and directors nor owners of more than one-half of one percent of El Paso stock shall purchase New Company stock at a public offering. But the decree does -not prohibit members of.the families of such prohibited pur- • chasers from obtaining New Company stock. Further, under the .terms of the decree, it would be possible for a group of El- Paso stockholders, each with less than one-half of one percent of Eh Paso stock, to acquire at the initial public offering enough New Company stock substantially to influence or even to dominate the New Com=pany. Or, such, a group could combine with the families of prohibited purchasers in order to control the New Company. After the exchange or public offering, there is no restriction on the number of New Company shares El Paso shareholders may acquire. Thus, there is a danger that major El Paso stockholders may, subsequent to the exchange or public offering, purchase large blocks of New Company stock and obtain effective control. Thus, there has been no studied attempt to- ensure the swift severance of the illegal combination or to make sure that the New Company’s stock does not end up controlled by El Paso interests. Disposition of all of the stock with all convenient speed is necessary and conditions must be imposed to make sure that El Paso interests do not acquire a controlling interest. For if they do, the New Company might well be only El Paso under the masquer- • ade of a beard.
The proposed decree bypasses completely the prospect of an outright purchase of the assets of the New Company or its stock by outside interests. Two purchasers apparently are anxious and eager; and before the United States knuckled under to El Paso and “settled” this litigation, it represented to the District Court that a “sale to a third party is both a desirable and, possible alternative to the El Paso plan.” No alternative of that kind was chosen. El Paso carried the day, obtained a decree that promises to perpetuate rather than terminate this unlawful merger, and that threatens to turn loose on the public a New Company unable to maintain the competitive role that Pacific Northwest filled before this illegal transaction took place.
The convenience of El Paso would be the easier choice. The enforcement of our mandate and § 7 of the Clayton Act is the harder one; but that is the criterion we follow.
The evil with which the proposed decree is permeated reflects the attitude or philosophy of the District Court which was frankly stated after our remand as follows:
“The Court: You see, what this plan proposes is a division of the country, a division of the market, a division of the reserves, one area to New Company and-another area to El Paso. That’s what the root of this'plan is.
“Now, if you’re going to get New Company down here in competition in Southern California from the San Juan Basin, you’d upset the whole scheme. To even that situation, up, you’re going to have to put El Paso up in the Northwest in competition there; and that’s a kind of ridiculous thing — long pipelines from these various sources.
“It seems to me to make a lot of sense that New Company operating in the Northwest from very much closer Canadian reserves, and Northwest reserves, and El Paso down in the Southwest, with reserves in the San Juan Basin, serving the Southern California area, among some other areas. That seems to me to make a lot of sense.”
The proposed decree in its various ramifications does precisely that. It therefore does the opposite of what our prior opinion and mandate commanded. Once more, and nearly three years after we first spoke, we reverse and remand, with directions that there be divestiture without delay and that the Chief Judge of the Circuit or the Judicial Council of the Circuit (28 U. S. C. § 332) assign a different District Judge to hear the case. Cf. United States v. Hatahley, 257 F. 2d 920, 926, and its sequel, United States v. Ritter, 273 F. 2d 30, 32; Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Chandler, 303 F. 2d 55, 57; Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F. 2d 655, 657.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
California v. Federal Power Commission, 369 U. S. 482, involved another aspect of.the same merger; and we held that the Commission .• should not have approved it until-the District Court decided whether it violated §-7--%f-the'Tllayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 18.
See Board of Comm’rs v. Bernardin, 74 F. 2d 809, 816; Dowdy v. Hawfield, 88 U. S. App. D. C. 241; 242, 189 F. 2d 637, 638.
In 1966 the Advisory Committee when making a revision of Rule 24 (a) said:
“Rule 24 (a)(3) as amended in 1948 provided for intervention of right where the applicant established that he would be adversely affected by the distribution or disposition of property involved in an action to which he had not been made a party. Significantly, 'some decided cases virtually disregarded the language of this provision. Thus Professor Moore states: ‘The concept of a fund has been applied so loosely that it is possible for a court to find a fund in almost any in personam action.’ 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶24.09[3], at 55 (2d ed. 1962), and see, e. g., Formulabs, Inc. v. Hartley Pen Co., 275 F. 2d 52 (9th Cir. 1960). This development was quite natural, for Rule 24 (a) (3) was unduly restricted. ■ If an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene, and his right to do so should not depend on whether there is a fund to be distributed or otherwise disposed of. Intervention of right is here seen to be a kind of counterpart to Rule 19 (a) (2) (i) on joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication: where, upon motion of a party in an action, an absentee should be joined' so that he may protect his interest which as a practical matter may be substantially impaired by the disposition of the action, he ought to have a right to intervene in the action on his own motion. See Louisell & Hazard, Pleading and Procedure: State and Federal.749-50 (1962).” 4 Moore, Federal Practice (1966 Spec. Supp.), c. 24, pp. 1-2: (Emphasis supplied.)
For example, one contract relates to reciprocal gas gathering between the New Company and El Paso in the San Juan Basin. Prior to the merger El Paso.and Pacific Northwest entered into a contract providing that they would develop gathering lines in the basin cooperatively, and that whichever compány made greater use of the other’s gathering, lines would pay a gathering charge of 1.3750 per Mcf. of extra gas. El Paso did much more gathering for Pacific Northwest than Pacific Northwest did for El Paso. The proposed agreement increases the gathering charge to 4.50. The intervenors claim that the increased rate will substantially increase the New Company’s costs and impair its ability to compete.
We are informed that the New Company’s chief executive has been approved and that the New Company has applied to the Federal Power Commission for certification. The FPC proceedings have been continued until this Court has decided this appeal.
E1 Paso is also enjoined from having as an officer or director any person who is also an officer, director,-or employee of the New Company or who owns any capital stock of the New Company or whose immediate family owns more than one-tenth of. one percent of the stock of the New Company.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases, consolidated for argument and decision in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, present the question whether a state criminal trial court is constitutionally compelled to conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury whenever a defendant contends that a witness’ identification of him was arrived at improperly.
I
A
John Watkins, the petitioner in No. 79-5949, was convicted in a Kentucky court of attempting to rob a Louisville liquor store. On the night of January 11, 1975, four men entered the store, one of whom asked for a pack of cigarettes. Walter Smith, an employee of the store, turned around to get the cigarettes, and one of the men said “[t]his is a hold-up.” Donald Goeing, a part owner of the store, had been stocking a soft-drink cooler, and when he heard those words, he turned towards the robbers. The man who had spoken thereupon fired two shots at him, one striking him in his arm, the other in the region of his heart. The four men then fled.
That night Smith and Goeing described the gunman to the police. Two days later, the police in the presence of Smith conducted a lineup consisting of three men, one of whom was Watkins. Smith identified Watkins as the gunman. That same day, the police took Watkins to Goeing’s hospital bed, and Goeing identified Watkins as the man who had shot him. Watkins was then charged with first-degree robbery and first-degree assault.
At the subsequent trial of Watkins, the prosecution called Smith and Goeing as witnesses. They both identified Watkins as Goeing’s assailant but were not asked by the prosecution about the lineup or the showup. Watkins’ counsel, however, cross-examined both men at some length about both the lineup and showup. The prosecution then called a police officer. He testified that he had taken Watkins to be identified at the hospital because “at that time there was some question as to whether or not Mr. Goeing was going to survive the incident.” Watkins’ counsel cross-examined the officer about both the showup and the lineup and through him introduced pictures of the lineup. For the defense, Watkins’ counsel called two witnesses who said that they had been in a pool hall with Watkins at the time of the robbery and another witness who said he had been in the liquor store at the time of the robbery and had not seen Watkins. Finally, Watkins himself testified to his innocence.
On appeal, as he had at trial, counsel for Watkins argued that the trial court had a constitutional obligation to conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the identification evidence was admissible. The Supreme Court of Kentucky rejected that argument. Relying on its decision in Ray v. Commonwealth, 550 S. W. 2d 482, 483 (1977), the court said “ ‘[ajlthough we are of the opinion that the holding of such a hearing prior to the introduction of this testimony would have been the preferred course to follow, we are not persuaded the failure to have done so requires reversal of appellant’s conviction.’ ” Watkins v. Commonwealth, 565 S. W. 2d 630, 631 (1978). The court found that the identification procedures “fail[edj to raise any impermissible suggestiveness” and that Watkins “was in no way prejudiced.” Ibid.
Watkins then unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. That court held that, “although pretrial suppression hearings are preferable, the failure to hold them does not require the reversal of a conviction.” The court also found that admission of neither the lineup nor the showup evidence at the state trial had violated constitutional standards.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment and, like the District Court, ruled that a hearing on the admissibility of identification evidence need not be held outside the presence of the jury. Turning to the evidence itself, the court cited Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, as authority for holding that “[g]iven the seriousness of the wounds to Donald Goeing, a showup was necessary in this case.” Summitt v. Bordenkircher, 608 F. 2d 247, 252. The federal appellate court also held that the lineup evidence had been constitutionally admissible at the state trial.
B
James Summitt, the petitioner in No. 79-5951, was convicted in a Kentucky court of rape. Late on the night of July 20, 1974, the prosecutrix was forced into a car occupied by two men, driven to an isolated location, raped by one of the men, and then returned to her own car. The next day she reported the crime to the police, described the rapist, and looked through 12 volumes of photographs from police files, without identifying the man who had raped her. Two days later she was taken to another police station, where she examined more pictures. A police officer testified at the subsequent trial of Summitt that “after a short time she pointed to the defendant’s picture and said: ‘This is the man that raped me. There’s no doubt about it, this is Jimbo, the man that raped me.’ ” In addition to the officer, the prosecutrix and her stepfather as witnesses for the prosecution described the pros-ecutrix’s examination of the police photographs, and the pros-ecutrix testified that Summitt was the man who had raped her. There was extensive cross-examination.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky found “no error in the trial court’s refusal to conduct a suppression hearing and no semblance of impermissible suggestiveness in the identification procedure.” Summitt v. Commonwealth, 550 S. W. 2d 548, 550 (1977). Summitt then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, but that court found no constitutional error. The Court of Appeals, as in the consolidated Watkins case, affirmed the judgment of the District Court, 608 F. 2d 247.
We granted certiorari to consider the constitutional claim asserted by both petitioners throughout their state and federal court proceedings. Sub nom. Watkins v. Bordenkircher and Summitt v. Bordenkircher, 445 U. S. 926.
II
The issue before us is not, of course, whether a trial court acts prudently in holding a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of identification evidence. The prudence of such a hearing has been emphasized by many decisions in the Courts of Appeals, most of which have in various ways admonished trial courts to use that procedure. The issue here, rather, is whether such a hearing is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In urging an affirmative answer, the petitioners first cite cases holding that a defendant has a right to the presence of his counsel at a postindictment lineup, e. g., United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, and that an identification procedure, in the absence of a lineup, may be so defective as to deprive a defendant of due process of law, e. g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293. The petitioners then analogize their cases to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368, in which this Court enunciated a defendant's right “to have a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness,” id., at 377, and in which the Court declared unconstitutional a New York procedure which gave the jury what was in practice unre-viewable discretion to decide whether a confession was or was not voluntary.
The petitioners contend that Jackson v. Denno established a per se due process right to a hearing outside the presence of the jury whenever a question of the voluntariness of a confession is raised. If such a hearing is required where the voluntariness of a confession is at issue, it follows, the petitioners argue, that a similar hearing must also be required where the propriety of identification procedures has been questioned.
Even if it be assumed that Jackson v. Denno did establish the per se rule asserted, the petitioners’ argument must fail, because Jackson v. Denno is not analogous to the cases now before us. The Court in Jackson did reject the usual presumption that a jury can be relied upon to determine issues according to the trial judge’s instructions, but the Court did so because of the peculiar problems the issue of the volun-tariness of a confession presents. The Court pointed out that, while an involuntary confession is inadmissible in part because such a confession is likely to be unreliable, it is also inadmissible even if it is true, because of the “ 'strongly felt attitude of our society that important human' values are sacrificed where an agency of the government, in the course of securing a conviction, wrings a confession out of an accused against his will.’ ” Id., at 385, quoting Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199, 206-207. The Court concluded in Jackson that a jury “may find it difficult to understand the policy forbidding reliance upon a coerced, but true, confession .... Objective consideration of the conflicting evidence concerning the circumstances of the confession becomes difficult and the [jury’s] implicit findings become suspect.” Id., at 382.
Where identification evidence is at issue, however, no such special considerations justify a departure from the presumption that juries will follow instructions. It is the reliability of identification evidence that primarily determines its admissibility, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98, 113-114; United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F. 2d 397, 402-404 (CA7 1975) (Stevens, J.). And the proper evaluation of evidence under the instructions of the trial judge is the very task our system must assume juries can perform. Indeed, as the cases before us demonstrate, the only duty of a jury in cases in which identification evidence has been admitted will often be to assess the reliability of that evidence. Thus the Court’s opinion in Manson v. Brathwaite approvingly quoted Judge Leventhal’s statement that,
“ ‘[w]hile identification testimony is significant evidence, such testimony is still only evidence, and, unlike the presence of counsel, is not a factor that goes to the very heart — the ‘integrity’' — of the adversary process.
“ ‘Counsel can both cross-examine the identification witnesses and argue in summation as to factors causing doubts as to the accuracy of the identification — including reference to both any suggestibility in the identification procedure and any countervailing testimony such as alibi.’ ” 432 U. S., at 114, n. 14, quoting Clemons v. United States, 133 U. S. App. D. C. 27, 48, 408 F. 2d 1230, 1251 (1968) (concurring opinion) (footnote omitted).
The petitioners argue, however, that cross-examination is inadequate in cases such as these. They assert that the presence of the jury deterred their lawyers from cross-examining the witnesses vigorously and fully as to the possible improprieties of the pretrial identifications in these cases. The petitioners point to no specific instances in the trial when their counsel were thus deterred, and the record reveals that the cross-examination on the identity issues was, if not always effective, both active and extended. Nonetheless, the petitioners rely on a passage from United States v. Wade, supra, which referred to
“the predicament in which Wade’s counsel found himself — realizing that possible unfairness at the lineup may be the sole means of attack upon the unequivocal courtroom identification, and having to probe in the dark in an attempt to discover and reveal unfairness, while bolstering the government witness’ courtroom identification by bringing out and dwelling upon his prior identification.” 388 U. S., at 240-241.
The petitioners, however, attribute undue significance to this passage. The “predicament” described in Wade was no more than part of the Court’s demonstration that, if identification stemming from an improperly conducted lineup was to be excluded, a courtroom identification based on such a lineup logically had to be excluded as well.
A “predicament,” if one chooses to call it that, is always presented when a lawyer decides on cross-examination to ask a question that may produce an answer unfavorable to his client. Yet, under our adversary system of justice, cross-examination has always been considered a most effective way to ascertain truth. We decline in these cases to hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inevitably requires the abandonment of the time-honored process of cross-examination as the device best suited to determine the trustworthiness of testimonial evidence.
A judicial determination outside the presence of the jury of the admissibility of identification evidence may often be advisable. In some circumstances, not presented here, such a determination may be constitutionally necessary. But it does not follow that the Constitution requires a per se rule compelling such a procedure in every case.
Accordingly, the judgments are
Affirmed.
The opinion of the District Court is unreported.
E. g., United States v. Mitchell, 540 F. 2d 1163 (CA3 1976); United States v. Cranson, 453 F. 2d 123 (CA4 1971); Haskins v. United States, 433 F. 2d 836 (CA10 1970); United States v. Ranciglio, 429 F. 2d 228 (CA8 1970); United States v. Allison, 414 F. 2d 407 (CA9 1969); United States v. Broadhead, 413 F. 2d 1351 (CA7 1969); Clemons v. United States, 133 U. S. App. D. C. 27, 408 F. 2d 1230 (1968) (en banc). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has left the matter to the discretion of the district courts. United States v. Smith, 546 F. 2d 1275 (1977). At least two Federal Courts of Appeals have commended hearings outside the presence of the jury to state courts, Nassar v. Vinzant, 519 F. 2d 798 (CA1 1975); United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette, 428 F. 2d 912 (CA2 1970), and at least one has held that due process may in some circumstances require a hearing outside the presence of a jury to decide the admissibility of identification evidence. United States ex rel. Fisher v. Driber, 546 F. 2d 18 (CA3 1976).
See Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U. S. 31, 32:
“This Court has never ruled that all voluntariness hearings must be held outside the presence of the jury, regardless of the circumstances. . . . [Bjecause a disputed confession may be found involuntary and inadmissible by the judge, it would seem prudent to hold voluntariness hearings outside the presence of the jury. ... In this case, however, the confession was held voluntary and admitted as evidence suitable for consideration by the jury.”
As Professor Wigmore put it, “[cross-examination] is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (Chadbourn rev. 1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA or Act) entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave annually for any of several reasons, including the onset of a “serious health condition” in an employee’s spouse, child, or parent. 107 Stat. 9, 29 U. S. C. §2612(a) (1)(C). The Act creates a private right of action to seek both equitable relief and money damages “against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” § 2617(a)(2), should that employer “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of” FMLA rights, § 2615(a)(1)- We hold that employees of the State of Nevada may recover money damages in the event of the State’s failure to comply with the family-care provision of the Act.
Petitioners include the Nevada Department of Human Resources (Department) and two of its officers. Respondent William Hibbs (hereinafter respondent) worked for the Department’s Welfare Division. In April and May 1997, he sought leave under the FMLA to care for his ailing wife, who was recovering from a car accident and neck surgery. The Department granted his request for the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave and authorized him to use the leave intermittently as needed between May and December 1997. Respondent did so until August 5,1997, after which he did not return to work. In October 1997, the Department informed respondent that he had exhausted his FMLA leave, that no further leave would be granted, and that he must report to work by November 12,1997. Respondent failed to do so and was terminated.
Respondent sued petitioners in the United States District Court seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for, inter alia, violations of 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). The District Court awarded petitioners summary judgment on the grounds that the FMLA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that respondent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. Respondent appealed, and the United States intervened under 28 U. S. C. § 2403 to defend the validity of the FMLA’s application to the States. The Ninth Circuit reversed. 273 F. 3d 844 (2001).
We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 938 (2002), to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court for violation of § 2612(a)(1)(C). Compare Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F. 3d 519, 526, 529 (CA5 2000), with 273 F. 3d 844 (case below).
For over a century now, we have made clear that the Constitution does not provide for federal jurisdiction over suits against nonconsenting States. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 363 (2001); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 15 (1890).
Congress may, however, abrogate such immunity in federal court if it makes its intention to abrogate unmistakably clear in the language of the statute and acts pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Garrett, supra, at 363; Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 786 (1991) (citing Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223, 228 (1989)). The clarity of Congress’ intent here is not fairly debatable. The Act enables employees to seek damages “against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” 29 U. S. C. § 2617(a)(2), and Congress has defined “public agency” to include both “the government of a State or political subdivision thereof” and “any agency of. a State, or a political subdivision of a State,” §§203(x), 2611(4)(A)(iii). We held in Kimel that, by using identical language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., Congress satisfied the clear statement rule of Dellmuth. 528 U. S., at 73-78. This case turns, then, on whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it sought to abrogate the States’ immunity for purposes of the FMLA’s family-leave provision.
In enacting the FMLA, Congress relied on two of the powers vested in it by the Constitution: its Article I commerce power and its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendment’s guarantees. Congress may not abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I power over commerce. Seminole Tribe, supra. Congress may, however, abrogate States’ sovereign immunity through a valid exercise of its § 5 power, for “the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976) (citation omitted). See also Garrett, supra, at 364; Kimel, supra, at 80.
Two provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are relevant here: Section 5 grants Congress the power “to enforce” the substantive guarantees of § 1 — among them, equal protection of the laws — by enacting “appropriate legislation.” Congress may, in the exercise of its § 5 power, do more than simply proscribe conduct that we have held unconstitutional. “ ‘Congress’ power “to enforce” the Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.’ ” Garrett, supra, at 365 (quoting Kimel, supra, at 81); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 536 (1997); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 658 (1966). In other words, Congress may enact so-called prophylactic legislation that proscribes facially constitutional conduct, in order to prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.
City of Boerne also confirmed, however, that it falls to this Court, not Congress, to define the substance of constitutional guarantees. 521 U. S., at 519-524. “The ultimate interpretation and determination of the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive meaning remains the province of the Judicial Branch.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 81. Section 5 legislation reaching beyond the scope of § l’s actual guarantees must be an appropriate remedy for identified constitutional violations, not “an attempt to substantively redefine the States’ legal obligations.” Id., at 88. We distinguish appropriate prophylactic legislation from “substantive redefinition of the Fourteenth Amendment right at issue,” id., at 81, by applying the test set forth in City of Boerne: Valid § 5 legislation must exhibit “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end,” 521 U. S., at 520.
The FMLA aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace. We have held that statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females are subject to heightened scrutiny. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197-199 (1976). For a gender-based classification to withstand such scrutiny, it must “serv[e] important governmental objectives,” and “the discriminatory means employed [must be] substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 533 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The State’s justification for such a classification “must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” Ibid. We now inquire whether Congress had evidence of a pattern of constitutional violations on the part of the States in this area.
The history of the many state laws limiting women’s employment opportunities is chronicled in — and, until relatively recently, was sanctioned by — this Court’s own opinions. For example, in Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873) (Illinois), and Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464, 466 (1948) (Michigan), the Court upheld state laws prohibiting women from practicing law and tending bar, respectively. State laws frequently subjected women to distinctive restrictions, terms, conditions, and benefits for those jobs they could take. In Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 419, n. 1 (1908), for example, this Court approved a state law limiting the hours that women could work for wages, and observed that 19 States had such laws at the time. Such laws were based on the related beliefs that (1) a woman is, and should remain, “the center of home and family life,” Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961), and (2) “a proper discharge of [a woman’s] maternal functions — having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race — justifies] legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man,” Muller, supra, at 422. Until our decision in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), “it remained the prevailing doctrine that government, both federal and state, could withhold from women opportunities accorded men so long as any ‘basis in reason’ ” — such as the above beliefs — “could be conceived for the discrimination.” Virginia, supra, at 531 (quoting Goesaert, supra, at 467).
Congress responded to this history of discrimination by abrogating States’ sovereign immunity in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), and we sustained this abrogation in Fitzpatrick. But state gender discrimination did not cease. “[I]t can hardly be doubted that... women still face pervasive, although at times more subtle, discrimination... in the job market.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (1973). According to evidence that was before Congress when it enacted the FMLA, States continue to rely on invalid gender stereotypes in the employment context, specifically in the administration of leave benefits. Reliance on such stereotypes cannot justify the States’ gender discrimination in this area. Virginia, supra, at 533. The long and extensive history of sex discrimination prompted us to hold that measures that differentiate on the basis of gender warrant heightened scrutiny; here, as in Fitzpatrick, the persistence of such unconstitutional discrimination by the States justifies Congress’ passage of prophylactic § 5 legislation.
As the FMLA’s legislative record reflects, a 1990 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey stated that 37 percent of surveyed private-sector employees were covered by maternity leave policies, while only 18 percent were covered by paternity leave policies. S. Rep. No. 103-3, pp. 14-15 (1993). The corresponding numbers from a similar BLS survey the previous year were 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Ibid. While these data show an increase in the percentage of employees eligible for such leave, they also show a widening of the gender gap during the same period. Thus, stereotype-based beliefs about the allocation of family duties remained firmly rooted, and employers’ reliance on them in establishing discriminatory leave policies remained widespread.
Congress also heard testimony that “[pjarental leave for fathers... is rare. Even... [w]here child-care leave policies do exist, men, both in the 'public and private sectors, receive notoriously discriminatory treatment in their requests for such leave.” Joint Hearing 147 (Washington Council of Lawyers) (emphasis added). Many States offered women extended “maternity” leave that far exceeded the typical 4-to 8-week period of physical disability due to pregnancy and childbirth, but very few States granted men a parallel benefit: Fifteen States provided women up to one year of extended maternity leave, while only four provided men with the same. M. Lord & M. King, The State Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs for State Employees 80 (1991). This and other differential leave policies were not attributable to any differential physical needs of men and women, but rather to the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work.
Finally, Congress had evidence that, even where state laws and policies were not facially discriminatory, they were applied in discriminatory ways. It was aware of the “serious problems with the discretionary nature of family leave,” because when “the authority to grant leave and to arrange the length of that leave rests with individual supervisors,” it leaves “employees open to discretionary and possibly unequal treatment.” H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 2, pp. 10-11 (1993). Testimony supported that conclusion, explaining that “[t]he lack of uniform parental and medical leave policies in the work place has created an environment where [sex] discrimination is rampant.” 1987 Senate Labor Hearings, pt. 2, at 170 (testimony of Peggy Montes, Mayor’s Commission on Women’s Affairs, City of Chicago).
In spite of all of the above evidence, Justice Kennedy argues in dissent that Congress’ passage of the FMLA was unnecessary because “the States appear to have been ahead of Congress in providing gender-neutral family leave benefits,” post, at 750, and points to Nevada’s leave policies in particular, post, at 755. However, it was only “[s]ince Federal family leave legislation was first introduced” that the States had even “begun to consider similar family leave initiatives.” S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 20; see also S. Rep. No. 102-68, p. 77 (1991) (minority views of Sen. Durenberger) (“[S]o few states have elected to enact similar legislation at the state level”).
Furthermore, the dissent’s statement that some States “had adopted some form of family-care leave” before the FMLA’s enactment, post, at 750, glosses over important shortcomings of some state policies. First, seven States had childcare leave provisions that applied to women only. Indeed, Massachusetts required that notice of its leave provisions be posted only in “establishment^] in which females are employed.” These laws reinforced' the very stereotypes that Congress sought to remedy through the FMLA. Second, 12 States provided their employees no family leave, beyond an initial childbirth or adoption, to care for a seriously ill child or family member. Third, many States provided no statutorily guaranteed right to family leave, offering instead only voluntary or discretionary leave programs. Three States left the amount of leave time primarily in employers’ hands. Congress could reasonably conclude that such discretionary family-leave programs would do little to combat the stereotypes about the roles of male and female employees that Congress sought to eliminate. Finally, four States provided leave only through administrative regulations or personnel policies, which Congress could reasonably conclude offered significantly less firm protection than a federal law. Against the above backdrop of limited state leave policies, no matter how generous petitioners’ own may have been, see post, at 755 (dissent), Congress was justified in enacting the FMLA as remedial legislation.
In sum, the States’ record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic § 5 legislation.
We reached the opposite conclusion in Garrett and Kimel. In those cases, the §5 legislation under review responded to a purported tendency of state officials to make age- or disability-based distinctions. Under our equal protection case law, discrimination on the basis of such characteristics is not judged under a heightened review standard, and passes muster if there is “a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level, even if it ‘is probably not true’ that those reasons are valid in the majority of cases.” Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86 (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 473 (1991)). See also Garrett, 581 U. S., at 367 (“States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational”). Thus, in order to impugn the constitutionality of state discrimination against the disabled or the elderly, Congress must identify, not just the existence of age- or disability-based state decisions, but a “widespread pattern” of irrational reliance on such criteria. Kimel, supra, at 90. We found no such showing with respect to the ADE A and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Kimel, supra, at 89; Garrett, supra, at 368.
Here, however, Congress directed its attention to state gender discrimination, which triggers a heightened level of scrutiny. See, e. g., Craig, 429 U. S., at 197-199. Because the standard for demonstrating the constitutionality of a gender-based classification is more difficult to meet than our rational-basis test — it must “serv[e] important governmental objectives” and be “substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,” Virginia, 518 U. S., at 538 — it was easier for Congress to show a pattern of state constitutional violations. Congress was similarly successful in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308-313 (1966), where we upheld the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Because racial classifications are presumptively invalid, most of the States’ acts of race discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The impact of the discrimination targeted by the FMLA is significant. Congress determined:
“Historically, denial or curtailment of women’s employment opportunities has been traceable directly to the pervasive presumption that women are mothers first, and workers second. This prevailing ideology about women’s roles has in turn justified discrimination against women when they are mothers or mothers-to-be.” Joint Hearing 100.
Stereotypes about women’s domestic roles are reinforced by parallel stereotypes presuming a lack of domestic responsibilities for men. Because employers continued to regard the family as the woman’s domain, they often denied men similar accommodations or discouraged them from taking leave. These mutually reinforcing stereotypes created a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination that forced women to continue to assume the role of primary family caregiver, and fostered employers’ stereotypical views about women’s commitment to work and their value as employees. Those perceptions, in turn, Congress reasoned, lead to subtle discrimination that may be difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis.
We believe that Congress’ chosen remedy, the family-care leave provision of the FMLA, is “congruent and proportional to the targeted violation,” Garrett, supra, at 374. Congress had already tried unsuccessfully to address this problem through Title VII and the amendment of Title VII by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k). Here, as in Katzenbach, supra, Congress again confronted a “difficult and intractable proble[m],” Kimel, supra, at 88, where previous legislative attempts had failed. See Katzenbach, supra, at 313 (upholding the Voting Rights Act). Such problems may justify added prophylactic measures in response. Kimel, supra, at 88.
By creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible employees, Congress sought to ensure that family-care leave would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. By setting a minimum standard of family leave for all eligible employees, irrespective of gender, the FMLA attacks the formerly state-sanctioned stereotype that only women are responsible for family caregiving, thereby reducing employers’ incentives to engage in discrimination by basing hiring and promotion decisions on stereotypes.
The dissent characterizes the FMLA as a “substantive entitlement program” rather than a remedial statute because it establishes a floor of 12 weeks’ leave. Post, at 754. In the dissent’s view, in the face of evidence of gender-based discrimination by the States in the provision of leave benefits, Congress could do no more in exercising its § 5 power than simply proscribe such discrimination. But this position cannot be squared with our recognition that Congress “is not confined to the enactment of legislation that merely parrots the precise wording of the Fourteenth Amendment,” but may prohibit “a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.” Kimel, supra, at 81. For example, this Court has upheld certain prophylactic provisions of the Voting Rights Act as valid exercises of Congress’ § 5 power, including the literacy test ban and preclearance requirements for changes in States’ voting procedures. See, e. g., Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112 (1970); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra.
Indeed, in light of the evidence before Congress, a statute mirroring Title VII, that simply mandated gender equality in the administration of leave benefits, would not have achieved Congress’ remedial object. Such a law would allow States to provide for no family leave at all. Where “[t]wo-thirds of the nonprofessional caregivers for older, chronically ill, or disabled persons are working women,” H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 1, at 24; S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 7, and state practices continue to reinforce the stereotype of women as caregivers, such a policy would exclude far more women than men from the workplace.
Unlike the statutes at issue in City of Boerne, Kimel, and Garrett, which applied broadly to every aspect of state employers’ operations, the FMLA is narrowly targeted at the faultline between work and family — precisely where sex-based overgeneralization has been and remains strongest— and affects only one aspect of the employment relationship. Compare Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U. S. 81, 91 (2002) (discussing the “important limitations of the [FMLA’s] remedial scheme”), with City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532 (the “[s]weeping coverage” of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993); Kimel, 528 U. S., at 91 (“the indiscriminate scope of the [ADEA’s] substantive requirements”); and Garrett, 531 U. S., at 361 (the ADA prohibits disability discrimination “in regard to [any] terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We also find significant the many other limitations that Congress placed on the scope of this measure. See Florida Prepaid, 527 U. S., at 647 (“[W]here ‘a congressional enactment pervasively prohibits constitutional state action in an effort to remedy or to prevent unconstitutional state action, limitations of this kind tend to ensure Congress’ means are proportionate to ends legitimate under §5’” (quoting City of Boerne, supra, at 532-533)). The FMLA requires only unpaid leave, 29 U. S. C. § 2612(a)(1), and applies only to employees who have worked for the employer for at least one year and provided 1,250 hours of service within the last 12 months, § 2611(2)(A). Employees in high-ranking or sensitive positions are simply ineligible for FMLA leave; of particular importance to the States, the FMLA expressly excludes from coverage state elected officials, their staffs, and appointed policymakers. §§2611(2)(B)(i) and (3), 203(e) (2)(C). Employees must give advance notice of foreseeable leave, § 2612(e), and employers may require certification by a health care provider of the need for leave, §2613. In choosing 12 weeks as the appropriate leave floor, Congress chose “a middle ground, a period long enough to serve ‘the needs of families’ but not so long that it would upset ‘the legitimate interests of employers.’” Ragsdale, supra, at 94 (quoting 29 U. S. C. § 2601(b)). Moreover, the cause of action under the FMLA is a restricted one: The damages recoverable are strictly defined and measured by actual monetary losses, §§ 2617(a)(l)(A)(i) — (iii), and the accrual period for backpay is limited by the Act’s 2-.year statute of limitations (extended to three years only for willful violations), §§ 2617(c)(1) and (2).
For the above reasons, we conclude that § 2612(a)(1)(C) is congruent and proportional to its remedial object, and can “be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” City of Boerne, supra, at 532.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Compare 29 U. S. C. § 2601(b)(1) (“It is the purpose of this Act... to •balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity”) with § 2601(b)(5) (“to promote the goal of equal employment opportunity for women and men, pursuant to [the Equal Protection C]lause”) and § 2601(b)(4) (“to accomplish [the Act’s other purposes] in a manner that, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause..., minimizes the potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sex”). See also S. Rep. No. 103-3, p. 16 (1993) (the FMLA “is based not only on the Commerce Clause, but also on the guarantees of equal protection and due process embodied in the 14th Amendment”); H. R. Rep. No. 103-8, pt. 1, p. 29 (1993) (same).
The text of the Act makes this clear. Congress found that, “due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men.” 29 U. S. C. § 2601(a)(5). In response to this finding, Congress sought “to accomplish the [Act’s other] purposes... in a manner that... minimizes the potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sex by ensuring generally that leave is available... on a gender-neutral basis[,J and to promote the goal of equal employment opportunity for women and men....” §§ 2601(b)(4) and (5) (emphasis added).
While this and other material described leave policies in the private sector, a 50-state survey also before Congress demonstrated that “[t]he proportion and construction of leave policies available to public sector employees differs little from those offered private sector employees.” The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1986: Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1986) (hereinafter Joint Hearing) (statement of Meryl Frank, Director of the Yale Bush Center Infant Care Leave Project). See also id., at 29-30.
See, e. g., id., at 16 (six weeks is the medically recommended pregnancy disability leave period); H. R. Rep. No. 101-28, pt. 1, p. 30 (1989) (referring to Pregnancy Discrimination Act legislative history establishing four to eight weeks as the medical recovery period for a normal childbirth).
For example, state employers’ collective-bargaining agreements often granted extended “maternity” leave of six months to a year to women only. Gerald McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, testified that “the vast majority of our contracts, even though we look upon them with great pride, really cover essentially maternity leave, and not paternity leave.” The Parental and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 385 (1987) (hereinafter 1987 Senate Labor Hearings). In addition, state leave laws often specified that catchall leave-without-pay provisions could be used for extended maternity leave, but did not authorize such leave for paternity purposes. See, e. g., Family and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Joint Hearing before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-5 (1987) (Rep. Gary Ackerman recounted suffering expressly sex-based denial of unpaid leave of absence where benefit was ostensibly available for “child care leave”).
Evidence pertaining to parenting leave is relevant here because state discrimination in the provision of both types of benefits is based on the same gender stereotype: that women’s family duties trump those of the workplace. Justice Kennedy’s dissent (hereinafter dissent) ignores this common foundation that, as Congress found, has historically produced discrimination in the hiring and promotion of women. See post, at 748-749. Consideration of such evidence does not, as the dissent contends, expand our § 5 inquiry to include “general gender-based stereotypes in employment.” Post, at 749 (emphasis added). To the contrary, because parenting and family leave address very similar situations in which work and family responsibilities conflict, they implicate the same stereotypes.
Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 149, §105D (West 1997) (providing leave to “female employee[s]” for childbirth or adoption); see also 3 Colo. Code Regs. §708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002) (pregnancy disability leave only); Iowa Code §216.6(2) (2000) (former §601A.6(2)) (same); Kan. Admin. Regs. 21-32-6(d) (2003) (“a reasonable period” of maternity leave for female employees only); N. H. Stat. Ann. §354-A:7(VI)(b) (Michie Supp. 2000) (pregnancy disability leave only); La. Stat. Ann. § 23:1008(A)(2) (West Supp. 1993) (repealed 1997) (4-month maternity leave for female employees only); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-408(a) (1998) (same).
The dissent asserts that four of these schemes — those of Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — concern “pregnancy disability leave only.” Post, at 752. But Louisiana provided women with four months of such leave, which far exceeds the medieally recommended pregnancy disability leave period of six weeks. See n. 4, supra. This gender-discriminatory policy is not attributable to any different physical needs of men and women, but rather to the invalid stereotypes that Congress sought to counter through the FMLA. See supra, at 731.
See 3 Colo. Code Regs. § 708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 29, §5116 (1997); Iowa Code §216.6(2) (2000); Kan. Admin. Regs. 21-32-6 (2003); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §337.015 (Michie 2001); La. Stat. Ann. §23:1008(A)(2) (West Supp. 1993); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 149, § 105(D) (West 1997); Mo. Rev. Stat. §105.271 (2000); N. H. Stat. Ann. §354-A:7(YI)(b) (Michie Supp. 2000); N.Y. Lab. Law §201-c (West 2002); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-408(a) (1998); U. S. Dept. of Labor, Women’s Bureau, State Maternity/Family Leave Law, p. 12 (June 1993) (citing a Virginia personnel policy).
See 3 Colo. Code Regs. §708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002); Kan. Admin. Regs. 21-32-6 (2003); N. H. Stat. Ann. § 354-A:7(VI)(b) (Michie Supp. 2000). Oklahoma offered only a system by which employees could voluntarily donate leave time for colleagues’ family emergencies. Okla. Stat., Tit. 74, §840-2.22 (historical note) (West 2002).
See 3 Colo. Code Regs. §708-1, Rule 80.8 (2002); Kan. Admin. Regs. 21-32-6 (2003); Wis. Admin. Code ch. DWD 225 (1997) (former ch. ILHR 225); State Maternity/Family Leave Law, supra, at 12 (Virginia).
Contrary to the dissent’s belief, we do not hold that Congress may “abrogat[e] state immunity from private suits whenever the State’s social benefits program is not enshrined in the statutory code and provides employers with discretion,” post, at 753, or when a State does not confer social benefits “as generous or extensive as Congress would later deem appropriate,” post, at 752. The dissent misunderstands the purpose of the FMLA’s family-leave provision. The FMLA is not a “substantive entitlement program,” post, at 754; Congress did not create a particular leave policy for its own sake. See infra, at 737-738. Rather, Congress sought to adjust family-leave policies in order to eliminate their reliance on, and perpetuation of, invalid stereotypes, and thereby dismantle persisting gender-based barriers to the hiring, retention, and promotion of women in the workplace. In pursuing that goal, for the reasons discussed above, supra, at 733-734 and this page, Congress reasonably concluded that state leave laws and practices should be brought within the Act.
Given the extent and specificity of the above record of unconstitutional state conduct, it is difficult to understand the dissent’s accusation that we rely on “a simple recitation of a general history of employment discrimination against women.” Post, at 746. As we stated above, our holding rests on congressional findings that, at the time the FMLA was
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Act), 120 Stat. 590, 42 U. S. C. § 16901 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. Ill), requires those convicted of certain sex crimes to provide state governments with (and to update) information, such as names and current addresses, for inclusion on state and federal sex offender registries. §§ 16912(a), 16913-16914, 16919(a) (2006 ed.). The Act makes it a crime for a person who is “required to register” under the Act and who “travels in interstate or foreign commerce” knowingly to “fai[l] to register or update a registration . . . .” 18 U. S. C. § 2250(a). The question before us concerns the date on which this federal registration requirement took effect with respect to sex offenders convicted before the Act became law.
The Act defines the term “sex offender” as including these pre-Act offenders. 42 U. S. C. § 16911(1); see Carr v. United States, 560 U. S. 438,447 (2010). It says that “[a] sex offender shall register.” § 16913(a). And it further says that “[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter ....” § 16913(d) (emphasis added). In our view, these provisions, read together, mean that the Act’s registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General specifies that they do apply. We reverse a Court of Appeals determination that, in effect, holds the
I
A
The new federal Act reflects Congress’ awareness that pre-Act registration law consisted of a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38045 (2008). The Act seeks to make those systems more uniform and effective. It does so by repealing several earlier federal laws that also (but less effectively) sought uniformity; by setting forth comprehensive registration-system standards; by making federal funding contingent on States’ bringing their systems into compliance with those standards; by requiring both state and federal sex offenders to register with relevant jurisdictions (and to keep registration information current); and by creating federal criminal sanctions applicable to those who violate the Act’s registration requirements. 18 U. S. C. § 2250(a) (criminal provision); 42 U. S. C. §§ 16911(10), 16913-16916 (2006 ed. and Supp. Ill) (registration requirements); § 16925 (federal funding); § 129, 120 Stat. 600 (repeal of earlier laws).
The Act’s criminal penalty applies to “[w]ho[m]ever ... is required to register under [the Act].” 18 U. S. C. § 2250(a). It says that such a person (a federal sex offender or a nonfed-eral sex offender who travels in interstate commerce) must not knowingly fail “to register or update a registration as required by [the Act].” Ibid, (emphasis added); see Appendix, infra, at 446.
The relevant registration requirements are set forth in an Act provision that states:
“Registry requirements for sex offenders
“(a) In general
“A sex offender [defined to include any offender who was convicted of a sex offense] shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. . . .
“(b) Initial registration
“The sex offender shall initially register [either] before completing a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the offense giving rise to the registration requirement; or [for those not sentenced to prison] not later than 3 business days after being sentenced ....
“(c) Keeping the registration current
“A sex offender shall [update his registration within] 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status [by] appearing] in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved ... and informing] that jurisdiction of all [relevant] changes ....
“(d) Initial registration of sex offenders unable to comply with subsection (b)
“The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b).” 42 U. S. C. § 16913 (emphasis added).
The new Act became law on July 27, 2006.
On February 28, 2007, the Attorney General promulgated an Interim Rule specifying that “[t]he requirements of [the Act] apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.” 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (2007) (codified at 28 CFR §72.3). Subsequently, the Attorney General promulgated further rules, regulations, and specifications. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38030; 75 Fed. Reg. 81849 (2010); 76 Fed. Reg. 1630 (2011). The present case focuses upon the applicability of the Act’s registration requirements to pre-Act offenders during the period between (1) July 27, 2006 (when the Act took effect) and (2) the moment when the Attorney General promulgated a valid rule specifying the registration requirements’ applicability, namely, February 28, 2007 (or a later date if the February 28 specification was invalid).
B
Billy Joe Reynolds, the petitioner, is a pre-Act offender. He was convicted of a Missouri sex offense in October 2001; he served four years in prison; he was released in July 2005; he then registered as a Missouri sex offender; but he moved to Pennsylvania in September 2007 without updating his Missouri registration information (as Missouri law required) and without registering in Pennsylvania. A federal grand jury indicted him, charging him with, between September 16 and October 16, 2007, having “knowingly failed to register and update a registration as required by [the Act].” App. 13; see 18 U. S. C. § 2250(a). In the Government’s view, Reynolds’ failure to update his address information when he moved to Pennsylvania violated the requirement that a “sex offender” update registration information within “3 business days after each change of . . . residence.” 42 U. S. C. § 16913(c).
Reynolds moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that in September and October 2007 the Act’s registration requirements had not yet become applicable to pre-Act offenders. He conceded that the Act had become law earlier (namely, in July 2006), and he conceded that the Attorney General had already (in February 2007) promulgated an Interim Rule specifying that the Act's registration requirements were applicable to pre-Act offenders. But he claimed that the Interim Rule was invalid because it violated both the Constitution’s “nondelegation” doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirement for “good cause” to promulgate a rule without “notice and comment” (as the Attorney General had done). See A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 529 (1935) (non-delegation doctrine); 5 U. S. C. §§ 553(b)(3)(B), (d)(3) (APA). Because the Interim Rule is invalid, he added, the law must treat him like a pre-Act offender who traveled interstate and violated the Act’s registration requirements before the Attorney General specified their applicability.
The District Court rejected on the merits Reynolds’ legal attack on the Interim Rule. But the Court of Appeals rejected Reynolds’ argument without reaching those merits. 380 Fed. Appx. 125 (CA3 2010). That court thought that the Act’s registration requirements apply to pre-Act offenders such as Reynolds (who was subject to a pre-existing state-law registration requirement) from the date of the new law’s enactment — even in the absence of any rule or regulation by the Attorney General specifying that the new registration requirements apply. That being so, the validity of the Interim Rule could make no legal difference, for the Act required Reynolds to follow the new federal registration requirements regardless of any rulemaking.
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether the Act’s registration requirements apply to pre-Act offenders prior to the time that the Attorney General specifies their applicability, i. e., from July 2006 until at least February 2007. Six Circuits have held that the Act’s' registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders unless and until the Attorney General so specifies. United States v. Johnson, 632 F. 3d 912, 922-927 (CA5 2011); United States v. Valverde, 628 F. 3d 1159, 1162-1164 (CA9 2010); United States v. Cain, 583 F. 3d 408, 414-419 (CA6 2009); United, States v. Hatcher, 560 F. 3d 222, 226-229 (CA4 2009); United States v. Dixon, 551 F. 3d 578, 585 (CA7 2008); United States v. Madera, 528 F. 3d 852, 856-859 (CA112008) (per cu-riam). Five Circuits have held that they apply from the date of the Act’s enactment, and prior to any such specification, at least with respect to pre-Act offenders who had already registered under state law. United States v. Fuller, 627 F. 3d 499, 506 (CA2 2010); United States v. DiTomasso, 621 F. 3d 17, 24 (CA1 2010); United States v. Shenandoah, 595 F. 3d 151,163 (CA3 2010); United States v. Hinckley, 550 F. 3d 926, 932 (CA10 2008); United States v. May, 535 F. 3d 912, 918-919 (CA8 2008). In light of this split, we agreed to consider the question.
II
A
The question before us is whether the Act requires pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provisions apply to them. We believe that it does not. For one thing, a natural reading of the textual language supports our conclusion. The text consists of four statements. See supra, at 436. Statement One says that “[a] sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current.” Statement Two says that a sex offender must initially register before completing his “sentence of imprisonment” (or, if the sentence does not involve imprisonment, within three days of conviction). Statement Three says that the sex offender must update a registration within three business days of any change of “name, residence, employment, or student status.” Statement Four says that “[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchap-ter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter.”
Read naturally, the Fourth Statement modifies the First It specifically deals with a subset (pre-Act offenders) of a broad general class (all sex offenders) to which the First Statement applies. And it therefore should control the Act’s application to that subset. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407 (1991) (specific statutory provision normally controls over one of more general application); see also Bloate v. United States, 559 U. S. 196, 207 (2010) (same).
At the same time, the Fourth Statement says that the Attorney General has authority to specify the Act’s “applicability,” not its “nonapplicability.” And it consequently is more naturally read as conferring the authority to apply the Act, not the authority to make exceptions. That is how we normally understand a term such as “authority to specify” in the context of applying new rules to persons already governed by pre-existing rules. If, for example, the Major League Baseball Players Association and the team owners agreed that the Commissioner of Baseball “shall have the authority to specify the applicability” to the major leagues of the more stringent minor league drug testing policy, we should think that the minor league policy would not apply unless and until the commissioner so specified.
For another thing, this reading of the Act efficiently resolves what Congress may well have thought were practical problems arising when the Act sought to apply the new registration requirements to pre-Act offenders. The problems arise out of the fact that the Act seeks to make more uniform a patchwork of pre-existing state systems. Doing so could require newly registering or reregistering “a large number” of pre-Act offenders. That effort could prove expensive. And it might not prove feasible to do so immediately. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38063 (recognizing these problems). Congress’ concern about these problems is reflected in the Act’s providing the States with three years to bring their systems into compliance with federal standards while permitting the Attorney General to extend that 3-year grace period to five years. 42 U. S. C. § 16924.
These same considerations might have warranted different federal registration treatment of different categories of pre-Act offenders. Cf. 73 Fed. Reg. 38035-38036 and 38046-38047 (final Department of Justice guidelines allowing States to meet Act requirements without registering certain categories of pre-Act offenders); 76 Fed. Reg. 1635-1636 (supplemental guidelines allowing the same). At least Congress might well have so thought. And consequently, Congress might well have looked for a solution. Asking the Department of Justice, charged with responsibility for implementation, to examine these pre-Act offender problems and to apply the new registration requirements accordingly could have represented one efficient and desirable solution (though we express no view on Reynolds’ related constitutional claim). Cf. 42 U. S. C. §§ 16912(b), 16914(a)(7), (b)(7), 16919, 16941,16945 (granting the Attorney General authority to administer various aspects of the Act). And that is just the solution that the Act’s language says that Congress adopted.
Finally, our reading of the Act takes Congress to have filled potential lacunae (created by related Act provisions) in a manner consistent with basic background principles of criminal law. The Second Statement, for example, says that a sex offender must register before completing his prison term, but the provision says nothing about when a pre-Act offender who completed his prison term pre-Act must register. Although a state pre-Act offender could not be prosecuted until he traveled interstate, there is no interstate requirement for a federal pre-Act offender. And to apply the Act to either of these pre-Act offenders from the date of enactment would require reading into the statute, silent on the point, some kind of unsaid equivalent (e. g., registering or updating within a “reasonable time” or “within three days of first post-Act travel in interstate commerce” or “as preexisting state law requires”).
Pre-Act offenders, aware of such complexities, lacunae, and difficulties, might, on their own, reach different conclusions about whether, or how, the new registration requirements applied to them. A ruling from the Attorney General, however, could diminish or eliminate those uncertainties, thereby helping to eliminate the very kind of vagueness and uncertainty that criminal law must seek to avoid. Cf., e. g., United States v. Lanier, 520 U. S. 259, 266 (1997) (noting that “the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes, or rule of lenity, ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered”).
B
The Government makes three principal arguments to the contrary. First, it says that our interpretation of the Act conflicts with one basic statutory purpose, namely, the “establish[ment of] a comprehensive national system for the registration of [sex] offenders,” 42 U. S. C. § 16901, that includes offenders who committed their offenses before the Act became law. The Act reflects that purpose when it defines “sex offender” broadly to include any “individual who was convicted of a sex offense.” § 16911(1). And we have recognized that purpose in stating that, in general, the Act’s criminal provisions apply to any pre-Act offender required to register under the Act who later travels interstate and fails to register. See Carr, 560 U. S., at 447.
The Act’s history also reveals that many of its supporters placed considerable importance upon the registration of pre-Act offenders. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 109-218, pt. 1, p. 24 (2005) (H. R. Rep.) (“[Twenty] percent of sexual offenders are 'lost,’ and there is a strong public interest in finding them and having them register with current information to mitigate the risks of additional crimes against children”); 152 Cong. Rec. 15333 (2006) (statement of Sen. Cantwell) (“Child sex offenders have exploited this stunning lack of uniformity, and the consequences have been tragic. Twenty percent of the Nation’s 560,000 sex offenders are 'lost’ because State offender registry programs are not coordinated well enough”); id., at 15338 (statement of Sen. Kyi) (“There currently are over 100,000 sex offenders in this country who are required to register but are ‘off the system.’ They are not registered. The penalties in this bill should be adequate to ensure that these individuals register”); id., at 13050 (statement of Sen. Frist) (“There are currently 550,000 registered sex offenders in the U. S. and at least 100,000 of them are missing from the system. Every day that we don’t have this national sex offender registry, these missing sex predators are out there somewhere”).
The difficulty with the Government’s argument, however, is that it overstates the need for instantaneous registration of pre-Act offenders. Our different reading, we concede, involves implementation delay. But that delay need not be long (the Attorney General issued his Interim Rule 217 days after the effective date of the new law). And that delay can be justified by the need to accommodate other Act-related interests. See supra, at 440-442.
Second, the Government suggests that our reading leads to an absurd result. As it points out, the Fourth Statement grants the Attorney General the “authority to specify” the registration requirements’ applicability not only to pre-Act offenders but also to those convicted prior to the “implementation” of the new Act “in a particular jurisdiction.” Some jurisdictions might not implement the Act for up to five years. See 42 U. S. C. § 16924; see also Dept, of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice Department Finds 24 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented SORNA Requirements (July 28, 2011) (stating that as of July 28, 2011, 14 States had implemented the Act’s requirements), http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2011/SMART_ PR-072811.htm (all Internet materials as visited Jan. 19, 2012, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Yet, the Government concludes, it is absurd to believe that Congress would have desired so long a delay in the application of its new registration requirements.
The problem with this argument, however, is that reading the two categories similarly (a matter which we need not decide) would not require a long delay in applying the registration requirements to post-Act offenders who committed a crime in a jurisdiction that is slow to implement the new requirements. At most, that reading would require the Attorney General to promulgate a rule applicable to all preimplementation offenders. That rule could specify that the Act’s preregistration provisions apply to some or to all those offenders. And it could do so quickly, well before a jurisdiction implements the Act’s requirements. Indeed, the Attorney General’s Interim Rule and the Department of Justice’s final guidelines, both issued before any jurisdiction implemented the Act’s requirements, state that the Act’s requirements apply to “all sex offenders,” including all preim-plementation offenders. See 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (codified at 28 CFR § 72.3); 73 Fed. Reg. 38036; cf. Dept, of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice Department Announces First Two Jurisdictions To Implement Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Sept. 23,2009), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ newsroom/pressreleases/2009/SMART09154.htm.
Third, the Government argues against our interpretation on the ground that the Act says only that the Attorney General “shall have the authority to specify the applicability” of the Act’s registration requirements to pre-Act offenders; it does not say that he “shall specify” or otherwise require him to do so. The Act’s language, the Government continues, consequently gives the Attorney General the power not to specify anything; that power is inconsistent with Congress’ intent to ensure the speedy registration of thousands of “lost” pre-Act offenders, supra, at 442-443; and we can avoid this result only by reading the Act’s registration requirements as applying immediately and on their own to all pre-Act offenders (though the Attorney General would have the power to make exceptions).
This argument bases too much upon too little. There is no reason to believe that Congress feared that the Attorney General would refuse to apply the new requirements to pre-Act offenders. See, e. g., H. R. Rep., at 23-24; Protecting Our Nation’s Children From Sexual Predators and Violent Criminals: What Needs To Be Done? Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., 4-13 (2005); Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, President Signs H. R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (July 27, 2006), http:// georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/ 07/20060727-6.html. And there was no need for a mandatory requirement to avoid that unrealistic possibility. There is consequently no need to read the language unnaturally as giving the Attorney General the authority only to make exceptions from an implicit (unstated) rule that would otherwise apply the new registration requirements to all pre-Act offenders across the board and immediately.
Finally, we note that some lower courts have read the Attorney General’s specification authority as applying only to those pre-Act sex offenders unable to comply with the statute’s “initial registration” requirements. See 42 U. S. C. § 16913(b). That, however, is not what the statute says. Rather, its Fourth Statement, § 16913(d), says that the Attorney General has the authority (1) to specify the applicability of the registration requirements to pre-Act (and preimple-mentation) offenders, “and” (2) to prescribe rules for their registration, “and” (3) to prescribe registration rules for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with the initial registration requirements. See supra, at 436. The word “and” means that the Attorney General’s authority extends beyond those pre-Act “sex offenders who are unable to comply” with the initial registration requirements.
I — I I — I ⅜ — I
For these reasons, we conclude that the Act’s registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General so specifies. Whether the Attorney General’s Interim Rule sets forth a valid specification consequently matters in the case before us. And we reverse the Third Circuit’s judgment to the contrary. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
APPENDIX
18 U. S. C. § 2250(a)
“In General. — Whoever—
“(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act;
“(2) (A) is a sex offender as defined for the purposes of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act by reason of a conviction under Federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice), the law of the District of Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any territory or possession of the United States; or
“(B) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves, or resides in, Indian country; and
“(3) knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act;
“shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
42 U. S. C. § 16913
“Registry requirements for sex offenders
“(a) In general
“A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. For initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is different from the jurisdiction of residence.
“(b) Initial registration
“The sex offender shall initially register — (1) before completing a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the offense giving rise to the registration requirement; or (2) not later than 3 business days after being sentenced for that offense, if the sex offender is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
“(c) Keeping the registration current
“A sex offender shall, not later than 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status, appear in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection (a) and inform that jurisdiction of all changes in the information required for that offender in the sex offender registry. That jurisdiction shall immediately provide that information to all other jurisdictions in which the offender is required to register.
“(d) Initial registration of sex offenders unable to comply with subsection (b)
“The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this sub-chapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b).
“(e) State penalty for failure to comply
“Each jurisdiction, other than a Federally recognized Indian tribe, shall provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment that is greater than 1 year for the failure of a sex offender to comply with the requirements of this subchapter.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On May 30, 1854, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, petitioner, and the United States, respondent, entered into a treaty under which the Tribe reserved a portion of its lands and ceded the remainder, amounting to some 208,585 acres, to be sold at public auction by the United States for the Tribe’s benefit. 10 Stat. 1082. This was provided for in Article 4 of the treaty:
“[T]he President shall immediately cause the residue of the ceded lands to be offered for sale at public auction .... And in consideration of the cessions hereinbefore made,, the United States agree to pay to the said Indians, as hereinafter provided, all the moneys arising from the sales of said lands after deducting therefrom the actual cost of surveying, managing, and selling the same.”
Article 7 of the treaty further provided:
“And as the amount of the annual receipts from the sales of their lands, cannot now be ascertained,' it is agreed that the President may, from time to time, and upon consultation with said Indians, determine how much of the net proceeds of said sales shall be paid them, and how much shall be invested in safe and profitable stocks, the interest to be annually paid to them, or expended for their benefit and improvement.”
In this case the Indian Claims Commission found that the United States violated the treaty in 1857 by selling most of the ceded lands, some 207,759 acres, not by public auction, but by private sales at appraised prices lower than would have prevailed at public auction. The Commission found that the United States thus received for the lands $172,726 less than it would have received if the sales had been made as required by the treaty. 15 Ind. Cl. Comm. 123. Neither party questions these findings.
The petitioner, however, sought review in the Court of Claims upon the issue of the measure of its damages for the treaty’s violation — contending that by virtue of Article 7 of the treaty, the United States is liable not only for the $172,726, but in addition for the amount that that sum would have produced if “invested in safe and profitable stocks, the interest to be annually paid . ...” The Court of Claims, two judges dissenting, rejected this contention, 177 Ct. Cl. 762, 369 F. 2d 1001, and we granted certiorari to consider it. 389 U. S. 814.
In supporting the judgment of the Court of Claims, the respondent relies heavily upon the general rule that the United States is not liable for interest on claims against it. This general rule, as the respondent points out, has been held to be fully applicable to the claims of Indian tribes. But this is not a case where the Court is asked to exercise “the power to award interest against the United States,” United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S. 654, 663. The issue, rather, concerns the measure of damages for the treaty’s violation in the light of the Government’s obligations under that treaty.
Under Article 7 of the treaty, the United States could at any time pay to the Tribe all or any part of the proceeds received from the sales of the lands at public auction. But until the proceeds were paid over, the United States was obligated to invest them and pay the annual income to the Tribe. The United States was not free merely to hold the proceeds without investing them. The issue in this case, therefore, is whether the obligation of the United States to invest unpaid proceeds applies to proceeds which, by virtue of the United States’ violation of the treaty, were never in fact received.
Our decision is largely controlled by United States v. Blackfeather, 155 U. S. 180. There an 1831 treaty obligated the United States to sell certain Indian lands at public auction and to place all proceeds in excess of a stated amount in a fund for the benefit of the Indians. The fund could be dissolved and paid over to the Indians “during the pleasure of Congress,” but until its dissolution, the United States was obligated to pay the Indians an “annuity” upon the retained fund. The lands were sold and the proceeds were paid to the Indians in 1852. In 1893 the Court of Claims held that the United States had violated the treaty by selling some of the lands at private sales rather than at public auction, resulting in the realization of lower prices. This Court held that the obligation to pay the “annuity” applied to the differential that would have been received if the lands had been sold at public auction in accord with the treaty, and that this obligation extended beyond the dissolution of the fund by Congress in 1852:
“While the treaty bound the government to pay a five per cent annuity until the dissolution of the fund, which dissolution took place September 28, 1852, when the sum of $37,180.58, the amount of the fund resulting from actual sales, was paid over to the chiefs of the tribe, this dissolution terminated the stipulation for the annuity only pro tanto. If the government had originally accounted, for the whole amount for which the court below held it to be liable, it would have paid five per cent upon this amount until the whole fund was paid over. The fund as to this amount being not yet distributed, the obligation to pay the five per cent annuity continues until the money is paid over. . . .” 155 U. S., at 193.
Similarly in the case before us, we hold that the obligation to invest the $172,726 and to pay its annual income to the Tribe “continues until the money is paid over.” Cf. United States v. Mille Lac Chippewas, 229 U. S. 498. As the dissenters in the Court of Claims rightly pointed out,
“Indian treaties ‘are not to be interpreted narrowly, as sometimes may be writings expressed in words of art employed by conveyancers, but are to be construed in the sense in which naturally the Indians would understand them.’ United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U. S. 111, 116 (1938). ‘[T]hey are to be construed, so far as possible, in the sense in which the Indians understood them, and “in a spirit which generously recognizes the full obligation of this nation to protect the interests of a dependent people.” Tulee v. Washington, 315 U. S. 681, 684-85. . . .’ ” 177 Ct. Cl., at 771, 369 F. 2d, at 1006-1007.
Since the Indian Claims Commission and the Court of Claims erroneously held that the United States is not liable for its failure to invest the proceeds that would have been received had the United States not violated the treaty, they had no occasion to determine the measure of damages resulting from this liability. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Court of Claims for further remand to the Indian Claims Commission in order to determine that question.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The singular form is used throughout for the petitioners, who were previously known as the Confederated Tribe of the Peoria, Kaskaskia, Wea and Piankeshaw Indians.
The parties are agreed that “the terms 'stocks’ and ‘interest’ should be understood to include bonds or other securities and dividends or other income, respectively.” Respondent’s Brief 11, n. 4. The term “stocks” was used in other treaties of the period to refer to what would today be called bonds. See, e. g., Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U. S. 476, 492. See also Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 26, 1853, H. Doc. No. 1, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., 243, 263. The investments actually made pursuant to the treaty in the present case were purchases of state bonds.
See, e. g., United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U. S. 585; United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S. 654; United States v. Goltra, 312 U. S. 203.
See, e. g., United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U. S. 48; United States v. Omaha Tribe of Indians, 253 U. S. 275, 283; Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 451.
Blackfeather v. United States, 28 Ct. Cl. 447.
The respondent did not brief or argue the question of how to measure these damages. The petitioner suggested that these damages might be measured by looking to the rate of interest which the United States has paid on Indian funds over the same period, arguing for this approach by analogy to private trust law. The petitioner also points out that Congress at one time considered the United States’ treaty obligations to “invest in safe and profitable stocks” satisfied by an annual appropriation for the Indians of an amount equivalent to an interest payment. See Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 30, 1852, S. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., 293, 300-301; Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 26, 1853, supra, n. 2.
Because the United States is not liable for interest on judgments in the absence of an express consent thereto, it cannot be hable for interest on the annual income payments not made. Therefore, if an interest rate measure is adopted by the Commission, it must be simple and not compound interest.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Respondents filed in the Patent Office an application for an invention which was described as being related “to the processing of data by program and more particularly to the programmed conversion of numerical information” in general-purpose digital computers. They claimed a method for converting binary-coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals. The claims were not limited to any particular art or technology, to any particular apparatus or machinery, or to any particular end use. They purported to cover any use of the claimed method in a general-purpose digital computer of any type. Claims 8 and 13 were rejected by the Patent Office but sustained by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, - C. C. P. A. (Pat.) -, 441 F. 2d 682. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari. 405 U. S. 915.
The question is whether the method described and claimed is a “process” within the meaning of the Patent Act.
A digital computer, as distinguished from an analog computer, operates on data expressed in digits, solving a problem by doing arithmetic as a person would do it by head and hand. Some of the digits are stored as components of the computer. Others are introduced into the computer in a form which it is designed to recognize. The computer operates then' upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs.
The representation of numbers may be in the form of a time series of electrical impulses, magnetized spots on the surface of tapes, drums, or discs, charged spots on cathode-ray tube screens, the presence or absence of punched holes on paper cards, or other devices. The method or program is a sequence of coded instructions for a digital computer.
The patent sought is on a method of programming a general-purpose digital computer to convert signals from binary-coded decimal form into pure binary form. A procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem is known as an “algorithm.” The procedures set forth in the present claims are of that kind; that is to say, they are a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another. From the generic formulation, programs may be developed as specific applications.
The decimal system uses as digits the 10 symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The value represented by any digit depends, as it does in any positional system of notation, both on its individual value and on its relative position in the numeral. Decimal numerals are written by placing digits in the appropriate positions or columns of the numerical sequence, i. e., “unit” (10°), “tens” (101), “hundreds” (102), “thousands” (103), etc. Accordingly, the numeral 1492 signifies (1X103) + (4X102) + (9X101) +(2X10°).
The pure binary system of positional notation uses two symbols as digits — 0 and 1, placed in a numerical sequence with values based on consecutively ascending powers of 2. In pure binary notation, what would be the tens position is the twos position; what would be hundreds position is the fours position; what would be the thousands position is the eights. Any decimal number from 0 to 10 can be represented in the binary system with four digits or positions as indicated in the following table.
Shown as the sum of powers of 2
2s 22 21
Decimal (8) (4) (2) (1) Pure Binary
0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0000
1 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 2° = 0001
2 = 0 + 0 + 21 + 0 = 0010
3 = 0 + 0 + 21 + 2° = 0011
4 = 0 + 22 + 0 + 0 = 0100
5 = 0 + 22 + 0 + 2° = 0101
6 = 0 + 22 + 21 + 0 = 0110
7 = 0 + 22 + 21 + 2° = 0111
8 = 23 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1000
9 = 23 + 0 + 0 + 2° = 1001
10 = 23 + 0 + 21 + 0 = 1010
The BCD system using decimal numerals replaces the character for each component decimal digit in the decimal numeral with the corresponding four-digit binary numeral, shown in the righthand column of the table. Thus decimal 53 is represented as 0101 0011 in BCD, because decimal 5 is equal to binary 0101 and decimal 3 is equivalent to binary 0011. In pure binary notation, however, decimal 53 equals binary 110101. The conversion of BCD numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally through use of the foregoing table. The method sought to be patented varies the ordinary arithmetic steps a human would use by changing the order of the steps, changing the symbolism for writing the multiplier used in some steps, and by taking subtotals after each successive operation. The mathematical procedures can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary. And, as noted, they can also be performed without a computer.
The Court stated in Mackay Co. v. Radio Corp., 306 U. S. 86, 94, that “[w]hile a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.” That statement followed the longstanding rule that “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507. “A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175. Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work. As we stated in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130, “He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.” We dealt there with a “product” claim, while the present case deals with a “process” claim. But we think the- same principle applies.
Here the “process” claim is so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion. The end use may (1) vary from the operation of a train to verification of drivers’ licenses to researching the law books for precedents and (2) be performed through any existing machinery or future-devised machinery or without any apparatus.
In O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, Morse was allowed a patent for a process of using electromagnetism to produce distinguishable signs for telegraphy. Id., at 111. But the Court denied the eighth claim in which Morse claimed the use of “electro magnetism, however developed for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at any distances.” Id., at 112. The Court in disallowing that claim said, “If this claim can be maintained, it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished. For aught that we now know, some future inventor, in the onward march of science, may discover a mode of writing or printing at a distance by means of the electric or galvanic current, without using any part of the process or combination set forth in the plaintiff’s specification. His invention may be less complicated — less liable to get out of order— less expensive in construction, and in its operation. But yet, if it is covered by this patent, the inventor could not use it, nor the public have the benefit of it, without the permission of this patentee.” Id., at 113.
In The Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 534, the Court explained the Morse case as follows: “The effect of that decision was, therefore, that the use of magnetism as a motive power, without regard to the particular process with which it was connected in the patent, could not be claimed, but that its use in that connection could.” Bell’s invention was the use of electric current to transmit vocal or other sounds. The claim was not “for the use of a current of electricity in its natural state as it comes from the battery, but for putting a continuous current in a closed circuit into a certain specified condition suited to the transmission of vocal and other sounds, and using it in that condition for that purpose.” Ibid. The claim, in other words, was not “one for the use of electricity distinct from the particular process with which it is connected in his patent.” Id., at 535. The patent was for that use of electricity “both for the magneto and variable resistance methods.” Id., at 538. Bell’s claim, in other words, was not one for all telephonic use of electricity.
In Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267-268, the Court said, “One may discover a new and useful improvement in the process of tanning, dyeing, etc., irrespective of any particular form of machinery or mechanical device.” The examples given were the “arts of tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores.” Id., at 267. Those are instances, however, where the use of chemical substances or physical acts, such as temperature control, changes articles or materials. The chemical process or the physical acts which transform the raw material are, however, sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly within rather definite bounds.
Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, involved a process for manufacturing flour so as to improve its quality. The process first separated the superfine flour and then removed impurities from the middlings by blasts of air, reground the middlings, and then combined the product with the superfine. Id., at 785. The claim was not limited to any special arrangement of machinery. Ibid. The Court said,
“That a process may be patentable, irrespective of the particular form of the instrumentalities used, cannot be disputed. If one of the steps of a process be that a certain substance is to be reduced to a powder, it may not be at all material what instrument or machinery is used to effect that object, whether a hammer, a pestle and mortar, or a mill. Either may be pointed out; but if the patent is not confined to that particular tool or machine, the use of the others would be an infringement, the general process being the same. A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an. act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” Id., at 787-788.
Transformation and reduction of an article “to a different state or thing” is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. So it is that a patent in the process of “manufacturing fat acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure” was sustained in Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 721. The Court said, “The chemical principle or scientific fact upon which it is founded is, that the elements of neutral fat require to be severally united with an atomic equivalent of water in order to separate from each other and become free. This chemical fact was not discovered by Tilgh-man. He only claims to have invented a particular' mode of bringing about the desired chemical union between the fatty elements and water.” Id., at 729.
Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, sustained a patent on a “process” for expanding metal. A process “involving mechanical operations, and producing a new and useful result,” id., at 385-386, was held to be a patentable process, process patents not being limited to chemical action.
Smith v. Snow, 294 U. S. 1, and Waxham v. Smith, 294 U. S. 20, involved a process for setting eggs in staged in-eubation and applying mechanically circulated currents of air to the eggs. The Court, in sustaining the function performed (the hatching of eggs) and the means or process by which that is done, said:
“By the use of materials in a particular manner he secured the performance of the function by a means which had never occurred in nature, and had not been anticipated by the prior art; this is a patentable method or process. ... A method, which may be patented irrespective of the particular form of the mechanism which may be availed of for carrying it into operation, is not to be rejected as ‘functional,’ merely because the specifications show a machine capable of using it.” 294 U. S., at 22.
It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a “different state or thing.” We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold. It is said that we have before us a program for a digital computer but extend our holding to programs for analog computers. We have, however, made clear from the start that we deal with a program only for digital computers. It is said we freeze process patents to old technologies, leaving no room for the revelations of the new, onrushing technology. Such is not our purpose. What we come down to in a nutshell is the following.
It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case. The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.
It may be that the patent laws should be extended to cover these programs, a policy matter to which we are not competent to speak. The President’s Commission on the Patent System rejected the proposal that these programs be patentable:
“Uncertainty now exists as to whether the statute permits a valid patent to be granted on programs. Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory subject matter. Indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection, by drafting claims as a process, or a machine or components thereof programmed in a given manner, rather than as a program itself, have confused the issue further and should not be permitted.
“The Patent Office now cannot examine applications for programs because of a lack of a classification technique and the requisite search files. Even if these were available, reliable searches would not be feasible or economic because of the tremendous volume of prior art being generated. Without this search, the patenting of programs would be tantamount to mere registration and the presumption of validity would be all but nonexistent.
“It is noted that the creation of programs has undergone substantial and satisfactory growth in the absence of patent protection and that copyright protection for programs is presently available.”
If these programs are to be patentable, considerable problems are raised which only committees of Congress can manage, for broad powers of investigation are needed, including hearings which canvass the wide variety of views which those operating in this field entertain. The technological problems tendered in the many briefs before us indicate to us that considered action by the Congress is needed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Claim 8 reads:
“The method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form into binary which comprises the steps of
“(1) storing the binary coded decimal signals in a re-entrant shift register,
“(2) shifting the signals to the right by at least three places, until there is a binary '1' in the second position of said register,
“(3) masking out said binary T in said second position of said register,
“(4) adding a binary 1’ to the first position of said register,
“(5) shifting the signals to the left by two positions,
“(6) adding a T to said first position, and
“(7) shifting the signals to the right by at least three positions in preparation for a succeeding binary 1’ in the second position of said register.”
Claim 13 reads:
“A data processing method for converting binary coded decimal number representations into binary number representations comprising the steps of
“(1) testing each binary digit position '1/ beginning with the least significant binary digit position, of the most significant decimal digit representation for a binary ‘O’ or a binary T;
“(2) if a binary ‘O’ is detected, repeating step (1) for the next least significant binary digit position of said most significant decimal digit representation;
“(3) if a binary ‘V is detected, adding a binary '1’ at the (i+l)th and (i+3)th least significant binary digit positions of the next lesser significant decimal digit representation, and repeating step (1) for the next least significant binary digit position of said most significant decimal digit representation;
“(4) upon exhausting the binary digit positions of said most significant decimal digit representation, repeating steps (1) through (3) for the next lesser significant decimal digit representation as modified by the previous execution of steps (1) through (3); and
“(5) repeating steps (1) through (4) until the second least significant decimal digit representation has been so processed.”
They are set forth in the Appendix to this opinion.
Title 35 U. S. C. § 100 (b) provides:
“The term ‘process’ means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.”
Title 35 U. S. C. § 101 provides:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
See R. Benrey, Understanding Digital Computers 4 (1964).
“To Promote the Progress of . . . Useful Arts,” Report of the President's Commission on the Patent System (1966).
Id., at 13.
See Wild, Computer Program Protection: The Need to Legislate a Solution, 54 Corn. L. Rev. 586, 604-609 (1969); Bender, Computer Programs: Should They Be Patentable?, 68 Col. L. Rev. 241 (1968); Buckman, Protection of Proprietory Interest in Computer Programs, 51 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 135 (1969).
Amicus briefs of 14 interested groups have been filed on the merits in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case lies at the crossroads of the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments. Petitioner was arrested without probable cause and without a warrant. He was given, in full, the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Thereafter, while in custody, he made two inculpatory statements. The issue is whether evidence of those statements was properly admitted, or should have been excluded, in petitioner’s subsequent trial for murder in state court. Expressed another way, the issue is whether the statements were to be excluded as the fruit of the illegal arrest, or were admissible because the giving of the Miranda warnings sufficiently attenuated the taint of the arrest. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). The Fourth Amendment, of course, has been held to be applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961).
I
As petitioner Richard Brown was climbing the last of the stairs leading to the rear entrance of his Chicago apartment in the early evening of May 13, 1968, he happened to glance at the window near the door. He saw, pointed at him through the window, a revolver held by a stranger who was inside the apartment. The man said: “Don’t move, you are under arrest.” App. 42. Another man, also with a gun, came up behind Brown and repeated the statement that he was under arrest. It was about 7:45 p. m. The two men turned out to be Detectives William Nolan and William Lenz of the Chicago police force. It is not clear from the record exactly when they advised Brown of their identity, but it is not disputed that they broke into his apartment, searched it, and then arrested Brown, all without probable cause and without any warrant, when he arrived. They later testified that they made the arrest for the purpose of questioning Brown as part of their investigation of the murder of a man named Roger Corpus.
Corpus was murdered one week earlier, on May 6, with a .38-caliber revolver in his Chicago West Side second-floor apartment. Shortly thereafter, Detective Lenz obtained petitioner’s name, among others, from Corpus’ brother. Petitioner and the others were identified as acquaintances of the victim, not as suspects.
On the day of petitioner’s arrest, Detectives Lenz and Nolan, armed with a photograph of Brown, and another officer arrived at petitioner’s apartment about 5 p. m. App. 77, 78. While the third officer covered the front entrance downstairs, the two detectives broke into Brown’s apartment and searched it. Id., at 86. Lenz then positioned himself near the rear door and watched through the adjacent window which opened onto the back porch. Nolan sat near the front door. He described the situation at the later suppression hearing:
“After we were there for a while, Detective Lenz told me that somebody was coming up the back stairs. I walked out the front door through the hall and around the corner, and I stayed there behind a door leading on to the back porch. At this time I heard Detective Lenz say, 'Don’t move, you are under arrest.’ I looked out. I saw Mr. Brown backing away from the window. I walked up behind him, I told him he is under arrest, come back inside the apartment with us.” Id., at 42.
As both officers held him at gunpoint, the three entered the apartment. Brown was ordered to stand against the wall and was searched. No weapon was found. Id., at 93. He was asked his name. When he denied being Richard Brown, Detective Lenz showed him the photograph, informed him that he was under arrest for the murder of Roger Corpus, id., at 16, handcuffed him, id., at 93, and escorted him to the squad car.
The two detectives took petitioner to the Maxwell Street police station. During the 20-minute drive Nolan again asked Brown, who then was sitting with him in the back seat of the car, whether his name was Richard Brown and whether he owned a 1966 Oldsmobile. Brown alternately evaded these questions or answered them falsely. Tr. 74. Upon arrival at the station house Brown was placed in the second-floor central interrogation room. The room was bare, except for a table and four chairs. He was left alone, apparently without handcuffs, for some minutes while the officers obtained the file on the Corpus homicide. They returned with the file, sat down at the table, one across from Brown and the other to his left, and spread the file on the table in front of him. App. 19.
The officers warned Brown of his rights under Miranda. Ibid. They then informed him that they knew of an incident that had occurred in a poolroom on May 5, when Brown, angry at having been cheated at dice, fired a shot from a revolver into the ceiling. Brown answered: “Oh, you know about that.” Id., at 20. Lenz informed him that a bullet had been obtained from the ceiling of the poolroom and had been taken to the crime laboratory to be compared with bullets taken from Corpus’ body. Ibid. Brown responded: “Oh, you know that, too.” Id., at 20-21. At this point — it was about 8:45 p. m. — Lenz asked Brown whether he wanted to talk about the Corpus homicide. Petitioner answered that he did. For the next 20 to 25 minutes Brown answered questions put to him by Nolan, as Lenz typed. Id., at 21-23.
This questioning produced a two-page statement in which Brown acknowledged that he and a man named Jimmy Claggett visited Corpus on the evening of May 5; that the three for some time sat drinking and smoking marihuana; that Claggett ordered him at gunpoint to bind Corpus’ hands and feet with cord from the headphone of a stereo set; and that Claggett, using a .38-caliber revolver sold to him by Brown, shot Corpus three times through a pillow. The statement was signed by Brown. Id., at 9, 38.
About 9:30 p. m. the two detectives and Brown left the station house to look for Claggett in an area of Chicago Brown knew him to frequent. They made a tour of that area but did not locate their quarry. They then went to police headquarters where they endeavored, without success, to obtain a photograph of Claggett. They resumed their search — it was now about 11 p. m. — and they finally observed Claggett crossing at an intersection. Lenz and Nolan arrested him. All four, the two detectives and the two arrested men, returned to the Maxwell Street station about 12:15 a. m. Id., at 39.
Brown was again placed in the interrogation room. He was given coffee and was left alone, for the most part, until 2 a. m. when Assistant State’s Attorney Crilly arrived.
Crilly, too, informed Brown of his Miranda rights. After a half hour’s conversation, a court reporter appeared. Once again the Miranda warnings were given: “I read him the card.” Id., at 30. Crilly told him that he “was sure he would be charged with murder.” Id., at 32. Brown gave a second statement, providing a factual account of the murder substantially in accord with his first statement, but containing factual inaccuracies with respect to his personal background. When the statement was completed, at about 3 a. m., Brown refused to sign it. Id., at 57. An hour later he made a phone call to his mother. At 9:30 that morning, about 14 hours after his arrest, he was taken before a magistrate.
On June 20 Brown and Claggett were jointly indicted by a Cook County grand jury for Corpus’ murder. Prior to trial, petitioner moved to suppress the two statements he had made. He alleged that his arrest and detention had been illegal and that the statements were taken from him in violation of his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the motion was denied. R. 46.
The case proceeded to trial. The State introduced evidence of both statements. Detective Nolan testified as to the contents of the first, App. 89-92, but the writing itself was not placed in evidence. The second statement was introduced and was read to the jury in full. Tr. 509-528. Brown was 23 at the time of the trial. Id., at 543.
The jury found petitioner guilty of murder. R. 80. He was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years. Id., at 83.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment of conviction. 56 Ill. 2d 312, 307 N. E. 2d 356 (1974). The court refused to accept the State’s argument that Brown’s arrest was lawful. “Upon review of the record, we conclude that the testimony fails to show that at the time of his apprehension there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest, [and] that his arrest was, therefore, unlawful.” Id., at 315, 307 N. E. 2d, at 357. But it went on to hold in two significant and unembellished sentences:
“[W]e conclude that the giving of the Miranda warnings, in the first instance by the police officer and in the second by the assistant State’s Attorney, served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements, and that defendant’s act in making the statements was ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.’ (Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, at 486.) We hold, therefore, that the circuit court did not err in admitting the statements into evidence.” Id., at 317, 307 N. E. 2d, at 358.
Aside from its reliance upon the presence of the Miranda warnings, no specific aspect of the record or of the circumstances was cited by the court in support of its conclusion. The court, in other words, appears to have held that the Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Because of our concern about the implication of our holding in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), to the facts of Brown’s case, we granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 894 (1974).
II
In Wong Sun, the Court pronounced the principles to be applied where the issue is whether statements and other evidence obtained after an illegal arrest or search should be excluded. In that case, federal agents elicited an oral statement from defendant Toy after forcing entry at 6 a. m. into his laundry, at the back of which he had his living quarters. The agents had followed Toy down the hall to the bedroom and there had placed him under arrest. The Court of Appeals found that there was no probable cause for the arrest. This Court concluded that that finding was “amply justified by the facts clearly shown on this record.” 371 U. S., at 479. Toy’s statement, which bore upon his participation in the sale of narcotics, led the agents to question another person, Johnny Yee, who actually possessed narcotics. Yee stated that heroin had been brought to him earlier by Toy and another Chinese known to him only as “Sea Dog.” Under questioning, Toy said that “Sea Dog” was Wong Sun. Toy led agents to a multifamily dwelling where, he said, Wong Sun lived. Gaining admittance to the building through a bell and buzzer, the agents climbed the stairs and entered the apartment. One went into the back room and brought Wong Sun out in handcuffs. After arraignment, Wong Sun was released on his own recognizance. Several days later, he returned voluntarily to give an unsigned confession.
This Court ruled that Toy’s declarations and the contraband taken from Yee were the fruits of the agents’ illegal action and should not have been admitted as evidence against Toy. Id., at 484-488. It held that the statement did not result from “ 'an intervening independent act of a free will,’ ” and that it was not “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Id., at 486. With respect to Wong Sun’s confession, however, the Court held that in the light of his lawful arraignment and release on his own recognizance, and of his return voluntarily several days later to make the statement, the connection between his unlawful arrest and the statement “had 'become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341.” Id., at 491. The Court said:
“We need not hold that all evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959).” Id., at 487-A88.
The exclusionary rule thus was applied in Wong Sun primarily to protect Fourth Amendment rights. Protection of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not the Court’s paramount concern there. To the extent that the question whether Toy’s statement was voluntary was considered, it was only to judge whether it “was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Id., at 486 (emphasis added).
The Court in Wong Sun, as is customary, emphasized that application of the exclusionary rule on Toy’s behalf protected Fourth Amendment guarantees in two respects: “in terms of deterring lawless conduct by federal officers,” and by “closing the doors of the federal courts to any use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained.” Ibid. These considerations of deterrence and of judicial integrity, by now, have become rather commonplace in the Court’s cases. See, e. g., United States v. Peltier, ante, at 535-538; United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 347 (1974); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 12-13, 28-29 (1968). “The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960). But “[d]e-spite its broad deterrent purpose, the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348. See also Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 446-447 (1974).
III
The Illinois courts refrained from resolving the question, as apt here as it was in Wong Sun, whether Brown’s statements were obtained by exploitation of the illegality of his arrest. They assumed that the Miranda warnings, by themselves, assured that the statements (verbal acts, as contrasted with physical evidence) were of sufficient free will as to purge the primary taint of the unlawful arrest. Wong Sun, of course, preceded Miranda.
This Court has described the Miranda warnings as a “prophylactic rule,” Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47, 53 (1973), and as a “procedural safeguard,” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 457, 478, employed to protect Fifth Amendment rights against “the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” Id., at 458. The function of the warnings relates to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against coerced self-incrimination, and the exclusion of a statement made in the absence of the warnings, it is said, serves to deter the taking of an incriminating statement without first informing the individual of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Although, almost 90 years ago, the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment is in “intimate relation” with the Fourth, Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 633 (1886), the Miranda warnings thus far have not been regarded as a means either of remedying or deterring violations of Fourth Amendment rights. Frequently, as here, rights under the two Amendments may appear to coalesce since “the ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment.” Ibid.; see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S., at 646 n. 5. The exclusionary rule, however, when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth. It is directed at all unlawful searches and seizures, and not merely those that happen to produce incriminating material or testimony as fruits. In short, exclusion of a confession made without Miranda warnings might be regarded as necessary to effectuate the Fifth Amendment, but it would not be sufficient fully to protect the Fourth. Miranda warnings, and the exclusion of a confession made without them, do not alone sufficiently deter a Fourth Amendment violation.
Thus, even if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. In order for the causal chain, between the illegal arrest and the statements made subsequent thereto, to be broken, Wong Sun requires not merely that the statement meet the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.” 371 U. S., at 486. Wong Sun thus mandates consideration of a statement’s admissibility in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment.
If Miranda warnings, by themselves, were held to attenuate the taint of an unconstitutional arrest, regardless of how wanton and purposeful the Fourth Amendment violation, the effect of the exclusionary rule would be substantially diluted. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 726-727 (1969). Arrests made without warrant or without probable cause, for questioning or “investigation,” would be encouraged by the knowledge that evidence derived therefrom could well be made admissible at trial by the simple expedient of giving Miranda warnings. Any incentive to avoid Fourth Amendment violations would be eviscerated by making the warnings, in effect, a “cure-all,” and the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures could be said to be reduced to “a form of words.” See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S., at 648.
It is entirely possible, of course, as the State here argues, that persons arrested illegally frequently may decide to confess, as an act of free will unaffected by the initial illegality. But the Miranda warnings, alone and per se, cannot always make the act sufficiently a product of free will to break, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the causal connection between the illegality and the confession. They cannot assure in every case that the Fourth Amendment violation has not been unduly exploited. See Westover v. United States, 384 U. S. 436, 496-497 (1966).
While we therefore reject the per se rule which the Illinois courts appear to have accepted, we also decline to adopt any alternative per se or “but for” rule. The petitioner himself professes not to demand so much. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 45, 47. The question whether a confession is the product of a free will under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. No single fact is dispositive. The workings of the human mind are too complex, and the possibilities of misconduct too diverse, to permit protection of the Fourth Amendment to turn on such a talismanic test. The Miranda warnings are an important factor, to be sure, in determining whether the confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest. But they are not the only factor to be considered. The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, see Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 365 (1972), and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct are all relevant. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 491. The voluntariness of the statement is a threshold requirement. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 3501. And the burden of showing admissibility rests, of course, on the prosecution.
IV
Although the Illinois courts failed to undertake the inquiry mandated by Wong Sun to evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule, the trial resulted in a record of amply sufficient detail and depth from which the determination may be made. We therefore decline the suggestion of the United States, as amicus curiae, see Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102 (1969), to remand the case for further factual findings. We conclude that the State failed to sustain the burden of showing that the evidence in question was admissible under Wong Sun.
Brown’s first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever. In its essentials, his situation is remarkably like that of James Wah Toy in Wong Sun. We could hold Brown’s first statement admissible only if we overrule Wong Sun. We decline to do so. And the second statement was clearly the result and the fruit of the first.
The illegality here, moreover, had a quality of purposefulness. The impropriety of the arrest was obvious; awareness of that fact was virtually conceded by the two detectives when they repeatedly acknowledged, in their testimony, that the purpose of their action was “for investigation” or for “questioning.” App. 35, 43, 78, 81, 83, 88, 89, 94. The arrest, both in design and in execution, was investigatory. The detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up. The manner in which Brown’s arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.
We emphasize that our holding is a limited one. We decide only that the Illinois courts were in error in assuming that the Miranda warnings, by themselves, under Wong Sun always purge the taint of an illegal arrest.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The brother, however, when asked at the trial whether any of the victim’s family suggested to the police that petitioner was possibly responsible for the victim's death, answered: “Nobody asked.” App. 74.
There is no assertion here that he did not understand those rights.
It was stipulated at the trial that if expert testimony were taken, it would be to the effect that the bullet eventually was ascertained to be a “wiped bullet,” that is, that its sides were “clean and therefore it was not ballistically comparable to any other bullets, specifically the bullets taken from the body of the deceased, Roger Corpus.” Tr. 543.
In response to questions from Mr. Crilly, Brown stated that he was employed at E. I. Guffman Company in Niles, 111., and that he was a punch press operator, App. 97, whereas he later conceded that he worked at Arnold Schwinn Bicycle Company and had never worked at any other place. Id., at 63. He also remarked in the Crilly statement that he had completed three years of high school, id., at 96, whereas later he conceded that he “never went to high school.” Id., at 58.
Members of the Court on occasion have indicated disenchantment with the rule. See, e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 490 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 492 (Burger, C. J., dissenting in part and concurring in part); id., at 493 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); id., at 510 (White, J., concurring and dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 411 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Its efficacy has been subject to some dispute. United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 n. 5 (1974). See Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 218 (1960).
The Miranda warnings in no way inform a person of his Fourth Amendment rights, including his right to be released from unlawful custody following an arrest made without a warrant or without probable cause.
A great majority of the commentators have taken the same position. See, e. g., Pitler, “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Revisited and Shepardized, 56 Calif. L. Rev. 579, 603-604 (1968); Ruffin, Out on a Limb of the Poisonous Tree: The Tainted Witness, 15 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 32, 70 (1967); Comment, 1 Fla. St. L. Rev. 533, 539-540 (1973); Note, Admissibility of Confessions Made Subsequent to an Illegal Arrest: Wong Sun v. United States Revisited, 61 J. Crim. L. 207, 212 n. 58 (1970); Comment, Scope of Taint Under the Exclusionary Rule of the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 570, 574 (1966). But see Comment, Voluntary Incriminating Statements Made Subsequent to an Illegal Arrest — A Proposed Modification of the Exclusionary Rule, 71 Dick. L. Rev. 573, 582-583 (1967).
See United States v. Owen, 492 F. 2d 1100, 1107 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 965 (1974); Hale v. Henderson, 485 F. 2d 266, 267-269 (CA6 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 930 (1974); United States v. Fallon, 457 F. 2d 15, 19-20 (CA10 1972); Leonard v. United States, 391 F. 2d 537, 538 (CA9 1968); Pennsylvania ex rel. Craig v. Maroney, 348 F. 2d 22, 29 (CA3 1965),
See United States v. Edmons, 432 F. 2d 577 (CA2 1970). See also United States ex rel. Gockley v. Myers, 450 F. 2d 232, 236 (CA3 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1063 (1972); United States v. Kilgen, 445 F. 2d 287, 289 (CA5 1971).
Our approach relies heavily, but not excessively, on the “learning, good sense, fairness and courage of federal trial judges.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 342 (1939).
The situation here is thus in dramatic contrast to that of Wong Sun himself. Wong Sun’s confession, which the Court held admissible, came several days after the illegality, and was preceded by a lawful arraignment and a release from custody on his own recognizance. 371 U. S., at 491.
The fact that Brown had made one statement, believed by him to be admissible, and his cooperation with the arresting and interrogating officers in the search for Claggett, with his anticipation of leniency, bolstered the pressures for him to give the second, or at least vitiated any incentive on his part to avoid self-incrimination. Cf. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 (1963).
Detective Lenz had been a member of the Chicago police force for 14 years and a detective for 12 years. App. 6. Detective Nolan had been a detective on the force for 5% years. Id., at 87.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is the third in a series of cases from the State of Michigan decided today involving a claim of constitutional tax immunity.
In 1952 Murray Corporation was acting as a subcontractor under a prime contract for the manufacture of airplane parts between two other private companies and the United States. From time to time Murray received partial payments from the two prime contractors as it performed its obligations under the subcontract. By agreement, title to all parts, materials and work in process acquired by Murray in performance of the subcontract vested in the United States upon any such partial payment, even though Murray retained possession.
On January 1,1952, the City of Detroit and the County of Wayne, Michigan, each assessed a tax against Murray which in part was based on the value of materials and work in process in its possession to which the United States held legal title under the title-vesting provisions of the subcontract. Murray paid this part of each tax under protest and then sued in a Federal District Court for a refund from the city and county. It contended that full title to the property was in the United States and that the taxes infringed the Federal Government’s immunity from state taxation to the extent they were based on such property. The Government intervened on Murray’s behalf. On motion for summary judgment the District Court entered judgment for Murray and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 234 F. 2d 380. From this decision the city and county both appealed and petitioned for certiorari. We granted certiorari and postponed the question of jurisdiction on appeal to the hearing on the merits. 352 U. S. 960, 963. The appeal was proper. 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2).
We believe that this case is also controlled by the principles expressed in our opinions in Nos. 26 and 37, ante, pp. 466, 484, and that the taxes challenged here do not violate the Constitution. These taxes were not levied directly against the United States or its property. To the contrary they were imposed on'Murray, a private corporation, and there was no effort to hold the United States or its property accountable. In fact Michigan expressly exempts from taxation all public property belonging to the United States, 6 Mich. Stat. Ann., 1950, § 7.7, and these taxes were assessed from the beginning “subject to prior rights of the Federal Government.” Cf. S. R. A. v. Minnesota, 327 U. S. 558, 559, 561; City of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U. S. 547.
The taxes imposed on Murray were styled a personal property tax by the Michigan statutes and it relies upon this to support its contention that they were actually laid against government property. However in passing on the constitutionality of a state tax “we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it.” Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U. S. 276, 280. Consequently in determining whether these taxes violate the Government’s constitutional immunity we must look through form and behind labels to substance. This is at least as true to uphold a state tax as to strike one down. Cf. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 443-445; Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U. S. 542. Due regard for the State’s power to tax requires no less. As applied — and of course that is the way they must be judged — the taxes involved here imposed a levy on a private party possessing government property which it was using or processing in the course of its own business. It is not disputed that Michigan law authorizes the taxation of the party in possession under such circumstances. Cf. Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. Detroit, 228 Mich. 145, 199 N. W. 645; City of Detroit v. Gray, 314 Mich. 516, 22 N. W. 2d 771.
In their practical operation and effect the taxes in question are identical to those which we upheld in Nos. 26 and 37 on persons using exempt real property. We see no essential difference so far as constitutional tax immunity is concerned between taxing a person for using property he possesses and taxing him for possessing property |he uses when in both instances he uses the property for his own private ends. Nor have we been pointed to anything else which would bar a State from taxing possession in such circumstances. Cf. Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U. S. 10. Lawful possession of property is a valuable right when the possessor can use it for his own personal benefit.
It is true that the particular Michigan taxing statutes involved here do not expressly state that the person in possession is taxed “for the privilege of using or possessing” personal property, but to strike down a tax on the possessor because of such verbal omission would only prove a victory for empty formalisms. And empty formalisms are too shadowy a basis for invalidating state tax laws. Cf. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300- U. S. 577, 582. In the circumstances of this case the State could obviate such grounds for invalidity by merely adding a few words to its statutes. Yet their operation and practical effect would remain precisely the same.
There is no claim that the challenged taxes discriminate against persons holding government property. To the contrary the tax is a general tax which applies and has been applied throughout the State. If anything the economic burden on the United States is more remote and less certain than in other cases where this Court has upheld taxes on private parties. Of course the Government will eventually feel the financial burden of at least some of the tax but the one principle in this area which has heretofore been clearly settled is that the imposition of an increased financial burden on the Government does not by itself invalidate a state tax.
The respondents rely heavily on United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174. Petitioners on the other hand contend that the decision in Allegheny is inconsistent with the general trend of our decisions in this field, that it has already been distinguished to the point where it retains no meaningful vitality and that it is erroneous. However that may be, we do not think that case is controlling, essentially for the reasons set forth in United States v. City of Detroit, ante, p. 466. In Allegheny the Court emphasized that the tax against Mesta Machine Company was, in its view, a general property tax laid on government property as such. The Court pointed out that the State had “made no effort to segregate Mesta’s interest and tax it.” The question was expressly reserved whether the State could tax a person possessing government property for the possession and use of such property in connection with his own profit-making activities. Here, however, state law specifically authorizes assessment against the person in possession. And the taxing authorities were careful not to attempt to tax the Government’s interest in the property.
In all important particulars the taxes imposed here are very similar to that upheld in Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 U. S. 495, on the storage of gasoline for the United States. A tax on storage is not intrinsically different from a tax on possession, at least where in both instances the private party is holding the property for his own gain. The tax in Esso was measured by the quantity of government gasoline stored while the taxes here are measured by the value of government property possessed but such technical distinction is of no significance in determining whether the Constitution bars this tax and is completely unrelated to any rational basis for governmental tax immunity.
We find nothing in the Constitution which compels us to strike down these state taxes. There was no discrimination against the Federal Government, its property or those with whom it does business. There was no crippling obstruction of any of the Government’s functions, no sinister effort to hamstring its power, not even the slightest interference with its property. Cf. M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. In such circumstances the Congress is the proper agency, as we pointed out in United States v. City of Detroit, to make the difficult policy decisions necessarily involved in determining whether and to what extent private parties who do business with the Government should be given immunity from state taxes.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
7 It is so ordered.
Opinion of
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
Adjustment of the interpenetrating factors involved in the Nation-State relation of our federal system, insofar as they are amenable to adjudication, is a subtle and complicated process. It precludes easy application even of accepted legal formulas. Particularly is this true when the taxing power of the States is asserted against claims of intrusion into areas reserved to the Nation. In this domain it is asking too much for rules of certainty and simplicity in application that are hardly to be found in any live branch of the law. Even the Rule Against Per-petuities has only precarious certainty. The necessity for judicial accommodation between the intersecting interests of the States’ power to tax and the concerns of the Nation in carrying on its government presents problems solutions for which cannot be sought by a formula assuring a bright, straight line of decisions. Accordingly, we have been admonished in the leading modern case dealing with these problems that they require “the observing of close distinctions in order to maintain the essential freedom of government in performing its functions, without unduly limiting the taxing power which is equally essential to both Nation and State under our dual system.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 150.
The diversity of views expressed in these cases, even when there is concurrence in result, suggests the desirability of recalling, to use an old-fashioned phrase, “first principles.” After all, we are dealing with problems that have, howsoever they may have appeared in particular situations, an unbroken history of nearly a century and a half. Temerarious as the claim may appear, there is a residuum of continuity in the' reconciliation that the numerous cases since M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), have made between the power of the States to tax and the restriction against laying a tax upon “the Government, its property or officers.” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra, at 149. The governing principles, as Chief Justice Marshall himself formulated them, bear quotation:
“ ‘That all subjects to which the sovereign power of a State extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation.’
“ 'That the sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but not to those means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States.’
“ 'That the attempt to use the power of taxation on the means employed by the government of the Union in pursuance of the Constitution, is itself an abuse, because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give.’
“ 'That the States have no power by taxation, or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress, to carry into execution the powers vested in the General government.’ ” Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 467, as quoted by Mr. Justice Bradley in Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 38-39 (dissenting opinion).
No less, helpful in giving directions for the path of solution to our immediate problems are the comments on these principles by Mr. Justice Bradley, whose powers of penetrating analysis, particularly in this field, were in my view second to none.
“Whilst no one disputes the general power of taxation in the States, which is so elaborately set forth in the opinion of the majority, it must be conceded that there are limits to that power. The States cannot tax the powers, the operations, or the property of the United States, nor the means which it employs to carry its powers into execution. The government of the United States, within the scope of its powers, is supreme, and cannot be interfered with or impeded in their exercise.
“The case differs toto ccelo from that wherein the government enters into a contract with an individual or corporation to perform services necessary for carrying on the functions of government — as for carrying the mails, or troops, or supplies, or for building ships or works for government use. In those cases the government has no further concern with the contractor than in his contract and its execution. It has no concern with his property or his faculties independent of that. How much he may be taxed by, or what duties he may be obliged to perform towards, his State is of no consequence to the government, so long as his contract and its execution are not interfered with. In that case the contract is the means employed for carrying into execution the powers of the government, and the contract alone, and not the contractor, is exempt from taxation or other interference by the State government.” Railroad Co. v. Peniston, supra, at 41-42 (dissenting opinion).
When Mr. Chief Justice Hughes quoted the latter paragraph in support of the decision in James v. Bravo Contracting Co., supra, at 155, he impliedly indicated that some decisions that gave government contractors immunity from taxation for their property, profits, or purchases deviated from the traditional doctrines of implied governmental immunity, and that the decision in the Dravo case was essentially a return to orthodoxy as Mr. Justice Bradley had elucidated it. I venture to say that whatever deviations or even aberrations from true doctrine cases here and there and now happily laid to rest may disclose, there is a residuum of continuity over the long course of judicial adjustment of the States’ power to tax and the limits placed upon it by the implied immunity of the National Government from the demands of the state tax collectors. No decision has ever questioned that a tax cannot be laid upon “the Government, its property or officers,” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra, at 149, or, as it was phrased in United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, 177, “that possessions, institutions, and activities of the Federal Government itself in the absence of express congressional consent are not subject to any form of state taxation.” This at least has been a bright straight line running undeviatingly through the decisions of this Court. See Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151; United States v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 274, 279.
As Mr. Chief Justice Stone stated for a unanimous court in Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1, 9, the application, and therefore the outcome, in cases like those before us of these general principles “turns on the terms of the contract and the rights and obligations of the parties under it.” Nothing better illustrates the truth of this statement than a comparison of King & Boozer with Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U. S. 110, a case whose relevance is not minimized by the loud silence the Court’s present opinions accord it. Since “intergovernmental submission to taxation is primarily a problem of finance and legislation,” 347 U. S., at 122, it is immaterial that contracts by the Government have been purposefully drawn so as to vest title to the property that is the subject of the tax in the Government, and thereby withdraw it from the taxing power of the States.
If a legal decision were a vehicle for the expression of merely personal views, I might take satisfaction as a dissenter on the facts from the Allegheny decision that those who concurred in the result now for all practical purposes repudiate it. The principle on which the decision rested, that a tax cannot be laid on the property of the Federal Government, was not, as the opinion stated, questioned in that case. 322 U. S., at 177. The division turned on a relevant construction of the Pennsylvania taxing system in respect to fixtures in their enhancement of concededly taxable realty owned by'a government contractor. The Court found that the Pennsylvania scheme of taxation was in fact “the old and widely used ad valorem general property tax.” 322 U. S., at 184. As we are told by the Court in the present case, “Reviewing all the circumstances the Court [in Allegheny] concluded that the tax was simply and forthrightly imposed on the property itself, not on the privilege of using or possessing it.” But this is so, a fortiori, in the circumstances of Nos. 18 and 36 now before us. Surely the detailed analysis of my brother Whittaker of “the terms of the contract and the rights and obligations of the parties under it,” in relation to the taxing system of Michigan, demonstrates, if anything is demonstrable in the law, that the tax imposed has all the incidents of a general ad valorem property tax, and that it has them to a more conclusive degree than was true of the tax levied by Pennsylvania in the Allegheny case.
ALLEGHENY. NOS. 18 & 86.
The Contract.
Contract to manufacture ordnance. Machinery needed to produce ordnance to be furnished by Government, or to be manufactured or purchased by contractor.
Title to machinery furnished by Government to remain in Government; title to machinery manufactured or purchased by contractor to vest in Government upon delivery to site of work and inspection and acceptance on behalf of Government.
Machinery to be leased to contractor during period of contract.
Machinery bolted to concrete foundations in contractor’s plant.
Subcontract to manufacture airplane parts, subassemblies and nondurable tools (supplies).
Title to parts, materials, inventories, work in process, and nondurable tools (materials) to vest in Government upon making of partial payments on such materials to contractor.
Materials segregated and identified as Government property, and records kept when withdrawn for use in producing supplies.
Action of Taxing Authority.
Revised contractor’s previously determined assessment for ad valorem taxes by adding thereto the value of the machinery.
Assessment of contractor’s personal property made including amount for materials acquired for performance of contract.
Authorization.
Statute provided: “The following subjects and property shall... be valued and assessed and subject to taxation... (a) All real estate....” 347 Pa. 191, 193, 32 A. 2d 236, 237-238. State Supreme Court held that machinery constituted part of the mill for purposes of assessment and was properly assessed as real estate.
State Supreme Court found that the tax was assessed not against the Government but against the contractor.
Statute entitled “General Property Tax Act,” “AN ACT to provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes thereon.... That all property, real and personal, within the jurisdiction of this state... shall be subject to taxation.” 6 Mich. Stat. Ann., 1950, §§ 7.1-7.2.
City Charter provided: “City Treasurer shall enforce the collection of all unpaid taxes which are assessed against the property or value other than real estate.” Charter of the City of Detroit, Tit. VI, c. IV, § 26.
Statute provided that taxes assessed “shall become at once a debt due... from the persons to whom they are assessed....” 6 Mich. Stat. Ann., 1950, § 7.81.
City Charter provided that, “The owners or persons in possession of any personal property shall pay all taxes assessed thereon,” that all city taxes upon personal property “shall become a debt against the owner from the time of the listing of the property for assessment...,” and that if the taxes remain unpaid, “the City Treasurer shall forthwith levy upon... the personal property of any person refusing or neglecting to pay such tax....” Tit. VI, c. IV, §§ 1, 27, 26.
Statute provided: taxes are “declared to be a first lien on said property.” 322 U. S. 174, 185.
State Supreme Court found that even if contractor defaulted in payment of tax, the rights of the Government in the machinery could not in any way be affected.
Statute provided: “all personal taxes hereafter levied or assessed shall also be a first lien... on all personal property of such persons so assessed.... The personal property taxes hereafter levied or assessed by any city or village shall be a first lien... upon the personal property assessed....” 6 Mich. Stat. Ann., 1950, § 7.81.
City Charter provided that all city taxes “shall become a lien on the property taxed...,” and that “All city taxes upon personal property shall become... a lien thereon and so remain until paid....” Tit. VI, c. IV, §§ 1, 26.
Assessor inscribed on tax roll: “Assessed Subject to Prior Rights of Federal Government.”
I cannot believe that the Court would outright reject the doctrine of constitutional immunity from taxation of the Government and its property. I cannot believe that the Court „is prepared frankly to jettison what has been part of our constitutional system for almost 150 years. But it does not save the principle to disregard it in practice. And it disregards it in practice to argue from the right of a State to levy an excise tax against a contractor for the enjoyment of property that gives him an economic advantage because it is otherwise immune from taxation, to the right of a State professedly and directly to lay an ad valorem property tax on what is indubitably government property. •/-
A totally different problem is presented by Nos. 26, 37, and 38. These cases present the question whether enjoyment of the use of property that carries special economic advantages to the user because, for one reason or another, the property as such cannot be the subject of a tax, is included within Chief Justice Marshall's principle that “all subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation... Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 467. If a State may impose an excise tax on something that gives advantage or pleasure, such as the practice of a particular profession, why is it not also a taxable advantage that is had from being able to use property that for reasons extraneous to the user is not subject to the taxing power? Cf. Watson v. State Comptroller, 254 U. S. 122.
The only right that a taxpayer can assert against the state taxing power on the basis of governmental immunity is a “derivative one,” James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 158, supra, and if he is to resist the exercise of this power he must stand in the Government’s shoes. The immunity that he asserts is the Government’s immunity, not his own. In taxing the enjoyment or use of property that is itself free from taxation, the State taxes an interest of the taxpayer, not of the Federal Government, and the tax is not laid on “the Government, its property or officers.” The taxpayer is not immune from a tax because as a matter of dollars and cents it may affect the Government. To be sure, the excise in Nos. 26, 37, and 38 is measured by the value of the property, so that if the property were directly taxed the tax bill would be the same. But if the enjoyment of otherwise tax-free property is something different from the property itself for purposes of taxation, it does not lose this characteristic because the admeasurement is the same.
A principle with the uninterrupted historic longevity attributable to the immunity of government property from state taxation has a momentum of authority that reflects, if not a detailed exposition of considerations of policy demanded by our federal system, certainly a deep instinct that there are such considerations, and that the distinction between a tax on government property and a tax on a third person for the privilege of using such property is not an “empty formalism.” The distinction embodies a considered judgment as to the minimum safeguard necessary for the National Government to carry on its essential functions without hindrance from the exercise of power by another sovereign within the same territory. That in a particular case there may in fact be no conflict in the exercise of the two governmental powers is not to the point. It is in avoiding the potentialities of friction and furthering the smooth operation of complicated governmental machinery that the constitutional doctrine of immunity finds its explanation and justification.
The danger of hindrance of the Federal Government in the use of its property, resulting in erosion of the fundamental command of the Supremacy Clause, is at its greatest when the State may, through regulation or taxation, move directly against the activities of the Government. Scarcely less is the danger when the subject of a tax, that at which the State has consciously and purposefully aimed in attaching the consequence of tax-ability, is the property of the Federal Government. It is not only that the likelihood of local legislation deliberately or unwittingly discriminatory against government property either by its terms or application may be enhanced. Even a nondiscriminatory tax, if it is expressly laid on government property, is more likely to result in interference with the effective use of that property, whether because of an ill-advised attempt by the tax collector to levy on the property itself or because it is sought to hold the Government or its officers to account for the tax, even if ultimately the endeavor may fail. The defense of sovereign immunity to a suit against government officers for the tax, or a suit to assert title to or recover property erroneously levied upon to satisfy a tax, may in practice be an inadequate substitute for the clear assertion of federal interest at the threshold.
The fact that a tax on a third party for the privilege of using government property may itself have an indirect impeding effect is no reason against a rule designed to avoid the more direct and obvious evil. Because a constitutional doctrine is not pushed to the logical extremities of its policy is no argument against maintaining it as far as it has historically extended. From the beginning a broad cloak of immunity for government property has been thought the best way to allay the danger of state encroachment on the national interest, and the character of our federal system and the relations between the Nation and the States have not in this regard so changed that the principle has become outmoded. _
If the distinctions between the taxes involved in these cases seem nice, it is because “nice distinctions are to be expected,” Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 225, and they are none the worse for it. - Not to make them, to lump all these cases together as though some similarities and assumed similar consequences amount to identities, is to disregard a long, unbroken course of judicial history and practicalities of government that doubtless have led, under prior decisions of this Court, to the drawing of countless contracts covering the use of government property.
Accordingly, I dissent from the Court’s opinion in Nos. 18 and 36, and concur in the result in Nos. 26, 37, and 38.
Opinion of
MR. Justice Harlan.
Because all but two members of the Court consider that the taxes involved in these cases all stand or fall together, I deem it advisable to state my reasons for believing that these cases require different conclusions as to the constitutionality of the taxes involved.
In determining the constitutionality of a state tax against a claim of federal immunity, past cases in this Court have established a distinction between “property” and “privilege” taxes of one kind or another. That is, broadly speaking, a State may not constitutionally tax property owned by the Federal Government, even though the property is in private hands and the tax is to be collected from a private taxpayer, United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, but it may tax activities of private persons, even though these activities involve the use of government property and the value or amount of such property becomes the partial or exclusive basis for the measurement of the tax. Curry v. United States, 314 U. S. 14; Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 U. S. 495. Cf. Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115; Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379. Although the opinions of the Court in the present cases stop short of repudiating this established distinction, they seem to me to blur it to the point where the extent of its future application is left confused and uncertain.
In view of this Court’s past decisions in the privilege-tax cases, I agree with the majority today that the lessee’s and user’s tax in Nos. 26, 37 and 38, construed by the state court to be a tax on the privilege of using tax-exempt property, is constitutional as applied. The dissenting opinion, which I do not believe can be reconciled with these past decisions, concludes that the tax imposed upon those using tax-exempt property for private profit should be regarded in substance as a tax on the property itself because the privilege tax is measured by the full value of the leased or used property, rather than merely by the value of the lessee’s or user’s interest.
In effect, it seems to me that the dissenters equate the measure of the tax with the subject of the tax. But I do not think that the formula here employed by Michigan to measure these taxes can be meaningfully distinguished from that applied in the Alabama use tax upheld in Curry v. United States, supra. There the use tax collected from a government contractor was measured by a percentage of the full value of government-owned property used by the contractor to execute its obligations. Indeed, the only distinction I can see is that the compensating use tax in Curry was imposed just once, whereas the privilege tax in Michigan is assessed yearly; but having regard to the wide latitude of a State’s taxing power within the due-process limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment, I can hardly believe that this difference points to a contrary constitutional result. The decision in Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, supra, which upheld a state tax assessed to a private taxpayer on the privilege of storing gasoline although the tax was measured in part by the amount of government gasoline stored multiplied, by a fixed rate, provides further support for this conclusion. And in both of those cases, as is true here, the Government bore the full economic burden of the state taxes.
It should be observed that the state taxes here, as those in Curry and Esso Standard Oil Co., do not operate in a discriminatory fashion by so measuring the tax on use or activities as to impose an unequal tax burden on lessees or users of government property vis-a-vis lessees, users, or owners of other tax-exempt or nonexempt property. And since this is so, I cannot agree with the dissenting opinion that this Court’s view of the state legislature’s purpose in enacting the statute should affect our determination of its constitutionality. Although Michigan here sought to equalize tax burdens on users of normal and tax-exempt property, or perhaps even to by-pass Alie- gheny, I think it hardly repaying to speculate on the motives behind a local tax, as long as it is otherwise constitutionally permissible. Finally, it should be noted that assessment of the privilege tax to the user of government property in Nos. 37 and 38 would present a quite different problem if the user were deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States Government, but petitioners in those cases make no such showing, and I do not understand the dissenters here to rely on such a ground.
In Nos. 18 and 36 the Court'holds that a tax which the dissenting opinions convincingly show is nothing but a conventional ad valorem personal property tax should be regarded instead as a tax upon the possession of government property privately used. This the Court finds constitutionally indistinguishable from the tax upon the use of government property privately possessed which has been upheld as a privilege tax in Nos. 26, 37, and 38. That is to say, the Court finds that the Government’s property here was simply the measure, and not the subject matter, of a tax which was in effect imposed on the privilege of possessing property used for private gain.
In so holding, the Court, proceeding on the premise that Detroit’s characterization of this tax as a personal property tax does not bind us, Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363, 367-368, relies on the circumstances that this government property was used for private gain, that the tax was collectible under the statute from the subcontractor and not from the Government or out of its property, and that the tax was nondiscriminatory. But all of these factors were present in United States v. Allegheny County, supra, where the Court struck down a local tax also cast in the traditional language of a “property” tax. Although the Court here purports to distinguish Allegheny, it seems to me that the authority of that case has now been reduced almost to the vanishing point, for neither the tax statute here nor that in Allegheny qualified application of the tax to property employed in private commercial activity.
What has happened in these two groups of cases no doubt reflects the difficulty of reconciling Allegheny with the privilege tax cases, and bears witness to the truth of Mr. Justice Jackson’s statement in Allegheny that in the evolution of the law in this difficult field “the line between the taxable and the immune has been drawn by an unsteady hand.” 322 U. S., at 176. Since the economic incidence of a state tax on the Federal Government is no longer a controlling factor, James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134; Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1, and since the use of federally owned property as the measure, by value or amount, of a tax on the privilege of using (Curry v. United States, supra) or storing (Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, supra) such property is permissible, the distinction between “property” and “privilege” taxes as a yardstick for judging constitutionality when both taxes are collectible from a private taxpayer holding the property is certainly left in a high degree of artificiality. See Powell, Intergovernmental Tax Immunities, 58 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 757; cf. Society for Savings v. Bowers, 349 U. S. 143, 148. This is certainly so where the property tax applies to property used by a private party in some activity which is a proper subject of state taxation, see M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 429, and where, as here, the State does not seek to accomplish what would in any event be procedurally impossible because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit — enforcement of a lien asserted against government property. It is quite understandable, therefore, that the Court should wish to minimize the importance of that distinction.'
But by holding that the ad valorem personal property taxes involved in Nos. 18 and 36 should be regarded as “privilege” taxes, it seems to me that the Court has injected further uncertainties into a field already plagued by excessive refinements. For until today the line between property and privilege taxes, if “drawn by an unsteady hand,” was at least visible. A State could not tax government property, even though the property was in the hands of, and the tax was collectible only from, private persons. However, it now appears that not all property taxes are indeed “property” taxes for purposes of constitutional immunity, even though so characterized or construed by state authorities. Henceforth, apparently, we must determine whether the tax which a State has drafted as and denominated a “property” tax could, had the State so desired, have been constitutionally imposed as a “privilege” tax, measured by the value of the taxed property, upon some activity
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join.
Appellant was arrested and charged with “jostling”— a Class A misdemeanor in New York, punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of one year. He was brought to trial in the New York City Criminal Court. Section 40 of the New York City Criminal Court Act declares that all trials in that court shall be without a jury. Appellant’s pretrial motion for jury trial was accordingly denied. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for the maximum term. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejecting appellant’s argument that § 40 was unconstitutional insofar as it denied him an opportunity for jury trial. We noted probable jurisdiction. We reverse.
In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), we held that the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth, requires that defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded the right to trial by jury. We also reaffirmed the long-established view that so-called “petty offenses” may be tried without a jury. Thus the task before us in this case is the essential if not wholly satisfactory one, see Duncan, at 161, of determining the line between “petty” and “serious” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
Prior cases in this Court narrow our inquiry and furnish us with the standard to be used in resolving this issue. In deciding whether an offense is “petty,” we have sought objective criteria reflecting the seriousness with which society regards the offense, District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 628 (1937), and we have found the most relevant such criteria in the severity of the maximum authorized penalty. Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147, 148 (1969); Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 159-161; District of Columbia v. Clawans, supra, at 628. Applying these guidelines, we have held that a possible six-month penalty is short enough to permit classification of the offense as “petty,” Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co., 391 U. S. 216, 220 (1968); Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966), but that a two-year maximum is sufficiently “serious” to require an opportunity for jury trial, Duncan v. Louisiana, supra. The question in this case is whether the possibility of a one-year sentence is enough in itself to require the opportunity for a jury trial. We hold that it is. More specifically, we have concluded that no offense can be deemed “petty” for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.
New York has urged us to draw the line between “petty” and “serious” to coincide with the line between misdemeanor and felony. As in most States, the maximum sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor in New York is one year, for a felony considerably longer. It is also true that the collateral consequences attaching to a felony conviction are more severe than those attaching to a conviction for a misdemeanor. And, like other States, New York distinguishes between misdemeanors and felonies in determining such things as whether confinement shall be in county or regional jails, rather than state prison, and whether prosecution may proceed by information or complaint, rather than by grand jury indictment. But while these considerations reflect what may readily be admitted — that a felony conviction is more serious than a misdemeanor conviction— they in no way detract from appellant’s contention that some misdemeanors are also “serious” offenses. Indeed we long ago declared that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial “is not to be construed as relating only to felonies, or offences punishable by confinement in the penitentiary. It embraces as well some classes of misdemeanors, the punishment of which involves or may involve the deprivation of the liberty of the citizen.” Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 549 (1888).
A better guide “ [i] n determining whether the length of the authorized prison term or the seriousness of other punishment is enough in itself to require a jury trial” is disclosed by “the existing laws and practices in the Nation.” Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 161. In the federal system, as we noted in Duncan, petty offenses have been defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. And, with a few exceptions, crimes triable without a jury in the American States since the late 18th century were also generally punishable by no more than a six-month prison term. Indeed, when Duncan was decided two Terms ago, we could discover only three instances in which a State denied jury trial for a crime punishable by imprisonment for longer than six months: the Louisiana scheme at issue in Duncan, a New Jersey statute punishing disorderly conduct, and the New York City statute at issue in this case. These three instances have since been reduced to one. In response to the decision in Duncan, Louisiana has lowered the penalty for certain misdemeanors to six months, and has provided for a jury trial where the penalty still exceeds six months. New Jersey has amended its disorderly persons statute by reducing the maximum penalty to six months’ imprisonment and a $500 fine. Even New York State would have provided appellant with a six-man-jury trial for this offense if he had been tried outside the City of New York. In the entire Nation, New York City alone denies an accused the right to interpose between himself and a possible prison term of over six months, the commonsense judgment of a jury of his peers.
It is true that in a number of these States the jury provided consists of less than the 12-man, unanimous-verdict jury available in federal cases. But the primary purpose of the jury is to prevent the possibility of oppression by the Government; the jury interposes between the accused and his accuser the judgment of laymen who are less tutored perhaps than a judge or panel of judges, but who at the same time are less likely to function or appear as but another arm of the Government that has proceeded against him. Except for the criminal courts of New York City, every other court in the Nation proceeds under jury trial provisions that reflect this “fundamental decision about the exercise of official power,” Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 156, when what is at stake is the deprivation of individual liberty for a period exceeding six months. This near-uniform judgment of the Nation furnishes us with the only objective criterion by which a line could ever be drawn — • on the basis of the possible penalty alone' — -between offenses that are and that are not regarded as “serious” for purposes of trial by jury.
Of necessity, the task of drawing a line “requires attaching different consequences to events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little.” Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 161. One who is threatened with the possibility of imprisonment for six months may find little difference between the potential consequences that face him, and the consequences that faced appellant here. Indeed, the prospect of imprisonment for however short a time will seldom be viewed by the accused as a trivial or “petty” matter and may well result in quite serious repercussions affecting his career and his reputation. Where the accused cannot possibly face more than six months’ imprisonment, we have held that these disadvantages, onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the benefits that result from speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications. We cannot, however, conclude that these administrative conveniences, in light of the practices that now exist in every one of the 50 States as well as in the federal courts, can similarly justify denying an accused the important right to trial by jury where the possible penalty exceeds six months’ imprisonment. The conviction is
Reversed.
MR. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see post, p. 117.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, see post, p. 143.]
“Jostling” is one of the ways in which legislatures have attempted to deal with pickpocketing. See Denzer & McQuillan, Practice Commentary, N. Y. Penal Law, following § 165.25; Note, Pickpocketing: A Survey of the Crime and Its Control, 104 U. Pa. L. Rev. 408, 419 (1955). The New York law provides:
“A person is guilty of jostling when, in a public place, he intentionally and unnecessarily:
“1. Places his hand in the proximity of a person’s pocket or handbag; or
“2. Jostles or crowds another person at a time when a third person’s hand is in the proximity of such person’s pocket or handbag.” N. Y. Penal Law § 165.25.
Appellant was convicted on the testimony of the arresting officer. The officer stated that he had observed appellant, working in concert with another man, remove a loose package from an unidentified woman’s poeketbook after the other man had made a “body contact” with her on a crowded escalator. He arrested both men, searched appellant, and found a single $10 bill. No other testimony or evidence was introduced on either side. The trial judge thought the police officer “a very forthright and credible witness” and found appellant guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. See App. 1-17, 21.
“All trials in the court shall be without a jury. All trials in the court shall be held before a single judge; provided, however, that where the defendant has been charged with a misdemeanor . . . [he] shall be advised that he has the right to a trial in a part of the court held by a panel of three of the judges thereof . . . .” N. Y. C. Crim. Ct. Act §40 (Supp. 1969).
24 N. Y. 2d 207, 247 N. E. 2d 260 (1969).
395 U. S. 932 (1969).
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159 (1968); see Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966); District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617 (1937); District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63 (1930); Schick v. United States, 195 U. S. 65 (1904); Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621 (1891); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 (1888); Frankfurter & Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 917 (1926). But see Kaye, Petty Offenders Have No Peers!, 26 U. Chi. L. Rev. 245 (1959).
Decisions of this Court have looked to both the nature of the offense itself, District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U. S. 63 (1930), as well as the maximum potential sentence, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), in determining whether a particular offense was so serious as to require a jury trial. In this case, we decide only that a potential sentence in excess of six months’ imprisonment is sufficiently severe by itself to take the offense out of the category of “petty.” None of our decisions involving this issue have ever held such an offense “petty.” See cases cited n. 5, supra.
N. Y. Penal Law, §§ 10.00, 70.15 (1967).
Both the convicted felon and the convicted misdemeanant may be prevented under New York law from engaging in a wide variety of occupations. In addition, the convicted felon is deprived of certain civil rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office. The relevant statutes are set out in Brief for Appellant C-l to C-6; Brief for Appellee A8-A12.
See statutes cited n. 7, supra; N. Y. Penal Law §70.20 (1967).
N. Y. Const., Art. I, §6; N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. §§22, 222 (1958); N. Y. C. Crim. Ct. Act §§31, 41 (1963); see, e. g., People v. Bellinger, 269 N. Y. 265, 199 N. E. 213 (1935); People v. Van Dusen, 56 Misc. 2d 107, 287 N. Y. S. 2d 741 (1967).
Even New York distinguishes among misdemeanors in terms of the seriousness of the offense. Following a recent revision of the penal law, Class A misdemeanors were made punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, Class B misdemeanors up to three months' imprisonment, and “violations” up to 15 days. As Judge Burke noted in his dissenting opinion below, “an argument can be made with some force that the Legislature has identified petty offenses as those included in the 'violations’ category and in the category of class B misdemeanors.” 24 N. Y. 2d 207, 225, 247 N. E. 2d 260, 270 (1969).
18 U. S. C. § 1.
Frankfurter & Corcoran, n. 5, supra.
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 161 n. 33 (1968).
La. Crim. Proe. Code Ann., Art. 779 (Supp. 1969); see Comment, Jury Trial in Louisiana — Implications of Duncan, 29 La. L. Rev. 118, 127 (1968).
N. J. Rev. Stat. § 2A: 169-4 (Supp. 1969).
Compare N. Y. C. Crim. Ct. Act § 40 (Supp. 1969), with N. Y. Uniform Dist. Ct. Act § 2011 (1963); N. Y. Uniform City Ct. Act §2011 (Supp. 1969). Because of our disposition of this case on appellant’s jury-trial claim, we find it unnecessary to consider his argument that New York has violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying him a jury trial, while granting a six-man-jury trial to defendants charged with the identical offense elsewhere in the State. See Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U. S. 545 (1954); Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22 (1880). See generally Horowitz & Neitring, Equal Protection Aspects of Inequalities in Public Education and Public Assistance Programs Prom Place to Place Within a State, 15 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 787-804 (1968).
The various state statutory provisions are set out in the briefs filed in this case. A survey is also included in American Bar Assn. Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial, Trial by Jury 20-23 (Approved Draft 1968) (recommending that the possibility of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $500, “should be the upper limit upon the definition of ‘petty offenses’”).
In a related decision of this date we hold that trial by a six-man jury satisfies the Sixth Amendment requirement of jury trial. Williams v. Florida, post, p. 78.
Thus a trial before a panel of three judges, which appellant might have requested in lieu of trial before a single judge, see n. 2, supra, can hardly serve as a substitute for a jury trial.
We find little relevance in the. fact that Congress has defined misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment up to one year as “minor offenses” for purposes of vesting trial jurisdiction in the United States magistrates rather than commissioners, 18 U. S. C. § 3401 (f) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), or for purposes of authorizing eavesdropping under state court orders, 18 U. S. C. § 2516 (2) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), or for purposes of determining the eligibility for jury service of formerly convicted persons, 28 U. S. C. § 1865 (b) (5) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). Such statutes involve entirely different considerations from those involved in deciding when the important right to jury trial shall attach to a criminal proceeding. Nothing in any of the above Acts suggests that Congress meant to alter its longstanding judgment that “[n]otwithstanding any Act of Congress to the contrary . . . [a]ny misdemeanor, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months or a fine of not more than $500, or both, is a petty offense.” 18 U. S. C. § 1.
Experience in other States, notably California where jury trials are available for all criminal offenses including traffic violations, Cal. Pen. Code § 689 (1956), suggests that the administrative burden is likely to be slight, with a very high waiver rate of jury trials. See H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 18-19 and n. 12 (1966).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation began when Ohio Cellular Products Corporation (OCP) sued respondent Adams USA, Inc. (Adams), claiming patent infringement. The District Court eventually dismissed OCP’s claim and ordered OCP to pay Adams’ costs and attorney fees. Adams feared that OCP might be unable to pay the fee award and therefore sought a means to recover from petitioner Nelson, president and sole shareholder of OCP, in his individual capacity. In pursuit of that objective, Adams moved under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend its pleading to add Nelson as a party; Adams also asked the court, under Rule 59(e), to amend the fee award. The District Court granted the motion in full, simultaneously making Nelson a party and subjecting him to judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that the District Court erred in amending the judgment immediately upon permitting amendment of the pleading. Due process, as reflected in Rule 15 as well as Rule 12, required that Nelson be given an opportunity to respond and contest his personal liability for the award after he was made a party and before the entry of judgment against him.
I
OCP and its successor corporation held two patents relating to the method of manufacturing a foamed padding used in athletic equipment. In 1994, OCP sued Adams for infringement. Adams maintained that the patents had been anticipated by prior art and were therefore invalid under 35 U. S. C. § 102(b). The District Court ruled in Adams’ favor and dismissed the infringement complaint.
Adams then moved for attorney fees and costs. The District Court granted the motion on the ground that Nelson, who was at all relevant times president and sole shareholder of OCP, had deceitfully withheld the prior art from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This behavior, the District Court concluded, constituted inequitable conduct chargeable to OCP. On January 20,1998, the District Court awarded Adams costs and fees in the amount of $178,888.51 against OCP.
Adams feared, however, that it would be unable to collect the award. This was an altogether understandable concern; it stemmed from a letter OCP’s counsel had sent Adams warning that OCP would be liquidated if exposed to a judgment for fees more than nominal in amount. Adams therefore moved to amend its pleading to add Nelson, personally, as a party from whom fees could be collected. In this post-judgment endeavor, Adams reasoned that Nelson was the flesh-and-blood party behind OCP, the person whose conduct in withholding prior art precipitated the fee award, and a person with funds sufficient to satisfy that award. The District Court granted the motion.
Adams’ motion, however, sought more than permission to amend the pleading. It sought simultaneously an amended judgment, subjecting Nelson to liability as soon as he was made a party. See Record, Doc. No. 126, p. 1 (“Defendants [i. e., Adams] hereby move the Court... for an order granting Defendants leave to amend their third party complaint to name Donald E. Nelson (Nelson) as a third party defendant in his individual capacity, and amending the judgment in this action to include Nelson as an additional party against whom judgment is entered.”). In presenting the motion, Adams offered no reason why the judgment should be altered immediately. See id., at 7-8. The motion did contend that an amendment to the judgment was “necessary to prevent manifest injustice,” id., at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted), but it did not explain why Nelson, once joined as a party, should not be permitted to state his side of that argument. The District Court seems not to have paused over this question, for it allowed the pleading amendment and altered the judgment at a single stroke. Record, Doc. No. 131. The memorandum explaining the District Court’s decision addressed only the propriety of adding Nelson as a party. It did not address the propriety of altering the judgment at the very same time. Record, Doc. No. 130, at 3-7.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the amended judgment against Nelson. Ohio Cellular Prods. Corp. v. Adams USA, Inc., 175 F. 3d 1343 (1999). It was “uncommon,” the appeals court acknowledged, to add a party after the entry of judgment. Id., at 1348. The court con-eluded, however, that Nelson had not been prejudiced by the postjudgment joinder. The Federal Circuit based that conclusion on Nelson’s failure to show that “anything different or additional would have been done” to stave off the judgment had Nelson been a party, in his individual capacity, from the outset of the litigation. Id., at 1351. The panel, over a vigorous dissent by Judge Newman, was apparently satisfied that adding Nelson as a party and simultaneously amending the judgment to obligate him individually met due process requirements. See id., at 1345,1349, n. 5.
We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1018 (1999). In his request for this Court’s review, Nelson did not dispute the portion of the District Court’s order that granted Adams leave to amend its pleading to add Nelson as a party against whom costs and fees were sought. Pet. for Cert. 11. What he does challenge, and what is now before us, is the portion of the District Court’s order that immediately adjudged Nelson personally liable the moment he was made a party.
II
A
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to farther the due process of law that the Constitution guarantees. Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1 (Rules “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”). Rule 15 sets out the requirements for amended and supplemental pleadings. On that score, the Court of Appeals observed that as long as no undue prejudice is shown, “due process requirements are met if the requirements of Rule 15 are met.” 175 F. 3d, at 1349, n. 5. But in the instant case, the requirements of Rule 15 were not met. As Judge Newman recognized in her dissent, below, due process does not countenance such swift passage from pleading to judgment in the pleader’s favor. See id., at 1352.
The propriety of allowing a pleading alteration depends not only on the state of affairs prior to amendment but also on what happens afterwards. Accordingly, Rule 15 both conveys the circumstances under which leave to amend shall be granted and directs how the litigation will move forward following an amendment. When a court grants leave to amend to add an adverse party after the time for responding to the original pleading has lapsed, the party so added is given “10 days after service of the amended pleading” to plead in response. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). This opportunity to respond, fundamental to due process, is the echo of the opportunity to respond to original pleadings secured by Rule 12. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1). Thus, Rule 15 assumes an amended pleading will be filed and anticipates service of that pleading on the adverse party.
Nelson was never served with an amended pleading. Indeed, no such pleading was ever actually composed and filed in court. Nor, after the amendment naming him as a party, was Nelson accorded 10 days to state his defenses against personal liability for costs and fees. Instead, judgment was entered against him the moment permission to amend the pleading was granted. Appeal after judgment, in the circumstances this case presents, did not provide an adequate opportunity to defend against the imposition of liability. Cf. American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156 (1932). Adams points to nothing in the record indicating that Nelson affirmatively relinquished his right to respond on the merits of the case belatedly stated against him in his individual capacity. Accordingly, the proceedings did not comply with Rule 15, and neither did they comport with due process. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950) (“ ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ ”) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914)).
It is true that Nelson knew as soon as Adams moved to amend the pleading and alter the judgment that he might ultimately be subjected to personal liability. One could ask, therefore, whether Nelson in fact had a fair chance, before alteration of the judgment, to respond and be heard. Rule 15 and the due process for which it provides, however, demand a more reliable and orderly course. First, as the Rule indicates, pleading in response to an amended complaint is a prerogative of parties, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a), and Nelson was not a party prior to the District Court’s ruling on Adams’ motion to amend. Second, as Rule 15 further prescribes, the clock on an added party’s time to respond does not start running until the new pleading naming that party is served, see ibid., just as the clock on an original party’s time to respond does not start running until the original pleading is served, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(A). This is not to say that Rule 15 is itself a constitutional requirement. Beyond doubt, however, a prospective party cannot fairly be required to answer an amended pleading not yet permitted, framed, and served.
In support of its holding that Nelson was not prejudiced when added as a party and subjected to judgment, the Federal Circuit relied on its prior decision in Fromson v. Citiplate, Inc., 886 F. 2d 1300 (1989). See 175 R. 3d, at 1349-1350, and n. 7. The reliance is puzzling, for the circumstances in Fromson were crucially different from those presented here. The plaintiff in Fromson prevailed on an infringement claim and subsequently moved to hold the owners of the judgment-proof defendant corporation individually liable. To that extent only, Fromson resembles the instant case. Notably unlike Adams, however, the plaintiff in Fromson had moved before trial to add the individual owners as parties, because it suspected from the start that the defendant corporation might not be able to pay. The District Court denied that motion in reliance on the defendant corporation’s false assurances that it was solvent. See 886 F. 2d, at 1301, 1304. Having been informed before trial that the plaintiffs sought to sue them in their individual capacities, and having acted deliberately to derail such a suit, the owners of the defendant corporation in Fromson could hardly assert that another’s mistake or choice of whom to sue had compromised their ability to defend. Their problem, the Federal Circuit aptly observed in its Fromson opinion, was “a bed of their own making.” Id., at 1304.. Here, in contrast, Adams never sought to sue Nelson individually until after judgment was entered against OCP. Nor is there any indication that Adams initially sought relief solely against OCP because of some false assurance regarding OOP’s solvency
To summarize, Nelson was never afforded a proper opportunity to respond to the claim against him. Instead, he was adjudged liable the very first moment his personal liability was legally at issue. Procedure of this style has been questioned even in systems, real and imaginary, less concerned than ours with the right to due process.
B
Adams strongly urges, however, that Nelson waived his objections to the swift process of the District Court. Adams first maintains that Nelson waived arguments based on personal jurisdiction and the absence of service of process by failing to raise them promptly after being added as a party. Brief for Respondents 82-41. Nelson’s winning argument, however, is based neither on personal jurisdiction nor on service of process. It rests on his right to have time and opportunity to respond to the claim once Adams gained leave to sue Nelson in his individual capacity, and thereby to reach beyond OOP’s corporate till into Nelson’s perspnal pocket. Waiver of arguments based on personal jurisdiction and service of process is therefore beside the point.
In a similar vein, and this time coming closer to the dis-positive issue, Adams submits that the Federal Circuit “did not address the ‘due process’ issues now sought to be presented, . . . because these issues were never raised by Petitioner” before that court. Id., at 47 (emphasis deleted). It is indeed the general rule that issues must be raised in lower courts in order to be preserved as potential grounds of decision in higher courts. But this principle does not demand the incantation of particular words; rather, it requires that the lower court be fairly put on notice as to the substance of the issue. See, e. g., Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U. S. 153, 174-175 (1988). And the general rule does not prevent us from declaring what due process requires in this case, for that matter was fairly before the Court of Appeals.
In response to questioning from the appellate bench, Nelson’s counsel explained that the core of his client’s argument was the fundamental unfairness of imposing judgment without going through the process of litigation our rules of civil procedure prescribe. Both the majority and the dissent in the Federal Circuit understood that an issue before them concerned the process due after Adams’ postjudgment motion. See 175 F. Bd, at 1349, n. 5 (majority opinion); id., at 1B52 (Newman, J., dissenting). Our resolution of the case as a matter of due process therefore rests on a ground considered and passed upon by the court below.
Beneath Adams’ technical and ultimately unavailing arguments about waiver, its essential position in the litigation is reflected in the Federal Circuit’s decision: There was sufficient identity between Nelson and OCP to bind Nelson, without further ado, to a judgment already entered against OCP. Nelson was president and sole shareholder of OCP. See id., at 1346. It was Nelson who withheld prior art from the Patent Office. See id., at 1349. He had actual notice that Adams was seeking to collect a fee award from OCP, because he was the “effective controller” of the litigation for OCP and personally participated as a witness at the hearing on whether OCP had engaged in inequitable conduct. See ibid.
The Federal Circuit did not conclude that these factors would have justified imposing liability on Nelson by piercing OOP’s corporate veil, see id., at 1349, n. 6, and Adams, for its part, has disavowed reliance on a veil-piercing theory, see Record, Doc. No. 129, at 3 (stating, before the District Court, that “Adams does not request that the Court ‘disregard the corporate form’ ”); Tape of Oral Arg. in No. 98-1448 (CA Fed. Feb. 3, 1999) (expressly stating that this case does not concern piercing the corporate veil). One-person corporations are authorized by law and should not lightly be labeled sham. See, e. g., Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465, 469 (1935) (finding corporation a sham not because it was owned entirely by one person, but because it had “no business or corporate purpose”); Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F. 2d 982, 985 (CA2 1980) (a corporation’s veil may not be pierced merely because it has only one owner). Indeed, where patents are concerned, the one-person corporation may be an altogether appropriate means to permit innovation without exposing inventors to possibly ruinous consequences. The legitimacy of OOP as a corporation, in short, is not at issue in this case.
Instead, the Federal Circuit reasoned that nothing much turned on whether the party opposing Adams’ claim for costs and fees was OCP or Nelson. “[N]o basis has been advanced,” the panel majority concluded, “to believe anything different or additional would have been done to defend against the allegation of inequitable conduct had Nelson individually already been added as a party or had he been a party from the outset.” 175 F. 3d, at 1351. We neither dispute nor endorse the substance of this speculation. We say instead that judicial predictions about the outcome of hypothesized litigation cannot substitute for the actual opportunity to defend that due process affords every party against whom a claim is stated. As Judge Newman wrote in dissent: “The law, at its most fundamental, does not render judgment simply because a person might have been found liable had he been charged.” Id., at 1354.
Our decision surely does not insulate Nelson from liability. As counsel twice represented at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 19-20, Nelson seeks only the right to contest on the merits his personal liability for fees originally sought and awarded solely against OCR That right, we hold, is just what due process affords him.
* * *
For the reasons stated, 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.
Even when an amendment relates back to the original date of pleading under Rule 15(c), as Adams contends its amendment does, the relation back cannot, consistently with due process, deny a party all opportunity to be heard in response to the amendment. We also note in this regard that the instant case does not fall under Rule 15(c)(3), which deals with amendments that change the party or the name of the party against whom claims are asserted. That subsection applies only in cases involving “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(3)(B). Respondent Adams made no such mistake. It knew of Nelson’s role and existence and, until it moved to amend its pleading, chose to assert its claim'for costs and fees only against OGP.
A well-known work offers this example:
“ ‘Herald, read the accusation!’ said the King.
On this the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and then unrolled the parchment scroll, and read as follows:
‘The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts,
All on a summer day:
The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts,
And took them quite away!’
‘Consider your verdict,’ the King said to the jury.
‘Not yet, not yet!’ the Rabbit interrupted. ‘There’s a great deal to come before that!’” L. Carroll, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass 108 (Messner 1982) (emphasis in original).
We note that a waiver of service of process does not waive a party’s right to time in which to respond to the substance of charges that, absent the waiver, would have been included in a served document. It would make little sense to penalize a party’s waiver of process, which can help streamline litigation, by barring such a party from stating its side of the case. Indeed, such waiver can sometimes extend a party’s time to respond. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1)(B) (rather than having to respond within 20 days of service, a party waiving service may respond at any time within 60 days of the request for waiver).
Nelson’s counsel stated his position as follows: “[I]t’s legally -wrong to subject the individual, nonserved, nonsued, nonlitigated-against person to liability for that judgment. Because there are rules. The rules say if you want a judgment against somebody, you sue them, you litigate against them, you get a judgment against them.” Tape of Oral Arg. in No. 98-1448 (CA Fed. Feb. 3, 1999).
Once the amended pleading is served and Nelson’s response is submitted, it will be open to Adams to urge, as Adams prematurely does here, Brief for Respondents 22-28, that issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars Nelson from contesting findings made during the litigation between OOP and Adams. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §39 (1980). We venture no opinion here about the possible success of such an argument, made at the proper time.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require us to interpret the definition of a “displaced person” set forth in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Relocation Act), 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U. S. C. §4601 et seq. Section 101 (6) of the Act defines a “displaced person” as
“any person who... moves... as a result of the acquisition of... real property,... or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency....” 42 U. S. C. § 4601 (6).
Relocation benefits are available under the Act for individuals and businesses that satisfy either the “acquisition” or “written order” clause of this definition. Because the Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits have adopted conflicting interpretations of the written order clause, we granted certiorari. 437 U. S. 903 (1978).
Both cases involve housing projects that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) acquired after the projects’ sponsors defaulted on federally insured loans. We must determine whether the written order clause encompasses the tenants required to vacate those housing projects, even though HUD’s orders to vacate were not motivated by a governmental acquisition of property to further a public program or project.
I
A
Petitioners in No. 77-874 are 17 former tenants of the Riverhouse Tower Apartments, a low- and middle-income housing project in Indianapolis, Indiana. This complex was built in the late 1960’s by a private nonprofit corporation, Riverhouse Apartments, Inc., whose mortgage HUD insured and subsidized pursuant to § 221 (d) (3) of the National Housing Act, 75 Stat. 150, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 17152 (d)(3). Upon completion of the project, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) purchased the mortgage from the private lender in accordance with § 221 (d)(3) of the Housing Act. When Riverhouse Apartments, Inc., defaulted on the loan in July 1970, GNMA assigned the mortgage to HUD in exchange for payment of the statutory mortgage benefits. Three years later, HUD initiated foreclosure proceedings, and a court-appointed receiver assumed operation of the project until HUD purchased the property at a foreclosure sale in August 1974.
HUD initially retained a management agent to continue operating the newly acquired project. However, the condition of the property had deteriorated so seriously during the period of default that HUD soon decided to close the apartment complex. Notices to quit were served on all remaining tenants in November 1974, and by the following February, the buildings were vacant. HUD refused to provide relocation benefits for these dislocated tenants or to disclose its plans regarding the terminated project.
Petitioners then initiated this action in Federal District Court, claiming, inter alia, that they were “displaced persons” entitled to assistance under the Relocation Act. Construing the written order clause of § 101 (6) literally, the tenants argued that they had moved upon receiving written orders to vacate property acquired by a Government agency. The District Court rejected this statutory construction and granted summary judgment for HUD. Blades v. Dept. of HUD, Civ. No. IP 74-706-C (SD Ind., July 1, 1976). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. In its view, § 101 (6) encompasses only displacements for programs designed to benefit the public as a whole or to fulfill a public'need, not dislocations caused by the irretrievable failure of a public housing project. 555 F. 2d 166, 169-170 (1977).
B
The tenants in No. 77-1463 formerly occupied the Sky Tower apartment complex built in Washington, D. C., during the 1950’s. A nonprofit corporation purchased Sky Tower in 1970, intending to convert a number of its small “garden” apartments into larger units for low- and moderate-income families. HUD agreed to assist in the rehabilitation by insuring the corporation’s mortgage on the complex and subsidizing its interest payments, pursuant to § 236 of the National Housing Act, 82 Stat. 498, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1715z 1. Difficulties with two successive general contractors eventually prevented the corporate sponsor from making interest payments on its loan. As a result, the mortgagee declared the sponsor in default, foreclosed on the mortgage, and conveyed title to HUD in exchange for the statutory mortgage insurance benefits. See 12 U. S. C. §§ 1713 (g), (k).
After acquiring title to Sky Tower in June 1973, HUD hired a management agent to continue operating the partially rehabilitated complex. By September 1974, however, HUD realized that Sky Tower’s deteriorated condition would render any further efforts at rehabilitation futile. The agency therefore planned to demolish the buildings and sell the land to private developers for construction of single-family homes. When the 72 families living in the complex were ordered to vacate, HUD declined to extend assistance under the Relocation Act.
A group of the Sky Tower tenants brought this suit in Federal District Court, challenging HUD’s decision to raze the complex and its refusal to provide full relocation benefits. The District Court preliminarily enjoined HUD from completing the demolition, and subsequently granted summary judgment for the tenants on the benefits issue. Civ. Action No. 74-1872 (DC, Sept. 12, 1975). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that these tenants were “displaced persons” under the written order clause of § 101 (6). 187 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 161, 571 F. 2d 590, 595 (1977). In so ruling, the Court of Appeals rejected HUD’s argument that § 101 (6) reaches only persons dislocated by an agency’s purposeful acquisition of property for use in certain types of government programs. The court instead considered the written order clause applicable whenever an agency orders persons to vacate so that property can be devoted to a federal program “ 'designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.’ ” 187 U. S. App. D. C., at 161, 571 F. 2d, at 595. In the court’s view, HUD’s demolition plan met this description. Ibid.
II
Section 101 (6) of the Relocation Act, as previously indicated, provides that a “displaced person” is one who moves “as a result of the acquisition of... real property,... or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency....” 42 U. S. C. § 4601 (6). In neither case do the tenants claim coverage under the “acquisition” clause of § 101 (6), which reaches persons dislocated by the actual procurement of property for a federal program or project. Brief for Respondents in No. 77-1463, p. 15, and n. 17; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. Hence, these tenants’ eligibility for relocation assistance turns on the meaning of the definition’s written order clause. More precisely, their eligibility depends on the import of two critical phrases not specifically defined in the Act, “acquiring agency” and “for a program or project.”
The tenants contend that “acquiring agency” simply denotes a governmental body that has previously acquired property and that eventually orders persons to vacate. In contrast, HUD reads the phrase as a shorthand description of an agency currently engaged in the process of acquiring property. Under HUD’s construction, the written order clause contains an implicit acquisition requirement. The clause thus construed does not apply unless an agency’s proposed acquisition of property directly causes issuance of the displacing order, whereas the tenants’ interpretation demands no immediate causal connection between the procurement of property and the order to vacate.
The parties also disagree about the proper referent for the phrase, “for a program or project.” HUD contends that this phrase modifies the acquisition requirement included in the written order clause. Consequently, “for a program or project” specifies the agency’s original purpose in acquiring property, not just its purpose in issuing an order to vacate. Under this construction, the written order clause applies only if an agency issues its notice to vacate pursuant to an actual or proposed acquisition of property intended to further a federal program. Thus, tenants of a housing project acquired by the Government because of the owner’s loan default would not be eligible for relocation assistance when the acquiring agency later adopts a program necessitating their displacement.
The tenants, on the other hand, read “for a program or project” as referring solely to the written order. The phrase therefore identifies the agency’s reason for ordering persons to vacate, but does not make eligibility depend on the agency’s original purpose in acquiring the property. According to this analysis, the written order clause covers any individual who receives a written order to vacate property that an agency has previously acquired, provided the displacement is “for” a federal program or project. Moreover, the tenants broadly construe “program or project” to include any governmental program designed to fulfill a public need.
The statutory language is susceptible of either construction. However, an examination of Congress’ purpose in adopting the Relocation Act, the legislative history of § 101 (6), and the structure of the Act as a whole persuades us that HUD’s interpretation more nearly reflects the intended scope of this assistance program.
A
Passage of the Relocation Act in 1970 concluded nearly a decade of congressional effort to standardize federal legislation regarding relocation assistance. Prior to the 1960’s, Congress had enacted special provisions to assist persons displaced when particular federal agencies acquired property for designated public projects. As a result, relocation benefits varied substantially from program to program. The House Public Works Committee responded to these variations in 1961 by creating the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition. In 1964, this Subcommittee submitted a lengthy Report concerning the deficiencies of existing law, and its proposed “Fair Compensation Act” became the basis for most of the provisions ultimately codified in the Relocation Act.
The proposed Fair Compensation Act unambiguously reflects Congress’ limited purpose in revising the special relocation legislation. The Act’s declared purpose was to afford “persons affected by the acquisition of real property in Federal and federally assisted programs... fair and equitable treatment on a basis as nearly uniform as practicable.” Select Subcommittee Study 147 (emphasis added); see id., at 1-2, 122. This statement of policy embodied Congress’ recognition that existing law provided relocation benefits only to those persons dislocated by governmental acquisitions of property for use in public projects. And in accord with its mandate, the Select Subcommittee drafted the replacement legislation to standardize and improve the assistance provided within that particular context. Thus, both the language and origins of the Relocation Act demonstrate that Congress initially intended to provide better relocation assistance when property is acquired for federal programs, not to extend assistance beyond that limited context to all persons somehow displaced by governmental programs.
Congress’ basic objective remained unchanged through succeeding legislative sessions as it considered a number of bills derived from the proposed Fair Compensation Act. During this period, the individual sponsors and the Senate Committee on Government Operations altered slightly the language used to declare Congress’ purpose, but the meaning was unaffected. Thus, the original “Declaration of Policy” in S. 1, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., § 201 (1969), the bill finally enacted as the Relocation Act, stated that the legislation was designed
“to establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of owners, tenants, and other persons displaced by the acquisition of real property in Federal and federally assisted programs to the end that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.” (Emphasis added.)
This language leaves little doubt that Congress’ concern was still with displacements caused by the acquisition of property for a Government program or project.
In arguing that Congress had a broader purpose, to provide relocation assistance outside the acquisition context, the tenants rely on language adopted by the House of Representatives after the Senate passed S. 1. When the House Committee on Public Works reorganized and shortened the bill's provisions into their final form, it also streamlined the “Declaration of Policy” by deleting the references to acquisitions of property. Consequently, § 201 of the Relocation Act simply refers to “persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally assisted programs,” and the tenants suggest that all such persons are the intended beneficiaries of the statute. However, the tenants' interpretation of this language is plainly inconsistent with prior versions of the section, all of which expressly related to displacements caused by the acquisition of property for the programs specified in § 201. Nothing in the legislative materials suggests that this late revision in the Act’s statement of purpose reflected any substantive departure from Congress’ previous statutory design. Indeed, the House Committee that shortened the Declaration of Policy stated in its Report that the bill “provides for relief of the economic dislocation which occurs in the acquisition of real property for Federal and federally assisted programs.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1656, p. 3 (1970). Accordingly, the consistent purpose underlying this legislation persuades us that Congress intended the written order clause to apply only when an agency proposes acquiring property to further a federal program or project.
B
The legislative history specifically concerning the definition of a displaced person reinforces our conclusion. Prior versions of § 101 (6) encompassed only persons dislocated by actual or proposed property acquisitions, and in particular, those acquisitions intended to further federal programs and projects. The legislative materials demonstrate that when Congress added the written order clause to this definition, its purpose was to delineate more precisely a subcategory of the originally intended beneficiaries, consisting of those who move in anticipation that a property acquisition for a federal program will necessitate their displacement. Viewed in context, the written order clause addresses a special situation related to unconsummated property acquisitions, not all displacements loosely connected with Government programs.
The definition of a displaced person originated in the proposed Fair Compensation Act. Section 115 defined the term to include persons and businesses that move from real property “as a result of the acquisition or imminence of acquisition of such real property, in whole or in part, by a Federal or State agency.” Select Subcommittee Study 157-158. That this choice of language was deliberate can be seen from other provisions of the Act, which authorized relocation assistance only when the “head of any Federal agency acquires real property for public use.”
The version of the Fair Compensation Act introduced in the next Congress adopted the same definition of a displaced person. However, witnesses during the Senate hearings criticized the phrase “or imminence of acquisition” as too ambiguous to provide guidance for agencies and potential displacees. In response, the Senate Committee on Government Operations amended the phrase to read “or reasonable expectation of acquisition,” thereby incorporating an objective standard of eligibility. The limited scope of this amendment, as well as the definition, is apparent from the Committee’s explanation that the change was designed
"to remove some of the ambiguities surrounding the meaning of ‘imminence’ and to make it amply clear that this legislation applies to persons who move from property to be acquired in connection with a Federal or federally assisted program when or shortly after the proposed project is announced, and when the announcement is made substantially prior to the time the project is to be put into effect.” S. Rep. No. 1378, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1966).
This passage and others in the Senate Committee Report clearly indicate that Congress framed the definition to reach only persons displaced by actual or planned acquisitions of property. These materials also demonstrate that Congress restricted the definition even further by focusing exclusively on property acquisitions for use in federal programs and projects.
The Senate’s amended definition of a displaced person was retained in the relocation bills proposed in succeeding legislative sessions, including the original version of the bill finally enacted as the Relocation Act, S. 1, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., § 105 (1969). The Senate passed this bill with only minor amendments and without significant debate. But the House Committee on Public Works amended the definition of a displaced person when reorganizing the bill’s provisions into their final form. This late amendment added the clause on which the tenants base their argument that relocation assistance was intended for all persons displaced by Government programs.
The contemporaneous legislative materials, however, refute the tenants’ interpretation of the written order clause. During the House hearings on the relocation bills, a number of witnesses criticized even the “reasonable expectation of acquisition” language as overly vague. To remedy this problem, representatives of the United States Department of Transportation and HUD recommended relating the expectation of acquisition to a readily discernible official act, so that persons who justifiably relied on agency representations could still obtain reimbursement even if the agency later failed to complete the acquisition. The House Committee accepted this suggestion and replaced “or reasonable expectation of acquisition” with “or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property.” Thus, the sole objective underlying the present written order clause was to delineate more precisely the persons eligible for assistance as a result of planned, but unconsummated, acquisitions of property for federal programs.
The House Committee Report and floor debate also reflect this limited purpose. Based on the previously understood scope of this legislation and on testimony given during the House hearings, the House Committee was well aware that the unamended definition of a displaced person excluded those displaced by means other than property acquisitions for public projects. The Committee presumably would have articulated any intent to extend coverage beyond the acquisition context or to eliminate the requirement that an acquisition be for a federal program. Instead, the House Report simply explained that under the new written order clause, “[i]f a person moves as the result of such a notice to vacate, it makes no difference whether or not the real property actually is acquired.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1656, p. 4 (1970) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Report observed in reference to the entire definition of a displaced person, “[t]he controlling point is that the real property must be acquired for a Federal or Federal financially assisted program or project.” Ibid.
Nor is there any evidence that the Senate perceived the written order clause as an expansion of the bill when it accepted the House Committee’s changes without a conference and almost without debate. 116 Cong. Rec. 40163-40172 (1970). The sole reference during the Senate deliberations to the amended definition of a “displaced person” appeared in a memorandum submitted on behalf of the administration, which stated:
“The House bill would limit the status of displaced person to those who move as the result of the acquisition of, or written notice to vacate, real property. The Senate version would provide a broader definition which includes those who move as the result of acquisition or reasonable expectation of acquisition.” Id., at 42139.
This description of the amendment as a slight limitation, rather than a significant expansion of the statutory design, was accepted without dispute when the Senate approved the House version of this section as the final language for the Relocation Act. Ibid.
In sum, the legislative history of the written order clause reveals no congressional intent to extend relocation benefits beyond the acquisition context. Rather, this clause merely ensures that assistance is available for a distinct group of persons directed to move because of a contemplated acquisition, whether the agency ultimately acquires the property or not. The written order clause therefore preserves the original meaning of a displaced person, since it does not apply unless a proposed acquisition directly causes issuance of the notice to vacate and the property acquisition is intended to further a federal program or project.
c
The structure of the Relocation Act confirms our conclusion that Congress did not expect to provide assistance for all persons somehow displaced by Government programs. The benefit provisions involved here are but one part of a comprehensive statute that also establishes the procedures agencies must follow when acquiring land for federal programs. See 42 U. S. C. §§4651-4655. This placement in itself suggests that Congress was concerned with burdens related to Government acquisitions of property, as opposed to a broader range of dislocation problems. But more importantly, the Act’s other relocation sections, which specify the benefits available for displaced persons, manifest the limited scope of § 101 (6) and the written order clause.
Sections 202 and 205 of the Act require respectively that moving and related expenses be paid and relocation assistance advisory services be provided for displaced persons only when an agency proposes acquiring property for a federal program. See n. 1, supra. Thus, § 202 begins:
“Whenever the acquisition of real property for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency in any State will result in the displacement of any person... the head of such agency shall make a payment to any displaced person, upon proper application....” 84 Stat. 1895, 42 U. S. C. § 4622.
Identical language triggers application of § 205. 84 Stat. 1897, 42 U. S. C. § 4625. If the tenants’ broad construction of the written order clause were correct, certain individuals would qualify as displaced persons within the meaning of § 101 (6), but the lack of an acquisition would preclude them from receiving benefits under §§202 and 205. Absent any indication that Congress intended such an anomalous result, we believe all three provisions must be given similar scope.
Sections 203 and 204 of the Act, which authorize replacement housing payments for dislocated homeowners and tenants, see n. 1, supra, also bear upon interpretation of the written order clause. These sections provide benefits only to displaced persons who occupied their dwelling for a prescribed length of time “prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the property.” 42 U. S. C. § 4623 (a) (1). Congress drafted these occupancy requirements to exclude from coverage persons who otherwise might attempt to obtain substantial relocation benefits by moving onto property after the acquisition process has begun. Yet according to the tenants’ analysis of §101 (6), which requires only that an agency have procured the property at some point in the distant past, these occupancy strictures would exclude a much larger class of displaced persons than necessary to fulfill their objective. For example, tenants dislocated by the closing of a housing project that an agency had obtained 20 years earlier might satisfy the written order clause, but the failure of most to have lived in the project prior to the acquisition would prevent them from obtaining replacement housing payments under § 204. Again, we doubt Congress intended the statute to operate in this manner. Rather, §§ 203 and 204 demonstrate that the written order clause cannot be divorced from the acquisition context without distorting the statutory design.
Finally, the special benefits provision in § 217 of the Act highlights the limited reach of § 101 (6). Congress drafted § 217 to preserve the one pre-existing relocation assistance program extending beyond the acquisition context. This section provides:
"A person who moves... as a direct result of any project or program which receives Federal financial assistance under title I of the Housing Act of 1949’, as amended, or as a result of carrying out a comprehensive city demonstration program under title I of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 shall... be deemed to have been displaced as the result of the acquisition of real property.” 84 Stat. 1902, 42 U. S. C. § 4637 (emphasis added).
Inclusion of this special provision, to ensure that certain persons displaced by action other than an acquisition of property could still qualify for relocation benefits, reflects Congress’ understanding that such persons would not be covered by the general definition of a “displaced person” set forth in § 101 (6).
D
Accordingly, we hold that the written order clause encompasses only those persons ordered to vacate in connection with the actual or proposed acquisition of property for a federal program. In essence, the clause embodies two causal requirements. First, the written order to vacate must result directly from an actual or contemplated property acquisition. Second, and more fundamentally, that acquisition must be “for,” or intended to further, a federal program or project. In combination, these two causal requirements substantially limit applicability of the written order clause, so that persons directed to vacate property for a federal program cannot obtain relocation assistance unless the agency also intended at the time of acquisition to use the property for such a program or project. Thus, a program developed after the agency procures property will not suffice, even though it necessitates displacements, since that program could not have motivated the property acquisition. It remains to be considered, however, whether the relationship between ITUD’s acquisitions and orders to vacate brings the tenants here within the purview of § 101 (6).
Ill
The tenants in both cases contend that the acquisitions of Sky Tower and Riverhouse Apartments met these statutory requirements because HUD obtained the property in connection with its mortgage insurance programs. In support of this contention, they point to Congress’ explicit provision for occasional default acquisitions resulting from the mortgage insurance programs of the National Housing Act. Section 207 (k) of that Act expressly authorizes HUD to purchase insured properties at foreclosure sales, and § 207 (l) grants HUD wide latitude to rehabilitate and operate property acquired upon default or to transfer the property and recoup the agency’s investment. 12 U. S. C. §§ 1713 (k), (l). Pursuant to that mandate, HUD has prepared a Property Disposition Handbook — Multi-family Properties, RHM 4315.1 (1971), revised and set forth at 24 CFR Pt. 290 (1978), which requires responsible officials to formulate a disposition program for newly acquired properties.
However, the legislative history of the Relocation Act discussed in Part II, supra, demonstrates that the mere anticipation and authorization of default acquisitions in the mortgage insurance programs cannot render these tenants eligible under § 101 (6). By requiring that an acquisition be “for” a federal program or project, Congress intended that the acquisition must further or accomplish a program designed to benefit the public as a whole. Even assuming that the National Housing Act mortgage insurance programs constitute federal “programs or projects,” default acquisitions arising out of those programs do not satisfy § 101 (6)’s causality requirements. These acquisitions occur as a result of the mortgage insurance programs’ predictable, though unfortunate failures, but the default acquisitions do not further the purpose of these particular programs. If the written order clause were satisfied by acquisitions so tangentially related to a federal program or project, then, for example, persons who default on federally insured housing loans presumably could obtain relocation assistance whenever a Government agency acquires their homes at a foreclosure sale and thereby causes displacements. Absent any evidence that Congress intended to provide relocation benefits under such circumstances, we believe typical default acquisitions are not “for” a federal program within the meaning of § 101 (6). For the same reasons, HUD’s preparation of a Handbook governing the disposition of property acquired in this manner fails to qualify these tenants for relocation benefits. Like any purchaser, HIJD must manage the property it acquires. But the mere adoption of a management plan cannot retroactively establish the requisite purpose for acquiring property in the first instance.
Alternatively, the tenants in No. 77-1463 contend that the particular disposition HUD planned for Sky Tower, pursuant to the Property Disposition Handbook, qualified them under the written order clause. After studying several options, HUD decided to demolish Sky Tower and sell the land to private developers who would build single-family homes, all in accordance with the District of Columbia government’s master plan for improving the neighborhood. By its own admission in proceedings before the District Court, HUD proposed the demolition to “eliminate blight” in conformity with a plan to revitalize the area. 396 F. Supp. 1235, 1236 (DC 1975). These events convinced the Court of Appeals that the Sky Tower tenants had been ordered to vacate for a “program or project” within the meaning of § 101 (6). 187 U. S. App. D. C., at 161, 571 F. 2d, at 595.
The difficulty with this analysis is that even though HUD’s demolition plan is the type of program or project to which § 101 (6) refers, HUD did not acquire Sky Tower for that purpose. The statute requires more than a causal connection between the order to vacate and the demolition program, which was all the Court of Appeals considered necessary. As explained in Part II, supra, the program or project must also be the reason for acquiring the property. Yet the tenants have never contended that HUD initially acquired Sky Tower in order to eliminate blight or to further the District of Columbia government’s master plan, nor did the Court of Appeals or the District Court reach such a conclusion. Without the requisite relationship between the demolition program and the acquisition, HUD’s proposal for disposing of Sky Tower is no different than any other property management plan, insufficient by itself to confer eligibility under § 101 (6) of the Relocation Act.
We recognize, of course, that an agency’s intent in acquiring property appears irrelevant to those displaced by federal order. From a tenant’s perspective, the costs of dislocation are the same regardless of whether an agency anticipated causing displacements when it acquired property. Nonetheless, Congress chose to condition eligibility for relocation benefits on the agency’s purpose in acquiring property, and our function is not to rewrite the statute. The increasing number of default acquisitions by Government agencies may well prompt Congress to expand the Relocation Act’s coverage. But until Congress does so, the tenants in these cases are ineligible for relocation assistance under that Act.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 77-1463 is reversed and the judgment in No. 77-874 is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section 101 (6) provides in its entirety:
“The term 'displaced person’ means any person who, on or after the effective date of this Act, moves from real property, or moves his personal property from real property, as a result of the acquisition of such real property, in whole or in part, or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency, or with Federal financial assistance; and solely for the purposes of sections 202 (a) and (b) and 205 of this title, as a result of the acquisition of or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate other real property, on which such person conducts a business or farm operation, for such program or project.” 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U. S. C. § 4601 (6).
Section 101 (5) of the Act defines a “person” to mean “any individual, partnership, corporation, or association.” 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U. S. C. §4601 (5).
The definition of a “displaced person” governs basic eligibility for the several types of assistance available under the Relocation Act. Section 202 of the Act provides reimbursement for reasonable moving expenses, direct losses that result from moving or discontinuing a business or farm operation, and expenses incurred in searching for a replacement business or farm. In lieu of reimbursement for actual expenses, § 202 authorizes payment of a fixed sum to eligible persons, here a $300 moving expense allowance and á $200 dislocation allowance. 84 Stat. 1895, 42 U. S. C. §4622; see 24 CFR §§42.65-42.80 (1978); infra, at 60. Sections 203 and 204 permit replacement housing payments of up to $15,000 for homeowners and $4,000 for tenants, provided certain need and occupancy requirements are satisfied. 84 Stat. 1896, 1897, 42 U. S. C. §§ 4623, 4624; see 24 CFR §§42.90, 42.95 (1978); infra, at 61. Finally, §205 requires agencies to establish a program of relocation assistance advisory services for displaced persons. 84 Stat. 1897, 42 U. S. C. §4625; see 24 CFR §§ 42.100-42.125 (1978); infra, at 60.
555 F. 2d 166 (CA7 1977); 187 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 571 F. 2d 590 (1977). See also Blount v. Harris, 593 F. 2d 336 (CA8 1979); Burns v. United States, Civ. No. 4-76-237 (DC Minn., July 11, 1978). See generally Harris v. Lynn, 555 F. 2d 1357, 1359-1360 (CA8) (aff’g 411 F. Supp. 692 (ED Mo. 1976)), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 927 (1977); Caramico v. Secretary, Dept. of HUD, 509 F. 2d 694, 697-699 (CA2 1974).
It now appears that a private party contracted in July 1977 to purchase Riverhouse Towers Apartments from HUD and that the sale has since been consummated. Brief for Petitioners in No. 77-874, pp. 37-38 (letter from Department of HUD, Office of General Counsel, to Mr. Richard L. Zweig).
The tenants sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 701 et seq., of HUD’s refusal to provide relocation assistance. Jurisdiction was predicated on 28 U. S. C. §§ 1337, 1346.
In addition to their Relocation Act claims, several tenants alleged in the complaint that HUD should not have applied their security deposits to offset rent deficiencies. The tenants contended that HUD had breached an implied warranty of habitability for the relevant period, thereby relieving them of any obligation to pay rent. Deciding the issue under federal law, the District Court held that no such warranty could be implied in the tenants’ leases. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 555 F. 2d, at 170-171. The tenants have not challenged this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision, and we therefore do not consider the issue.
Although HUD did provide minimal reimbursement for moving expenses, it made these $300 payments on an emergency basis “under the general authority of the Housing Act,” and not pursuant to any provision of the Relocation Act. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
The preliminary injunction barred HUD from completing the demolition or the evictions, required the agency to rehabilitate certain buildings, and allowed the evicted tenants to return at the Department's expense. Cole v. Lynn, 389 F. Supp. 99 (DC 1975); Cole v. Hills, 396 F. Supp. 1235 (DC 1975). While the benefits issue was pending on appeal pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), the parties agreed that the District Court should remand the remaining issues to HUD, so the agency could reconsider the proper disposition of Sky Tower. On remand, the agency abandoned the demolition plan and arranged to transfer ownership of the housing complex to the District of Columbia government, with HUD continuing to provide substantial rent subsidies. 187 U. S. App. D. C., at 160 n. 17, 571 F. 2d, at 594 n. 17.
After we granted certiorari in these cases, Congress enacted the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Pub. L. 95-557, 92 Stat. 2080. That legislation directs HUD to re-examine its property management and disposition program, see § 203, 92 Stat. 2088, 12 U. S. C. § 1701z-11 (1976 ed., Supp. II); §902, 92 Stat. 2125, and to ensure
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This litigation began when appellant Watkins brought a tort action against Conway in a circuit court of Florida. On October 5, 1955, that court rendered a $25,000 judgment for appellant. Five years and one day later, appellant sued upon this judgment in a superior court of Georgia. Appellee raised § 3-701 of the Georgia Code as a bar to the proceeding:
“Suits upon foreign judgments. — All suits upon judgments obtained out of this State shall be brought within five years after such judgments shall have been obtained.”
The Georgia trial court gave summary judgment for appellee. In so doing, it rejected appellant’s contention that § 3-701, when read against the longer limitation period on domestic judgments set forth in Ga. Code §§ 110-1001, 110-1002 (1935), was inconsistent with the Full Faith and Credit and Equal, Protection Clauses of the Federal Constitution. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, also rejecting appellant’s constitutional challenge to | 3-701. 221 Ga. 374, 144 S. E. 2d 721 (1965). We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. 1 1257 (2). 383 U. S. 941 (1966).
Although appellant lays his claim under two constitutional provisions, in reality his complaint is simply that Georgia has drawn an impermissible distinction between foreign and domestic judgments. He argues that the statute is understandable solely as a reflection of Georgia’s desire to handicap out-of-state judgment creditors. If appellant’s analysis of the purpose and effect of the statute were correct, we might well agree that it violates the Federal Constitution. For the decisions of this Court which appellee relies upon do not justify the discriminatory application of a statute of limitations to foreign actions.
But the interpretation which the Georgia courts have given § 3-701 convinces us that appellant has misconstrued it. The statute bars suits on foreign judgments only if the plaintiff cannot revive his judgment in the State where it was originally obtained. For the relevant date in applying § 3-701 is not the date of the original judgment, but rather it is the date of the latest revival of the judgment. Fagan v. Bently, 32 Ga. 534 (1861); Baty v. Holston, 108 Ga. App. 359, 133 S. E. 2d 107 (1963). In the case at bar, for example, all appellant need do is return to Florida and revive his judgment. He can then come back to Georgia within five years and file suit free of the limitations of § 3-701.
It can be seen, therefore, that the Georgia statute has not discriminated against the judgment from Florida. Instead, it has focused on the law of that State. If Florida had a statute of limitations of five years or less on its own judgments, the appellant would not be able to recover here. But this disability would flow from the conclusion of the Florida Legislature that suits on Florida judgments should be barred after that period. Georgia’s construction of § 3-701 would merely honor and give effect to that conclusion. Thus, full faith and credit is insured, rather than denied, the law of the judgment State. Similarly, there is no denial of equal protection in a scheme that relies upon the judgment State’s view of the validity of its own judgments. Such a scheme hardly reflects invidious discrimination'.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
The case most directly in point, M‘Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, upheld the Georgia statute with which we deal today. But the parties in that case did not argue the statute’s shorter limitation for foreign judgments as the ground of its invalidity. Instead, the issue presented to this Court concerned the power of the States to impose any statute of limitations upon foreign judgments. See argument for plaintiff, 13 Pet., at 313-320. The language of Mr. Justice Wayne's opinion — “may not the law of a state fix different times for barring the remedy in a suit upon a judgment of another state, and for those of its own tribunals,” 13 Pet., at 328 — must be read against this argument. And, of course, that opinion cannot stand against an equal-protection claim, since it was written nearly 30 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
Neither of the cases cited by the Georgia Supreme Court dictates the result of this case. The first, Metcalf v. Watertown, 153 U. S. 671, involved a Wisconsin statute which provided a shorter limitation for foreign, as opposed to domestic, judgments. But the holding of the case was merely that this statute should be construed as placing the same limitation on the judgment of a federal court sitting in Wisconsin as would apply to a judgment of a Wisconsin state court. The other precedent cited by the court below, Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329, dealt with an Iowa statute of limitations on judgments that placed the same limitation on orders of foreign and domestic courts.
The Florida statute of limitations on domestic judgments is 20 years. Fla. Stat. Ann. §95.11 (1) (1960). Thus, it appears that appellant still has ample time to revive his judgment and bring it back to Georgia. See Massey v. Pineapple Orange Co., 87 Fla. 374, 100 So. 170 (1924); Spurway v. Dyer, 48 F. Supp. 255 (D. C. S. D. Fla. 1942). Moreover, appellant can obtain substituted service of process over appellee in his revival proceeding. Fla. Stat. Ann. §48.01 (9) (1943).
The Florida procedure for reviving judgments is similar to that of Alabama — Ala. Code, Tit. 7, § 574 (1960) — which was held in Baty v. Holston, 108 Ga. App. 359, 133 S. E. 2d 107 (1963), to revive a foreign judgment under § 3-701.
Such a short statute of limitations for domestic judgments is by no means a matter of mere speculation. See 2 Freeman, The Law of Judgments §1076 (5th ed. 1925).
If the appellant held a judgment from a State which did not consider its judgments to become dormant, so that no revival proceeding could be brought, we would be faced with a different case. See Frank v. Wolf, 17 Ga. App. 468, 87 S. E. 697 (1916).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A California court sentenced respondent Mark James Knights to summary probation for a drug offense. The probation order included the following condition: that Knights would “[s]ubmit his . . . person, property, place of residence, vehicle, personal effects, to search at anytime, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer.” Knights signed the probation order, which stated immediately above his signature that “I HAVE. RECEIVED A COPY, READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY SAME.” App. 49. In this case, we decide whether a search pursuant to this probation condition, and supported by reasonable suspicion, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
Three days after Knights was placed on probation, a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) power transformer and adjacent Pacific Bell telecommunications vault near the Napa County Airport were pried open and set on fire, causing an estimated $1.5 million in damage. Brass padlocks had been removed and a gasoline accelerant had been used to ignite the fire. This incident was the latest in more than 30 recent acts of vandalism against PG&E facilities in Napa County. Suspicion for these acts had long focused on Knights and his friend, Steven Simoneau. The incidents began after PG&E had filed a theft-of-services complaint against Knights and discontinued his electrical service for failure to pay his bill. Detective Todd Hancock of the Napa County Sheriff’s Department had noticed that the acts of vandalism coincided with Knights’ court appearance dates concerning the theft of PG&E services. And just a week before the arson, a sheriff’s deputy had stopped Knights and Simoneau near a PG&E gas line and observed pipes and gasoline in Simon-eau’s pickup truck.
After the PG&E arson, a sheriff’s deputy drove by Knights’ residence, where he saw Simoneau’s truck parked in front. The deputy felt the hood of the truck. It was warm. Detective Hancock decided to set up surveillance of Knights’ apartment. At about 3:10 the next morning, Simoneau exited the apartment carrying three cylindrical items. Detective Hancock believed the items were pipe bombs. Simoneau walked across the street to the bank of the Napa River, and Hancock heard three splashes. Simon-eau returned without the cylinders and drove away in his truck. Simoneau then stopped in a driveway, parked, and left the area. Detective Hancock entered the driveway and observed a number of suspicious objects in the truck: a Molotov cocktail and explosive materials, a gasoline can, and two brass padlocks that fit the description of those removed from the PG&E transformer vault.
After viewing the objects in Simoneau’s truck, Detective Hancock decided to conduct a search of Knights’ apartment. Detective Hancock was aware of the search condition in Knights’ probation order and thus believed that a warrant was not necessary. The search revealed a detonation cord, ammunition, liquid chemicals, instruction manuals on chemistry and electrical circuitry, bolt cutters, telephone pole-climbing spurs, drug paraphernalia, and a brass padlock stamped “PG&E.”
Knights was arrested, and a federal grand jury subsequently indicted him for conspiracy to commit arson, for possession of an unregistered destructive device, and for being a felon in possession of ammunition. Knights moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his apartment. The District Court held that Detective Hancock had “reasonable suspicion” to believe that Knights was involved with incendiary materials. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The District Court nonetheless granted the motion to suppress on the ground that the search was for “investigatory” rather than “probationary” purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 219 F. 3d 1138 (2000). The Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decisions holding that the search condition in Knights’ probation order “must be seen as limited to probation searches, and must stop short of investigation searches.” Id., at 1142-1143 (citing United States v. Ooley, 116 F. 3d 370, 371 (CA9 1997)).
The Supreme Court of California has rejected this distinction and upheld searches pursuant to the California probation condition “whether the purpose of the search is to monitor the probationer or to serve some other law enforcement purpose.” People v. Woods, 21 Cal. 4th 668, 681, 981 P. 2d 1019, 1027 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U. S. 1023 (2000). We granted certiorari, 532 U. S. 1018 (2001), to assess the constitutionality of searches made pursuant to this common California probation condition.
Certainly nothing in the condition of probation suggests that it was confined to searches bearing upon probationary status and nothing more. The search condition provides that Knights will submit to a search “by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” and does not mention anything about purpose. App. 49. The question then is whether the Fourth Amendment limits searches pursuant to this probation condition to those with a “probationary” purpose.
Knights argues that this limitation follows from our decision in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868 (1987). Brief for Respondent 14. In Griffin, we upheld a search of a probationer conducted pursuant to a Wisconsin regulation permitting “any probation officer to search a probationer’s home without a warrant as long as his supervisor approves and as long as there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the presence of contraband,” 483 U. S., at 870-871. The Wisconsin regulation that authorized the search was not an express condition of Griffin’s probation; in fact, the regulation was not even promulgated at the time of Griffin’s sentence. The regulation applied to all Wisconsin probationers, with no need for a judge to make an individualized determination that the probationer’s conviction justified the need for warrantless searches. We held that a State’s operation of its probation system presented a “special need” for the “exercise of supervision to assure that [probation] restrictions are in fact observed.” Id., at 875. That special need for supervision justified the Wisconsin regulation and the search pursuant to the regulation was thus reasonable. Id., at 875-880.
In Knights’ view, apparently shared by the Court of Appeals, a warrantless search of. a probationer satisfies the Fourth Amendment only if it is just like the search at issue in Griffin — i. e., a “special needs” search conducted by a probation officer monitoring whether the probationer is complying with probation restrictions. This dubious logic — that an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a particular search implicitly holds unconstitutional any search that is not like it — runs contrary to Griffin’s express statement that its “special needs” holding made it “unnecessary to consider whether” warrantless searches of probationers were otherwise reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 878,880.
We now consider that question in assessing the constitutionality of the search of Knights’ apartment. The Government, advocating the approach of the Supreme Court of California, see Woods, supra, contends that the search satisfied the Fourth Amendment under the “consent” rationale of cases such as Zap v. United States, 328 U. S. 624 (1946), and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973). In the Government’s view, Knights’ acceptance of the search condition was voluntary because he had the option of rejecting probation and going to prison instead, which the Government argues is analogous to the voluntary decision defendants often make to waive their right to a trial and accept a plea bargain.
We need not decide whether Knights’ acceptance of the search condition constituted consent in the Schneckloth sense of a complete waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights, however, because we conclude that the search of Knights was reasonable under our general Fourth Amendment approach of “examining the totality of the circumstances,” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39 (1996), with the probation search condition being a salient circumstance.
The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295, 300 (1999). Knights’ status as a probationer subject to a search condition informs both sides of that balance. “Probation, like incarceration, is ‘a form of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after verdict, finding, or plea of guilty.’ ” Griffin, supra, at 874 (quoting G. Killinger, H. Kerper, & P. Cromwell, Probation and Parole in the Criminal Justice System 14 (1976)). Probation is “one point. . . on a continuum of possible punishments ranging from solitary confinement in a maximum-security facility to a few hours of mandatory community service.” 483 U. S., at 874. Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers “do not enjoy/the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled.’” Ibid, (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 480 (1972)). Just as other punishments for criminal convictions curtail an offender’s freedoms, a court granting probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.
The judge who sentenced Knights to probation determined that it was necessary to condition the probation on Knights’ acceptance of the search provision. It was reasonable to conclude that the search condition would further the two primary goals of probation — rehabilitation and protecting society from future criminal violations. The probation order clearly expressed the search condition and Knights was unambiguously informed of it. The probation condition thus significantly diminished Knights’ reasonable expectation of privacy.
In assessing the governmental interest side of the balance, it must be remembered that “the very assumption of the institution of probation” is that the probationer “is more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law.” Griffin, 483 U. S., at 880. The recidivism rate of probationers is significantly higher than the general crime rate. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89, pp. 1, 6 (Feb. 1992) (reporting that 43% of 79,000 felons placed on probation in 17 States were rearrested for a felony within three years while still on probation); U. S. Dept, of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison, 1991, p. 3 (Aug. 1995) (stating that in 1991, 23% of state prisoners were probation violators). And probationers have even more of an incentive to conceal their criminal activities and quickly dispose of incriminating evidence than the ordinary criminal because probationers are aware that they may be subject to supervision and face revocation of probation, and possible incarceration, in proceedings in which the trial rights of a jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, do not apply, see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 435, n. 7 (1984) (“[TJhere is no right to a jury trial before probation may be revoked”); 18 U. S. C. § 3583(e).
The State has a dual concern with a probationer. On the one hand is the hope that he will successfully complete probation and be integrated back into the community. On the other is the concern, quite justified, that he will be more likely to engage in criminal conduct than an ordinary member of the community. The view of the Court of Appeals in this case would require the State to shut its eyes to the latter concern and concentrate only on the former. But we hold that the Fourth Amendment does not put the State to such a choice. Its interest in apprehending violators of the criminal law, thereby protecting potential victims of criminal enterprise, may therefore justifiably focus on probationers in a way that it does'not on the ordinary citizen.
We hold that the balance of these considerations requires no more than reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of this probationer’s house. The degree of individualized suspicion required of a search is a determination of when there is a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring to make the intrusion on the individual’s privacy interest reasonable. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 418 (1981) (individualized suspicion deals “with probabilities”). Although the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires the degree of probability embodied in the term “probable cause,” a lesser degree satisfies the Constitution when the balance of governmental and private interests makes such a standard reasonable. See, e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975). Those interests warrant a lesser than probable-cause standard here. When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a probationer subject to a search condition is engaged in criminal activity, there is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring that an intrusion on the probationer’s significantly diminished privacy interests is reasonable.
The same circumstances that lead us to conclude that reasonable suspicion is constitutionally sufficient also render a warrant requirement unnecessary. See Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U. S. 326, 330 (2001) (noting that general or individual circumstances, including “diminished expectations of privacy,” may justify an exception to the warrant requirement).
Because our holding rests on ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis that considers all the circumstances of a search, there is no basis for examining official purpose. With the limited exception of some special needs and administrative search cases, see Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 45 (2000), “we have been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers.” Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996).
The District Court found, and Knights concedes, that the search in this case was supported by reasonable suspicion. We therefore hold that the warrantless search of Knights, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Hancock had seen a copy of the probation order when he was checking Knights’ file in the Sheriff’s Department office.
Griffin was placed on probation in September 1980, 483 U. S., at 870, and the regulation was not promulgated until December 1981, id., at 871.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had held in Griffin that “probation diminishes a probationer’s reasonable expectation of privacy — so that a probation officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, search a probationer’s home without a warrant, and with only ‘reasonable grounds’ (not probable cause) to believe that contraband is present.” Id., at 872.
The Government sees our unconstitutional conditions doctrine as a limitation on what a probationer may validly consent to in a probation order. The Government argues that the search condition is not an unconstitutional condition because waiver of Fourth Amendment rights “directly furthers the State’s interest in the effective administration of its probation system.” Brief for United States 22.
Under California law, a probation condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which defendant was convicted; (2) relates to conduct which in itself is not criminal; and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. People v. Lent, 15 Cal. 3d 481, 485-486, 541 P. 2d 545, 548 (1975).
We do not decide whether the probation condition so diminished, or completely eliminated, Knights’ reasonable expectation of privacy (or constituted consent, see supra, at 118) that a search by a law enforcement officer without any individualized suspicion would have satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The terms of the probation condition permit such a search, but we need not address the constitutionality of a suspicionless search because the search in this case was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether respondents can be compelled to arbitrate claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et seq., notwithstanding the fact that the parties’ arbitration agreements may be construed to limit the arbitrator’s authority to award damages under that statute.
I
Respondents are members of a group of physicians who filed suit against managed-health-care organizations including petitioners PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., and Pacifi-Care Operations, Inc. (collectively, PacifiCare), and United-Healthcare, Inc., and UnitedHealth Group Inc. (collectively, United). These physicians alleged that the defendants unlawfully failed to reimburse them for health-care services that they had provided to patients covered by defendants’ health plans. They brought causes of action under RICO, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and federal and state prompt-pay statutes, as well as claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and in quantum meruit. In re: Managed Care Litigation, 132 F. Supp. 2d 989, 992 (SD Fla. 2000).
Of particular concern here, PacifiCare and United moved the District Court to compel arbitration, arguing that provisions in their contracts with respondents required arbitration of these disputes, including those arising under RICO. Ibid. Respondents opposed the motion on the ground that, because the arbitration provisions prohibit an award of punitive damages, see App. 107, 147, 168, 212, respondents could not obtain “meaningful relief” in arbitration for their claims under the RICO statute, which authorizes treble damages, 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c). See Paladino v. Avnet Computer Technologies, Inc., 134 F. 3d 1054, 1062 (CA11 1998) (holding that where a remedial limitation in an arbitration agreement prevents a plaintiff from obtaining “meaningful relief” for a statutory claim, the agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable with respect to that claim).
The District Court denied petitioners’ request to compel arbitration of the RICO claims. 132 F. Supp. 2d, at 1007. The court concluded that given the remedial limitations in the relevant contracts, it was, indeed, “faced with a potential Paladino situation .. . , where the plaintiff may not be able to obtain meaningful relief for allegations of statutory viola- . tions in an arbitration forum.” Id., at 1005. Accordingly, it found the arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to respondents’ RICO claims. Id., at 1007. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed “for the reasons set forth in [the District Court’s] comprehensive opinion,” In re: Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, 285 F. 3d 971, 973 (2002), and we granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 946 (2002).
II
Petitioners argue that whether the remedial limitations render their arbitration agreements unenforceable is not a question of “arbitrability,” and hence should have been decided by an arbitrator, rather than a court, in the first instance. They also claim that even if this question is one of arbitrability, and is therefore properly within the purview of the courts at this time, the remedial limitations at issue do not require invalidation of their arbitration agreements. Either way, petitioners contend, the lower courts should have compelled arbitration. We conclude that it would be premature for us to address these questions at this time.
Our decision in Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U. S. 528 (1995), supplies the analytic framework for assessing the ripeness of this dispute. In Vimar, we dealt with a bill of lading concerning a shipment of goods from Morocco to Massachusetts. Upon receipt of the goods, the purchaser discovered that they had been damaged, and, along with its insurer (Vimar), filed suit against the shipper. The shipper sought to compel arbitration, relying on choice-of-law and arbitration clauses in the bill of lading under which disputes arising out of the parties’ agreement were to be governed by Japanese law and resolved through arbitration before the Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission. Vimar countered by arguing that the arbitration clause violated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U. S. C. App. § 1300 et seq., and hence was unenforceable. 515 U. S., at 531-532. In particular, Vimar claimed that “there is no guarantee foreign arbitrators will apply COGSA”; that the foreign arbitrator was likely to apply rules of Japanese law under which respondents’ liability might be less than what it would be under COGSA; and that this would violate “[t]he central guarantee of [COGSA] § 3(8). . . that the terms of a bill of lading may not relieve the carrier of obligations or diminish the legal duties specified by the Act.” Id., at 539.
Notwithstanding Vimar’s insistence that the arbitration agreement violated federal policy as embodied in COGSA, we declined to reach the issue and held that the arbitration clause was, at least initially, enforceable. “At this interlocutory stage,” we explained, “it is not established what law the arbitrators will apply to petitioner’s claims or that petitioner will receive diminished protection as a result. The arbitrators may conclude that COGSA applies of its own force or that Japanese law does not apply so that, under another clause of the bill of lading, COGSA controls.” Id., at 540. We farther emphasized that “mere speculation that the foreign arbitrators might apply Japanese law which, depending on the proper construction of COGSA, might reduce respondents’ legal obligations, does not in and of itself lessen liability under COGSA §3(8),” nor did it provide an adequate basis upon which to declare the relevant arbitration agreement unenforceable. Id., at 541 (emphases added). We found that “[wjhatever the merits of petitioner’s comparative reading of COGSA and its Japanese counterpart, its claim is premature.” Id., at 540.
The case at bar arrives in a similar posture. Two of the four arbitration agreements at issue provide that “punitive damages shall not be awarded [in arbitration],” App. 107, 147; one provides that “[t]he arbitrators . . . shall have no authority to award any punitive or exemplary damages,” id., at 212; and one provides that “[t]he arbitrators . . . shall have no authority to award extra contractual damages of any kind, including punitive or exemplary damages ... ,” id., at 168. Respondents insist, and the District Court agreed, 132 F. Supp. 2d, at 1000-1001, 1005, that these provisions preclude an arbitrator from awarding treble damages under RICO. We think that neither our precedents nor the ambiguous terms of the contracts make this clear.
Our cases have placed different statutory treble-damages provisions on different points along the spectrum between purely compensatory and strictly punitive awards. Thus, in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 784 (2000), we characterized the treble-damages provision of the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3733, as “essentially punitive in nature.” In Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U. S. 477, 485 (1977), on the other hand, we explained that the treble-damages provision of § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15, “is in essence a remedial provision.” Likewise in American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U. S. 556, 575 (1982), we noted that “the antitrust private action [which allows for treble damages] was created primarily as a remedy for the victims of antitrust violations.” (Emphasis added.) And earlier this Term, in Cook County v. United States ex rel. Chandler, ante, at 130, we stated that “it is important to realize that treble damages have a compensatory side, serving remedial purposes in addition to punitive objectives.” Indeed, we have repeatedly acknowledged that the treble-damages provision contained in RICO itself is remedial in nature. In Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143, 151 (1987), we stated that “[b]oth RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.” (Emphasis added.) And in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 241 (1987) we took note of the “remedial function” of RICO’s treble-damages provision.
In light of our case law’s treatment of statutory treble damages, and given the uncertainty surrounding the parties’ intent with respect to the contractual term “punitive,” the application of the disputed language to respondents’ RICO claims is, to say the least, in doubt. And Vimar instructs that we should not, on the basis of “mere speculation” that an arbitrator might interpret these ambiguous agreements in a manner that casts their enforceability into doubt, take upon ourselves the authority to decide the antecedent question of how the ambiguity is to be resolved. 515 U. S., at 541. In short, since we do not know how the arbitrator will construe the remedial limitations, the questions whether they render the parties’ agreements unenforceable and whether it is for courts or arbitrators to decide enforceability in the first instance are unusually abstract. As in Vimar, the proper course is to compel arbitration. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Contrary to respondents’ contention, the prohibition in Dr. Manual Porth’s contract against an arbitrator’s awarding “extracontractual” damages is likewise ambiguous. This language might mean, as respondents would %ave it, that an arbitrator is prohibited from awarding any damages other than for breach of contract. Brief for Respondents 20-21. But it might only mean that an arbitrator cannot award noneconomic damages such as punitive or mental-anguish damages. See 3 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies: Damages-Equity-Restitution § 12.1(1), p. 8 (2d ed. 1993) (“Punitive damages and mental anguish damages are thus considered ‘extra-contractual,’ and usually denied in pure contract cases”).
If the contractual ambiguity could itself be characterized as raising a “gateway” question of arbitrability, then it would be appropriate for a court to answer it in the first instance. But we noted just this Term that “the phrase ‘question of arbitrability’ has a ... limited scope.” Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U. S. 79, 83 (2002). Indeed, we have “found the phrase [question of arbitrability] applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.” Id., at 83-84. Givedn our presumption in favor of arbitration, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24-25 (1983), we think the preliminary question whether the remedial limitations at issue here prohibit an award of RICO treble damages is not a question of arbitrability.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether Chapter 13 debtors who cure a default on an oversecured home mortgage pursuant to § 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(5), must pay postpetition interest on the arrearages. We conclude that the holder of the mortgage is entitled to such interest under §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) of the Code.
I
Petitioners Donald and Linda Rake, petitioners Earnest and Mary Yell, and respondents Ronnie and Rosetta Han-non initiated three separate Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of Oklahoma. In each ease the debtors were in arrears on a long-term promissory note assigned to respondent William J. Wade, trustee (hereinafter respondent). The notes allowed a $5 charge for each missed payment but did not provide for interest on arrearages. Payment on the notes was secured by a first mortgage on the principal residence owned by each pair of debtors. The mortgage instruments provided that in the event of a default by the debtors, the holder of the note (now respondent as assignee) had the right to declare the remainder of indebtedness due and payable and to foreclose on the property. Because the value of the residence owned by each pair of debtors exceeded the outstanding balance on the corresponding notes, respondent was an oversecured creditor.
In their Chapter 13 plans the debtors proposed to pay directly to respondent all future payments of principal and interest due on the notes. The plans also provided that the debtors would cure the default on the mortgages by paying off the arrearages, without interest, over the terms of the plans. Respondent objected to each plan, on the ground that he was entitled to attorney’s fees and interest on the arrearages. The Bankruptcy Court overruled respondent’s objections, and respondent appealed to the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which consolidated the cases and affirmed. The District Court held that the Chapter 13 provisions relating to the “curing of defaults” — 11 U. S. C. §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1322(b)(5) — “do not alter the contract between the parties governing such matters as interest, if any, to be paid on arrearage,” and that allowing interest on arrearages would be “improper,” since the notes did not provide for it. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-24.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. Wade v. Hannon, 968 P. 2d 1036 (1992). The court held that § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, as interpreted in United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235 (1989), entitles an oversecured creditor to postpetition interest on arrearages and other charges paid off under a Chapter 13 plan, “even if the mortgage instruments are silent on the subject and state law would not require interest to be paid.” 968 F. 2d, at 1042. The Tenth Circuit relied in part on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Colgrove, 771 F. 2d 119 (1985), which reached the same result but rested its decision on § 1325(a)(5) as well as § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Four other Courts of Appeals have held that under the “cure” and “modification” provisions of § 1322(b) a mortgagee is not entitled to interest on home mortgage arrearages. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 506 U. S. 972 (1992).
II
Petitioners’ Chapter 13 plans proposed to “cure” the defaults on respondent’s oversecured home mortgages by establishing repayment schedules for the arrearages. Three interrelated provisions of the Bankruptcy Code determine whether respondent is entitled to interest on those arrearages: §§ 506(b), 1322(b), and 1325(a)(5).
Section 506(b), which applies to Chapter 13 proceedings pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 103(a), provides that holders of oversecured claims are “allowed” postpetition interest on their claims. In Ron Pair we held that the right to postpetition interest under § 506(b) is “unqualified” and exists regardless of whether the agreement giving rise to the claim provides for interest. 489 U. S., at 241. It is generally recognized that the interest allowed by § 506(b) will accrue until payment of the secured claim or until the effective date of the plan. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.05, p. 506-43, and n. 5c (15th ed. 1993) (hereinafter Collier). Respondent concedes, and his amicus the United States agrees, that because § 506(b) “has the effect of allowing a claim to the creditor, ... the rights granted under Section 506(b) are relevant only until confirmation of the plan.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11, n. 7. Accord, Tr. of Oral Arg. 24, 34. Petitioners also agree that § 506(b) applies only from the date of filing through the confirmation date. Brief for Petitioners 10,13.
Two paragraphs of § 1322(b) are relevant here: §§ 1322(b) (2) and 1322(b)(5). Section 1322(b)(2) authorizes debtors to modify the rights of secured claim holders, but it provides protection for home mortgage lenders by creating a specific “no modification” exception for holders of claims secured only by a lien on the debtor’s principal residence. Section 1322(b)(5) expressly authorizes debtors to cure any defaults on a long-term debt, such as a mortgage, and to maintain payments on the debt during the life of the plan. Under § 1322(b)(5), a plan may provide for the curing of any defaults and the maintenance of payments on a long-term debt “notwithstanding” § 1322(b)(2)’s prohibition against modifications of the rights of home mortgage lenders.
The final provision bearing on this case — § 1325(a)(5)— states that “with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan,” one of three requirements must be satisfied before the plan may be confirmed: (1) the holder of the claim has accepted the plan, § 1325(b)(5)(A); (2) the debtor surrenders the property securing such claim to the secured creditor, § 1325(a)(5)(C); or (3) the holder of the secured claim retains the lien securing such claim, § 1325(a) (5) (B)(i), and “the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the allowed amount of such claim,” § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). Thus, unless the creditor accepts the plan or the debtor surrenders the collateral to the creditor, § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) guarantees that property distributed under a plan on account of a claim, including deferred cash payments in satisfaction of the claim, see 5 Collier ¶ 1325.06[4][b][ii], must equal the present dollar value of such claim as of the confirmation date. Petitioners, respondent, and the United States agree that “[s]ection 1325(a)(5)(B) requires all holders of allowed secured claims to be paid the present value of such claims, whieh implies the payment of interest.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. Accord, Brief for Respondent 16-17; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-12, and n. 8.
Ill
Although petitioners and respondent generally agree as to the requirements of §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5), petitioners argue that those provisions do not apply when the debtor cures a default on a home mortgage under § 1322(b)(5). Some courts have construed the “cure” and “modification” provisions of § 1322(b) so broadly as to render §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) inapplicable to the curing of defaults on home mortgages. E. g., Landmark Financial Services v. Hall, 918 P. 2d 1150, 1153-1155 (CA4 1990). Petitioners contend that this is precisely what § 1322(b) requires.
A
Turning first to § 506(b), petitioners concede that respondent holds an oversecured claim, which includes arrearages and that “ ‘an oversecured creditor is ordinarily entitled to an allowance for postpetition interest on its secured claim under Chapter 13.’” Reply Brief for Petitioners 2 (quoting In re Laguna, 944 F. 2d 542, 544 (CA9 1991) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 966 (1992)). They argue, however, that § 1322(b)(5) “operate[s] to the exclusion of the provisions of § 506(b),” Brief for Petitioners 9, and that § 506(b) thus “does not require the payment of . . . preeonfirmation interest on home mortgage arrearages in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 1. Because § 1322(b)(5) does not expressly negate § 506(b), petitioners suggest that “‘[d]espite some broad language in Ron Pair, . . . § 506(b) is inapplicable in the context of [Chapter 13] mortgage cures.’” Brief for Petitioners 13 (quoting Hall, supra, at 1154).
Petitioners’ interpretation of §§ 506(b) and 1322(b)(5) does not comport with the terms of those provisions. Under § 506(b) the holder of an overseeured claim is allowed interest on his claim to the extent of the value of the collateral. Section 506(b) “directs that postpetition interest be paid on all overseeured claims,” Ron Pair, 489 U. S., at 245 (emphasis added), and, as the parties acknowledge, such interest accrues as part of the allowed claim from the petition date until the confirmation or effective date of the plan. See supra, at 468. The arrearages owed on the mortgages held by respondent are plainly part of respondent’s overseeured claims. Under the unqualified terms of § 506(b), therefore, respondent is entitled to preconfirmation interest on these arrearages. Where the statutory language is clear, our “‘sole function ... is to enforce it according to its terms.’” Ron Pair, supra, at 241 (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917)). Accord, Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992).
Section 1322(b)(5), on the other hand, states that a Chapter 13 plan may “provide for the curing of any default and the maintenance of payments” on certain claims. While § 1322(b)(5) authorizes a Chapter 13 plan to provide for payments on arrearages to effectuate a cure after the effective date of the plan, nothing in that provision dictates the terms of the cure. In particular, § 1322(b)(5) provides no indication that the allowed amount of the arrearages cured under the plan may not include interest otherwise available as part of the overseeured claim under § 506(b). We generally avoid construing one provision in a statute so as to suspend or supersede another provision. To avoid “denying] effect to a part of a statute,” we accord “ ‘significance and effect... to every word.’” Ex parte Public Nat. Bank of New York, 278 U. S. 101, 104 (1928) (quoting Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115 (1879)). Construing §§ 506(b) and 1322(b)(5) together, and giving effect to both, we conclude that § 1322(b)(5) authorizes a debtor to cure a default on a home mortgage by making payments on arrearages under a Chapter 13 plan, and that where the mortgagee’s claim is over-secured, § 506(b) entitles the mortgagee to preconfirmation interest on such arrearages.
B
Petitioners make virtually the same argument with respect to postconfirmation interest under § 1325(a)(5). Petitioners concede that under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) secured creditors are entitled to the “present value of [their] claims, which implies the payment of interest.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. Petitioners contend, however, that § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) “applies only to secured claims which have been modified in the Chapter 13 plan, and which, by reason of Section 1322(b)(2), may not include home mortgages.” Ibid. Since nothing in the Code states that § 1325(a)(5) applies only to “modified” claims, petitioners turn to those Court of Appeals decisions that have held that “the legislative history indicates that § 1322(b) was intended to create a special exception to § 1325(a)(5)(B).” In re Terry, 780 F. 2d 894, 896-897 (CA11 1985). Accord, In re Laguna, supra, at 544-545; Hall, 918 F. 2d, at 1154-1155; Appeal of Capps, 836 F. 2d 773, 776 (CA3 1987).
Petitioners’ interpretation of §§ 1322(b) and 1325(a)(5) is refated by the plain language of the Code. Section 1325(a)(5) applies by its terms to “each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan.” The most natural reading of the phrase to “provid[e] for by the plan” is to “make a provision for” or “stipulate to” something in a plan. See, e. g., American Heritage Dictionary 1053 (10th ed. 1981) (“provide for” defined as “to make a stipulation or condition”). Petitioners’ plans clearly “provided for” respondent’s home mortgage claims by establishing repayment schedules for the satisfaction of the arrearages portion of those claims. As authorized by § 1322(b)(5), the plans essentially split each of respondent’s secured claims into two separate claims — the underlying debt and the arrearages. While payments of principal and interest on the underlying debts were simply “maintained” according to the terms of the mortgage documents during the pendency of petitioners’ cases, each plan treated the arrearages as a distinct claim to be paid off within the life of the plan pursuant to repayment schedules established by the plans. Thus, the arrearages, which are a part of respondent’s home mortgage claims, were “provided for” by the plans, and respondent is entitled to interest on them under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii).
Other provisions of Chapter 13 containing the phrase “provided for by the plan” make clear that petitioners’ plans provided for respondent’s home mortgage claim. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988) (statutory terms are often “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes [their] meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law”) (citation omitted). Title 11 U. S. C. § 1328(a) (1988 ed., Supp. Ill), for example, utilizes the phrase “provided for by the plan” in dealing with the discharge of debts under Chapter 13. As used in § 1328(a), that phrase is commonly understood to mean that a plan “makes a provision” for, “deals with,” or even “refers to” a claim. See 5 Collier ¶ 1328.01, at 1328-9. In addition, § 1328(a) unmistakably contemplates that a plan “provides for” a claim when the plan cures a default and allows for the maintenance of regular payments on that claim, as authorized by § 1322(b)(5). Section 1328(a) states that “all debts provided for by the plan” are dischargeable, and then lists three exceptions. One type of claim that is “provided for by the plan” yet excepted from discharge under § 1328(a) is a claim “provided for under section 1322(b)(5) of this title.” § 1328(a)(1). If claims that are subject to § 1322(b)(5) were not “provided for by the plan,” there would be no reason to make an exception for them in § 1328(a)(1). Under § 1325(a)(5), therefore, respondent is entitled to the present value of arrearages paid off under the terms of the plans as an element of an “allowed secured claim provided for by the plan.”
IV
We hold that respondent is entitled to preconfirmation and postconfirmation interest on arrearages paid off under petitioners’ plans. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
So ordered.
Because the Hannons did not join the petition for certiorari, they are respondents in this Court under this Court’s Rule 12.4.
In re Laguna, 944 F. 2d 542, 545 (CA9 1991), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 966 (1992); Landmark Financial Services v. Hall, 918 F. 2d 1150, 1153-1155 (CA4 1990); Appeal of Capps, 836 F. 2d 773, 776 (GA3 1987); In re Terry, 780 F. 2d 894, 895-896 (CA11 1985).
By “home mortgage” we mean an allowed claim secured only by a security interest in the debtor's principal residence. See 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2).
Section 506(b) states: “To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which, after any recovery under subsection (c) of this section, is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement under which such claim arose.” Under this provision, an oversecured creditor is entitled to postpetition interest on its claim only “to the extent that such interest, when added to the principal amount of the claim,” does not “exceed the value of the collateral.” United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 372 (1988).
Section 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.”
Section 1322(b)(5) states that “notwithstanding” § 1322(b)(2), a plan may “provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.”
Respondent is the holder of an allowed oversecured claim in each pair of petitioners’ cases, and this claim includes “arrearages on the note and mortgage.” App. 6, 22.
When a claim is paid off pursuant to a stream of future payments, a creditor receives the “present value” of its claim only if the total amount of the deferred payments includes the amount of the underlying claim plus an appropriate amount of interest to compensate the creditor for the decreased value of the claim caused by the delayed payments. This generally involves a determination of an appropriate discount rate and a discounting of the stream of deferred payments back to the present dollar value of the claim at confirmation. See 5 Collier V 1325.06[4][b][iii][B]. Because the issue is not presented in this case, we express no view on the appropriate rate of interest that debtors must pay on arrearages cured pursuant to § 1322(b)(5).
Petitioners’ argument that "modified” claims cannot include home mortgage claims that have been “cured” does not withstand scrutiny. When a plan cures a default and reinstates payments on a claim, the creditor’s contractual rights arising from the default — which in this case included the right to declare all payments due and payable, accelerate the debt, possess the property, collect rents generated by the property, and foreclose on the property, see App. 14-15, 29-30 — are abrogated and therefore “modified.” These modifications are allowed under § 1322 (b)(5) “notwithstanding” the fact that § 1322(b)(2) generally prohibits the modification of the rights of home mortgage holders. Petitioners’ construction of § 1322(b)(2) also leads to the incongruous result that only home mortgage claims would be denied the benefits of § 1325(a)(5). By prohibiting modifications of the rights of holders of home mortgage claims, Congress could not have intended, in our view, to afford the holders of these claims less protection than the holders of other secured claims.
Section 1328(a) provides:
“As soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan, unless the court approves a written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of this title, except any debt—
“(1) provided for under section 1322(b)(5) of this title;
“(2) of the kind specified in paragraph (5) or (8) of section 523(a) or 523(a)(9) of this title; or
“(3) for restitution included in a sentence on the debtor’s conviction of a crime.”
Section 1328(a)(1) refers to “debts” rather than claims, but a debt under the Code is simply “liability on a claim.” 11 U. S. C. § 101(12) (1988 ed., Supp. III).
Petitioners suggest that by allowing postpetition interest on arrearages “and other charges,” the Tenth Circuit misconstrued United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235 (1989). Brief for Petitioners 21. We disagree. Ron Pair held that under § 506(b) a creditor is entitled to postpetition interest on its “overseeured claim.” 489 U. S., at 241. The arrearages portion of respondent’s oversecured claims in this case included the amounts past due on the notes and the “other charges” to which the Tenth Circuit referred. App. 6,22.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether an injunction that places restrictions on demonstrations outside abortion clinics violates the First Amendment. We uphold the provisions imposing “fixed bubble” or “fixed buffer zone” limitations, as hereinafter described, but hold that the provisions imposing “floating bubble” or “floating buffer zone” limitations violate the First Amendment.
I
Respondents include three doctors and four medical clinics (two of which are part of larger hospital complexes) in and around Rochester and Buffalo in upstate New York. These health care providers perform abortions and other medical services at their facilities. The eighth respondent is Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to maintaining access to family planning and abortion services.
On September 24, 1990, respondents filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of New York against 50 individuals and 3 organizations — Operation Rescue, Project Rescue Western New York, and Project Life of Rochester. The complaint alleged that defendants had consistently engaged in illegal blockades and other illegal conduct at facilities in the Western District of New York where abortions were performed. (For convenience, we refer to these facilities as “clinics” throughout.) The complaint alleged one federal and six state causes of action: conspiracy to deprive women seeking abortions or other family planning services of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of Rev. Stat. § 1980, 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3); discrimination against and harassment of women seeking abortions and other family planning services, in violation of N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c (McKinney 1992) and N. Y. Exec. Law §296 (McKinney 1993); trespass; tortious interference with business; tortious harassment; false imprisonment; and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The complaint alleged that a large blockade was planned for September 28, and requested that the court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop it. The complaint also sought a permanent injunction and damages.
Before the complaint was filed, the clinics were subjected to numerous large-scale blockades in which protesters would march, stand, kneel, sit, or lie in parking lot driveways and in doorways. This conduct blocked or hindered cars from entering clinic parking lots, and patients, doctors, nurses, and other clinic employees from entering the clinics.
In addition to these large-scale blockades, smaller groups of protesters consistently attempted to stop or disrupt clinic operations. Protesters trespassed onto clinic parking lots and even entered the clinics themselves. Those trespassers who remained outside the clinics crowded around cars or milled around doorways and driveway entrances in an effort to block or hinder access to the clinics. Protesters sometimes threw themselves on top of the hoods of cars or crowded around cars as they attempted to turn into parking lot driveways. Other protesters on clinic property handed literature and talked to people entering the clinics — especially those women they believed were arriving to have abortions — in an effort to persuade them that abortion was immoral. Sometimes protesters used more aggressive techniques, with varying levels of belligerence: getting very close to women entering the clinics and shouting in their faces; surrounding, crowding, and yelling at women entering the clinics; or jostling, grabbing, pushing, and shoving women as they attempted to enter the clinics. Male and female clinic volunteers who attempted to escort patients past protesters into the clinics were sometimes elbowed, grabbed, or spit on. Sometimes the escorts pushed back. Some protesters remained in the doorways after the patients had entered the clinics, blocking others from entering and exiting.
On the sidewalks outside the clinics, protesters called “sidewalk counselors” used similar methods. Counselors would walk alongside targeted women headed toward the clinics, handing them literature and talking to them in an attempt to persuade them not to get an abortion. Unfortunately, if the women continued toward the clinics and did not respond positively to the counselors, such peaceful efforts at persuasion often devolved into “in your face” yelling, and sometimes into pushing, shoving, and grabbing. Men who accompanied women attempting to enter the clinics often became upset by the aggressive sidewalk counseling and sometimes had to be restrained (not always successfully) from fighting with the counselors.
The District Court found that the local police had been “unable to respond effectively” to the protests, for a number of reasons: the protests were constant, overwhelming police resources; when the police arrived, the protesters simply dispersed and returned later; prosecution of arrested protesters was difficult because patients were often reluctant to cooperate for fear of making their identity public; and those who were convicted were not deterred from returning to engage in unlawful conduct. In addition, the court found that defendants harassed the police officers verbally and by mail, including the deputy police chief. Also harassed were people who testified against the protesters and “those who invoked] legal process against” the protesters. This, testified the deputy police chief, “made it more difficult for him to do his job.” Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y. v. Project Rescue-Western N. Y., 799 F. Supp. 1417, 1426-1427 (WDNY 1992). See also id., at 1431 (“[Tjhere has been substantial uneontradicted evidence that defendants’ activities are intended, and do in fact, prevent and hinder local police from protecting the right of women to choose to have an abortion”).
On September 27, 1990, three days after respondents filed their complaint and one day before the scheduled large-scale blockade, the District Court issued a TRO. The parties stipulated that the TRO might remain in force until decision on respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In pertinent part, the TRO enjoined defendants from physically blockading the clinics, physically abusing or tortiously harassing anyone entering or leaving the clinics, and “demonstrating within 15 feet of any person” entering or leaving the clinics. As an exception to this 15-foot “buffer zone” around people, the TRO allowed two sidewalk counselors to have “a conversation of a nonthreatening nature” with individuals entering or leaving the clinic. If the individuals indicated that they did not want the counseling, however, the counselors had to “cease and desist” from counseling.
At first, defendants complied with the TRO, holding a peaceful demonstration rather than the scheduled blockade. Subsequently, they stipulated that “physical blockades” could be enjoined, and they conducted no such blockades between the issuance of the TRO and the issuance of the preliminary injunction 17 months later. Defendants, however, continued to engage in protests that the District Court labeled “constructive blockades,” as well as sidewalk counseling. Constructive blockades consisted of “demonstrating and picketing around the entrances of the clinics, and... harassing patients and staff entering and leaving the clinics.” Id., at 1424. This included many of the protest elements described above, including attempts to intimidate or impede cars from entering the parking lots, congregating in driveway entrances, and crowding around, yelling at, grabbing, pushing, and shoving people entering and leaving the clinics. The purpose of constructive blockades was the same as physical blockades: “to prevent or dissuade patients from entering the clinic.” Ibid. Clinic volunteer escorts testified that the protests were much quieter, calmer, and smaller during the first month after the TRO issued, but that the protests returned to their prior intensity thereafter, including aggressive sidewalk counseling with occasional shoving and elbowing, trespassing into clinic buildings to continue counseling of patients, and blocking of doorways and driveways.
Alleging that Project Rescue and five individual defendants (including petitioner Schenck) breached the TRO on five separate occasions from late October 1990 through December 1990, respondents sought four contempt citations. A fifth contempt citation for a 1991 incident was sought against petitioner Schenck and another individual defendant. Throughout 1991 and into 1992, the District Court held 27 days of hearings in these contempt proceedings, and issued opinions concluding that five of the six incidents justified a finding of civil contempt.
In February 1992, after hearing 12 additional days of testimony, the District Court issued the injunction, parts of which are challenged here. The relevant provisions are set forth in the margin. Although the injunction largely tracked the TRO, there were significant changes. First, while the TRO banned “demonstrating... within fifteen feet of any person” entering or leaving the clinics, the injunction more broadly banned “demonstrating within fifteen feet from either side or edge of, or in front of, doorways or doorway entrances, parking lot entrances, driveways and driveway entrances of such facilities” (fixed buffer zones), or “within fifteen feet of any person or vehicle seeking access to or leaving such facilities” (floating buffer zones). In addition, the injunction clarified the “cease and desist” provision, specifying that once sidewalk counselors who had entered the buffer zones were required to “cease and desist” their counseling, they had to retreat 15 feet from the people they had been counseling and had to remain outside the boundaries of the buffer zones.
In its opinion accompanying the preliminary injunction, the District Court stated the relevant inquiry as whether respondents had established (i) that they would be irreparably harmed if the injunction was not granted and (ii) that they were likely to succeed on the merits. The court held that the irreparable harm requirement was met, because “those women denied unimpeded access to [the clinics] cannot be compensated merely by money damages. Injunctive relief alone can assure women unimpeded access to [the] clinics.” Id., at 1428. The court also held that respondents were likely to succeed on at least three of their claims. First, relying on New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry, 886 F. 2d 1389 (CA2 1989), cert. denied, 495 U. S. 947 (1990), the court held that women seeking abortions constituted a protected class under 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3), and that their constitutional right to travel between States and to choose to have an abortion was likely infringed by defendants, in violation of § 1985(3). Second, the court held that the same conduct that infringed this class of women’s constitutional rights under §1985(3) “clearly violates N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c.” 799 F. Supp., at 1431. Finally, the court held that in light of the “overwhelming evidence that defendants have repeatedly trespassed upon [the clinics’] property in the past and may continue to trespass in the future,” respondents had shown a likelihood of success on their trespass claim. Id., at 1432. Having already found likelihood of success on these claims, the court chose not to address respondents’ other four state-law claims. Id., at 1432, n. 11.
In analyzing defendants’ assertion that the injunction violated their First Amendment right to free speech, the court applied our standard “time, place, and manner analysis,” asking whether the speech restrictions in the injunction (i) were content neutral, (ii) were narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and (iii) left open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Id., at 1432 (citing Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 481 (1988)). The court held that the injunction was content neutral because “it merely restricts the volume, location, timing and harassing and intimidating nature of defendants’ expressive speech.” 799 F. Supp., at 1433. The court held that the injunction served three significant governmental interests— public safety, ensuring that abortions are performed safely, and ensuring that a woman’s constitutional rights to travel interstate and to choose to have an abortion were not sacrificed in the interest of defendants’ First Amendment rights.
As to narrow tailoring, the court explained that the 15-foot buffer zones “around entrances and... around people and vehicles seeking access... are necessary to ensure that people and vehicles seeking access to the clinics will not be impeded, and will be able to determine readily where the entrances are located.” Id., at 1434. The court added that the buffer zones would also provide the benefit of “preventing] defendants from crowding patients and invading their personal space.” Ibid. The court explained the “cease and desist” provision — allowing two sidewalk counselors inside the buffer zones but requiring them to “cease and desist” their counseling if the counselee asked to be left alone — as “an exception” to the buffer zones and as “an attempt to accommodate fully defendants’ First Amendment rights.” Ibid. The court held that this provision was “necessary in order to protect the right of people approaching and entering the facilities to be left alone.” Id., at 1435. Finally, the court held that the injunction left open ample alternative channels for communication, because defendants could still “picket, carry signs, pray, sing or chant in full view of people going into the clinics.” Id., at 1437. we held in
After the District Court Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 269 (1993), that “women seeking an abortion” were not a protected class under 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3). In light of Bray, the District Court dismissed respondents’ § 1985(3) claim, with leave to file an amended § 1985(3) cause of action. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y. v. Project Rescue Western N. Y., 828 F. Supp. 1018, 1025 (WDNY 1993). The court then decided to exercise pendent jurisdiction over respondents’ remaining causes of action (the six state claims), regardless of the ultimate disposition of the § 1985(3) claim. In so deciding, the court noted that “the preliminary injunction is grounded not only on the § 1985(3) claim, but two state-law claims [the N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c claim and the trespass claim] as well.” Id., at 1026, n. 4. The court explained that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all suggested that it keep the case, since it had expended substantial resources on the case and its involvement in the case was ongoing. Id., at 1028-1029 (citing the contempt motions filed by respondents in 1990 and 1991, criminal contempt charges brought against six individuals for protests in 1992, and civil and criminal contempt motions filed in 1993).
Petitioners, two individual defendants, appealed to Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While the case was on appeal, we decided Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753 (1994), a case which also involved the effect of an injunction on the expressive activities of antiabortion protesters. (We discuss Madsen in greater depth in Part II-A, infra.) We held that “our standard time, place, and manner analysis is not sufficiently rigorous” when it comes to evaluating content-neutral injunctions that restrict speech. The test instead, we held, is “whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest.” 512 U. S., at 765.
Applying Madsen, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court in a split decision. 67 F. 3d 359 (1994). The Court of Appeals then heard the case en banc, and affirmed the District Court by a divided vote. 67 F. 3d 377 (1995). Each of two opinions garnered a majority of the court. Judge Oakes’ lead opinion, joined by eight other judges, affirmed for reasons that closely track the reasoning of the District Court. Id., at 388-392. A concurring opinion by Judge Winter, joined by nine other judges, affirmed primarily on the ground that the protesters’ expressive activities were not protected by the First Amendment at all, and because the District Court’s injunction was a “reasonable response” to the protesters’ conduct. Id., at 396, 398. We granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 1170 (1996).
1 — ( I-H
A
Petitioners challenge three aspects of the injunction: (i) the floating 15-foot buffer zones around people and vehicles seeking access to the clinics; (ii) the fixed 15-foot buffer zones around the clinic doorways, driveways, and parking lot entrances; and (iii) the "cease and desist” provision that forces sidewalk counselors who are inside the buffer zones to retreat 15 feet from the person being counseled once the person indicates a desire not to be counseled. Because Madsen bears many similarities to this case and because many of the parties’ arguments depend on the application of Madsen here, we review our determination in that case.
A Florida state court had issued a permanent injunction enjoining specified organizations and individuals from blocking or interfering with clinic access and from physically abusing people entering or leaving the clinic. Six months after the injunction issued, the court found that protesters still impeded access by demonstrating on the street and in the driveways, and that sidewalk counselors approached entering vehicles in an effort to hand literature to the occupants. In the face of this evidence, the court issued a broader injunction that enjoined the defendant protesters from “ ‘physically abusing, grabbing, intimidating, harassing, touching, pushing, shoving, crowding or assaulting’ ” anyone entering or leaving the clinic; from “ ‘congregating, picketing, patrolling, demonstrating or entering that portion of public right-of-way or private property within [36] feet of the property line of the Clinic’ from approaching anyone “ ‘seeking the services of the Clinic’ ” who is within 300 feet of the clinic, unless the person “ ‘indicates a desire to communicate’ and from making any noise or displaying any image which could be heard or seen inside the clinic. 512 U. S., at 759-760.
After determining that the injunction was not a prior restraint and was content neutral, id., at 762-764, we held that the proper test for evaluating content-neutral injunctions under the First Amendment was “whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest,” id., at 765. The Florida Supreme Court had concluded that the injunction was based on a number of governmental interests: protecting a woman’s freedom to seek pregnancy-related services, ensuring public safety and order, promoting the free flow of traffic on streets and sidewalks, protecting property rights, and protecting the medical privacy of patients whose psychological and physical well-being were threatened as they were held “captive” by medical circumstance. Id., at 767-768. We held that the combination of these interests was “quite sufficient to justify an appropriately tailored injunction” to protect unimpeded access to the clinic by way of public streets and sidewalks. Id., at 768.
We held that some of the injunction’s provisions burdened more speech than necessary to serve these interests, and that others did not. We upheld the 86-foot buffer zone as applied to the street, sidewalks, and driveways “as a way of ensuring access to the clinic.” We explained that the trial court had few other options to protect access to the clinic: Allowing protesters to remain on the sidewalks and in the clinic driveway was not a valid option because of their past conduct, and allowing them to stand in the street was obviously impractical. In addition, we stated that “some deference must be given to the state court’s familiarity with the facts and the background of the dispute between the parties even under our heightened review.” Id., at 769-770 (citing Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U. S. 287, 294 (1941)).
We struck down the 300-foot no-approach zone around the clinic, however, stating that it was difficult
“to justify a prohibition on all uninvited approaches... regardless of how peaceful the contact may be_ Absent evidence that the protesters’ speech is independently proscribable (i. e., ‘fighting words’ or threats), or is so infused with violence as to be indistinguishable from a threat of physical harm, see Milk Wagon Drivers, 312 U. S., at 292-293, this provision cannot stand. ‘As a general matter, we have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.’ Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. [312, 322 (1988)] (internal quotation marks omitted). The ‘consent’ requirement alone invalidates this provision; it burdens more speech than is necessary to prevent intimidation and to ensure access to the clinic.” 512 U. S., at 774.
We now apply Madsen to the challenged provisions of the injunction and ask whether they burden more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental interest.
B
Petitioners first argue that there are no significant governmental interests that support the injunction. The argument goes as follows: Of the seven causes of action in respondents’ complaint, the only one left standing after the District Court’s most recent opinion is respondents’ trespass claim; a trespass cause of action can support an injunction banning trespass, but nothing else; thus, the injunction’s provisions banning “demonstrating” within 15 feet of people, cars, and entrances are overbroad.
First, this argument is factually incorrect. The trespass claim is not the only one left standing at this point. In its opinion issuing the preliminary injunction, the District Court held that the conduct that satisfied the elements of a § 1985(3) claim under federal law also satisfied the elements of a § 40-c claim under state law. After our decision in Bray, the District Court dismissed respondents’ § 1985(3) claim. Petitioners argue that in doing so, the District Court necessarily and implicitly dismissed the §40-c claim as well, since the two claims were based on the same conduct. But our opinion in Bray did not attempt to construe any statute other than § 1985(3). And the fact that certain conduct does not state a claim under § 1985(3) does not necessarily mean that the same conduct does not state a claim under a state law that uses the same or similar language as § 1985(3), since state courts may of course choose to construe their own law more broadly (or more narrowly) than its federal counterpart. In any event, the language of the two statutes is noticeably different. See n. 4, supra. Thus, the dismissal of the § 1985(3) claim in light of Bray did not also act as a dismissal of respondents’ § 40-c claim. This is confirmed by the District Court’s comment in its post-Bray opinion that “the preliminary injunction is grounded not only on the § 1985(3) claim, but two state-law claims as well.” 828 F. Supp., at 1026, n. 4.
Although petitioners contend that the §40-c cause of action is no longer valid simply because the § 1985(3) claim is no longer valid, an argument we reject, they do not contend that the District Court erred in concluding as an independent matter that respondents were likely to succeed on their §4Q-c and trespass claims. See Brief for Petitioners 32. The injunction’s terms are clearly crafted to remedy these violations.
An injunction tailored to respondents’ claims for relief may nonetheless violate the First Amendment. In making their First Amendment challenge, petitioners focus solely on the interests asserted by respondents in their complaint. But in assessing a First Amendment challenge, a court looks not only at the private claims asserted in the complaint, but also inquires into the governmental interests that are protected by the injunction, which may include an interest in public safety and order. Madsen, 512 U. S., at 767-768; Milk Wagon Drivers, supra, at 294-295. Both the injunction in Madsen and the injunction here are supported by this governmental interest. In Madsen, it was permissible to move protesters off the sidewalk and to the other side of the street in part because other options would block the free flow of traffic on the streets and sidewalks. 512 U. S., at 767-768. Here, the District Court cited public safety as one of the interests justifying the injunction — certainly a reasonable conclusion, if only because of the dangerous situation by the interaction between cars and protesters and because of the fights that threatened to (and sometimes did) develop. Even though the governmental interest in public safety is clearly a valid interest here, as it was in Madsen, plaintiffs in neither case pleaded a claim for “threat to public safety.” Indeed, this would be a strange concept, since a plaintiff customarily alleges violations of private rights, while “public safety” expresses a public right enforced by the government through its criminal laws and otherwise. Thus, the fact that “threat to public safety” is not listed anywhere in respondents’ complaint as a claim does not preclude a court from relying on the significant governmental interest in public safety in assessing petitioners’ First Amendment argument.
Given the factual similarity between this case and Mad-sen, we conclude that the governmental interests underlying the injunction in Madsen — ensuring public safety and order, promoting the free flow of traffic on streets and sidewalks, protecting property rights, and protecting a woman’s freedom to seek pregnancy-related services, ibid. — also underlie the injunction here, and in combination are certainly significant enough to justify an appropriately tailored injunction to secure unimpeded physical access to the clinics.
c
We strike down the floating buffer zones around people entering and leaving the clinics because they burden more speech than is necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests. The floating buffer zones prevent defendants— except for two sidewalk counselors, while they are tolerated by the targeted individual — from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on the public sidewalks. This is a broad prohibition, both because of the type of speech that is restricted and the nature of the location. Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum. See, e. g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 180 (1983). On the other hand, we have before us a record that shows physically abusive conduct, harassment of the police that hampered law enforcement, and the tendency of even peaceful conversations to devolve into aggressive and sometimes violent conduct. In some situations, a record of abusive conduct makes a prohibition on classic speech in limited parts of a public sidewalk permissible. See, e. g., Part II-D, infra; Madsen, supra, at 769-770. We need not decide whether the governmental interests involved would ever justify some sort of zone of separation between individuals entering the clinics and protesters, measured by the distance between the two. We hold here that because this broad prohibition on speech “floats,” it cannot be sustained on this record.
Since the buffer zone floats, protesters on the public sidewalks who wish (i) to communicate their message to an incoming or outgoing patient or clinic employee and (ii) to remain as close as possible (while maintaining an acceptable conversational distance) to this individual, must move as the individual moves, maintaining 15 feet of separation. But this would be difficult to accomplish at, for instance, the GYN Womenservices clinic in Buffalo, one of the respondent clinics. The sidewalk outside the clinic is 17-feet wide. This means that protesters who wish to walk alongside an individual entering or leaving the clinic are pushed into the street, unless the individual walks a straight line on the outer edges of the sidewalk. Protesters could presumably walk 15 feet behind the individual, or 15 feet in front of the individual while walking backwards. But they are then faced with the problem of watching out for other individuals entering or leaving the clinic who are heading the opposite way from the individual they have targeted. With clinic escorts leaving the clinic to pick up incoming patients and entering the clinic to drop them off, it would be quite difficult for a protester who wishes to engage in peaceful expressive activities to know how to remain in compliance with the injunction. This lack of certainty leads to a substantial risk that much more speech will be burdened than the injunction by its terms prohibits. That is, attempts to stand 15 feet from someone entering or leaving a clinic and to communicate a message — certainly protected on the face of the injunction — will be hazardous if one wishes to remain in compliance with the injunction. Since there may well be other ways to both effect such separation and yet provide certainty (so that speech protected by the injunction’s terms is not burdened), we conclude that the floating buffer zones burden more speech than necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests. Because we strike down the floating buffer zones, we do not address the constitutionality of the “cease and desist” provision that allows sidewalk counselors within those buffer zones.
We likewise strike down the floating buffer zones around vehicles. Nothing in the record or the District Court’s opinion contradicts the commonsense notion that a more limited injunction — which keeps protesters away from driveways and parking lot entrances (as the fixed buffer zones do) and off the streets, for instance — would be sufficient to ensure that drivers are not confused about how to enter the clinic and are able to gain access to its driveways and parking lots safely and easily. In contrast, the 15-foot floating buffer zones would restrict the speech of those who simply line the sidewalk or curb in an effort to chant, shout, or hold signs peacefully. We therefore conclude that the floating buffer zones around vehicles burden more speech than necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests.
D
We uphold the fixed buffer zones around the doorways, driveways, and driveway entrances. These buffer zones are necessary to ensure that people and vehicles trying to enter or exit the clinic property or clinic parking lots can do so. As in Madsen, the record shows that protesters purposefully or effectively blocked or hindered people from entering and exiting the clinic doorways, from driving up to and away from clinic.entrances, and from driving in and out of clinic parking lots. Based on this conduct — both before and after the TRO issued — the District Court was entitled to conclude that the only way to ensure access was to move back the demonstrations away from the driveways and parking lot entrances. Similarly, sidewalk counselors — both before and after the TRO — followed and crowded people right up to the doorways of the clinics (and sometimes beyond) and then tended to stay in the doorways, shouting at the individuals who had managed to get inside. In addition, as the District Court found, defendants’ harassment of the local police made it far from certain that the police would be able to quickly and effectively counteract protesters who blocked doorways or threatened the safety of entering patients and employees. Based on this conduct, the District Court was entitled to conclude that protesters who were allowed close to the entrances would continue right up to the entrance, and that the only way to ensure access was to move all protesters away from the doorways. Although one might quibble about whether 15 feet is too great or too small a distance if the goal is to ensure access, we defer to the District Court’s reasonable assessment of the number of feet necessary to keep the entrances clear. See Madsen, 512 U. S., at 769-770 (“[S]ome deference must be given to the state court’s familiarity with the facts and the background of the dispute between the parties even under our heightened review”).
Petitioners claim that unchallenged provisions of the injunction are sufficient to ensure this access, pointing to the bans on trespassing, excessive noise, and “blocking, impeding or obstructing access to” the clinics. They claim that in light of these provisions, the only effect of a ban on “demonstrating” within the fixed buffer zone is “a ban on peaceful, nonobstructive demonstrations on public sidewalks or rights of way.” Brief for Petitioners 47. This argument, however, ignores the record in this case. Based on defendants’ past conduct, the District Court was entitled to conclude that some of the defendants who were allowed within 5 to 10 feet of clinic entrances would not merely engage in stationary, nonobstructive demonstrations but would continue to do what they had done before: aggressively follow and crowd individuals right up to the clinic door and then refuse to move, or purposefully mill around parking lot entrances in an effort to impede or block the progress of cars. And because defendants’ harassment of police hampered the ability of the police to respond quickly to a problem, a prophylactic measure was even more appropriate. Cf. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, 206-207 (1992) (upholding 100-foot “no-campaign zone” around polling places: “Intimidation and interference laws fall short of serving a State’s compelling interests because they ‘deal with only the most blatant and specific attempts’ to impede elections. Moreover, because law enforcément officers generally are barred [under state law] from the vicinity of the polls to avoid any appearance of coercion in the electoral process, many acts of interference would go undetected. These undetected or less than blatant acts may nonetheless drive the voter away before remedial action can be taken” (citations omitted)). The ban on “blocking, impeding, and obstructing access” was therefore insufficient by itself to solve the problem, and the fixed buffer zone was a necessary restriction on defendants’ demonstrations.
Petitioners also argue that under Madsen, the fixed buffer zones are invalid because the District Court could not impose a “speech-restrictive” injunction (or TRO) without first trying a “non-speech-restrictive” injunction, as the trial court did in Madsen. But in Madsen we simply stated that the failure of an initial injunction “to accomplish its purpose may be taken into consideration” in determining the constitutionality of a later injunction. 512 U. S., at 770. The fact that the District Court’s TRO included a “speech-restrictive” provision certainly does not mean that the subsequent injunction is automatically invalid. Since we can uphold the injunction under the Madsen standard without this “consideration” being present, petitioners’ argument fails.
Finally, petitioners make several arguments that may be quickly refuted. They argue that, unlike Madsen, there is “no extraordinary record of pervasive lawlessness,” Brief for Petitioners 45, and that the buffer zones are therefore unnecessary. As explained above, our review of the record convinces us that defendants’ conduct was indeed extraordinary, and that based on this conduct the District Court was entitled to conclude that keeping defendants away from the entrances was necessary to ensure access. Petitioners also argue that the term “demonstrating” is vague. When the injunction is read as a whole, see Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 110 (1972), we believe that people “of ordinary intelligence” (and certainly defendants, whose demonstrations led to this litigation in the first place) have been given “a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited,” id., at 108.
Petitioners also contend that the “cease and desist” provision which limits the exception for sidewalk counselors in connection with the fixed buffer zone is contrary to the First Amendment. We doubt that the District Court’s reason for including that provision — “to protect the right of the people approaching and entering the facilities to be left alone”— accurately reflects our First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. Madsen sustained an injunction designed to secure physical access to the clinic, but not on the basis of any generalized right “to be left alone” on a public street or sidewalk. As we said in Mads
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Per Curiam.
Respondent Garcia Espitia, a criminal defendant who chose to proceed pro se, was convicted in California state court of carjacking and other offenses. He had received no law library access while in jail before trial — despite his repeated requests and court orders to the contrary — and only about four hours of access, during trial, just before closing arguments. (Of course, he had declined, as was his right, to be represented by a lawyer with unlimited access to legal materials.) The California courts rejected his argument that his restricted library access violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Once his sentence became final, he petitioned in Federal District Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254. The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated Espitia’s constitutional right to represent himself as established by the Supreme Court in Faretta [v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975)].” Garcia Espitia v. Ortiz, 113 Fed. Appx. 802, 804 (2004). The warden’s petition for certiorari and respondent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.
A necessary condition for federal habeas relief here is that the state court’s decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1). Neither the opinion below7 nor any of the appellate cases it relies on, identifies a source in our case law for the law library access right other than Faretta. See id., at 804 (relying on Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F. 3d 1015, 1020 (CA9 2000) (quoting Milton v. Morris, 767 F. 2d 1443, 1446 (CA9 1985))); ibid. (“Faretta controls this case”).
The federal appellate courts have split on whether Faretta, which establishes a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, implies a right of the pro se defendant to have access to a law library. Compare Milton, supra, with United States v. Smith, 907 F. 2d 42, 45 (CA6 1990) (“[B]y knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, the appellant also relinquished his access to a law library”); United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F. 2d 226, 231 (CA7 1983) (similar). That question cannot be resolved here, however, as it is clear that Faretta does not, as § 2254(d)(1) requires, “clearly establis[h]” the law library access right. In fact, Faretta says nothing about any specific legal aid that the State owes a pro se criminal defendant. The Bribiesca court and the court below therefore erred in holding, based on Faretta, that a violation of a law library access right is a basis for federal habeas relief.
The judgment below 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:
|
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case presents two questions: whether due process prohibits Arizona’s use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong; and whether Arizona violates due process in restricting consideration of defense evidence of mental illness and incapacity to its bearing on a claim of insanity, thus eliminating its significance directly on the issue of the mental element of the crime charged (known in legal shorthand as the mens rea, or guilty mind). We hold that there is no violation of due process in either instance.
I
In the early hours of June 21, 2000, Officer Jeffrey Moritz of the Flagstaff Police responded in uniform to complaints that a pickup truck with loud music blaring was circling a residential block. When he located the truck, the officer turned on the emergency lights and siren of his marked patrol car, which prompted petitioner Eric Clark, the truck’s driver (then 17), to pull over. Officer Moritz got out of the patrol car and told Clark to stay where he was. Less than a minute later, Clark shot the officer, who died soon after but not before calling the police dispatcher for help. Clark ran away on foot but was arrested later that day with gunpowder residue on his hands; the gun that killed the officer was found nearby, stuffed into a knit cap.
Clark was charged with first-degree murder under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1105(A)(3) (West Supp. 2005) for intentionally or knowingly killing a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. In March 2001, Clark was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state hospital for treatment, but two years later the same trial court found his competence restored and ordered him to be tried. Clark waived his right to a jury, and the case was heard by the court.
At trial, Clark did not contest the shooting and death, but relied on his undisputed paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the incident in denying that he had the specific intent to shoot a law enforcement officer or knowledge that he was doing so, as required by the statute. Accordingly, the prosecutor offered circumstantial evidence that Clark knew Officer Moritz was a law enforcement officer. The evidence showed that the officer was in uniform at the time, that he caught up with Clark in a marked police car with emergency lights and siren going, and that Clark acknowledged the symbols of police authority and stopped. The testimony for the prosecution indicated that Clark had intentionally lured an officer to the scene to kill him, having told some people a few weeks before the incident that he wanted to shoot police officers. At the close of the State’s evidence, the trial court denied Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to prove intent to kill a law enforcement officer or knowledge that Officer Moritz was a law enforcement officer.
In presenting the defense case, Clark claimed mental illness, which he sought to introduce for two purposes. First, he raised the affirmative defense of insanity, putting the burden on himself to prove by clear and convincing evidence, § 13-502(C) (West 2001), that “at the time of the commission of the criminal act [he] was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that [he] did not know the criminal act was wrong,” §13-502(A). Second, he aimed to rebut the prosecution’s evidence of the requisite mens rea, that he had acted intentionally or knowingly to kill a law enforcement officer. See, e. g., Record in No. CR 2000-538 (Ariz. Super. Ct.), Doc. 374 (hereinafter Record).
The trial court ruled that Clark could not rely on evidence bearing on insanity to dispute the mens rea. The court cited State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 931 P. 2d 1046, cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1234 (1997), which “refused to allow psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent,” 187 Ariz., at 541, 931 P. 2d, at 1051, and held that “Arizona does not allow evidence of a defendant’s mental disorder short of insanity... to negate the mens rea element of a crime,” ibid
As to his insanity, then, Clark presented testimony from classmates, school officials, and his family describing his increasingly bizarre behavior over the year before the shooting. Witnesses testified, for example, that paranoid delusions led Clark to rig a fishing line with beads and wind chimes at home to alert him to intrusion by invaders, and to keep a bird in his automobile to warn of airborne poison. There was lay and expert testimony that Clark thought Flagstaff was populated with “aliens” (some impersonating government agents), the “aliens” were trying to kill him, and bullets were the only way to stop them. A psychiatrist testified that Clark was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with delusions about “aliens” when he killed Officer Moritz, and he concluded that Clark was incapable of luring the officer or understanding right from wrong and that he was thus insane at the time of the killing. In rebuttal, a psychiatrist for the State gave his opinion that Clark’s paranoid schizophrenia did not keep him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct, as shown by his actions before and after the shooting (such as circling the residential block with music blaring as if to lure the police to intervene, evading the police after the shooting, and hiding the gun).
At the close of the defense case consisting of this evidence bearing on mental illness, the trial court denied Clark’s renewed motion for a directed verdict grounded on failure of the prosecution to show that Clark knew the victim was a police officer. The judge then issued a special verdict of first-degree murder, expressly finding that Clark shot and caused the death of Officer Moritz beyond a reasonable doubt and that Clark had not shown that he was insane at the time. The judge noted that though Clark was indisputably afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the shooting, the mental illness “did not... distort his perception of reality so severely that he did not know his actions were wrong.” App. 334. For this conclusion, the judge expressly relied on “the facts of the crime, the evaluations of the experts, [Clark’s] actions and behavior both before and after the shooting, and the observations of those that knew [Clark].” Id., at 333. The sentence was life imprisonment without the possibility of release for 25 years.
Clark moved to vacate the judgment and sentence, arguing, among other things, that Arizona’s insanity test and its Mott rule each violate due process. As to the insanity standard, Clark claimed (as he had argued earlier) that the Arizona Legislature had impermissibly narrowed its standard in 1993 when it eliminated the first part of the two-part insanity test announced in M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843). The court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed Clark’s conviction, treating the conclusion on sanity as supported by enough evidence to withstand review for abuse of discretion, and holding the State’s insanity scheme consistent with due process. App. 336. As to the latter, the Court of Appeals reasoned that there is no constitutional requirement to recognize an insanity defense at all, the bounds of which are left to the State’s discretion. Beyond that, the appellate court followed Mott, reading it as barring the trial court’s consideration of evidence of Clark’s mental illness and capacity directly on the element of mens rea. The Supreme Court of Arizona denied further review.
We granted certiorari to decide whether due process prohibits Arizona from thus narrowing its insanity test or from excluding evidence of mental illness and incapacity due to mental illness to rebut evidence of the requisite criminal intent. 546 U. S. 1060 (2005). We now affirm.
II
Clark first says that Arizona’s definition of insanity, being only a fragment of the Victorian standard from which it derives, violates due process. The landmark English rule in M’Naghten’s Case, supra, states that
“the jurors ought to be told... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” Id., at 210, 8 Eng. Rep., at 722.
The first part asks about cognitive capacity: whether a mental defect leaves a defendant unable to understand what he is doing. The second part presents an ostensibly alternative basis for recognizing a defense of insanity understood as a lack of moral capacity: whether a mental disease or defect leaves a defendant unable to understand that his action is wrong.
When the Arizona Legislature first codified an insanity rule, it adopted the full M’Naghten statement (subject to modifications in details that do not matter here):
“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct the person was suffering from such a mental disease or defect as not to know the nature and quality of the act or, if such person did know, that such person did not know that what he was doing was wrong.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-502 (West 1978).
In 1993, the legislature dropped the cognitive incapacity part, leaving only moral incapacity as the nub of the stated definition. See 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 256, §§ 2—3. Under current Arizona law, a defendant will not be adjudged insane unless he demonstrates that “at the time of the commission of the criminal act [he] was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that [he] did not know the criminal act was wrong,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-502(A) (West 2001).
A
Clark challenges the 1993 amendment excising the express reference to the cognitive incapacity element. He insists that the side-by-side M’Naghten test represents the minimum that a government must provide in recognizing an alternative to criminal responsibility on grounds of mental illness or defect, and he argues that elimination of the M’Naghten reference to nature and quality “ ‘offends [a] principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,’” Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 202 (1977) (quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 523 (1958)); see also Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 798 (1952).
The claim entails no light burden, see Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U. S. 37, 43 (1996) (plurality opinion), and Clark does not carry it. History shows no deference to M’Naghten that could elevate its formula to the level of fundamental principle, so as to limit the traditional recognition of a State’s capacity to define crimes and defenses, see Patterson, supra, at 210; see also Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U. S. 71, 96 (1992) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
Even a cursory examination of the traditional Anglo-American approaches to insanity reveals significant differences among them, with four traditional strains variously combined to yield a diversity of American standards. The main variants are the cognitive incapacity, the moral incapacity, the volitional incapacity, and the product-of-mental-illness tests. The first two emanate from the alternatives stated in the M’Naghten rule. The volitional incapacity or irresistible-impulse test, which surfaced over two centuries ago (first in England, then in this country), asks whether a person was so lacking in volition due to a mental defect or illness that he could not have controlled his actions. And the product-of-mental-illness test was used as early as 1870, and simply asks whether a person’s action was a product of a mental disease or defect. Seventeen States and the Federal Government have adopted a recognizable version of the M’Naghten test with both its cognitive incapacity and moral incapacity components. One State has adopted only M’Naghten’s cognitive incapacity test, and 10 (including Arizona) have adopted the moral incapacity test alone. Fourteen jurisdictions, inspired by the Model Penal Code, have in place an amalgam of the volitional incapacity test and some variant of the moral incapacity test, satisfaction of either (generally by showing a defendant’s substantial lack of capacity) being enough to excuse. Three States combine a full M’Naghten test with a volitional incapacity formula. And New Hampshire alone stands by the product-of-mental-illness test. The alternatives are multiplied further by variations in the prescribed insanity verdict: a significant number of these jurisdictions supplement the traditional “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict with an alternative of “guilty but mentally ill.” Finally, four States have no affirmative insanity defense, though one provides for a “guilty and mentally ill” verdict. These four, like a number of others that recognize an affirmative insanity defense, allow consideration of evidence of mental illness directly on the element of mens rea defining the offense.
With this varied background, it is clear that no particular formulation has evolved into a baseline for due process, and that the insanity rule, like the conceptualization of criminal offenses, is substantially open to state choice. Indeed, the legitimacy of such choice is the more obvious when one considers the interplay of legal concepts of mental illness or deficiency required for an insanity defense, with the medical concepts of mental abnormality that influence the expert opinion testimony by psychologists and psychiatrists commonly introduced to support or contest insanity claims. For medical definitions devised to justify treatment, like legal ones devised to excuse from conventional criminal responsibility, are subject to flux and disagreement. See infra, at 774-775; cf. Leland, 343 U. S., at 800-801 (no due process violation for adopting the M’Naghten standard rather than the irresistible-impulse test because scientific knowledge does not require otherwise and choice of test is a matter of policy). There being such fodder for reasonable debate about what the cognate legal and medical tests should be, due process imposes no single canonical formulation of legal insanity.
B
Nor does Arizona’s abbreviation of the M’Naghten statement raise a proper claim that some constitutional minimum has been shortchanged. Clark’s argument of course assumes that Arizona’s former statement of the M’Naghten rule, with its express alternative of cognitive incapacity, was constitutionally adequate (as we agree). That being so, the abbreviated rule is no less so, for cognitive incapacity is relevant under that statement, just as it was under the more extended formulation, and evidence going to cognitive incapacity has the same significance under the short form as it had under the long.
Though Clark is correct that the application of the moral incapacity test (telling right from wrong) does not necessarily require evaluation of a defendant’s cognitive capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of the acts charged against him, see Brief for Petitioner 46-47, his argument fails to recognize that cognitive incapacity is itself enough to demonstrate moral incapacity. Cognitive incapacity, in other words, is a sufficient condition for establishing a defense of insanity, albeit not a necessary one. As a defendant can therefore make out moral incapacity by demonstrating cognitive incapacity, evidence bearing on whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of his actions is both relevant and admissible. In practical terms, if a defendant did not know what he was doing when he acted, he could not have known that he was performing the wrongful act charged as a crime. Indeed, when the two-part rule was still in effect, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a jury instruction on insanity containing the moral incapacity part but not a full recitation of the cognitive incapacity part was fine, as the cognitive incapacity part might be “‘treated as adding nothing to the requirement that the accused know his act was wrong.’” State v. Chavez, 143 Ariz. 238, 239, 693 P. 2d 893, 894 (1984) (quoting A. Goldstein, The Insanity Defense 50 (1967)).
The Court of Appeals of Arizona acknowledged as much in this case, too, see App. 350 (“It is difficult to imagine that a defendant who did not appreciate the ‘nature and quality’ of the act he committed would reasonably be able to perceive that the act was ‘wrong’ ”), and thus aligned itself with the long-accepted understanding that the cognitively incapacitated are a subset of the morally incapacitated within the meaning of the standard M’Naghten rule, see, e. g., Goldstein, supra, at 51 (“In those situations where the accused does not know the nature and quality of his act, in the broad sense, he will not know that it was wrong, no matter what construction ‘wrong’ is given”); 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 7.2(b)(3), p. 536 (2d ed. 2003) (“Many courts feel that knowledge of ‘the nature and quality of the act’ is the mere equivalent of the ability to know that the act was wrong” (citing cases)); id., § 7.2(b)(4), at 537 (“If the defendant does not know the nature and quality of his act, then quite obviously he does not know that his act is ‘wrong,’ and this is true without regard to the interpretation given to the word ‘wrong’”); cf. 1 R. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 502-7, n. 1 (2d ed. 1993).
Clark, indeed, adopted this very analysis himself in the trial court: “[I]f [Clark] did not know he was shooting at a police officer, or believed he had to shoot or be shot, even though his belief was not based in reality, this would establish that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.” Record, Doc. 374, at 1. The trial court apparently agreed, for the judge admitted Clark’s evidence of cognitive incapacity for consideration under the State’s moral incapacity formulation. And Clark can point to no evidence bearing on insanity that was excluded. His psychiatric expert and a number of lay witnesses testified to his delusions, and this evidence tended to support a description of Clark as lacking the capacity to understand that the police officer was a human being. There is no doubt that the trial judge considered the evidence as going to an issue of cognitive capacity, for in finding insanity not proven he said that Clark’s mental illness “did not... distort his perception of reality so severely that he did not know his actions were wrong,” App. 334.
We are satisfied that neither in theory nor in practice did Arizona’s 1993 abridgment of the insanity formulation deprive Clark of due process.
Ill
Clark’s second claim of a due process violation challenges the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 931 P. 2d 1046, cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1234 (1997). This case ruled on the admissibility of testimony from a psychologist offered to show that the defendant suffered from battered women’s syndrome and therefore lacked the capacity to form the mens rea of the crime charged against her. The opinion variously referred to the testimony in issue as “psychological testimony,” 187 Ariz., at 541, 931 P. 2d, at 1051, and “expert testimony,” ibid., and implicitly equated it with “expert psychiatric evidence,” id., at 540, 931 P. 2d, at 1050 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “psychiatric testimony,” id., at 541, 931 P. 2d, at 1051. The state court held that testimony of a professional psychologist or psychiatrist about a defendant’s mental incapacity owing to mental disease or defect was admissible, and could be considered, only for its bearing on an insanity defense; such evidence could not be considered on the element of mens rea, that is, what the State must show about a defendant’s mental state (such as intent or understanding) when he performed the act charged against him. See id., at 541, 544, 931 P. 2d, at 1051, 1054.
A
Understanding Clark’s claim requires attention to the categories of evidence with a potential bearing on mens rea. First, there is “observation evidence” in the everyday sense, testimony from those who observed what Clark did and heard what he said; this category would also include testimony that an expert witness might give about Clark’s tendency to think in a certain way and his behavioral characteristics. This evidence may support a professional diagnosis of mental disease and in any event is the kind of evidence that can be relevant to show what in fact was on Clark’s mind when he fired the gun. Observation evidence in the record covers Clark’s behavior at home and with friends, his expressions of belief around the time of the killing that “aliens” were inhabiting the bodies of local people (including government agents), his driving around the neighborhood before the police arrived, and so on. Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, see post, at 782 (opinion of Kennedy, J.), observation evidence can be presented by either lay or expert witnesses.
Second, there is “mental-disease evidence” in the form of opinion testimony that Clark suffered from a mental disease with features described by the witness. As was true here, this evidence characteristically but not always comes from professional psychologists or psychiatrists who testify as expert witnesses and base their opinions in part on examination of a defendant, usually conducted after the events in question. The thrust of this evidence was that, based on factual reports, professional observations, and tests, Clark was psychotic at the time in question, with a condition that fell within the category of schizophrenia.
Third, there is evidence we will refer to as “capacity evidence” about a defendant’s capacity for cognition and moral judgment (and ultimately also his capacity to form mens rea). This, too, is opinion evidence. Here, as it usually does, this testimony came from the same experts and concentrated on those specific details of the mental condition that make the difference between sanity and insanity under the Arizona definition. In their respective testimony on these details the experts disagreed: the defense expert gave his opinion that the symptoms or effects of the disease in Clark’s case included inability to appreciate the nature of his action and to tell that it was wrong, whereas the State’s psychiatrist was of the view that Clark was a schizophrenic who was still sufficiently able to appreciate the reality of shooting the officer and to know that it was wrong to do that.
A caveat about these categories is in order. They attempt to identify different kinds of testimony offered in this case in terms of explicit and implicit distinctions made in Mott. What we can say about these categories goes to their cores, however, not their margins. Exact limits have thus not been worked out in any Arizona law that has come to our attention, and in this case, neither the courts in their rulings nor counsel in objections invoked or required precision in applying the Mott rule’s evidentiary treatment, as we explain below. Necessarily, then, our own decision can address only core issues, leaving for other cases any due process claims that may be raised about the treatment of evidence whose categorization is subject to dispute.
B
It is clear that Mott itself imposed no restriction on considering evidence of the first sort, the observation evidence. We read the Mott restriction to apply, rather, to evidence addressing the two issues in testimony that characteristically comes only from psychologists or psychiatrists qualified to give opinions as exp'ert witnesses: mental-disease evidence (whether at the time of the crime a defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, such as schizophrenia) and capacity evidence (whether the disease or defect left him incapable of performing or experiencing a mental process defined as necessary for sanity such as appreciating the nature and quality of his act and knowing that it was wrong).
Mott was careful to distinguish this kind of opinion evidence from observation evidence generally and even from observation evidence that an expert witness might offer, such as descriptions of a defendant’s tendency to think in a certain way or his behavioral characteristics; the Arizona court made it clear that this sort of testimony was perfectly admissible to rebut the prosecution’s evidence of mens rea, 187 Ariz., at 544, 931 P. 2d, at 1054. Thus, only opinion testimony going to mental defect or disease, and its effect on the cognitive or moral capacities on which sanity depends under the Arizona rule, is restricted.
In this case, the trial court seems to have applied the Mott restriction to all evidence offered by Clark for the purpose of showing what he called his inability to form the required mens rea, see, e.g., Record, Doc. 406, at 7-10 (that is, an intent to kill a police officer on duty, or an understanding that he was engaging in the act of killing such an officer, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1105(A)(3) (West Supp. 2005)). Thus, the trial court’s restriction may have covered not only mental-disease and capacity evidence as just defined, but also observation evidence offered by lay (and expert) witnesses who described Clark’s unusual behavior. Clark’s objection to the application of the Mott rule does not, however, turn on the distinction between lay and expert witnesses or the kinds of testimony they were competent to present.
C
There is some, albeit limited, disagreement between the dissent and ourselves about the scope of the claim of error properly before us. To start with matters of agreement, all Members of the Court agree that Clark’s general attack on the Mott rule covers its application in confining consideration of capacity evidence to the insanity defense.
In practical terms, our agreement on issues presented extends to a second point. Justice Kennedy understands that Clark raised an objection to confining mental-disease evidence to the insanity issue. As he sees it, Clark in effect claimed that in dealing with the issue of mens rea the trial judge should have considered expert testimony on what may characteristically go through the mind of a schizophrenic, when the judge considered what in fact was in Clark’s mind at the time of the shooting. See post, at 783 (dissenting opinion) (“[T]he opinion that Clark had paranoid schizophrenia—an opinion shared by experts for both the prosecution and defense—bears on efforts to determine, as a factual matter, whether he knew he was killing a police officer”). He thus understands that defense counsel claimed a right to rebut the State’s mens rea demonstration with testimony about how schizophrenics may hallucinate voices and other sounds, about their characteristic failure to distinguish the content of their imagination from what most people perceive as exterior reality, and so on. It is important to be clear that this supposed objection was not about dealing with testimony based on observation of Clark showing that he had auditory hallucinations when he was driving around, or failed in fact to appreciate objective reality when he shot; this objection went to use of testimony about schizophrenics, not about Clark in particular. While we might dispute how clearly Clark raised this objection, we have no doubt that the objection falls within a general challenge to the Mott rule; we understand that Mott is meant to confine to the insanity defense any consideration of characteristic behavior associated with mental disease, see 187 Ariz., at 544, 931 P. 2d, at 1054 (contrasting State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P. 2d 580 (1981), and State v. Gonzales, 140 Ariz. 349, 681 P. 2d 1368 (1984)). We will therefore assume for argument that Clark raised this claim, as we consider the due process challenge to the Mott rule.
The point on which we disagree with the dissent, however, is this: did Clark apprise the Arizona courts that he believed the trial judge had erroneously limited the consideration of observation evidence, whether from lay witnesses like Clark’s mother or (possibly) the expert witnesses who observed him? This sort of evidence was not covered by the Mott restriction, and confining it to the insanity issue would have been an erroneous application of Mott as a matter of Arizona law. For the following reasons we think no such objection was made in a way the Arizona courts could have understood it, and that no such issue is before us now. We think the only issue properly before us is the challenge to Mott on due process grounds, comprising objections to limits on the use of mental-disease and capacity evidence.
It is clear that the trial judge intended to apply Mott:
“[R]ecognizing that much of the evidence that [the defense is] going to be submitting, in fact all of it, as far as I know... that has to do with the insanity could also arguably be made along the lines of the Mott issues as to form and intent and his capacity for the intent. I’m going to let you go ahead and get all that stuff in because it goes to the insanity issue and because we’re not in front of a jury. At the end, I’ll let you make an offer of proof as to the intent, the Mott issues, but I still think the supreme court decision is the law of the land in this state.” App. 9.
At no point did the trial judge specify any particular evidence that he refused to consider on the mens rea issue. Nor did defense counsel specify any observation or other particular evidence that he claimed was admissible but wrongly excluded on the issue of mens rea, so as to produce a clearer ruling on what evidence was being restricted on the authority of Mott and what was not. He made no “offer of proof” in the trial court; and although his brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals stated at one point that it was not inconsistent with Mott to consider nonexpert evidence indicating mental illness on the issue of mens rea, and argued that the trial judge had failed to do so, Appellant’s Opening Brief in No. 1CA-CR-03-0851 etc., pp. 48-49 (hereinafter Appellant’s Opening Brief), he was no more specific than that, see, e. g., id., at 52 (“The Court’s ruling in Mott and the trial court’s refusal to consider whether as a result of suffering from paranoid schizophrenia [Clark] could not formulate the mens rea necessary for first degree murder violated his right to due process”). Similarly, we read the Arizona Court of Appeals to have done nothing more than rely on Mott to reject the claim that due process forbids restricting evidence bearing on “[ajbility to [florm [m]ens [r]ea,” App. 351 (emphasis in original), (i. e., mental-disease and capacity evidence) to the insanity determination. See id., at 351-353.
This failure in the state courts to raise any clear claim about observation evidence, see Appellant’s Opening Brief 46-52, is reflected in the material addressed to us, see Brief for Petitioner 13-32. In this Court both the question presented and the following statement of his position were couched in similarly worded general terms:
“I. ERIC WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF HIS SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS IN DETERMINING FACTUALLY WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE MENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.” Id., at 13.
But as his counsel made certain beyond doubt in his reply brief,
“Eric’s Point I is and always has been an attack on the rule of State v. Mott, which both courts below held applicable and binding. Mott announced a categorical ‘rejection of the use of psychological testimony to challenge the mens rea element of a crime,’ and upheld this rule against federal due process challenge.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 2 (citations omitted).
This explanation is supported by other statements in Clark’s briefs in both the State Court of Appeals and this Court, replete with the consistently maintained claim that it was error to limit evidence of mental illness and incapacity to its bearing on the insanity defense, excluding it from consideration on the element of mens rea. See, e. g., Appellant’s Opening Brief 46,47,51; Brief for Petitioner 11,13,16,20-23.
In sum, the trial court’s ruling, with its uncertain edges, may have restricted observation evidence admissible on mens rea to the insanity defense alone, but we cannot be sure. But because a due process challenge to such a restriction of observation evidence was, by our measure, neither pressed nor passed upon in the Arizona Court of Appeals, we do not consider it. See, e. g., Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U. S. 730, 747, n. 22 (1987); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 217-224 (1983). What we do know, and now consider, is Clark’s claim that Mott denied due process because it “preclude [dj Eric from contending that...factual inferences” of the “mental states which were necessary elements of the crime charged” “should not be drawn because the behavior was explainable, instead, as a manifestation of his chronic paranoid schizophrenia.” Brief for Petitioner 13 (emphasis in original). We consider the claim, as Clark otherwise puts it, that “Arizona’s prohibition of ‘diminished capacity’ evidence by criminal defendants violates” due process, ibid.
D
Clark’s argument that the Mott rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process turns on the application of the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, the presumption of sanity, and the principle that a criminal defendant is entitled to present relevant and favorable evidence on an element of the offense charged against him.
1
The first presumption is that a defendant is innocent unless and until the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense charged, see Patterson, 432 U. S., at 210-211; In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361-364 (1970), including the mental element or mens rea. Before the last century, the mens rea required to be proven for particular offenses was often described in general terms like “malice,” see, e. g., In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481 (1897); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *21 (“[A]n unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all”), but the modern tendency has been toward more specific descriptions, as shown in the Arizona statute defining the murder charged against Clark: the State had to prove that in acting to kill the victim, Clark intended to kill a law enforcement officer on duty or knew that the victim was such an officer on duty. See generally Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, 1993 Utah L. Rev. 635. As applied to mens rea (and every other element), the force of the presumption of innocence is measured by the force of the showing needed to overcome it, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s state of mind was in fact what the charge states. See Winship, supra, at 361-363.
2
The presumption of sanity is equally universal in some variety or other, being (at least) a presumption that a defendant has the capacity to form the mens rea necessary for a verdict of guilt and the consequent criminal responsibility. See Leland, 343 U. S., at 799; Davis v. United States, 160 U. S
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as Follows :
1. Each item of property in question in this case as to which a last-known, address of the person entitled thereto is shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by the State of that last-known address, as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially.
2. Each item of property in question in this case as to which there is no address of the person entitled thereto shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of any other State to recover such property from New Jersey upon proof that the last-known address of the creditor was within that other State’s borders.
3. Each item of property in question in this case as to which the last-known address of the person entitled thereto as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is in a State, the laws of which do not provide for the escheat of such property, is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of the State of the last-known address to recover the property from New Jersey if and when the law of the State of the last-known address makes provision for escheat or custodial taking of such property.
4. Any relief prayed for by any party to this action which is not hereby granted is denied.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether the Seventh Amendment guaranteed petitioner a right to a jury trial on both liability and amount of penalty in an action instituted by the Federal Government seeking civil penalties and injunc-tive relief under the Clean Water Act, 62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et sea.
I — I
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharging, without a permit, dredged or fill material into “navigable waters,” including the wetlands adjacent to the waters. 33 U. S. C. §§1311, 1344, and 1362(7); 33 CFR §§323.2(a)(1)-(7) (1986). “Wetlands” are “swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” 33 CFR § 323.2(c) (1986). The Government sued petitioner, a real estate developer, for dumping fill on wetlands on the island of Chincoteague, Virginia. The Government alleged in the original complaint that petitioner dumped fill on three sites: Ocean Breeze Mobile Homes Sites, Mire Pond Properties, and Eel Creek. The Government later amended the complaint to allege that petitioner also placed fill in a manmade waterway, named Fowling Gut Extended, on the Ocean Breeze property.
Section 1319 enumerates the remedies available under the Clean Water Act. Subsection (b) authorizes relief in the form of temporary or permanent injunctions. Subsection (d) provides that violators of certain sections of the Act “shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day” during the period of the violation. The Government sought in this case both injunctive relief and civil penalties. When the complaint was filed, however, almost all of the property at issue had been sold by petitioner to third parties. Injunctive relief was therefore impractical except with regard to a small portion of the land. App. 110, 119. The Government’s complaint demanded the imposition of the maximum civil penalty of $22,890,000 under subsection (d). App. 31-34.
Petitioner’s timely demand for a trial by jury was denied by the District Court. During the 15-day bench trial, petitioner did not dispute that he had placed fill at the locations alleged and did not deny his failure to obtain a permit. Petitioner contended, however, that the property in question did not constitute “wetlands.” 615 F. Supp. 610, 615-618 (ED Va. 1983). The Government concedes that triable issues of fact were presented by disputes between experts involving the composition and nature of the fillings. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44.
The District Court concluded that petitioner had illegally filled in wetland areas on all properties in question, but drastically reduced the amount of civil penalties sought by the Government. With respect to the Ocean Breeze Mobile Homes Sites, the court imposed a civil fine of $35,000, noting that petitioner had sold seven lots at a profit of $5,000 per lot. 615 F. Supp., at 626. The court fined petitioner another $35,000 for illegal fillings on the Mire Pond Properties, ibid., and $5,000 for filling that affected a single lot in Eel Creek, ibid., although petitioner had realized no profit from filling in these properties. In addition, the court imposed on petitioner a $250,000 fine to be suspended, however, “on the specific condition that he restore the extension of Fowling Gut to its former navigable condition . . . .” Id., at 627. Although petitioner argued that such restoration required purchasing the land from third parties at a cost of over $700,000, thus leaving him no choice but to pay the fine, the court refused to alter this order. App. 107a-108a. The court also granted separate injunctive relief: it ordered the restoration of wetlands on the portions of Mire Pond and Eel Creek still owned by petitioner, 615 F. Supp., at 627, and further ordered the removal of fillings on five lots of the Ocean Breeze Mobile Home Sites unless petitioner were granted an “after-the-fact permit” validating the fillings. Id., at 626.
The Court of Appeals affirmed over a dissent, rejecting petitioner’s argument that, under the Seventh Amendment, he was entitled to a jury trial. 769 F. 2d 182 (CA4 1985). The court expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. J. B. Williams Co., 498 F. 2d 414 (1974), which held that there was a Seventh Amendment “ ‘right of jury trial when the United States sues ... to collect a [statutory civil] penalty, even though the statute is silent on the right of jury trial.’” 498 F. 2d, at 422-423 (quoting 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶38.-31[1], pp. 232-233 (2d ed. 1971)). The Court of Appeals in this case also found unpersuasive the dictum in Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, 115 (1909), and in United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37, 46-47 (1914), that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee applies to civil actions to collect a civil penalty. The court concluded that, while in Hepner and Regan the civil penalties were statutorily prescribed fixed amounts, the District Court in the present case exercised “statutorily conferred equitable power in determining the amount of the fine.” 769 F. 2d, at 187. The Court of Appeals also noted that the District Court fashioned a “ ‘package’ of remedies” containing both equitable and legal relief with “one part of the package affecting assessment of the others.” Ibid.
In Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, 449, n. 6 (1977), we explicitly declined to decide whether the dictum of Hepner and Regan “correctly divines the intent of the Seventh Amendment.” To resolve this question and the conflict between Circuits, we granted certiorari. 476 U. S. 1139 (1986). We reverse.
II
The Seventh Amendment provides that, “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . . .” The Court has construed this language to require a jury trial on the merits in those actions that are analogous to “Suits at common law.” Prior to the Amendment’s adoption, a jury trial was customary in suits brought in the English law courts. In contrast, those actions that are analogous to 18th-century cases tried in courts of equity or admiralty do not require a jury trial. See Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 (1830). This analysis applies not only to common-law forms of action, but also to causes of action created by congressional enactment. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 193 (1974).
To determine whether a statutory action is more similar to cases that were tried in courts of law than to suits tried in courts of equity or admiralty, the Court must examine both the nature of the action and of the remedy sought. First, we compare the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. See, e. g., Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363, 378 (1974); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 477 (1962). Second, we examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature. See, e. g., Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 196; Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531, 542 (1970).
A
Petitioner analogizes this Government suit under § 1319(d) to an action in debt within the jurisdiction of English courts of law. Prior to the enactment of the Seventh Amendment, English courts had held that a civil penalty suit was a particular species of an action in debt that was within the jurisdiction of the courts of law. See, e. g., Atcheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowper 382, 98 Eng. Rep. 1142 (K. B. 1776) (characterizing civil penalty suit as a type of action in debt); Calcraft v. Gibbs, 5 T. R. 19, 101 Eng. Rep. 11 (K. B. 1792) (granting new jury trial in an action in debt for a civil penalty).
After the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, federal courts followed this English common law in treating the civil penalty suit as a particular type of an action in debt, requiring a jury trial. . See, e. g., United States v. Mundell, 27 F. Cas. 23 (No. 15,834) (CC Va. 1795) (bail not required in a civil penalty case tried by a jury because it was an action in debt); Jacob v. United States, 13 F. Cas. 267 (No. 7,157) (CC Va. 1821) (action in debt by United States to recover civil penalty of $500 and costs of violation of an Act of Congress); Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476, 479 (1893) (“[Although the recovery of a penalty is a proceeding criminal in nature, yet in this class of cases it may be enforced in a civil action, and in the same manner that debts are recovered in the ordinary civil courts”)- Actions by the Government to recover civil penalties under statutory provisions therefore historically have been viewed as one type of action in debt requiring trial by jury.
It was against this historical background that the Court in Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103 (1909), considered the propriety of a directed verdict by a District Court Judge in favor of the Government where there was undisputed evidence that a defendant had committed an offense under § 8 of the Alien Immigration Act of 1903, which provided for a $1,000 civil penalty. The Court held that a directed verdict was permissible and did not violate the defendant’s right to a jury- trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court said:
“The objection made in behalf of the defendant, that an affirmative answer to the question certified could be used so as to destroy the constitutional right of trial by jury, is without merit and need not be discussed. The defendant was, of course, entitled to have a jury summoned in this case, but that right was subject to the condition, fundamental in the conduct of civil actions, that the court may withdraw a case from the jury and direct a verdict, according to the law if the evidence is uncon-tradicted and raises only a question of law.” 213 U. S., at 115 (emphasis added).
In United States v. Regan, 232 U. S. 37 (1914), the Court assumed that a jury trial was required in civil penalty actions. In that case, the Court upheld the validity of a jury instruction in an action brought by the Government under the Alien Immigration Act of 1907. The Court stated that the instruction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt was incorrect because:
“While the defendant was entitled to have the issues tried before a jury, this right did not arise from Article III of the Constitution or from the Sixth Amendment, for both relate to prosecutions which are strictly criminal in their nature, but it derives out of the fact that in a civil action of debt involving more than twenty dollars a jury trial is demandable.” 232 U. S., at 47 (citation omitted).
In the instant case, the Government sought penalties of over $22 million for violation of the Clean Water Act and obtained a judgment in the sum of $325,000. This action is clearly analogous to the 18th-century action in debt, and federal courts have rightly assumed that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial.
The Government argues, however, that — rather than an action in debt — the closer historical analog is an action to abate a public nuisance. In 18th-century English law, a public nuisance was “an act or omission ‘which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects.’” W. Prosser, Law of Torts 583 (4th ed. 1971) (hereinafter Prosser) (footnote omitted). The Government argues that the present suit is analogous to two species of public nuisances. One is the suit of the sovereign in the English courts of equity for a “purprestare” to enjoin or order the repair of an enclosure or obstruction of public waterways; the other is the suit of the sovereign to enjoin “offensive trades and manufactures” that polluted the environment. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries * 167.
It is true that the subject matter of this Clean Water Act suit — the placement of fill into navigable waters — resembles these two species of public nuisance. Whether, as the Government argues, a public nuisance action is a better analogy than an action in debt is debatable. But we need not decide the question. As Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S., at 375, cautioned, the fact that the subject matter of a modern statutory action and an 18th-century English action are close equivalents “is irrelevant for Seventh Amendment purposes,” because “that Amendment requires trial by jury in actions unheard of at common law.” It suffices that we conclude that both the public nuisance action and the action in debt are appropriate analogies to the instant statutory action.
The essential function of an action to abate a public nuisance was to provide a civil means to redress “a miscellaneous and diversified group of minor criminal offenses, based on some interference with the interests of the community, or the comfort or convenience of the general public.” Prosser 583. Similarly, the essential function of an action in debt was to recover money owed under a variety of statutes or under the common law. Both of these 18th-century actions, then, could be asserted by the sovereign to seek relief for an injury to the public in numerous contexts.
We need not rest our conclusion on what has been called an “abstruse historical” search for the nearest 18th-century analog. See Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S., at 538, n. 10. We reiterate our previously expressed view that characterizing the relief sought is “[m]ore important” than finding a precisely analogous common-law cause of action in determining whether the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 196.
B
A civil penalty was a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law. Remedies intended to punish culpable individuals, as opposed to those intended simply to extract compensation or restore the status quo, were issued by courts of law, not courts of equity. See, e. g., Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 197 (punitive damages remedy is legal, not equitable, relief); Ross v. Bernhard, supra, at 536 (treble-damages remedy for securities violation is a penalty, which constitutes legal relief). The action authorized by § 1319(d) is of this character. Subsection (d) does not direct that the “civil penalty” imposed be calculated solely on the basis of equitable determinations, such as the profits gained from violations of the statute, but simply imposes a maximum penalty of $10,000 per day of violation. The legislative history of the Act reveals that Congress wanted the district court to consider the need for retribution and deterrence, in addition to restitution, when it imposed civil penalties. 123 Cong. Rec. 39191 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Muskie citing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum outlining enforcement policy). A court can require retribution for wrongful conduct based on the seriousness of the violations, the number of prior violations, and the lack of good-faith efforts to comply with the relevant requirements. Ibid. It may also seek to deter future violations by basing the penalty on its economic impact. Ibid. Subsection 1319(d)’s authorization of punishment to further retribution and deterrence clearly evidences that this subsection reflects more than a concern to provide equitable relief. In the present case, for instance, the District Court acknowledged that petitioner received no profits from filling in properties in Mire Pond and Eel Creek, but still imposed a $35,000 fine. App. to Pet. for Cert. 60a. Thus, the District Court intended not simply to disgorge profits but also to impose punishment. Because the nature of the relief authorized by § 1319(d) was traditionally available only in a court of law, petitioner in this present action is entitled to a jury trial on demand.
The punitive nature of the relief sought in this present case is made apparent by a comparison with the relief sought in an action to abate a public nuisance. A public nuisance action was a classic example of the kind of suit that relied on the injunctive relief provided by courts in equity. Prosser 603. “Injunctive relief [for enjoining a public nuisance at the request of the Government] is traditionally given by equity upon a showing of [peril to health and safety].” Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U. S. 39, 61 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The Government, in fact, concedes that public nuisance cases brought in equity sought injunctive relief, not monetary penalties. Brief for United States 24, n. 17. Indeed, courts in equity refused to enforce such penalties. See James, Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions, 72 Yale L. J. 655, 672 (1963).
The Government contends, however, that a suit enforcing civil penalties under the Clean Water Act is similar to an action for disgorgement of improper profits, traditionally considered an equitable remedy. It bases this characterization upon evidence that the District Court determined the amount of the penalties by multiplying the number of lots sold by petitioner by the profit earned per lot. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. An action for disgorgement of improper profits is, however, a poor analogy. Such an action is a remedy only for restitution — a more limited form of penalty than a civil fine. Restitution is limited to “restoring the status quo and ordering the return of that which rightfully belongs to the purchaser or tenant.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 402 (1946). As the above discussion indicates, however, § 1319(d)’s concerns are by no means limited to restoration of the status quo.
The Government next contends that, even if the civil penalties under § 1319(d) are deemed legal in character, a jury trial is not required. A court in equity was empowered to provide monetary awards that were incidental to or intertwined with injunctive relief. The Government therefore argues that its claim under § 1319(b), which authorizes injunc-tive relief, provides jurisdiction for monetary relief in equity. Brief for United States 38. This argument has at least three flaws. First, while a court in equity may award monetary restitution as an adjunct to injunctive relief, it may not enforce civil penalties. See Porter v. Warner Holding Co., supra, at 399. Second, the Government was aware when it filed suit that relief would be limited primarily to civil penalties, since petitioner had already sold most of the properties at issue. App. 110, 119. A potential penalty of $22 million hardly can be considered incidental to the modest equitable relief sought in this case.
Finally, the Government was free to seek an equitable remedy in addition to, or independent of, legal relief. Section 1319 does not intertwine equitable relief with the imposition of civil penalties. Instead each kind of relief is separably authorized in a separate and distinct statutory provision. Subsection (b), providing injunctive relief, is independent of subsection (d), which provides only for civil penalties. In such a situation, if a “legal claim is joined with an equitable claim, the right to jury trial on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact. The right cannot be abridged by characterizing the legal claim as ‘incidental’ to the equitable relief sought.” Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 196, n. 11. Thus, petitioner has a constitutional right to a jury trial to determine his liability on the legal claims.
I — I I — I I — I
The remaining issue is whether petitioner additionally has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury assessment of the civil penalties. At the time this case was tried, § 1319(d) did not explicitly state whether juries or trial judges were to fix the civil penalties. The legislative history of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act shows, however, that Congress intended that trial judges perform the highly discretionary calculations necessary to award civil penalties after liability is found. 123 Cong. Rec. 39190-39191 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Muskie citing letter from EPA Assistant Administrators of Enforcement of Dec. 14, 1977) (“[Pjenalties assessed by judges should be sufficiently higher than penalties to which the Agency would have agreed in settlement to encourage violators to settle”). We must decide therefore whether Congress can, consistent with the Seventh Amendment, authorize judges to assess civil penalties.
The Seventh Amendment is silent on the question whether a jury must determine the remedy in a trial in which it must determine liability. The answer must depend on whether the jury must shoulder this responsibility as necessary to preserve the “substance of the common-law right of trial by jury.” Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 157 (1973). Is a jury role necessary for that purpose? We do not think so. “ ‘Only those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.’” Id., at 156, n. 11 (quoting Scott, Trial by Jury and the Reform of Civil Procedure, 31 Harv. L. Rev. 669, 671 (1918)). See also Galloway v. United States, 319 U. S. 372, 392 (1943) (“[T]he Amendment was designed to preserve the basic institution of jury trial in only its most fundamental elements”). The assessment of a civil penalty is not one of the “most fundamental elements.” Congress’ authority to fix the penalty by statute has not been questioned, and it was also the British practice, see, e. g., Atcheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowper 382, 98 Eng. Rep. 1142 (K. B. 1776). In the United States, the action to recover civil penalties usually seeks the amount fixed by Congress. See, e. g., United States v. Regan, 232 U. S., at 40; Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S., at 109. The assessment of civil penalties thus cannot be said to involve the “substance of a common-law right to a trial by jury,” nor a “fundamental element of a jury trial.”
Congress’ assignment of the determination of the amount of civil penalties to trial judges therefore does not infringe on the constitutional right to a jury trial. Since Congress itself may fix the civil penalties, it may delegate that determination to trial judges. In this case, highly discretionary calculations that take into account multiple factors are necessary in order to set civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. These are the kinds of calculations traditionally performed by judges. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 442-443 (1975) (Rehnquist, J., concurring). We therefore hold that a determination of a civil penalty is not an essential function of a jury trial, and that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial for that purpose in a civil action.
IV
We conclude that the Seventh Amendment required that petitioner’s demand for a jury trial be granted to determine his liability, but that the trial court and not the jury should determine the amount of penalty, if any. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Additionally, the Government alleged that petitioner’s dumping of fill in Fowling Gut Extended violated another statute, the Rivers and Harbors Act, which prohibits the placement of fill in navigable waters without the authorization of the Secretary of the Army. 33 U. S. C. §403. Petitioner does not base his Seventh Amendment claim on the Government’s prosecution under this statute, which provides for injunctive relief but not for civil penalties.
The Government’s complaint alleged violations involving over 1 million square feet of land. The Government obtained injunctive relief, however, relating to only 6,000 square feet. Brief for Petitioner 5.
Before initiating the inquiry into the applicability of the Seventh Amendment, “[w]e recognize, of course, the ‘cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.’ ” Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192, n. 6 (1974) (citation omitted); see also Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363, 365 (1974). Nothing in the language of the Clean Water Act or its legislative history implies any congressional intent to grant defendants the right to a jury trial during the liability or penalty phase of the civil suit proceedings. Given this statutory silence, we must answer the constitutional question presented.
The Court has also considered the practical limitations of a jury trial and its functional compatibility with proceedings outside of traditional courts of law in holding that the Seventh Amendment is not applicable to administrative proceedings. See, e. g., Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, 454 (1977); Pernell v. Southall Realty, supra, at 383. But the Court has not used these considerations as an independent basis for extending the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Public nuisances included “interferences with the public health, as in the ease of a hogpen, the keeping of diseased animals, or a malarial pond; with the public safety, as in the case of the storage of explosives, the shooting of fireworks in the streets, harboring a vicious dog, or the practice of medicine by one not qualified; with public morals, as in the case of houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, gambling houses, indecent exhibitions, bullfights, unlicensed prize fights, or public profanity; with the publice [sic] peace, as by loud and disturbing noises, or an opera performance which threatens to cause a riot; with the public comfort, as in the case of bad odors, smoke, dust and vibration; with public convenience, as by obstructing a highway or a navigable stream, or creating a condition which makes travel unsafe or highly disagreeable, or the collection of an inconvenient crowd; and in addition, such unclassified offenses as eavesdropping on a jury, or being a common scold.” Prosser 583-585 (footnotes omitted).
The Government contends that both the cause of action and the remedy must be legal in nature before the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches. It divides the Clean Water Act action for civil penalties into a cause of action and a remedy, and analyzes each component as if the other were irrelevant. Thus, the Government proposes that a public nuisance action is the better historical analog for the cause of action, and that an action for disgorgement is the proper analogy for the remedy. We reject this novel approach. Our search is for a single historical analog, taking into consideration the nature of the cause of action and the remedy as two important factors. See Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S., at 375; Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 195-196.
The Government distinguishes this suit from other actions to collect a statutory penalty on the basis that the statutory penalty here is not fixed or readily calculable from a fixed formula. We do not find this distinction to be significant. The more important characteristic of the remedy of civil penalties is that it exacts punishment — a kind of remedy available only in courts of law. Thus, the remedy of civil penalties is similar to the remedy of punitive damages, another legal remedy that is not a fixed fine. See, e. g., Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 189-190 (defendant entitled to jury trial in an action based on a statute authorizing actual damages and punitive damages of not more than $1,000).
When Congress enacted the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, it endorsed the EPA’s then-existing penalty calculation policy. 123 Cong. Rec. 39190-39191 (1977) (remarks of Sen. Muskie). This policy was developed to guide EPA negotiators in reaching settlements with violators of the Act. The policy instructed negotiators to consider a number of factors: the seriousness of the violations, the economic benefits accrued from the violations, prior violations, good-faith efforts to comply with the relevant requirements, and the economic impact of the penalty. After the Court heard argument in this case, § 1319(d) was amended to require the trial court to consider these factors in determining the amount of a civil penalty along with “such other matters as justice may require.” § 313(d), Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 47.
Nothing in the Amendment’s language suggests that the right to a jury trial extends to the remedy phase of a civil trial. Instead, the language “defines the kind of cases for which jury trial is preserved, namely ‘suits at common law.’” Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 152 (1973). Although “ Tw]e have almost no direct evidence concerning the intention of the framers of the seventh amendment itself,’ the historical setting in which the Seventh Amendment was adopted highlighted a controversy that was generated ... by fear that the civil jury itself would be abolished.” Ibid, (footnote and citation omitted). We have been presented with no evidence that the Framers meant to extend the right to a jury to the remedy phase of a civil trial.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to use the record in No. 520, October Term 1962, is granted. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed with respect to the issues of the constitutionality of prayer, and of devotional Bible reading pursuant to a Florida statute, Fla. Stat. (1961) § 231.09, in the public schools of Dade County. School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203. As to the other questions raised, the appeal is dismissed for want of properly presented federal questions. Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U. S. 207, 213-214.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
A Jacksonville, Florida, ordinance accords preferential treatment to certain minority-owned businesses in the award of city contracts. In this case we decide whether, in order to have standing to challenge the ordinance, an association of contractors is required to show that one of its members would have received a contract absent the ordinance. We hold that it is not.
I
A
In 1984, respondent Jacksonville enacted an ordinance entitled “Minority Business Enterprise Participation,” which required that 10% of the amount spent on city contracts be set aside each fiscal year for so-called “Minority Business Enterprises” (MBE’s). City of Jacksonville Purchasing Code §§ 126.604(a), 126.605(a) (1988). An MBE was defined as a business whose ownership was at least 51% “minority” or female, § 126.603(a), and a “minority” was in turn defined as a person who is or considers himself to be black, Spanish-speaking, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, or handicapped, § 126.603(b). Once projects were earmarked for MBE bidding by the city’s chief purchasing officer, they were “deemed reserved for minority business enterprises only.” §§ 126.604(c), 126.605(c). Under the ordinance, “[mjathematical certainty [was] not required in determining the amount of the set aside,” but the chief purchasing officer was required to “make every attempt to come as close as possible to the ten percent figure.” §§ 126.604(a)(4), 126.605(a)(4). Hie ordinance also provided for waiver or reduction of the 10% set-aside under certain circumstances. § 126.608.
Petitioner, the Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), is an association of individuals and firms in the construction industry. Petitioner’s members do business in Jacksonville, and most of them do not qualify as MBE’s under the city’s ordinance. On April 4, 1989, petitioner filed an action, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983, against the city and its mayor (also a respondent here) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Claiming that Jacksonville’s ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (both on its face and as applied), petitioner sought declaratory and injunctive relief. In its complaint, petitioner alleged that many of its members “regularly bid on and perform construction work for the City of Jacksonville,” Complaint ¶ 9, and that they “would have . . . bid on . . . designated set aside contracts but for the restrictions imposed” by the ordinance, id., ¶ 46.
On April 6, 1989, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting the city from implementing the MBE ordinance, and, on April 20, it issued a preliminary injunction. Respondents appealed. Concluding that petitioner had not demonstrated irreparable injury, the Court of Appeals reversed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for an expedited disposition on the merits. 896 F. 2d 1283 (CA11 1990). Chief Judge Tjoflat concurred in the judgment. In his view the suit should have been dismissed for lack of standing, because petitioner’s complaint did not “refer to any specific contract or subcontract that would have been awarded to a non-minority bidder but for the set-aside ordinance.” Id., at 1287.
In the meantime, both petitioner and respondents had moved for summary judgment. On May 31, 1990, the District Court entered summary judgment for petitioner, concluding that the MBE ordinance was inconsistent with the equal protection criteria established by this Court in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469 (1989). Once again respondents appealed, and once again they obtained a favorable ruling. 951 F. 2d 1217 (1992). Rather than addressing the merits of petitioner’s equal protection claim, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner “lacks standing to challenge the ordinance establishing the set-aside program,” id., at 1218, because it “has not demonstrated that, but for the program, any AGC member would have bid successfully for any of these contracts,” id., at 1219. The Court of Appeals accordingly vacated the District Court’s judgment, and remanded the ease with instructions to dismiss petitioner’s complaint without prejudice.
Because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision conflicts with decisions of the District of Columbia Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, see O’Donnell Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia, 295 U. S. App. D. C. 317, 320, 963 F. 2d 420, 423 (1992); Coral Constr. Co. v. King County, 941 F. 2d 910, 930 (CA9 1991), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1033 (1992), we granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 813 (1992).
B
On October 27, 1992, 22 days after our grant of certiorari, the city repealed its MBE ordinance and replaced it with an ordinance entitled “African-American and Women’s Business Enterprise Participation,” which became effective the next day. This ordinance differs from the repealed ordinance in three principal respects. First, unlike the prior ordinance, which applied to women and members of seven different minority groups, the new ordinance applies only to women and blacks. Jacksonville Purchasing Code § 126.601(b) (1992). Second, rather than a 10% “set aside,” the new ordinance has established "participation goals” ranging from 5 to 16%, depending upon the type of contract, the ownership of the contractor, and the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded. § 126.604. Third, the new ordinance provides not one but five alternative methods for achieving the “participation goals.” • §§ 126.605, 126.618. Which of these methods the city will use is decided on a “project by project basis,” § 126.605, but one of them, the “Sheltered Market Plan,” is (apart from the percentages) virtually identical to the prior ordinance’s “set aside.” Under this plan, certain contracts are reserved “for the exclusive competition” of certified black- and female-owned businesses. § 126.605(b).
Claiming that there was no longer a live controversy with respect to the constitutionality of the repealed ordinance, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot on November 18, 1992. We denied that motion on December 14. 506 U. S. 1031 (1992).
II
In their brief on the merits, respondents reassert their claim that the repeal of the challenged ordinance renders the case moot. We decline to disturb our earlier ruling, however; now, as then, the mootness question is controlled by City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283 (1982), where we applied the “well settled” rule that “a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” Id., at 289. Although the challenged statutory language at issue in City of Mesquite had been eliminated while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, we held that the case was not moot, because the defendant’s “repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court’s judgment were vacated.” Ibid.
This is an a fortiori case. There is no mere risk that Jacksonville will repeat its allegedly wrongful conduct; it has already done so. Nor does it matter that the new ordinance differs in certain respects from the old one. City of Mesquite does not stand for the proposition that it is only the possibility that the selfsame statute will be enacted that prevents a case from being moot; if that were the rule, a defendant could moot a case by repealing the challenged statute and replacing it with one that differs only in some insignificant respect. The gravamen of petitioner’s complaint is that its members are disadvantaged in their efforts to obtain city contracts. The new ordinance may disadvantage them to a lesser degree than the old one, but insofar as it accords preferential treatment to black- and female-owned contractors— and, in particular, insofar as its “Sheltered Market Plan” is a “set aside” by another name — it disadvantages them in the same fundamental way.
We hold that the case is not moot, and we now turn to the question on which we granted certiorari: whether petitioner has standing to challenge Jacksonville’s ordinance.
Ill
The doctrine of standing is “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III,” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992), which itself “defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded,” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). It has been established by a long line of cases that a party seeking to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction must demonstrate three things: (1) “injury in fact,” by which we mean an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, Lujan, supra, at 560 (citations, footnote, and internal quotation marks omitted); (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, by which we mean that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant,” and has not resulted “from the independent action of some third party not before the court,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976); and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, by which we mean that the “prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling” is not “too speculative,” Allen v. Wright, supra, at 752. These elements are the “irreducible minimum,” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982), required by the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals held that petitioner could not establish standing because it failed to allege that one or more of its members would have been awarded a contract but for the challenged ordinance. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals concluded, there is no “injury.” 951 F. 2d, at 1219-1220. This holding cannot be reconciled with our precedents.
A
In Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346 (1970), a Georgia law limiting school board membership to property owners was challenged on equal protection grounds. We held that a plaintiff who did not own property had standing to challenge the law, id., at 361, n. 23, and although we did not say so explicitly, our holding did not depend upon an allegation that he would have been appointed to the board but for the property requirement. All that was necessary was that the plaintiff wished to be considered for the position. Accord, Quinn v. Millsap, 491 U. S. 95, 103 (1989) (plaintiffs who do not own real property have standing to challenge property requirement for membership on “board of freeholders”).
We confronted a similar issue in Clements v. Fashing, 457 U. S. 957 (1982). There, a number of officeholders claimed that their equal protection rights were violated by the “automatic resignation” provision of the Texas Constitution, which requires the immediate resignation of some (but not all) state officeholders upon their announcement of a candidacy for another office. Noting that the plaintiffs had alleged that they would have announced their candidacy were it not for the consequences of doing so, we rejected the claim that the dispute was “merely hypothetical,” and that the allegations were insufficient to create an “actual case or controversy.” Id., at 962. Citing Turner v. Fouche, we emphasized that the plaintiffs’ injury was the “obstacle to [their] candidacy,” 457 U. S., at 962 (emphasis added); we did not require any allegation that the plaintiffs would actually have been elected but for the prohibition.
The decision that is most closely analogous to this case, however, is Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978), where a twice-rejected white male applicant claimed that a medical school’s admissions program, which reserved 16 of the 100 places in the entering class for minority applicants, was inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause. Addressing the argument that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the program, Justice Powell concluded that the “constitutional requirements of Art. Ill” had been satisfied, because the requisite “injury” was the medical school’s “decision not to permit Bakke to compete for all 100 places in the class, simply because of his race.” Id., at 281, n. 14 (emphasis added) (principal opinion). Thus, “even if Bakke had been unable to prove that he would have been admitted in the absence of the special program, it would not follow that he lacked standing.” Id., at 280-281, n. 14 (emphasis added). This portion of Justice Powell’s opinion was joined by four other Justices. See id., at 272.
Singly and collectively, these cases stand for the following proposition: When the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege that he would have obtained the benefit but for the barrier in order to establish standing. The “injury in fact” in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. See, e. g., Turner v. Fouche, supra, at 362 (‘We may assume that the [plaintiffs] have no right to be appointed to the ... board of education. But [they] do have a federal constitutional right to be considered for public service without the burden of invidiously discriminatory disqualifications”) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). And in the context of a challenge to a set-aside program, the “injury in fact” is the inability to compete on an equal footing in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract. See Croson, 488 U. S., at 493 (principal opinion of O’Connor, J.) (“The [set-aside program] denies certain citizens the opportunity to compete for a fixed percentage of public contracts based solely upon their race”) (emphasis added). To establish standing, therefore, a party challenging a set-aside program like Jacksonville’s need only demonstrate that it is able and ready to bid on contracts and that a discriminatory policy prevents it from doing so on an equal basis.
B
In urging affirmance, respondents rely primarily upon Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975). There the plaintiffs claimed that a town’s zoning ordinance, both by its terms and as enforced, violated the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as it had the effect of preventing people of low and moderate income from living in the town. Seeking to intervene in the suit, an association of construction firms alleged that the zoning restrictions had deprived some of its members of business opportunities and profits. We held that the association lacked standing, and we provided the following explanation for our holding:
“The complaint refers to no specific project of any of [the association’s] members that is currently precluded either by the ordinance or by respondents’ action in enforcing it. There is no averment that any member has applied to respondents for a building permit or a variance with respect to any current project. Indeed, there is no indication that respondents have delayed or thwarted any project currently proposed by [the association’s] members, or that any of its members has taken advantage of the remedial processes available under the ordinance. In short, insofar as the complaint seeks prospective relief, [the association] has failed to show the existence of any injury to its members of sufficient immediacy and ripeness to warrant judicial intervention.” Id., at 516.
We think Warth is distinguishable. Unlike the other cases that we have discussed, Warth did not involve an allegation that some discriminatory classification prevented the plaintiff from competing on an equal footing in its quest for a benefit. In Turner v. Fouche, Quinn v. Millsap, and Clements v. Fashing, the plaintiffs complained that they could not be considered for public office. And in both Bakke and this case, the allegation was that the plaintiff (or the plaintiff’s membership) was excluded from consideration for a certain portion of benefits — in Bakke, places in a medical school class; here, municipal contracts. In Warth, by contrast, there was no claim that the construction association’s members could not apply for variances and building permits on the same basis as other firms; what the association objected to were the “refusals by the town officials to grant variances and permits.” 422 U. S., at 515 (emphasis added). See also id., at 530 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“[T]he claim is that respondents will not approve any project”) (emphasis deleted). The firms’ complaint, in other words, was not that they could not compete equally; it was that they did not win. Thus, while there is undoubtedly some tension between Warth and the aforementioned line of cases, this case is governed by the latter.
In any event, the tension is minimal. Even assuming that the alleged injury in Warth was an inability to compete for variances and permits on an equal basis, and that Warth, too, is analogous to this case, it is distinguishable nonetheless. Unlike petitioner, which alleged that its members regularly bid on contracts in Jacksonville and would bid on those that the city’s ordinance makes unavailable to them, the construction association in Warth did not allege that “any member ha[d] applied ... for a building permit or a variance with respect to any current project.” Id., at 516. Thus, unlike the association in Warth, petitioner has alleged an “injury... of sufficient immediacy... to warrant judicial intervention.” Ibid. Furthermore, we did not hold in Warth, as the Court of Appeals — mutatis mutandis — did here, that the association was required to allege that but for a discriminatory policy, variances or permits would have been awarded to its members. An allegation that a “specific project” was “precluded” by the existence or administration of the zoning ordinance, ibid., would certainly have been sufficient to establish standing, but there is no suggestion in Warth that it was necessary.
IV
In its complaint, petitioner alleged that its members regularly bid on construction contracts in Jacksonville, and that they would have bid on contracts set aside pursuant to the city’s ordinance were they so able. Complaint ¶¶ 9, 46. Because those allegations have not been challenged (by way of a motion for summary judgment, for example), we must assume that they are true. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1012-1013, n. 3 (1992); Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U. S. 1, 7 (1988). Given that assumption, and given the legal standard we have reaffirmed today, it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to order that petitioner’s complaint be dismissed for lack of standing. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
In their motion for summary judgment, respondents claimed only that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the merits; they did not challenge petitioner’s standing. See 2 Record, Exh. 33.
The four other methods are (1) a “Participation Percentage Plan,” under which contractors are required to subcontract with black- or female-owned businesses, §§ 126.605(a), 126.612; (2) a “Direct Negotiation Plan,” pursuant to which the city engages in “direct negotiations” with black- or female-owned businesses, § 126.605(c); (3) a “Bid Preference Plan,” which provides for the award of a contract to the black- or female-owned business whose bid is within a certain percentage or dollar amount of the lowest bid, § 126.605(d); and (4) an “Impact Plan,” under which “point values” are awarded to black- and female-owned businesses and to businesses that use black- or female-owned subcontractors or suppliers or have a specified employment program for black and female employees, § 126.618.
At bottom, the dissent differs with us only over the question whether the new ordinance is sufficiently similar to the repealed ordinance that it is permissible to say that the challenged conduct continues — or, as the dissent puts it, whether the ordinance has been “sufficiently altered so as to present a substantially different controversy from the one the District Court originally decided.” Posi, at 671. We believe that the ordinance has not been “sufficiently altered”; the dissent disagrees. As for the merits of that disagreement, the short answer to the dissent’s argument that this case is controlled by Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U. S. 412 (1972) (per curiam), and Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379 (1975) — both of which predate City of Mesquite — is that the statutes at issue in those cases were changed substantially, and that there was therefore no basis for concluding that the challenged conduct was being repeated. See Diffenderfer, supra, at 413-414 (“crux of [the] complaint” was that old statute violated Constitution insofar as it authorized tax exemption “for church property used primarily for commercial purposes”; new statute authorized exemption “only if the property is used predominantly for religious purposes”); Fusari, 419 U. S., at 380 (challenged statute was “significantly revised”); id., at 385 (legislature enacted “major revisions” of statute).
Although Bakke came to us from state court, our decision in ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U. S. 605 (1989), does not retroactively render Bakke’s discussion of standing dictum. See Brief for Public Citizen et al. as Amici Curiae 7, n. 4 (suggesting that it might). In ASARCO we held that we had jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court even though the respondents (plaintiffs in the trial court) “had no standing to sue under the principles governing the federal courts,” 490 U. S., at 623, because the petitioners (defendants in the trial court) “allege[d] a specific injury stemming from the state-court decree,” id., at 617. But we did not hold that it was irrelevant whether the state-court plaintiffs met federal standing requirements; instead we made it clear that a determination that the plaintiffs satisfied those requirements would have “obviated any further inquiry.” Id., at 623, n. 2. Thus, while Bakke’s standing was not a necessary condition for our exercise of jurisdiction, it was sufficient.
It follows from our definition of “injury in fact” that petitioner has sufficiently alleged both that the city’s ordinance is the “cause” of its injury and that a judicial decree directing the city to discontinue its program would “redress” the injury.
There has been no suggestion that even if petitioner’s members have standing to sue, petitioner itself does not, because one or more of the prerequisites to "associational standing” have not been satisfied. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977). Nor, given the current state of the record, do we have any basis for reaching that conclusion on our 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:
|
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 ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Wars have often provided "exceptional opportunities" for fraud on the United States Government. See United States v. Smith,342 U.S. 225, 228, 72 S.Ct. 260, 96 L.Ed. 252 (1952). "The False Claims Act was adopted in 1863 and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in order to combat rampant fraud in Civil War defense contracts." S.Rep. No. 99-345, p. 8(1986), 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5273. Predecessors of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act were enacted to address similar problems that arose during the First and Second World Wars. See Smith, supra,at 228-229, 72 S.Ct. 260.
In this case, we must decide two questions regarding those laws: first, whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies only to criminal charges or also to civil claims; second, whether the False Claims Act's first-to-file bar keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive or whether it may bar those claims in perpetuity.
I
A
The False Claims Act (FCA) imposes liability on any person who "knowingly presents ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval," 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), "to an officer or employee of the United States," 3729(b)(2)(A)(i). The FCA may be enforced not just through litigation brought by the Government itself, but also through civil qui tamactions that are filed by private parties, called relators, "in the name of the Government." § 3730(b).
In a qui tamsuit under the FCA, the relator files a complaint under seal and serves the United States with a copy of the complaint and a disclosure of all material evidence. § 3730(b)(2). After reviewing these materials, the United States may "proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Government," or it may "notify the court that it declines to take over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action."§ 3730(b)(4). Regardless of the option that the United States selects, it retains the right at any time to dismiss the action entirely, § 3730(c)(2)(A), or to settle the case, § 3730(c)(2)(B).
The FCA imposes two restrictions on qui tamsuits that are relevant here. One, the "first-to-file" bar, precludes a qui tamsuit "based on the facts underlying [a] pending action." § 3730(b)(5)(emphasis added). The other, the FCA's statute of limitations provision, states that a qui tamaction must be brought within six years of a violation or within three years of the date by which the United States should have known about a violation. In no circumstances, however, may a suit be brought more than 10 years after the date of a violation. § 3731(b).
B
The Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) suspends the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the Federal Government. 18 U.S.C. § 3287. Before 2008, this provision was activated only "[w]hen the United States [was] at war." Ibid. (2006 ed.). In 2008, however, this provision was made to apply as well whenever Congress has enacted "a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces, as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b))." Ibid. (2012 ed.).
II
Petitioners are defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States military during the armed conflict in Iraq. From January to April 2005, respondent worked in Iraq for one of the petitioners as a water purification operator. He subsequently filed a qui tam complaint against petitioners (Carter I), alleging that they had fraudulently billed the Government for water purification services that were not performed or not performed properly. The Government declined to intervene.
In 2010, shortly before trial, the Government informed the parties about an earlier filed qui tam lawsuit, United States ex rel. Thorpe v. Halliburton Co., No. 05-cv-08924 (C.D.Cal., filed Dec. 23, 2005), that arguably contained similar claims. This initiated a remarkable sequence of dismissals and filings.
The District Court held that respondent's suit was related to Thorpeand thus dismissed his case without prejudice under the first-to-file bar. Respondent appealed, and while his appeal was pending, Thorpewas dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent quickly filed a new complaint (Carter II), but the District Court dismissed this second complaint under the first-to-file rule because respondent's own earlier case was still pending on appeal. Respondent then voluntarily dismissed this appeal, and in June 2011, more than six years after the alleged fraud, he filed yet another complaint (Carter III), and it is this complaint that is now at issue.
Petitioners sought dismissal of this third complaint under the first-to-file rule, pointing to two allegedly related cases, one in Maryland and one in Texas, that had been filed in the interim between the filing of Carter Iand Carter III. This time, the court dismissed respondent's complaint with prejudice. The court held that the latest complaint was barred under the first-to-file rule because the Maryland suit was already pending when that complaint was filed. The court also ruled that the WSLA applies only to criminal charges and thus did not suspend the time for filing respondent's civil claims. As a result, the court concluded, all but one of those claims were untimely because they were filed more than six years after the alleged wrongdoing.
The Fourth Circuit reversed, rejecting the District Court's analysis of both the WSLA and first-to-file issues. United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (2013). Concluding that the WSLA applies to civil claims based on fraud committed during the conflict in Iraq,the Court of Appeals held that respondent's claims had been filed on time. The Court of Appeals also held that the first-to-file bar ceases to apply once a related action is dismissed. Since the Maryland and Texas cases had been dismissed by the time of the Fourth Circuit's decision, the court held that respondent had the right to refile his case. The Court of Appeals thus remanded Carter IIIwith instructions to dismiss without prejudice.
After this was done, respondent filed Carter IV, but the District Court dismissed Carter IVon the ground that the petition for a writ of certiorari in Carter III(the case now before us) was still pending.
We granted that petition, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2899, 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014), and we now reverse in part and affirm in part.
III
The text, structure, and history of the WSLA show that the Act applies only to criminal offenses.
A
The WSLA's roots extend back to the time after the end of World War I. Concerned about war-related frauds, Congress in 1921 enacted a statute that extended the statute of limitations for such offenses. The new law provided as follows: "[I]n offenses involving the defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States or any agency thereof ... and now indictable under any existing statutes,the period of limitations shall be six years." Act of Nov. 17, 1921, ch. 124, 42 Stat. 220 (emphasis added). Since only crimes are "indictable," this provision quite clearly was limited to the filing of criminal charges.
In 1942, after the United States entered World War II, Congress enacted a similar suspension statute. This law, like its predecessor, applied to fraud "offenses ... now indictable under any existing statutes," but this time the law suspended "any" "existing statute of limitations" until the fixed date of June 30, 1945. Act of Aug. 24, 1942, ch. 555, 56 Stat. 747-748.
As that date approached, Congress decided to adopt a suspension statute which would remain in force for the duration of the war. Congress amended the 1942 WSLA in three important ways. First, Congress deleted the phrase "now indictable under any statute," so that the WSLA was made to apply simply to "any offense against the laws of the United States." 58 Stat. 667. Second, although previous versions of the WSLA were of definite duration, Congress now suspended the limitations period for the open-ended timeframe of "three years after the termination of hostilities in the present war as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress." Ibid. Third, Congress expanded the statute's coverage beyond offenses "involving defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States" to include other offenses pertaining to Government contracts and the handling and disposal of Government property. Ibid., and § 28, 58 Stat. 781.
Congress made more changes in 1948. From then until 2008, the WSLA's relevant language was as follows:
"When the United States is at war the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not ... shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress." Act of June 25, 1948, § 3287, 62 Stat. 828.
In addition, Congress codified the WSLA in Title 18 of the United States Code, titled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure."
Finally, in 2008, Congress once again amended the WSLA, this time in two relevant ways. First, as noted, Congress changed the Act's triggering event, providing that tolling is available not only "[w]hen the United States is at war," but also when Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of military force. Second, Congress extended the suspension period from three to five years. § 855, 122 Stat. 4545.
B
With this background in mind, we turn to the question whether the WSLA applies to civil claims as well as criminal charges. We hold that the Act applies only to the latter.
We begin with the WSLA's text. The WSLA suspends "the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense ... involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof." 18 U.S.C. § 3287(emphasis added). The term "offense" is most commonly used to refer to crimes. At the time of both the 1948 and 2008 amendments to the Act, the primary definition of "offense" in Black's Law Dictionary referred to crime. Black's Law Dictionary 1110 (8th ed. 2004) (Black's) ("A violation of the law; a crime, often a minor one. See crime"); id., at 1232 (4th ed. 1951) ("A crime or misdemeanor; a breach of the criminal laws"); id., at 1282 (3d ed. 1933) (same). The 1942 edition of Webster's similarly states that "offense" "has no technical legal meaning; but it is sometimes used specifically for an indictable crime ... and sometimes for a misdemeanor or wrong punishable only by fine or penalty." Webster's New International Dictionary 1690 (2d ed.). See also Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1566 (1976) (Webster's Third) ("an infraction of law: crime, misdemeanor"); American Heritage Dictionary 1255 (3d ed. 1992) ("A transgression of law; a crime").
It is true that the term "offense" is sometimes used more broadly. For instance, the 1948 edition of Ballentine's Law Dictionary cautions: "The words 'crime' and 'offense' are not necessarily synonymous. All crimes are offenses, but some offenses are not crimes." Ballentine's Law Dictionary 900.
But while the term "offense" is sometimes used in this way, that is not how the word is used in Title 18. Although the term appears hundreds of times in Title 18, neither respondent nor the Solicitor General, appearing as an amicusin support of respondent, has been able to find a single provision of that title in which "offense" is employed to denote a civil violation. The Solicitor General cites eight provisions,but not one actually labels a civil wrong as an "offense." Instead, they all simply attach civil penalties to criminal offenses-as the Deputy Solicitor General acknowledged at oral argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29.
Not only is this pattern of usage telling, but when Title 18 was enacted in 1948, the very first provision, what was then 18 U.S.C. § 1, classified all offenses as crimes. That provision read in pertinent part as follows:
" § 1. Offenses classified.
"Notwithstanding any Act of Congress to the contrary:
"(1) Any offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is a felony.
"(2) Any other offense is a misdemeanor." 62 Stat. 684 (repealed Oct. 12, 1984).
The Solicitor General correctly points out that regulatory provisions outside Title 18 sometimes use the term "offense" to describe a civil violation, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae10 (United States Brief), but it is significant that Congress chose to place the WSLA in Title 18. Although we have cautioned against "plac[ing] too much significance on the location of a statute in the United States Code," Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 376, 124 S.Ct. 1836, 158 L.Ed.2d 645 (2004), we have in similar circumstances regarded the placement of a provision as relevant in determining whether its content is civil or criminal in nature, see Kansas v. Hendricks,521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997). It is also revealing that Congress has used clearer and more specific language when it has wanted to toll the statutes of limitations for civil suits as well as crimes. Only two months after enacting the WSLA, Congress passed a tolling statute for "violations of the antitrust laws ... now indictable or subject to civil proceedings." Act of Oct. 10, 1942, ch. 589, 56 Stat. 781 (emphasis added). Congress obviously could have included a similar "civil proceedings" clause in the WSLA, but it did not do so.
The WSLA's history provides what is perhaps the strongest support for the conclusion that it applies only to criminal charges. The parties do not dispute that the term "offenses" in the 1921 and 1942 suspension statutes applied only to crimes, Brief for Petitioners 23; Brief for Respondent at 24-25, and after 1942, the WSLA continued to use that same term. The retention of the same term in the later laws suggests that no fundamental alteration was intended.
Respondent and the Government latch onto the 1944 Act's removal of the phrase "now indictable under any statute" and argue that this deletion had the effect of sweeping in civil claims, but this argument is most improbable. Simply deleting the phrase "now indictable under the statute," while leaving the operative term "offense" unchanged would have been an obscure way of substantially expanding the WSLA's reach. Fundamental changes in the scope of a statute are not typically accomplished with so subtle a move. Converting the WSLA from a provision that suspended the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions into one that also suspended the time for commencing a civil action would have been a big step. If Congress had meant to make such a change, we would expect it to have used language that made this important modification clear to litigants and courts.
Respondent's and the Government's interpretation of the significance of the deletion of the phrase "now indictable" ignores a more plausible explanation, namely, Congress' decision to make the WSLA applicable, not just to offenses committed in the past during or in the aftermath of particular wars, but also to future offenses committed during future wars. When the phrase "now indictable" first appeared in the 1921 Act, it meant that the statute of limitations was suspended for only those crimes that had already been committed when the Act took effect. This made sense because the 1921 Act was a temporary measure enacted to deal with problems resulting from the First World War. The 1942 Act simply "readopt[ed] the [same] World War I policy" to deal with claims during World War II. Bridges v. United States,346 U.S. 209, 219, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 97 L.Ed. 1557 (1953).
The 1944 amendments, however, changed the WSLA from a retroactive measure designed to deal exclusively with past fraud into a measure applicable to future fraud as well. In order to complete this transformation, it was necessary to remove the phrase "now indictable," which, as noted, limited the applicability of the suspension to offenses committed in the past. Thus, the removal of the "now indictable" provision was more plausibly driven by Congress' intent to apply the WSLA prospectively, not by any desire to expand the WSLA's reach to civil suits. For all these reasons, we think it clear that the term "offense" in the WSLA applies solely to crimes.
But even if there were some ambiguity in the WSLA's use of that term, our cases instruct us to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the narrower definition. We have said that the WSLA should be "narrowly construed" and " 'interpreted in favor of repose.' " Id.,at 216, 73 S.Ct. 1055(quoting United States v. Scharton,285 U.S. 518, 521-522, 52 S.Ct. 416, 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932)). Applying that principle here means that the term "offense" must be construed to refer only to crimes. Because this case involves civil claims, the WSLA does not suspend the applicable statute of limitations under either the 1948 or the 2008 version of the statute.
IV
Petitioners acknowledge that respondent has raised other arguments that, if successful, could render at least one claim timely on remand. We therefore consider whether respondent's claims must be dismissed with prejudice under the first-to-file rule. We conclude that dismissal with prejudice was not called for.
The first-to-file bar provides that "[w]hen a person brings an action ... no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pendingaction." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)(emphasis added). The term "pending" means "[r]emaining undecided; awaiting decision." Black's 1314 (10th ed. 2014). See also Webster's Third 1669 (1976) (defining "pending" to mean "not yet decided: in continuance: in suspense"). If the reference to a "pending" action in the FCA is interpreted in this way, an earlier suit bars a later suit while the earlier suit remains undecided but ceases to bar that suit once it is dismissed. We see no reason not to interpret the term "pending" in the FCA in accordance with its ordinary meaning.
Petitioners argue that Congress used the term "pending" in a very different-and very peculiar-way. In the FCA, according to petitioners, the term "pending" "is 'used as a short-hand for the first filed action.' " Brief for Petitioners 44. Thus, as petitioners see things, the first-filed action remains "pending" even after it has been dismissed, and it forever bars any subsequent related action.
This interpretation does not comport with any known usage of the term "pending." Under this interpretation, Marbury v. Madison,1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), is still "pending." So is the trial of Socrates.
Petitioners say that Congress used the term "pending" in the FCA as a sort of "short-hand," but a shorthand phrase or term is employed to provide a succinct way of expressing a concept that would otherwise require a lengthy or complex formulation. Here, we are told that "pending" is shorthand for "first-filed," a term that is neither lengthy nor complex. And if Congress had wanted to adopt the rule that petitioners favor, the task could have been accomplished in other equally economical ways-for example, by replacing "pending," with "earlier" or "prior."
Not only does petitioners' argument push the term "pending" far beyond the breaking point, but it would lead to strange results that Congress is unlikely to have wanted. Under petitioners' interpretation, a first-filed suit would bar all subsequent related suits even if that earlier suit was dismissed for a reason having nothing to do with the merits. Here, for example, the Thorpesuit, which provided the ground for the initial invocation of the first-to-file rule, was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Why would Congress want the abandonment of an earlier suit to bar a later potentially successful suit that might result in a large recovery for the Government?
Petitioners contend that interpreting "pending" to mean pending would produce practical problems, and there is some merit to their arguments. In particular, as petitioners note, if the first-to-file bar is lifted once the first-filed action ends, defendants may be reluctant to settle such actions for the full amount that they would accept if there were no prospect of subsequent suits asserting the same claims. See Brief for Petitioners at 56-57. Respondent and the United States argue that the doctrine of claim preclusion may protect defendants if the first-filed action is decided on the merits, id.,at 60-61; United States Brief 30, but that issue is not before us in this case. The False Claims Act's qui tamprovisions present many interpretive challenges, and it is beyond our ability in this case to make them operate together smoothly like a finely tuned machine. We hold that a qui tamsuit under the FCA ceases to be "pending" once it is dismissed. We therefore agree with the Fourth Circuit that the dismissal with prejudice of respondent's one live claim was error.
* * *
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
29 NO. 24 Westlaw Journal Employment 929 NO. 24 Westlaw Journal Employment 929 NO. 24 Westlaw Journal Employment 9
The Court of Appeals held that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, 116 Stat. 1498, note following 50 U.S.C. § 1541, p. 312, was sufficient to satisfy the "at war" requirement in the pre-2008 version of the WSLA. The Court of Appeals consequently found it unnecessary to decide whether the pre- or post-2008 version of the WSLA governed respondent's claims.
The claims giving rise to the present suit originated in 2005, but respondent filed the operative complaint in 2011. Resolution of the questions before us in this case does not require us to decide which of these two versions of the WSLA applies to respondent's claims.
18 U.S.C. §§ 38; 248, 670, 1033(a), 1964, 2292(a), 2339B, 2339C.
This holding obviates any need to determine which version of the WSLA applies or whether the term "war" in the 1948 Act applies only when Congress has formally declared war.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368 (1981), the Court held that a pretrial denial of a motion to disqualify counsel in a civil case is not appealable prior to trial under 28 U. S. C. §1291 as a final collateral order. The Court reserved the questions of the immediate appealability of pretrial denials of disqualification motions in criminal eases and of pretrial grants of disqualification motions in both criminal and civil cases. Id., at 372, n. 8. We decide today that a District Court’s pretrial disqualification of defense counsel in a criminal prosecution is not immediately appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
I
Petitioners are four police officers who formed a “grand-pop” decoy squad in the Philadelphia Police Department. Petitioner Flanagan would pose as an aged derelict, a likely target for street criminals. When Flanagan gave the standard alarm, the other members of the decoy team would move in to make an arrest.
A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted petitioners in September 1981. The indictment alleged that petitioners had conspired to make arrests without probable cause and had unlawfully arrested and abused eight people. One count of the indictment charged petitioners with conspiring to deprive citizens of their civil rights in violation of 18 U. S. C. §241. The remaining 12 counts charged petitioners, in various combinations, with committing substantive civil rights offenses in violation of 18 U. S. C. §242.
Prior to the return of the indictment, petitioners had retained the law firm of Sprague and Rubenstone to act as joint counsel. Petitioners decided to continue the joint representation after the indictment was handed down, even though the indictment did not make the same allegations against all petitioners. Petitioners Keweshan, Landis, and McNamee, however, moved to sever their case from petitioner Flanagan’s, arguing that the Government’s evidence against Flanagan alone was so much greater than the evidence against them that severance was necessary to avoid prejudicial spillover. In addition, based on the asserted differences in their involvement in the activities alleged in the substantive counts of the indictment, petitioners moved to dismiss the conspiracy count. The Government responded by moving to disqualify Sprague and Rubenstone from its multiple representation of petitioners and by asking the court to inquire into the representation as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c).
In early December 1981, following a hearing and briefing on the Government’s motion, the District Court disqualified the law firm from participation in the case. The court found that no actual conflict of interest had yet developed but that there was a clear potential for conflict. Most notably, the severance motion and supporting papers showed that petitioner Flanagan’s interests were likely to diverge from the other petitioners’ interests. The District Court also found that petitioners had voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived their right to conflict-free representation. The court concluded, however, that it had the authority and, indeed, the obligation under Rule 44(c) to disqualify counsel when “the likelihood is great that a potential conflict may escalate into an actual conflict.” 527 F. Supp. 902, 909 (ED Pa. 1981). The court presumed that Sprague and Rubenstone had obtained privileged information from each of the petitioners and therefore disqualified the law firm from representing any of them.
Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the District Court in June 1982. 679 F. 2d 1072. Although jurisdiction was not challenged, the Court of Appeals noted that it had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1291 because the disqualification order was appealable prior to trial as a collateral order within the meaning of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). The court went on to hold that the disqualification order was proper because an actual conflict of interest was very likely to arise. In July 1982 the court denied rehearing but stayed issuance of the mandate to permit filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court.
Petitioners filed their petition in September 1982, one year after the grand jury had returned the indictment against them. They contended that disqualification of counsel of their choice after they had knowingly waived conflict-free representation deprived them of their Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel and of their Fifth Amendment due process right to present a common defense through joint counsel. We granted certiorari in January 1983. 459 U. S. 1101. The parties briefed and argued both the merits and the jurisdictional question — whether the disqualification order was immediately appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because we conclude that the court had no jurisdiction to review the disqualification order prior to entry of final judgment in the criminal case.
HH HH
“Finality as a condition of review is an historic characteristic of federal appellate procedure.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 324 (1940). Thus, the jurisdictional statute applicable to this case limits the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291. This final judgment rule requires that “a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S., at 374. In a criminal case the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence. Berman v. United States, 302 U. S. 211, 212 (1937).
The final judgment rule serves several important interests. It helps preserve the respect due trial judges by minimizing appellate-court interference with the numerous decisions they must make in the prejudgment stages of litigation. It reduces the ability of litigants to harass opponents and to clog the courts through a succession of costly and time-consuming appeals. It is crucial to the efficient administration of justice. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, supra, at 374. For these reasons, “[t]his Court has long held that the policy of Congress embodied in [§ 1291] is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation . . . .” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S. 263, 265 (1982).
The Court has also long held that “this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law.” Ibid. More than 40 years ago the Court noted that the reasons for the final judgment rule are “especially compelling in the administration of criminal justice.” Cobbledick v. United States, supra, at 325. Promptness in bringing a criminal case to trial has become increasingly important as crime has increased, court dockets have swelled, and detention facilities have become overcrowded.
As the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial indicates, the accused may have a strong interest in speedy resolution of the charges against him. In addition, “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the accused.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 519 (1972). As time passes, the prosecution’s ability to meet its burden of proof may greatly diminish: evidence and witnesses may disappear, and testimony becomes more easily impeachable as the events recounted become more remote. Delay increases the cost of pretrial detention and extends “the period during which defendants released on bail may commit other crimes.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850, 862 (1978). Delay between arrest and punishment prolongs public anxiety over community safety if a person accused of a serious crime is free on bail. It may also adversely affect the prospects for rehabilitation. See Barker v. Wingo, supra, at 520. Finally, when a crime is committed against a community, the community has a strong collective psychological and moral interest in swiftly bringing the person responsible to justice. Prompt acquittal of a person wrongly accused, which forces prosecutorial investigation to continue, is as important as prompt conviction and sentence of a person rightly accused. Crime inflicts a wound on the community, and that wound may not begin to heal until criminal proceedings have come to an end.
The importance of the final judgment rule has led the Court to permit departures from the rule “only when observance of it would practically defeat the right to any review at all.” Cobbledick v. United States, supra, at 324-325 (footnote omitted). The Court has allowed a departure only for the “limited category of cases falling within the ‘collateral order’ exception delineated in Cohen. ...” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., supra, at 265. To come within this “narrow exception,” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, supra, at 374, a trial court order must, at a minimum, meet three conditions. First, it “must conclusively determine the disputed question”; second, it must “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action”; third, it must “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978) (footnote omitted).
Because of the compelling interest in prompt trials, the Court has interpreted the requirements of the collateral-order exception to the final judgment rule with the utmost strictness in criminal cases. The Court has found only three types of pretrial orders in criminal prosecutions to meet the requirements. See United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S., at 265. Each type involves ‘“an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.’” Id., at 266 (quoting United States v. MacDonald, supra, at 860).
An order denying a motion to reduce bail may be reviewed before trial. The issue is finally resolved and is independent of the issues to be tried, and the order becomes moot if review awaits conviction and sentence. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1 (1951). Orders denying motions to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy or speech or debate grounds are likewise immediately appealable. Such orders finally resolve issues that are separate from guilt or innocence, and appellate review must occur before trial to be fully effective. The right guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clause is more than the right not to be convicted in a second prosecution for an offense: it is the right not to be “placed in jeopardy” — that is, not to be tried for the offense. Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977). Similarly, the right guaranteed by the Speech or Debate Clause is more than the right not to be convicted for certain legislative activities: it is the right not to “be questioned” about them — that is, not to be tried for them. Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U. S. 500 (1979). Refusals to dismiss an indictment for violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause or of the Speech or Debate Clause, like denials of bail reduction, are truly final and collateral, and the asserted rights in all three cases would be irretrievably lost if review were postponed until trial is completed.
An order disqualifying counsel lacks the critical characteristics that make orders denying bail reduction or refusing to dismiss on double jeopardy or speech or debate grounds immediately appealable. Unlike a request for bail reduction, a constitutional objection to counsel’s disqualification is in no danger of becoming moot upon conviction and sentence. Moreover, it cannot be said that the right petitioners assert, whether based on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or on the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment, is a right not to be tried. Double jeopardy and speech or debate rights are sui generis in this regard. See United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S., at 860, n. 7. Rather, just as the speedy trial right is merely a right not to be convicted at an excessively delayed trial, id., at 860-861, the asserted right not to have joint counsel disqualified is, like virtually all rights of criminal defendants, merely a right not to be convicted in certain circumstances. Unlike a double jeopardy or speech or debate claim, petitioners’ claim “would be largely satisfied by an acquittal resulting from the prosecution’s failure to cany its burden of proof.” Id., at 859. See also United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., swpra, at 268 (vindictive prosecution right fully protected by postconviction review). “Bearing the discomfiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent person is one of the painful obligations of citizenship.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S., at 325. See also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 30 (1943).
A disqualification order thus is not analogous to any of the three types of interlocutory orders that this Court has found immediately appealable in criminal cases. Accordingly, Stack, Abney, and Helstoski provide no authority for petitioners’ assertion that a disqualification order satisfies the three necessary conditions for coverage by the collateral-order exception. Nor does petitioners’ jurisdictional assertion gain support from a direct inquiry into whether a disqualification order satisfies the three Coopers & Lybrand conditions. This is so regardless of the nature of the right to joint representation claimed by petitioners.
Petitioners correctly concede that postconviction review of a disqualification order is fully effective to the extent that the asserted right to counsel of one’s choice is like, for example, the Sixth Amendment right to represent oneself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). Obtaining reversal for violation of such a right does not require a showing of prejudice to the defense, since the right reflects constitutional protection of the defendant’s free choice independent of concern for the objective fairness of the proceeding. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, ante, at 177-178, n. 8. Similarly, postconviction review is concededly effective to the extent that petitioners’ asserted right is like the Sixth Amendment rights violated when a trial court denies appointment of counsel altogether, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), or denies counsel’s request to be replaced because of a conflict of interest, see Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475 (1978). No showing of prejudice need be made to obtain reversal in these circumstances because prejudice to the defense is presumed. In sum, as petitioners concede, if establishing a violation of their asserted right requires no showing of prejudice to their defense, a pretrial order violating the right does not meet the third condition for coverage by the collateral-order exception: it is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” See supra, at 265.
If, on the other hand, petitioners’ asserted right is one that is not violated absent some specifically demonstrated prejudice to the defense, a disqualification order still falls outside the coverage of the collateral-order exception. We need not consider, however, whether the third Coopers & Lybrand condition is satisfied — that is, whether postconviction review is plainly ineffective. It is sufficient to note that the second Coopers & Lybrand condition — that the order be truly collateral — is not satisfied if petitioners’ asserted right is one requiring prejudice to the defense for its violation.
On this assumption, a disqualification order, though final, is not independent of the issues to be tried. Its validity cannot be adequately reviewed until trial is complete. The effect of the disqualification on the defense, and hence whether the asserted right has been violated, cannot be fairly assessed until the substance of the prosecution’s and defendant’s cases is known. In this respect the right claimed by petitioners is analogous to the speedy trial right. In United States v. MacDonald, supra, at 859, 860, the Court concluded that because impairment of the defense is an important factor in judging whether a speedy trial violation has occurred, a denial of a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds is not separable from the issues at trial. The same conclusion applies to a disqualification order if prejudice to the defense is a necessary element of petitioners’ claim. In these circumstances, the second Coopers & Lybrand condition for immediate appealability as a collateral order is not satisfied: the disqualification order does not resolve an “issue completely separate from the merits of the action.” See supra, at 265.
In short, whether or not petitioners’ claim requires a showing of prejudice, a disqualification order does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order in a straightforward application of the necessary conditions laid down in prior cases. Further, petitioners’ claim does not justify expanding the small class of criminal case orders covered by the collateral-order exception to the final judgment rule — either by eliminating any of the Coopers & Lybrand conditions or by interpreting them less strictly than the Court’s cases have done. The costs of such expansion are great, and the potential rewards are small.
Unlike an appeal of a bail decision, see Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S., at 12 (opinion of Jackson, J.), an appeal of a disqualification order interrupts the trial. In criminal cases such interruption exacts a presumptively prohibitive price. See supra, at 264-265. Moreover, an appellate court’s reversal of a disqualification order would not result in dismissal of the prosecution. The prosecution would continue, though only after long delay. The potential rewards of an immediate appeal are thus even smaller than they were in United States v. MacDonald, supra, and in United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., supra, where the Court rejected claims of immediate appealability for orders denying motions to dismiss on speedy trial and vindictive prosecution grounds even though reversal of the orders would have led to dismissal of all or some charges. See also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21 (1943) (no pretrial review of order denying motion to dismiss indictment for lack of jurisdiction); Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 430-431 (1910) (no pretrial review of order rejecting claim of statutory immunity from prosecution). Here, a delayed trial is a certain result of interlocutory appellate review. Allowing immediate appeal of a disqualification order thus would severely undermine the policies behind the final judgment rule.
Ill
“ ‘[T]he final judgment rule is the dominant rule in federal appellate practice.’ 6 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1953), 113. Particularly is this true of criminal prosecutions.” DiBella v. United States, 369 U. S. 121, 126 (1962). Nothing about a disqualification order distinguishes it from the run of pretrial judicial decisions that affect the rights of criminal defendants yet must await completion of trial court proceedings for review. Such an order fails to satisfy the stringent conditions for qualification as an immediately appealable collateral order, and the overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases apply in full. The exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare. An order disqualifying counsel is not one.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed. On remand the appeal should be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) provides:
“Whenever two or more defendants have been jointly charged ... or have been joined for trial . . . , and are represented by the same retained or assigned counsel or by retained or assigned counsel who are associated in the practice of law, the court shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. Unless it appears that there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.”
Among the Courts of Appeals, six Circuits in addition to the Third Circuit have allowed immediate appeal of pretrial disqualifications of criminal defense counsel. United States v. Curcio, 694 F. 2d 14, 19-20 (CA2 1982); United States v. Smith, 653 F. 2d 126 (CA4 1981) (entertaining appeal without discussion of appealability question); United States v. Garcia, 517 F. 2d 272, 275 (CA5 1975); United States v. Phillips, 699 F. 2d 798, 801 (CA6 1983); United States v. Agosto, 675 F. 2d 965, 968, n. 1 (CA8), cert. denied after remand and affirmance sub nom. Gustafson v. United States, 459 U. S. 834 (1982); United States v. Hobson, 672 F. 2d 825, 826 (CA11), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 906 (1982). The Ninth Circuit has held that such orders are not immediately appealable. United States v. Greger, 657 F. 2d 1109, 1110-1113 (1981), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 913 (1983).
Title 18 U. S. C. § 3731 provides a statutory exception to the final judgment rule for certain orders suppressing or excluding evidence. That provision is not at issue in this case, which concerns only the finality requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. This case likewise does not involve the finality problems that arise in appeals from state-court decisions to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975).
We need not and do not express any view on the nature or existence of that right.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun joined.
In this admiralty in rem action, a federal court attempted to arrest property held by two state officials and bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. The property — artifacts of the Nuestra Señora de Atocha, a 17th-century Spanish galleon — was discovered by respondents on the floor of the ocean in international waters. The question presented is whether the Eleventh Amendment immunized the property from the federal court’s process.
I
Battered by a tropical hurricane, the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, a Spanish galleon carrying a cargo of New World treasure to King Philip IV of Spain, sank in 1622, 40 nautical miles west of what is today Key West, Fla. After years of searching the ocean floor and studying Spanish archives in Seville, respondent Treasure Salvors located the wreck site in the spring of 1971 near shoals known as the “Quicksands,” nine and one-half nautical miles west of the Marquesas Keys.
The State of Florida immediately claimed that the Atocha belonged to the State. The State claimed ownership pursuant to Fla. Stat. §267.061(l)(b) (1974), which then provided:
“It is further declared to be the public policy of the state that all treasure trove, artifacts and such objects having intrinsic or historical and archeological value which have been abandoned on state-owned lands or state-owned sovereignty submerged lands shall belong to the state with the title thereto vested in the division of archives, history, and records management of the department of state for the purpose of administration and protection.” (Emphasis added.)
Officials of the Florida Division of Archives threatened to arrest Mel Fisher, president of Treasure Salvors, and to confiscate the boats and equipment of Treasure Salvors if it commenced salvage operations on the Atocha without a salvage contract from the State. Under this threat of arrest, Treasure Salvors executed a one-year contract with the State that permitted it to conduct underwater salvage operations on the vessel. Similar contracts were executed during each of the three succeeding years.
Each of the contracts was expressly predicated on the assumption that the Atocha was the property of the State of Florida because it had been found on submerged lands within the boundaries of the State. The contracts permitted Treasure Salvors “to conduct underwater salvage from and upon certain submerged sovereignty lands of and belonging to the State of Florida.” App. 20. After describing in metes and bounds an area claimed to be “lying and being in Monroe County, Florida,” the contract provided that the shipwreck site “is to be worked for the purpose of salvaging abandoned vessels or the remains thereof including, but not limited to, relics, treasure trove and other materials related thereto and located thereupon and therein, which abandoned material is the property of the State of Florida.” Id., at 22 (emphasis added). The contract further provided:
“In payment for the Salvager’s satisfactory performance and compliance with this Agreement, the Division will award to the Salvager seventy-five percent (75%) of the total appraised value of all material recovered hereunder, which payment shall be made at the time division of such material is made by the parties hereto. Said payment may be made in either recovered material or fair market value, or in a combination of both, at the option of the Division’s director.” Id., at 32-33.
The bargain, in brief, was between the Division of Archives, as the owner of the Atocha and its cargo, and Treasure Salvors, as a contractor that agreed to perform services for the Division. Treasure Salvors agreed to pay the Division $1,200 each year, to post a performance bond, and to perform its work in a specified manner, all in exchange for the Division’s agreement to transfer ownership of 75% of the proceeds of the operation — or its equivalent — to Treasure Salvors. The contracts did not purport to transfer ownership of any property to the Division of Archives; the State’s claim to the property was predicated entirely on a provision of state law.
In its attempt to salvage the lost treasure of the Atocha, Treasure Salvors was immensely successful. The salvager held some of the artifacts at its headquarters in Key West, while state officials held the remainder at the Division of Archives in Tallahassee. All of the property was deemed to belong to the State, however, subject to a subsequent distribution in which Treasure Salvors would receive its 75% contractual share.
In proceedings unrelated to the salvage operation, the United States and the State of Florida were engaged in litigation to determine the seaward boundary of submerged lands in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico in which the State had rights to natural resources. In February 1974, a Special Master filed a Report that defined Florida’s boundary landward of the site of the wreck of the Atocha. The State’s objections to the Report were overruled. United States v. Florida, 420 U. S. 531 (1975). A final decree was entered providing that, as against the State of Florida, the United States was entitled to the lands, minerals, and other natural resources in the area in which the remains of the Atocha had come to rest. United States v. Florida, 425 U. S. 791 (1976).
After this Court overruled Florida’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report, Treasure Salvors filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida demanding that “Plaintiffs be put into possession of the ATOCHA and other property and that all other persons, firms, and corporations or government agencies be enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs title, possession, and property,” and that “Plaintiffs title be confirmed against all claimants and all the world.” App. 9. The complaint invoked the court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) and, as an admiralty action in rem, named the Atocha as defendant. Items recovered from the Atocha in Treasure Salvors’ possession were duly served with process and brought into the custody of the court. Most of the remainder of the wreck and its valuable cargo lay buried under sand in international waters; state officials held other artifacts in Tallahassee. No attempt was made at this time to serve the artifacts in Tallahassee.
The United States intervened in the action as a party-defendant and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the United States was the proper owner of the Atocha. The District Court rejected the Government’s claim of ownership and held that “possession and title are rightfully conferred upon the finder of the res derelictae.” Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 408 F. Supp. 907, 911 (1976). The court entered judgment in favor of Treasure Salvors “against the United States of America and all other claimants.” Record 270.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court as against the United States, but modified its decree. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F. 2d 330 (CA5 1978). The United States had argued that the District Court lacked in rem jurisdiction to determine rights of the parties to that portion of the Atocha lying beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The Court of Appeals agreed that the District Court lacked in rem jurisdiction over those portions of the res located outside the district; the court noted that for a court to exercise admiralty in rem jurisdiction the res itself must be brought within the district and seized by the court. Id., at 333. The appellate court held, however, that by intervening in the action and stipulating to the court’s admiralty jurisdiction the Government had “waived the usual requirement that the res be present within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and consented to the court’s jurisdiction to determine its interest in the extraterritorial portion of the vessel. ” Id., at 335. The court concluded that jurisdiction thus existed to determine claims of the United States to those portions of the Atocha lying beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, but not claims of other parties who had not appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. On the merits, the Court of Appeals rejected the statutory and common-law claims advanced by the United States.
Throughout these proceedings, valuable artifacts of the Atocha remained in the custody of officials of the Florida Division of Archives in Tallahassee. Since Tallahassee is located in the Northern District of Florida, these artifacts also were located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. Immediately following the decision of the Court of Appeals, Treasure Salvors filed a motion in the District Court for an order commanding the United States Marshal to arrest and take custody of these artifacts and bring them within the jurisdiction of the court. Record 318. That motion forms the basis of the present controversy.
The District Court issued a warrant to arrest. Although the warrant was addressed to two officers of the Division of Archives, the State itself filed a motion to quash the warrant, contending that the State of Florida was not a party in the case and had not waived the requirement that the court could exercise in rem jurisdiction only over that portion of the res within the territorial boundaries of the court. App. 43. The State also sought and obtained an emergency stay from the Court of Appeals. Record 368. The District Court denied the motion to quash, ruling that the extraterritorial seizure was proper under Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(5). App. 51. Since the Court of Appeals had stayed execution of the warrant, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the State should not deliver the artifacts into the custody of the Marshal.
In response to the order to show cause, the State raised several substantive issues in the District Court. Record 425. Contending that a supplemental complaint filed by Treasure Salvors, see n. 11, supra, demonstrated that the State of Florida was a defendant in the action, the State argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred an exercise of the court’s jurisdiction. The State also repeated its arguments that the court lacked in rem jurisdiction in admiralty because the res was not present within the district and that the decision of this Court in United States v. Florida did not affect the State’s “contractual” right to a share of the artifacts. Record 429-439.
The District Court rejected these arguments in a comprehensive memorandum. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 459 F. Supp. 507 (1978). The court first held that, just as all claims of the United States had been resolved in the earlier proceeding, all claims of the State were barred because the State of Florida had acted in privity with the United States in that proceeding. Id., at 512; see n. 7, supra. Alternatively, the court held that the extraterritorial arrest of the salvaged articles was proper under Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(5) and that the court thus had obtained jurisdiction in rem to resolve ownership of the res. 459 F. Supp., at 518. On the merits, the court rejected on multiple grounds the State’s contractual claim to the property. Id., at 521.
At the conclusion of its memorandum opinion, the court rejected the State’s Eleventh Amendment defense. Id., at 526. The court first held that the State necessarily had waived the Amendment as to any claim to the property that it asserted in federal court. Ibid. The court then held that, apart from any claim advanced by the State, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the seizure of the artifacts and subsequent transfer to the custody of the Marshal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 621 F. 2d 1340 (CA5 1980). As had the District Court, see n. 14, swpra, the court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment did not prevent the court from resolving the controverted claims to ownership of the res, since resolution of that dispute was essential to a determination of whether the Eleventh Amendment in fact barred an exercise of jurisdiction by the federal court. 621 F. 2d, at 1345. The court then held that the extraterritorial process issued pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(5) was proper, id., at 1346, and that the State did not have a valid claim to the property. Id., at 1349.
The Florida Department of State filed a petition for writ of certiorari, presenting only one question: “Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars an in rem admiralty action seeking to recover property owned by a state.” Pet. for Cert. I. We granted the petition. 451 U. S. 982. We hold that the federal court had jurisdiction to secure possession of the property from the named state officials, since they had no colorable basis on which to retain possession of the artifacts. The court did not have power, however, to adjudicate the State’s interest in the property without the State’s consent.
II
Stripped of its procedural complexities and factual glamor, this case presents a narrow legal question. The District Court attempted to seize artifacts held by state officials and to bring the property within its admiralty in rem jurisdiction. Although the seizure in this case was extraterritorial, and thus involved an application of Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(5), the question presented for our decision would not be any different if the State merely resisted an attachment of property located within the district.
In response to the warrant of arrest, the State contended that it was immune from the federal process under the Eleventh Amendment. It argued that the contracts executed with Treasure Salvors “alone determined the rights and obligations of the contracting parties....” App. 44. The difficult question presented in this case is whether a federal court exercising admiralty in rem jurisdiction may seize property held by state officials under a claim that the property belongs to the State.
A suit generally may not be maintained directly against the State itself, or against an agency or department of the State, unless the State has waived its sovereign immunity. Alabama v. Pugh, 488 U. S. 781. If the State is named directly in the complaint and has not consented to the suit, it must be dismissed from the action. Id., at 782. Of course, the fact that the State should have been dismissed from an action that has proceeded to judgment does not mean that the judgment may not stand against other parties who are not immune from suit.
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar all claims against officers of the State, even when directed to actions taken in their official capacity and defended by the most senior legal officers in the executive branch of the state government. In Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, the Court held that an action brought against a state official to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional state statute is not a suit against a State barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In response to the árgument that the official in such a case could act only as an officer of the State and that the suit therefore could be characterized only as an action against the State itself, the Court explained:
“The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and if it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce is a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Id., at 159-160.
There is a well-recognized irony in Ex parte Young; unconstitutional conduct by a state officer may be “state action” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment yet not attributable to the State for purposes of the Eleventh. Nevertheless, the rule of Ex parte Young is one of the cornerstones of the Court’s Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 663-664; Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332, 337.
In Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, the Court applied the analysis later enshrined in Ex parte Young in a suit to recover property wrongfully held by state officials on behalf of the State of South Carolina. In Tindal, the plaintiff claimed title and a right of possession to certain real property held by a state official; the defendant answered that the property belonged to the State and asserted the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to the action. The Court described the issue presented for decision:
“So that the question is directly presented, whether an action brought against individuals to recover the possession of land of which they have actual possession and control, is to be deemed an action against the State within the meaning of the Constitution, simply because those individuals claim to be in rightful possession as officers or agents of the State, and assert title and right of possession in the State. Can the court, in such an action, decline to inquire whether the plaintiff is, in law, entitled to possession, and whether the individual defendants have any right, in law, to withhold possession? And if the court finds, upon due inquiry, that the plaintiff is entitled to possession, and that the assertion by the defendants of right of possession and title in the State is without legal foundation, may it not, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, adjudge that the plaintiff recover possession?” 167 U. S., at 212.
Relying extensively on the earlier decision in United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, the Court in Tindal held that the “settled doctrine of this court wholly precludes the idea that a suit against individuals to recover possession of real property is a suit against the State simply because the defendant holding possession happens to be an officer of the State and asserts that he is lawfully in possession on its behalf.” 167 U. S., at 221. The Court refused to accept the proposition that the “doors of the courts of justice are... closed against one legally entitled to possession, by the mere assertion of the defendants that they are entitled to possession for the State.” Id., at 222. In explaining the extent of its decision, the Court stated:
“[T]he Eleventh Amendment gives no immunity to officers or agents of a State in withholding the property of a citizen without the authority of law. And when such officers or agents assert that they are in rightful possession, they must make good that assertion when it is made to appear in a suit against them as individuals that the legal title and right of possession is in the plaintiff. If a suit against officers of a State to enjoin them from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, whereby the plaintiff’s property will be injured... be not one against the State, it is impossible to see how a suit against the same individuals to recover the possession of property belonging to the plaintiff and illegally withheld by the defendants can be deemed a suit against the State.” Ibid.
In holding that the action was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Court in Tindal emphasized that any judgment awarding possession to the plaintiff would not subsequently bind the State. “It is a judgment to the effect only that, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, the former is entitled to possession of the property in question, the latter having shown no valid authority to withhold possession from the plaintiff,” id., at 223; “it will be open to the State to bring any action that may be appropriate to establish and protect whatever claim it has to the premises in dispute.” Ibid.
The rule of law set forth in United States v. Lee and Tindal v. Wesley was clarified in Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682. In that case the plaintiff brought suit against a Government official to compel specific performance of a contract. The plaintiff theorized that by withholding delivery of property as required by the contract the agent had exceeded his official authority and could be sued in federal court. The Court in Larson stated that “the action of an officer of the sovereign (be it holding, taking or otherwise legally affecting the plaintiff’s property) can be regarded as so ‘illegal’ as to permit a suit for specific relief against the officer as an individual only if it is not within the officer’s statutory powers or, if within those powers, only if the powers, or their exercise in a particular case, are constitutionally void.” Id., at 701-702. The Court held that the fact that an officer wrongfully withholds property belonging to another does not necessarily establish that he is acting beyond the permissible scope of his official capacity. Since in Larson it was not alleged that the Government official had exceeded his statutory authority — indeed, the plaintiff had affirmatively contended that the officer had authority to bind the Government on the contract at issue — or that the exercise of such authority was unconstitutional, the Court held that the action was barred by sovereign immunity.
These cases make clear that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar an action against a state official that is based on a theory that the officer acted beyond the scope of his statutory authority or, if within that authority, that such authority is unconstitutional. In such an action, however, the Amendment places a limit on the relief that may be obtained by the plaintiff. If the action is allowed to proceed against the officer only because he acted without proper authority, the judgment may not compel the State to use its funds to compensate the plaintiff for the injury. In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, the Court made clear that “a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Id., at 663. See Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459; Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S., at 337. In determining the relief that may be granted if a state officer is found to have acted without valid statutory authority, the question is whether the relief “constitute^] permissible prospective relief or a ‘retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury.’ ” Quern v. Jordan, supra, at 346-347.
I — I I — I I — I
In light of the principles set forth above, the proper resolution of the Eleventh Amendment issue raised in this case requires an answer to each of three specific questions: (a) Is this action asserted against officials of the State or is it an action brought directly against the State of Florida itself? (b) Does the challenged conduct of state officials constitute an ultra vires or unconstitutional withholding of property or merely a tortious interference with property rights? (c) Is the relief sought by Treasure Salvors permissible prospective relief or is it analogous to a retroactive award that requires "the payment of funds from the state treasury”?
A
Treasure Salvors filed this admiralty in rem action in federal court, seeking a declaration of title to an abandoned sailing vessel that had been discovered on the ocean floor. The State of Florida was not named as a party and was not compelled to appear. Some of the property at issue, however, was held by officials of the Florida Division of Archives. Asserting that it was the rightful owner of the property, Treasure Salvors filed a motion “for an Order commanding the United States Marshal to arrest and take custody of those portions of the Plaintiffs’ vessel now being held by L. Ross Morrell or James McBeth or being held under their custody, care or control.” App. 11. As requested, the District Court issued a warrant of arrest commanding the Marshal of the United States for the Southern District of Florida “to take into your possession the portions of said vessel which have been in the possession or are in the possession of L. Ross Morrell and/or James McBeth, or under their custody, care or control and to bring said portions of said vessel within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and transfer possession of same to the substitute custodian appointed in this action.” Id., at 41-42. It is this process from which the State contends it is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.
It is clear that the process at issue was directed only at state officials and not at the State itself or any agency of the State. Neither the fact that the State elected to defend on behalf of its agents, nor the fact that the District Court purported to adjudicate the rights of the State, deprived the federal court of jurisdiction that had been properly invoked over other parties. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U. S. 781; n. 20, supra. The process thus is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment as a direct action against the State.
B
The second question that must be considered is whether the state officials named in the warrant acted without legitimate authority in withholding the property at issue. In Treasure Salvors’ first response to the State’s Eleventh Amendment argument, it contended:
“If the Division of Archives were allowed to retain this property, its officials would be acting outside the scope of their authority under state law since the state statute under which they claim [does] not apply outside the states territory. The rationale of Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, [227 U. S. 278 (1913),] prohibits this result since to allow such action would be to deprive Treasure Salvors of their property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Record 472.
Thus from the outset, Treasure Salvors has asserted that state officials do not have valid statutory authority to hold the property at issue.
In Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682, this Court held that the actions of a federal official in withholding the delivery of goods pursuant to his interpretation of a disputed provision of a contract constituted at most a tortious deprivation of property. The proper remedy for the plaintiff was not an action in district court to compel delivery, but a suit for breach of contract in the Court of Claims. Actions of the Government official pursuant to legitimate contractual authority were neither ultra vires nor unconstitutional.
From the outset of the proceedings at issue here, the State of Florida has advanced the contracts that it executed with Treasure Salvors as a defense to the federal court’s attempt to secure possession of the artifacts held by the named state officials. It is noteworthy, however, that the State has never argued that the contracts conferred upon the State a right of ownership in the artifacts; the contracts simply “determined the rights and obligations of the contracting parties....” App. 44. The State has argued that the contracts are valid and “in no way affected” by the decision of this Court in United States v. Florida, 420 U. S. 531. App. 44.
We are not called upon in this case to determine “the rights and obligations” of two parties to a contract. The issue presented is whether state officials had authority to refuse to surrender possession of the artifacts to the District Court. The salvage contracts are not relevant to that question unless they provide a basis upon which the officials may claim a right to withhold possession of the property. Unless the contracts determine rights of the parties to the property, they are collateral to the issue before us.
It is apparent that the State does not have even a colorable claim to the artifacts pursuant to these contracts. The contracts did not purport to transfer ownership of any artifacts to the State; they permitted Treasure Salvors “to conduct underwater salvage from and upon certain submerged sovereignty lands of and belonging to the State of Florida,” id., at 20-21, “for the purpose of salvaging abandoned vessels or the remains thereof... which abandoned material is the property of the State of Florida.” Id., at 22 (emphasis added). The contracts provided for the performance of services on property that was believed to belong in toto to the State of Florida, in exchange for which the State agreed to “award to the Salvager seventy-five percent (75%) of the total appraised value of all material recovered....” Id., at 38. The State did not “yield” its claim to 75% of the artifacts in order to receive an undisputed right to the remaining 25%; the State agreed to pay Treasure Salvors the equivalent of 75% of the proceeds in compensation for the difficult and expensive work undertaken by Treasure Salvors in retrieving from the floor of the ocean property that was believed to belong to the State.
The salvage contracts might well provide a basis for a claim to the property by Treasure Salvors; for the contracts did purport to transfer a portion of the artifacts from the State to Treasure Salvors in compensation for the latter’s services. Treasure Salvors does claim a right to ownership, but based entirely on the fact that it was the finder of abandoned property and therefore entitled to the property independently of the contracts. Thus neither party’s rights to ownership is affected in any way by the salvage contracts; whether the contracts are valid or not, they provide no authority for the refusal of state officials to surrender possession of the artifacts.
The authority of state officials to claim the artifacts was derived solely from Fla. Stat. §267.061(1)(b) (1974), which provided:
“It is further declared to be the public policy of the state that all treasure trove, artifacts and such objects having intrinsic or historical and archaeological value which have been abandoned on state-owned lands or state-owned sovereignty submerged lands shall belong to the state with the title thereto vested in the division of archives, history and records management of the department of state for the purpose of administration and protection.” (Emphasis added.)
This Court has determined, however, that the Atocha was not found on “state-owned sovereignty submerged lands.” Rather, it was discovered on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States, beneath international waters.
No statutory provision has been advanced that even arguably would authorize officials of the Division of Archives to retain the property at issue. Throughout this litigation, the State has relied solely on the contracts that it executed with Treasure Salvors as a defense to the federal court’s process; those contracts were predicated entirely on a state statute that on its face is inapplicable in this case. Actions of state officials in holding property on the assumption that it was found on state land and/or that reason belongs to the State— when it is undisputed that the property was not found on state land — is beyond the authority of any reasonable reading of any statute that has been cited to us by the State.
As recognized in Larson, “action of an officer of the sovereign (be it holding, taking or otherwise legally affecting the plaintiff’s property)” that is beyond the officer’s statutory authority is not action of the sovereign, 337 U. S., at 701; a suit for specific relief against the officer is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. This conclusion follows inevitably from Ex parte Young. If conduct of a state officer taken pursuant to an unconstitutional state statute is deemed to be unauthorized and may be challenged in federal court, conduct undertaken without any authority whatever is also not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
If a statute of the State of Florida were to authorize state officials to hold artifacts in circumstances such as those presented in this case, a substantial constitutional question would be presented. In essence, the State would have authorized state officials to retain property regardless of the manner in which it was acquired, with no duty to provide compensation for a public taking. If the Constitution provided no protection against such unbridled authority, all property rights would exist only at the whim of the sovereign.
Thus, since the state officials do not have a colorable claim to possession of the artifacts, they may not invoke the Eleventh Amendment to block execution of the warrant of arrest. Of course, the warrant itself merely secures possession of the property; its execution does not finally adjudicate the State’s right to the artifacts. See Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S., at 223. In ruling that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar execution of the warrant, we need not decide the extent to which a federal district court exercising admiralty in rem jurisdiction over property before the court may adjudicate the rights of claimants to that property as against sovereigns that did not appear and voluntarily assert any claim that they had to the res.
C
Finally, it is clear that the relief sought in this case is consistent with the principles of Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651. The arrest warrant sought possession of specific property. It did not seek any attachment of state funds and would impose no burden on the state treasury.
This case is quite different from In re New York (I), 256 U. S. 490, and In re New York (II), 256 U. S. 503, relied on by the State. In In re New York (I), the plaintiff brought an action in federal court to recover damages caused by canal boats chartered by the State of New York. Pursuant to admiralty practice, the action was brought in rem against the vessels themselves. The owner of the vessels answered the complaint, contending that the action should be directed against the Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York. The District Court agreed and ordered the Superintendent to appear and answer; in the event that he could not be found the court directed that “the goods and chattels of the State of New York used and controlled by him” should be attached. 256 U. S., at 496.
The Attorney General of the State appeared on behalf of the Superintendent and asserted the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to the action. This Court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the Superintendent. The Court noted that “the proceedings against which prohibition is here asked have no element of a proceeding in rem, and are in the nature of an action in personam against Mr. Walsh, not individually, but in his capacity as Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York,” id., at 501; moreover, “[t]here is no suggestion that the Superintendent was or is acting under color of an unconstitutional law, or otherwise than in the due course of his duty under the constitution and laws of the State of New York.” Id., at 502. The Court concluded: “In the fullest sense, therefore, the proceedings are shown by the entire record to be in their nature and effect suits brought by individuals against the State of New York, and therefore — since no consent has been given — beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” Ibid.
In In re New York (II), the plaintiff filed an action in admiralty to recover damages caused by the negligent operation of a canal boat owned by the State of New York. The action was brought in rem and the vessel was arrested. This Court held, as it had in In re New York (I), that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. In broad language urged upon us here, the Court stated that property owned by a State and employed solely for governmental uses was exempt from seizure by admiralty process in rem. 256 U. S., at 511. The force of the holding in In re New York (II), however, is that an action — otherwise barred as an in personam action against the State — cannot be maintained through seizure of property owned by the State. Otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment could easily be circumvented; an action for damages could be brought simply by first attaching property that belonged to the State and then proceeding in rem.
In these cases the plaintiff did not claim an ownership interest in the vessels and did not question the State’s assertion of ownership. The sole purpose of the attempted arrests was to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over a damages claim that was otherwise barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In this case Treasure Salvors is not asserting a claim for damages against either the State of Florida or its officials. The present action is not an in personam action brought to recover damages from the State. The relief sought is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
IV
The Eleventh Amendment thus did not bar
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases arise out of the most recent general postal ratemaking proceeding, the fifth under the Postal Reorganization Act. At issue is the extent to which the Act requires the responsible federal agencies to base postal rates on cost-of-service principles.
I — I
A
When, in 1970, Congress enacted the Postal Reorganization Act (Act), 39 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., it divested itself of the control it theretofore had exercised over the setting of postal rates and fees. The Act abolished the Post Office Department, which since 1789 had administered the Nation’s mails. See Act of Sept. 22, 1789, ch. 16, 1 Stat. 70. In its place, the Act established the United States Postal Service as an independent agency under the direction of an 11-member Board of Governors. 39 U. S. C. §§201, 202. The Act also established a five-member Postal Rate Commission (Rate Commission) as an agency independent of the Postal Service. § 3601.
Basic to the Act is the principle that, to the extent “practicable,” the Postal Service’s total revenue must equal its costs. § 3621. Guided by this principle, the Board of Governors, when it deems it in the public interest, may request the Rate Commission to recommend a new rate schedule. § 3622. After receiving the request, the Rate Commission holds hearings, § 3624(a), and formulates a schedule, §3624 (d). Section 3622(b) provides that the Rate Commission shall recommend rates for the classes of mail in accordance with nine factors, the third of which is “the requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to that class or type plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type.” The Governors may approve the recommended rate schedule, may allow it under protest, may reject it, or, in limited circumstances, may modify it. §3625. The Governors’ decision to order new rates into effect may be appealed to any United States court of appeals. § 3628.
Questions confronting us in these cases are whether the Rate Commission must follow a two-tier or a three-tier process in setting rates, and the extent to which the Rate Commission must base rates on estimates of the costs caused by providing each class of mail service.
B
In its first two ratemaking proceedings under the Act, the Rate Commission determined that § 3622(b) establishes a two-tier approach to allocating the Postal Service’s total revenue requirement. See Postal Rate Commission, Opinion and Recommended Decision, Docket No. R74-1, pp. 4, 91-93 (1975); PRC Op. R71-1, pp. 39-41 (1972). Under this approach, the Rate Commission first must determine the costs caused by (“attributable to”) each class of mail, § 3622(b)(3), and on that basis establish a rate floor for each class. PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 92,93,110. The Rate Commission then must “reasonably assign,” see § 3622(b)(3), the remaining costs to the various classes of mail on the basis of the other factors set forth in § 3622(b). See PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 91-94.
In the first proceeding, the Rate Commission concluded that the Act does not dictate the use of any particular method of identifying the costs caused by each class. PRC Op. R71-1, pp. 42-47. Without committing itself to any theory for the future, it chose to attribute those costs shown to vary with the volume of mail in each class over the “short term” — the period of a single year. Although it considered other methods, it found the short-term approach to be the only feasible one, given the limited data developed by the Postal Service. Id., at 47-62.
In the second proceeding, the Rate Commission again viewed the choice of a costing system as within its discretion. PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 92-93, 127. Although the Postal Service contended that short-term costs should again control attribution, the Rate Commission determined that it could reliably attribute more costs through a long-term variable costing analysis. That method attributes costs by identifying cost variations associated with shifts in mail volume and with shifts in the Postal Service’s capacity to handle mail over periods of time longer than one year. Id., at 111-112, 126-127. The Rate Commission did not go beyond attributing long-run variable costs, because the statute forbids attribution based on guesswork, see id., at 110-111, and because the Rate Commission was unable to find “any other reliable principle of causality on [the] record,” id., at 94. The Rate Commission urged the development of improved data for future proceedings, so that it could identify more causal relationships, and thereby attribute more costs. Id., at 110-111.
C
Reviewing the second proceeding, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Rate Commission’s approach. National Assn. of Greeting Card Publishers v. USPS, 186 U. S. App. D. C. 331, 569 F. 2d 570 (1976) (NAGCP I), vacated on other grounds, 434 U. S. 884 (1977). The court held that the Act’s principal goals of eliminating price discrimination among classes of mail and curtailing discretion in ratesetting, 186 U. S. App. D. C., at 348-350, 569 F. 2d, at 587-589, require the Rate Commission “to employ cost-of-service principles to the fullest extent possible.” Id. at 354, 569 F. 2d, at 593; see id., at 348, 569 F. 2d, at 587. Therefore, the court stated, the Act mandates not only attribution of variable costs, but also “extended attribution” of costs that, “although not measurably variable,” can reasonably be determined to result from handling each class of mail. Id., at 347, 569 F. 2d, at 586. The court required the Rate Commission to allocate some costs on the basis of “cost accounting principles.” Id., at 344, 569 F. 2d, at 583; see id., at 347, 352, 569 F. 2d, at 586, 591. This involves apportioning costs on the basis of “distribution keys,” such as the weight or cubic volume of mail, notwithstanding the lack of proof that such factors play a causative role. Id., at 344, 352, 569 F. 2d, at 583, 591.
The Court of Appeals, citing the language and purposes of the statute, also required the Rate Commission to follow a three-tier, rather than a two-tier, procedure in setting rates. In the court’s view, the first two tiers — attribution and assignment — are to proceed on a cost-of-service basis. Id., at 347, and n. 59, 353-354, 569 F. 2d, at 586, and n. 59, 592-593. Only those “residual costs” that cannot be attributed or assigned on the basis of reasonable inferences of causation may be distributed, in the third tier, among the classes of mail on the basis of § 3622(b)’s noncost, discretionary factors. Id., at 348, 569 F. 2d, at 587.
Despite its doubts about NAGCP I, PRC Op. R77-1, p. 9 (1978), the Rate Commission attempted to comply in the fourth ratemaking proceeding. It adhered to its view that variability is the key to attribution, because only with “some showing of volume variability over the long run” could it have reasonable confidence that particular costs were the consequence of providing the service. Id., at 84. Because the data on long-run costs had improved, the Rate Commission found that its long-run analysis satisfied NAGCP 7’s requirement of “extended attribution” without resort to mere “inferences of causation.” PRC Op. R77-1, at 10, 85.
Turning to the intermediate assignment tier created by NAGCP 7, the Rate Commission found a group of nonvariable “Service Related Costs” to be reasonably assignable to first-class and certain categories of second-class mail. Service Related Costs were defined as the fixed delivery costs incurred in maintaining the current 6-day-a-week delivery schedule for those classes, rather than a hypothetical 3-day-a-week schedule. See PRC Op. R77-1, at 87-124.
D
The current controversy began on April 21, 1980, when the Postal Service requested from the Rate Commission a fifth increase in postal rates. Following extensive hearings, the Rate Commission recommended continued assignment of Service Related Costs in order to comply with the Court of Appeals’ three-tier approach, see PRC Op. R80-1, pp. 145-156, despite the Postal Service’s rejection of the concept, see Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on Rates of Postage and Fees for Postal Services, March 10,1981, App. to Pet. for Cert. 13b-14b (Decision of the Governors). The Rate Commission also made clear that while it did not consider variability analysis to be the sole statutory basis for attribution, only long-run variability analysis had been shown to be accurate enough to permit attribution. PRC Op. R80-1, pp. 129-131, 140, and n. 2. The Governors, under protest, permitted these rates to go into effect.
On petitions for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Congress had not intended to require the maximum possible use of cost-of-service principles in postal ratesetting. Newsweek, Inc. v. USPS, 663 F. 2d 1186 (1981). The Second Circuit stated that although the Rate Commission is free to use the approach the District of Columbia Circuit had required, the Act permits the use of other approaches as well, including the Rate Commission’s original two-tier approach to ratesetting. Under the Second Circuit’s construction, § 3622(b)(3) requires that the rate floor for each class consist of attributable costs based, at a minimum, on short-term variability; reasonable assignment may proceed on the basis of the other factors set forth in § 3622(b). The court remanded to the agencies for reconsideration.
Because of the inconsistencies in the holdings of the Second and District of Columbia Circuits, we granted certiorari. 456 U. S. 925 (1982).
II
As a threshold matter, it is useful to set forth what is, and what is not, at issue in this litigation. Of the factors set forth in § 3622(b), only subsection (b)(3) is styled a “requirement.” With the approval of both Courts of Appeals, the Rate Commission has concluded that notwithstanding its placement as the third of nine factors, this distinction dictates that “attribution” and “assignment” define the framework for ratesetting. In addition, the Rate Commission takes the view that “causation is both the statutory and the logical basis for attribution.” PRC Op. R74-1, p. 110. The parties do not dispute these premises, and we see no reason to question them.
At issue is the Rate Commission’s consistent position that the Act establishes a two-tier structure for ratesetting, and that the Act does not dictate or exclude the use of any method of attributing costs, but requires that all costs reliably identifiable with a given class, by whatever method, be attributed to that class. An agency’s interpretation of its enabling statute must be upheld unless the interpretation is contrary to the statutory mandate or frustrates Congress’ policy objectives. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S. 27, 32 (1981). Although the Postal Reorganization Act divides ratemaking responsibility between two agencies, the legislative history demonstrates “that ratemaking... authority [was] vested primarily in [the] Postal Rate Commission.” S. Rep. No. 91-912, p. 4 (1970) (Senate Report); see Time, Inc. v. USPS, 685 F. 2d 760, 771 (CA2 1982); Newsweek, Inc. v. USPS, 663 F. 2d, at 1200-1201; NAGCP III, 197 U. S. App. D. C., at 87, 607 F. 2d, at 401. The structure of the Act supports this view. While the Postal Service has final responsibility for guaranteeing that total revenues equal total costs, the Rate Commission determines the proportion of the revenue that should be raised by each class of mail. In so doing, the Rate Commission applies the factors listed in § 3622(b). Its interpretation of that statute is due deference. See Time, Inc. v. USPS, 685 F. 2d, at 771; United Parcel Service, Inc. v. USPS, 604 F. 2d 1370, 1381 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 957 (1980).
Ill
In NAGCP I, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit discerned in the Act an overriding purpose to minimize the Rate Commission’s discretion by maximizing the use of cost-of-service principles. According to the Court of Appeals, the Rate Commission’s failure to use “cost accounting principles” to attribute costs, and its failure to “assign” costs on the basis of extended inferences of causation as a middle ratesetting tier, frustrated these congressional goals. Animating the court’s view was the fact that Congress, in passing the Act, was disturbed about the influence of lobbyists on Congress’ discretionary ratemaking and the resulting discrimination in rates among classes of postal service; in the Act, Congress sought to “get ‘politics out of the Post Office.’” 186 U. S. App. D. C., at 349, 569 F. 2d, at 588 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 91-1104, p. 6 (1970) (House Report)).
Without doubt, Congress did have these problems in mind, but we agree with the Second Circuit that the District of Columbia Circuit misunderstood Congress’ solution. See 663 F. 2d, at 1198. Congress did not eliminate the rate-setter’s discretion; it simply removed the ratesetting function from the political arena by removing postal funding from the budgetary process, see § 3621 (Postal Service is to be self-supporting), and by removing the Postal Service’s principal officers from the President’s direct control. House Report, at 6, 12, 13, 18-19; Senate Report, at 8. In addition, Congress recognized that the increasing economic, accounting, and engineering complexity of ratemaking issues had caused Members of Congress, “lacking the time, training, and staff support for thorough analysis,” to place too much reliance on lobbyists. House Report, at 18. Consequently, it attempted to remove undue price discrimination and political influence by placing ratesetting in the hands of a Rate Commission, composed of “professional economists, trained rate analysts, and the like,” id., at 5, independent of Postal Service management, id., at 13, and subject only to Congress’ “broad policy guidelines,” id., at 12. Congress sought to ensure that the Postal Service would be managed “in a businesslike way.” Id., at 5; see id., at 11-12. There is no suggestion in the legislative history that Congress viewed the exercise of discretion as an evil in itself. Congress simply wished to substitute the educated and politically insulated discretion of experts for its own.
I — I <
We turn now to the narrower contentions about the meaning of § 3622(b)(3). In determining whether the Rate Commission’s two-tier approach to ratesetting is contrary to the mandate of the Act or frustrates its policies, we begin with the statute’s language. See North Dakota v. United States, 460 U. S. 300, 312 (1983); Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U. S. 103, 110 (1983). Once the Rate Commission has allocated all attributable costs, § 3622(b)(3) directs that each class must bear, in addition, “that portion of all other costs... reasonably assignable” to it. While the verb “attribute” primarily connotes causation, the verb “assign” connotes distribution on any basis. On its face, therefore, the section suggests one ratemaking tier based on causation, and a second based on other factors. We see no justification for the interposition of an intermediate causation-based assignment tier. The Rate Commission’s two-tier approach is consistent with the statutory language.
Moreover, the legislative history supports the Rate Commission’s approach. The report of the President’s Commission on Postal Organization (Kappel Commission) found that it would be unfair to require the users of one class of service to pay for expenditures demonstrably related to another class. See Kappel Commission, Towards Postal Excellence: The Report of the President’s Commission on Postal Organization 130 (1968) (Kappel Commission Report). But, on the basis of detailed studies of the Post Office, the report concluded that “[a] large segment of postal costs... does not result from handling a particular class of mail but is the cost of maintaining the postal system itself.” Id., at 30. The Kappel Commission proposed a two-tier ratemaking process, very similar to the Rate Commission’s approach, to allocate among the classes of mail these two groups of costs.
The House version of § 3622(b)(3) closely followed the Kappel Commission’s proposal, see House Report, at 6, directing the establishment of rates “so that at least those costs demonstrably related to the class of service in question will be borne by each such class and not by other classes of users of postal services or by the mails generally.” H. R. 17070, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 1201(c) (1970). Although the House bill did not address the criteria that would govern distribution of the remaining costs among the various classes of mail, there was no suggestion of a second, more attenuated, causation-based tier as required by the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Senate bill, although not expressly calling for a rate floor for each class, required the Rate Commission to consider among other factors “operating costs, the amount of overhead, and other institutional costs of the Postal Service properly assignable to each class of mail.” S. 3842, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., §3704(g)(3) (1970). The Senate bill’s use of the word “assignable,” which the District of Columbia Circuit believed mandated a causation-based “assignment” tier, see NAGCP I, 186 U. S. App. D. C., at 347, n. 59, 569 F. 2d, at 586, n. 59, does not undercut the reasonableness of the Rate Commission’s construction. There is no suggestion either in this language or elsewhere in the legislative history that the Senate envisioned a three-tier approach. In fact, the Senate Report accompanying the bill suggested a two-tier approach, allocating some costs on cost-of-service principles, and allocating other costs through consideration of the overall value of the service provided and other factors. See Senate Report, at 11.
As discussed above, the language of the compromise bill enacted into law is fully consistent with a two-tier structure, and there is no legislative history to the contrary. We conclude that the Rate Commission’s two-tier approach is a reasonable construction of § 3622(b)(3).
V
We now turn to the nature of the first tier, the statutory requirement of attribution.
A
The Court has observed: “Allocation of costs is not a matter for the slide-rule. It involves judgment on a myriad of facts. It has no claim to an exact science.” Colorado Interstate Co. v. FPC, 324 U. S. 581, 589 (1945). Generally, the legislature leaves to the ratesetting agency the choice of methods by which to perform this allocation, see, e. g., American Commercial Lines, Inc. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 392 U. S. 571, 590-593 (1968); Colorado Interstate Co., 324 U. S., at 589, although if the statute provides a formula, the agency is bound to follow it. Ibid.
We agree with the Rate Commission’s consistent position that Congress did not dictate a specific method for identifying causal relationships between costs and classes of mail, but that the Act “envisions consideration of all appropriate costing approaches.” PRC Op. R71-1, p. 46; see PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 92, 127; PRC Op. R80-1, pp. 129-133. The Rate Commission has held that, regardless of method, the Act requires the establishment of a sufficient causal nexus before costs may be attributed. The Rate Commission has variously described that requirement as demanding a “reliable principle of causality,” PRC Op. R74-1, p. 94, or “reasonable confidence” that costs are the consequence of providing a particular service, PRC Op. 77-1, p. 84, or a “reasoned analysis of cost causation.” PRC Op. R80-1, p. 131. Accordingly, despite the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation, the Rate Commission has refused to use general “accounting principles” based on distribution keys without an established causal basis. But the Rate Commission has gone beyond short-term costs in each rate proceeding since the first.
B
Section 3622(b)(3) requires that all “attributable costs” be borne by the responsible class. In determining what costs are “attributable,” the Rate Commission is directed to look to all costs of the Postal Service, both “direct” and “indirect.” In selecting the phrase “attributable costs,” Congress avoided the use of any term of art in law or accounting. In the normal sense of the word, an “attributable” cost is a cost that may be considered to result from providing a particular class of service. On its face, there is no reason to suppose that § 3622(b)(3) denies to the expert ratesetting agency, exercising its reasonable judgment, the authority to decide which methods sufficiently identify the requisite causal connection between particular services and particular costs.
The legislative history supports the Rate Commission’s view that when causal analysis is limited by insufficient data, the statute envisions that the Rate Commission will “press for... better data,” rather than “construct an ‘attribution’” based on unsupported inferences of causation. PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 110-111. Before passage of the Act, Congress had set rates based on the Post Office’s ungainly “Cost Ascertainment System,” which allocated — on the basis of “distribution keys” like those advocated by the District of Columbia Circuit — all postal expenses to one or another class of mail. The Kappel Commission determined that this approach was “arbitrary [and] uninformative.” Kappel Commission Report, at 30; see id., at 131. Many costs are institutional, and the inferences of causation supporting the Post Office’s allocation of costs to the different classes were simply unsupported by the data. Id., at 29-31, 132-135. In proposing the two-tier approach, therefore, the Kappel Commission stated that each class of service would recover all costs “demonstrably related” to it in order to avoid the inequity of users of one class subsidizing users of another class; however, the “[r]emaining institutional costs would not be apportioned to the several classes of mail by rigid accounting formulas.” Id., at 61-62.
The House bill tracked these recommendations, see generally House Report, at 6, and adopted a rate floor consisting of “demonstrably related” costs, H. R. 17070, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 1201(c) (1970), which it described as “identifiable costs.” House Report, at 10. The Senate bill did not explicitly include a causally based rate floor. See 116 Cong. Rec. 22053 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Fannin). But the Senate plainly rejected the notion of binding ratesetters to “accounting principles” akin to those used in the Cost Ascertainment System. The Senate Report stated that “no particular cost accounting system is recommended and no particular classification of mail is required to recover a designated portion of its cost beyond its incremental cost.” Senate Report, at 17.
The conference bill enacted into law incorporated the rate floor contained in the House version, but replaced the phrase “demonstrably related” costs with “attributable” costs. Debate on the ratemaking aspects of the conference bill was sparse. On the floor of the House, one conferee defined “attributable” costs as “capable of objective determination and proof either by empirical observation or deductive analysis.” 116 Cong. Rec. 27606 (1970) (remarks of Rep. Udall). On the Senate floor, the Act’s sponsor explained that attributable costs were “actual postal costs.” Id., at 26954 (remarks of Sen. McGee). Neither explanation suggests that the conference bill resurrected accounting principles like those used in the discredited Cost Ascertainment System. The Rate Commission, therefore, acted consistently with the statutory mandate and Congress’ policy objectives in refusing to use distribution keys or other accounting principles lacking an established causal basis.
C
The Postal Service contends that Congress intended long-term and short-term variable costs to be attributed, but that Congress did not direct attribution of costs, apart from fixed costs incurred by a particular class, that do not vary directly or indirectly with volume. We agree that, because the Rate Commission has decided that these methods reliably indicate causal connections between classes of mail and postal rates, the Act requires that they be employed. But the Act’s language and legislative history support the Rate Commission’s position that Congress did not intend to bar the use of any reliable method of attributing costs. See PRC Op. R71-1, pp. 42-46.
The record before Congress in 1970 indicated that identifying which classes cause specific costs was a “most difficult” task, Foster Associates Study, at 1-5, and that a long-run variable cost approach was “the best available measure” of cost causation. Id., at 1-6. The Kappel Commission consequently recommended that each class bear, “as a minimum,” all “demonstrably related” capital and operating costs — “[i]n economic terms... the long-run variable costs ascribable to it.” Kappel Commission Report, at 131. Although the House bill adopted the Kappel Commission’s requirement that each class bear its “demonstrably related costs,” we do not believe that in so doing it intended to limit attribution to the long-run variable approach. The Kappel Commission did not emphasize technical matters, focusing instead on the need for nonarbitrary demonstrations of causation. Postmaster General Blount informed the House that the phrase “demonstrably related costs” was employed to avoid the confusion generated by the use of terms of art such as “marginal” or “incremental” costs. “Demonstrably related costs,” he explained, “are those costs which can be traced directly to the class of service in question.... [W]e believe that the legislative history has made amply clear what the term means, without shackling future generations to any particular economic theory.” Hearings on Post Office Reorganization before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1273 (1969) (Post Office Response to Memoranda Submitted by J. Edward Day).
The House Report did not mention any particular costing technique. In defining the rate floor established by the House bill, it explained only that each class would be required to bear “at least its own identifiable costs.” House Report, at 10. Given the House Report’s repeated statements that Members of Congress are ill-equipped to deal with the highly technical economic, accounting, and engineering questions lying at the heart of the ratemaking process, it is implausible to suppose that the House intended to prescribe for the experts appointed to resolve this problem a formula for identifying causal relationships. It is also unlikely that the House intended to limit the Postal Service forever to accounting methods current at the time the bill was enacted.
The Conference Committee abandoned the phrase “demonstrably related costs” in favor of “attributable” costs, a phrase that connotes the use of judgment and has no technical meaning or significant antecedent legislative history. It also retained the House bill’s explicit requirement of a rate floor. In so doing, the conferees ensured that identification of causal relationships would not be limited to those methods discussed in the Kappel Commission Report, but would encompass all postal costs, whether “direct or indirect,” that the experts, on whatever reasoned basis, found to be attributable to a particular class of mail.
D
The Second Circuit found controlling the definition of “attributable” costs contained in the Statement of the Managers on the Part of the House, appended to the Conference Report on the Act, H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1363, pp. 79-90 (1970). Newsweek, Inc. v. USPS, 663 F. 2d, at 1199-1200. The House Managers stated that the conference substitute established a rate floor for each class of mail “equal to costs... that vary over the short term in response to changes in volume of a particular class or, even though fixed rather than variable, are the consequence of providing the specific service involved.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1363, at 87 (emphasis supplied). The Rate Commission specifically addressed and rejected this argument when it was advanced by the Postal Service in the first two ratemaking proceedings, see PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 101-102, 126-127; PRC Op. R71-1, pp. 42-46, and even the Postal Service since has abandoned it. The statute’s plain language and prior legislative history, discussed above, indicate that Congress’ broad policy was to mandate a rate floor consisting of all costs that could be identified, in the view of the expert Rate Commission, as causally linked to a class of postal service. We cannot say that the House Managers’ Statement alone demonstrates that the Rate Commission’s view is “inconsistent with the statutory mandate or... frustrate[s] the policy that Congress sought to implement.” FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U. S., at 32.
h — H >
We hold that the Rate Commission has reasonably construed the Act as establishing a two-tier ratesetting structure. First, all costs that in the judgment of the Rate Commission are the consequence of providing a particular class of service must be borne by that class. The statute requires attribution of any cost for which the source can be identified, but leaves it to the Commissioners, in the first instance, to decide which methods provide reasonable assurance that costs are the result of providing one class of service.
For this function to be performed, the Postal Service must seek to improve the data on which causal relationships may be identified as the Rate Commission remains open to the use of any method that reliably identifies causal relationships. In our view, the Rate Commission conscientiously has attempted to find causal connections between classes of service and all postal costs — both operating costs and “overhead” or “capacity” costs — where the data are sufficient. PRC Op. R74-1, pp. 126-127; see PRC Op. R80-1, pp. 129-131. The Rate Commission is to assign remaining costs reasonably on the basis of the other eight factors set forth by § 3622(b).
Inasmuch as the rates at issue were established according to the District of Columbia Circuit’s erroneous view of the Act, we agree with the Second Circuit that this matter must be remanded to the agencies. While we do not agree with all that the Second Circuit said in its opinion, we affirm its judgment in remanding the cases. The remand will be for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
All citations to statutes herein refer to provisions of Title 39 of the United States Code.
The Postal Service and Rate Commission classify the various types of mail through a process similar to that governing ratesetting. See §§ 3623, 3625. Presently, the four broad classes of mail are first class (letters, post cards, and small sealed parcels), second class (newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals), third class (single piece service for small parcels, cata-logues, and other items, and certain bulk mail services), and fourth class (primarily parcel post). See Brief for United States Postal Service 4, n. 4.
Section 8622(b) provides in relevant part:
“(b) Upon receiving a request [from the Postal Service], the [Rate] Commission shall make a recommended decision... in accordance with the policies of this title and the following factors:
“(1) the establishment and maintenance of a fair and equitable schedule;
“(2) the value of the mail service actually provided each class or type of mail service to both the sender and the recipient, including but not limited to the collection, mode of transportation, and priority of delivery;
“(3) the requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to that class or type plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type;
“(4) the effect of rate increases upon the general public, business mail users, and enterprises in the private sector of the economy engaged in the delivery of mail matter other than letters;
“(5) the available alternative means of sending and receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs;
“(6) the degree of preparation of mail for delivery into the postal system performed by the mailer and its effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service;
“(7) simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or fees charged the various classes of mail for postal services;
“(8) the educational, cultural, scientific, and informational value to the recipient of mail matter; and
“(9) such other factors as the Commission deems appropriate.”
Opinions and Recommended Decisions of the Rate Commission are cited herein as “PRC Op.,” followed by the docket number.
In addition to variable costs, the Rate Commission consistently has attributed fixed costs incurred for the benefit of a single class. See PRC Op. R74-1, p. 76; PRC Op. R80-1, App. B, p. 52 (1981). These “specific fixed costs” constitute a small percentage of all costs. See Brief for United States Postal Service 6. n. 9.
The Rate Commission attributed 60% of the Postal Service's total revenue requirement in the first proceeding, see App. 239a, and in the second the data provided by the Postal Service had improved enough to support a rate floor consisting of 52.5% of total postal costs. See PRC Op. R80-1, App. B, p. 28.
Such accounting principles are used in utility ratemaking proceedings that employ “fully allocated costing” systems. Under
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Speedy Trial Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), as amended in 1979 and in 1984, commands that a defendant be tried within 70 days of the latest of either the filing of an indictment or information, or the first appearance before a judge or magistrate. Section 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes from this time “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.” This case requires us to decide the narrow questions whether that exclusion is limited to reasonably necessary delays, and whether it applies to delays occasioned by the filing of posthearing briefs on motions.
I
A jury convicted petitioners of charges arising out of manufacture, possession, and distribution of controlled substances. The evidence at trial showed that in February and April 1980 petitioner Henderson, under the alias “Richard Martin,” placed orders with a scientific supply company in Ohio for chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. The orders attracted the attention of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Agents obtained a warrant from a United States Magistrate, authorizing installation of an electronic transmitter in one of the chemical containers. Henderson drove from California to Ohio, picked up the second order of chemicals on June 24, and headed west. Agents lost the tracking signal despite their following by both car and plane, only to receive it later in July from petitioner Freedman’s house near Watsonville, California. A search pursuant to warrant on July 17 revealed an illicit drug factory. The last of the codefendants, Peter Bell, was arraigned on September 3, 1980.
The Speedy Trial Act requires that trial begin within 70 days of the latest indictment, information, or appearance — in this case, September 3. 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1). A timely trial would have commenced on November 12, 1980, barring periods of excludable delay. Overlapping filings by petitioners and the Government, however, kept a suppression motion pending from its filing on November 3, 1980, through a hearing on that motion on March 25, 1981. The court deferred decision on the motion pending receipt of posthearing submissions from the parties, the last of which was filed on December 15, 1981. See App. 29-31. The District Court finally denied the motion to suppress on January 19, 1982.
From January 25 to May 10, 1982, both parties filed additional motions before the District Court — on January 25 the Government moved to set the case for trial, and on March 23 petitioners moved to reconsider the motion to suppress. On February 3, the court held a hearing on the Government’s motion and granted a continuance through April 21 to allow defense counsel to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the suppression motion. After a hearing on May 10, the court denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider the motion to suppress, and set a trial date of September 13, 1982. The court also entered an order excluding, for purposes of the Act, the time from May 10 to September 13 based on a provision of the Act that allows such exclusion by the Court to satisfy the “ends of justice.” Id., at 32-33; see 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
On July 23, 1982, Thornton filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The other two petitioners subsequently joined this motion. The District Judge held a hearing almost two months later, on September 8, and denied the motion from the bench on that date. He filed a memorandum and order outlining his reasons exactly 30 days later. At that time, the judge also entered an order excluding the time from October 8 to November 1, again based on the “interests of justice.” 3 Record, Doc. Nos. 98-99. Trial commenced on November 1, 1982.
Petitioners appealed their convictions, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court could exclude from their Speedy Trial Act computation only delays that were “reasonably necessary.” 746 F. 2d 619, 622 (CA9 1984). The Court of Appeals held that the statute “excludes delays resulting from pretrial motions without qualification.” Ibid. The court noted that Congress had explicitly provided that the excludability of certain other delays depended on their reasonableness, but had not done so for delays from pretrial motions. Ibid. Judge Ferguson dissented, relying on the Act’s legislative history and the interpretations of other Circuits. Id., at 625-626. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits. 474 U. S. 900 (1985). We now affirm.
II
The Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal trial must commence within 70 days of the latest of a defendant’s indictment, information, or appearance, barring periods of ex-cludable delay. United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U. S. 231 (1985); see 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1). Section 3161(h) (1)(F) (subsection (F)) excludes from these 70 days certain delays occasioned by the filing of pretrial motions:
“(h) The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence:
“(1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to—
“(F) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion” (emphasis added).
A
On its face, subsection (F) excludes “[a]ny period of delay” caused by “any pretrial motion,” “from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing.” The plain terms of the statute appear to exclude all time between the filing of and the hearing on a motion whether that hearing was prompt or not. Moreover, subsection (F) does not require that a period of delay be “reasonable” to be excluded, although Congress clearly knew how to limit an exclusion: in § 3161(h)(7), Congress provided for exclusion of a “reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.” Apart from this single instance, every other provision in § 3161(h) provides for exclusion of “any period of delay.” The provision excludes, for example, all of the time consumed by an interlocutory appeal, § 3161(h)(1)(E), by a competency examination, § 3161(h)(1)(A), and by the defendant’s unavailability, § 3161(h)(3)(A). As the Court of Appeals concluded: “The difference between (7) and (1) through (6) is a strong indication that exclusion of the periods defined in (l)-(6) was intended to be automatic.” 746 F. 2d, at 622.
The legislative history of the 1979 Amendments to the Act supports this reading of subsection (F). That history shows that Congress was aware of the breadth of the exclusion it was enacting in subsection (F). The Senate Judiciary Committee acknowledged that “if basic standards for prompt consideration of pretrial motions are not developed,” the liberalized 1979 Amendments to subsection (F) “could become a loophole which could undermine the whole Act.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 34 (1979). In its subsequent consideration of subsection (F), the House of Representatives did not qualify the exclusion in any way or limit such potential abuse by statute. Instead the House adopted the Senate’s version “with the intention that potentially excessive and abusive use of this exclusion be precluded by district or circuit guidelines, rules, or procedures relating to motions practice.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-390, p. 10 (1979). Congress clearly envisioned that any limitations should be imposed by circuit or district court rules rather than by the statute itself. Such rules, developed pursuant to § 3166(f), should provide the assurance of a speedy disposition of pretrial motions.
Petitioners largely concede these arguments and advance two other contentions for limiting subsection (F)’s exclusion to time that is “reasonably necessary” for the disposition of pretrial motions. First, they contend that the phrase “other prompt disposition” within subsection (F) implies that a district court may not unreasonably delay a criminal trial by deferring a hearing on a pretrial motion. Two of the Courts of Appeals that have limited the exclusion in subsection (F) to delays that are “reasonably necessary” have relied on this argument. United States v. Janik, 723 F. 2d 537, 543 (CA7 1983); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 41-42 (CA2 1982). But a reading of subsection (F) in connection with §3161 (h)(l)(J) (subsection (J)), which allows exclusion of up to 30 days while the district court has a motion “under advisement,” i. e., 30 days from the time the court receives all the papers it reasonably expects, undermines this conclusion. The phrase “prompt disposition” was intended to prevent a district court from using subsection (F) to exclude time after a motion is taken under advisement when that time fails to qualify for exclusion under subsection (J).
Subsection (F), written in the disjunctive, excludes time in two situations. The first arises when a pretrial motion requires a hearing: subsection (F) on its face excludes the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. The second situation concerns motions that require no hearing and that result in a “prompt disposition.” There, the promptness requirement was “intended to provide a point at which time will cease to be excluded, where motions are decided on the papers filed without hearing.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. The “point at which time will cease to be excluded” is identified by subsection (J), which permits an exclusion of 30 days from the time a motion is actually “under advisement” by the court. Without the promptness requirement in subsection (F), a court could exclude time beyond subsection (J)’s 30-day “under advisement” provision simply by designating the additional period as time “from the filing of the motion” through its “disposition” under subsection (F). As the Senate Committee on the Judiciary explained:
“In using the words ‘prompt disposition’, the committee intends to make it clear that, in excluding time between filing and disposition on the papers, the Committee does not intend to permit circumvention of the 30-days, ‘under advisement’ provision contained in Subsection (h)(l)(J). Indeed, if motions are so simple or routine that they do not require a hearing, necessary advisement time should be considerably less than 30 days.” Ibid.
We therefore conclude that for pretrial motions that require a hearing, the phrase “or other prompt disposition” in subsection (F) does not imply that only “reasonably necessary” delays may be excluded between the time of filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing thereon.
Petitioners’ second argument rests on the sentence that immediately follows the extract quoted above: “Nor does the Committee intend that additional time be made eligible for exclusion by postponing the hearing date or other disposition of the motions beyond what is reasonably necessary.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Four Courts of Appeals have relied on this legislative history to support their “reasonably necessary” qualification in subsection (F). United States v. Ray, 768 F. 2d 991, 998 (CA8 1985); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F. 2d 1040, 1047 (CA1 1983); United States v. Novak, 715 F. 2d 810, 819 (CA3 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Ware v. United States, 465 U. S. 1030 (1984); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 44 (CA2 1982).
Any qualification of subsection (F)’s exclusion based on this sentence, which appears in the paragraph discussing motions decided without a hearing, would be at odds with the plain language of the statute. It also would be contrary to other passages contained in both the House and Senate Reports that specifically concern the “hearings” provision of subsection (F). See supra, at 327-328. We therefore decline to read into subsection (F) a “reasonably necessary” qualification based on this single sentence from the Senate Report. We instead hold that Congress intended subsection (F) to exclude from the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limitation all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is “reasonably necessary.”
B
The remaining issue is whether subsection (F) excludes time after a hearing on a motion but before the district court receives all the submissions by counsel it needs to decide that motion. Cf. § 3161(h)(1) (excluding “[a]ny period of delay re-suiting from other proceedings concerning the defendant”). Although the language of subsection (F) is not clear on this point, we are convinced that its structure, as well as reason, requires that such time be excluded.
The provisions of the Act are designed to exclude all time that is consumed in placing the trial court in a position to dispose of a motion. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 9-10. District courts often find it impossible to resolve motions on which hearings have been held until the parties have submitted posthearing briefs or additional factual materials, especially where the motion presents complicated issues. It would not have been sensible for Congress to exclude automatically all the time prior to the hearing on a motion and 30 days after the motion is taken under advisement, but not the time during which the court remains unable to rule because it is awaiting the submission by counsel of additional materials. Moreover, for motions decided solely on the papers, Congress has allowed exclusion of time during which the parties are filing their briefs. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(F), (J); see supra, at 328-329. It is consistent with this exclusion to exclude time when the court awaits the briefs and materials needed to resolve a motion on which a hearing has been held — motions that the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized as typically more difficult than motions decided on the papers. See S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. We therefore hold that subsection (F) excludes time after a hearing has been held where a district court awaits additional filings from the parties that are needed for proper disposition of the motion.
Ill
We now calculate the number of nonexcludable days before petitioners’ trial. The Act began to run on September 3, 1980, the date of arraignment of codefendant Bell. On October 22, 1980, the District Court entered — with the consent of the parties — a continuance through November 12. The District Court excluded that continuance from the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limit under § 3161(h)(8)(A) in “the interest of justice.” App. 26-27; see 746 F. 2d, at 623-624. That exclusion is not challenged in this Court.
The motion to suppress was filed during this continuance, on November 3, 1980. App. 27. The hearing on this and subsequent motions was held on March 25, 1981. Id., at 28. This time is automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1)(F). The court declined to reach a final decision on the suppression motion at that hearing because it needed further information. Id., at 28-29. The court did not receive all filings in connection with the motion until December 15, 1981, when the Government submitted its response to petitioners’ memorandum and request for an evidentiary hearing. Id., at 31. That time is also excludable, plus 30 days for the District Court to take the matter under advisement. We therefore exclude the period from March 25, 1981, through January 14, 1982.
On January 25, 1982, the Government filed a motion to set the case for trial, noticed for February 3. We need not decide whether this time is excludable under subsection (F) as it does not affect the disposition of this case. On February 3, the court continued the case until April 21, to afford defense counsel the opportunity to file a motion to reconsider the suppression ruling. Ibid. The District Court subsequently found that this time was excludable under § 3161(h)(8)(A) as a continuance necessary for the “interests of justice.” Id., at 34. On March 23, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration. Under subsection (F), an exclusion for this pending motion ran from March 23 until the disposition by hearing on May 10. See App. 33. At that time, the court stated that it would exclude under § 3161(h)(8)(A) the time from May 10 to September 13, the new trial date, because of the difficulty of coordinating the schedules of five defense attorneys. The court entered a similar order on September 13 that extended through the ultimate trial date of November 1, 1982. Neither of those orders is properly before us. As the case stands here, it presents 69 nonexcludable days of delay, and therefore the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The jury convicted all three petitioners of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and phenyl-2-propanone, see 21 U. S. C. § 846; petitioners Thornton and Freedman of manufacture and possession with intent to distribute of methamphetamine, see § 842(a)(1); and petitioner Henderson of traveling interstate with intent to promote the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, see 18 U. S. C. § 1952(a)(3).
Codefendant Bell was severed from petitioners’ trial on November 1, 1982. All defendants who are joined for trial generally fall within the speedy trial computation of the latest codefendant. See 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(7). Once Bell was joined with petitioners in the September 3 superseding indictment, their 70-day period was measured with respect to his.
On November 3, 1980, petitioners filed a motion to suppress evidence. 2 Record, Doc. Nos. 24-26. On November 24, petitioners filed a supplemental memorandum concerning alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. On its own motion, the District Court rescheduled the hearing from November 26, 1980, to January 14,1981, and again to January 28, 1981. A third continuance, at petitioner Freedman’s request, moved the hearing date to February 18, 1981. Meanwhile, on January 13, petitioners filed a motion to reveal the identity of a confidential informant. At the February 18 hearing, petitioners requested and received a continuance to March 2 to reply to the Government’s responses, filed only the day before. The hearing was held instead on March 25 after a 21-day continuance from the court on March 4.
Petitioners filed the motion on March 23; the Government filed its response on April 14, 1982. 3 Record, Doc. Nos. 74-75.
Section 3161(h)(8)(A) provides for the exclusion of
“[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”
Several Courts of Appeals have read into 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) a requirement that only delays that are “reasonably necessary” may be excluded from the computation of the 70-day period. United States v. Ray, 768 F. 2d 991, 998-999 (CA8 1985); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F. 2d 1040, 1047 (CA1 1983); United States v. Janik, 723 F. 2d 537, 543 (CA7 1983); United States v. Novak, 715 F. 2d 810, 819-820 (CA3 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Ware v. United States, 465 U. S. 1030 (1984); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 44 (CA2 1982). Other Circuits have held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes without qualification the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. 746 F. 2d 619 (CA9 1984) (case below); United States v. Stafford, 697 F. 2d 1368, 1373 (CA11 1983). Cf. United States v. Horton, 705 F. 2d 1414, 1416 (CA5), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 997 (1983).
Section 3161(h)(1)(H), which provides for the exclusion of delay from transporting a defendant “from another district, or to and from places of examination or hospitalization,” presumes that any such delay over 10 days is unreasonable.
The discussion in S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 34 (1979), see post, at 336-337, concerns time spent preparing pretrial motions. The pertinent language from the Report reads:
“Although some witnesses contended that all time consumed by motions practice, from preparation through their disposition, should be excluded, the Committee finds that approach unreasonable. This is primarily because, in routine cases, preparation time should not be excluded where the questions of law are not novel and the issues of fact simple. However, the Committee would permit through its amendments to subsection (h)(8)(B) reasonable preparation time for pretrial motions in eases presenting novel questions of law or complex facts.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 33-34.
Our holding concerns time after the submission of pretrial motions. We note in such situations that the trial court is in a position to determine what, if any, additional submissions that it needs from the parties, and when those submissions are due.
The dissent relies on district court rules as a basis for invoking petitioners’ standard. Post, at 337-338, n. 2. The interpretation of the local rule, however, is a matter on which we should defer to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It found no violation of the rule.
It would be useful in the future for circuit and district court rules to include specific timetables, thereby giving substance to the obligations of prosecutors and defense counsel under the Speedy Trial Act.
The unexplained failure of the District Court to find the delay from any continuance to be excludable until October 1982 has not been argued by either party before this Court, and therefore is also not before us.
The count is 49 days from September 3, 1980, to November 22, 1980, and 20 days from January 14, 1982, to February 3, 1982.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA or Act) to correct perceived abuses of the bankruptcy system. Among the reform measures the Act implemented are a number of provisions that regulate the conduct of “debt relief agencies]” — i. e., professionals who provide bankruptcy assistance to consumer debtors. See 11 U. S. C. §§ 101(3), (12A). These consolidated cases present the threshold question whether attorneys are debt relief agencies when they provide qualifying services. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that they are, we must also consider whether the Act’s provisions governing debt relief agencies’ advice to clients, § 526(a)(4), and requiring them to make certain disclosures in their advertisements, §§ 528(a) and (b)(2), violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys. Concluding that the Court of Appeals construed § 526(a)(4) too expansively, we reverse its judgment that the provision is unconstitutionally overbroad. Like the Court of Appeals, we uphold §528’s disclosure requirements as applied in these consolidated cases.
I
In order to improve bankruptcy law and practice, Congress enacted through the BAPCPA a number of provisions directed at the conduct of bankruptcy professionals. Some of these measures apply to the broad class of bankruptcy professionals termed “debt relief agencies]. ” That category includes, with limited exceptions, “any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for... payment..., or who is a bankruptcy petition preparer.” § 101(12A). “Bankruptcy assistance” refers to goods or services “provided to an assisted person with the express or implied purpose of providing information, advice, counsel, document preparation, or filing, or attendance at a creditors’ meeting or appearing in a case or proceeding on behalf of another or providing legal representation with respect to a case or proceeding” in bankruptcy. §101(4A). An “assisted person” is someone with limited nonexempt property whose debts consist primarily of consumer debts. § 101(3). The BAPCPA subjects debt relief agencies to a number of restrictions and requirements, as set forth in §§526,527, and 528. As relevant here, § 526(a) establishes several rules of professional conduct for persons qualifying as debt relief agencies. Among them, § 526(a)(4) states that a debt relief agency shall not “advise an assisted person... to incur more debt in contemplation of such person filing a case under this title or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer fee or charge for services performed as part of preparing for or representing a debtor in a case under this title.”
Section 528 requires qualifying professionals to include certain disclosures in their advertisements. Subsection (a) provides that debt relief agencies must “clearly and conspicuously disclose in any advertisement of bankruptcy assistance services or of the benefits of bankruptcy directed to the general public... that the services or benefits are with respect to bankruptcy relief under this title.” § 528(a)(3). It also requires them to include the following, “or a substantially similar statement”: “We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.” § 528(a)(4). Subsection (b) requires essentially the same disclosures in advertisements “indicating that the debt relief agency provides assistance with respect to credit defaults, mortgage foreclosures, eviction proceedings, excessive debt, debt collection pressure, or inability to pay any consumer debt.” § 528(b)(2). Debt relief agencies advertising such services must disclose “that the assistance may involve bankruptcy relief,” § 528(b)(2)(A), and must identify themselves as “debt relief agenc[ies]” as required by § 528(a)(4), see § 528(b)(2)(B).
II
The plaintiffs in this litigation — the law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A.; the firm’s president, Robert J. Milavetz; a bankruptcy attorney at the firm, Barbara Nilva Nevin; and two of the firm’s clients (collectively Milavetz) — filed a preenforcement suit in Federal District Court seeking declaratory relief with respect to the Act’s debt-relief-agency provisions. Milavetz asked the court to hold that it is not bound by these provisions and thus may freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not identify itself as a debt relief agency in its advertisements.
Milavetz first argued that attorneys are not “debt relief agenc[ies]” as that term is used in the BAPCPA. In the alternative, Milavetz sought a judgment that §§ 526(a)(4) and 528(a)(4) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional as applied to attorneys. The District Court agreed with Milavetz that the term “debt relief agency” does not include attorneys, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 08-1119, p. A-15, but only after finding that §§ 526 and 528 — provisions expressly applicable only to debt relief agencies — are unconstitutional as applied to this class of professionals.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 541 F. 3d 785 (2008). Relying on the Act’s plain language, the court unanimously rejected the District Court’s conclusion that attorneys are not “debt relief agenc[ies]” within the meaning of the Act. The Court of Appeals also parted ways with the District Court concerning the constitutionality of § 528. Concluding that the disclosures are intended to prevent consumer deception and are “reasonably related” to that interest, the court upheld the application of §528’s disclosure requirements to attorneys. Id., at 796-797 (citing Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985)).
A majority of the Eighth Circuit panel, however, agreed with the District Court that § 526(a)(4) is invalid. Determining that § 526(a)(4) “broadly prohibits a debt relief agency from advising an assisted person... to incur any additional debt when the assisted person is contemplating bankruptcy,” even when that advice constitutes prudent prebankruptcy planning not intended to abuse the bankruptcy laws, 541 F. 3d, at 793, the majority held that § 526(a)(4) could not withstand either strict or intermediate scrutiny. In dissent, Judge Colloton argued that § 526(a)(4) should be read narrowly to prevent only advice to abuse the bankruptcy system, noting that this construction would avoid most constitutional difficulties. See id., at 799 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In light of a conflict among the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari to resolve the question of § 526(a)(4)’s scope. 556 U. S. 1281 (2009). We also agreed to consider the threshold question whether attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are “debt relief agencies]” within the meaning of §101(12A) and the related question whether §528’s disclosure requirements are constitutional.
III
A
We first consider whether the term “debt relief agency” includes attorneys. If it does not, we need not reach the other questions presented, as §§526 and 528 govern only the conduct of debt relief agencies, and Milavetz challenges the validity of those provisions based on their application to attorneys. The Government contends that “debt relief agency” plainly includes attorneys, while Milavetz urges that it does not. We conclude that the Government has the better view.
As already noted, a debt relief agency is “any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person” in return for payment. §101(12A). By definition, “bankruptcy assistance” includes several services commonly performed by attorneys. Indeed, some forms of bankruptcy assistance, including the “provision of] legal representation with respect to a case or proceeding,” § 101(4A), may be provided only by attorneys. See § 110(e)(2) (prohibiting bankruptcy petition preparers from providing legal advice). Moreover, in enumerating specific exceptions to the definition of debt relief agency, Congress gave no indication that it intended to exclude attorneys. See §§ 101(12A)(A)-(E). Thus, as the Government contends, the statutory text clearly indicates that attorneys are debt relief agencies when they provide qualifying services to assisted persons.
In advocating a narrower understanding of that term, Milavetz relies heavily on the fact that § 101(12A) does not expressly include attorneys. That omission stands in contrast, it argues, to the provision’s explicit inclusion of “bankruptcy petition preparer[s]” — a category of professionals that excludes attorneys and their staff, see § 110(a)(1). But Milavetz does not contend, nor could it credibly, that only professionals expressly included in the definition are debt relief agencies. On that reading, no professional other than a bankruptcy petition preparer would qualify — an implausible reading given that the statute defines “debt relief agency” as “any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person... or who is a bankruptcy petition preparer.” §101(12A) (emphasis added). The provision’s silence regarding attorneys thus avails Milavetz little. Cf. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U. S. 291, 294 (1995) (holding that “debt collector” as used in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1692a(6), includes attorneys notwithstanding the definition’s lack of an express reference to lawyers or litigation).
Milavetz’s other arguments for excluding attorneys similarly fail to persuade us to disregard the statute’s plain language. Milavetz contends that 11 U. S. C. § 526(d)(2)’s instruction that §§ 526, 527, and 528 should not “be deemed to limit or curtail” States’ authority to “determine and enforce qualifications for the practice of law” counsels against reading “debt relief agency” to include attorneys, as the surest way to protect the States’ role in regulating the legal profession is to make the BAPCPA’s professional conduct rules inapplicable to lawyers. We find that § 526(d)(2) supports the opposite conclusion, as Congress would have had no reason to enact that provision if the debt-relief-agency provisions did not apply to attorneys. Milavetz’s broader claim that reading §101(12A) to include attorneys impermissibly trenches on an area of traditional state regulation also lacks merit. Congress and the bankruptcy courts have long overseen aspects of attorney conduct in this area of substantial federal concern. See, e. g., Conrad, Rubin & Lesser v. Pender, 289 U. S. 472, 477-479 (1933) (finding broad authorization in former § 96(d) (1934 ed.) (repealed 1978) for courts to examine the reasonableness of a debtor’s prepetition attorney’s fees).
Milavetz next argues that § 101(12A)’s exception for any “officer, director, employee, or agent of a person who provides” bankruptcy assistance is revealing for its failure to include “partners.” § 101(12A)(A). In light of that omission, it contends, treating attorneys as debt relief agencies will obligate entire law firms to comply with §§526, 527, and 528 based on the conduct of a single partner, while the agents and employees of debt relief agencies not typically organized as partnerships are shielded from those requirements. Given that the partnership structure is not unique to law firms, however, it is unclear why the exclusion would be revealing of Congress’ intent only with respect to attorneys. In any event, partnerships are themselves “person[s]” under the BAPCPA, see §101(41), and can qualify as “debt relief agencies]” when they meet the criteria set forth in §101(12A). Moreover, a partnership’s employees and agents are exempted from § 101(12A) in the same way as the employees and agents of other organizations. To the extent that partners may be subject to the debt-relief-agency provisions by association, that result is consistent with the joint responsibilities that typically flow from the partnership structure, cf. Strang v. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555, 561 (1885). Accordingly, we decline to attribute the significance Milavetz suggests to § 101(12A)(A)’s failure to include partners among the exempted actors.
All else failing, Milavetz urges that the canon of constitutional avoidance requires us to read “debt relief agency” to exclude attorneys in order to forestall serious doubts as to the validity of §§526 and 528. The avoidance canon, however, “is a tool for choosing between competing plausible interpretations of a statutory text.” Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381 (2005). In applying that tool, we will consider only those constructions of a statute that are “ ‘fairly possible.’ ” United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70, 78 (1982). For the reasons already discussed, the text and statutory context of §101(12A) foreclose a reading of “debt relief agency” that excludes attorneys. Accordingly, we hold that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies within the meaning of the BAPCPA.
B
Having concluded that attorneys are debt relief agencies when they provide qualifying services, we next address the scope and validity of § 526(a)(4). Characterizing the statute as a broad, content-based restriction on attorney-client communications that is not adequately tailored to constrain only speech the Government has a substantial interest in restricting, the Eighth Circuit found the rule substantially over-broad. 541 F. 3d, at 793-794, and n. 10. For the reasons that follow, we reject that conclusion.
Section 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency from “advis[ing] an assisted person” either “to incur more debt in contemplation of” filing for bankruptcy “or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer fee or charge for services” performed in preparation for filing. Only the first of these prohibitions is at issue. In debating the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision, the parties first dispute the provision’s scope. The Court of Appeals concluded that “§ 526(a)(4) broadly prohibits a debt relief agency from advising an assisted person... to incur any additional debt when the assisted person is contemplating bankruptcy.” Id., at 793. Under that reading, an attorney is prohibited from providing all manner of “beneficial advice — even if the advice could help the assisted person avoid filing for bankruptcy altogether.” Ibid.
Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, Milavetz contends that § 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency from advising a client to incur any new debt while considering whether to file for bankruptcy. Construing the provision more broadly still, Milavetz contends that § 526(a)(4) forbids not only affirmative advice but also any discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, or legality of incurring more debt. Like the panel majority’s, Milavetz’s reading rests primarily on its view that the ordinary meaning of the phrase “in contemplation of” bankruptcy encompasses any advice given to a debtor with the awareness that he might soon file for bankruptcy, even if the advice seeks to obviate the need to file. Milavetz also maintains that if § 526(a)(4) were construed more narrowly, as urged by the Government and the dissent below, it would be so vague as to inevitably chill some protected speech.
The Government continues to advocate a narrower construction of the statute, urging that Milavetz’s reading is untenable and that its vagueness concerns are misplaced. The Government contends that § 526(a)(4)’s restriction on advice to incur more debt “in contemplation of” bankruptcy is most naturally read to forbid only advice to undertake actions to abuse the bankruptcy system. Focusing first on the provision’s text, the Government points to sources indicating that the phrase “in contemplation of” bankruptcy has long been, and continues to be, associated with abusive conduct. For instance, Black’s Law Dictionary 336 (8th ed. 2004) (hereinafter Black’s) defines “contemplation of bankruptcy” as “[t]he thought of declaring bankruptcy because of the inability to continue current financial operations, often coupled with action designed to thwart the distribution of assets in a bankruptcy proceeding.” Use of the phrase by Members of Congress illustrates that traditional coupling. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 98-65, p. 9 (1983) (discussing the practice of “'loading up’ [on debt] in contemplation of bankruptcy”); Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, H. R. Doe. No. 93-137, pt. I, p. 11 (1973) (“[T]he most serious abuse of consumer bankruptcy is the number of instances in which individuals have purchased a sizable quantity of goods and services on credit on the eve of bankruptcy in contemplation of obtaining a discharge”). The Government also points to early American and English judicial decisions to corroborate its contention that “in contemplation of” bankruptcy signifies abusive conduct. See, e. g., In re Pearce, 19 F. Cas. 50, 53 (No. 10,873) (D Vt. 1843); Morgan v. Brundrett, 5 B. & Ad. 288, 296-297, 110 Eng. Rep. 798, 801 (K. B. 1833) (Parke, J.).
To bolster its textual claim, the Government relies on § 526(a)(4)’s immediate context. According to the Government, the other three subsections of § 526(a) are designed to protect debtors from abusive practices by debt relief agencies: Section 526(a)(1) requires debt relief agencies to perform all promised services; § 526(a)(2) prohibits them from making or advising debtors to make false or misleading statements in bankruptcy; and § 526(a)(3) prohibits them from misleading debtors regarding the costs or benefits of bankruptcy. When § 526(a)(4) is read in context of these debtor-protective provisions, the Government argues, construing it to prevent debt relief agencies from giving advice that is beneficial to both debtors and their creditors seems particularly nonsensical.
Finally, the Government contends that the BAPCPA’s remedies for violations of § 526(a)(4) similarly corroborate its narrow reading. Section 526(c) provides remedies for a debt relief agency’s violation of § 526, § 527, or § 528. Among the actions authorized, a debtor may sue the attorney for remittal of fees, actual damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; a state attorney general may sue for a resident’s actual damages; and a court finding intentional abuse may impose an appropriate civil penalty. § 526(c). The Government also relies on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hersh v. United States ex rel. Mukasey, 553 F. 3d 743 (2008), and Judge Colloton’s dissent below for the observation that “Congress’s emphasis on actual damages for violations of section 526(a)(4) strongly suggests that Congress viewed that section as aimed at advice to debtors which if followed would have a significant risk of harming the debtor.” Id., at 760; see 541 F. 3d, at 800 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). By contrast, “legal and appropriate advice that would be protected by the First Amendment, yet prohibited by a broad reading of § 526(a)(4), should cause no damage at all.” Ibid.; see Hersh, 553 F. 3d, at 760.
Milavetz contends that the Government’s sources actually undermine its claim that the phrase “in contemplation of” bankruptcy necessarily refers to abusive conduct. Specifically, Milavetz argues that these authorities illustrate that “in contemplation of” bankruptcy is a neutral phrase that only implies abusive conduct when attached to an additional, proscriptive term. As Black's states, the phrase is “often coupled with action designed to thwart the distribution of assets” in bankruptcy, Black’s 336 (emphasis added), but it carries no independent connotation of abuse. In support of that conclusion, Milavetz relies on our decision in Pender, 289 U. S. 472, contending that we construed “in contemplation of” bankruptcy in that case to describe “conduct with a view to a probable bankruptcy filing and nothing more.” Brief for Milavetz 61.
After reviewing these competing claims, we are persuaded that a narrower reading of § 526(a)(4) is sounder, although we do not adopt precisely the view the Government advocates. The Government’s sources show that the phrase “in contemplation of” bankruptcy has so commonly been associated with abusive conduct that it may readily be understood to prefigure abuse. As used in § 526(a)(4), however, we think the phrase refers to a specific type of misconduct designed to manipulate the protections of the bankruptcy system. In light of our decision in Pender, and in context of other sections of the Code, we conclude that § 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.
Pender addressed the meaning of former § 96(d), which authorized reexamination of a debtor’s payment of attorney’s fees “in contemplation of the filing of a petition.” Recognizing “ 'the temptation of a failing debtor to deal too liberally with his property in employing counsel to protect him,’ ” 289 U. S., at 478 (quoting In re Wood & Henderson, 210 U. S. 246, 253 (1908)), we read “in contemplation of... filing” in that context to require that the portended bankruptcy have “induce[d]” the transfer at issue, 289 U. S., at 477, understanding inducement to engender suspicion of abuse. In so construing the statute, we identified the “controlling question” as “whether the thought of bankruptcy was the impelling cause of the transaction.” Ibid. Given the substantial similarities between §§ 96(d) and 526(a)(4), we think the controlling question under the latter provision is likewise whether the impelling reason for “advis[ing] an assisted person... to incur more debt” was the prospect of filing for bankruptcy.
To be sure, there are relevant differences between the provision at issue in Pender and the one now under review. Most notably, the inquiry in Pender was as to payments made on the eve of bankruptcy, whereas § 526(a)(4) regards advice to incur additional debts. Consistent with that difference, under § 96(d) a finding that a payment was made “in contemplation of” filing resolved only a threshold inquiry triggering further review of the reasonableness of the payment; the finding thus supported an inference of abuse but did not conclusively establish it. By contrast, advice to incur more debt because of bankruptcy, as prohibited by § 526(a)(4), will generally consist of advice to “load up” on debt with the expectation of obtaining its discharge — i. e., conduct that is abusive per se.
The statutory context supports the conclusion that § 526(a)(4)’s prohibition primarily targets this type of abuse. Code provisions predating the BAPCPA already sought to prevent the practice of loading up on debt prior to filing. Section 523(a)(2), for instance, addressed the attendant risk of manipulation by preventing the discharge of debts obtained by false pretenses and making debts for purchases of luxury goods or services presumptively nondischargeable. See §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (C) (2000 ed.). The BAPCPA increased the risk of such abuse, however, by providing a new mechanism for determining a debtor’s ability to repay. Pursuant to the “means tes[t],” § 707(b)(2)(D) (2006 ed.), a debt- or’s petition for Chapter 7 relief is presumed abusive (and may therefore be dismissed or converted to a structured repayment plan under Chapter 13) if the debtor’s current monthly income exceeds his statutorily allowed expenses, including payments for secured debt, by more than a prescribed amount. See §§ 707(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). The test promotes debtor accountability but also enhances incentives to incur additional debt prior to filing, as payments on secured debts offset a debtor’s monthly income under the formula. Other amendments effected by the BAPCPA reflect a concern with this practice. For instance, Congress amended § 523(a)(2) to expand the exceptions to discharge by lowering the threshold amount of new debt a debtor must assume to trigger the presumption of abuse under § 523(a)(2)(C), and it extended the relevant prefiling window. See § 310,119 Stat. 84. In context, § 526(a)(4) is best understood to provide an additional safeguard against the practice of loading up on debt prior to filing.
The Government’s contextual arguments provide additional support for the view that § 526(a)(4) was meant to prevent this type of conduct. The companion rules of professional conduct in §§ 526(á)(l)-(3) and the remedies for their violation in § 526(c) indicate that Congress was concerned with actions that threaten to harm debtors or creditors. Unlike the reasonable financial advice the Eighth Circuit’s broad reading would proscribe, advice to incur more debt because of bankruptcy presents a substantial risk of injury to both debtors and creditors. See Hersh, 553 F. 3d, at 760-761. Specifically, the incurrence of such debt stands to harm a debtor if his prepetition conduct leads a court to hold his debts nondischargeable, see § 523(a)(2), convert his case to another chapter, or dismiss it altogether, see § 707(b), thereby defeating his effort to obtain bankruptcy relief. If a debt, although manipulatively incurred, is not timely identified as abusive and therefore is discharged, creditors will suffer harm as a result of the discharge and the consequent dilution of the bankruptcy estate. By contrast, the prudent advice that the Eighth Circuit’s view of the statute forbids would likely benefit both debtors and creditors and at the very least should cause no harm. See id., at 760; 541 F. 3d, at 800 (Colloton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). For all of these reasons, we conclude that § 526(a)(4) prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising an assisted person to incur more debt when the impelling reason for the advice is the anticipation of bankruptcy.
That “[njo other solution yields as sensible a” result further persuades us of the correctness of this narrow reading. United States v. Granderson, 511 U. S. 39, 55 (1994). It would make scant sense to prevent attorneys and other debt relief agencies from advising individuals thinking of filing for bankruptcy about options that would be beneficial to both those individuals and their creditors. That construction serves none of the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code or the amendments enacted through the BAPCPA. Milavetz itself acknowledges that its expansive view of § 526(a)(4) would produce absurd results; that is one of its bases for arguing that “debt relief agency” should be construed to exclude attorneys. Because the language and context of § 526(a)(4) evidence a more targeted purpose, we can avoid the absurdity of which Milavetz complains without reaching the result it advocates.
For the same reason, we reject Milavetz’s suggestion that § 526(a)(4) broadly prohibits debt relief agencies from discussing covered subjects instead of merely proscribing affirmative advice to undertake a particular action. Section 526(a)(4) by its terms prevents debt relief agencies only from “advisjmg]” assisted persons “to incur” more debt. Covered professionals remain free to “tal[k] fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case.” Brief for Milavetz 73. Section 526(a)(4) requires professionals only to avoid instructing or encouraging assisted persons to take on more debt in that circumstance. Cf. ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) (2009) (“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law”). Even if the statute were not clear in this regard, we would reach the same conclusion about its scope because the inhibition of frank discussion serves no conceivable purpose within the statutory scheme. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694, 706, n. 9 (2000).
Finally, we reject Milavetz’s contention that, narrowly construed, § 526(a)(4) is impermissibly vague. Milavetz urges that the concept of abusive prefiling conduct is too indefinite to withstand constitutional scrutiny and that uncertainty regarding the scope of the prohibition will chill protected speech. We disagree.
Under our reading of the statute, of course, the prohibited advice is not defined in terms of abusive prefiling conduct but rather the incurrence of additional debt when the impelling reason is the anticipation of bankruptcy. Even if the test depended upon the notion of abuse, however, Milavetz’s claim would be fatally undermined by other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, to which that concept is no stranger. As discussed above, the Code authorizes a bankruptcy court to decline to discharge fraudulent debts, see § 523(a)(2), or to dismiss a case or convert it to a case under another chapter if it finds that granting relief would constitute abuse, see § 707(b)(1). Attorneys and other professionals who give debtors bankruptcy advice must know of these provisions and their consequences for a debtor who in bad faith incurs additional debt prior to filing. Indeed, § 707(b)(4)(C) states that an attorney’s signature on bankruptcy filings “shall constitute a certification that the attorney has” determined that the filing “does not constitute an abuse under [§ 707(b)(1)].” Against this backdrop, it is hard to see how a rule that narrowly prohibits an attorney from affirmatively advising a client to commit this type of abusive prefiling conduct could chill attorney speech or inhibit the attorney-client relationship. Our construction of § 526(a)(4) to prevent only advice principally motivated by the prospect of bankruptcy further ensures that professionals cannot unknowingly run afoul of its proscription. Because the scope of the prohibition is adequately defined, both on its own terms and by reference to the Code’s other provisions, we reject Milavetz’s vagueness claim.
As the foregoing shows, the language of the statute, together with other evidence of its purpose, makes this narrow reading of § 526(a)(4) not merely a plausible interpretation but the more natural one. Accordingly, we reject the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion and hold that a debt relief agency violates § 526(a)(4) only when the impetus of the advice to incur more debt is the expectation of filing for bankruptcy and obtaining the attendant relief. Because our reading of the statute supplies a sufficient ground for reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision, and because Milavetz challenges the constitutionality of the statute, as narrowed, only on vagueness grounds, we need not further consider whether the statute so construed withstands First Amendment scrutiny.
C
Finally, we address the validity of § 528’s challenged disclosure requirements. Our first task in resolving this question is to determine the contours of Milavetz's claim. Although the nature of its challenge is not entirely clear from the briefing or decisions below, counsel for Milavetz insisted at oral argument that this is “not a facial challenge; it’s an as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Árg. 26. We will approach the question consistent with Milavetz’s characterization.
We next consider the standard of scrutiny applicable to § 528’s disclosure requirements. The parties agree, as do we, that the challenged provisions regulate only commercial speech. Milavetz contends that our decision in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y. 447 U. S. 557 (1980), supplies the proper standard for reviewing these requirements. The Court in that case held that restrictions on nonmisleading commercial speech regarding lawful activity must withstand intermediate scrutiny — that is, they must “directly advanc[e]” a substantial governmental interest and be “n[o] more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Id., at 566. Contesting Milavetz’s premise, the Government maintains that § 528 is directed at misleading commercial speech. For that reason, and because the challenged provisions impose a disclosure requirement rather than an affirmative limitation on speech, the Government contends that the less exacting scrutiny described in Zauderer governs our review. We agree.
Zauderer addressed the validity of a rule of professional conduct that required attorneys who advertised contingency-fee services to disclose in their advertisements that a losing client might still be responsible for certain litigation fees and costs. Noting that First Amendment protection for commercial speech is justified in large part by the information’s value to consumers, the Court concluded that an attorney’s constitutionally protected interest in not providing the required factual information is “minimal.” 471 U. S., at 651. Unjustified or unduly burdensome disclosure requirements offend the First Amendment by chilling protected speech, but “an advertiser’s rights are adequately protected as long as disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.” Ibid.
The challenged provisions of § 528 share the essential features of the rule at issue in Zauderer. As in that case, §528’s required disclosures are intended to combat the problem of inherently misleading commercial advertisements— specifically, the promise of debt relief without any reference to the possibility of filing for bankruptcy, which has inherent costs. Additionally, the disclosures entail only an accurate statement identifying the advertiser’s legal status and the character of the assistance provided, and they do not prevent debt relief agencies like Milavetz from conveying any additional information.
The same characteristics of §528 that make it analogous to the rule in Zauderer serve to distinguish it from those at issue in In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191 (1982), to which the Court applied the intermediate scrutiny of Central Hudson. The ethical rules addressed in R. M. J. prohibited attorneys from advertising their practice areas in terms other than those prescribed by the State Supreme Court and from announcing the courts in which they were admitted to practice. See 455 U. S., at 197-198. Finding that the restricted statements were not inherently misleading and that the State had failed to show that the appellant’s advertisements were themselves likely to mislead consumers, see id., at 205, the Court applied Central Hudson’s intermediate scrutiny and invalidated the restrictions as insufficiently tailored to any substantial state interest, 455 U. S., at 205-206. In so holding, the Court emphasized that States retain authority to regulate inherently misleading advertisements, particularly through disclosure requirements, and it noted that advertisements for professional services pose a special risk of deception, See id., at 203, 207.
Milavetz makes much of the fact that the Government in these consolidated cases has adduced no evidence that its advertisements are misleading. Zauderer forecloses that argument: “When the possibility of deception is as self-evident as it is in this case, we need not require the State to ‘conduct a survey of the... public before it [may] determine that the [advertisement] had a tendency to mislead.’ ” 471 U. S., at
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, Crumady, was an employee of a stevedoring company engaged in transferring a cargo of lumber from the ship Joachim Hendrik Fisser of German registry to a pier at Newark, New Jersey. While so engaged, he was injured and brought this admiralty suit by libel in rem against the vessel. The vessel impleaded the stevedoring contractor.
When the accident happened the stevedores were trying to lift two timbers through a hatch. The manner of the accident was described as follows by the District Court:
“. . . libellant and his fellow-employees had placed a double-eyed wire rope sling, provided with a sliding hook movable between the eyes thereof, around the two timbers at a location two or three feet from their after ends. The two eyes of the sling were then placed upon the cargo hook of the up-and-down boom runner and a signal given by the stevedore gangway-man to the winchman to 'take up the slack.’ The winchman complied with the signal, and during this operation libellant stood clear upon other timbers forming a part of the cargo, within the open square of the hatch. There was some testimony that when the slack was taken up by the winchman, the two timbers slid toward each other in the sling, the timber which had been under the lower edge of the hatch coaming moving or commencing to move toward the timber which lay within the open hatch square. After the slack had been taken up by the winchman, the same signaller called for the ‘taking of a strain’ •upon the cargo runner. The winchman again responded, the two-part topping-lift broke and the head of the up-and-down boom, with its attached cargo and topping-lift blocks, fell to the top of the cargo within the hatch square.
“The topping-lift had been rigged in a double purchase and had been supporting the head of the boom. The wire rope constituting the topping-lift extended from a shackle on the topping-lift block at the cross-tree of the mast, through a block at the boom head, back through the mast block, down the mast, through a block welded to the mast table, and thence around a drum of the winch. When the boom fell, libellant was knocked down, either by the boom itself or its appurtenant tackle, and thus sustained numerous serious and permanently disabling orthopedic and neurological injuries.” 142 F. Supp. 389, 391.
The safe working load of the boom and cargo runner and topping-lift handling the load at the time of the accident was three tons each. This equipment, which was part of the unloading and loading gear of the vessel, was in good condition. The winch, which served the boom, had a “cut off” device or circuit breaker. It was set to shut off the current on the application of a load of about six tons, which was twice the safe working load of the unloading gear. The circuit breaker operated perfectly, cutting off current at the point of stress for which it was set. It had been set to operate at a load slightly more than twice the safe working load of the unloading gear by employees of the ship before the winch was turned over to petitioner’s fellow employees for operation.
The District Court accordingly found the vessel unsea-worthy and therefore liable to petitioner. It also found that the stevedores moved the head of the boom in an effort to clear the cargo from the sides of the hatch and that this “created a load on the topping-lift greatly in excess of its safe working load.” This act was found to be “the primary cause of the parting of the topping-lift and consequent fall of the boom.” Since the stevedoring company was found to be negligent in bringing “into play the unseaworthy condition of the vessel,” the District Court directed the stevedoring company to indemnify the vessel for the damages to petitioner. 142 F. Supp. 389. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the vessel was not unseaworthy and that the sole cause of the injury was the negligence of the stevedores. 249 F. 2d 818. A petition for rehearing was denied en banc, Judge Biggs dissenting. 249 F. 2d 821. The cases are here on petitions for certiorari. 357 U. S. 903.
I. We held in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, 95, that stevedores, though intermediately employed, are, when performing “the ship’s service,” entitled to the same protection against unseaworthiness which members of the crew doing the same work would receive. And see Pope & Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406. The work of loading and unloading is historically “the work of the ship’s service.” Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, supra, at 96.
This protection against unseaworthiness imposes a duty which the owner of the vessel cannot delegate. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, supra, at 100. Unseaworthiness extends not only to the vessel but to the crew (Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 348 U. S. 336) and to appliances that are appurtenant to the ship. Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96. And as to appliances the duty of the shipowner does not end with supplying them; he must keep them in order. Id,., at 104; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175. The shipowner is not relieved of these responsibilities by turning control of the loading or unloading of the ship over to a stevedoring company. It was held in Grillea v. United States, 232 F. 2d 919, that stevedores themselves could render a ship pro tanto unseaworthy and make the vessel owner liable for injuries to one of them. And see Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U. S. 984; Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396. We need not go so far to sustain the District Court here. For there is ample evidence to support the finding that these stevedores did no more than bring into play the unseaworthy condition of the vessel. The winch — an appurtenance of the vessel — was not inherently defective as was the rope in the Mahnich case. But it was adjusted by those acting for the vessel owner in a way that made it unsafe and dangerous for the work at hand. While the rigging would take only three tons of stress, the cutoff of the winch — its safety device — was.set at twice that limit. This was rigging that went with the vessel and was safe for use within known limits. Yet those limits were disregarded by the vessel owner when the winch was adjusted. The case is no different in principle from loading or unloading cargo with cable or rope lacking the test strength for the weight of the freight to be moved. In that case the cable or rope, in this case the winch, makes the vessel pro tanto unseaworthy. That was the theory of the District Court; it correctly applied the concept of unseaworthiness; and its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 348 U. S. 19, 20.
II. A majority of the Court ruled in Ryan Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Corp., 350 U. S. 124, that where a shipowner and stevedoring company entered into a service agreement, the former was entitled to indemnification for all damages it sustained as a result of the stevedoring company’s breach of its warranty of workmanlike service. And see Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v, Nacirema Co., 355 U. S. 563. The facts here are different from those in the Ryan case, in that this vessel had been chartered by its owners to Ovido Compañía Naviera S. A. Panama, which company entered into the service agreement with this stevedoring company. The contract, however, mentioned the name of the vessel on which the work was to be done and contained an agreement on the part of the stevedoring company “to faithfully furnish such stevedoring services.”
We think this case is governed by the principle announced in the Ryan case. The warranty which a stevedore owes when he goes aboard a vessel to perform services is plainly for the benefit of the vessel whether the vessel’s owners are parties to the contract or not. That is enough to bring the vessel into the zone of modern law that recognizes rights in third-party beneficiaries. Restatement, Law of Contracts, § 133. Moreover, as we said in the Ryan case, “competency and safety of stowage are inescapable elements of the service undertaken.” 350 U. S., at 133. They are part of the stevedore’s “warranty of workmanlike service that is comparable to a manufacturer’s warranty of the soundness of its manufactured product.” Id., at 133-134. See MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382, 111 N. E. 1050.
We conclude that since the negligence of the stevedores, which brought the unseaworthiness of the vessel into play, amounted to a breach of the warranty of workmanlike service, the vessel may recover over.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the District Court is reinstated.
It is so ordered.
One expert, Robert A. Simons, testified:
“I said that it is not safe practice to have a rig that was designed for three tons working load and of the winch with a cut-off set at six tons so that you could apply six tons load to the hoist before the winch would cut off because that would be doubling the load for which the rig was designed for.”
Another expert, Walter J. Byrne, testified:
“. . .if you have three-ton gear and a three-ton winch and due to cut-offs in back, you allow, let us say, a hundred per cent overload to be developed, then I think from my point of view as a safety man you are taking away a governor. You are taking away something which is built in for the protection of the gear and personnel.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Upon consideration of the report filed October 15, 1979, by Senior Judge Jean S. Breitenstein, Special Master, and the exceptions thereto, and on consideration of briefs and oral argument thereon,
It Is Adjudged, Ordered, and Decreed that all exceptions are overruled, the report is in all respects confirmed, and the ruling of the Special Master on the “1947 condition” as that term appears in Arts. II (g) and III (a) of the Pecos River Compact is approved.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Leng May Ma v. Barber, decided today, ante, p. 185. The five respondents are natives of China who came to the United States seeking admission between 1949 and 1954, four of them arriving before the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Like petitioner in Leng May Ma, all were paroled into the United States, and all have been ordered excluded. They applied for stays of deportation under § 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and upon refusal, filed complaints in the District Court seeking judgments declaring their nondeportability to China, directing consideration of their claims under § 243 (h), and restraining the Attorney General from deporting them. The complaints were dismissed by the District Court, but the Court of Appeals held that excluded aliens on parole are “within the United States” for purposes of § 243 (h). 101 U. S. App. D. C. 229, 248 F. 2d 89. Because of the conflict with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Leng May Ma, we granted certiorari. 355 U. S. 861 (1957). We have concluded that respondents, like petitioner in Leng May Ma, are ineligible for stays of deportation under § 243 (h). However, because of the importance of this problem in the administration of the immigration laws, we deem it appropriate to deal specifically with a contention not directly asserted by petitioner in Leng May Ma.
The deportation of excluded aliens under the Immigration and Nationality Act is authorized in § 237 (a) of Chapter 4, wherein it is provided that an alien excluded under the Act “shall be immediately deported to the country whence he came . . . .” 66 Stat. 201, 8 U. S. C. § 1227 (a). A similar provision existed in the immediate predecessor to § 237 (a), which was § 18 of the Immigration Act of 1917. Deportation in expulsion proceedings is separately provided for under the present Act in § 243 of Chapter 5, subsection (h) of which, of course, contains the authority which respondents seek to invoke in this case. 66 Stat. 212, 8 U. S. C. § 1253. Like authority existed in the immediate predecessor of § 243, which was § 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 890, as amended by § 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1010.
Respondents assert, however, that neither § 237 (a) nor its predecessor, § 18 of the 1917 Act, is the basis for their deportation since they were not “immediately” deported as required in the sections. Hence, they argue that deportation must rest upon § 243 of the present Act, as to the respondent who arrived after the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its predecessor, § 20 of the 1917 Act, as to the four who arrived prior to the present Act.
We will assume, for purpose of analysis, that four of the five respondents are, as they claim, deportable only under prior Acts by virtue of their early arrival. However, under neither of the exclusion sections, i. e., § 237 (a) of the present Act or § 18 of the 1917 Act, is the deportation authority confined, as respondents contend, to those situations where deportation is immediate. Neither section, when read in its entirety and in context, fairly suggests any such limitation. Nor are there reasons of policy to compel such a result. As the desire to remain increases,, those knocking on our doors quite naturally become more litigious, and contested departures often involve long delays. We doubt that the Congress intended the mere fact of delay to improve an alien’s status from that of one seeking admission to that of one legally considered within the* United States. We conclude that there is ample basis under § 237 (a) and § 18 of the 1917 Act to deport respondents; we need not draw upon the provisions in § 243 of the present Act or § 20 of the 1917 Act.
Regardless of which of the two exclusion sections, § 237 (a) of the 1952 Act or § 18 of the 1917 Act, provides the basis for respondents’ deportation, the applications for stays were all filed subsequent to the 1952 Act and hence must be determined by that Act. For reasons explained in Leng May Ma, § 243 (h) is unavailable to excluded aliens, and the fact of parole creates no variance from this principle.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice, MR. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Leng May Ma v. Barber, ante, p. 190.
Section 243 (h): “The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any alien within the United States to any country in which in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution and for such period of time as he deems to be necessary for such reason.” 66 Stat. 214, 8 U. S. C. § 1253 (h).
Section 18: “[A] 11 aliens brought to this country in violation of law shall be immediately sent back . . . .” 39 Stat. 887.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently 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.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Medicaid program provides federal funds to States that pay for medical treatment for the poor. An individual’s entitlement to Medicaid benefits depends on the financial resources “available” to him. Some States determine eligibility by assuming — “deeming”—that a portion of the spouse’s income is “available” to the applicant. “Deeming” thus has the effect of reducing both the number of eligible individuals and the amount of assistance paid to those who qualify. The question in this case is whether the federal regulations that permit States to “deem” income in this manner are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful.
I
The Medicaid program, established in 1965 as Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Act), 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1396 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III), “provid[es] federal financial assistance to States that choose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for needy persons.” Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 301 (1980). Each participating State develops a plan containing “reasonable standards . . . for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (17). An individual is entitled to Medicaid if he fulfills the criteria established by the State in which he lives. State Medicaid plans must comply with requirements imposed both by the Act itself and by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). See § 1396a (1976 ed. and Supp. III).
A
As originally enacted, Medicaid required participating States to provide medical assistance to “categorically needy” individuals who received cash payments under one of four welfare programs established elsewhere in the Act. See § 1396a (a) (10) (1970 ed.). The categorically needy were persons whom Congress considered especially deserving of public assistance because of family circumstances, age, or disability. States, if they wished, were permitted to offer assistance also to the “medically needy”- — persons lacking the ability to pay for medical expenses, but with incomes too large to qualify for categorical assistance. In either case, the Act required the States to base assessments of financial need only on “such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient.” § 1396a (a) (17) (B) (emphasis added). Specifically, eligibility decisions could “not take into account the financial responsibility of any individual for any applicant or recipient of assistance . .. unless such applicant or recipient is such individual’s spouse” or minor, blind, or disabled child. § 1396a (a) (17) (D).
Believing it reasonable to expect an applicant’s spouse to help pay medical expenses, some States adopted plans that considered the spouse’s income in determining Medicaid eligibility and benefits. These States calculated an amount considered necessary to pay the basic living expenses of the spouse and “deemed” any of the spouse’s remaining income to be “available” to the applicant, even where the applicant was institutionalized and thus no longer living with the spouse.
B
In 1972, Congress replaced three of the four categorical assistance programs with a new program called Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (SSI), 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq., Pub. L. 92-603, 86 Stat. 1465. Under SSI, the Federal Government displaced the States by assuming responsibility for both funding payments and setting standards of need. In some States the number of individuals eligible for SSI assistance was significantly larger than the number eligible under the earlier, state-run categorical need programs.
The expansion of general welfare accomplished by SSI portended increased Medicaid obligations for some States because Congress retained the requirement that all recipients of categorical welfare assistance — now SSI — were entitled to Medicaid. Congress feared that these States would withdraw from the cooperative Medicaid program rather than expand their Medicaid coverage in a manner commensurate with the expansion of categorical assistance. “[I]n order not to impose a substantial fiscal burden on these States” or discourage them from participating, see S. Rep. No. 93-553, p. 56 (1973), Congress offered what has become known as the “§ 209 (b) option.” Under it, States could elect to provide Medicaid assistance only to those individuals who would have been eligible under the state Medicaid plan in effect on January 1, 1972. States thus became either “SSI States” or “§ 209 (b) States” depending on the coverage that they offered.
The Secretary promulgated regulations governing the administration of Medicaid benefits in both SSI States and § 209 (b) States. The regulations described the circumstances in which the income of one spouse may be “deemed” available to the other. In SSI States, “deeming” is conducted in the following manner: When the applicant and his spouse live in the same household, the spouse’s income and resources always are considered in determining eligibility, “whether or not they are actually contributed.” 42 CFR § 435.723 (b) (1980). When the applicant and spouse cease to share the same household, the spouse’s income is disregarded the next month, § 435.723 (d), unless both are eligible for assistance. In the latter case, the income of both is considered for six months after their separation. § 435.723 (c).
Greater “deeming” is authorized in § 209 (b) States. The regulations require such States to “deem” income at least to the extent required in SSI States. § 435.734. And, if they choose, § 209 (b) States may “deem” to the full extent that they did before 1972. Ibid.
II
Respondent, an organization dedicated to helping the Nation’s elderly, filed this suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia attacking some of the Secretary’s regulations applicable in § 209 (b) States. Respondent argued that “deeming” impermissibly employs an “arbitrary formula” to impute a spouse’s income to an institutionalized Medicaid applicant. According to respondent, “deeming” is inconsistent with § 1902 (a) (17) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (17), which provides that only income “available” to the applicant may be considered in establishing entitlement to and the amount of Medicaid benefits. In respondent’s view, before a State may take into account the income of a spouse in calculating the benefits of any institutionalized applicant, the State must make a factual determination that the spouse’s income actually is contributed to that applicant.
The District Court agreed with respondent and declared the regulations invalid. Gray Panthers v. Secretary, Dept. of HEW, 461 F. Supp. 319 (1978). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, but under a different theory. Gray Panthers v. Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, 203 U. S. App. D. C. 146, 629 F. 2d 180 (1980). Citing this Court’s decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971), the court held that the regulations were invalid because the Secretary, in authorizing “deeming” of income between nonco-habiting spouses, had failed to “tak[e] . . . into account” two “relevant factors.” 203 U. S. App. D. C., at 149-150, 629 F. 2d, at 183-184. First, where spouses are separated they maintain two households rather than one. For those already put to this additional expense, it is unfair to continue to treat the couple as a “single economic unit” jointly responsible for the medical expenses of each. Id., at 151, 629 F. 2d, at 185. Second, the requirement of support carries with it the potential to interject “disruptive forces” into people’s lives. Id., at 152, 629 F. 2d, at 186. The noninstitutionalized spouse is
“faced with the 'choice’ of reducing his or her standard of living to a point apparently set near the poverty line, or being responsible for the eviction of his or her spouse from the institution.” Ibid.
One aspect of this “disruption,” according to the court, was the fact that the “deeming” requirement creates an incentive for couples to divorce. Id., at 152, n. 14, 629 F. 2d, at 186, n. 14. Because the court believed that the Secretary had not adequately considered these effects of “deeming,” it affirmed the District Court’s order invalidating the regulations and remanded to the Secretary for reconsideration.
We granted certiorari sub nom. Harris v. Gray Panthers, 449 U. S. 1123 (1981), to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals over the validity of “deeming” income in determining Medicaid benefits.
III
Congress explicitly delegated to the Secretary broad authority to promulgate regulations defining eligibility requirements for Medicaid. We find that the regulations at issue in this case are consistent with the statutory scheme and also are reasonable exercises of the delegated power. The Court of Appeals therefore was not justified in invalidating them, and we reverse.
A
The Social Security Act is among the most intricate ever drafted by Congress. Its Byzantine construction, as Judge Friendly has observed, makes the Act “almost unintelligible to the uninitiated.” Friedman v. Berger, 547 F. 2d 724, 727, n. 7 (CA2 1976), cert, denied, 430 U. S. 984 (1977). Perhaps appreciating the complexity of what it had wrought, Congress conferred on the Secretary exceptionally broad authority to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the Act. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425 (1977). Of special relevance in the present case is the delegation of authority in § 1902 (a) (17) (B) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a)(17)(B), one of the provisions setting requirements for state Medicaid plans. Participating States must grant benefits to eligible persons “taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant” (emphasis added).
In view of this explicit delegation of substantive authority, the Secretary’s definition of the term “available” is “entitled to more than mere deference or weight,” Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S., at 426. Rather, the Secretary’s definition is entitled to “legislative effect” because, “[i]n a situation of this kind, Congress entrusts to the Secretary, rather than to the courts, the primary responsibility for interpreting the statutory term.” Id., at 425. Although we do not abdicate review in these circumstances, our task is the limited one of ensuring that the Secretary did not “exeee[d] his statutory authority” and that the regulation is not arbitrary or capricious. Id., at 426.
B
We do not think that the regulations at issue, insofar as they authorize some “deeming” of income between spouses, exceed the authority conferred on the Secretary by Congress. Section 1902 (a)(17)(D) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (17) (D), enacted in 1965, provides that, in calculating benefits, state Medicaid plans must not
“take into account the financial responsibility of any individual for any applicant or recipient of assistance under the plan unless such applicant or recipient is such individual’s spouse or such individual’s child who is under age 21 or [in certain circumstances] is blind or disabled . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
It thus is apparent that, from the beginning of the Medicaid program, Congress authorized States to presume spousal support. Norman v. St. Clair, 610 F. 2d 1228, 1236 (CA5 1980), cert, pending sub nom. Schweiker v. Norman, No. 80-498.
The legislative history of this provision is fully consistent with its language. The Senate and House Reports accompanying the 1965 amendments used virtually identical language in endorsing the concept of “deeming” between spouses. The Senate Report states in pertinent part:
“The committee believes it is proper to expect spouses to support each other and parents to be held accountable for the support of their minor children .... Such requirements for support may reasonably include the payment by such relative, if able, for medical care. Beyond such degree of relationship, however, requirements imposed are often destructive and harmful to the relationships among members of the family group. Thus, States may not include in their plans provisions for requiring contributions from relatives other than a spouse or the parent of a minor child . . . .” S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 78 (1965) (emphasis added).
Accord, H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 68 (1965). Senator Long, who headed the Senate’s conference delegation, summarized the effect of subsection (17) as follows:
“No income can be imputed to an individual unless actually available; and the financial responsibility of an individual for an applicant may be taken into account only if the applicant is the individual’s spouse . . . .” Ill Cong. Rec. 18350 (1965).
This confirms our view that “Congress intended that income deemed from a spouse” could “be a part of the 'available’ income which the state may consider in determining eligibility.” Norman v. St. Clair, supra, at 1237.
If “deeming” were not permissible, subsection (17) (D) would be superfluous. Payments actually received by a Medicaid applicant — whether from a spouse or a more distant relative — are taken into account automatically. Thus, if there is to be content to subsection (17)(D)’s distinction between the responsibility of a spouse and that of a more distant relative, the subsection must envision that States can “deem” the income of the former but not the latter. See 610 F. 2d., at 1237.
Respondent is unable to offer a persuasive alternative explanation of subsection (17) (D). It suggests that Congress included the subsection simply to permit States to enforce their “relative responsibility laws” against a noncontributing spouse. In other words, respondent believes that Congress intended to prohibit States from automatically taking into account a spouse’s income in computing benefits, but simultaneously to authorize States to sue any spouse who failed to contribute income to a Medicaid applicant. We find this argument unpersuasive. It is not
“an answer to say that the state can take action against the spouse to recover that which the spouse was legally obligated to pay. [It is] unrealistic to think that the state will engage in a multiplicity of continuing individual lawsuits to recover the money that it should not have had to pay out in the first place. [Because States cannot practically do so, there would be] an open invitation for the spouse to decide that he or she does not wish to make the excess payment.” Brown v. Stanton, 617 F. 2d 1224, 1234 (CA7 1980) (Pell, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part), cert, pending, No. 79-1690.
Nothing in the 1972 amendments suggests that Congress intended to terminate the practice of “deeming” already contained in many state plans; rather, Congress appears to have ratified this practice implicitly. As noted above, the 1972 SSI program consolidated and set national standards for three of the four categorical grant programs. Traditionally, all recipients of categorical aid were entitled to Medicaid. Congress, however, did not want to force additional Medicaid obligations on States. It therefore enacted § 209 (b) to ensure that States that do not wish to do so would not have to enlarge Medicaid eligibility to SSI levels. States using the § 209 (b) option thus were told they could retain virtually all of the Medicaid eligibility limitations — including “deeming” — that were allowed under the original Act.
C
Respondent nevertheless insists that the Secretary’s regulation is inconsistent with provisions of the statute and also contrary to statements in the legislative history. The Act requires Medicaid determinations to be made only on the basis of the income “available to the applicant.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a)(17)(B) (emphasis added). According to respondent, the use of that term demonstrates that Medicaid entitlements must be determined on the basis of income “actually in the hands ... of the institutionalized spouse,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 30, not imputed on the basis of an “arbitrary formula.” Respondent acknowledges the duty of spousal support as a general matter, id., at 26-27, but argues that the Act nevertheless requires an individualized determination of availability in each case.
We take a different view. It is clear beyond doubt that Congress was wary of imputing the income of others to a Medicaid applicant. Yet, as we noted above, Congress treated spouses differently from most other relatives by explicitly authorizing state plans to “take into account the financial responsibility” of the spouse. 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (17) (D). Congress thus demonstrated that “deeming” is not antithetical to the general statutory requirement that Medicaid eligibility be based solely on resources “available” to the applicant. “Available” resources are different from those in hand. We think that the requirement of availability refers to resources left to a couple after the spouse has deducted a sum on which to live. It does not, as respondent argues, permit the State only to consider the resources actually paid by the spouse to the applicant. See Herweg v. Ray, 619 F. 2d 1265, 1272 (CA8 1980) (en banc) (opinion of Ross, J.) (aff’g by an equally divided court 481 F. Supp. 914 (SD Iowa 1978)), cert, pending, No. 80-60.
Sound principles of administration confirm our view that Congress authorized “deeming” of income between spouses. The administration of public assistance based on the use of a formula is not inherently arbitrary. Cf. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 781, 782, 784 (1975). There are limited resources to spend on welfare. To require individual determinations of need would mandate costly factfinding procedures that would dissipate resources that could have been spent on the needy. Id., at 784. Sometimes, of course, Congress has required individualized findings of fact. In this case, however, the Act and legislative history make clear that Congress approved some “deeming” of income between individuals and their spouses, at least where States had enacted rules to this effect before 1972.
IV
We are not without sympathy for those with minimal resources for medical care. But our “sympathy is an insufficient basis for approving a recovery” based on a theory inconsistent with law. Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U. S. 268, 284 (1980). This suit is a direct attack on regulations authorizing the concept of “deeming” in the abstract. Hardships resulting from provisions in particular state plans that set aside inadequate sums for the contributing spouse, see n. 19, supra, are not at issue here.
We hold that the Secretary properly exercised the authority delegated by Congress in promulgating regulations permitting “deeming” of income between spouses in § 209 (b) States. Cf. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416 (1977). Accordingly, we reverse the decision under review and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The categorically needy were those entitled to assistance under four programs: Old Age Assistance, 42 U. S. C. § 301 et seq. (1970 ed.); Aid to Families with Dependent Children, §601 et seq.; Aid to the Blind, § 1201 et seq.; and Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, § 1351 et seq. See also 42 U. S. C. §§ 1381-1385 (1970 ed.).
The Secretary approved these state plans.
Thus, of the four state-administered categorical programs, only Aid to Families with Dependent Children survived the enactment of SSI.
Section 209 (b) of the 1972 amendments, as amended, and as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (f), provides, in pertinent part:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter ... no State not eligible to participate in the State plan program established under sub-chapter XVI of this chapter shall be required to provide medical assistance to any aged, blind, or disabled individual (within the meaning of sub-chapter XVI of this chapter) for any month unless such State would be (or would have been) required to provide medical assistance to such individual for such month had its plan for medical assistance approved under this subchapter and in effect on January 1, 1972, been in effect in such month, except that for this purpose any such individual shall be deemed eligible for medical assistance under such State plan if (in addition to meeting such other requirements as are or may be imposed under the State plan) the income of any such individual as determined in accordance with section 1396b (f) of this title (after deducting any supplemental security income payment and State supplementary payment made with respect to such individual, and incurred expenses for medical care as recognized under State law) is not in excess of the standard for medical assistance established under the State plan as in effect on January 1,1972.”
States exercising the § 209 (b) option were required to adopt a “spend-down” provision. See ibid. Under it, an individual otherwise eligible for SSI but whose income exceeded the state standard could become eligible for Medicaid when that part of his income in excess of the standard was consumed by expenses for medical care. Ibid.
Fifteen States now use the § 209 (b) option. They are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia. (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are similarly situated with respect to Medicaid coverage because the SSI program never took effect there.) The Secretary permits States to change from “SSI-status” to “§ 209 (b)-status” at any time. New York has filed to become a § 209 (b) State. Pet. for Cert. 10, n. 11.
The regulation provides, in pertinent part, that “the agency must consider the income and resources of spouses and parents as available to the individual in the manner specified [for SSI States] or in a more extensive manner, but not more extensive than the requirements in effect under the Medicaid plan on January 1, 1972.”
The District Court correctly found that respondent had standing to sue because respondent alleged and proved that some of its members are persons adversely affected by the Secretary’s regulations. Compare Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975), with Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 735 (1972). Because this is a suit against the Secretary, the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) without regard to the amount in controversy. Cf. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600 (1979); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975).
The principal regulation at issue was 42 CFR §435.734 (1980), quoted in n. 7; supra. Also challenged were “deeming” regulations applicable in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 42 CFR §§ 436.602, 436.711, 436.821 (1980).
Subsection (17) provides that a state plan for medical assistance must—
“include reasonable standards ... for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance under the plan which (A) are consistent with the objectives of this subchapter, (B) provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient . . . , (C) provide for reasonable evaluation of any such income or resources, and (D) do not take into account the financial responsibility of any individual for any applicant or recipient of assistance under the plan unless such applicant or recipient is such individual’s spouse or such individual’s child who is under age 21 or (with respect to States eligible to participate in the State program established under subchapter XYI of this chapter), is blind or permanently and totally disabled, or is blind or disabled as defined in section 1382c of this title (with respect to States which are not eligible to participate in such program); and provide for flexibility in the application of such standards with respect to income by taking into account, except to the extent prescribed by the Secretary, the costs (whether in the form of insurance premiums or otherwise) incurred for medical care or for any other type of remedial care recognized under State law.”
The District Court thus did not need to reach respondent’s alternative arguments that the regulations deprived its members of due process and equal protection.
The Secretary has promulgated provisional regulations allowing § 209 (b) jurisdictions either to ignore the spouse’s income or to consider it to the extent that it would be considered in an SSI State. See 45 Fed. Reg. 82254 (1980). At oral argument, counsel for the Secretary said that the new regulations probably would be rescinded if the Court of Appeals’ decision were reversed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-7. The dissenting opinion, which would affirm the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, attaches significance to the fact that the preamble to the provisional regulations incorporates the sociological analysis of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Post, at 53-56. But this reflects no independent judgment of the Secretary, and is entitled to no weight. In issuing the provisional regulations, the Secretary simply was adhering to the lower court’s reasoning and mandate. 45 Fed. Reg., at 82255 (the new regulations “are based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Gray Panthers”).
See Herweg v. Ray, 619 E. 2d 1265 (CA8 1980) (en banc), cert, pending, No. 80-60; Brown v. Stanton, 617 F. 2d 1224 (CA7 1980), cert, pending, No. 79-1690; Norman v. St. Clair, 610 F. 2d 1228 (CA5 1980), cert, pending sub nom. Schweiker v. Norman, No. 80-498. Although we quote passages from these decisions in this opinion, we do not necessarily endorse other language in them.
The District Court in the same case described the Medicaid statute as “an aggravated assault on the English language, resistant to attempts to understand it.” 409 F. Supp. 1225, 1226 (SDNY 1976).
Counsel for respondent acknowledged at oral argument that individual suits against spouses often would be useless, even if the State made the effort to bring them, because the court might not order the spouse to pay out of funds needed to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-39.
States exercising the § 209 (b) option were obliged only to amend their Medicaid plans to include a “spend-down” provision. See n. 5, supra.
See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 78 (1965) (States may “not assume the availability of income which may not, in fact, be available”); 111 Cong. Rec. 15804 (1965) (remarks of Sen. Ribicoff) (“only income and resources actually available to an applicant may be considered in determining need”); id., at 7216 (remarks of Rep. Mills) (“[n]o income can be imputed to an individual unless actually available”).
E. g., Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U. S. 338 (1975) (Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) calculations under 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a)) ; Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251 (1974) (AFDC calculations under 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (7)). See also Lewis v. Martin, 397 U. S. 552 (1970); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968).
A brief amicus curiae paints a distressing picture of individuals forced to choose between abandoning an institutionalized spouse and living in poverty. Brief for John H. Foard et al. as Amici Curiae 4-11. Yet, as the dissenting judge below pointed out, the principal “villain” in this case is not “deeming” per se, but inflation. 203 U. S. App. D. C., at 155, 629 F. 2d, at 189 (MacKinnon, J., dissenting). Many States have not recently reviewed the amount that the contributing spouse may set aside for his own living expenses and thereby exempt from “deeming.” As the Secretary concedes, that amount even when first set was “near subsistence level.” Brief for Petitioners 4. Over time, with inflation, that dollar amount in some States may have become inadequate to support the noninstitution-alized spouse.
We note, in any event, that respondent’s position would not eliminate difficult choices for the contributing spouse. This lawsuit seeks only to enjoin the “deeming” of income to an institutionalized spouse. Supra, at 40-41; App. 17a. Respondent thus concedes the legality of “deeming” where spouses cohabit. To adopt respondent’s construction of the statute would create an incentive to shunt ailing spouses into nursing homes to circumvent the “deeming” that otherwise would occur.
The dissenting opinion suggests that the jederal regulations authorizing “deeming” are invalid because the provisions of some state plans “allo[w] a State to deem more income than [can] realistically be considered 'available.’ ” Post, at 56. We think the dissent addresses a problem not presently before the Court. This case presents the question whether any “deeming” is consistent with the “availability” requirement of subsection (17) (B). We hold that it is. We do not, however, decide whether state plans that set aside inadequate sums for the contributing spouse are consistent with other provisions of the statute, such as the requirement that States “reasonably] evaluat[e] . . . income or resources.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a)(17)(C). In sum, whatever deficiencies may exist in specific state plans are not at issue in this case.
The Court of Appeals thus erred in its reliance on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971). The court believed that the Secretary had not “taken the relevant factors into account.” 203 U. S. App. D. C., at 150, 629 F. 2d, at 184. The preceding discussion demonstrates, however, that Congress itself already had considered the “relevant factors” in authorizing “deeming” between spouses. Supra, at 44-48. In these circumstances, the Secretary need not do more. Cf. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 548-549 (1978).
By holding for respondent on statutory grounds, the lower courts pretermitted respondent’s constitutional arguments. See n. 11, supra. These arguments are, of course, open to be litigated on remand. We express no view as to their merit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Buegee delivered the opinion of the Court.
On petition of the State of Wisconsin, we granted the writ of certiorari in this case to review a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court holding that respondents’ convictions of violating the State’s compulsory school-attendance law were invalid under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. For the reasons hereafter stated we affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Respondents Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller are members of the Old Order Amish religion, and respondent Adin Yutzy is a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church. They and their families are residents of Green County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance law required them to cause their children to attend public or private school until reaching age 16 but the respondents declined to send their children, ages 14 and 15, to public school after they completed the eighth grade. The children were not enrolled in any private school, or within any recognized exception to the compulsory-attendance law, and they are conceded to be subject to the Wisconsin statute.
On complaint of the school district administrator for the public schools, respondents were charged, tried, and convicted of violating the compulsory-attendance law in Green County Court and were fined the sum of $5 each. Respondents defended on the ground that the application of the compulsory-attendance law violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial testimony showed that respondents believed, in accordance with the tenets of Old Order Amish communities generally, that their children’s attendance at high school, public or private, was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life. They believed that by sending their children to high school, they would not only expose themselves to the danger of the censure of the church community, but, as found by the county court, also endanger their own salvation and that of their children. The State stipulated that respondents’ religious beliefs were sincere.
In support of their position, respondents presented as expert witnesses scholars on religion and education whose testimony is uncontradicted. They expressed their opinions on the relationship of the Amish belief concerning school attendance to the more general tenets of their religion, and described the impact that compulsory high school attendance could have on the continued survival of Amish communities as they exist in the United States today. The history of the Amish sect was given in some detail, beginning with the Swiss Anabaptists of the 16th century who rejected institutionalized churches and sought to return to the early, simple, Christian life de-emphasizing material success, rejecting the competitive spirit, and seeking to insulate themselves from the modern world. As a result of their common heritage, Old Order Amish communities today are characterized by a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community separate and apart from the world and worldly influence. This concept of life aloof from the world and its values is central to their faith.
A related feature of Old Order Amish communities is their devotion to a life in harmony with nature and the soil, as exemplified by the simple life of the early Christian era that continued in America during much of our early national life. Amish beliefs require members of the community to make their living by farming or closely related activities. Broadly speaking, the Old Order Amish religion pervades and determines the entire mode of life of its adherents. Their conduct is regulated in great detail by the Ordnung, or rules, of the church community. Adult baptism, which occurs in late adolescence, is the time at which Amish young people voluntarily undertake heavy obligations, not unlike the Bar Mitzvah of the Jews, to abide by the rules of the church community.
Amish objection to formal education beyond the eighth grade is firmly grounded in these central religious concepts. They object to the high school, and higher education generally, because the values they teach are in marked variance with Amish values and the Amish way of life; they view secondary school education as an impermissible exposure of their children to a “worldly” influence in conflict with their beliefs. The high school tends to emphasize intellectual and scientific accomplishments, self-distinction, competitiveness, worldly success, and social life with other students. Amish society emphasizes informal learning-through-doing; a life of “goodness,” rather than a life of intellect; wisdom, rather than technical knowledge; community welfare, rather than competition; and separation from, rather than integration with, contemporary worldly society.
Formal high school education beyond the eighth grade is contrary to Amish beliefs, not only because it places Amish children in an environment hostile to Amish beliefs with increasing emphasis on competition in class work and sports and with pressure to conform to the styles, manners, and ways of the peer group, but also because it takes them away from their community, physically and emotionally, during the crucial and formative adolescent period of life. During this period, the children must acquire Amish attitudes favoring manual work and self-reliance and the specific skills needed to perform the adult role of an Amish farmer or housewife. They must learn to enjoy physical labor. Once a child has learned basic reading, writing, and elementary mathematics, these traits, skills, and attitudes admittedly fall within the category of those best learned through example and “doing” rather than in a classroom. And, at this time in life, the Amish child must also grow in his faith and his relationship to the Amish community if he is to be prepared to accept the heavy obligations imposed by adult baptism. In short, high school attendance with teachers who are not of the Amish faith — and may even be hostile to it — interposes a serious barrier to the integration of the Amish child into the Amish religious community. Dr. John Hostetler, one of the experts on Amish society, testified that the modern high school is not equipped, in curriculum or social environment, to impart the values promoted by Amish society.
The Amish do not object to elementary education through the first eight grades as a general proposition because they agree that their children must have basic skills in the “three R’s” in order to read the Bible, to be good farmers and citizens, and to> be able to deal with non-Amish people when necessary in the course of daily affairs.. They view such a basic education as acceptable because it does not significantly expose their children to worldly values or interfere with their development in the Amish community during the crucial adolescent period. While Amish accept compulsory elementary education generally, wherever possible they have established their own elementary schools in many respects like the small local schools of the past. In the Amish belief higher learning tends to develop values they reject as influences that alienate man from God.
On the basis of such considerations, Dr. Hostetler testified that compulsory high school attendance could not only result in great psychological harm to Amish children, because of the conflicts it would produce, but would also, in his opinion, ultimately result in the destruction of the Old Order Amish church community as it exists in the United States today. The testimony of Dr. Donald A. Erickson, an expert witness on education, also showed that the Amish succeed in preparing their high school age children to be productive members of the Amish community. He described their system of learning through doing the skills directly relevant to their adult roles in the Amish community as “ideal” and perhaps superior to ordinary high school education. The evidence also showed that the Amish have an excellent record as law-abiding and generally self-sufficient members of society.
Although the trial court in its careful findings determined that the Wisconsin compulsory school-attendance law “does interfere with the freedom of the Defendants to act in accordance with their sincere religious belief” it also concluded that the requirement of high school attendance until age 16 was a “reasonable and constitutional” exercise of governmental power, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss the charges. The Wisconsin Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, sustained respondents’ claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and reversed the convictions. A majority of the court was of the opinion that the State had failed to make an adequate showing that its interest in “establishing and maintaining an educational system overrides the defendants’ right to the free exercise of their religion.” 49 Wis. 2d 430, 447, 182 N. W. 2d 539, 547 (1971).
I
There is no doubt as to the power of a State, having a high responsibility for education of its citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education. See, e. g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534 (1925). Providing public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State. Yet even this paramount responsibility was, in Pierce, made to yield to the right of parents to provide an equivalent education in a privately operated system. There the Court held that Oregon’s statute compelling attendance in a public school from age eight to age 16 unreasonably interfered with the interest of parents in directing the rearing of their offspring, including their education in church-operated schools. As that case suggests, the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. See also Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 639 (1968); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); cf. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728 (1970). Thus, a State’s interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, “prepare [them] for additional obligations.” 268 U. S., at 535.
It follows that in order for Wisconsin to compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade against a claim that such attendance interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement, or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause. Long before there was general acknowledgment of the need for universal formal education, the Religion Clauses had specifically and firmly fixed the right to free exercise of religious beliefs, and buttressing this fundamental right was an equally firm, even if less explicit, prohibition against the establishment of any religion by government. The values underlying these two provisions relating to religion have been zealously protected, sometimes even at the expense of other interests of admittedly high social importance. The invalidation of financial aid to parochial schools by government grants for a salary subsidy for teachers is but one example of the extent to which courts have gone in this regard, notwithstanding that such aid programs were legislatively determined to be in the public interest and the service of sound educational policy by States and by Congress. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971). See also Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 18 (1947).
The essence of all that has been said afnd written on the subject is that only those interests (of the highest order and those not otherwise served cán^ overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests. E. g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 459 (1961) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944).
II
We come then to the quality of the claims of the respondents concerning the alleged encroachment of Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance statute on their rights and the rights of their children to the free exercise of the religious beliefs they and their forebears have adhered to for almost three centuries. In evaluating those claims we must be careful to determine whether the Amish religious faith and their mode of life are, as they claim, inseparable and interdependent. A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief. Although a determination of what is a “religious” belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Walden Pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis. Thoreau’s choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.
Giving no weight to such secular considerations, however, we see that the record in this case abundantly supports the claim that the traditional way of life of the Amish is not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living. That the Old Order Amish daily life and religious practice stem from their faith is shown by the fact that it is in response to their literal interpretation of the Biblical injunction from the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, “be not conformed to this world... This comimand is fundamental to the Amish faith. Moreover, for the Old Order Amish, religion is not simply a matter of theocratic belief. As the expert witnesses explained, the Old Order Amish religion pervades and determines virtually their entire way of life, regulating it with the detail of the Talmudic diet through the strictly enforced rules of the church community.
The record shows that the respondents’ religious beliefs and attitude toward life, family, and home have remained constant — perhaps some would say static — in a period of unparalleled progress in human knowledge generally and great changes in education. The respondents freely concede, and indeed assert as an article of faith, that their religious beliefs and what we would today call “life style” have not altered in fundamentals for centuries. Their way of life in a church-oriented community, separated from the outside world and “worldly” influences, their attachment to nature and the soil, is a way inherently simple and uncomplicated, albeit difficult to preserve against the pressure to conform. Their rejection of telephones, automobiles, radios, and television, their mode of dress, of speech, their habits of manual work do indeed set them apart from much of contemporary society; these customs are both symbolic and practical.
As the society around the Amish has become more populous, urban, industrialized, and complex, particularly in this century, government, regulation of h-uman affairs has correspondingly become more detailed and pervasive. The Amish mode of life has thus come into conflict increasingly with requirements of contemporary society exerting a hydraulic insistence on conformity to majoritarian standards. So long as compulsory education laws were confined to eight grades of elementary basic education imparted in a nearby rural schoolhouse, with a large proportion of students of the Amish faith, the Old Order Amish had little basis to fear that school attendance would expose their children to the worldly influence they reject. But modern compulsory secondary education in rural areas is now largely carried on in a consolidated school, often remote from the student’s home and alien to his daily home life. As the record so strongly shows, the values and programs of the modern secondary school are in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion; modern laws requiring compulsory secondary education have accordingly engendered great concern and conflict. The conclusion is inescapable that secondary schooling, by exposing Amish children to worldly influences in terms of attitudes, goals, and values contrary to beliefs, and by substantially interfering with the religious development of the Amish child and his integration into the way of life of the Amish faith community at the crucial adolescent stage of development, contravenes the basic religious tenets and practice of the Amish faith, both as to the parent and the child.
The impact of the compulsory-attendance law on respondents' practice of the Amish religion is not only severe, but inescapable, for the Wisconsin law affirmatively compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs. See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 605 (1961). Nor is the impact of the compulsory-attendance law confined to grave interference with important Amish religious tenets from a subjective point of view. It carries with it precisely the kind of objective danger to the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent. As the record shows, compulsory school attendance to age 16 for Amish children carries with it a very real threat of undermining the Amish community and religious practice as they exist today; they must either abandon belief and be assimilated into society at large, or be forced to migrate to some other and more tolerant region.
In sum, the unchallenged testimony of acknowledged experts in education and religious history, almost 300 years of consistent practice, and strong evidence of a sustained faith pervading and regulating respondents’ entire mode of life support the claim that enforcement of the State’s requirement of compulsory formal education after the eighth grade would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of respondents’ religious beliefs.
Ill
Neither the findings of the trial court nor the Amish claims as to the nature of their faith are challenged in this Court by the State of Wisconsin. Its position is that the State’s interest in universal compulsory formal secondary education to age 16 is so great that it is paramount to the undisputed claims of respondents that their mode of preparing their youth for Amish life, after the traditional elementary education, is an essential part of their religious belief and practice. Nor does the State undertake to meet the claim that the Amish mode of life and education is inseparable from and a part of the basic tenets of their religion — indeed, as much a part of their religious belief and practices as baptism, the confessional, or a sabbath may be for others.
Wisconsin concedes that under the Religion Clauses religious beliefs are absolutely free from the State’s control, but it argues that “actions,” even though religiously grounded, are outside the protection of the First Amendment. But our decisions have rejected the idea that religiously grounded conduct is always outside the protection of the Free Exercise Clause. It is true that activities of individuals, even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, or the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated powers. See, e. g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437 (1971); Braunjeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 (1961); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879). But to agree that religiously grounded conduct must often be subject to the broad police power of the State is not to deny that there are areas of conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and thus beyond the power of the State to control, even under regulations of general applicability. E. g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304 (1940). This case, therefore, does not become easier because respondents were convicted for their “actions” in refusing to send their children to the public high school; in this context belief and action cannot be neatly confined in logic-tight compartments. Cf. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S., at 612.
Nor can this case be disposed of on the grounds that Wisconsin’s requirement for school attendance to age 16 applies uniformly to all citizens of the State and does not, on its face, discriminate against religions or a particular religion, or that it is motivated by legitimate secular concerns. A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Sherbert v. Verner, supra; cf. Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U. S. 664 (1970). The Court must not ignore the danger that an exception from a general obligation of citizenship on religious grounds may run afoul of the Establishment Clause, but that danger cannot be allowed to prevent any exception no matter how vital it may be to the protection of values promoted by the right of free exercise. By preserving doctrinal flexibility and recognizing the need for a sensible and realistic application of the Religion Clauses
“we have been able to chart a course that preserved the autonomy and freedom of religious bodies while avoiding any semblance of established religion. This is a 'tight rope’ and one we have successfully traversed.” Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, at 672.
We turn, then, to the State’s broader contention that its interest in its system of compulsory education is so compelling that even the established religious practices of the Amish must give way. Where fundamental claims of religious freedom are at stake, however, we cannot accept such a sweeping claim; despite its admitted validity in the generality of cases, we must searchingly examine the interests that the State seeks to promote by its requirement for compulsory education to age 16, and the impediment to those objectives that would flow from recognizing the claimed Amish exemption. See, e. g., Sherbert v. Verner, supra; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939).
The State advances two primary arguments in support of its system of compulsory education. It notes, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out early in our history, that some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence. Further, education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society. We accept these propositions.
However, the evidence adduced by the Amish in this case is persuasively to the effect that an additional one or two years of formal high school for Amish children in place of their long-established program of informal vocational education would do little to serve those interests. Respondents’ experts testified at trial, without challenge, that the value of all education must be assessed in terms of its capacity to prepare the child for life. It is one thing to say that compulsory education for a year or two beyond the eighth grade may be necessary when its goal is the preparation of the child for life in modern society as the majority live, but it is quite another if the goal of education be viewed as the preparation of the child for life in the separated agrarian community that is the keystone of the Amish faith. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S., at 400.
The State attacks respondents’ position as one fostering “ignorance” from which the child must be protected by the State. No one can question the State’s duty to protect children from ignorance but this argument does not square with the facts disclosed in the record. Whatever their idiosyncrasies as seen by the majority, this record strongly shows that the Amish community has been a highly successful social unit within our society, even if apart from the conventional “mainstream.” Its members are productive and very law-abiding members of society; they reject public welfare in any of its usual modern forms. The Congress itself recognized their self-sufficiency by authorizing exemption of such groups as the Amish from the obligation to pay social security taxes.
It is neither fair nor correct to suggest that the Amish are opposed to education beyond the eighth grade level. What this record shows is that they are opposed to conventional formal education of the type provided by a certified high school because it comes at the child’s crucial adolescent period of religious development. Dr. Donald Erickson, for example, testified that their system of learning-by-doing was an “ideal system” of education in terms of preparing Amish children for life as adults in the Amish community, and that “I would be inclined to say they do a better job in this than most of the rest of us do.” As he put it, “These people aren’t purporting to be learned people, and it seems to me the self-sufficiency of the community is the best evidence I can point to— whatever is being done seems to function well.”
We must not forget that in the Middle Ages important values of the civilization of the Western World were preserved by members of religious orders who isolated themselves from all worldly influences against great obstacles. There can be no assumption that today’s majority is “right” and the Amish and others like them are “wrong.” A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.
The State, however, supports its interest in providing an additional one or two years of compulsory high school education to Amish children because of the possibility that some such children will choose to leave the Amish community, and that if this occurs they will be ill-equipped for life. The State argues that if Amish children leave their church they should not be in the position of making their way in the world without the education available in the one or two additional years the State requires. However, on this record, that argument is highly speculative. There is no specific evidence of the loss of Amish adherents by attrition, nor is there any showing that upon leaving the Amish community Amish children, with their practical agricultural training and habits of industry and self-reliance, would become burdens on society because of educational shortcomings. Indeed, this argument of the State appears to rest primarily on the State’s mistaken assumption, already noted, that the Amish do not provide any education for their children beyond the eighth grade, but allow them to grow in “ignorance.” To the contrary, not only do the Amish accept the necessity for formal schooling through the eighth grade level, but continue to provide what has been characterized by the undisputed testimony of expert educators as an “ideal” vocational education for their children in the adolescent years.
There is nothing in this record to suggest that the Amish qualities of reliability, self-reliance, and dedication to work would fail to find ready markets in today’s society. Absent some contrary evidence supporting the State’s position, we are unwilling to assume that persons possessing such valuable vocational skills and habits are doomed to become burdens on society should they determine to leave the Amish faith, nor is there any basis in the record to warrant a finding that an additional one or two years of formal school education beyond the eighth grade would serve to eliminate any such problem that might exist.
Insofar as the State’s claim rests on the view that a brief additional period of formal education is imperative to enable the Amish to participate effectively and intelligently in our democratic process, it must fall. The Amish alternative to formal secondary school education has enabled them to function effectively in their day-to-day life under self-imposed limitations on relations with the world, and to survive and prosper in contemporary society as a separate, sharply identifiable and highly self-sufficient community for more than 200 years in this country. In itself this is strong evidence that they are capable of fulfilling the,social and political responsibilities of citizenship without compelled attendance beyond the eighth grade at the price of jeopardizing their free exercise of religious belief. When Thomas Jefferson emphasized the need for education as a bulwark of a free people against tyranny, there is nothing to indicate he had in mind compulsory education through any fixed age beyond a basic education. Indeed, the Amish communities singularly parallel and reflect many of the virtues of Jefferson’s ideal of the “sturdy yeoman” who would form the basis of what he considered as the ideal of a democratic society. Even their idiosyncratic separateness exemplifies the diversity we profess to admire and encourage.
The requirement for compulsory education beyond the eighth grade is a relatively recent development in our history. Less than 60 years ago, the educational requirements of almost all of the States were satisfied by completion of the elementary grades, at least where the child was regularly and lawfully employed. The independence and successful social functioning of the Amish community for a period approaching almost three centuries and more than 200 years in this country are strong evidence that there is at best a speculative gain, in terms of meeting the duties of citizenship, from an additional one or two years of compulsory formal education. Against this background it would require a more particularized showing from the State on this point to justify the severe interference with religious freedom such additional compulsory attendance would entail.
We should also note that compulsory education and child labor laws find their historical origin in common humanitarian instincts, and that the age limits of both laws have been coordinated to achieve their related objectives. In the context of this case, such considerations, if anything, support rather than detract from respondents’ position. The origins of the requirement for school attendance to age 16, an age falling after the completion of elementary school but before completion of high school, are not entirely clear. But to some extent such laws reflected the movement to prohibit most child labor under age 16 that culminated in the provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It is true, then, that the 16-year child labor age limit may to some degree derive from a contemporary impression that children should be in school until that age. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that, conversely, the 16-year education limit reflects, in substantial measure, the concern that children under that age not be employed under conditions hazardous to their health, or in work that should be performed by adults.
The requirement of compulsory schooling to age 16 must therefore be viewed as aimed not merely at providing educational opportunities for children, but as an alternative to the equally undesirable consequence of unhealthful child labor displacing adult workers, or, on the other hand, forced idleness. The two kinds of statutes — compulsory school attendance and child labor laws — -tend to keep children of certain ages off the labor market and in school; this regimen in turn provides opportunity to prepare for a livelihood of a higher order than that which children could pursue without education and protects their health in adolescence.
In these terms, Wisconsin’s interest in compelling the school attendance of Amish children to age 16 emerges as somewhat less substantial than requiring such attend-anee for children generally. For, while agricultural employment is not totally outside the legitimate concerns of the child labor laws, employment of children under parental guidance and on the family farm from age 14 to age 16 is an ancient tradition that lies at the periphery of the objectives of such laws. There is no intimation that the Amish employment of their children on family farms is in any way deleterious to their health or that Amish parents exploit children at tender years. Any such inference would be contrary to the record before us. Moreover, employment of Amish children on the family farm does not present the undesirable economic aspects of eliminating jobs that might otherwise be held by adults.
IV
Finally, the State, on authority of Prince v. Massachusetts, argues that a decision exempting Amish children from the State’s requirement fails to recognize the substantive right of the Amish child to a secondary education, and fails to give due regard to the power of the State as parens patriae to extend the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents. Taken at its broadest sweep, the Court’s language in Prince, might be read to give support to the State’s position. However, the Court was not confronted in Prince with a situation comparable to that of the Amish as revealed in this record; this is shown by the Court's severe characterization of the evils that it thought the legislature could legitimately associate with child labor, even when performed in the company of an adult. 321 U. S., at 169-170. The Court later took great care to confine Prince to a narrow scope in Sherbert v. Verner, when it stated:
“On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for ‘even when the action is in accord with one’s religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions.’ Braunjeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 603. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158....” 374 U. S., at 402-403.
This case, of course, is not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred. The record is to the contrary, and any reliance on that theory would find no support in the evidence.
Contrary to the suggestion of the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, our holding today in no degree depends on the assertion of the religious interest of the child as contrasted with that of the parents. It is the parents who are subject to prosecution here for failing to cause their children to attend school, and it is their right of free exercise, not that of their children, that must determine Wisconsin’s power to impose criminal penalties on the parent. The dissent argues that a child who expresses a desire to attend public high school in conflict with the wishes of his parents should not be prevented from doing so. There is no reason for the Court to consider that point since it is not an issue in the case. The children are not parties to this litigation. The State has at no point tried this case on the theory that respondents were preventing their children from attending school against their expressed desires, and indeed the record is to the contrary. The State’s position from the outset has been that it is empowered to apply its compulsory-attendance law to Amish parents in the same manner as to other parents— that is, without regard to the wishes of the child. That is the claim we reject today.
Our holding in no way determines the proper resolution of possible competing interests of parents, children, and the State in an appropriate state court proceeding in which the power of the State is asserted on the theory that Amish parents are preventing their minor children from attending high school despite their expressed desires to the contrary. Recognition of the claim of the State in such a proceeding would, of course, call into question traditional concepts of parental control over the religious upbringing and education of their minor children recognized in this Court’s past decisions. It is clear that such an intrusion by a State into family decisions in the area of religious training would give rise to grave questions of religious freedom comparable to those raised here and those presented in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925). On this record we neither reach nor decide those issues.
The State’s argument proceeds without reliance on any actual conflict between the wishes of parents and children. It appears to rest on the potential that exemption of Amish parents from the requirements of the compulsory-education law might allow some parents to act contrary to the best interests of their children by foreclosing their opportunity to make an intelligent choice between the Amish way of life and that of the outside world. The same argument could, of course, be made with respect to all church schools short of college. There is nothing in the record or in the ordinary course of human experience to suggest that non-Amish parents generally consult
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Illinois an employee who is discharged for filing a worker’s compensation claim may recover compensatory and punitive damages from her employer. The question presented in this case is whether an employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement that provides her with a contractual remedy for discharge without just cause may enforce her state-law remedy for retaliatory discharge.. The Court of Appeals held that the application of the state tort remedy was pre-empted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185. 823 F. 2d 1031 (CA7 1987) (en banc). We disagree.
Petitioner was employed m respondent s manufacturing plant in Herrin, Illinois. On December 5, 1984, she notified respondent that she had been injured in the course of her employment and requested compensation for her medical expenses pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. On December 11, 1984, respondent discharged her for filing a “false worker’s compensation claim.” Id., at 1033.
The union representing petitioner promptly filed a grievance pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement that covered all production and maintenance employees in the Herrin plant. The agreement protected those employees, including petitioner, from'discharge except for “proper” or “just” cause, App. 13-14, and established a procedure for the arbitration of grievances, id., at 10-11. The term grievance was broadly defined to encompass “any dispute between . . . the Employer and any employee, concerning the effect, interpretation, application, claim of breach or violation of this Agreement.” Id., at 10. Ultimately, an arbitrator ruled in petitioner’s favor and ordered respondent to reinstate her with full backpay. See id., at 25-26.
Meanwhile, on July 9, 1985, petitioner commenced this action against respondent by filing a complaint in the Illinois Circuit Court for Williamson County, alleging that she had been discharged for exercising her rights under the Illinois workers’ compensation laws. App. 2-4; see Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 384 N. E. 2d 353 (1978); Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 105 Ill. 2d 143, 473 N. E. 2d 1280 (1984); see also Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, ¶ 138.4(h) (1987). Respondent removed the case to the Federal District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, and then filed a motion praying that the court either dismiss the case on pre-emption grounds or stay further proceedings pending the completion of the arbitration. Record, Doc. No. 7. Relying on our decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), the District Court dismissed the complaint. It concluded that the “claim for retaliatory discharge is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the collective bargaining provision prohibiting wrongful discharge or discharge without just cause” and that allowing the state-law action to proceed would undermine the arbitration procedures set forth in the parties’ contract. 618 F. Supp. 1448, 1449 (SD Ill. 1985).
The Court of Appeals agreed that the state-law claim was pre-empted by § 301. In an en banc opinion, over the dissent of two judges, it rejected petitioner’s argument that the tort action was not “inextricably intertwined” with the collective-bargaining agreement because the disposition of a retaliatory discharge claim in Illinois does not depend upon an interpretation of the agreement; on the contrary, the court concluded that “the same analysis of the facts” was implicated under both procedures. 823 F. 2d, at 1046. It took note of, and declined to follow, contrary decisions in the Tenth, Third, and Second Circuits. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Circuits. 484 U. S. 895 (1987).
II
Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), provides:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
In Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), we held that § 301 not only provides federal-court jurisdiction over controversies involving collective-bargaining agreements, but also “authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements.” Id., at 451.
In Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), we were confronted with a straightforward question of contract interpretation: whether a collective-bargaining agreement implicitly prohibited a strike that had been called by the union. The Washington Supreme Court had answered that question by applying state-law rules of contract interpretation. We rejected that approach, and held that §301 mandated resort to federal rules of law in order to ensure uniform interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements, and thus to promote the peaceable, consistent resolution of labor-management disputes.
In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), we considered whether the Wisconsin tort remedy for bad-faith handling of an insurance claim could be applied to the handling of a claim for disability benefits that were authorized by a collective-bargaining agreement. We began by examining the collective-bargaining agreement, and determined that it provided the basis not only for the benefits, but also for the right to have payments made in a timely manner. Id., at 213-216. We then analyzed the Wisconsin tort remedy, explaining that it “exists for breach"bf a ‘duty devolved] upon the insurer by reasonable implication from the express terms of the contract/ the scope of which, crucially, is ‘ascertained from a consideration of the contract itself.’” Id., at 216 (quoting Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 204 Wis. 1, 16, 235 N. W. 413, 415 (1931)). Since the “parties’ agreement as to the manner in which a benefit claim would be handled [would] necessarily [have been] relevant to any allegation that the claim was handled in a dilatory manner,” 471 U. S., at 218, we concluded that § 301 pre-empted the application of the Wisconsin tort remedy in this setting.
Thus, Lueck faithfully applied the principle of §301 preemption developed in Lucas Flour: if the resolution of a state-law claim depends upon the meaning of a collective-bargaining agreement, the application of state law (which might lead to inconsistent results since there could be as many state-law principles as there are States) is pre-empted and federal labor-law principles — necessarily uniform throughout the Nation — must be employed to resolve the dispute.
1 — 1 1 — 1
Illinois courts have recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge for filing a worker’s compensation claim, Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 384 N. E. 2d 353 (1978), and have held that it is applicable to employees covered by union contracts, Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 105 Ill. 2d 143, 473 N. E. 2d 1280 (1984), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 909 (1985). “[T]o show retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must set forth sufficient facts from'which it can be inferred that (1) he was discharged or threatened with discharge and (2) the employer’s motive in discharging or threatening to discharge him was to deter him from exercising his rights under the Act or to interfere with his exercise of those rights.” Horton v. Miller Chemical Co., 776 F. 2d 1351, 1356 (CA7 1985) (summarizing Illinois state-court decisions), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1122 (1986); see Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp., 115 Ill. 2d 1, 503 N. E. 2d 308 (1986). Each of these purely factual questions pertains to the conduct of the employee and the conduct and motivation of the employer. Neither of the elements requires a court to interpret any term of a collective-bargaining agreement. To defend against a retaliatory discharge claim, an employer must show that it had a nonretaliatory reason for the discharge, cf. Loyola University of Chicago v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 149 Ill. App. 3d 8, 500 N. E. 2d 639 (1986); this purely factual inquiry likewise does not turn on the meaning of any provision of a collective-bargaining agreement. Thus, the state-law remedy in this case is “independent” of the collective-bargaining agreement in the sense of'“independent” that matters for §301 pre-emption purposes: resolution of the state-law claim does not require construing the collective-bargaining agreement.
The Court of Appeals seems to have relied upon a different way in which a state-law claim may be considered “independent” of a collective-bargaining agreement. The court wrote that “the just cause provision in the collective-bargaining agreément may well prohibit such retaliatory discharge,” and went on to say that if the state-law cause of action could go forward, “a state court would be deciding precisely the same issue as would an arbitrator: whether there was ‘just cause’ to discharge the worker.” 823 F. 2d, at 1046 (emphasis added). The court concluded, “the state tort of retaliatory discharge is inextricably intertwined with the collective-bargaining agreements here, because it implicates the same analysis of the facts as would an inquiry under the just cause provisions of the agreements.” Ibid, (emphasis added). We agree with the court’s explanation that the state-law analysis might well involve attention to the same factual considerations as the contractual determination of whether Lingle was fired for just causé. But we disagree with the court’s conclusion that such parallelism renders the state-law analysis dependent upon the contractual analysis. For while there may be instances in which the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts state law on the basis of the subject matter of the law in question, § 301 pre-emption merely ensures that federal law will be the basis for interpreting collective-bargaining agreements, and says nothing about the substantive rights a State may provide to workers when adjudication of those rights does not depend upon the interpretation of such agreements. In other words, even if dispute resolution pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, on the one hand, and state law, on the other, would require addressing precisely the same set of facts, as long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is “independent” of the agreement for §301 pre-emption purposes.
IV
The result we reach today is consistent both with the policy of fostering uniform, certain adjudication of disputes over the meaning of collective-bargaining agreements and with cases that have permitted separate fonts of substantive rights to remain unpre-empted by other federal labor-law statutes.
First, as we explained in Lueck, “[t]he need to preserve the effectiveness of arbitration was one of the central reasons that underlay the Court’s holding in Lucas Flour” 471 U. S., at 219. “A rule that permitted an individual to sidestep available grievance procedures would cause arbitration to lose most of its effectiveness, ... as well as eviscerate a central tenet of federal labor contract law under § 301 that it is the arbitrator, not the court, who has the responsibility to interpret the labor contract in the first instance.” Id., at 220. See Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U. S. 29 (1987); Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593 (1960). Today’s decision should make clear that interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements remains firmly in the arbitral realm; judges can determine questions of state law involving labor-management relations only if such questions do not require construing collective-bargaining agreements.
Second, there is nothing novel about recognizing that substantive rights in the labor relations context can exist without interpreting collective-bargaining agreements.
“This Court has, on numerous occasions, declined to hold that individual employees are, because of the availability of arbitration, barred from bringing claims under federal statutes. See, e. g., McDonald v. West Branch, 466 U. S. 284 (1984); Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U. S. 728 (1981); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974). Although the analysis of the question under each statute is quite distinct, the theory running through these cases is that notwithstanding the strong policies encouraging arbitration, ‘different considerations apply where the employee's claim is based on rights arising out of a statute designed to provide minimum substantive guarantees to individual workers.’ Barrentine, supra, at 737.” Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Buell, 480 U. S. 557, 564-565 (1987) (emphasis added).
Although our comments in Buell, construing the scope of Railway Labor Act pre-emption, referred to independent federal statutory rights, we subsequently rejected a claim that federal labor law pre-empted a state statute providing a onetime severance benefit to employees in the event of a plant closing. In Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 21 (1987), we emphasized that “pre-emption should not be lightly inferred in this area, since the establishment of labor standards falls within the traditional police power of the State.” We specifically held that the Maine law in question was not pre-empted by the NLRA, “since its establishment of a minimum labor standard does not impermissibly intrude upon the collective-bargaining process.” Id., at 23.
The Court of Appeals “recognize[d] that § 301 does not preempt state anti-discrimination laws, even though a suit under these laws, like a suit alleging retaliatory discharge, requires a state court to determine whether just cause existed to justify the discharge.” 823 F. 2d, at 1046, n. 17. The court distinguished those laws because Congress has affirmatively endorsed state antidiscrimination remedies in Title VII of-the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, see 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-5(c) and 2000e-7, whereas there is no such explicit endorsement of state workers’ compensation laws. As should be plain from our discussion in Part III, supra, this distinction is unnecessary for determining whether § 301 pre-empts the state law in question. The operation of the antidiscrimi-nation laws does, however, illustrate the relevant point for §301 pre-emption analysis that the mere fact that a broad contractual protection against discriminatory — or retaliatory — discharge may provide a remedy for conduct that coincidentally violates state law does not make the existence or the contours of the state-law violation dependent upon the terms of the private contract. For even if an arbitrator should conclude that the contract does not prohibit a particular discriminatory or retaliatory discharge, that conclusion might or might not be consistent with a proper interpretation of state law. In the typical case a state tribunal could resolve either a discriminatory or retaliatory discharge claim without interpreting the “just cause” language of a collective-bargaining agreement.
V
In sum, we hold that an application of state law is preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 only if such application requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Peabody Galion v. Dollar, 666 F. 2d 1309 (CA10 1981); Herring v. Prince Macaroni of New Jersey, Inc., 799 F. 2d 120, 124, n. 2 (CA3 1986); Baldracchi v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., United Technologies Corp., 814 F. 2d 102 (CA2 1987); but see Johnson v. Hussmann Corp., 805 F. 2d 795 (CA8 1986) (retaliatory discharge claim pre-empted by § 301).
We later concluded that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 301 claims. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962). State as well as federal courts must apply federal law in deciding these claims. See Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 102 (1962).
Our discussion of the pre-emptive scope of § 301 bears repeating:
“It was apparently the theory of the Washington court that, although Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, requires the federal courts to fashion, from the policy of our national labor laws, a body of federal law for the enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements, nonetheless, the courts of the States remain free to apply individualized local rules when called upon to enforce such agreements. This view cannot be accepted. The dimensions of § 301 require the conclusion that substantive principles of federal labor law must be paramount in the area covered by the statute. Comprehensiveness is inherent in the process by which the law is to be formulated under the mandate of Lincoln Mills, requiring issues raised in suits of a kind covered by § 301 to be decided according to the precepts of federal labor policy.
“More important, the subject matter of. § 301(a) ‘is peculiarly one that calls for uniform law.’ . . . The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. Because neither party could be certain of the rights which it had obtained or conceded, the process of negotiating an agreement would be made immeasurably more difficult by the necessity of trying to formulate contract provisions in such a way as to contain the same meaning under two or more systems of law which might someday be invoked in enforcing the contract. Once the collective bargain was made, the possibility of conflicting substantive interpretation under competing legal systems would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its interpretation. Indeed, the existence of possibly conflicting legal concepts might substantially impede the parties’ willingness to agree to contract terms providing for final arbitral or judicial resolution of disputes.
“The importance of the area which would be affected by separate systems of substantive law makes the need for a single body of federal law particularly compelling. The ordering and adjusting of competing interests through a process of free and voluntary collective bargaining is the keystone of the federal scheme to promote industrial peace. State law which frustrates the effort of Congress to stimulate the smooth functioning of that process thus strikes at the very core of federal labor policy. With due regard to the many factors which bear upon competing state and federal interests in this area, ... we cannot but conclude that in enacting § 301 Congress intended doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules.” 369 U. S., at 103-104 (citations omitted; footnote omitted).
We applied this same principle of §301 pre-emption just last Term to a case in which the plaintiff had conceded that the “ ‘nature and scope of the duty of care owed [her] is determined by reference to the collective bargaining agreement.’” Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851, 863, n. 5 (1987) (citation omitted). Plaintiff had brought a Florida tort law claim alleging that her union had “breached its duty of care to provide a union member with a safe workplace.” Id., at 853. Our analysis of Florida law revealed that “[t]he threshold inquiry for determining if a cause of action exists is an examination of the contract to ascertain what duties were accepted by each of the parties and the scope of those duties.” Id., at 860. Thus agreeing with the characterization of Florida law embodied in plaintiff’s concession, we concluded that § 301 pre-empted the state-law claim. See also Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965) (state-law application to suit for severance pay under collective-bargaining agreement pre-empted by § 301).
We have twice applied the Lucas Flour §301 pre-emption principle in determining whether a state-law claim brought in state court was properly removed to federal court. In Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U. S. 557 (1968), we determined that a state-law suit brought in state court to enjoin a strike was properly removed to federal court despite the plaintiff’s failure to plead a federal cause of action, because “the pre-emptive force of § 301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause of action ‘for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.’” Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U. S. 1, 23 (1983) (quoting § 301). Conversely, in Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U. S. 386 (1987), see n. 10, infra, we held that a state-law complaint brought in state court for breach of individual employment contracts was not “completely pre-empted” by §301, 482 U. S., at 394, because § 301 “says nothing about the content or validity of individual employment contracts.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Both Avco and Caterpillar are examples of the Lucas Flour § 301 pre-emption principle: in the former case, plaintiff’s claim required construing the collective-bargaining agreement in question; in the latter case, plaintiffs’ claim did not turn on any collective-bargaining agreement interpretation.
Although the cause of action was not based on any specific statutory provision, the following section of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act expresses the public policy underlying the common-law development:
“It shall be unlawful for any employer, insurance company or service or adjustment company to interfere with, restrain or coerce an employee in any manner whatsoever in the exercise of the rights or remedies granted to him or her by this Act or to discriminate, attempt to discriminate, or threaten to discriminate against an employee in any way because of the exercise of his or her rights granted to him or her by this Act.
“It shall be unlawful for any employer, individually or through any insurance company or service or adjustment company, to discharge or threaten to discharge, or to refuse to rehire or recall to active service in a suitable capacity an employee because of the exercise of his or her rights or remedies granted him or her by this Act.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, ¶ 138.4(h) (1987).
Such independence was not present either in Lucas Flour, Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), or Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851 (1987); see n. 4, supra. In all of those cases, pertinent principles of state law required construing the relevant collective-bargaining agreement. Not so here.
Petitioner points to the fact that the Illinois right to be free from retaliatory discharge is nonnegotiable and applies to unionized and nonunionized workers alike. While it may be true that most state laws that are not preempted by § 301 will grant nonnegotiable rights that are shared by all state workers, we note that neither condition ensures nonpre-emption. It is conceivable that a State could create a remedy that, although nonnegotiable, nonetheless turned on the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement for its application. Such a remedy would.be pre-empted by § 301. Similarly, if a law applied to all state workers but required, at least in certain instances, collective-bargaining agreement interpretation, the application of the law in those instances would be pre-empted. Conversely, a law could cover only unionized workers but remain unpre-empted if no collective-bargaining agreement interpretation was needed to resolve claims brought thereunder.
Although §301 pre-empts state law only insofar as resolution of the state-law claim requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement, and although § 301 pre-emption is all that is at issue in this case, it is important to remember that other federal labor-law principles may preempt state law. Thus, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244 (1959), we held that “[w]hen it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA], or constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield.” We added that “courts are not primary tribunals to adjudicate. . . issues” such as “whether the particular activity regulated by the States [is] governed by § 7 or § 8 or [is], perhaps, outside both these sections.” Ibid. Rather, “[i]t is essential to the administration of the [NLRA] that these determinations be left in the first instance to the National Labor Relations Board.” Id., at 244-245.
“A second pre-emption doctrine protects against state interference with policies implicated by the structure of the [NLRA] itself, by pre-empting state law and state causes of action concerning conduct that Congress intended to be unregulated.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 749 (1985). This doctrine “was designed, at least initially, to govern pre-emption questions that arose concerning activity that was neither arguably protected against employer interference by §§ 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, nor arguably prohibited as an unfair labor practice by § 8(b) of that Act. . . . Such action falls outside the reach of Garmon preemption.” Ibid. We referred to this second pre-emption doctrine in Metropolitan Life as “Machinists pre-emption,” after Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132 (1976), in which we had “ruled that a State may not penalize a concerted refusal to work overtime that was neither prohibited nor protected under the NLRA.” 471 U. S., at 750.
Whether a union may waive its members’ individual, nonpre-empted state-law rights, is, likewise, a question distinct from that of whether a claim is pre-empted under § 301, and is another issue we need not resolve today. We note that under Illinois law, the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement may not waive the prohibition against retaliatory discharge nor may they alter a worker’s rights under the state worker’s compensation scheme. Byrd v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 152 Ill. App. 3d 292, 298, 504 N. E. 2d 216, 221, app. denied, 115 Ill. 2d 539, 511 N. E. 2d 426 (1987). Before deciding whether such a state-law bar to waiver could be pre-empted under federal law by the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement, we would require “clear and unmistakable” evidence, see Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U. S. 693, 708 (1983), in order to conclude that such a waiver had been intended. No such evidence is available in this case.
Thus, what we said in Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U. S., at 394-395 (emphasis in original), see n. 5, supra, is relevant here:
“Caterpillar asserts that respondents’ state-law contract claims are in reality completely pre-empted § 301 claims, which therefore arise under federal law. We disagree. Section 301 governs claims founded directly on rights created by collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims ‘substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.’ Electrical Workers v. Heckler, 481 U. S. 851, 859, n. 3 (1987); see also Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S., at 220. Respondents allege that Caterpillar has entered into and breached individual employment contracts with them. Section 301 says nothing about the content or validity of individual employment contracts. It is true that respondents, bargaining unit members at the time of the plant closing, possessed substantial rights under the collective agreement, and could have brought suit under §301. As masters of the complaint, however, they chose not to do so.
“Moreover, contrary to Caterpillar’s assertion, . . . respondents’ complaint is not substantially dependent upon interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. It does not rely upon the collective agreement indirectly, nor does it address the relationship between the individual contracts and the collective agreement. As the Court has stated, ‘it would be inconsistent with congressional intent under [§ 301] to pre-empt state rules that proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of a labor contract.’ Allis-Chalmers Corp., supra, at 212.”
Arbitrators are delegated by nearly all collective-bargaining agreements as the adjudicators of contract disputes. See Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U. S. 29, 36 (1987); Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Basic Patterns in Union Contracts 37 (11th ed. 1986) (“Arbitration is called for in 99 percent of the sample contracts”).
A collective-bargaining agreement may, of course, contain information such as rate of pay and other economic benefits that might be helpful in determining the damages to which a worker prevailing in a state-law suit is entitled. See Baldracchi v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., United Technologies Corp., 814 F. 2d, at 106. Although federal law would govern the interpretation of the agreement to determine the proper damages, the underlying state-law claim, not otherwise pre-empted, would stand. Thus, as a general proposition, a state-law claim may depend for its resolution upon both the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement and a separate state-law analysis that does not turn on the agreement. In such a case, federal law would govern the interpretation of the agreement, but the separate state-law analysis would not be thereby pre-empted. As we said in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S., at 211, “not every dispute . . . tangentially involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement, is pre-empted by § 301 . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a person who knowingly procures genuine vehicle titles that incorporate fraudulently tendered odometer readings receives those titles “knowing [them] to have been falsely made.” 18 U. S. C. §2314 (emphasis added). We conclude that he does.
I
Petitioner Raymond Moskal participated in a “title-washing” scheme. Moskal’s confederates purchased used cars in Pennsylvania, rolled back the cars’ odometers, and altered their titles to reflect those lower mileage figures. The altered titles were then sent to an accomplice in Virginia, who submitted them to Virginia authorities. Those officials, unaware of the alterations, issued Virginia titles incorporating the false mileage figures. The “washed” titles were then sent back to Pennsylvania, where they were used in connection with car sales to unsuspecting buyers. Moskal played two roles in this scheme: He sent altered titles from Pennsylvania to Virginia; he received “washed” titles when they were returned.
The Government indicted and convicted Moskal under 18 U. S. C. § 2314 for receiving two washed titles, each recording a mileage figure that was 30,000 miles lower than the true number. Section 2314 imposes fines or imprisonment on anyone who, “with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transports in interstate . . . commerce any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities . . . , knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited.” On appeal, Moskal maintained that the washed titles were nonetheless genuine and thus not “falsely made.” The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that “ ‘ “the purpose of the term ‘falsely made’ was to . . . prohibit the fraudulent introduction into commerce of falsely made documents regardless of the precise method by which the introducer or his confederates effected their lack of authenticity.”'” United States v. Davis, 888 F. 2d 283, 285 (CA3 1989), quoting United States v. Mitchell, 588 F. 2d 481, 484 (CA5), cert. denied, 442 U. S. 940 (1979), quoting United States v. Huntley, 535 F. 2d 1400, 1402 (CA5 1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 929 (1977).
Notwithstanding the narrowness of this issue, we granted certiorari to resolve a divergence of opinion among the Courts of Appeals. 494 U. S. 1026 (1990). See United States v. Sparrow, 635 F. 2d 794 (CA10 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 1004 (1981) (washed automobile titles are not “falsely made” within the meaning of §2314). We now affirm petitioner’s conviction.
II
As indicated, §2314 prohibits the knowing transportation of “falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities” in interstate commerce. Moskal acknowledges that he could have been charged with violating this provision when he sent the Pennsylvania titles to Virginia, since those titles were “altered” within the meaning of § 2314. But he insists that he did not violate the provision in subsequently receiving the washed titles from Virginia because, although he was participating in a fraud (and thus no doubt had the requisite intent under § 2314), the washed titles themselves were not “falsely made.” He asserts that when a title is issued by appropriate state authorities who do not know of its falsity, the title is “genuine” or valid as the state document it purports to be and therefore not “falsely made.”
Whether a valid title that contains fraudulently tendered odometer readings may be a “falsely made” security for purposes of § 2314 presents a conventional issue of statutory construction, and we must therefore determine what scope Congress intended § 2314 to have. Moskal, however, suggests a shortcut in that inquiry. Because it is possible to read the statute as applying only to forged or counterfeited securities, and because some courts have so read it, Moskal suggests we should simply resolve the issue in his favor under the doctrine of lenity. See, e. g., Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971).
In our view, this argument misconstrues the doctrine. We have repeatedly “emphasized that the ‘touchstone’ of the rule of lenity ‘is statutory ambiguity.’” Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381, 387 (1980), quoting Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 65 (1980). Stated at this level of abstraction, of course, the rule
“provides little more than atmospherics, since it leaves open the crucial question — almost invariably present — of how much ambiguousness constitutes . . . ambiguity.” United States v. Hansen, 249 U. S. App. D. C. 22, 30, 772 F. 2d 940, 948 (1985) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1045 (1986).
Because the meaning of language is inherently contextual, we have declined to deem a statute “ambiguous” for purposes of lenity merely because it was possible to articulate a construction more narrow than that urged by the Government. See, e. g., McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642, 657-658 (1982). Nor have we deemed a division of judicial authority automatically sufficient to trigger lenity. See, e. g., United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984). If that were sufficient, one court’s unduly narrow reading of a criminal statute would become binding on all other courts, including this one. Instead, we have always reserved lenity for those situations in which a reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intended scope even after resort to “the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies” of the statute. Bifulco v. United States, supra, at 387; see also United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971) (court should rely on lenity only if, “[ajfter ‘seizing] every thing from which aid can be derived,”’ it is “left with an ambiguous statute,” quoting United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805) (Marshall, C. J.)). Examining these materials, we conclude that § 2314 unambiguously applies to Moskal’s conduct.
A
“In determining the scope of a statute, we look first to its language,” United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981), giving the “words used” their “ordinary meaning,” Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962). We think that the words of § 2314 are broad enough, on their face, to encompass washed titles containing fraudulently tendered odometer readings. Such titles are “falsely made” in the sense that they are made to contain false, or incorrect, information.
Moskal resists this construction of the language on the ground that the state officials responsible for issuing the washed titles did not know that they were incorporating false odometer readings. We see little merit in this argument. As used in § 2314, “falsely made” refers to the character of the securities being transported. In our view, it is perfectly consistent with ordinary usage to speak of the security as being “falsely made” regardless of whether the party responsible for the physical production of the document knew that he was making a security in a manner that incorporates false information. Indeed, we find support for this construction in the nexus between the actus reus and mens rea elements of §2314. Because liability under the statute depends on transporting the “falsely made” security with unlawful or fraudulent intent, there is no reason to infer a scienter requirement for the act of falsely making itself.
Short of construing “falsely made” in this way, we are at a loss to give any meaning to this phrase independent of the other terms in §2314, such as “forged” or “counterfeited.” By seeking to exclude from § 2314’s scope any security that is “genuine” or valid, Moskal essentially equates “falsely made” with “forged” or “counterfeited.” His construction therefore violates the established principle that a court should “ ‘give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’” United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955), quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883); see also Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 562 (1990).
Our conclusion that “falsely made” encompasses genuine documents containing false information is supported by Congress’ purpose in enacting § 2314. Inspired by the proliferation of interstate schemes for passing counterfeit securities, see 84 Cong. Rec. 9412 (statement of Sen. O’Mahoney), Congress in 1939 added the clause pertaining to “falsely made, forged, altered or counterfeited securities” as an amendment to the National Stolen Property Act. 53 Stat. 1178. Our prior decisions have recognized Congress’ “general intent” and “broad purpose” to curb the type of trafficking in fraudulent securities that often depends for its success on the exploitation of interstate commerce. In United States v. Sheridan, 329 U. S. 379 (1946), we explained that Congress enacted the relevant clause of §2314 in order to “com[e] to the aid of the states in detecting and punishing criminals whose offenses are complete under state law, but who utilize the channels of interstate commerce to make a successful getaway and thus make the state’s detecting and punitive processes impotent.” Id., at 384. This, we concluded, “was indeed one of the most effective ways of preventing further frauds.” Ibid.; see also McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642, 655 (1982) (rejecting a narrow reading of §2314 that was at odds with Congress’ “broad purpose” and that would “undercut sharply . . . federal prosecutors in their effort to combat crime in interstate commerce”).
We think that “title-washing” operations are a perfect example of the “further frauds” that Congress sought to halt in enacting §2314. As Moskal concedes, his title-washing scheme is a clear instance of fraud involving securities. And as the facts of this case demonstrate, title washes involve precisely the sort of fraudulent activities that are dispersed among several States in order to elude state detection.
Moskal draws a different conclusion from this legislative history. Seizing upon the references to counterfeit securities, petitioner finds no evidence that “the 1939 amendment had anything at all to do with odometer rollback schemes.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 6. We think petitioner misconceives the inquiry into legislative purpose by failing to recognize that Congress sought to attack a category of fraud. At the time that Congress amended the National Stolen Property Act, counterfeited securities no doubt constituted (and may still constitute) the most prevalent form of such interstate fraud. The fact remains, however, that Congress did not limit the statute’s reach to “counterfeit securities” but instead chose the broader phrase “falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities,” which was consistent with its purpose to reach a class of frauds that exploited interstate commerce.
This Court has never required that every permissible application of a statute be expressly referred to in its legislative history. Thus, for example, in United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576 (1981), we recognized that “the major purpose” of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute was “to address the infiltration of legitimate business by organized crime.” Id., at 591. Yet, we concluded from the statute’s broad language and legislative purpose that the key term “enterprise” must include not only legitimate businesses but also criminal associations. Ibid.; see also United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768, 775 (1979) (Securities Act of 1933 covers fraud against brokers as well as investors, since “neither this Court nor Congress has ever suggested that investor protection was the sole purpose of [that] Act” (emphasis in original)).
Our precedents concerning §2314 specifically reject constructions of the statute that limit it to instances of fraud rather than the class of fraud encompassed by its language. For example, in United States v. Sheridan, supra, the defendant cashed checks at a Michigan bank, drawn on a Missouri account, with a forged signature. The Court found that such conduct was proscribed by §2314. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted Congress’ primary objective of reaching counterfeiters of corporate securities but nonetheless found that the statute covered check forgeries “done by ‘little fellows’ who perhaps were not the primary aim of the congressional fire.” 329 U. S., at 390. “Whether or not Congress had in mind primarily such small scale transactions as Sheridan’s,” we held, “his operation was covered literally and we think purposively. Had this not been intended, appropriate exception could easily have been made.” Ibid. In explaining that conclusion, we stated further:
“Drawing the [forged] check upon an out-of-state bank, knowing it must be sent there for presentation, is an obviously facile way to delay and often to defeat apprehension, conviction and restoration of the ill-gotten gain. There are sound reasons therefore why Congress would wish not to exclude such persons [from the statute’s reach], among them the very ease with which they may escape the state’s grasp.” Id., at 391.
In McElroy v. United States, supra, we similarly rejected a narrow construction of §2314. The defendant used blank checks that had been stolen in Ohio to buy a car and a boat in Pennsylvania. Defendant conceded that the checks he had thus misused constituted “forged securities” but maintained his innocence under the federal statute because the checks were not yet forged when they were transported across state boundaries. The Court acknowledged that “Congress could have written the statute to produce this result,” id., at 656, but rejected such a reading as inconsistent with Congress’ “broad purpose” since it would permit “a patient forger easily [to] evade the reach of federal law,” id., at 655. Moreover, because we found the defendant’s interpretation to be contra-dieted by Congress’ intent in § 2314 and its predecessors, we also rejected the defendant’s plea for lenity: “[Although ‘criminal statutes are to be construed strictly . . . this does not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature.’” Id., at 658, quoting United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503, 509-510 (1955) (footnote omitted). We concluded that the defendant had failed to “raise significant questions of ambiguity, for the statutory language and legislative history . . . indicate that Congress defined the term ‘interstate commerce’ more broadly than the petitioner contends.” 455 U. S., at 658.
Thus, in both Sheridan and McElroy, defendants who admittedly circulated fraudulent securities among several States sought to avoid liability by offering a reading of § 2314 that was narrower than the scope of its language and of Congress’ intent, and in each instance we rejected the proffered interpretation. Moskal’s interpretation in the present case rests on a similarly cramped reading of the statute’s words, and we think it should likewise be rejected as inconsistent with Congress’ general purpose to combat interstate fraud. “[Fjederal criminal statutes that are intended to fill a void in local law enforcement should be construed broadly.” Bell v. United States, 462 U. S. 356, 362 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).
To summarize our conclusions as to the meaning of “falsely made” in §2314, we find both in the plain meaning of those words and in the legislative purpose underlying them ample reason to apply the law to a fraudulent scheme for washing vehicle titles.
B
Petitioner contends that such a reading of § 2314 is nonetheless precluded by a further principle of statutory construction. “[W]here a federal criminal statute uses a common-law term of established meaning without otherwise defining it, the general practice is to give that term its common-law meaning.” United States v. Turley, 352 U. S. 407, 411 (1957). Petitioner argues that, at the time Congress enacted the relevant clause of § 2314, the term “falsely made” had an established common-law meaning equivalent to forgery. As so defined, “falsely made” excluded authentic or genuine documents that were merely false in content. Petitioner maintains that Congress should be presumed to have adopted this common-law definition when it amended the National Stolen Property Act in 1939 and that §2314 therefore should be deemed not to cover washed vehicle titles that merely contain false odometer readings. We disagree for two reasons.
First, Moskal has failed to demonstrate that there was, in fact, an “established” meaning of “falsely made” at common law. Rather, it appears that there were divergent views on this issue in American courts. Petitioner and respondent agree that many courts interpreted “falsely made” to exclude documents that were false only in content. The opinion in United States v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52 (CC NH 1882), typifies that view. There, the defendants were prosecuted for having “falsely made” affidavits that they submitted to obtain a pension. The defendants did sign the affidavits, but the facts recited therein were false. The court concluded that this would support a charge of perjury but not false making because “to falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another.” Id., at 55.
But the Wentworth view — that “falsely made” excluded documents “genuinely” issued by the person purporting to make them and false only in content — was not universal. For example, in United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (ED Mo. 1894), the defendant procured a “notary certificate” containing falsehoods. Finding that this conduct fell within the conduct proscribed by a statute barring certain falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited writings, the judge stated:
“I cannot conceive how any significance can be given to the words ‘falsely make’ unless they shall be construed to mean the statements in a certificate which in fact are untrue. ‘Falsely’ means in opposition to the truth. ‘Falsely makes’ means to state in a certificate that which is not true . . . .” Id., at 491.
Other common-law courts, accepting the equation of “falsely making” with “forgery,” treated as “forged” otherwise genuine documents fraudulently procured from innocent makers. In State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 (1841), a landowner signed a deed conveying his farm under the misapprehension that the deed pertained to a different land parcel. Although this deed was “genuine” in the sense that the owner had signed it, the court held it was “falsely made” by the grantee, who had tendered this deed for the owner’s signature instead of one previously agreed upon by the parties. Id., at 371. In concluding that the deed was falsely made, the court explained: “It is not necessary, that the act [of falsely making] should be done, in whole or in part, by the hand of the party charged. It is sufficient if he cause or procure it to be done.” Ibid. Similarly, In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (CA7 1900), upheld the extradition on forgery charges of a defendant who misused sample copies of corporate bond interest coupons that were printed in good faith by the company’s printers. The court noted:
“[T]he authorities establish numerous instances wherein forgery is found, apart from the manual making or signing, as in the fraudulent procurement and use of a signature or writing as an obligation when it is not so intended or understood by the maker.” Id., at 881 (emphasis added).
See also Annot., Genuine Making of Instrument for Purpose of Defrauding as Constituting Forgery, 41 A. L. R. 229, 247 (1926).
This plurality of definitions of “falsely made” substantially undermines Moskal’s reliance on the “common-law meaning” principle. That rule of construction, after all, presumes simply that Congress accepted the one meaning for an undefined statutory term that prevailed at common law. Where, however, no fixed usage existed at' common law, we think it more appropriate to inquire which of the common-law readings of the term best accords with the overall purposes of the statute rather than to simply assume, for example, that Congress adopted the reading that was followed by the largest number of common-law courts. “ ‘Sound rules of statutory interpretation exist to discover and not to direct the Congressional will.’” Huddleston v. United States, 415 U. S. 814, 831 (1974), quoting United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 542 (1943). See also United States v. Turley, 352 U. S. 407, 412 (1957) (declining to assume that Congress equated “stolen” with the common-law meaning of “larceny” in light of varying historic usages of the terms “steal” or “stolen”).
Our second reason for rejecting Moskal’s reliance on the “common-law meaning” rule is that, as this Court has previously recognized, Congress’ general purpose in enacting a law may prevail over this rule of statutory construction. In Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575 (1990), we confronted the question whether “burglary,” when used in a sentence enhancement statute, was intended to take its common-law meaning. We declined to apply the “common-law meaning” rule, in part, because the common-law meaning of burglary was inconsistent with congressional purpose. “The arcane distinctions embedded in the common-law definition [of burglary],” we noted, “have little relevance to modern law-enforcement concerns.” Id., at 593 (footnote omitted). See also Bell v. United States, 462 U. S. 356, 360-361 (1983) (declining to apply the common-law meaning of “takes and carries away” as inconsistent with other provisions of the Bank Robbery Act).
We reach a similar conclusion here. The position of those common-law courts that defined “falsely made” to exclude documents that are false only in content does not accord with Congress’ broad purpose in enacting § 2314 — namely, to criminalize trafficking in fraudulent securities that exploits interstate commerce. We conclude, then, that it is far more likely that Congress adopted the common-law view of “falsely made” that encompasses “genuine” documents that are false in content.
C
Finally, Moskal offers two policy arguments for narrowly construing “falsely made.” First, noting that thousands of automobile titles are “washed” every year, petitioner argues that “to invalidate all of these automobile titles because they contain an incorrect mileage figure may well result in havoc in the stream of automobile commerce.” Brief for Petitioner 19 (emphasis added). Even if we were inclined to credit this concern as a reason for narrowing the statute, the argument — so far as we can discern — rests on a faulty premise. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that States will deem washed titles automatically invalid simply because federal law punishes those responsible for introducing such fraudulent securities into the streams of commerce.
Secondly, Moskal suggests that construing “falsely made” to apply to securities that contain false information will criminalize a broad range of “innocent” conduct. This contention, too, is unfounded. A person who transports such a security in interstate commerce violates § 2314 only if he does so with unlawful or fraudulent intent and if the false information is itself material. A person whose conduct satisfies these tests will be acting no more “innocently” than was Moskal when he engaged in the concededly fraudulent title-washing scheme at issue in this case.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The text of 18 U. S. C. § 2314 reads, in pertinent part:
“Whoever, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transports in interstate or foreign commerce any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities or tax stamps, knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged altered, or counterfeited;
“Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
For purposes of § 2314, “securities” are defined to include any “valid . . . motor vehicle title.” §2311.
Indeed, we offer no view on how we would construe “falsely made” in a statute that punished the act of false making and that specified no scienter requirement. Cf. Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 251-252 (1952) (implying scienter for statutory version of “common-law” offense).
Moskal justifies doing so by arguing that “falsely made” was synonymous with “forged" at common law. We separately consider — and reject — Moskal’s common-law argument, infra, at 114-118.
The statute at issue in Sheridan was an earlier codification of § 2314. The clause governing “falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities” was at that time contained within 18 U. S. C. §415 (1946 ed.).
Moskal appears to concede the logic, if not the result, of this analysis when he distinguishes — solely on its facts — the decision in United States v. Daly, 716 F. 2d 1499 (CA9 1983), cert. dism’d, 465 U. S. 1075 (1984). The defendants in Daly operated a car theft ring and were convicted under § 2314 of transporting washed vehicle titles that falsely identified the numbers and owners of the stolen ears. Notwithstanding the extremely similar facts in Daly, petitioner does not ask us to disapprove the result in that case. Rather, he seeks to distinguish his own case on the grounds that, “[u]nlike the situation in Daly, here the [car] ownership information was never altered.” Brief for Petitioner 12 (emphasis in original). We cannot fathom why the particular information that is falsified in a washed vehicle title — assuming that it is material — would be relevant to Congress’ intent to criminalize the use of such fraudulent documents, particularly when both schemes serve the same goal of deceiving prospective car buyers. On the contrary, we find confirmation in the Daly court’s analysis that Congress intended to reach precisely the sort of fraudulent behavior in which petitioner engaged.
Because of this conclusion, we have no trouble rejecting Moskal’s suggestion that he did not have fair notice that his conduct could be prosecuted under § 2314. Moskal’s contention that he was “entitled to rely” on one Court of Appeals decision holding that washed titles were not “falsely made” is wholly unpersuasive. See United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984) (existence of conflicting decisions among courts of appeals does not support application of the doctrine of lenity where “review of th[e] issue by this Court and decision against the position of the [defendant are] reasonably foreseeable”).
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared to rely on this reasoning when it ruled that washed vehicle titles are not “falsely made” documents within the meaning of § 2314. United States v. Sparrow, 635 F. 2d 794, 796 (1980) (en banc), cert, denied, 450 U. S. 1004 (1981). In that case, the court concluded that “falsely made” relates “to ‘genuineness of execution and not falsity of content.’” 635 F. 2d, at 796, quoting Marteney v. United States, 216 F. 2d 760, 763 (CA10 1954). As noted, supra, at 106, it was because of the direct conflict between Sparroiv and the Third Circuit’s decision in the present case that we granted certiorari.
The Court of Appeals found that the false mileage figures on the washed vehicle titles were material falsehoods. 888 F. 2d 283, 285 (CA3 1989). At oral argument, petitioner sought to challenge that finding. Although this issue was not presented in the petition for certiorari to this Court, we do not doubt the correctness of the lower court’s conclusion as to this matter.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, Richard Bert Mosley, was arrested in Detroit, Mich., in the early afternoon of April 8, 1971, in connection with robberies that had recently occurred at the Blue Goose Bar and the White Tower Restaurant on that city’s lower east side. The arresting officer, Detective James Cowie of the Armed Robbery Section of the Detroit Police Department, was acting on a tip implicating Mosley and three other men in the robberies. After effecting the arrest, Detective Cowie brought Mosley to the Robbery, Breaking and Entering Bureau of the Police Department, located on the fourth floor of the departmental headquarters building. The officer advised Mosley of his rights under this Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, and had him read and sign the department’s constitutional rights notification certificate. After filling out the necessary arrest papers, Cowie began questioning Mosley about the robbery of the White Tower Restaurant. When Mosley said he did not want to answer any questions about the robberies, Cowie promptly ceased the interrogation. The completion of the arrest papers and the questioning of Mosley together took approximately 20 minutes. At no time during the questioning did Mosley indicate a desire to consult with a lawyer, and there is no claim that the procedures followed to this point did not fully comply with the strictures of the Miranda opinion. Mosley was then taken to a ninth-floor cell block.
Shortly after 6 p. m., Detective Hill of the Detroit Police Department Homicide Bureau brought Mosley from the cell block to the fifth-floor office of the Homicide Bureau for questioning about the fatal shooting of a man named Leroy Williams. Williams had been killed on January 9, 1971, during a holdup attempt outside the 101 Ranch Bar in Detroit. Mosley had not been arrested on this charge or interrogated about it by Detective Cowie. Before questioning Mosley about this homicide, Detective Hill carefully advised him of his “Miranda rights.” Mosley read the notification form both silently and aloud, and Detective Hill then read and explained the warnings to him and had him sign the form. Mosley at first denied any involvement in the Williams murder, but after the officer told him that Anthony Smith had confessed to participating in the slaying and had named him as the “shooter,” Mosley made a statement impheating himself in the homicide. The interrogation by Detective Hill lasted approximately 15 minutes, and at no time during its course did Mosley ask to consult with a lawyer or indicate that he did not want to discuss the homicide. In short, there is no claim that the procedures followed during Detective Hill’s interrogation of Mosley, standing alone, did not fully comply with the strictures of the Miranda opinion.
Mosley was subsequently charged in a one-count information with first-degree murder. Before the trial he moved to suppress his incriminating statement on a number of grounds, among them the claim that under the doctrine of the Miranda case it was constitutionally impermissible for Detective Hill to question him about the Williams murder after he had told Detective Cowie that he did not want to answer any questions about the robberies. The trial court denied the motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing, and the incriminating statement was subsequently introduced in evidence against Mosley at his trial. The jury convicted Mosley of first-degree murder, and the court imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
On appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Mosley renewed his previous objections to the use of his incriminating statement in evidence. The appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that Detective Hill’s interrogation of Mosley had been a per se violation of the Miranda doctrine. Accordingly, without reaching Mosley’s other contentions, the Court remanded the case for a new trial with instructions that Mosley’s statement be suppressed as evidence. 51 Mich. App. 105, 214 N. W. 2d 564. After further appeal was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court, 392 Mich. 764, the State filed a petition for certiorari here. We granted the writ because of the important constitutional question presented. 419 U. S. 1119.
In the Miranda case this Court promulgated a set of safeguards to protect the there-delineated constitutional rights of persons subjected to custodial police interrogation. In sum, the Court held in that case that unless law enforcement officers give certain specified warnings before questioning a person in custody, and follow certain specified procedures during the course of any subsequent interrogation, any statement made by the person in custody cannot over his objection be admitted in evidence against him as a defendant at trial, even though the statement may in fact be wholly voluntary. See Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 443.
Neither party in the present case challenges the continuing validity of the Miranda decision, or of any of the so-called guidelines it established to protect what the Court there said was a person’s constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The issue in this case, rather, is whether the conduct of the Detroit police that led to Mosley’s incriminating statement did in fact violate the Miranda “guidelines,” so as to render the statement inadmissible in evidence against Mosley at his trial. Resolution of the question turns almost entirely on the interpretation of a single passage in the Miranda opinion, upon which the Michigan appellate court relied in finding a per se violation of Miranda:
“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” 384 U. S., at 473-474.
This passage states that “the interrogation must cease” when the person in custody indicates that “he wishes to remain silent.” It does not state under what circumstances, if any, a resumption of questioning is permissible. The passage could be literally read to mean that a person who has invoked his “right to silence” can never again be subjected to custodial interrogation by any police officer at any time or place on any subject. Another possible construction of the passage would characterize “any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege” as “the product of compulsion” and would therefore mandate its exclusion from evidence, even if it were volunteered by the person in custody without any further interrogation whatever. Or the passage could be interpreted to require only the immediate cessation of questioning, and to permit a resumption of interrogation after a momentary respite.
It is evident that any of these possible literal interpretations would lead to absurd and unintended results. To permit the continuation of custodial interrogation after a momentary cessation would clearly frustrate the purposes of Miranda by allowing repeated rounds of questioning to undermine the will of the person being questioned. At the other extreme, a blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly irrational obstacles to legitimate police investigative activity, and deprive suspects of an opportunity to make informed and intelligent assessments of their interests. Clearly, therefore, neither this passage nor any other passage in the Miranda opinion can sensibly be read to create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject, once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent.
A reasonable and faithful interpretation of the Miranda opinion must rest on the intention of the Court in that case to adopt “fully effective means ... to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored . . . 384 U. S., at 479. The critical safeguard identified in the passage at issue is a person’s “right to cut off questioning.” Id., at 474. Through the exercise of his option to terminate questioning he can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation. The requirement that law enforcement authorities must respect a person’s exercise of that option counteracts the coercive pressures of the custodial setting. We therefore conclude that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his “right to cut off questioning” was “scrupulously honored.”
A review of the circumstances leading to Mosley’s confession reveals that his “right to cut off questioning” was fully respected in this case. Before his initial interrogation, Mosley was carefully advised that he was under no obligation to answer any questions and could remain silent if he wished. He orally acknowledged that he understood the Miranda warnings and then signed a printed notification-of-rights form. When Mosley stated that he did not want to discuss the robberies, Detective Cowie immediately ceased the interrogation and did not try either to resume the questioning or in any way to persuade Mosley to reconsider his position. After an interval of more than two hours, Mosley was questioned by another police officer at another location about an unrelated holdup murder. He was given full and complete Miranda warnings at the outset of the second interrogation. He was thus reminded again that he could remain silent and could consult with a lawyer, and was carefully given a full and fair opportunity to exercise these options. The subsequent questioning did not undercut Mosley’s previous decision not to answer Detective Cowie’s inquiries. Detective Hill did not resume the interrogation about the White Tower Restaurant robbery or inquire about the Blue Goose Bar robbery, but instead focused exclusively on the Leroy Williams homicide, a crime different in nature and in time and place of occurrence from the robberies for which Mosley had been arrested and interrogated by Detective Cowie. Although it is not clear from the record how much Detective Hill knew about the earlier interrogation, his questioning of Mosley about an unrelated homicide was quite consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Mosley’s earlier refusal to answer any questions about the robberies.
This is not a case, therefore, where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind. In contrast to such practices, the police here immediately ceased the interrogation, resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of warnings, and restricted the second interrogation to a crime that had not been a subject of the earlier interrogation.
The Michigan Court of Appeals viewed this case as factually similar to Westover v. United States, 384 U. S. 436, a companion case to Miranda. But the controlling facts of the two cases are strikingly different.
In Westover, the petitioner was arrested by the Kansas City police at 9:45 p. m. and taken to the police station. Without giving any advisory warnings of any kind to Westover, the police questioned him that night and throughout the next morning about various local robberies. At noon, three FBI agents took over, gave advisory warnings to Westover, and proceeded to question him about two California bank robberies. After two hours of questioning, the petitioner confessed to the California crimes. The Court held that the confession obtained by the FBI was inadmissible because the interrogation leading to the petitioner’s statement followed on the heels of prolonged questioning that was commenced and continued by the Kansas City police without preliminary warnings to Westover of any kind. The Court found that “the federal authorities were the beneficiaries of the pressure applied by the local in-custody interrogation” and that the belated warnings given by the federal officers were “not sufficient to protect” West-over because from his point of view “the warnings came at the end of the interrogation process.” Id., at 497, 496.
Here, by contrast, the police gave full “Miranda warnings” to Mosley at the very outset of each interrogation, subjected him to only a brief period of initial questioning, and suspended questioning entirely for a significant period before beginning the interrogation that led to his incriminating statement. The cardinal fact of West-over — the failure of the police officers to give any warnings whatever to the person in their custody before embarking on an intense and prolonged interrogation of him — was simply not present in this case. The Michigan Court of Appeals was mistaken, therefore, in believing that Detective Hill’s questioning of Mosley was “not permitted” by the Westover decision. 51 Mich. App., at 108, 214 N. W. 2d, at 566.
For these reasons, we conclude that the admission in evidence of Mosley’s incriminating statement did not violate the principles of Miranda v. Arizona. Accordingly, the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The officer testified that information supplied by an anonymous caller was the sole basis for his arrest of Mosley.
The original tip to Detective Cowie had, however, implicated Mosley in the Williams murder.
During cross-examination by Mosley’s counsel at the evidentiary hearing, Detective Hill conceded that Smith in fact had not confessed but had “denied a physical participation in the robbery.”
But see n. 5, injra.
In addition to the claim that Detective Hill’s questioning violated Miranda, Mosley contended that the statement was the product of an illegal arrest, that the statement was inadmissible because he had not been taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay, and that it had been obtained through trickery and promises of leniency. He argued that these circumstances, either independently or in combination, required the suppression of his incriminating statement.
The warnings must inform the person in custody “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” 384 U. S., at 444.
The present case does not involve the procedures to be followed if the person in custody asks to consult with a lawyer, since Mosley made no such request at any time. Those procedures are detailed in the Miranda opinion as follows:
“If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
“This does not mean, as some have suggested, that each police station must have a 'station house lawyer’ present at all times to advise prisoners. It does mean, however, that if police propose to interrogate a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation. If authorities conclude that they will not provide counsel during a reasonable period of time in which investigation in the field is carried out, they may refrain from doing so without violating the person’s Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they do not question him during that .time.” Id., at 474.
The Court did state in a footnote:
“If an individual indicates his desire to remain silent, but has an attorney present, there may be some circumstances in which further questioning would be permissible. In the absence of evidence of overbearing, statements then made in the presence of counsel might be free of the compelling influence of the interrogation process and might fairly be construed as a waiver of the privilege for purposes of these statements.” Id., at 474 n. 44.
This footnote in the Miranda opinion is not relevant to the present case, since Mosley did not have an attorney present at the time he declined to answer Detective Cowie’s questions, and the officer did not continue to question Mosley but instead ceased the interrogation in compliance with Miranda’s dictates.
It is instructive to note that the vast majority of federal and state courts presented with the issue have concluded that the Miranda opinion does not create a per se proscription of any further interrogation once the person being questioned has indicated a desire to remain silent. See Hill v. Whealon, 490 F. 2d 629, 630, 635 (CA6 1974); United States v. Collins, 462 F. 2d 792, 802 (CA2 1972) (en banc); Jennings v. United States, 391 F. 2d 512, 515-516 (CA5 1968); United States v. Choice, 392 F. Supp. 460, 466-467 (ED Pa. 1975); McIntyre v. New York, 329 F. Supp. 9, 13-14 (EDNY 1971); People v. Naranjo, 181 Colo. 273, 277-278, 509 P. 2d 1235, 1237 (1973); People v. Pittman, 55 Ill. 2d 39, 54-56, 302 N. E. 2d 7, 16-17 (1973); State v. McClelland, 164 N. W. 2d 189, 192-196 (Iowa 1969); State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643, 647-649, 522 P. 2d 320, 324-325 (1974); Conway v. State, 7 Md. App. 400, 405-411, 256 A. 2d 178, 181-184 (1969); State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 70-71, 216 N. W. 2d 822, 829 (1974); State v. Godfrey, 182 Neb. 451, 454-457, 155 N. W. 2d 438, 440-442 (1968); People v. Gary, 31 N. Y. 2d 68, 69-70, 286 N. E. 2d 263, 264 (1972); State v. Bishop, 272 N. C. 283, 296-297, 158 S. E. 2d 511, 520 (1968); Commonwealth v. Grandison, 449 Pa. 231, 233-234, 296 A. 2d 730, 731 (1972); State v. Robinson, 87 S. D. 375, 378, 209 N. W. 2d 374, 375-377 (1973); Hill v. State, 429 S. W. 2d 481, 486-487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968); State v. Estrada, 63 Wis. 2d 476, 486-488, 217 N. W. 2d 359, 365-366 (1974). See also People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal. 2d 714, 717-720, 441 P. 2d 625, 626-628 (1968) (permitting the suspect but not the police to initiate further questioning).
Citation of the above cases does not imply a view of the merits of any particular decision.
The dissenting opinion asserts that Miranda established a requirement that once a person has indicated a desire to remain silent, questioning may be resumed only when counsel is present. Post, at 116-117. But clearly the Court in Miranda imposed no such requirement, for it distinguished between the procedural safeguards triggered by a request to remain silent and a request for an attorney and directed that “the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present” only “[i]f the individual states that he wants an attorney.” 384 U. S., at 474.
Detective Cowie gave the only testimony at the suppression hearing concerning the scope of Mosley’s earlier refusal to answer his questions:
“A. I think at that time he declined to answer whether he had been involved.
“Q. He declined to answer?
“A. Yes. Anything about the robberies.”
At the suppression hearing, Mosley did not in any way dispute Cowie’s testimony. Not until trial, after the judge had denied the motion to suppress the incriminating statement, did Mosley offer a somewhat different version of his earlier refusal to answer Detective Cowie’s questions. The briefs submitted by Mosley’s counsel to the Michigan Court of Appeals and to this Court accepted Detective Cowie’s account of the interrogation as correct, and the Michigan Court of Appeals decided the case on that factual premise. At oral argument before this Court, both counsel discussed the case solely in terms of Cowie’s description of the events.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these cases an employer insisted that its collective-bargaining contract with certain of its employees include: (1) a “ballot” clause calling for a pre-strike secret vote of those employees (union and nonunion) as to the employer’s last offer, and (2) a “recognition” clause which excluded, as a party to the contract, the International Union which had been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the employees’ exclusive bargaining agent, and substituted for it the agent’s uncertified local affiliate. The Board held that the employer’s insistence upon either of such clauses amounted to a refusal to bargain, in violation of § 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The issue turns on whether either of these clauses comes within the scope of mandatory collective bargaining as defined in § 8 (d) of the Act. For the reasons hereafter stated, we agree with the Board that neither clause comes within that definition. Therefore, we sustain the Board’s order directing the employer to cease insisting upon either clause as a condition precedent to accepting any collective-bargaining contract.
Late in 1952, the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (here called International) was certified by the Board to the Wooster (Ohio) Division of the Borg-Warner Corporation (here called the company) as the elected representative of an appropriate unit of the company’s employees. Shortly thereafter, International chartered Local No. 1239, UAW-CIO (here called the Local). Together the unions presented the company with a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. In the “recognition” clause, the unions described themselves as both the “International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local Union No. 1239, U. A. W.-C. 1.0.”
The company submitted a counterproposal which recognized as the sole representative of the employees “Local Union 1239, affiliated with the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO).” The unions’ negotiators objected because such a clause disregarded the Board’s certification of International as the employees’ representative. The negotiators declared that the employees would accept no agreement which excluded International as a party.
The company’s counterproposal also contained the “ballot” clause, quoted in full in the margin. In summary, this clause provided that, as to all nonarbitrable issues (which eventually included modification, amendment or termination of the contract), there would be a 30-day negotiation period after which, before the union could strike, there would have to be a secret ballot taken among all employees in the unit (union and nonunion) on the company’s last offer. In the event a majority of the employees rejected the company’s last offer, the company would have an opportunity, within 72 hours, of making a new proposal and having a vote on it prior to any strike. The unions’ negotiators announced they would not accept this clause “under any conditions.”
From the time that the company first proposed these clauses, the employees’ representatives thus made it clear that each was wholly unacceptable. The company’s representatives made it equally clear that no agreement would be entered into by it unless the agreement contained both clauses. In view of this impasse, there was little further discussion of the clauses, although the parties continued to bargain as to other matters. The company submitted a “package” proposal covering economic issues but made the offer contingent upon the satisfactory settlement of “all other issues . . . .” The “package” included both of the controversial clauses. On March 15, 1953, the unions rejected that proposal and the membership voted to strike on March 20 unless a settlement were reached by then. None was reached and the unions struck. Negotiations, nevertheless, continued. On April 21, the unions asked the company whether the latter would withdraw its demand for the “ballot” and “recognition” clauses if the unions accepted all other pending requirements of the company. The company declined and again insisted upon acceptance of its “package,” including both clauses. Finally, on May 5, the Local, upon the recommendation of International, gave in and entered into an agreement containing both controversial clauses.
In the meantime, International had filed charges with the Board claiming that the company, by the above conduct, was guilty of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8 (a) (5) of the Act. The trial examiner found no bad faith on either side. However, he found that the company had made it a condition precedent to its acceptance of any agreement that the agreement include both the “ballot” and the “recognition” clauses. For that reason, he recommended that the company be found guilty of a per se unfair labor practice in violation of §8 (a)(5). He reasoned that, because each of the controversial clauses was outside of the scope of mandatory bargaining as defined in § 8 (d) of the Act, the company’s insistence upon them, against the permissible opposition of the unions, amounted to a refusal to bargain as to the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. The Board, with two members dissenting, adopted the recommendations of the examiner. 113 N. L. R. B. 1288, 1298. In response to the Board’s petition to enforce its order, the Court of Appeals set aside that portion of the order relating to the “ballot” clause, but upheld the Board’s order as to the “recognition” clause. 236 F. 2d 898.
Because of the importance of the issues and because of alleged conflicts among the Courts of Appeals, we granted the Board’s petition for certiorari in No. 53, relating to the “ballot” clause, and the company’s cross-petition in No. 78, relating to the “recognition” clause. 353 U. S. 907.
We turn first to the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 8 (a) (5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees . . . .” Section 8 (d) defines collective bargaining as follows:
“(d) For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d).
Read together, these provisions establish the obligation of the employer and the representative of its employees to bargain with each other in good faith with respect to “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment . . . The duty is limited to those subjects, and within that area neither party is legally obligated to yield. Labor Board v. American Insurance Co., 343 U. S. 395. As to other matters, however, each party is free to bargain or not to bargain, and to agree or not to agree.
The company’s good faith has met the requirements of the statute as to the subjects of mandatory bargaining. But that good faith does not license the employer to refuse to enter into agreements on the ground that they do not include some proposal which is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. We agree with the Board that such conduct is, in substance, a refusal to bargain about the subjects that are within the scope of mandatory bargaining. This does not mean that bargaining is to be confined to the statutory subjects. Each of the two controversial clauses is lawful in itself. Each would be enforceable if agreed to by the unions. But it does not follow that, because the company may propose these clauses, it can lawfully insist upon them as a condition to any agreement.
Since it is lawful to insist upon matters within the scope of mandatory bargaining and unlawful to insist upon matters without, the issue here is whether either the “ballot” or the “recognition” clause is a subject within the phrase “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” which defines mandatory bargaining. The “ballot” clause is not within that definition. It relates only to the procedure to be followed by the employees among themselves before their representative may call a strike or refuse a final offer. It settles no term or condition of employment — it merely calls for an advisory vote of the employees. It is not a partial “no-strike” clause. A “no-strike” clause prohibits the employees from striking during the life of the contract. It regulates the relations between the employer and the employees. See Labor Board v. American Insurance Co., supra, at 408, n. 22. The “ballot” clause, on the other hand, deals only with relations between the employees and their unions. It substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the “representative” chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative. Cf. Medo Photo Corp. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 678.
The “recognition” clause likewise does not come within the definition of mandatory bargaining. The statute requires the company to bargain with the certified representative of its employees. It is an evasion of that duty to insist that the certified agent not be a party to the collective-bargaining contract. The Act does not prohibit the voluntary addition of a party, but that does not authorize the employer to exclude the certified representative from the contract.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 53 is reversed and the cause remanded for disposition consistent with this opinion. In No. 78, the judgment is affirmed.
No. 53 — Reversed and remanded.
No. 78 — Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
joins this opinion insofar as it holds that insistence by the company on the “recognition” clause, in conflict with the provisions of the Act requiring an employer to bargain with the representative of his employees, constituted an unfair labor practice. He agrees with the views of Mr. Justice Harlan regarding the “ballot” clause. The subject matter of that clause is not so clearly outside the reasonable range of industrial bargaining as to establish a refusal to bargain in good faith, and is not prohibited simply because not deemed to be within the rather vague scope of the obligatory provisions of § 8 (d).
“Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
“(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).
“Sec. 9. (a) Representatives designated' or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment . . . .” 61 Stat. 140, 141, 143, 29 U. S. C. §§158 (a)(5), 159 (a).
See § 8 (d) as set forth in the text of the opinion, infra, p. 348.
“5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION
“5.4 It is agreed by both the Company and the Union that it is their mutual intent to provide peaceful means for the settlement of all disputes that may arise between them. To assist both parties to carry out this intent in good faith, it is agreed that it is essential that three basic steps be taken with respect to each dispute, in order to permit the greatest opportunity for satisfactory settlement: such steps shall include (1) a clear definition of the issue or issues, officially made known to all employees in the bargaining unit; (2) a reasonable period of good faith bargaining on the issues as defined, after such issues have been made known to all employees in the bargaining unit; and (3) an opportunity for all employees in the bargaining unit to vote, by secret, impartially supervised, written ballot, on whether to accept or reject the Company’s last offer, and on any subsequent offers made.
“5.5 It is mutually agreed that the definition of issues referred to in Section 5.4 will include the proposals and counter-proposals of each party; that the reasonable period of good faith bargaining referred to in Section 5.4 shall be at least 30 days, with full discussion of the issue taking place during that period; and that the secret written ballot referred to in Section 5.4 shall be supervised by a representative of the United States Mediation and Conciliation Service, or by some other party mutually agreed upon by the Company and the Union. The Company and the Union further agree that such a ballot shall be taken on Company premises, at reasonable and convenient times, and with proper safeguards, similar to those observed in NLRB elections, being taken to insure freedom of choice.and a fair election.
“5.6 It is further mutually agreed that if a majority of employees in the bargaining unit reject the Company’s last offer, and the Company makes a subsequent offer within 72 hours from the time the results of the election are known, another secret, impartially supervised written ballot will be taken within the following 72 hours.
“5.7 It is further mutually agreed that the question of whether or not this Agreement is to be terminated is one of the issues subject to vote by such a secret, impartially supervised, written ballot.
“5.8 It is further mutually agreed that during the life of this Agreement the Company will not engage in any form of lockout, and the Union will not cause or permit the members of the bargaining unit to take part in any sit-down, stay-in, or slow-down, or any curtailment of work or restriction of production or interference with production, or take part in any strike or stoppage of any kind, or picket the plant, on any matter subject to arbitration, and not in any other matter, until all the bargaining procedure outlined in this Agreement, (including the Grievance Procedure, where applicable, and in all cases the three steps outlined in this Article), have been completely fulfilled.” 113 N. L. R. B. 1288, 1310-1311.
Labor Board v. Darlington Veneer Co., 236 F. 2d 85 (C. A. 4th Cir.); Labor Board v. Corsicana Cotton Mills, 178 F. 2d 344 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Cf. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Labor Board, 213 F. 2d 374 (C. A. 7th Cir.).
See note 1, supra.
See §§ 201 (c) and 203 (c) of the act, 61 Stat. 152, 154, 29 U.S.C. §§ 171 (c) and 173 (c).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of' the Court.
The petitioners in these consolidated cases challenge the implementation of a North Carolina statute authorizing the creation of a new. school district for Scotland Neck, a city which' at the time of the statute’s enactment was part of a larger school district then in the process of dismantling a dual school system. In a judgment entered the same day as its judgment in Council of City of Emporia v. Wright, 442 F. 2d 570, a decision which we reverse today, ante, p. 451, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in efih.. joining'\the creation of the new school district.
Scotland Neck is a community, of about 3,000 persons, . located in the southeastern portion of Halifax County, North Carolina. Since 1936, the city has been a part of the Halifax County Administrative Unit, a school district comprising the entire county with the exception of two towns located in the northern section. In the 1968-1969 school year, 10,655 students attended schools in this system, of whom 77% were Negro, -22% white, and 1% American Indian.
- The schools of Halifax County were completely segre-. gated by race until 1965. In that year, the school board adopted a freedom-of-choice plan that produced very little actual desegregation. . In the 1967-1968 school year, all of the white students in the county attended the four traditionally all-white schools, while 97% of the Negro students attended the 14 traditionally all-Negro schools. The school-busing system, used by 90% of the students, was segregated by race, and faculty desegregation was minimal.
In 1968, the United States Department of Justice entered into negotiations with the Halifax County School-Board to bring the county’s school system into compliance with federal law. An agreement was reached whereby the school board undertook to provide some desegregation in the fall of 1968, and to effect a completely unitary system in the 1969-1970 school year. The State Department of Public Instruction, acting on a request from the county board, recommended a detailed plan (the Interim Plan) for the unitary system that would have put some white students in every school in the county, and that would have left a white majority in only one school.
In January 1969, after the Interim Plan had been submitted to the county school board but before any action had been taken upon it, a bill was introduced in the state legislature to authorize the creation of a new school district bounded by the .city limits of Scotland Neck, upon approval by a majority of the city’s voter's. The bill was enacted on March 3, 1969, as Chapter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina. The citizens of Scotland Neck approved the new school district in a referendum a month later, and the new district began taking steps toward beginning a separate school system in the fall of. 1969.
The effect of Chapter 31 wasf to carve out of the Halifax school district a new unit with 695 students, of whom 399 (57%) were white and 296 (43%) were Negro. Under a transfer plan devised by the newly appointed Scotland Neck City Board of Education, .360 students (350 white and 10 Negro) residing outside the city limits - applied .to transfer into the Scotland Neck schools, while 44 students (all Negro) applied to transfer out of the city system to a nearby school in the Halifax County system. The new district planned to use the facilities of the formerly all-white Scotland Neck High School, including one building located outside the city limits that would be leased from the county.
The United States filed this lawsuit in June 1969 against both city and" county officials, seeking desegregation of the existing Halifax County schools. The complaint asked for preliminary and permanent injunc- . tions against the implementation of Chapter 31. Various Negro children, parents, and teachers, the petitioner^ in No. 70-187, were permitted to intervene as plaintiffs.
After a three-day hearing before two district judges on both this case and a similar' case involving two newly created school districts in neighboring Warren County, the District Court preliminarily enjoined the implementation of Chapter 31, finding that “the Act in its application creates a refuge for white students, and promotes segregated schools in Halifax County,” and further that “[t]he Act impedes and defeats the Halifax County Board of Education from implementing its plan to completely desegregate all of the public schools in Halifax County by the openihg of the school year 1969-70.” After further hearings, the District Court on May 23, 1970, found Chapter 31 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. 314 F. Supp. 65. The Court of Appeals reversed, 442 F. 2d 575, and we granted certiorari. 404 U. S. 821.
The Court of Appeals did not believe that the separation of Scotland Neck from the Halifax County system should be viewed as an alternative plan for desegregating the county system, because the “severance was not part of a desegregation plan proposed by the • school board but was instead an action by the Legislature redefining the boundaries of local governmental units.” 442 F. 2d, at 583. This suggests that an action of a state legislature affecting the desegregation of a dual system stands on a footing different from an action of a school board. But in North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43, decided after the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, we held that “if a state-imposed limitation on a school authority’s discretion operates to inhibit or obstruct . . . the disestablishing of a dual school system, it must fall; state policy must give way when it operates' to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees.” Id., at 45. The fact that the creation of the Scotland Neck school district was authorized by a special act of the state legislature rather than by the school board or city authorities thus has no constitutional significance.
We have today held that any attempt by state or local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system “must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of-its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.” Wright v. Council of City of Em-poria, supra, at 460. The District Court in this case concluded that Chapter 31 “was enacted- with the effect of creating a refuge for white students of the Halifax County School system, and interferes with the desegregation of the Halifax County School system .-. . .” 314 F. Supp., at 78. The Court of Appeals, however, did not regard the separation of Scotland Neck as Creating a refuge for white students' seeking to escape desegregation, and it held that “the effect of the separation of the Scotland Neck schools and students on the desegregation of the remainder of the Halifax County system is minimal and insufficient to invalidate Chapter 31.” 442 F. 2d, at 582. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the District Court’s determination was the only proper inference to be drawn from the facts of this litigation, and we thus reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The major impact of Chapter 31 would fall on the southeastern portion of Halifax County, designated as District I in the Interim Plan for unitary schools proposed by the State Department of Public Instruction. The projected enrolfinent in the schools of this district under the Interim Plan, was 2,948 students, of whom 78% were Negro. If Chapter 31 were implemented, the. Scotland Neck schools would be 57% white, while the schools remaining in District I would be 89% Negro'. The traditional racial identities of the schools in the area would be maintained; the formerly all-white Scotland Neck school would retain a white majority, while the formerly all-Negro Brawley school, a high school located just outside Scotland Neck, would be 91% Negro.
- In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, we said that district judges or school authorities “should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation,” and that in formulating a plan to remedy state-enforced school segregation there should be “a presumption against schools that are substantially disproportionate in their racial composition.” Id., at 26. And we have said today, in Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, supra, at 463, that “desegregation is’-not achieved by splitting a single school system operating ‘white schools’ and ‘Negro schools’ into two hew systems, each operating unitary schools within its borders, where one of the two new systems, is, in fact, ‘white’ and the other is, in fact, ‘Negro.’ ”
In this litigation, the disparity in the racial composition of the Scotland Neck schools and the schools remaining in District I of the Halifax County system would be “substantial”-by any standard of measurement. And the enthusiastic response among whites residing outside Scotland Neck to the school board’s proposed transfer plan confirmed what the figures suggest: the Scotland Neck school was to be the “white school” of the area, while the other District I schools would remain “Negro schools.” Given these facts, we cannot but conclude that the implementation of Chapter 31 would have the effect of impeding the disestablishment of the dual school system that existed in Halifax County.
The primary argument made by the respondents in support of Chapter 31 is that the separation of the Scotland Neck schools from those of Halifax County was necessary to avoid “white flight” by Scotland Neck residents into private schools that would follow complete dismantling of the dual school system. Supplemental affidavits were submitted to the Court of Appeals documenting the degree to which the system has undergone a loss of students since the unitary school plan took effect in the fall of 1970. 'But while this development may be cause for- deep concern to the respondents, it cannot, as the Court of Appeals recognized, be accepted as a reason for achieving anything less than complete uprooting of the dual public school system. See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U. S. 450, 459.
Reversed.
An earlier bill had been introduced in the 1965 session of the legislature, which would have created a separate school district for Scotland Neck and the four surrounding townships; an area with a three-to-one Negro majority. It was contemplated that the new district would operate under a freedom-bf-choice plan similar to that existing in the county .at the the time. The bill was defeated in the State Senate.
The vote in the referendum was 813 to 332 in favor of the new school district. Of Scotland Neck’s 1,382 registered 'voters, 360 were Negro.
After the preliminary injunction was issued in this, case, the District Court dismissed the Halifax County Board of Education from that part of the case dealing with Scotland Neck’s efforts to implement a separate school system. On May 19,1970, the court ordered the county school board. to implement, beginning in the fall of 1970, the Interim Plan proposed by the State Department of Public Instruction, with certain modifications proposed by the school board.
The opinion of the District Court on the issuance of the preliminary injunction is unreported.
The figures supplied to the Court of Appeals were updated by an affidavit submitted to this Court, showing the total enrollment in the Halifax County schools at the start of the 1971-1972 school year to have been 9,094, of whom 14% were white.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of the opinion of this Court in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, decided April 22, 1968.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 650, decided April 22, 1968.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a public employee can state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee’s membership in any particular class. We hold that such a “class-of-one” theory of equal protection has no place in the public employment context.
I
Anup Engquist, the petitioner in this case, was hired in 1992 by Norma Corristan to be an international food standard specialist for the Export Service Center (ESC), a laboratory within the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). During the course of her employment, Engquist experienced repeated problems with Joseph Hyatt, another ODA employee, complaining to Corristan that he had made false statements about her and otherwise made her life difficult. Corristan responded by directing Hyatt to attend diversity and anger management training.
In 2001, John Szczepanski, an assistant director of ODA, assumed responsibility over ESC, supervising Corristan, Hyatt, and Engquist. Szczepanski told a client that he could not “control” Engquist, and that Engquist and Corristan “would be gotten rid of.” When Engquist and Hyatt both applied for a vacant managerial post within ESC, Szczepanski chose Hyatt despite Engquist’s greater experience in the relevant field. Later that year, during a round of across-the-board budget cuts in Oregon, Szczepanski eliminated Corristan’s position. Finally, on January 31, 2002, Engquist was informed that her position was being eliminated because of reorganization. Engquist’s collective-bargaining agreement gave her the opportunity either to “bump” to another position at her level, or to take a demotion. She was found unqualified for the only other position at her level and declined a demotion, and was therefore effectively laid off.
Engquist subsequently brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against ODA, Szczepanski, and Hyatt, all respondents here, alleging violations of federal antidiscrimination statutes, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. As to Engquist’s equal protection claim, she alleged that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race, sex, and national origin. She also brought what is known as a “class-of-one” equal protection claim, alleging that she was fired not because she was a member of an identified class (unlike her race, sex, and national origin claims), but simply for “arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons.” App. 10.
The District Court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment as to some of Engquist’s claims, but allowed others to go forward, including each of the equal protection claims. As relevant to this case, the District Court found Engquist’s class-of-one equal protection claim legally viable, deciding that the class-of-one theory was fully applicable in the employment context. Civ. No. 02-1637-AS (D Ore., Sept. 14,2004), App. 49, 58, 2004 WL 2066748, *5. The court held that Engquist could succeed on that theory if she could prove “that she was singled out as a result of animosity on the part of Hyatt and Szczepanski” — i. e., “that their actions were spiteful efforts to punish her for reasons unrelated to any legitimate state objective” — and if she could demonstrate, on the basis of that animosity, that “she was treated differently than others who were similarly situated.” Ibid.
The jury rejected Engquist’s claims of discrimination for membership in a suspect class — her race, sex, and national origin claims — but found in her favor on the class-of-one claim. Specifically, the jury found that Hyatt and Szczepanski “intentionally treat[ed] [Engquist] differently than others similarly situated with respect to the denial of her promotion, termination of her employment, or denial of bumping rights without any rational basis and solely for arbitrary, vindictive or malicious reasons.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3-4. The jury also found for Engquist on several of her other claims, and awarded her $175,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.
The Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part. It recognized that this Court had upheld a class-of-one equal protection challenge to state legislative and regulatory action in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U. S. 562 (2000) (per curiam). 478 F. 3d 985, 992-993 (CA9 2007). The court below also acknowledged that other Circuits had applied Olech in the public employment context, 478 F. 3d, at 993 (citing cases), but it disagreed with those courts on the ground that our cases have routinely afforded government greater leeway when it acts as employer rather than regulator, id., at 993-996. The court concluded that extending the class-of-one theory of equal protection to the public employment context would lead to undue judicial interference in state employment practices and “completely invalidate the practice of public at-will employment.” Id., at 995. The court accordingly held that the class-of-one theory is “inapplicable to decisions made by public employers with regard to their employees.” Id., at 996.
Judge Reinhardt dissented, “agreeing] with the other circuits that the class-of-one theory of equal protection is applicable to public employment decisions.” Id., at 1010. We granted certiorari to resolve this disagreement in the lower courts, 552 U. S. 1136 (2008), and now affirm.
II
Engquist argues that the Equal Protection Clause forbids public employers from irrationally treating one employee differently from others similarly situated, regardless of whether the different treatment is based on the employee’s membership in a particular class. She reasons that in Olech, supra, we recognized in the regulatory context a similar class-of-one theory of equal protection, Brief for Petitioner 14-15; that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not classes, id., at 15-17; that the Clause proscribes “discrimination arising not only from a legislative act but also from the conduct of an administrative official,” id., at 17; and that the Constitution applies to the State not only when it acts as regulator, but also when it acts as employer, id., at 23-29. Thus, Engquist concludes that class-of-one claims can be brought against public employers just as against any other state actors, id., at 29-32, and that differential treatment of government employees — even when not based on membership in a class or group — violates the Equal Protection Clause unless supported by a rational basis, id., at 32, 39-45.
We do not quarrel with the premises of Engquist’s argument. It is well settled that the Equal Protection Clause “protect[s] persons, not groups,” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995) (emphasis deleted), and that the Clause’s protections apply to administrative as well as legislative acts, see, e. g., Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20,35-36 (1907). It is equally well settled that States do not escape the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause in their role as employers. See, e. g., New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568 (1979); Harrah Independent School Dist v. Martin, 440 U. S. 194 (1979) (per curiam); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307 (1976) (per curiam). We do not, however, agree that Engquist’s conclusion follows from these premises. Our traditional view of the core concern of the Equal Protection Clause as a shield against arbitrary classifications, combined with unique considerations applicable when the government acts as employer as opposed to sovereign, lead us to conclude that the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public employment context.
A
We have long held the view that there is a crucial difference, with respect to constitutional analysis, between the government exercising “the power to regulate or license, as lawmaker,” and the government acting “as proprietor, to manage [its] internal operation.” Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961). This distinction has been particularly clear in our review of state action in the context of public employment. Thus, “the government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign.” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion). “[T]he extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government’s mission as employer. Government agencies are charged by law with doing particular tasks. Agencies hire employees to help do those tasks as effectively and efficiently as possible.” Id., at 674-675. See also Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 150-151 (1983) (explaining that the government has a legitimate interest “in ‘promoting] efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties, and [in] maintaining] proper discipline in the public service’” (quoting Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 371, 373 (1882); alterations in original)). “The government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer.” Waters, supra, at 675 (plurality opinion). Given the “common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” Connick, supra, at 143, “constitutional review of government employment decisions must rest on different principles than review of... restraints imposed by the government as sovereign,” Waters, supra, at 674 (plurality opinion).
In light of these basic principles, we have often recognized that government has significantly greater leeway in its dealings with citizen employees than it does when it brings its sovereign power to bear on citizens at large. Thus, for example, we have held that the Fourth Amendment does not require public employers to obtain warrants before conducting a search of an employee’s office. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 721-722 (1987) (plurality opinion). See also id., at 732 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Although we recognized that the “legitimate privacy interests of public employees in the private objects they bring to the workplace may be substantial,” we found that “[ajgainst these privacy interests... must be balanced the realities of the workplace, which strongly suggest that a warrant requirement would be unworkable.” Id., at 721 (plurality opinion). We have also found that the Due Process Clause does not protect a public employee from discharge, even when such discharge was mistaken or unreasonable. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 350 (1976) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions”).
Our public employee speech cases are particularly instructive. In Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968), we explained that, in analyzing a claim that a public employee was deprived of First Amendment rights by her employer, we must seek “a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
We analyzed the contours of this balance more fully in Connick v. Myers, supra. We explained that the First Amendment protects public employee speech only when it falls within the core of First Amendment protection — speech on matters of public concern. We recognized that the “‘First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political,’” and that the government therefore could not generally prohibit or punish, in its capacity as sovereign, speech on the ground that it does not touch upon matters of public concern, id., at 147 (quoting Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217, 223 (1967)). But “[w]hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices.” Connick, 461 U. S., at 146. As we explained, “absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s behavior.” Id., at 147 (citing Bishop, supra, at 349-350).
Our precedent in the public employee context therefore establishes two main principles: First, although government employees do not lose their constitutional rights when they accept their positions, those rights must be balanced against the realities of the employment context. Second, in striking the appropriate balance, we consider whether the asserted employee right implicates the basic concerns of the relevant constitutional provision, or whether the claimed right can more readily give way to the requirements of the government as employer. With these principles in mind, we come to the question whether a class-of-one theory of equal protection is cognizable in the public employment context.
B
Our equal protection jurisprudence has typically been concerned with governmental classifications that “affect some groups of citizens differently than others.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425 (1961). See, e. g., Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 609 (1974) (“ ‘Equal protection’... emphasizes disparity in treatment by a State between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable”); San Antonio Independent School Dish v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 60 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) (“[T]he basic concern of the Equal Protection Clause is with state legislation whose purpose or effect is to create discrete and objectively identifiable classes”). Plaintiffs in such cases generally allege that they have been arbitrarily classified as members of an “identifiable group.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979).
Engquist correctly argues, however, that we recognized in Olech that an equal protection claim can in some circumstances be sustained even if the plaintiff has not alleged class-based discrimination, but instead claims that she has been irrationally singled out as a so-called “class of one.” In Olech, a property owner had asked the village of Willow-brook to connect her property to the municipal water supply. Although the village had required only a 15-foot easement from other property owners seeking access to the water supply, the village conditioned Olech’s connection on a grant of a 33-foot easement. Olech sued the village, claiming that the village’s requirement of an easement 18 feet longer than the norm violated the Equal Protection Clause. Although Olech had not alleged that the village had discriminated against her based on membership in an identifiable class, we held that her complaint stated a valid claim under the Equal Protection Clause because it alleged that she had “been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” 528 U. S., at 564 (citing Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441 (1923), and Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U. S. 336 (1989)).
Recognition of the class-of-one theory of equal protection on the facts in Olech was not so much a departure from the principle that the Equal Protection Clause is concerned with arbitrary government classification, as it was an application of that principle. That case involved the government’s regulation of property. Similarly, the cases upon which the Court in Olech relied concerned property assessment and taxation schemes. See Allegheny Pittsburgh, supra; Sioux City Bridge, supra. We expect such legislative or regulatory classifications to apply “without respect to persons,” to borrow a phrase from the judicial oath. See 28 U. S. C. §453. As we explained long ago, the Fourteenth Amendment “requires that all persons subjected to... legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.” Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 71-72 (1887). When those who appear similarly situated are nevertheless treated differently, the Equal Protection Clause requires at least a rational reason for the difference, to ensure that all persons subject to legislation or regulation are indeed being “treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions.” Thus, when it appears that an individual is being singled out by the government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a “rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Olech, 528 U. S., at 564.
What seems to have been significant in Olech and the cases on which it relied was the existence of a clear standard against which departures, even for a single plaintiff, could be readily assessed. There was no indication in Olech that the zoning board was exercising discretionary authority based on subjective, individualized determinations — at least not with regard to easement length, however typical such determinations may be as a general zoning matter. See id., at 565 (Breyer, J., concurring in result). Rather, the complaint alleged that the board consistently required only a 15-foot easement, but subjected Olech to a 33-foot easement. This differential treatment raised a concern of arbitrary classification, and we therefore required that the State provide a rational basis for it.
In Allegheny Pittsburgh, cited by the Olech Court, the applicable standard was market value, but the county departed from that standard in basing some assessments on quite dated purchase prices. Again, there was no suggestion that the “dramatic differences in valuation” for similar property parcels, 488 U. S., at 341, were based on subjective considerations of the sort on which appraisers often rely, see id., at 338-342, 345. Sioux City Bridge, also cited in Olech, was the same sort of case, recognizing an equal protection claim when one taxpayer’s property was assessed at 100 percent of its value, while all other property was assessed at 55 percent, without regard to articulated differences in the properties. See 260 U. S., at 445-447.
There are some forms of state action, however, which by their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based on a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments. In such cases the rule that people should be “treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions” is not violated when one person is treated differently from others, because treating like individuals differently is an accepted consequence of the discretion granted. In such situations, allowing a challenge based on the arbitrary singling out of a particular person would undermine the very discretion that such state officials are entrusted to exercise.
Suppose, for example, that a traffic officer is stationed on a busy highway where people often drive above the speed limit, and there is no basis upon which to distinguish them. If the officer gives only one of those people a ticket, it may be good English to say that the officer has created a class of people that did not get speeding tickets, and a “class of one” that did. But assuming that it is in the nature of the particular government activity that not all speeders can be stopped and ticketed, complaining that one has been singled out for no reason does not invoke the fear of improper government classification. Such a complaint, rather, challenges the legitimacy of the underlying action itself — the decision to ticket speeders under such circumstances. Of course, an allegation that speeding tickets are given out on the basis of race or sex would state an equal protection claim, because such discriminatory classifications implicate basic equal protection concerns. But allowing an equal protection claim on the ground that a ticket was given to one person and not others, even if for no discernible or articulable reason, would be incompatible with the discretion inherent in the challenged action. It is no proper challenge to what in its nature is a subjective, individualized decision that it was subjective and individualized.
This principle applies most clearly in the employment context, for employment decisions are quite often subjective and individualized, resting on a wide array of factors that are difficult to articulate and quantify. As Engquist herself points out, “[u nlike the zoning official, the public employer often must take into account the individual personalities and interpersonal relationships of employees in the workplace. The close relationship between the employer and employee, and the varied needs and interests involved in the employment context, mean that considerations such as concerns over personality conflicts that would be unreasonable as grounds for ‘arm’s-length’ government decisions (e. g., zoning, licensing) may well justify different treatment of a public employee.” Brief for Petitioner 48. Unlike the context of arm’s-length regulation, such as in Olech, treating seemingly similarly situated individuals differently in the employment context is par for the course.
Thus, the class-of-one theory of equal protection — which presupposes that like individuals should be treated alike, and that to treat them differently is to classify them in a way that must survive at least rationality review — is simply a poor fit in the public employment context. To treat employees differently is not to classify them in a way that raises equal protection concerns. Rather, it is simply to exercise the broad discretion that typically characterizes the employer-employee relationship. A challenge that one has been treated individually in this context, instead of like everyone else, is a challenge to the underlying nature of the government action.
Of course, that is not to say that the Equal Protection Clause, like other constitutional provisions, does not apply to public employers. Indeed, our cases make clear that the Equal Protection Clause is implicated when the government makes class-based decisions in the employment context, treating distinct groups of individuals categorically differently. See, e. g., Beazer, 440 U. S., at 593 (upholding city’s exclusion of methadone users from employment under rational-basis review); Martin, 440 U. S., at 199-201 (classification between teachers who had complied with a continuing-education requirement and those who had not is rational and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause); Murgia, 427 U. S., at 314-317 (upholding a mandatory retirement age — a classification based on age — under rational-basis review). The dissent’s broad statement that we “ex-cep[t] state employees from the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against unequal and irrational treatment at the hands of the State,” post, at 610 (opinion of Stevens, J.), is thus plainly not correct. But we have never found the Equal Protection Clause implicated in the specific circumstance where, as here, government employers are alleged to have made an individualized, subjective personnel decision in a seemingly arbitrary or irrational manner.
This is not surprising, given the historical understanding of the nature of government employment. We long ago recognized the “settled principle that government employment, in the absence of legislation, can be revoked at the will of the appointing officer.” McElroy, 367 U. S., at 896. The basic principle of at-will employment is that an employee may be terminated for a “‘good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.’” Reply Brief for Petitioner 27. See Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 406 U. S. 320, 324 (1972) (“[T]he very concept of ‘wrongful discharge’ implies some sort of statutory or contractual standard that modifies the traditional common-law rule that a contract of employment is terminable by either party at will”). Thus, “[w]e have never held that it is a violation of the Constitution for a government employer to discharge an employee based on substantively incorrect information.” Waters, 511 U. S., at 679 (plurality opinion). See also Connick, 461 U. S., at 146-147 (“[Ordinary dismissals from government service... are not subject to judicial review even if the reasons for the dismissal are alleged to be mistaken or unreasonable” (citing Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); and Bishop, 426 U. S. 341)). “And an at-will government employee... generally has no claim based on the Constitution at all.” Waters, supra, at 679 (plurality opinion). See, e. g., Bishop, supra, at 349-350.
State employers cannot, of course, take personnel actions that would independently violate the Constitution. See supra, at 598-600. But recognition of a class-of-one theory of equal protection in the public employment context — that is, a claim that the State treated an employee differently from others for a bad reason, or for no reason at all — is simply contrary to the concept of at-will employment. The Constitution does not require repudiating that familiar doctrine.
To be sure, Congress and all the States have, for the most part, replaced at-will employment with various statutory schemes protecting public employees from discharge for impermissible reasons. See, e. g., 5 U. S. C. § 2302(b)(10) (2006 ed.) (supervisor of covered federal employee may not “discriminate... on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others”). See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-21. But a government’s decision to limit the ability of public employers to fire at will is an act of legislative grace, not constitutional mandate.
Indeed, recognizing the sort of claim Engquist presses could jeopardize the delicate balance governments have struck between the rights of public employees and “the government’s legitimate purpose in ‘promot[ing] efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties, and [in] main-tainting] proper discipline in the public service.’ ” Connick, supra, at 150-151 (quoting Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S., at 373; alterations in original). Thus, for example, although most federal employees are covered by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1111, Congress has specifically excluded some groups of employees from its protection, see, e. g., 5 U. S. C. § 2302(a)(2)(C) (excluding from coverage, inter alia, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency). Were we to find that the Equal Protection Clause subjects the government to equal protection review for every allegedly arbitrary employment action, we will have undone Congress’s (and the States’) careful work.
In concluding that the class-of-one theory of equal protection has no application in the public employment context— and that is all we decide — we are guided, as in the past, by the “common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.” Connick, supra, at 143. If, as Engquist suggests, plaintiffs need not claim discrimination on the basis of membership in some class or group, but rather may argue only that they were treated by their employers worse than other employees similarly situated, any personnel action in which a wronged employee can conjure up a claim of differential treatment will suddenly become the basis for a federal constitutional claim. Indeed, an allegation of arbitrary differential treatment could be made in nearly every instance of an assertedly wrongful employment action — not only hiring and firing decisions, but any personnel action, such as promotion, salary, or work assignments — on the theory that other employees were not treated wrongfully. See 478 F. 3d, at 995. On Engquist’s view, every one of these employment decisions by a government employer would become the basis for an equal protection complaint.
Engquist assures us that accepting her view would not pose too much of a practical problem. Specifically, Engquist argues that a plaintiff in a class-of-one employment case would have to prove that the government’s differential treatment was intentional, that the plaintiff was treated differently from other similarly situated persons, and that the unequal treatment was not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Brief for Petitioner 36-39. And because a “governmental employment decision is... rational whenever the discrimination relates to a legitimate government interest,” it is in practice “difficult for plaintiffs to show that the government has failed to meet this standard.” Id., at 41. Justice Stevens makes a similar argument, stating “that all but a handful [of class-of-one complaints] are dismissed well in advance of trial.” Post, at 615.
We agree that, even if we accepted Engquist’s claim, it would be difficult for a plaintiff to show that an employment decision is arbitrary. But this submission is beside the point. The practical problem with allowing class-of-one claims to go forward in this context is not that it will be too easy for plaintiffs to prevail, but that governments will be forced to defend a multitude of such claims in the first place, and courts will be obliged to sort through them in a search for the proverbial needle in a haystack. The Equal Protection Clause does not require “[t]his displacement of managerial discretion by judicial supervision.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 423 (2006).
In short, ratifying a class-of-one theory of equal protection in the context of public employment would impermissibly “constitutionalize the employee grievance.” Connick, 461 U. S., at 154. “The federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel deci-. sions that are made daily by public agencies.” Bishop, 426 U. S., at 349. Public employees typically have a variety of protections from just the sort of personnel actions about which Engquist complains, but the Equal Protection Clause is not one of them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
Congress has provided a judicial remedy for individuals whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state action, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In prior cases, we have refused to craft new remedies for the violation of constitutional rights of federal employees, Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367 (1983), or for the nonconstitutional claims of state employees, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976). But refusal to give effect to the congressionally mandated remedy embodied in §1983 would be impermissible. To avoid this result, the Court today concludes that Engquist suffered no constitutional violation at all, and that there was thus no harm to be remedied. In so holding, the Court — as it did in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410 (2006) — carves a novel exception out of state employees’ constitutional rights. In Garcetti, the Court created a new substantive rule excepting a category of speech by state employees from the protection of the First Amendment. Today, the Court creates a new substantive rule excepting state employees from the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against unequal and irrational treatment at the hands of the State. Even if some surgery were truly necessary to prevent governments from being forced to defend a multitude of equal protection “class of one” claims, the Court should use a scalpel rather than a meataxe.
I
Our decision in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U. S. 562 (2000) (per curiam), applied a rule that had been an accepted part of our equal protection jurisprudence for decades: Unless state action that intentionally singles out an individual, or a class of individuals, for adverse treatment is supported by some rational justification, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Óur opinion in Olech emphasized that the legal issue would have been the same whether the class consisted of one or five members, because “the number of individuals in a class is immaterial for equal protection analysis.” Id., at 564, n. The outcome of that case was not determined by the size of the disadvantaged class, and the majority does not — indeed cannot — dispute the settled principle that the Equal Protection Clause protects persons, not groups. See ante, at 597.
Nor did the outcome in Olech turn on the fact that the village was discriminating against a property owner rather than an employee. The majority does not dispute that the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause apply to the States in their role as employers as well as regulators. See ante, at 597. And indeed, we have made clear that “the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Federal Constitution afford protection to employees who serve the government as well as to those who are served by them, and § 1983 provides a cause of action for all citizens injured by an abridgment of those protections.” Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 119-120 (1992).
Rather, the outcome of Olech was dictated solely by the absence of a rational basis for the discrimination. As we explained:
“Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a ‘class of one,’ where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. In so doing, we have explained that ‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’ “... [Olech’s] complaint also alleged that the Village’s demand was ‘irrational and wholly arbitrary’.... These allegations, quite apart from the Village’s subjective motivation, are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis.” 528 U. S., at 564, 565 (some internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, as in Olech, Engquist alleged that the State’s actions were arbitrary and irrational. In response, the State offered no explanation whatsoever for its decisions; it did not claim that Engquist was a subpar worker, or even that her personality made her a poor fit in the workplace or that her colleagues simply did not enjoy working with her. In fact, the State explicitly disclaimed the existence of any workplace or performance-based rationale. See, e. g., Reply Brief for Petitioner 17, 19. The jury proceeded to find that the respondents intentionally treated Engquist “differently than others similarly situated with respect to the... termination of her employment... without any rational basis and solely for arbitrary, vindictive or malicious reasons.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3-4. The jury’s verdict thus established that there was no rational basis for either treating Engquist differently from other employees or for the termination of her employment. The State does not dispute this finding. Under our reasoning in Olech, the absence of any justification for the discrimination sufficed to establish the constitutional violation.
The majority nonetheless concludes, based on “unique considerations applicable when the government acts as employer,” that the “class-of-one” theory of equal protection is not applicable in the public-employment context. Ante, at 598. Its conclusion is based upon speculation about inapt hypothetical
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 judgment is affirmed by an equally divided 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:
|
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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ to consider the power of a State to retry an accused for murder after an earlier guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter had been set aside because of a trial error.
Petitioner was charged with the killing of Johnnie Mae Dupree in an indictment for the offense of murder filed in the Superior Court of Effingham County, Georgia. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried on October 17, 1962. The jury returned a verdict of guilty to the lesser included crime of voluntary manslaughter and fixed the sentence at 10 to 15 years in the state penitentiary. The jury’s verdict made no reference to the charge of murder.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the conviction because of an erroneous jury instruction and ordered a new trial. Price v. State, 108 Ga. App. 581, 133 S. E. 2d 946 (1963).
On October 20, 1967, petitioner was again placed on trial for murder under the original indictment. Before the commencement of the second trial petitioner entered a plea of autrefois acquit, claiming that to place him again on trial for the offense of murder would expose him to double jeopardy in view of the verdict of voluntary manslaughter at the initial trial. The trial judge rejected the plea and, at the close of the trial, included instructions on the offense of murder in his charge to the jury so that the jury could have rendered a verdict of guilty on that offense. That jury, like the first, found petitioner guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and then fixed the penalty at 10 years’ imprisonment.
Petitioner sought direct review of his second conviction in the Supreme Court of Georgia, but that court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, declaring that “[o]nly questions as to the application of plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution of the United States being involved, . . the case is one for the consideration of the Court of Appeals . . . Price v. State, 224 Ga. 306, 307, 161 S. E. 2d 825, 826 (1968).
The Georgia Court of Appeals then heard the appeal and affirmed the second conviction, rejecting petitioner’s argument, among others, that his retrial for murder constituted double jeopardy. Price v. State, 118 Ga. App. 207, 163 S. E. 2d 243 (1968). The Court of Appeals held that in Brantley v. State, 132 Ga. 573, 64 S. E. 676 (1909), aff’d, 217 U.. S. 284 (1910), the Georgia Supreme Court had decided this question adversely to petitioner. The Court of Appeals then quoted from the Brantley case’s syllabus:
“When a person has been indicted for murder and convicted of voluntary manslaughter, if he voluntarily seeks and obtains a new trial, he is subject to another trial generally for the offense charged in the indictment, and upon such trial he cannot successfully interpose a plea of former acquittal of the crime of murder, or former jeopardy in regard thereto.” 118 Ga. App., at 208, 163 S. E. 2d, at 244.
Petitioner sought a rehearing, contending, as he contends here, that Brantley was no longer controlling. He relied on Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184 (1957), and United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 348 F., 2d 844 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 913 (1966). His contention was rejected. In deciding that Brantley was still a binding precedent as to it, the Georgia Court of Appeals noted that the Georgia Supreme Court had transferred the case to it as involving the application of only “plain and unambiguous” constitutional provisions. The petitioner’s motion was then denied. Thereafter the Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari, and petitioner sought review in this Court. We granted the writ, 395 U. S. 975 (1969), and now reverse.
(1)
In United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 669 (1896), this Court observed: “The Constitution of the United States, in the Fifth Amendment, declares, ‘nor shall any person be subject [for the same offense] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The “twice put in jeopardy” language of the Constitution thus relates to a potential, i. e., the risk that an accused for a second time will be convicted of the “same offense” for which he was initially tried.
The circumstances that give rise to such a forbidden potential have been the subject of much discussion in this Court. In the Ball case, for example, the Court expressly rejected the view that the double jeopardy provision prevented a second trial when a conviction had been set aside. In so doing, it effectively formulated a concept of continuing jeopardy that has application where criminal proceedings against an accused have not run their full course. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 189 (1957).
The continuing jeopardy principle necessarily is applicable to this case. Petitioner sought and obtained the reversal of his initial conviction for voluntary manslaughter by taking an appeal. Accordingly, no aspect of the bar on double jeopardy prevented his retrial for that crime. However, the first verdict, limited as it was to the lesser included offense, required that the retrial be limited to that lesser offense. Such a result flows inescapably from the Constitution’s emphasis on a risk of conviction and the Constitution’s explication in prior decisions of this Court.
An early case to deal with restrictions on retrials was Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904), where the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy prohibition barred the Government from appealing an acquittal in a criminal prosecution, over a dissent by Mr. Justice Holmes that argued that there was only one continuing jeopardy until the proceedings against the accused had been finally resolved. He held to the view that even if an accused was retried after the Government had obtained reversal of an acquittal, the second trial was part of the original proceeding.
Similar double jeopardy issues did not fully claim the Court’s attention until the Court heard argument in Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184 (1957). There the petitioner had been tried and convicted of first-degree murder after an earlier guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder had been set aside on appeal. A majority of the Court rejected the argument that by appealing the conviction of second-degree murder the petitioner had “waived” his plea of former jeopardy with regard to the charge of first-degree murder.
The Court in the Green case reversed the first-degree murder conviction obtained at the retrial, holding that the petitioner’s jeopardy for first-degree murder came to an end when the jury was discharged at the end of his first trial. This conclusion rested on two premises. First, the Court considered the first jury’s verdict of guilty on the second-degree murder charge to be an “implicit acquittal” on the charge of first-degree murder. Second, and more broadly, the Court reasoned that petitioner’s jeopardy on the greater charge had ended when the first jury “was given a full opportunity to return a verdict” on that charge and instead reached a verdict on the lesser charge. 355 U. S. at 191. Under either of these premises, the holding in the Kepner case — that there could be no appeal from an acquittal because such a verdict ended an accused’s jeopardy — was applicable.
The rationale of the Green holding applies here. The concept of continuing jeopardy implicit in the Ball case would allow petitioner’s retrial for voluntary manslaughter after his first conviction for that offense had been reversed. But, as the Kepner and Green cases illustrate, this Court has consistently refused to rule that jeopardy for an offense continues after an acquittal, whether that acquittal is express or implied by a conviction on a lesser included offense when the jury was given a full opportunity to return a verdict on the greater charge. There is no relevant factual distinction between this case and Green v. United States. Although the petitioner was not convicted of the greater charge on retrial, whereas Green was, the risk of conviction on the greater charge was the same in both cases, and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is written in terms of potential or risk of trial and conviction, not punishment.
The Georgia courts nonetheless rejected Green as a persuasive authority in favor of reliance on Brantley v. State, 132 Ga. 573, 64 S. E. 676 (1909), aff’d, 217 U, S. 284 (1910). The Brantley case presented a situation where a defendant’s appeal from a conviction for a lesser included offense ultimately led to retrial and conviction on the greater offense. After the second conviction had been affirmed on appeal,, the defendant sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Georgia from this Court, contending “that the exemption from second jeopardy is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state to abridge”, that he had “been tried and acquitted by a jury of his country of the crime of murder”, and that “[h]e should never [sic] have been tried a second time only for the offense on which he obtained a new trial . ...” This Court tersely rejected these contentions as:
“absolutely without merit. It was not a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States.” 217 U. S., at 285.
The Brantley case was decided by this Court at a time when, although the Court was actively developing an explication of federal double jeopardy doctrines based on the Fifth Amendment, it took a very restricted approach in reviewing similar state court decisions. While the Brantley holding may have had some vitality at the time the Georgia courts rendered their decisions in this case, it is no longer a viable authority and must now be deemed to have been overruled by subsequent decisions of this Court.
(2)
One further consideration remains. Because the petitioner was convicted of the same crime at both the first and second trials, and because he suffered no greater punishment on the subsequent conviction, Georgia submits that the second jeopardy was harmless error when judged by the criteria of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), and Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969).
We must reject this contention. The Double Jeopardy Clause, as we have noted, is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict. To be charged and to be subjected to a second trial for first-degree murder is an ordeal not to be viewed lightly. Further, and perhaps of more importance, we cannot determine whether or not the murder charge against petitioner induced the jury to find him guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter rather than to continue to debate his innocence. See United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 348 F. 2d 844 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U. S. 913 (1966).
(3)
We asked the parties to submit post-argument mem-oranda directed to the question of whether petitioner can now be re-indicted or retried for voluntary manslaughter under Georgia law. These memoranda have been filed and indicate that the answer to our question appears to depend upon the construction of several Georgia statutes and on the power of Georgia courts to fashion remedial orders. Accordingly, although we reverse petitioner’s conviction, we also remand the case to enable the Georgia courts to resolve the issues pertaining to petitioner’s retrial, if any such retrial is to be had.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Georgia’s Constitution provides for direct review in the Georgia Supreme Court of, among others, “all cases that involve the construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States ...” Ga. Const., Art. VI, § 2, ¶ 4.
Keener rested upon a portion of the Ball case that dealt with a criminal action that had been finally resolved. In Ball the Court had held that the Government could not re-indict an accused for an offense where a judgment of acquittal had been entered by a trial court with jurisdiction over the accused and the cause. 163 U. S., at 669-670. The Court relied partially on United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892), where the Court had interpreted the Judiciary Act of 1891 to hold that the United States could not obtain review by a writ of error in a criminal case.
Shortly after Kepner the Court was faced with a factual situation somewhat akin to that presented by the instant ease. In Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521 (1905)„ the defendants had been charged in a Philippine court with murder, and had been found guilty of the lesser offense of assault. On their appeal of the conviction the Philippine Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s judgment, found them guilty of murder, and increased their sentences. This Court affirmed. Four Justices took the position that by appealing the assault conviction, the defendants had waived any double jeopardy claim respecting the murder charge. Mr. Justice Holmes concurred in the result without stating his rationale. Kepner had been decided in the previous year, however, and his concurrence could have indicated that, for him, a waiver theory was too narrow — instead he considered that even an appeal by the Government was a continuing jeopardy, not a second jeopardy. Of the four dissenters, two, Justices McKenna and White, would have found a violation of the Constitution’s double jeopardy provision.
Acceptance of either Trono’s waiver theory or Mr. Justice Holmes’ broad continuing jeopardy approach would indicate that Price could not complain of his retrial for the greater offense. But Trono has not survived unscathed to the present day. The “waiver theory” of four of the majority Justices in Trono was distinguished in Green as resting on “a statutory provision against double jeopardy pertaining to the Philippine Islands — a territory just recently conquered with long-established legal procedures that were alien to the common law.” 355 U. S., at 197.
After Kepner and Green, the continuing jeopardy principle appears to rest on an amalgam of interests — e. g., fairness to society, lack of finality, and limited waiver, among others.
See People v. Jackson, 20 N. Y. 2d 440, 231 N. E. 2d 722 (1967).
Brief for Plaintiff in Error, No. 692, O. T. 1909, p. 2.
Id., 5.
Ibid.
In Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937), this Court refused to overturn a first-degree murder conviction obtained after the State had successfully appealed from a conviction of second-degree murder which was the product of a trial on first-degree murder charges. The Court ruled that federal double jeopardy standards were not applicable to the States.
Palko was overruled in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), where this Court determined that the double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment should be applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Brantley and PcAko were of the same genre, and Brantley necessarily shared Palko’s fate in Benton.
The last of the decisions of the Georgia courts affirming the petitioner’s conviction was rendered on September 24, 1968, well before Benton was decided, But Benton has fully retroactive application, see Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 391 n. 2 (1970), and the Georgia courts’ reliance on the themes of Brantley, though understandable, now has no place.
There is a significant difference to an accused whether he is being tried for murder or manslaughter. He has reason for concern as to the consequences in terms of stigma as well as penalty. He must be prepared to meet not only the evidence of the prosecution and the verdict of the jury but the verdict of the community as well.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of the Navajo Tribe of Indians for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 71-1509, is granted.
These cases are here on appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the District of Utah that declared an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. Jurisdiction in this Court is conferred by 28 U. S. C. §§ 1252 and 2101 (a).
In 1933, the Congress withdrew certain lands in Utah, known as the “Aneth Extension,” from the public domain and added them to the Navajo Reservation. Though no oil or gas was believed to be located on these lands, it was provided that should such mineral resources be produced in commercial quantities, “37% per centum of the net royalties accruing therefrom derived from tribal leases shall be paid to the State of Utah: Provided, That said 37% per centum of said royalties shall be expended by the State of Utah in the tuition of Indian children in white schools and/or in the building or maintenance of roads across the lands described in section 1 hereof, or for the benefit of the Indians residing therein.” 47 Stat. 1418. The remaining 62%% of the royalties generated by any such tribal mineral leases were, by implication, to go to the Navajo tribe.
After the passage of the Act, oil and gas were discovered on the Aneth Extension, and royalties were divided pursuant to the statute. The State of Utah created an Indian Affairs Commission to manage and expend the funds received by the State under the Act. As time went on, the language of the 1933 Act came to create administrative problems regarding the expenditure of the funds channeled through the State. A report of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs noted in 1967 that the word “tuition” in the 1933 Act had created uncertainty as to the breadth of the educational program the State was authorized to finance from the royalty funds. The report also noted a difficulty in discerning precisely who was properly a beneficiary of the funds, since “many Navajo families do not live permanently within the lands set aside in 1933, but move back and forth between this area and other locations.” S. Rep. No. 710, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1967).
To make the administration of these funds more flexible and to spread the benefits of the royalties more broadly among the Navajo community, the Congress enacted a statute in 1968 that directed the State to expend the 37%% of royalties “for the health, education, and general welfare of the Navajo Indians residing in San Juan County.” 82 Stat. 121. This statutory change expanded the pool of beneficiaries substantially, and a class action was brought on behalf of the residents of the Aneth Extension, seeking inter alia a declaration that the statute was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The District Court concluded that the 1933 Act vested certain property rights in the plaintiffs, and held the 1968 Act, with its changed pool of beneficiaries, to be unconstitutional.
The judgment of the District Court is in error. Congress in 1933 did not create constitutionally protected property rights in the appellees. The Aneth Extension was added to a tribal reservation, and the leases which give rise to mineral royalties are tribal leases. It is settled that “[w]hatever title the Indians have is in the tribe, and not in the individuals, although held by the tribe for the common use and equal benefit of all the members.” Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 307; Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 193 U. S. 127, 136. To be sure, the 1933 Act established a pattern of distribution which benefited the appellees more than other Indians on the Navajo Reservation. But it was well within the power of Congress to alter that distributional scheme. In Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U. S. 640, this Court approved a congressional enlargement of the pool of Indians who were to benefit from a distribution of tribal property. There, too, an earlier statute had established a more limited entitlement.
“But it is said that the act of 1902 contemplated that they [the beneficiaries under the first enactment] alone should receive allotments and be the participants in the distribution of the remaining lands, and also of the funds, of the tribe. No doubt such, was the purport of the act. But that, in our opinion, did not confer upon them any vested right such as would disable Congress from thereafter making provision for admitting newly born members of the tribe to the allotment and distribution. The difficulty with the appellants’ contention is that it treats the act of 1902 as a contract, when 'it is only an act of Congress and can have no greater effect.’ ... It was but an exertion of the administrative control of the Government over the tribal property of tribal Indians, and was subject to change by Congress . . . .” Id., at 648.
Congress has not deprived the Navajo of the benefits of mineral deposits on their tribal lands. It has merely chosen to re-allocate the 37%% of royalties which flow through the State in a more efficient and equitable manner. This was well within the power of Congress to do. As no “property,” in a Fifth Amendment sense, was conferred upon residents of the Aneth Extension by the 1933 Act, no violation of the Fifth Amendment was effected by the 1968 legislation. The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
The decision of the District Court is unreported.
While the 1933 Act remained in effect, the District Court properly insisted that the Utah State Indian Affairs Commission comply with the statutory formula for disbursements. See Sakezzie v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm’n, 198 F. Supp. 218 (declaratory judgment); 215 F. Supp. 12 (supplemental relief).
We intimate no view as to the rights a tribe might have if Congress were to deprive it of the value of mineral royalties generated by tribal lands.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 4-10 of Illinois’s Health Maintenance Organization Act, 215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125, §4-10 (2000), provides recipients of health coverage by such organizations with a right to independent medical review of certain denials of benefits. The issue in this ease is whether the statute, as applied to health benefits provided by a health maintenance organization under contract with an employee welfare benefit plan, is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. We hold it is not.
I
Petitioner, Rush Prudential HMO, Inc., is a health maintenance organization (HMO) that contracts to provide medical services for employee welfare benefit plans covered by ERISA. Respondent Debra Moran is a beneficiary under one such plan, sponsored by her husband’s employer. Rush’s “Certificate of Group Coverage,” issued to employees who participate in employer-sponsored plans, promises that Rush will provide them with “medically necessary” services. The terms of the certificate give Rush the “broadest possible discretion” to determine whether a medical service claimed by a beneficiary is covered under the certificate. The certificate specifies that a service is covered as “medically necessary” if Rush finds:
“(a) [The service] is furnished or authorized by a Participating Doctor for the diagnosis or the treatment of a Sickness or Injury or for the maintenance of a person’s good health.
“(b) The prevailing opinion within the appropriate specialty of the United States medical profession is that [the service] is safe and effective for its intended use, and that its omission would adversely affect the person’s medical condition.
“(c) It is furnished by a provider with appropriate training, experience, staff and facilities to furnish that particular service or supply.” Record, PI. Exh. A, p. 21.
As the certificate explains, Rush contracts with physicians “to arrange for or provide services and supplies for medical care and treatment” of covered persons. Each covered person selects a primary care physician from those under contract to Rush, while Rush will pay for medical services by an unaffiliated physician only if the services have been “authorized” both by the primary care physician and Rush’s medical director. See id., at 11,16.
In 1996, when Moran began to have pain and numbness in her right shoulder, Dr. Arthur LaMarre, her primary care physician, unsuccessfully administered “conservative” treatments such as physiotherapy. In October 1997, Dr. LaMarre recommended that Rush approve surgery by an unaffiliated specialist, Dr. Julia Terzis, who had developed an unconventional treatment for Moran’s condition. Although Dr. La-Marre said that Moran would be “best served” by that procedure, Rush denied the request and, after Moran’s internal appeals, affirmed the denial on the ground that the procedure was not “medically necessary.” 230 F. 3d 959, 963 (CA7 2000). Rush instead proposed that Moran undergo standard surgery, performed by a physician affiliated with Rush.
In January 1998, Moran made a written demand for an independent medical review of her claim, as guaranteed by §4-10 of Illinois’s HMO Act, 215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125, § 4-10 et seq. (2000), which provides:
“Each Health Maintenance Organization shall provide a mechanism for the timely review by a physician holding the same class of license as the primary care physician, who is unaffiliated with the Health Maintenance Organization, jointly selected by the patient..., primary care physician and the Health Maintenance Organization in the event of a dispute between the primary care physician and the Health Maintenance Organization regarding the medical necessity of a covered service proposed by a primary care physician. In the event that the reviewing physician determines the covered service to be medically necessary, the Health Maintenance Organization shall provide the covered service.”
The Act defines a “Health Maintenance Organization” as
“any organization formed under the laws of this or another state to provide or arrange for one or more health care plans under a system which causes any part of the risk of health care delivery to be borne by the organization or its providers.” Ch. 125, § 1-2.
When Rush failed to provide the independent review, Moran sued in an Illinois state court to compel compliance with the state Act. Rush removed the suit to Federal District Court, arguing that the cause of action was “completely preempted” under ERISA. 230 F. 3d, at 964.
While the suit was pending, Moran had surgery by Dr. Terzis at her own expense and submitted a $94,841.27 reimbursement claim to Rush. Rush treated the claim as a renewed request for benefits and began a new inquiry to determine coverage. The three doctors consulted by Rush said the surgery had been medically unnecessary.
Meanwhile, the federal court remanded the case back to state court on Moran’s motion, concluding that because Moran’s request for independent review under § 4-10 would not require interpretation of the terms of an ERISA plan, the claim was not “completely preempted” so as to permit removal under 28 U. S. C. § 1441. 230 F. 3d, at 964. The state court enforced the state statute and ordered Rush to submit to review by an independent physician. The doctor selected was a reconstructive surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, Dr. A. Lee Dellon. Dr. Dellon decided that Dr. Terzis’s treatment had been medically necessary, based on the definition of medical necessity in Rush’s Certificate of Group Coverage, as well as his own medical judgment. Rush’s medical director, however, refused to concede that the surgery had been medically necessary, and denied Moran’s claim in January 1999.
Moran amended her complaint in state court to seek reimbursement for the surgery as “medically necessary” under Illinois’s HMO Act, and Rush again removed to federal court, arguing that Moran’s amended complaint stated a claim for ERISA benefits and was thus completely preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a), as construed by this Court in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U. S. 58 (1987). The District Court treated Moran’s claim as a suit under ERISA, and denied the claim on the ground that ERISA preempted Illinois’s independent review statute.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 230 F. 3d 959 (2000). Although it found Moran’s state-law reimbursement claim completely preempted by ERISA so as to place the case in federal court, the Seventh Circuit did not agree that the substantive provisions of Illinois’s HMO Act were so preempted. The court noted that although ERISA broadly preempts any state laws that “relate to” employee benefit plans, 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), state laws that “regulat[e] insurance” are saved from preemption, § 1144(b)(2)(A). The court held that the Illinois HMO Act was such a law, the independent review requirement being little different from a state-mandated contractual term of the sort this Court had held to survive ERISA preemption. See 280 F. 3d, at 972 (citing UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U. S. 358, 375-376 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit rejected the contention that Illinois’s independent review requirement constituted a forbidden “alternative remedy” under this Court’s holding in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41 (1987), and emphasized that § 4-10 does not authorize any particular form of relief in state courts; rather, with respect to any ERISA health plan, the judgment of the independent reviewer is only enforceable in an action brought under ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a). 230 F. 3d, at 971.
Because the decision of the Court of Appeals conflicted with the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of a similar provision of Texas law in Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. Texas Dept. of Ins., 215 F. 3d 526 (2000), we granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 948 (2001). We now affirm.
II
To “safeguard]... the establishment, operation, and administration” of employee benefit plans, ERISA sets “minimum standards... assuring the equitable character of such plans and their financial soundness,” 29 U. S. C. § 1001(a), and contains an express preemption provision that ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan....” § 1144(a). A saving clause then reclaims a substantial amount of ground with its provision that “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” § 1144(b)(2)(A). The “unhelpful” drafting of these antiphonal clauses, New York State Confer ence of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 656 (1995), occupies a substantial share of this Court’s time, see, e. g., Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141 (2001); UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, supra; California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A., Inc., 519 U. S. 316 (1997); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724 (1985). In trying to extrapolate congressional intent in a case like this, when congressional language seems simultaneously to preempt everything and hardly anything, we “have no choice” but to temper the assumption that “‘the ordinary meaning... accurately expresses the legislative purpose,’” id., at 740 (quoting Park ’N Fly v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985)), with the qualification “ ‘that the historic police powers of the States were not [meant] to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Travelers, supra, at 655 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947)).
It is beyond serious dispute that under existing precedent § 4-10 of the Illinois HMO Act “relates to” employee benefit plans within the meaning of § 1144(a). The state law bears “indirectly but substantially on all insured benefit plans,” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 739, by requiring them to submit to an extra layer of review for certain benefit denials if they purchase medical coverage from any of the common types of health care organizations covered by the state law’s definition of HMO. As a law that “relates to” ERISA plans under § 1144(a), §4-10 is saved from preemption only if it also “regulates insurance” under § 1144(b)(2)(A). Rush insists that the Act is not such a law.
A
In Metropolitan Life, we said that in deciding whether a law “regulates insurance” under ERISA’s saving clause, we start with a “common-sense view of the matter,” 471 U. S., at 740, under which “a law must not just have an impact on the insurance industry, but must be specifically directed toward that industry.” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, supra, at 50. We then test the results of the commonsense enquiry by employing the three factors used to point to insurance laws spared from federal preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq, Although this is not the place to plot the exact perimeter of the saving clause, it is generally fair to think of the combined “commonsense” and McCarran-Ferguson factors as parsing the “who” and the “what”: when insurers are regulated with respect to their insurance practices, the state law survives ERISA. Cf Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U. S. 205, 211 (1979) (explaining that the “business of insurance” is not coextensive with the “business of insurers”).
1
The commonsense enquiry focuses on “primary elements of an insurance contract^ which] are the spreading and underwriting of a policyholder’s risk.” Ibid. The Illinois statute addresses these elements by defining “health maintenance organization” by reference to the risk that it bears. See 215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125, § 1-2(9) (2000) (an HMO “provide[s] or arrange[s] for... health care plans under a system which causes any part of the risk of health care delivery to be borne by the organization or its providers”).
Rush contends that seeing an HMO as an insurer distorts the nature of an HMO, which is, after all, a health care provider, too. This, Rush argues, should determine its characterization, with the consequence that regulation of an HMO is not insurance regulation within the meaning of ERISA.
The answer to Rush is, of course, that an HMO is both: it provides health care, and it does so as an insurer. Nothing in the saving clause requires an either-or choice between health care and insurance in deciding a preemption question, and as long as providing insurance fairly accounts for the application of state law, the saving clause may apply. There is no serious question about that here, for it would ignore the whole purpose of the HMO-style of organization to conceive of HMOs (even in the traditional sense, see n. 1, supra) without their insurance element.
“The defining feature of an HMO is receipt of a fixed fee for each patient enrolled under the terms of a contract to provide specified health care if needed.” Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211, 218 (2000). “The HMO thus assumes the financial risk of providing the benefits promised: if a participant never gets sick, the HMO keeps the money regardless, and if a participant becomes expensively ill, the HMO is responsible for the treatment....” Id., at 218-219. The HMO design goes beyond the simple truism that all contracts are, in some sense, insurance against future fluctuations in price, R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 104 (4th ed. 1992), because HMOs actually underwrite and spread risk among their participants, see, e. g., R. Shouldice, Introduction to Managed Care 450-462 (1991), a feature distinctive to insurance, see, e. g., SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. of America, 359 U. S. 65, 73 (1959) (underwriting of risk is an “earmark of insurance as it has commonly been conceived of in popular understanding and usage”); Royal Drug, supra, at 214-215, n. 12 (“[U]nless there is some element of spreading risk more widely, there is no underwriting of risk”).
So Congress has understood from the start, when the phrase “Health Maintenance Organization” was established and defined in the HMO Act of 1973. The Act was intended to encourage the development of HMOs as a new form of health care delivery system, see S. Rep. No. 93-129, pp. 7-9 (1973), and when Congress set the standards that the new health delivery organizations would have to meet to get certain federal benefits, the terms included requirements that the organizations bear and manage risk. See, e. g., Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, § 1301(c), 87 Stat. 916, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 300e(c); S. Rep. No. 93-129, at 14 (explaining that HMOs necessarily bear some of the risk of providing service, and requiring that a qualifying HMO “as-sum[e] direct financial responsibility, without benefit of reinsurance, for care... in excess of the first five thousand dollars per enrollee per year”). The Senate Committee Report explained that federally qualified HMOs would be required to provide “a basic package of benefits, consistent with existing health insurance patterns,” id., at 10, and the very text of the Act assumed that state insurance laws would apply to HMOs; it provided that to the extent state insurance capitalization and reserve requirements were too stringent to permit the formation of HMOs, “qualified” HMOs would be exempt from such limiting regulation. See § 1311, 42 U. S. C. §300e-10. This congressional understanding that it was promoting a novel form of insurance was made explicit in the Senate Report’s reference to the practices of “health insurers to charge premium rates based upon the actual claims experience of a particular group of subscribers,” thus “raising costs and diminishing the availability of health insurance for those suffering from costly illnesses,” S. Rep. No. 93-129, at 29-30. The federal Act responded to this insurance practice by requiring qualifying HMOs to adopt uniform capitation rates, see § 1301(b), 42 U. S. C. § 300e(b), and it was because of that mandate “pos[ing] substantial competitive problems to newly emerging HMOs,” S. Rep. No. 93-129, at 30, that Congress authorized funding subsidies, see §1304, 42 U. S. C. § 300e-4. The Senate explanation left no doubt that it viewed an HMO as an insurer; the subsidy was justified because “the same stringent requirements do not apply to other indemnity or service benefits insurance plans.” 5. Rep. No. 93-129, at 30. In other words, one year before it passed ERISA, Congress itself defined HMOs in part by reference to risk, set minimum standards for managing the risk, showed awareness that States regulated HMOs as insurers, and compared HMOs to “indemnity or service benefits insurance plans.”
This conception has not changed in the intervening years. Since passage of the federal Act, States have been adopting their own HMO enabling Acts, and today, at least 40 of them, including Illinois, regulate HMOs primarily through the States’ insurance departments, see Aspen Health Law and Compliance Center, Managed Care Law Manual 31-32 (Supp. 6, Nov. 1997), although they may be treated differently from traditional insurers, owing to their additional role as health care providers, see, e. g., Alaska Ins. Code § 21.86.010 (2000) (health department reviews HMO before insurance commissioner grants a certificate of authority); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1742.21 (West 1994) (health department may inspect HMO). Finally, this view shared by Congress and the States has passed into common understanding. HMOs (broadly defined) have “grown explosively in the past decade and [are] now the dominant form of health plan coverage for privately insured individuals.” Gold & Hurley, The Role of Managed Care “Products” in Managed Care “Plans,” in Contemporary Managed Care 47 (M. Gold ed. 1998). While the original form of the HMO was a single corporation employing its own physicians, the 1980’s saw a variety of other types of structures develop even as traditional insurers altered their own plans by adopting HMO-like cost-control measures. See Weiner & de Lissovoy, Razing a Tower of Babel: A Taxonomy for Managed Care and Health Insurance Plans, 18 J. of Health Politics, Policy and Law 75, 83 (Spring 1993). The dominant feature is the combination of insurer and provider, see Gold & Hurley, supra, at 47, and “an observer may be hard pressed to uncover the differences among products that bill themselves as HMOs, [preferred provider organizations], or managed care overlays to health insurance,” Managed Care Law Manual, supra, at 1. Thus, virtually all commentators on the American health care system describe HMOs as a combination of insurer and provider, and observe that in recent years, traditional “indemnity” insurance has fallen out of favor. See, e. g., Weiner & de Lissovoy, supra, at 77 (“A common characteristic of the new managed care plans was the degree to which the roles of insurer and provider became integrated”); Gold, Understanding the Roots: Health Maintenance Organizations in Historical Context, in Contemporary Managed Care, supra, at 7,8,13; Managed Care Law Manual, supra, at 1; R. Rosenblatt, S. Law, & S. Rosenbaum, Law and the American Health Care System 552 (1997); Shouldice, Introduction to Managed Care, at 13, 20. Rush cannot checkmate common sense by trying to submerge HMOs’ insurance features beneath an exclusive characterization of HMOs as providers of health care.
2
On a second tack, Rush and its amici dispute that § 4-10 is aimed specifically at the insurance industry. They say the law sweeps too broadly with definitions capturing organizations that provide no insurance, and by regulating noninsurance activities of HMOs that do. Rush points out that Illinois law defines HMOs to include organizations that cause the risk of health care delivery to be borne by the organization itself, or by “its providers.” 215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125, § 1-2(9) (2000). In Rush’s view, the reference to “its providers” suggests that an organization may be an HMO under state law (and subject to §4-10) even if it does not bear risk itself, either because it has “devolve[d]” the risk of health care delivery onto others, or because it has contracted only to provide “administrative” or other services for self-funded plans. Brief for Petitioner 38.
These arguments, however, are built on unsound assumptions. Rush’s first contention assumes that an HMO is no longer an insurer when it arranges to limit its exposure, as when an HMO arranges for capitated contracts to compensate its affiliated physicians with a set fee for each HMO patient regardless of the treatment provided. Under such an arrangement, Rush claims, the risk is not borne by the HMO at all. In a similar vein, Rush points out that HMOs may contract with third-party insurers to protect themselves against large claims.
The problem with Rush’s argument is simply that a reinsurance contract does not take the primary insurer out of the insurance business, cf. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U. S. 764 (1993) (applying McCarran-Ferguson to a dispute involving primary insurers and reinsurers); id., at 772-773 (“[Pjrimary insurers... usually purchase insurance to cover a portion of the risk they assume from the consumer”), and capitation contracts do not relieve the HMO of its obligations to the beneficiary. The HMO is still bound to provide medical care to its members, and this is so regardless of the ability of physicians or third-party insurers to honor their contracts with the HMO.
Nor do we see anything standing in the way of applying the saving clause if we assume that the general state definition of HMO would include a contractor that provides only administrative services for a self-funded plan. Rush points out that the general definition of HMO under Illinois law includes not only organizations that “provide” health care plans, but those that “arrange for” them to be provided, so long as “any part of the risk of health care delivery” rests upon “the organization or its providers.” 215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125, § 1-2(9) (2000). See Brief for Petitioner 38. Rush hypothesizes a sort of medical matchmaker, bringing together ERISA plans and medical care providers; even if the latter bear all the risks, the matchmaker would be an HMO under the Illinois definition. Rush would conclude from this that §4-10 covers noninsurers, and so is not directed specifically to the insurance industry. Ergo, ERISA’s saving clause would not apply.
It is far from clear, though, that the terms of § 4-10 would even theoretically apply to the matchmaker, for the requirement that the HMO “provide” the covered service if the independent reviewer finds it medically necessary seems to assume that the HMO in question is a provider, not the mere arranger mentioned in the general definition of an HMO. Even on the most generous reading of Rush’s argument, however, it boils down to the bare possibility (not the likelihood) of some overbreadth in the application of § 4-10 beyond orthodox HMOs, and there is no reason to think Congress would have meant such minimal application to noninsurers to remove a state law entirely from the category of insurance regulation saved from preemption.
In sum, prior to ERISA’s passage, Congress demonstrated an awareness of HMOs as risk-bearing organizations subject to state insurance regulation, the state Act defines HMOs by reference to risk bearing, HMOs have taken over much business formerly performed by traditional indemnity insurers, and they are almost universally regulated as insurers under state law. That HMOs are not traditional “indemnity” insurers is no matter; “we would not undertake to freeze the concepts of ‘insurance’... into the mold they fitted when these Federal Acts were passed.” SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. of America, 359 U. S., at 71. Thus, the Illinois HMO Act is a law “directed toward” the insurance industry, and an “insurance regulation” under a “commonsense” view.
B
The McCarran-Ferguson factors confirm our conclusion. A law regulating insurance for McCarran-Ferguson purposes targets practices or provisions that “ha[ve] the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk;... [that are] an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and [are] limited to entities within the insurance industry.” Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U. S. 119, 129 (1982). Because the factors are guideposts, a state law is not required to satisfy all three McCarran-Ferguson criteria to survive preemption, see UNUM Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 526 U. S., at 373, and so we follow our precedent and leave open whether the review mandated here may be described as going to a practice that “spread[s] a policyholder’s risk.” For in any event, the second and third factors are clearly satisfied by § 4-10.
It is obvious enough that the independent review requirement regulates “an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured.” Illinois adds an extra layer of review when there is internal disagreement about an HMO’s denial of coverage. The reviewer applies both a standard of medical care (medical necessity) and characteristically, as in this case, construes policy terms. Cf Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S., at 228-229. The review affects the “policy relationship” between HMO and covered persons by translating the relationship under the HMO agreement into concrete terms of specific obligation or freedom from duty. Hence our repeated statements that the interpretation of insurance contracts is at the “core” of the business of insurance. E. g., SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 460 (1969).
Rush says otherwise, citing Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, supra, and insisting that that case holds external review of coverage decisions to be outside' the “policy relationship.” But Rush misreads Pireno. We held there that an insurer’s use of a “peer review” committee to gauge the necessity of particular treatments was not a practice integral to the policy relationship for the purposes of McCarran-Ferguson. 458 U. S., at 131-132. We emphasized, however, that the insurer’s resort to peer review was simply the insurer’s unilateral choice to seek advice if and when it cared to do so. The policy said nothing on the matter. The insurer’s contract for advice from a third party was no concern of the insured, who was not bound by the peer review committee’s recommendation any more, for that matter, than the insurer was. Thus it was not too much of an exaggeration to conclude that the practice was “a matter of indifference to the policyholder,” id., at 132. Section 4-10, by contrast, is different on all counts, providing as it does a legal right to the insured, enforceable against the HMO, to obtain an authoritative determination of the HMO’s medical obligations.
The final factor, that the law be aimed at a “practice... limited to entities within the insurance industry,” id., at 129, is satisfied for many of the same reasons that the law passes the commonsense test. The law regulates application of HMO contracts and provides for review of claim denials; once it is established that HMO contracts are, in fact, contracts for insurance (and not merely contracts for medical care), it is clear that §4-10 does not apply to entities outside the insurance industry (although it does not, of course, apply to all entities within it).
Even if we accepted Rush’s contention, rejected already, that the law regulates HMOs even when they act as pure administrators, we would still find the third factor satisfied. That factor requires the targets of the law to be limited to entities within the insurance industry, and even a matchmaking HMO would fall within the insurance industry. But the implausibility of Rush’s hypothesis that the pure administrator would be bound by § 4-10 obviates any need to say more under this third factor. Cf. Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U. S. 25, 39 (1996) (holding that a federal statute permitting banks to act as agents of insurance companies, although not insurers themselves, was a statute regulating the “business of insurance” for McCarran-Ferguson purposes).
Ill
Given that §4-10 regulates insurance, ERISA’s mandate that “nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance,” 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), ostensibly forecloses preemption. See Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 746 (“If a state law ‘regulates insurance,’... it is not preempted”). Rush, however, does not give up. It argues for preemption anyway, emphasizing that the question is ultimately one of congressional intent, which sometimes is so clear that it overrides a statutory provision designed to save state law from being preempted. See American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc., 524 U. S. 214, 227 (1998) (AT&T) (clause in Communications Act of 1934 purporting to save “the remedies now existing at common law or by statute,” 47 U. S. C. § 414 (1994 ed.), defeated by overriding policy of the filed-rate doctrine); Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 507 (1913) (saving clause will not sanction state laws that would nullify policy expressed in federal statute; “the act cannot be said to destroy itself” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In ERISA law, we have recognized one example of this sort of overpowering federal policy in the civil enforcement provisions, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a), authorizing civil actions for six specific types of relief. In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134 (1985), we said those provisions amounted to an “interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme," id., at 146, which Pilot Life described as “representing] a careful balancing of the need for prompt and fair claims settlement procedures against the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans,” 481 U. S., at 54. So, we have held, the civil enforcement provisions are of such extraordinarily preemptive power that they override even the “well-pleaded complaint” rule for establishing the conditions under which a cause of action may be removed to a federal forum. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U. S., at 63-64.
A
Although we have yet to encounter a forced choice between the congressional policies of exclusively federal remedies and the “reservation of the business of insurance to the States,” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 744, n. 21, we have anticipated such a conflict, with the state insurance regulation losing out if it allows plan participants “to obtain remedies... that Congress rejected in ERISA,” Pilot Life, supra, at 54.
In Pilot Life, an ERISA plan participant who had been denied benefits sued in a state court on state tort and contract claims. He sought not merely damages for breach of contract, but also damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, both of which we had held unavailable under relevant ERISA provisions. Russell, supra, at 148. We not only rejected the notion that these common law contract claims “regulat[ed] insurance,” Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 50-51, but went on to say that, regardless, Congress intended a “federal common law of rights and obligations” to develop under ERISA, id., at 56, without embellishment by independent state remedies. As in AT&T, we said the saving clause had to stop short of subverting congressional intent, clearly expressed “through the structure and legislative history!,] that the federal remedy... displace state causes of action.” 481 U. S., at 57.
Rush, says that the day has come to turn dictum into holding by declaring that the state insurance regulation, § 4-10, is preempted for creating just the kind of “alternative remedy” we disparaged in Pilot Life. As Rush sees it, the independent review procedure is a form of binding arbitration that allows an ERISA beneficiary to submit claims to a new decisionmaker to examine Rush’s determination de novo, supplanting judicial review under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard ordinarily applied when discretionary plan interpretations are challenged. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 110-112 (1989). Rush says that the beneficiary’s option falls within Pilot Life’s notion of a remedy that “supplement^] or supplant[s]” the remedies available under ERISA. 481 U. S., at 56.
We think, however, that Rush overstates the rule expressed in Pilot Life. The enquiry into state processes alleged to “supplemen[t] or supplan[t]” the federal scheme by allowing beneficiaries “to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA,” id., at 54, has, up to now, been far more straightforward than it is here. The first case touching on the point did not involve preemption at all; it arose from an ERISA beneficiary’s reliance on ERISA’s own enforcement scheme to claim a private right of action for types of damages beyond those expressly provided. Russell, 473 U. S., at 145. We concluded
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the validity of a provision in the Illinois Community Currency Exchanges Act, as amended, excepting money orders of the American Express Company from the requirement that any firm selling or issuing money orders in the State must secure a license and submit to state regulation. The objection raised is that this exception results in a denial of equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to those who are subjected to the requirements of the Act. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that the Act is invalid as applied to them because of this discriminatory exception.
The appellees in this case are Doud, McDonald and Carlson, partners doing business as Bondified Systems, and Derrick, their agent. The partnership has an exclusive right to sell “Bondified” money orders in Illinois, directly or through agents. It contemplates selling these money orders in Illinois through agents principally engaged in operating retail drug or grocery stores. Derrick is the proprietor of a drugstore in Illinois and operates a “Bondified” agency in that store.
Fearing enforcement against them of the provisions of the Act, these four individuals instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the appellants, who are the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of that State, and the State’s Attorney of Cook County. The complaint alleged that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it unlawfully discriminated against the complainants and in favor of the American Express Company. An injunction against the enforcement of the Act was sought. Since the complaint attacked the validity of a state statute under the Constitution of the United States, the case was heard by a three-judge District Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284.
After hearing evidence, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the constitutional question in the absence of an authoritative determination of that question by the Supreme Court of Illinois. 127 F. Supp. 853. On appeal, this Court held that the District Court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded it to the District Court. . 350 U. S. 485.
On remand, the District Court considered on the merits the evidence previously heard, and unanimously held that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause and that appellees were entitled to the relief sought. 146 F. Supp. 887. The decree enjoined appellants from enforcing the Act against appellees so long as they engage only in the business of issuing and selling money orders. The case came here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 923.
During the early 1930’s, the closing of many banks in the Chicago area led to the development of simple banking facilities called currency exchanges. The principal activities of these exchanges were the cashing of checks for a fee and the selling of money orders. The fact that many of these exchanges went into business without adequate capital and without sufficient safeguards to protect the public resulted in the enactment of the Illinois Community Currency Exchanges Act in 1943.
This Act and its amendments provide a comprehensive scheme for the licensing and regulation of currency exchanges. The operation of a community currency exchange without a license is made a crime. § 32. An applicant for a license must submit specified information and pay an investigation fee of $25. § 34. A license cannot be issued unless the State Auditor determines that its issuance will “promote the convenience and advantage of the community in which the business of the applicant is proposed-to be conducted . . . § 34.1. A surety bond of between $3,000 and $25,000, and an insurance policy of between $2,500 and $35,000 must be filed. §§ 35, 36. An annual license fee of $50 is required. §44.
A licensed exchange must maintain a minimum of $3,000 available in cash for the uses and purposes of its business, plus an amount of liquid funds sufficient to pay on demand all outstanding money orders issued. § 37. Each exchange must be an entity, financed and conducted as a separate business unit, and not conducted as a department of another business. No community currency exchange “hereafter licensed for the first time shall share any room with any other business, trade or profession nor shall it occupy any room from which there is direct access to a room occupied by any other business, trade or profession.” § 38. Only one place of business may be maintained under one license, although more than one license may be issued to a licensee. § 43. Annual financial reports must be submitted and the State Auditor has a duty to investigate each exchange at least once a year. A fee of $20 must be paid for each day or part thereof of investigation. § 46.
The following definition of a “community currency exchange” is crucial to this case:
“ 'Community currency exchange’ means any person, firm, association, partnership or corporation, except banks incorporated under the laws of this State and National Banks organized pursuant to the laws of the United States, engaged at a fixed and permanent place of business, in the business or service of, and providing facilities for, cashing checks, drafts, money orders or any other evidences of money acceptable to such community currency exchange, for a fee or service charge or other consideration, or engaged in the business of selling or issuing money orders under his or their or its name, or any other money orders (other than United States Post Office money orders, American Express Company money order [s], Postal Telegraph Company money orders, or Western Union Telegraph Company money orders), or engaged in both such businesses, or engaged in performing any one or more of the foregoing services.” (Emphasis supplied.) § 31.
As the activities of appellees concededly come within this definition of a “community currency exchange,” the partnership and its druggist agent are subject to the licensing and regulatory provisions of the Act. Consequently, since the Act bars the sale of money orders as a part of another business, the partnership is precluded from establishing outlets for the sale of “Bondified” money orders in drug and grocery stores, and Derrick is unable to secure a license for the sale of those money orders in his store. § 38. Even if the partnership establishes outlets which are not a part of other businesses, those outlets will be licensed to sell “Bondified” money orders only if they show that the “convenience and advantage of the community” in which they propose to do business will be promoted by the issuance of licenses to them. § 34.1. Finally, any “Bondified” outlets will each have to pay the specified licensing and inspection fees and each will have to secure the required surety bond and insurance policy.
The American Express Company, on the other hand, because its money orders are excepted, is relieved of these licensing and regulatory requirements, and appears to be exempt from any regulation in Illinois. The American Express Company, an unincorporated joint stock association organized in 1868 under the laws of New York, conducts a world-wide business which includes the sale of money orders. It sells money orders in Illinois in substantially the same manner as is contemplated by the “Bondified” partnership, through authorized agents located in drug and grocery stores. Since American Express money orders are not subject to the Act, they are sold legally in those stores as a part of their business. American Express outlets may be established without regard to the “convenience and advantage” of the community in which they operate. Finally, those outlets need not pay licensing and inspection fees nor file surety bonds and insurance policies with the State.
In determining the constitutionality of the Act’s application to appellees in the light of its exception of American Express money orders, we start with the established proposition that the “prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination.” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489. The rules for testing a discrimination have been summarized as follows:
“1. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from the State the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that regard, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary. 2. A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. 3. When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed. 4. One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.” Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78-79.
To these rules we add the caution that “Discriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.” Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37-38; Hartford Co. v. Harrison, 301 U. S. 459, 462.
The Act creates a statutory class of sellers of money orders. The money orders sold by one company, American Express, are excepted from that class. There is but one “American Express Company.” If the exception is to be upheld, it must be on the basis on which it is cast— an exception of a particular business entity and not of a generic category.
The purpose of the Act’s licensing and regulatory provisions clearly is to protect the public when dealing with currency exchanges. Because the American Express Company is a world-wide enterprise of unquestioned solvency and high financial standing, the State argues that the legislative classification is reasonable. It contends that the special characteristics of the American Express Company justify excepting its money orders from the requirements of an Act aimed at local companies doing local business, and that appellees are in no position to complain about competitive disadvantages since the “Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a business against the hazards of competition,” citing Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 163, 170.
That the Equal Protection Clause does not require that every state regulatory statute apply to all in the same business is a truism. For example, where size is an index to the evil at which the law is directed, discriminations between the large and the small are permissible. Moreover, we have repeatedly recognized that “reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489. On the other hand, a statutory discrimination must be based on differences that are reasonably related to the purposes of the Act in which it is found. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, involved a state statute which required motor vehicles, operating on local highways as carriers for hire, to furnish bonds or insurance policies for the protection of the public against injuries received through negligence in these operations. The Act excepted motor vehicles carrying specified products. This Court held that the exception violated the Equal Protection Clause since the statutory purpose of protecting the public could not reasonably support a discrimination between the carrying of exempt products like farm produce and of regulated products like groceries. “ ‘Such a classification is not based on anything having relation to the purpose for which it is made.’ ” Id., at 567.
Of course, distinctions in the treatment of business entities engaged in the same business activity may be justified by genuinely different characteristics of the business involved. This is so even where the discrimination is by name. But distinctions cannot be so justified if the “discrimination has no reasonable relation to these differences.” Hartford Co. v. Harrison, 301 U. S. 459, 463. In that case, this Court held that a st-ate statute which permitted mutual insurance companies to act through salaried resident employees, but which excluded stock insurance companies from the same privilege, violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The principles controlling in the Smith and Hartford Co. cases, supra, are applicable here. The provisions in the Illinois Act, such as those requiring an annual inspection of licensed community currency exchanges by the State Auditor, make it clear that the statute was intended to afford the public continuing protection. The discrimination in favor of the American Express Company does not conform to this purpose. The exception of its money orders apparently rests on the legislative hypothesis that the characteristics of the American Express Company make it unnecessary-to regulate their sales. Yet these sales, by virtue of the exception, will continue to be unregulated whether or not the American Express Company retains its present characteristics. On the other hand, sellers of competing money orders are subject to the Act even though their characteristics are, or become, substantially identical with those the American Express Company now has. Moreover, the Act’s blanket exception takes no account of the characteristics of the local outlets that sell American Express money orders, and the distinct possibility that they in themselves may afford less protection to the public than do the retail establishments that sell competing money orders. That the American Express Company is a responsible institution operating on a world-wide basis does not minimize the fact that when the public buys American Express money orders in local drug and grocery stores it relies in part on the reliability of the selling agents.
The effect of the discrimination is to create a closed class by singling out American Express money orders. The singling out of the money orders of one company is in a sense the converse of a case like Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 114-115. See also, McFarland v. American Sugar Co., 241 U. S. 79. In the Cotting case this Court held that a regulatory statute that in fact applied to only one stockyard in a State violated the Equal Protection Clause. Although statutory dis-criminations creating a closed class have been upheld, a statute which established a closed class was held to violate the Equal Protection Clause where, on its face, it was “an attempt to give an economic advantage to those engaged in a given business at an arbitrary date as against all those who enter the industry after that date.” Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U. S. 266, 274. The statute involved in that case granted a differential from the regulated price at which dealers could sell milk to those dealers in a specified class who were in business before April 10, 1933.
Unlike the American Express Company, appellees and others are barred from selling money orders in retail establishments. Even if competing outlets can successfully be established as separate businesses, their ability to secure licenses depends upon a showing of “convenience and advantage.” Perhaps such a showing could not be made because the unregulated American Express Company had already established outlets in the community. And even if licenses were secured, the licensees would be required to pay licensing and investigatory fees and purchase surety bonds and insurance policies — costs that the American Express Company and its agents are not required to bear. The fact that the activities of the American Express Company are far-flung does not minimize the impact on local affairs and on competitors of its sale of money orders in Illinois. This is not a case in which the Fourteenth Amendment is being invoked to protect a business from the general hazards of competition. The hazards here have their roots in the statutory discrimination.
Taking all of these factors in conjunction — the remote relationship of the statutory classification to the Act’s purpose or to business characteristics, and the creation of a closed class by the singling out of the money orders of a named company, with accompanying economic advantages — we hold that the application of the Act to appellees deprives them of equal protection of the laws.
The State urges that if the exception of American Express money orders is unconstitutional, the case should be remitted to the Illinois courts for a determination whether the exception can be severed from the Act under its severability clause. § 56.3. However, even if such a procedure is otherwise appropriate, we deem it unnecessary here since the Supreme Court of Illinois has indicated rather clearly that the exception is not severable. The State also contends that appellees do not come into court with clean hands and have not demonstrated the imminence of irreparable injury, and hence that they are not entitled to equitable relief. These arguments are adequately disposed of in the opinion of the District Court.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Ill. Rev. Stat., 1955, c. 16½, §§ 30-56.3.
The registered trade-mark “Bondified” is owned by Checks, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, and the partnership, Bondified Systems, has acquired an exclusive license to use that trade-mark in selling and issuing money orders.
In so holding, the District Court declined to follow the Supreme Court of Illinois in sustaining the Act against a similar attack. McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 58 N. E. 2d 899. It accepted instead the precedent of a three-judge Federal District Court in Wisconsin which had held unconstitutional an identical provision of a Wisconsin statute. Currency Services, Inc. v. Matthews, 90 F. Supp. 40.
See Gadlin v. Auditor of Public Accounts, 414 Ill. 89, 110 N. E. 2d 234.
Appellees do not question the exception from the Act of the money orders of the United States Post Office, the Postal Telegraph Company and the Western Union Telegraph Company. In Currency Services, Inc. v. Matthews, 90 P. Supp. 40, 43, a three-judge District Court upheld the exception of these money orders from a similar Wisconsin statute. The court concluded that the State was without authority to regulate the sale of the United States Post Office money orders, and that the exception of Western Union money orders was reasonable since that company was regulated both by the Federal Communications Commission and by. a state commission. It noted that the Postal Telegraph Company has merged with the Western Union Telegraph Company.
See McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 149-150, 58 N. E. 2d 899, 903-904; Willis v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 345 Ill. App. 373, 384-385, 103 N. E. 2d 513, 518-519.
See McDougcdl v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 151, 58 N. E. 2d 899, 904.
See Engel v. O’Malley, 219 U. S. 128, 138 (exception of businesses in which the average sum received for safekeeping or transmission was more than $500 from licensing requirements intended to protect the small depositor); see also, New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628 (exception of railroads less than 50 miles in length from a statute regulating the heating of railroad passenger cars and the placing of guards and guard posts on railroad bridges); Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426 (exception of hotels with less than 50 rooms from a statute requiring hotelkeepers to take certain fire precautions).
See F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415; Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37.
See German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389 (exception of farmers’ mutual insurance companies doing only farm business from a statute establishing rate regulation for fire insurance companies) ; Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313 (different regulatory requirements for reciprocals and mutual companies).
See Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584 (exception of a named railroad from an ordinance limiting the speed of trains in a city); cf. Williams v. Mayor, 289 U. S. 36.
See Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173 (exception of physicians who practiced prior to a specified date and treated at least 12 persons within a year prior thereto from examination and certificate requirements) ; Sampere v. New Orleans, 166 La. 776, 117 So. 827, aff’d per curiam, 279 U. S. 812 (exception of existing business establishments from a zoning restriction); Stanley v. Public Utilities Commission, 295 U. S. 76 (exception of carriers which had furnished adequate, responsible and continuous service over a given route from a specified date in the past from the requirement of showing public convenience and necessity to secure a license).
See Currency Services, Inc. v. Matthews, 90 F. Supp. 40, 44, n. 2, to the effect that costs such as these may be prohibitive.
In Wedesweiler v. Brundage, 297 Ill. 228, 130 N. E. 520, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by a statute which excepted express, steamship and telegraph companies from its prohibition against the transmission of money to foreign countries by natural persons, firms or partnerships. That court concluded that the discrimination “has no reference to character, solvency, financial responsibility, security, business or monetary facilities, incorporation, method of doing business, public inspection, supervision or report, or any other thing having any relation to the protection of the public from loss by reason of the dishonesty, incompetence, ignorance or irresponsibility of persons engaging in that business.” 297 Ill., at 237, 130 N. E., at 523. See also, State on inf. Taylor v. Currency Services, Inc., 358 Mo. 983, 218 S. W. 600.
The Wedesweiler case was distinguished by the Supreme Court of Illinois in McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 150, 58 N. E. 2d 899, 904, on the ground that in the earlier case the regulated firms were "in direct competition” with the excepted companies. Apparently the court treated the regulated firm in the McDougall case as not being in direct competition with the American Express Company since the firm was engaged in the business of cashing checks, as well as in that of selling money orders, while the American Express Company merely sold money orders. Such a distinction is not involved in the facts of this case and we express no opinion on it.
See Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, 366; Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368, 380-381; Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 291.
In McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 151, 58 N. E. 2d 899, 904, the Supreme Court of Illinois stated that “The General Assembly would surely never have passed the act if they had thought that the said companies [Western Union, Postal Telegraph and American Express] would be made subject to its rules and regulations.” This statement takes on added significance in the light of the court’s ruling in the same case that another provision of the Act, which it held invalid, could be severed since “there is no presumption that the General Assembly would not have enacted the remainder of the statute without” the invalid provision. 389 Ill., at 155, 58 N. E. 2d, at 906.
As the question of severability is a question of state law, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is binding here. See Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 290; Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 267 U. S. 552, 562.
See Doud v. Hodge, 146 F. Supp. 887, 889-890.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Appellants, welfare claimants under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 11250, 11254, and regulation C-161.20 thereunder, sought damages, a declaratory judgment of unconstitutionality, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief in this suit under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, 28 U. S. C. § 1343. Their complaint alleges that the statute and regulation are discriminatory and that the appellees, in administering them and in applying them to appellants, deprived appellants of equal rights secured by the United States Constitution. The three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint solely because “it appear [ed] to the Court that all of the plaintiffs [had] failed to exhaust adequate administrative remedies.” This was error. In McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, noting that one of the purposes underlying the Civil Rights Act was “to provide a remedy in the federal courts supplementary to any remedy any State might have,” id., at 672, we held that “relief under the Civil Rights Act may not be defeated because relief was not first sought under state law which provided [an administrative] remedy,” id., at 671. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 180-183. We intimate no view upon the merits of appellants’ allegations nor upon the other grounds not passed upon by the District Court.
The judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of California 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:
|
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 concerns the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent lawsuit involving federal antitrust claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held as a matter of federal law that the earlier state court judgments barred the federal antitrust suit. 726 F. 2d 1150 (1984). Under 28 U. S. C. § 1738, a federal court generally is required to consider first the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered to determine its preclusive effect. Because the lower courts did not consider state preclusion law in this case, we reverse and remand.
I — I
Petitioners are board-certified orthopaedic surgeons who applied for membership in respondent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (Academy). Respondent denied the membership applications without providing a hearing or a statement of reasons. In November 1976, petitioner Dr. Treister filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, alleging that the denial of membership in the Academy violated associational rights protected by Illinois common law. Petitioner Dr. Marrese separately filed a similar action in state court. Neither petitioner alleged a violation of state antitrust law in his state court action; nor did either petitioner contemporaneously file a federal antitrust suit. The Illinois Appellate Court ultimately held that Dr. Treister’s complaint failed to state a cause of action, Treister v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 78 Ill. App. 3d 746, 396 N. E. 2d 1225 (1979), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 79 Ill. 2d 630 (1980). After the Appellate Court ruled against Dr. Treister, the Circuit Court dismissed Dr. Marrese’s complaint.
In March 1980, petitioners filed a federal antitrust suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on the same events underlying their unsuccessful state court actions. As amended, the complaint alleged that respondent Academy possesses monopoly power, that petitioners were denied membership in order to discourage competition, and that their exclusion constituted a boycott in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1. App. 8, 26-30, 33. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust claim because the earlier state court actions concerned the same facts and were dismissed with prejudice. In denying this motion, the District Court reasoned that state courts lack jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims, and therefore a state court judgment cannot have claim preclusive effect in a subsequent federal antitrust suit. 496 F. Supp. 236, 238-239 (1980), on reconsideration, 524 F. Supp. 389 (1981). Discovery began and respondent refused to allow petitioners access to certain files relating to membership applications. After respondent persisted in this refusal despite a discovery order, the District Court held respondent in criminal contempt. App. to Pet. for Cert. N-l.
The judgment of contempt was reversed by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals in an opinion holding that the District Judge had abused his discretion by authorizing discovery of the membership files and also suggesting that the federal action was barred by claim preclusion and that the antitrust claims were groundless. 692 F. 2d 1083 (1982). This opinion was vacated by an en banc vote, and the original panel issued a narrower opinion that did not discuss claim pre-elusion. 706 F. 2d 1488 (1983). The Court of Appeals then vacated the second opinion and ordered rehearing en banc. In a divided vote, the Court of Appeals held that claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust suit and reversed the contempt order because the discovery order was invalid. 726 F. 2d 1150 (1984).
On the claim preclusion issue, no opinion commanded the votes of a majority of the Court of Appeals. A plurality opinion concluded that a state court judgment bars the subsequent filing of a federal antitrust claim if the plaintiff could have brought a state antitrust claim under a state statute “materially identical” to the Sherman Act. Id., at 1153. The plurality examined the Illinois Antitrust Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 60-3(2) (1981), and found that it is sufficiently similar to the Sherman Act to bar petitioners’ federal antitrust claims in the instant case. Id., at 1155-1156. An opinion concurring in part concluded that res judicata required petitioners to bring their “entire cause of action within a reasonable period of time.” Id., at 1166 (Flaum, J.). To avoid preclusion of their federal antitrust claim, petitioners should have either filed concurrent state and federal actions or brought their state claims in federal court pendent to their Sherman Act claim. Ibid.
Five judges also concluded that the discovery order was invalid and therefore the contempt judgment should be reversed. A plurality opinion first observed that the discovery order was invalid because the District Court should have dismissed the suit on claim preclusion grounds before the discovery order was entered. Id., at 1158. Alternatively, the order constituted an abuse of discretion because it did not adequately prevent petitioners from misusing the discovery process. Id., at 1158-1162. Three judges joined the entire discussion concerning the discovery order. A fourth judge did not believe that claim preclusion applied, but he agreed that the discovery order constituted an abuse of discretion. Id., at 1162 (Eschbach, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Finally, the fifth judge observed that it was sufficient to hold that the complaint should have been dismissed on claim preclusion grounds; he added, however, that if he thought it necessary he would join the portion of the plurality opinion holding the discovery order invalid. Id., at 1162 (Bauer, J., concurring).
We granted certiorari limited to the question whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that claim preclusion requires dismissal of the federal antitrust action, 467 U. S. 1258 (1984), and we now reverse.
Before addressing the merits of the decision below, we first examine whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. Although the parties did not raise the jurisdictional issue before this Court, we address it to assure that the claim preclusion issue is properly before us. See, e. g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 197 (1956). In the present case, the District Court initially refused to certify its denial of the motion to dismiss for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b). The District Court subsequently held respondent in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a discovery order. Respondent then appealed from the judgment of criminal contempt pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291. See Bray v. United States, 423 U. S. 73 (1975) (per curiam). While the appeal from the contempt judgment was pending, the District Court amended the earlier denial of the motion to dismiss in order to certify it for immediate appeal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-1. The Court of Appeals authorized interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 1292(b), and ordered proceedings consolidated with the appeal from the contempt order. 726 F. 2d, at 1152; App. to Pet. for Cert. J-1.
Petitioners argued below that because the appeal from the contempt order was pending, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to amend its order denying the motion to dismiss to allow interlocutory appeal. In general, filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). This proposition, however, does not imply that an appeal from a judgment of criminal contempt based on noncompliance with a discovery order transfers jurisdiction over the entire case to the court of appeals. Criminal contempt judgments are immediately appealable pursuant to § 1291 because they result from “ ‘a separate and independent proceeding ... to vindicate the authority of the court’ ” and are “ ‘not a part of the original cause.’” Bray, supra, at 75, quoting Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 445, 451 (1911). Thus, prior to certification of the claim preclusion issue pursuant to § 1292(b), the contempt judgment was the only matter before the Court of Appeals. See 706 F. 2d, at 1497-1498; 692 F. 2d, at 1096. The District Court’s amendment of its initial denial of the motion to dismiss did not interfere with but instead facilitated review of the pending appeal from the contempt order. We agree with the Court of Appeals, 726 F. 2d, at 1152, that the pendency of the appeal from the contempt judgment did not prevent the District Court from certifying the denial of the motion to dismiss for immediate appeal under § 1292(b). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals properly exercised jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals, and we have jurisdiction to review that court’s decision with respect to dismissal of the antitrust claim.
HH HH
The issue presented by this case is whether a state court judgment may have preclusive effect on a federal antitrust claim that could not have been raised in the state proceeding. Although federal antitrust claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, see, e. g., General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 260 U. S. 261, 286-288 (1922), the Court of Appeals ruled that the dismissal of petitioners’ complaints in state court barred them from bringing a claim based on the same facts under the Sherman Act. The Court of Appeals erred by suggesting that in these circumstances a federal court should determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment without regard to the law of the State in which judgment was rendered.
The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit generally is determined by the full faith and credit statute, which provides that state judicial proceedings “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken.” 28 U. S. C. § 1738. This statute directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered. “It has long been established that § 1738 does not allow federal courts to employ their own rules of res judicata in determining the effect of state judgments. Rather, it goes beyond the common law and commands a federal court to accept the rules chosen by the State from which the judgment is taken.” Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 481-482 (1982); see also Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 96 (1980). Section 1738 embodies concerns of comity and federalism that allow the States to determine, subject to the requirements of the statute and the Due Process Clause, the preclusive effect of judgments in their own courts. See Kremer, supra, at 478, 481-483. Cf. Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U. S. 343, 349 (1942) (discussing preclusive effect of state judgment in proceedings in another State).
The fact that petitioners’ antitrust claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts does not necessarily make § 1738 inapplicable to this case. Our decisions indicate that a state court judgment may in some circumstances have preclusive effect in a subsequent action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Without discussing § 1738, this Court has held that the issue preclusive effect of a state court judgment barred a subsequent patent suit that could not have been brought in state court. Becker v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U. S. 388 (1929). Moreover, Kremer held that § 1738 applies to a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., although the Court expressly declined to decide whether Title VII claims can be brought only in federal courts. 456 U. S., at 479, n. 20. Kremer implies that absent an exception to § 1738, state law determines at least the issue preclusive effect of a prior state judgment in a subsequent action involving a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
More generally, Kremer indicates that § 1738 requires a federal court to look first to state preclusion law in determining the preclusive effects of a state court judgment. Cf. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U. S. 306, 314, and n. 8 (198&); Smith, Full Faith and Credit and Section 1983: A Reappraisal, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 59, 110-111 (1984). The Court’s analysis in Kremer began with the finding that state law would in fact bar relitigation of the discrimination issue decided in the earlier state proceedings. 456 U. S., at 466-467. That finding implied that the plaintiff could not relitigate the same issue in federal court unless some exception to § 1738 applied. Ibid. Kremer observed that “an exception to § 1738 will not be recognized unless a later statute contains an express or implied repeal.” Id., at 468; see also Allen v. McCurry, supra, at 99. Title VII does not expressly repeal § 1738, and the Court concluded that the statutory provisions and legislative history do not support a finding of implied repeal. 456 U. S., at 476. We conclude that the basic approach adopted in Kremer applies in a lawsuit involving a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
To be sure, a state court will not have occasion to address the specific question whether a state judgment has issue or claim preclusive effect in a later action that can be brought only in federal court. Nevertheless, a federal court may rely in the first instance on state preclusion principles to determine the extent to which an earlier state judgment bars subsequent litigation. Cf. FDIC v. Eckhardt, 691 F. 2d 245, 247-248 (CA6 1982) (applying state law to determine preclu-sive effect on claim within concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts). Kremer illustrates that a federal court can apply state rules of issue preclusion to determine if a matter actually litigated in state court may be relitigated in a subsequent federal proceeding. See 456 U. S., at 467.
With respect to matters that were not decided in the state proceedings, we note that claim preclusion generally does not apply where “[t]he plaintiff was unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy because of the limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts . . . .” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §26(l)(c) (1982). If state preclusion law includes this requirement of prior jurisdictional competency, which is generally true, a state judgment will not have claim preclusive effect on a cause of action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Even in the event that a party asserting the affirmative defense of claim preclusion can show that state preclusion rules in some circumstances bar a claim outside the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the initial judgment, the federal court should first consider whether application of the state rules would bar the particular federal claim.
Reference to state preclusion law may make it unnecessary to determine if the federal court, as an exception to § 1738, should refuse to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment. The issue whether there is an exception to §1738 arises only if state law indicates that litigation of a particular claim or issue should be barred in the subsequent federal pro-j ceeding. To the extent that state preclusion law indicates' that a judgment normally does not have claim preclusive effect as to matters that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, lower courts and commentators have correctly concluded that a state court judgment does not bar a subsequent federal antitrust claim. See 726 F. 2d, at 1174 (Cudahy, J., dissenting) (citing cases); 692 F. 2d, at 1099 (Stewart, J., dissenting); Restatement, supra, §25(1), Comment e; id., §26(1)(c), Illustration 2; 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4470, pp. 687-688 (1981). Unless application of Illinois preclusion law suggests, contrary to the usual view, that petitioners’ federal antitrust claim is somehow barred, there will be no need to decide in this case if there is an exception to § 1738.
The Court of Appeals did not apply the approach to § 1738 that we have outlined. Both the plurality opinion, see 726 F. 2d, at 1154, and an opinion concurring in part, see id., at 1163-1164 (Flaum, J.), express the view that § 1738 allows a federal court to give a state court judgment greater preclusive effect than the state courts themselves would give to it. This proposition, however, was rejected by Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S. 75 (1984), a case decided shortly after the Court of Appeals announced its decision in the instant case. In Migra, a discharged schoolteacher filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in federal court after she prevailed in state court on a contract claim involving the same underlying events. The Federal District Court dismissed the § 1983 action as barred by claim preclusion. The opinion of this Court emphasized that under § 1738, state law determined the preclusive effect of the state judgment. Id., at 81. Because it was unclear from the record whether the District Court’s ruling was based on state preclusion law, we remanded for clarification on this point. Id., at 87. Such a remand obviously would have been unnecessary were a federal court free to give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than would the judgment-rendering State. See id., at 88 (White, J., concurring).
; We are unwilling to create a special exception to § 1738 for federal antitrust claims that would give state court judg-ements greater preclusive effect than would the courts of the State rendering the judgment. Cf. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U. S., at 317-318 (refusing to create special preclusion rule for § 1983 claim subsequent to plaintiff’s guilty plea). The plurality opinion for the Court of Appeals relied on Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U. S. 394 (1981), to observe that the doctrine of claim preclusion protects defendants from repetitive lawsuits based on the same conduct, 726 F. 2d, at 1152, and that there is a practical need to require plaintiffs “to litigate their claims in an economical and parsimonious fashion.” Id., at 1153. We agree that these are valid and important concerns, and we note that under § 1738 state issue preclusion law may promote the goals of repose and conservation of judicial resources by preventing the relitigation of certain issues in a subsequent federal proceeding. See Kremer, 456 U. S., at 485 (state judgment barred subsequent Title VII action in federal court).
If we had a single system of courts and our only concerns were efficiency and finality, it might be desirable to fashion claim preclusion rules that would require a plaintiff to bring suit initially in the forum of most general jurisdiction, thereby resolving as many issues as possible in one proceeding. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §24, Comment g (1982); C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, supra, § 4407, p. 51; id. § 4412, p. 93. The decision of the Court of Appeals approximates such a rule inasmuch as it encourages plaintiffs to file suit initially in federal district court and to attempt to bring any state law claims pendent to their federal antitrust claims. Whether this result would reduce the overall burden of litigation is debatable, see 726 F. 2d, at 1181-1182 (Cudahy, J., dissenting); C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, supra, §4407, p. 51-52, and we decline to base our interpretation of § 1738 on our opinion on this question.
More importantly, we have parallel systems of state and federal courts, and the concerns of comity reflected in § 1738.. / generally allow States to determine the preclusive scope / of their own courts’ judgments. See Kremer, supra, at/ 481-482; Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S., at 96; cf. Currie, Reg Judicata: The Neglected Defense, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317, 327 (1978) (state policies may seek to limit preclusive effect of state court judgment). These concerns certainly are not made less compelling because state courts lack jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims. We therefore reject a judicially created exception to § 1738 that effectively holds as a matter of federal law that a plaintiff can bring state law claims initially in state court only at the cost of forgoing subsequent federal antitrust claims. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie does not suggest a contrary conclusion. That case did not involve § 1738; rather it held that “accepted principles of res judicata” determine the preclusive effect of a federal court judgment. See 452 U. S., at 401.
In this case the Court of Appeals should have first referred to Illinois law to determine the preclusive effect of the state judgment. Only if state law indicates that a particular claim or issue would be barred, is it necessary to determine if an exception to § 1738 should apply. Although for purposes of this case, we need not decide if such an exception exists for federal antitrust claims, we observe that the more general question is whether the concerns underlying a particular grant of exclusive jurisdiction justify a finding of an implied partial repeal of § 1738. Resolution of this question will depend on the particular federal statute as well as the nature of the claim or issue involved in the subsequent federal action. Our previous decisions indicate that the primary consideration must be the intent of Congress. See Kremer, supra, at 470-476 (finding no congressional intent to depart from § 1738 for purposes of Title VII); cf. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S. 127, 138 (1979) (finding congressional intent that state judgments would not have claim preclusive effect on dischargeability issue in bankruptcy).
IV
The decisions below did not consider Illinois preclusion law in their discussion of the claim preclusion issue. The District Court relied on federal law to conclude that the state judgments did not bar the claims under the Sherman Act. See 496 F. Supp., at 238-239. Similarly, the plurality opinion of the Court of Apneals did not discuss Illinois principles of claim preclusion. See 726 F. 2d, at 1164. Although an opinion concurring in part also concluded that petitioners’ antitrust claim was barred as a matter of federal law, it did suggest that this conclusion was consistent with Illinois law. See id., at 1164 (Flaum, J.). A dissenting opinion vigorously argued that principles of Illinois claim preclusion law did not require dismissal of the federal antitrust claims. See id., at 1176-1177 (Cudahy, J.). Before this Court, the parties have continued to disagree about the content of Illinois preclusion law. We believe that this dispute is best resolved in the first instance by the District Court. Cf. Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S., at 87.
Petitioners also urge us to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to the contempt order. We specifically declined to grant certiorari on questions related to the discovery order or the subsequent contempt order, and we do not address those issues here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In this opinion we use the term “claim preclusion” to refer to “res judicata” in a narrow sense, i. e., the preclusive effect of a judgment in foreclosing litigation of matters that should have been raised in an earlier suit. In contrast, we use the term “issue preclusion” to refer to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a matter that has been litigated and decided. See Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S. 75, 77, n. 1 (1984).
Our analysis does not necessarily suggest that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in its holding in Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co., 640 F. 2d 484, cert. denied, 454 U. S. 878 (1981). The Court of Appeals there applied federal preclusion principles to conclude that a state judgment approving settlement of state antitrust claims barred a subsequent federal antitrust claim. Although our decision today indicates that the Court of Appeals should have looked in the first instance to state law to determine the preclusive effect of the state judgment, the same holding would result if application of state preclusion law suggests that the settlement bars the subsequent federal claim and if there is no exception to § 1738 in these circumstances. Cf. 640 F. 2d, at 487, n. 5 (noting that state law gives preclusive effect to consent judgment). We, of course, do not address those issues here.
The Chief Justice notes that preclusion rules bar the splitting of a cause of action between a court of limited jurisdiction and one of general jurisdiction, and suggests that state requirements of jurisdictional competency may leave unclear whether a state court action precludes a subsequent federal antitrust claim. Post, at 388-390. The rule that the judgment of a court of limited jurisdiction concludes the entire claim assumes that the plaintiff might have commenced his action in a court in the same system of courts that was competent to give full relief. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24, Comment g (1982). Moreover, the jurisdictional competency requirement generally is understood to imply that state court litigation based on a state statute analogous to a federal statute, e. g., a state antitrust law, does not bar subsequent attempts to secure relief in federal court if the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim. Id., § 26(l)(c), Illustration 2. Although a particular State’s preclusion principles conceivably could support a rule similar to that proposed by The Chief Justice, post, at 390-391, where state preclusion rules do not indicate that a claim is barred, we do not believe that federal courts should fashion a federal rule to preclude a claim that could not have been raised in the state proceedings.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ease and Shomberg v. United States, post, p. 540, present questions concerning the proper interpretation of the general savings clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 280, 8 U. S. C. § 1101, note. This clause, § 405 of the Act, provides as follows:
“(a) Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship, warrant of arrest, order or warrant of deportation, order of exclusion, or other document or proceeding which shall be valid at the time this Act shall take effect; or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings, civil or criminal, brought, or any status, condition, right in process of acquisition, act, thing, liability, obligation, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, statutes [sic], conditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act are, unless otherwise specifically provided therein, hereby continued in force and effect. . . .
“(b) Except as otherwise specifically provided in title III, any petition for naturalization heretofore filed which may be pending at the time this Act shall take effect shall be heard and determined in accordance with the requirements of law in effect when such petition was filed.”
The issue here presented is whether an alien, who filed his declaration of intention to become an American citizen before the effective date of the 1952 Act, and who otherwise complied with the naturalization laws then in effect, has a “status,” “condition,” or “right in process of acquisition” preserved by § 405 (a), supra, despite the fact that his petition for naturalization was filed after the effective date of the new Act. The Government contends that petitions for naturalization are to be governed exclusively by § 405 (b), and that since respondent does not come within the terms of that subsection — his petition not having been filed before the effective date of the new Act — the savings clause is inapplicable and the substantive provisions of the 1952 Act apply.
The facts are not in dispute. Respondent was admitted for permanent residence in the United States on March 7, 1948, and the following month he filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen. During the next five years, respondent was absent from the United States on business for several periods of less than a year each. Although the aggregate of these absences was some forty-four months, it is conceded that respondent had not at any time abandoned his American residence. Accordingly, all other prerequisites to citizenship having been satisfied, respondent was entitled to be naturalized under the Nationality Act of 1940 upon completing five years of residence. 54 Stat. 1142, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 707. But before this period had run, the Immigration and Nationality Act became effective on December 24, 1952. Section 316 (a) of this Act, 66 Stat. 242, 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a), imposed a new requirement of physical presence: to be eligible for citizenship, an alien must be physically present in the United States for at least one-half the period constituting his five-year residence. When, on April 24, 1953, Menasche filed his petition for naturalization, he lacked 14 months of fulfilling‘this new requirement. Thus, if the 1952 Act applies to respondent’s case, it is clear he may not be naturalized, while under the 1940 Act he is admittedly eligible for citizenship.
The district judge admitted Menasche to citizenship, holding that the 1940 Act governs because respondent enjoyed a status, condition, and right in process of acquisition preserved by § 405 (a) of the new Act. 115 F. Supp. 434. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 210 F. 2d 809. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the questions presented in this and the companion case of Shomberg v. United States, supra, in the administration of our nationality laws. 348 U. S. 811.
In interpreting § 405 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in relation to the facts of this case, we must consider the historical background of the savings clause and of the procedure for filing declarations of intention. The declaration of intention was introduced into our law by the second Act of Congress on the subject of naturalization, 1 Stat. 414 (1795), and remained an integral part of our naturalization procedure until the Act of 1952 dispensed with it as a prerequisite to citizenship. 66 Stat. 254, 8 U. S. C. § 1445 (f). For the more than 150 years between these enactments, Congress considered it appropriate to require aliens to declare their intention to become United States citizens several years before they petitioned for naturalization. Exceptions were made from time to time to avoid hardship or to expedite the naturalization of a favored group, but until the 1952 enactment the declaration constituted the “first papers” toward American citizenship in the usual naturalization procedure. See Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816, pp. 79-80, 723-725; S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 732-734.
Savings clauses of the type here involved — broad, inclusive provisions — date back to the general statutes on immigration and naturalization enacted in the early part of this century. The Naturalization Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 596, the first real codification of our nationality laws, did not contain a general savings clause, but sought to protect certain prior rights by means of specific provisions. 34 Stat. 597, 599, 603. Nor was there an over-all savings provision in the first of the general immigration laws following the turn of the century. 32 Stat. 1213 (1903). The germ was there, however, in a clause stating that “nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil,” begun under a prior Act. 32 Stat. 1220. In subsequent immigration laws, the predecessors of the instant provision could be more clearly discerned. The Immigration Act of 1907 provided that nothing in the Act “shall be construed to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing at the time of the taking effect of this Act.” 34 Stat. 907. To the same effect is the savings clause of the Immigration Act of 1917. 39 Stat. 897. In the years that followed, amendments to the immigration and naturalization laws were enacted with more limited savings clauses, tailored to the special changes made by the new legislation. 40 Stat. 545, 547, 548; 40 Stat. 559, amended, 55 Stat. 252; 42 Stat. 1022; 43 Stat. 169; 46 Stat. 854. These provisions, though differing in their terms, manifested an intention on the part of Congress to save rights which had accrued under prior laws.
The direct antecedent of the savings clause here involved appeared as § 347 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 747, the last legislation prior to 1952 to deal with our general system of naturalization. Like the present § 405, the provision in the 1940 Act was divided into two subsections. The first of these, subsection (a), expanded upon the multiplicity of legal subjects preserved by the 1907 and 1917 immigration laws. Subsection (b), on the other hand, introduced an entirely new wrinkle by providing that pending naturalization petitions “shall be heard and determined within two years thereafter in accordance with the requirements of law in effect when such petition was filed.” The litigation under this section, involving, first, the scope of subsection (a) and, secondly, the relation between the two subsections, throws considerable light on the parallel problems under § 405 presented in the instant case.
The 1952 Act made the enumeration of matters preserved by subsection (a) more complete and all-inclusive by adding: “status,” “condition,” “right in process of acquisition,” “liability,” and “obligation.” The change was undoubtedly prompted by several sets of inconsistent decisions dealing with the vague terminology in § 347 (a) of the 1940 Act preserving “any act, thing, or matter, civil or criminal.” The first of these concerned the question whether the withdrawal of a declaration of intention to avoid service in the armed forces constituted an “act” existing under the prior law which continued to debar the alien from citizenship. Compare Petition of Otness, 49 F. Supp. 220, with In re Urmeneta, 42 F. Supp. 138, and In re Samowich, 70 F. Supp. 273. A second and more significant conflict concerned inchoate rights to derivative citizenship, which, when proper conditions were met, required only the passage of time to ripen into full citizenship. When the 1940 Act changed certain of the conditions in this process, the question arose whether those whose time had begun to run before the 1940 Act took effect were to be governed by the old law or the new. The Second Circuit held that the new law applied, because § 347 (a) of the 1940 Act did not extend to “a mere condition, unattended by any affirmative action.” United States ex rel. Aberasturi v. Cain, 147 F. 2d 449, 452. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed, construing the broad language of § 347 (a) as covering “rights partly accrued” and “rights in process of acquisition.” Bertoldi v. McGrath, 86 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 2, 3, 178 F. 2d 977, 978, 979. This latter conflict must have been paramount in the minds of Congress when the first subsection of the savings clause was broadened. See Analysis of S. 3455, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 361-1 and 361-2 (prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the committees of Congress considering this legislation). We conclude that Congress intended to adopt the principle of the Bertoldi case that “the new act should take effect prospectively.” 86 U. S. App. D. C., at 2, 178 F. 2d, at 978. This is, after all, no more than a reaffirmation of the principle underlying the less sweeping 1940 provision. In a report to the congressional committees considering this earlier section, it was said that the provision “contains the customary clauses by which the status quo is maintained in relation to naturalization proceedings and other related matters.” Report of the Joint Departmental Committee, reproduced in Hearings before House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., on H. R. 6127, superseded by H. R. 9980, 411, 484.
The Government would have us limit the 1952 extension of subsection (a) to situations concerning derivative citizenship, arguing that this problem was entirely responsible for the new language on status, condition, and right in process of acquisition. With this we cannot agree. The change in the section was designed to extend a savings clause already broadly drawn, and embodies, we believe, congressional acceptance of the principle that the statutory status quo was to continue even as to rights not fully matured. It should be noted, further, that the conflict between Aberasturi and Bertoldi involved a situation where the alien had failed to take any affirmative action to assert his claim to citizenship. Even the more restrictive Aberasturi opinion recognized that affirmative action by the alien might alter the result there reached. 147 F. 2d, at 452.. If Congress was willing to preserve a “mere condition, unattended by any affirmative action,” we think its savings clause also reaches instances, such as this, where affirmative action is present. The whole development of this general savings clause, its predecessors accompanying each of the recent codifications in the field of immigration and naturalization, manifests a well-established congressional policy not to strip aliens of advantages gained under prior laws. The consistent broadening of the savings provision, particularly in its general terminology, indicates that this policy of preservation was intended to apply to matters both within and without the specific contemplation of Congress.
The Government argues against hinging statuses, conditions and rights in process of acquisition on the filing of a declaration of intention, because, it contends, the 1952 Act has rendered such declarations totally meaningless as far as naturalization proceedings are concerned. They are no longer a prerequisite to naturalization and they confer no special advantage on the alien-declarant. But all this is immaterial. First, the congressional resolution of the Bertoldi-Aberasturi conflict indicates a willingness, at least in some situations, to preserve rights in process of acquisition without requiring affirmative action on the part of the alien. It could be argued in the present case that it was Menasche’s residence, rather than his filing of the declaration, which gave rise to his rights under §405 (a). And this approach would have the virtue of eliminating the inequitable treatment envisaged by the Government as regards those special groups of aliens who did not have to file declarations as a prerequisite to citizenship. But while our decision could be rested on this ground, it is sufficient here merely to refer to the provision in § 405 (a), derived verbatim from § 347 (a) of the 1940 Act, preserving the “validity” of declarations of intention “valid at the time this Act shall take effect.”
The Government contends, however, that even if § 405 (a), considered alone, covers this case, § 405 (b) deals specifically with naturalization petitions and by necessary implication excludes their coverage in § 405 (a). As we read the statute, subsection (b) merely implements and emphasizes the operation of its forerunner. It is clear, first, that subsection (b) is not a specific exception to § 405 (a), since both subsections state that prior law should apply in certain circumstances. The slight negative implication derived from the fact that § 405 (b) applies to pending petitions for naturalization, and not to those filed after the effective date of the new Act, is overcome by the broad sweep of § 405 (a) and its direction that prior law applies unless the Act “otherwise specifically provide[s].” (Emphasis supplied.)
This view is strengthened by the relation between the predecessors of § 405 (a) and (b). The Report of the Joint Departmental Committee, supra, at 484, stated that under § 347 (b) of the 1940 Act “a period of 2 years would be granted during which any petition for naturalization filed prior to the enactment of the new measure might be heard under the law in effect when the proceeding was begun.” The approach of the courts, in dealing with pending naturalization petitions alleged to be governed by the 1940 savings clause, was generally to see whether petitioner’s rights were saved by § 347 (a), and then, if applicable, apply the two-year limitation of § 347 (b). See In re Shaver, 140 F. 2d 180; Petition of La Bella, 52 F. Supp. 980; Petition of Hirsch, 50 F. Supp. 638; In re McInnis, 50 F. Supp. 303. But cf. Petition of Ferrara, 43 N. Y. S. 2d 244. Thus § 347 (a) was considered the source of rights under the savings clause, and § 347 (b) merely a special limitation on these rights. Indeed, there were two cases in which petitions for naturalization filed after the effective date of the 1940 Act were considered solely in relation to § 347 (a). In re Samowich, 70 F. Supp. 273; Petition of Rothschild, 57 F. Supp. 814. These decisions ignored the supposedly obvious negative implications of § 347 (b), and cast considerable doubt on the Government's present view that § 347 (b) automatically removed from the coverage of prior law petitions filed after the effective date of the 1940 Act. Thus the construction advanced by the Government concerning the relation between § 405 (a) and § 405 (b) would not continue the relation between the predecessor provisions, but would actually be a marked departure. The only significant change made in subsection (b) by the 1952 Act was the deletion of the two-year time limit, and there is nothing to indicate that Congress, in making this change, intended to alter the entire structure of the savings clause by making § 405 (b) the exclusive provision for naturalization petitions. See Analysis of S. 3455, supra. The few decisions considering this problem under the 1952 Act accord with the decisions of the District Court and Court of Appeals in the instant case, holding that § 405 (a) preserves rights accruing in the pre-petition stages of the naturalization process. United States v. Pringle, 212 F. 2d 878, affirming 122 F. Supp. 90; In re Jocson, 117 F. Supp. 528. We believe that Congress so intended.
The Government’s contention that § 405 (a) does not apply to any phase in the processing of naturalization petitions would defeat and destroy the plain meaning of that section. “The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not to destroy.” Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 30. It is our duty “to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute,” Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152, rather than to emasculate an entire section, as the Government’s interpretation requires. Accordingly, we hold that respondent’s inchoate right to citizenship is protected by § 405 (a) and is not defeated by any implication stemming from §405 (b). All that remains, therefore, is to look to § 316 (a), which imposes the new requirement of physical presence, to determine whether it “otherwise specifically provide[s]” that the new Act is to apply to respondent’s situation. It is clear that it does not. Section 316 (a) merely says that, “except as otherwise provided,” the stated degree of physical presence shall be required, and this may be viewed as a reference, inter alia, to § 405 (a), strengthening our conclusion that prior law applies.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals were correct in concluding that § 405 (a) preserved respondent’s inchoate rights under the prior law, and their decisions are accordingly
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See also 54 Stat. 1150, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 726; 64 Stat. 1015, 8 Ü. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 725 (b).
“Sec. 347. (a) Nothing contained in either chapter III or in chapter V of this Act, unless otherwise provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, or other document or proceeding which shall be valid at the time this Act shall take effect; or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings, civil or criminal, brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, acts, things, or matters, the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act, are hereby continued in force and effect.”
“(b) Any petition for naturalization heretofore filed which may be pending at the time this Act shall take effect shall be heard and determined within two years thereafter in accordance with the requirements of law in effect when such petition was filed.”
The alien may, if he wishes, file a declaration of intention with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 66 Stat. 254, 8 U. S. C. § 1445 (f). The apparent object of this optional provision is to preserve the rights of aliens under state laws, where, for example, there may be a requirement that a legally resident alien shall have filed his declaration of intention before he can obtain work. See Joint Hearings on S. 716, H. R. 2379 and H. R. 2816, supra, p. 80; S. Rep. No. 1515, supra, p. 738.
It is possible, although we do not pass on the point in this opinion, that § 405 (b) serves a function which carries with it a negative implication different from that advanced by the Government. Section 405 (b) provides that pending petitions for naturalization shall be governed by the “law in effect when such petition was filed.” (Emphasis supplied.) Section 405 (a), on the other hand, provides that nothing in the new Act shall “affect” any of the enumerated subjects, preserving the law as it existed immediately prior to the effective date of the Act. Thus § 405 (b) may “otherwise specifically pro-vid[e]” for a law applicable to pending petitions different from the law preserved by § 405 (a) for other protected interests. We have not fully considered, in passing on the question before us, the consonance of such an interpretation with the over-all statutory scheme, but advance it merely as another illustration of the meaning which can be given § 405 (b) to avoid both the result pressed by the Government in this case and the objection that § 405 (b) is rendered redundant by holding that petitioner has rights protected by §405 (a).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Sotomayor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under § 282 of the Patent Act of 1952, “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35 U. S. C. §282. We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does.
I
A
Pursuant to its authority under the Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, Congress has charged the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) with the task of examining patent applications, 35 U. S. C. § 2(a)(1), and issuing patents if “it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law,” § 131. Congress has set forth the prerequisites for issuance of a patent, which the PTO must evaluate in the examination process. To receive patent protection a claimed invention must, among other things, fall within one of the express categories of patentable subject matter, §101, and be novel, §102, and. nonobvious, §103. Most relevant here, the on-sale bar of § 102(b) precludes patent protection for any “invention” that was “on sale in this country” more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application. See generally Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 67-68 (1998). In evaluating whether these and other statutory conditions have been met, PTO examiners must make various factual determinations — for instance, the state of the prior art in the field and the nature of the advancement embodied in the invention. See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U. S. 150, 153 (1999).
Once issued, a patent grants certain exclusive rights to its holder, including the exclusive right to use the invention during the patent’s duration. To enforce that right, a patentee can bring a civil action for infringement if another person “without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States.” § 271(a); see also §281.
Among other defenses under §282 of the Patent Act of 1952 (1952 Act), an alleged infringer may assert the invalidity of the patent — that is, he may attempt to prove that the patent never should have issued in the first place. See §§ 282(2), (3). A defendant may argue, for instance, that the claimed invention was obvious at the time and thus that one of the conditions of patentability was lacking. See § 282(2); see also § 103. “While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law,” Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U. S. 1, 17 (1966) (citing Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147, 155 (1950) (Douglas, J., concurring)); see post, at 114 (Breyer, J., concurring), the same factual questions underlying the PTO’s original examination of a patent application will also bear on an invalidity defense in an infringement action, see, e. g., 383 U. S., at 17 (describing the “basic factual inquiries” that form the “background” for evaluating obviousness); Pfaff, 525 U. S., at 67-69 (same, as to the on-sale bar).
In asserting an invalidity defense, an alleged infringer must contend with the first paragraph of §282, which provides that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity... rest[s] on the party asserting such invalidity.” Under the Federal Circuit’s reading of § 282, a defendant seeking to overcome this presumption must persuade the factfinder of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence. Judge Rich, a principal drafter of the 1952 Act, articulated this view for the court in American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1350 (CA Fed. 1984). There, the Federal Circuit held that §282 codified “the existing presumption of validity of patents,” id., at 1359 (internal quotation marks omitted)— what, until that point, had been a common-law presumption based on “the basic proposition that a government agency such as the [PTO] was presumed to do its job,” ibid. Relying on this Court’s pre-1952 precedent as to the “force of the presumption,” ibid, (citing Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc., 293 U. S. 1 (1934) (RCA)), Judge Rich concluded:
“[Section] 282 creates a presumption that a patent is valid and imposes the burden of proving invalidity on the attacker. That burden is constant and never changes and is to convince the court of invalidity by clear evidence.” 725 F. 2d, at 1360.
In the nearly 30 years since American Hoist, the Federal Circuit has never wavered in this interpretation of § 282. See, e. g., Greenwood v. Hattori Seiko Co., 900 F. 2d 238, 240-241 (1990); Ultra-Tex Surfaces, Inc. v. Hill Bros. Chemical Co., 204 F. 3d 1360, 1367 (2000); ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 603 F. 3d 935, 940 (2010).
B
Respondents i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. (collectively, i4i) hold the patent at issue in this suit. The i4i patent claims an improved method for editing computer documents, which stores a document’s content separately from the metacodes associated with the document’s structure. In 2007, i4i sued petitioner Microsoft Corporation for willful infringement, claiming that Microsoft’s manufacture and sale of certain Microsoft Word products infringed i4i’s patent. In addition to denying infringement, Microsoft counterclaimed and sought a declaration that i4i’s patent was invalid and unenforceable.
Specifically and as relevant here, Microsoft claimed that the on-sale bar of § 102(b) rendered the patent invalid, pointing to i4i’s prior sale of a software program known as S4. The parties agreed that, more than one year prior to the filing of the i4i patent application, i4i had sold S4 in the United States. They presented opposing arguments to the jury, however, as to whether that software embodied the invention claimed in i4i’s patent. Because the software’s source code had been destroyed years before the commencement of this litigation, the factual dispute turned largely on trial testimony by S4’s two inventors — also the named inventors on the i4i patent — both of whom testified that S4 did not practice the key invention disclosed in the patent.
Relying on the undisputed fact that the S4 software was never presented to the PTO examiner, Microsoft objected to i4d’s proposed instruction that it was required to prove its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, “if an instruction on the ‘clear and convincing’ burden were [to be] given,” App. 124a, n. 8, Microsoft requested the following:
“‘Microsoft’s burden of proving invalidity and unen-forceability is by clear and convincing evidence. However, Microsoft’s burden of proof with regard to its defense of invalidity based on prior art that the examiner did not review during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit is by preponderance of the evidence.’” Ibid.
Rejecting the hybrid standard of proof that Microsoft advocated, the District Court instructed the jury that “Microsoft has the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 195a.
The jury found that Microsoft willfully infringed the i4d patent and that Microsoft failed to prove invalidity due to the on-sale bar or otherwise. Denying Microsoft’s post-trial motions, the District Court rejected Microsoft’s contention that the court improperly instructed the jury on the standard of proof. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. 598 F. 3d 831, 848 (2010). Relying on its settled interpretation of § 282, the court explained that it could “discern [no] error” in the jury instruction requiring Microsoft to prove its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence. Ibid. We granted certiorari. 562 U. S. 1060 (2010).
According to Microsoft, a defendant in an infringement action need only persuade the jury of an invalidity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. In the alternative, Microsoft insists that a preponderance standard must apply at least when an invalidity defense rests on evidence that was never considered by the PTO in the examination process. We reject both contentions.
A
Where Congress has prescribed the governing standard of proof, its choice controls absent “countervailing constitutional constraints.” Steadman v. SEC, 450 U. S. 91, 95 (1981). The question, then, is whether Congress has made such a choice here.
As stated, the first paragraph of §282 provides that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” Thus, by its express terms, § 282 establishes a presumption of patent validity, and it provides that a challenger must overcome that presumption to prevail on an invalidity defense. But, while the statute explicitly specifies the burden of proof, it includes no express articulation of the standard of proof.
Our statutory inquiry, however, cannot simply end there. We begin, of course, with “the assumption that the ordinary meaning of [the] language” chosen by Congress “accurately expresses the legislative puipose.” Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 541 U. S. 246, 252 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). But where Congress uses a common-law term in a statute, we assume the “term... comes with a common law meaning, absent anything pointing another way.” Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U. S. 47, 58 (2007) (citing Beck v. Prupis, 529 U. S. 494, 500-501 (2000)). Here, by stating that a patent is “presumed valid,” §282, Congress used a term with a settled meaning in the common law.
Our decision in RCA, 293 U. S. 1, is authoritative. There, tracing nearly a century of ease law from this Court and others, Justice Cardozo wrote for a unanimous Court that “there is a presumption of validity, a presumption not to be overthrown except by clear and cogent evidence.” Id., at 2. Although the “force” of the presumption found “varying expression” in this Court and elsewhere, id., at 7, Justice Cardozo explained, one “common core of thought and truth” unified the decisions:
“[O]ne otherwise an infringer who assails the validity of a patent fair upon its face bears a heavy burden of persuasion, and fails unless his evidence has more than a dubious preponderance. If that is true where the assailant connects himself in some way with the title of the true inventor, it is so a fortiori where he is a stranger to the invention, without claim of title of his own. If it is true where the assailant launches his attack with evidence different, at least in form, from any theretofore produced in opposition to the patent, it is so a bit more clearly where the evidence is even verbally the same.” Id., at 8 (citation omitted).
The common-law presumption, in other words, reflected the universal understanding that a preponderance standard of proof was too “dubious” a basis to deem a patent invalid. Ibid.; see also id., at 7 (“[A] patent... is presumed to be valid until the presumption has been overcome by convincing evidence of error”).
Thus, by the time Congress enacted §282 and declared that a patent is “presumed valid,” the presumption of patent validity had long been a fixture of the common law. According to its settled meaning, a defendant raising an invalidity defense bore “a heavy burden of persuasion,” requiring proof of the defense by clear and convincing evidence. Id., at 8. That is, the presumption encompassed not only an allocation of the burden of proof but also an imposition of a heightened standard of proof. Under the general rule that a common-law term comes with its common-law meaning, we cannot conclude that Congress intended to “drop” the heightened standard of proof from the presumption simply because § 282 fails to reiterate it expressly. Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 23 (1999); see also id., at 21 (“‘Where Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under... the common law, [we] must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of those terms’ ” (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318, 322 (1992))); Standard Oil Co. of N. J. v. United Sates, 221 U. S. 1, 59 (1911) (“[W]here words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense...”). “On the contrary, we must presume that Congress intended to incorporate” the heightened standard of proof, “unless the statute otherwise dictates.” Neder, 527 U. S., at 23 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We recognize that it may be unusual to treat a presumption as alone establishing the governing standard of proof. See, e. g., J. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 336-337 (1898) (hereinafter Thayer) (“When... we read that the contrary of any particular presumption must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,... it is to be recognized that we have something superadded to the rule of presumption, namely, another rule as to the amount of evidence which is needed to overcome the presumption”). But given how judges, including Justice Cardozo, repeatedly understood and explained the presumption of patent validity, we cannot accept Microsoft’s argument that Congress used the words “presumed valid” to adopt only a procedural device for “shifting the burden of production,” or for “shifting both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.” Brief for Petitioner 21-22 (emphasis deleted). Whatever the significance of a presumption in the abstract, basic principles of statutory construction require us to assume that Congress meant to incorporate “the cluster of ideas” attached to the common-law term it adopted. Beck, 529 U. S., at 501 (internal quotation marks omitted). And RCA leaves no doubt that attached to the common-law presumption of patent validity was an expression as to its “force,” 293 U. S., at 7— that is, the standard of proof required to overcome it.
Resisting the conclusion that Congress adopted the heightened standard of proof reflected in our pre-1952 cases, Microsoft contends that those cases applied a clear-and-convincing standard of proof only in two limited circumstances, not in every case involving an invalidity defense. First, according to Microsoft, the heightened standard of proof applied in cases “involving oral testimony of prior invention,” simply to account for the unreliability of such testimony. Brief for Petitioner 25. Second, Microsoft tells us, the heightened standard of proof applied to “invalidity challenges based on priority of invention,” where that issue had previously been litigated between the parties in PTO proceedings. Id., at 28.
Squint as we may, we fail to see the qualifications that Microsoft purports to identify in our cases. They certainly make no appearance in RCAs explanation of the presumption of patent validity. RCA simply said, without qualification, “that one otherwise an infringer who assails the validity of a patent fair upon its face bears a heavy burden of persuasion, and fails unless his evidence has more than a dubious preponderance.” 293 U. S., at 8; see also id., at 7 (“A patent regularly issued, and even more obviously a patent issued after a hearing of all the rival claimants, is presumed to be valid until the presumption has been overcome by convincing evidence of error” (emphasis added)). Nor do they appear in any of our cases as express limitations on the application of the heightened standard of proof. Cf., e. g., Smith v. Hall, 301 U. S. 216, 233 (1937) (citing RCA for the proposition that a “heavy burden of persuasion... rests upon one who seeks to negative novelty in a patent by showing prior use”); Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 301 U. S. 168, 171 (1937) (“Not only is the burden to make good this defense upon the party setting it up, but his burden is a heavy one, as it has been held that every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In fact, Microsoft itself admits that our cases “could be read as announcing a heightened standard applicable to all invalidity assertions.” Brief for Petitioner 30 (emphasis deleted).
Furthermore, we cannot agree that Microsoft’s proposed limitations are inherent — even if unexpressed — in our pre-1952 cases. As early as 1874 we explained that the burden of proving prior inventorship “rests upon [the defendant], and every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him,” without tying that rule to the vagaries and manipulability of oral testimony. Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 124 (1874). And, more than 60 years later, we applied that rule where the evidence in support of a prior-use defense included documentary proof — not just oral testimony — in a case presenting no priority issues at all. See Smith, 301 U. S., at 221, 233. Thus, even if Congress searched for some unstated limitations on the heightened standard of proof in our cases, it would have found none.
Microsoft also argues that the Federal Circuit's interpretation of § 282’s statement that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” must fail because it renders superfluous the statute’s additional statement that “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent... shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” We agree that if the presumption imposes a heightened standard of proof on the patent challenger, then it alone suffices to establish that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion. Cf. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 278 (1994) (“A standard of proof... can apply only to a burden of persuasion”). Indeed, the Federal Circuit essentially recognized as much in American Hoist. See 725 F. 3d, at 1359.
But the canon against superfluity assists only where a competing interpretation gives effect “ 'to every clause and word of a statute.’” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (quoting United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955)); see Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U. S. 223, 236 (2011). Here, no interpretation of § 282 — including the two alternatives advanced by Microsoft — avoids excess language. That is, if the presumption only “allocates the burden of production,” Brief for Petitioner 21, or if it instead “shift[s] both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion,” id., at 22 (emphasis deleted), then it would be unnecessary in light of § 282’s statement that the challenger bears the “burden of establishing invalidity.” See 21B Fed. Practice §5122, at 401 (“[T]he same party who has the burden of persuasion also starts out with the burden of producing evidence”). “There are times when Congress enacts provisions that are superfluous,” Corley v. United States, 556 U. S. 303, 325 (2009) (Alito, J., dissenting), and the kind of excess language that Microsoft identifies in §282 is hardly unusual in comparison to other statutes that set forth a presumption, a burden of persuasion, and a standard of proof. Cf., e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(1).
B
Reprising the more limited argument that it pressed below, Microsoft argues in the alternative that a preponderance standard must at least apply where the evidence before the factfinder was not before the PTO during the examination process. In particular, it relies on KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U. S. 398 (2007), where we observed that, in these circumstances, “the rationale underlying the presumption-that the PTO, in its expertise, has approved the claim-seems much diminished.” Id., at 426.
That statement is true enough, although other rationales may animate the presumption in such circumstances. See The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275, 292 (1892) (explaining that because the patentee “first published this device; put it upon record; made use of it for a practical purpose; and gave it to the public... doubts... concerning the actual inventor... should be resolved in favor of the patentee”); cf. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (arguing that even when the administrative correctness rationale has no relevance, the heightened standard of proof “serves to protect the patent holder’s reliance interests” in disclosing an invention to the public in exchange for patent protection). The question remains, however, whether Congress has specified the applicable standard of proof. As established, Congress did just that by codifying the common-law presumption of patent validity and, implicitly, the heightened standard of proof attached to it.
Our pre-1952 cases never adopted or endorsed the kind of fluctuating standard of proof that Microsoft envisions. And they do not indicate, even in dicta, that anything less than a dear-and-convincing standard would ever apply to an invalidity defense raised in an infringement action. To the contrary, the Court spoke on this issue directly in RCA, stating that because the heightened standard of proof applied where the evidence before the court was “different” from that considered by the PTO, it applied even more clearly where the evidence was identical. 293 U. S., at 8. Likewise, the Court’s statement that a “dubious preponderance” will never suffice to sustain an invalidity defense, ibid., admitted of no apparent exceptions. Finally, this Court often applied the heightened standard of proof without any mention of whether the relevant prior-art evidence had been before the PTO examiner, in circumstances strongly suggesting it had not. See, e. g., Smith, 301 U. S., at 227, 233.
Nothing in §282’s text suggests that Congress meant to depart from that understanding to enact a standard of proof that would rise and fall with the facts of each case. Indeed, had Congress intended to drop the heightened standard of proof where the evidence before the jury varied from that before the PTO — and thus to take the unusual and impractical step of enacting a variable standard of proof that must itself be adjudicated in each case, cf. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 757 (1982) — we assume it would have said so expressly.
To be sure, numerous Courts of Appeals in the years preceding the 1952 Act observed that the presumption of validity is “weakened” or “dissipated” in the circumstance that the evidence in an infringement action was never considered by the PTO. See Jacuzzi Bros., Inc. v. Berkeley Pump Co., 191 F. 2d 632, 634 (CA9 1951) (“largely dissipated”); H. Schindler & Co. v. C. Saladino & Sons, Inc., 81 F. 2d 649, 651 (CA1 1936) (“weakened”); Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Cliff Weil Cigar Co., 107 F. 2d 105, 107 (CA4 1939) (“greatly weakened”); Butler Mfg. Co. v. Enterprise Cleaning Co., 81 F. 2d 711, 716 (CA81936) (“weakened”). But we cannot read these cases to hold or even to suggest that a preponderance standard would apply in such circumstances, and we decline to impute such a reading to Congress. Instead, we understand these cases to reflect the same eommonsense principle that the Federal Circuit has recognized throughout its existence — namely, that new evidence supporting an invalidity defense may “carry more weight” in an infringement action than evidence previously considered by the PTO, American Hoist, 725 F. 2d, at 1360. As Judge Rich explained:
‘When new evidence touching validity of the patent not considered by the PTO is relied on, the tribunal considering it is not faced with having to disagree with the PTO or with deferring to its judgment or with taking its expertise into account. The evidence may, therefore, carry more weight and go further toward sustaining the attacker’s unchanging burden.” Ibid, (emphasis deleted).
See also SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F. 3d 1349, 1355-1356 (CA Fed. 2000) (“[T]he alleged infringer’s burden may be more easily carried because of th[e] additional [evidence]”); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F. 3d 1297, 1306 (CA Fed. 2005) (similar).
Simply put, if the PTO did not have all material facts before it, its considered judgment may lose significant force. Cf. KSR, 550 U. S., at 427. And, concomitantly, the challenger’s burden to persuade the jury of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain. In this respect, although we have no occasion to endorse any particular formulation, we note that a jury instruction on the effect of new evidence can, and when requested, most often should, be given. When warranted, the jury may be instructed to consider that it has heard evidence that the PTO had no opportunity to evaluate before granting the patent. When it is disputed whether the evidence presented to the jury differs from that evaluated by the PTO, the jury may be instructed to consider that question. In either case, the jury may be instructed to evaluate whether the evidence before it is materially new, and if so, to consider that fact when determining whether an invalidity defense has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. Cf., e. g., Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F. 3d 1557, 1563-1564 (CA Fed. 1993); see also Brief for International Business Machines Corp. as Amicus Curiae 31-37. Although Microsoft emphasized in its argument to the jury that S4 was never considered by the PTO, it failed to request an instruction along these lines from the District Court. Now, in its reply brief in this Court, Microsoft insists that an instruction of this kind was warranted. Reply Brief for Petitioner 22-23. That argument, however, comes far too late, and we therefore refuse to consider it. See Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U. S. 63, 75-76 (2010): cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 51(d)(1)(B).
III
The parties and their amici have presented opposing views as to the wisdom of the clear-and-convincing-evidenee standard that Congress adopted. Microsoft and its amici contend that the heightened standard of proof dampens innovation by unduly insulating “bad” patents from invalidity challenges. They point to the high invalidation rate as evidence that the PTO grants patent protection to too many undeserving “inventions.” They claim that inter partes reexamination proceedings before the PTO cannot fix the problem, as some grounds for invalidation (like the on-sale bar at issue here) cannot be raised in such proceedings. They question the deference that the PTO’s expert determinations warrant, in light of the agency’s resources and procedures, which they deem inadequate. And, they insist that the heightened standard of proof essentially causes juries to abdicate their role in reviewing invalidity claims raised in infringement actions.
For their part, i4i and its amici, including the United States, contend that the heightened standard of proof properly limits the circumstances in which a lay jury overturns the considered judgment of an expert agency. They claim that the heightened standard of proof is an essential component of the patent “bargain,” see Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 150-151 (1989), and the incentives for inventors' to disclose their innovations to the public in exchange for patent protection. They disagree with the notion that the patent issuance rate is above the optimal level. They explain that limits on the reexamination process reflect a judgment by Congress as to the appropriate degree of interference with patentees’ reliance interests. Finally, they maintain that juries that are properly instructed as to the application of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard can, and often do, find an invalidity defense established.
We find ourselves in no position to judge the comparative force of these policy arguments. For nearly 30 years, the Federal Circuit has interpreted § 282 as we do today. During this period, Congress has often amended §282, see, e. g., Pub. L. 104-141, § 2, 109 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 98-417, § 203, 98 Stat. 1603; not once, so far as we (and Microsoft) are aware, has it even considered a proposal to lower the standard of proof, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. Moreover, Congress has amended the patent laws to account for concerns about “bad” patents, including by expanding the reexamination process to provide for inter partes proceedings. See Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Act of 1999, 113 Stat. 1501A-567, codified at 35 U. S. C. § 311 et seq. Through it all, the evidentiary standard adopted in §282 has gone untouched. Indeed, Congress has left the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of § 282 in place despite ongoing criticism, both from within the Federal Government and without.
Congress specified the applicable standard of proof in 1952 when it codified the common-law presumption of patent validity. Since then, it has allowed the Federal Circuit’s correct interpretation of §282 to stand. Any recalibration of the standard of proof remains in its hands.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.
As originally enacted in 1952, the first paragraph of §282 read: “A patent shall be presumed valid. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent shall rest on a party asserting it.” 66 Stat. 812. Congress has since amended §282, inserting two sentences not relevant here and modifying the language of the second sentence to that in the text.
Although not relevant here, the Court of Appeals modified the effective date of the permanent injunction that the District Court entered in favor of i4i. 598 F. 3d, at 863-864.
i4i contendo that Microsoft forfeited the firot argument by failing to raise it until its merits brief in this Court. The argument, however, is within the oeope of the question presented, and bccauoe we reject it on its merits, we need not decide whether it hao been preserved.
A preliminary word on terminology is in order. As we have said, “[t]he term ‘burden of proof’ is one of the ‘slipperiest members of the family of legal terms.’” Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49, 56 (2005) (quoting 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §342, p. 433 (5th ed.1999) (alteration omitted)), Historically, the term has encompassed two separate burdens: the "burden of persuasion” (specifying which party loses if the evidence is balanced), as well as the “burden of production” (specifying which party must como forward with evidence at various stages in the litigation). 646 U. S., at 56. Adding more confusion, the term “burden of proof” has occasionally boon used as a synonym for “standard of proof.” E. g., Crogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279, 286 (1991).
Here we use “burden of proof” interchangeably with “burden of persuasion” to identify the party who must persuade the jury in its favor to prevail. We use the Lerni "standard of proof” to refer to the degree of cortainty by which the factfinder must be persuaded of a factual conclusion to find in favor of the party bearing the burden of persuasion. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979). In other words, the term “standard of proof” specifies how difficult it will be for the party bearing the burden of persuasion to convince the jury of the facts in its favor. Various standards of proof are familiar — beyond a reasonable doubt, by dear and convincing evidence, and by a preponderance of the evidence. See generally 21B C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice & Procedure §5122, pp. 405-411 (2d ed. 2005) (hereinafter Fed. Practice) (describing these and other standards of proof).
Among other cases, Justice Cardozo cited Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 695-696 (1886) (“Not only is the burden of proof to make good this defence upon the party setting it up, but... every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 124 (1874) (“The burden of proof rests upon [the defendant], and every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him”); The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275, 285 (1892) (“[This] principle has been repeatedly acted upon in the different circuits”); and Washburn v. Gould, 29 F. Cas. 312, 320 (No. 17,214) (CC Mass. 1844) (charging jury that “if it should so happen, that your minds are led to a reasonable doubt on the question, inasmuch as it is incumbent on the defendant to satisfy you beyond that doubt, you will find for the plaintiff”).
Microsoft objects that this reading of §282 “conflicts with the usual understanding of presumptions.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This proceeding attacks, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the validity of a state tax imposed upon the franchise of a foreign corporation for the privilege of doing business within the State when (1) the business consists solely of interstate commerce, and (2) the tax is computed at a nondiscriminatory rate on that part of the corporation’s net income which is reasonably attributable to its business activities within the State. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we hold this application of the tax invalid.
Petitioner, Spector Motor Service, Inc., is a Missouri corporation engaged exclusively in interstate trucking. It instituted this action in 1942 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Tax Commissioner of that State. It sought to enjoin collection of assessments and penalties totaling $7,795.50, which had been levied against it, for various periods between June 1, 1935, and December 31, 1940, under the Connecticut Corporation Business Tax Act of 1935 and amendments thereto. It asked also for a declaratory judgment as to its liability, if any, under that Act. It claimed that the tax imposed by the Act did not apply to it and that, if it did, such application violated both the Connecticut Constitution and the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. Finally, it alleged that it had no plain, speedy and efficient remedy at law or in equity in the state courts and that the collection of the taxes and penalties by the means provided in the statute would cause it irreparable injury. The District Court took jurisdiction, held that the Act did not apply to petitioner and granted the injunction sought. 47 F. Supp. 671. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed. 139 F. 2d 809. It held that the tax did apply to petitioner and was constitutional. We granted certiorari, 322 U. S. 720, but, after hearing, remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to retain the bill pending the determination of proceedings to be brought in the state court in conformity with the opinion rendered, 323 U. S. 101.
Petitioner thereupon sought a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court for Hartford County, Connecticut. The Superior Court held that the tax was applicable to petitioner but invalid under the Commerce Clause. 15 Conn. Supp. 205. The Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut likewise held that petitioner was subject to the tax but it declined to pass on the effect of the Commerce Clause. 135 Conn. 37, 70, 61 A. 2d 89, 105. On a motion asking it to dissolve its original injunction, the United States District Court declined to do so. 88 F. Supp. 711. It reviewed the recent decisions and held that, applying the Act to petitioner, as required by the interpretation of it by the state courts, such application violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, acting through the same majority as on the previous occasion, reversed. One judge dissented for the reasons stated by the district judge and by the judge who had dissented on the former appeal. 181 F. 2d 150. We granted certiorari because of the fundamental nature of the issue and the apparent conflict between the judgment below and previous judgments of this Court. 340 U. S. 806. The case was argued twice at this term.
The United States District Court had jurisdiction over this case in the first instance because of the uncertainty of the adequacy of a remedy in the state courts, and it did not lose that jurisdiction by virtue of the later clarification of the procedure in the courts of Connecticut. American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U. S. 203; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 255 U. S. 288.
The vital issue which remains is whether the application of the tax to petitioner violates the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. We come to that issue now with the benefit of a statement from the state court of final jurisdiction showing exactly what it is that the State has sought to tax. The all-important “operating incidence” of the tax is thus made clear. After full consideration and with knowledge that its statement would be made the basis of determining the validity of the application of the tax under the Commerce Clause, that court said:
“The tax is then a tax or excise upon the franchise of corporations for the privilege of carrying on or doing business in the state, whether they be domestic or foreign. Stanley Works v. Hackett, 122 Conn. 547, 551, 190 A. 743. Net earnings are used merely for the purpose of determining the amount to be paid by each corporation, a measure which, by the application of the rate charged, was intended to impose upon each corporation a share of the general tax burden as nearly as possible equivalent to that borne by other wealth in the state. As regards a corporation doing business both within and without the state, the intention was, by the use of a rather complicated formula, to measure the tax by determining as fairly as possible the proportionate amount of its business done in this state. There is no ground upon which the tax can be said to rest upon the use of highways by motor trucks . . . 135 Conn. at 56-57, 61 A. 2d at 98-99.
The incidence of the tax is upon no intrastate commerce activities because there are none. Petitioner is engaged only in interstate transportation. Its principal place of business is in Illinois. It is authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to do certain interstate trucking and by the Connecticut Public Utilities Commission to do part of such interstate trucking in Connecticut. Petitioner has filed with the Secretary of State of Connecticut a certificate of its incorporation in Missouri, has designated an agent in Connecticut for service of process and has paid the state fee required in that connection. It has not been authorized by the State of Connecticut to do intrastate trucking and does not engage in it. See Terminal Taxicab Co. v. District of Columbia, 241 U. S. 252, 253-254.
Petitioner’s business is the interstate transportation of freight by motor truck between east and west. When a full truckload is to be shipped to or from any customer in Connecticut, petitioner’s over-the-road trucks go directly to the customer’s place of business. In the case of less-than-truckload shipments, pickup trucks operated by petitioner gather the freight from customers for assembly into full truckloads at either of two terminals maintained within the State. “The pickup trucks merely act as a part of the interstate transportation of the freight.” 135 Conn. at 44, 61 A. 2d at 93.
The tax does not discriminate between interstate and intrastate commerce. Neither the amount of the tax nor its computation need be considered by us in view of our disposition of the case. The objection to its validity does not rest on a claim that it places an unduly heavy burden on interstate commerce in return for protection given by the State. The tax is not levied as compensation for the use of highways or collected in lieu of an ad valorem property tax. Those bases of taxation have been disclaimed by the highest court of the taxing State. It is not a fee for an inspection or a tax on sales or use. It is a “tax or excise” placed unequivocally upon the corporation’s franchise for the privilege of carrying on exclusively interstate transportation in the State. It serves no purpose for the State Tax Commissioner to suggest that, if there were some intrastate commerce involved or if an appropriate tax were imposed as compensation for petitioner’s use of the highways, the same sum of money as is at issue here might be collected lawfully from petitioner. Even though the financial burden on interstate commerce might be the same, the question whether a state may validly make interstate commerce pay its way depends first of all upon the constitutional channel through which it attempts to do so. Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249; McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327.
Taxing power is inherent in sovereign states, yet the states of the United States have divided their taxing power between the Federal Government and themselves. They delegated to the United States the exclusive power to tax the privilege to engage in interstate commerce when they gave Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . . .” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. While the reach of the reserved taxing power of a state is great, the constitutional separation of the federal and state powers makes it essential that no state be permitted to exercise, without authority from Congress, those functions which it has delegated exclusively to Congress. Another example of this basic separation of powers is the inability of the states to tax the agencies through which the United States exercises its sovereign powers. See M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 425-437; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 445-449; Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441.
The answer in the instant case has been made clear by the courts of Connecticut. It is not a matter of labels. The incidence of the tax provides the answer. The courts of Connecticut have held that the tax before us attaches solely to the franchise of petitioner to do interstate business. The State is not precluded from imposing taxes upon other activities or aspects of this business which, unlike the privilege of doing interstate business, are subject to the sovereign power of the State. Those taxes may be imposed although their payment may come out of the funds derived from petitioner’s interstate business, provided the taxes are so imposed that their burden will be reasonably related to the powers of the State and nondiscriminatory.
This Court heretofore has struck down, under the Commerce Clause, state taxes upon the privilege of carrying on a business that was exclusively interstate in character. The constitutional infirmity of such a tax persists no matter how fairly it is apportioned to business done within the state. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Massachusetts, 268 U. S. 203 (measured by percentages of “corporate excess” and net income); Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555 (measured by percentage of capital stock and surplus). See Interstate Pipe Line Co.v. Stone, 337 U. S. 662, 669, et seq. (dissenting opinion which discusses the issue on the assumption that the activities were in interstate commerce); Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Co., 330 U. S. 422; Freeman v. Hewit, supra.
Our conclusion is not in conflict with the principle that, where a taxpayer is engaged both in intrastate and interstate commerce, a state may tax the privilege of carrying on intrastate business and, within reasonable limits, may compute the amount of the charge by applying the tax rate to a fair proportion of the taxpayer’s business done within the state, including both interstate and intrastate. Interstate Pipe Line Co. v. Stone, supra; International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Comm’r of Corporations and Taxation, 298 U. S. 553. The same is true where the taxpayer’s business activity is local in nature, such as the transportation of passengers between points within the same state, although including interstate travel, Central Greyhound Lines v. Medley, 334 U. S. 653, or the publication of a newspaper, Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250. See also, Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80.
In this field there is not only reason but long-established precedent for keeping the federal privilege of carrying on exclusively interstate commerce free from state taxation. To do so gives lateral support to one of the cornerstones of our constitutional law — M’Culloch v. Maryland, supra.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed that of the District Court, is accordingly
Reversed.
“Sec. 418c. Imposition op tax. Every mutual savings bank, savings and loan association and building and loan association doing business in this state, and every other corporation or association carrying on business in this state which is required to report to the collector of internal revenue for the district in which such corporation or association has its principal place of business for the purpose of assessment, collection and payment of an income tax [with exceptions not material here] . . . shall pay, annually, a tax or excise upon its franchise for the privilege of carrying on or doing business within the state, such tax to be measured by the entire net income as herein defined received by such corporation or association from business transacted within the state during the income year and to be assessed at the rate of two per cent; . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Conn. Gen. Stat. Cum. Supp. 1935.
This section was amended in 1937 by inserting in the first italicized clause, after the words “every other corporation or association carrying on,” the words “or having the right to carry on.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Cum. Supp. 1939, § 354e. Our conclusion is the same as to the assessments levied before and those levied after the amendment.
The current revision of the statute, as subsequently amended, appears in Conn. Gen. Stat., 1949, §§ 1896-1921.
“. . .no [United States] district court shall have jurisdiction of any suit to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax imposed by or pursuant to the laws of any State where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy may be had at law or in equity in the courts of such State.” 50 Stat. 738, 28 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 41 (1). See 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. Ill) § 1341.
Wisconsin v. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444.
See Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U. S. 542; Aero Transit Co. v. Board of Comm’rs, 332 U. S. 495; Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 U. S. 245 (Conn. excise tax on the use of the highways). Cf. Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80; McCarroll v. Dixie Lines, 309 U. S. 176.
See Interstate Pipe Line Co. v. Stone, 337 U. S. 662, 679; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota, 246 U. S. 450; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688.
The decision in Memphis Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U. S. 649, upheld a Tennessee tax on earnings of the taxpayer within that State where the earnings were derived from the intrastate distribution of gas by the taxpayer in a joint enterprise with the Memphis Power & Light Company. Any suggestion in that opinion as to the possible validity of such a tax if applied to earnings derived wholly from interstate commerce is not essential to the decision in the case.
See International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416; Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U. S. 501; Department of Treasury v. Wood Preserving Corp., 313 U. S. 62; Ford Motor Co. v. Beauchamp, 308 U. S. 331; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S. 77; Hans Rees’ Sons v. North Carolina, 283 U. S. 123; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises questions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States concerning the validity of appellant’s dismissal from his position as a subway conductor in the New York City Transit System. The dismissal was pursuant to the Security Risk Law of the State of New York, N. Y. Laws 1951, c. 233, as amended, N. Y. Laws 1954, c. 105.
The Security Risk Law, enacted by New York in 1951, provides in pertinent part as follows: The State Civil Service Commission is authorized to classify any bureau or agency within the State as a “security agency” (§3), defined as any unit of government “. . . wherein functions are performed which are necessary to the security or defense of the nation and the state . . . .” (§2.) The appointing authority in each such agency is given powers of suspension and dismissal as to any employee if, after investigation, it is found that, . . upon all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that, because of doubtful trust and reliability, the employment of such person . . . [in a security agency] would endanger the security or defense of the nation and the state” (§5). Such evidence is not to be restricted by normal rules prevailing in the courts, and the required finding may be based upon an employee’s past conduct “. . . which may include, . . . but shall not be limited to evidence of . . . (d) membership in any organization or group found by the state civil service commission to be subversive” (§ 7). A discharged employee has a right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission, which may take further evidence (§6).
In November 1953 the Commission determined the New York City Transit Authority, which the appellees in this case constitute, to be a “security agency,” and in March 1954 it listed the Communist Party of the United States as a “subversive group,” adopting, as contemplated by the Security Risk Law, the similar listing of the State Board of Regents made under the provisions of the Feinberg Law, N. Y. Laws 1949, c. 360, after hearings at which the Party appeared by counsel. In September 1954 appellant was summoned to the office of the Commissioner of Investigation of the City of New York in the course of an investigation being conducted under the Security Risk Law. Appellant, who had been sworn, was asked whether he was then a member of the Communist Party, but he refused to answer and claimed his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. After he had been advised of the provisions of the Security Risk Law and given time to reconsider his refusal and to engage counsel, appellant, accompanied by counsel, made two further appearances in September and October before the Department of Investigation, on each of which he adhered to his initial position.
Appellees, informed of these events, thereupon adopted a resolution suspending appellant without pay and sent him a copy of the resolution with a covering letter. This letter notified appellant that his suspension followed a finding under § 5 of the Security Risk Law . . that upon all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that, because of doubtful trust and reliability . . . ,” appellant’s continued employment would endanger national and state security. This finding was based on appellant’s refusal “. . . to answer questions as to whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party and [invocation of] the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . . .” Appellant was also advised, pursuant to § 5 of the Security Risk Law, that he had thirty days within which to submit statements or affidavits showing why he should be reinstated. At the expiration of this period appellees, having heard nothing further from appellant, dismissed him from his position by a resolution which confirmed the previous “suspension” findings.
Appellant did not appeal to the Civil Service Commission, as was his statutory right, but brought this proceeding in the state courts for reinstatement. He attacked appellees’ actions on various grounds, including the constitutional grounds asserted here. The State Supreme Court, assuming jurisdiction despite appellant’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, upheld the Security Risk Law and its application to appellant as constitutional, ruled adversely to appellant’s state law contentions, and dismissed the proceeding. 138 N. Y. S. 2d 777. The Appellate Division, 2 App. Div. 2d 1, 154 N. Y. S. 2d 461 (2d Dept.), and the Court of Appeals, 2 N. Y. 2d 355, 141 N. E. 2d 533, both affirmed, each by a divided court. An appeal to this Court was brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), and we postponed to the hearing on the merits the question of our jurisdiction. 355 U. S. 803. As will appear from this opinion, we consider that the constitutional questions before us relate primarily, and more substantially, to the propriety of the findings made by appellees rather than to the validity of the provisions of the Security Risk Law. Accordingly, we think it the better course to dismiss the appeal, and to treat the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is hereby granted. 28 U. S. C. § 2103. Cf. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 236.
We address ourselves initially to appellant’s constitutional challenges to the Security Risk Law in its entirety or to certain of its provisions. It is said that New York’s statute deprives him of procedural due process, in that it provides for dismissal of employees in the first instance without a statutory right to a hearing, opportunity for cross-examination, or disclosure of the evidence on which dismissal is based. However, appellant is in no position to complain of procedural defects in the statute. His own refusal to answer blocked proceedings at his appearances before the Department of Investigation, and more important he failed to pursue his administrative remedy by appealing to and obtaining a hearing before the State Civil Service Commission.
Appellant further argues that the Security Risk Law could not be applied to him in 1954 since at that time no public emergency existed which could justify the law. But New York's right to enact legislation to protect its public service against the employment of persons fairly deemed untrustworthy and unreliable, and therefore security risks, can hardly be regarded as constitutionally dependent upon the existence of a public emergency, and we do not think it open to us to inquire into the motives which led the State Legislature to extend the Security Risk Law beyond its original effective period. Nor can we say that it was so irrational as to make it constitutionally impermissible for New York to apply this statute to one employed in the major artery of New York’s transportation system, even though appellant’s daily task was simply to open and shut subway doors. We are not here concerned with the wisdom, but solely with the constitutional validity, of the application of this statute to appellant.
Finally, the claim that the statute offends due process because dismissal of an employee may be based on mere present membership in the Communist Party, without regard to the character of such membership, cf. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, must also fail. Apart from the fact that the statute simply makes membership in an organization found to be subversive one of the elements which may enter into the ultimate determination as to “doubtful trust and reliability,” appellant, as the Court of Appeals viewed the administrative proceedings and as we accordingly treat them here, was not discharged on grounds that he was a party member.
We come then to what we consider appellant’s major constitutional claim, which goes to the manner in which the Security Risk Law was applied to him. It is contended that the administrative finding of reasonable grounds for belief that he was “of doubtful trust and reliability,” and therefore a security risk, offends due process. The contention is (1) that the finding rests on an inference, that appellant was a member of the Communist Party, which was drawn from appellant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and that this inference lacked any rational connection with appellant’s refusal to answer based on the exercise of this constitutional privilege; and (2) that the drawing of such an inference was in any event in derogation of the policy behind the Fifth Amendment privilege and contrary to the teaching of this Court’s decision in Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U. S. 551. We think this contention both misconceives the basis on which the Court of Appeals sustained appellant’s dismissal and assumes incorrectly the availability of the Fifth Amendment to appellant in these proceedings. Consequently it must be rejected in both its aspects.
As we read its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that appellant had been discharged neither because of any inference of Communist Party membership which was drawn from the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege nor because of the assertion of that constitutional protection, but rather because of the doubt created as to his “reliability” by his refusal to answer a relevant question put by his employer, a doubt which the court held justifiable quite independently of appellant’s reasons for his silence. In effect, the administrative action was interpreted to rest solely on the refusal to respond. The Court of Appeals said:
“[N]o inference of membership in [the Communist] party was drawn from [appellant’s] refusal to reply to the question asked .... [Appellant] was not discharged for invoking the Fifth Amendment; he was discharged for creating a doubt as to his trustworthiness and reliability by refusing to answer the question as to Communist party membership.” 2 N. Y. 2d, at 372, 141 N. E. 2d, at 542.
In other words, we read the court’s opinion as meaning that a finding of doubtful trust and reliability could justifiably be based on appellant’s lack of frankness, cf. Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U. S. 716; Beilan v. Board of Public Education, ante, p. 399, decided today, just as if he had refused to give any other information about himself which might be relevant to his employment. It was this lack of candor which provided the evidence of appellant’s doubtful trust and reliability which under the New York statutory scheme constituted him a security risk. The Court of Appeals went on to reason that had appellant refused, without more, to answer the question, the finding of “doubtful trust and reliability” would have undoubtedly been permissible, and that the basis for such a finding, in appellant’s refusal to answer, was not destroyed by the claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege because the Commissioner was not required to accept that claim as an adequate explanation of the refusal.
Accepting, as we do, these premises of the state court’s opinion, we find no constitutional block to its decision sustaining appellant’s dismissal from employment. Postponing for the moment the question whether appellant was entitled to rely in this local investigation on the federal privilege, it seems clear that the discharge here in any event was unlike that in Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, supra, in that, as definitively interpreted by the Court of Appeals, it was not based on the fact that the employee had asserted Fifth Amendment rights. Further, in Slochower such a claim had been asserted in a federal inquiry having nothing to do with the qualifications of persons for state employment, and the Court in its opinion carefully distinguished that situation from one where, as here, a State is conducting an inquiry into fitness of its employees. Nor, as the Court of Appeals stressed, was the claim of possible self-incrimination made the basis for an inference that appellant was a Communist and therefore unreliable. Hence we are not faced here with the question whether party membership may rationally be inferred from a refusal to answer a question directed to present membership where the refusal rests on the belief that an answer might incriminate, cf. Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, or with the question whether membership in the Communist Party which might be “innocent” can be relied upon as a ground for denial of state employment. Cf. Wieman v. Updegraff, supra; Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U. S. 252; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232.
We think it scarcely debatable that had there been no claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, New York would have been constitutionally entitled to conclude from appellant’s refusal to answer what must be conceded to have been a question relevant to the purposes of the statute and his employment, cf. Garner v. Board of Public Works, supra, that he was of doubtful trust and reliability. Such a conclusion is not “so strained as not to have a reasonable relation to the circumstances of life as we know them.” Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 468. This Court pointed out in Garner that a government employee can be required upon pain- of dismissal to respond to inquiry probing into matters relevant to his employment, and that present membership in the Communist Party is such a matter. See also Beilan v. Board of Public Education, supra. Certainly it is not a controlling constitutional distinction that New York, rather than impose on employees, as in Garner and Beilan, an absolute duty to respond to permissible inquiry upon threat of dismissal for refusal, has in these proceedings held that an employee lacking in candor to his governmental employer evidences doubt as to his trust and reliability. Finally, unlike the situation involved in Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, supra, there is here no problem of inadequate notice as to the consequences of refusal to answer, for appellant was specifically notified that continued refusal might lead to his dismissal.
The fact that New York has chosen to base its dismissal of employees whom it finds to be of doubtful trust and reliability on the ground that they are in effect “security risks” hardly requires a different determination. The classification is not so arbitrary that we would be justified in saying that it is constitutionally impermissible in its application to one in appellant's position. Neither the New York statute nor courts purported to equate this ground for dismissal with “disloyalty.” That term, which carries a distinct connotation, was never relied upon by New York as justification for appellant’s dismissal.
The issue then reduces to the narrow question whether the conclusion which could otherwise be reached from appellant’s refusal to answer is constitutionally barred because his refusal was accompanied by the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege. We think it does not. The federal privilege against self-incrimination was not available to appellant through the Fourteenth Amendment in this state investigation. Knapp v. Schweitzer, ante, p. 371, decided today; Adamson v. California, supra. And we see no merit in appellant’s suggestion that, despite the teachings of these cases, the plea was available to him in this instance because the State was acting as agent for, or in collaboration with, the Federal Government. This contention finds no support in the record. Hence we are not here concerned with the protection, as a matter of policy or constitutional requirement, to be accorded persons who under similar circumstances, in a federal inquiry, validly invoke the federal privilege. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 3481; Wilson v. United States, 149 U. S. 60; Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, supra; Grunewald v. United States, 363 U.S. 391. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that appellant’s explanation for his silence precluded New York from con- . eluding that his failure to respond to relevant inquiry engendered reasonable doubt as to his trustworthiness and reliability.
We hold that appellant’s discharge was not in violation of rights assured him by the Federal Constitution.
Affirmed.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 409.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Warren, see ante, p. 411.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by Mr. Justice Black, see ante, p. 412.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 417.]
The state statute was originally passed as an emergency measure and thereafter extended from year to year. The present terminal date is June 30, 1958.
A subversive organization is defined in § 8 as one which is found “. . . to advocate, advise, teach or embrace the doctrine that the government of the United States or of any state or of any political subdivision thereof shall be overthrown or overturned by force, violence or any unlawful means, or to advocate, advise, teach or embrace the duty, necessity or propriety of adopting any such doctrine . . . .”
The New York Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority was a state body corporate subject to classification under the Security Risk Law and sustained the Commission’s determination that it was a “security agency.” 2 N. Y. 2d 355, 365-367, 141 N. E. 2d 533, 538-539. We consider ourselves bound by these holdings.
The Court of Appeals held that the Commissioner of Investigation, although a city official, was authorized to act with respect to these matters arising under the Security Risk Law and to conduct these investigations.
Appellant did not specifically state that his refusal to answer was based on his belief that an answer might incriminate him but simply explained his silence by reference to the “Fifth Amendment.” We consider this reference, without regard to the availability of the Fifth Amendment to appellant in this state investigation (see p. 477, infra), to be equivalent to an assertion of a claim of possible self-incrimination. See Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 162-163; Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, 194.
For convenience, we shall continue to refer to the parties as appellant and appellees.
We must also reject the contention that appellant was denied due process in that the resolution made the basis for his dismissal noted not only his refusal to answer but also "... that further investigation has revealed activities on the part of [appellant] which give reasonable ground for belief that he is not a good security risk. . . .” These other activities were not revealed to appellant. But this issue is not before us, since the state court sustained the dismissal solely on the basis of appellant’s refusal to answer. In any event had appellant pursued his administrative remedy, he could have sought disclosure and review of such evidence before the Civil Service Commission.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Pee Curiam.
We granted certiorari in- these cases in which the United Státes seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post .'from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled “History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.” Post, pp. 942, 943.
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for' the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.
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.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
WOKO, Incorporated, for some years has operated a radio station at Albany, New York, and appears to have rendered public service of acceptable quality and to be able to continue. The Federal Communications Commission refused to renew its license because of misrepresentations made to the Commission and its predecessor as to the ownership of the applicant’s capital stock. Two hundred and forty shares, being twenty-four per cent of its outstanding capital stock, was owned by one Pickard and his family. For some twelve years they received all dividends paid on the stock and Pickard took an active interest in the Company’s affairs. He also was a vice-president of the Columbia Broadcasting Company and had obtained the stock on the assurance that he would help to secure Columbia affiliation for Station WOKO, would furnish, without charge, Columbia engineers to construct the station at Albany, and would supply a grand piano and certain newspaper publicity.
The company, however, in reporting to the Federal Radio Commission and to the Federal Communications Commission the names of its stockholders as it was required to do for many years and in many applications, concealed the fact that the Pickards held this stock interest and represented that the shares were held by others. Its general manager appeared on behalf of the applicant at various hearings and furnished false testimony to both Commissions regarding the identity of the corporation stockholders and the shares held by each so as to conceal the Pickard holdings. The purpose of the concealment was to prevent the facts from becoming known to Pickard’s Columbia colleagues.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the Commission’s decision denying renewal of the license, a majority for the various reasons that we will consider. The dissenting Chief Justice noted that he did “very heartily agree with the view that this is a hard case. The Commission’s drastic order, terminating the life of the station, punishes the innocent equally with the guilty, and in its results is contrary to the Commission’s action in several other comparable cases. But that the making of the order was within the discretion of the Commission, I think is reasonably clear.” 153 F. 2d 623, 633. We granted certiorari' because of the importance of the issue to the administration of the Act.
We come to a consideration of the reasons which led the Court of Appeals to reverse the order of the Commission under the admonition that “review by the court shall be limited to questions of law and that findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or capricious.” 48 Stat. 1094,47 U. S. C. § 402 (e).
The Act provides as to applications such as WOKO filed that “All such applications shall set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the applicant to operate the station; the ownership and location of the proposed station . . . and such other information as it may require.” It requires such statements to be under oath or affirmation. 48 Stat. 1085, 47 U. S. C. § 308 (b). It provides, too, that any station license may be revoked for false statements in the application. 48 Stat. 1086,47 U. S. C. § 312 (a).
It is said that in this case the Commission failed to find that the concealment was of material facts or had influenced. the Commission in making any decision, or that it would have acted differently had it known that the Pick-ards were the beneficial owners of the stock. We think this is beside the point. The fact of concealment may be more significant than the facts concealed. The willingness to deceive a regulatory body may be disclosed by immaterial and useless deceptions as well as by material and persuasive ones. We do not think it is an answer to say that the deception was unnecessary and served no purpose. If the applicant had forthrightly refused to supply the information on the ground that it was not material, we should expect the Commission would have rejected the application and would have been sustained in so doing. If we would hold it not unlawful, arbitrary or capricious to require the information before granting a renewal, it seems difficult to say that it is unlawful, arbitrary or capricious to refuse a renewal where true information is withheld and false information is substituted.
We are told that stockholders owning slightly more than 50 per cent of the stock are not found to have had any part in or knowledge of the concealment or deception of the Commission. This may be a very proper consideration for the Commission in determining just and appropriate action. But as matter of law, the fact that there are innocent stockholders can not immunize the corporation from the consequences of such deception. If officers of the corporation by such mismanagement waste its assets, presumably the State law affords adequate remedies against the wrongdoers. But in this as in other matters, stockholders entrust their interests to their chosen officers and often suffer for their dereliction. Consequences of such acts cannot be escaped by a corporation merely because not all of its stockholders participated.
Respondent complains that the present case constitutes a departure from the course which the Commission has taken in dealing with misstatements and applications in other cases. Much is made in argument of the fact that deceptions of this character have not been uncommon and it is claimed that they have not been dealt with so severely as in this case. Cf. Navarro Broadcasting Association, 8 F. C. C. 198. But the very fact that temporizing and compromising with deception seemed not to discourage it, may have led the Commission to the drastic measures here taken to preserve the integrity of its own system of reports. The mild measures to others and the apparently unannounced change of policy are considerations appropriate for the Commission in determining whether its action in this case is too drastic, but we cannot say that the Commission is bound by anything that appears before us to deal with all cases at all times as it has dealt with some that seem comparable.
It also is contended that this order inflicts a penalty, that the motive is punishment and that since the Commission is given no powers to penalize persons, its order must fall. We think it unnecessary to indulge in the exposition of what a penalty is. It is enough to decide this case to know what a penalty is not. A denial of an application for a license because of the insufficiency or deliberate falsity of the information lawfully required to be furnished is not a penal measure. It may hurt and it may cause loss, but it is not made illegal, arbitrary or capricious by that fact.
Lastly, and more importantly, the Court of Appeals suggested that in order to justify refusal to renew, the Commission should have made findings with respect to the quality of the station’s service in the past and its equipment for good service in the future. Evidence of the station’s adequate service was introduced at the hearing. The Commission on the other hand insists that in administering the Act it must rely upon the reports of licensees. It points out that this concealment was not caused by slight inadvertence nor was it an isolated instance, but that the Station carried on the course of deception for approximately twelve years. It says that in deciding whether the proposed operations would serve public interest, convenience or necessity, consideration must be given to the character, background and training of all parties having an interest in the proposed license, and that it cannot be required to exercise the discretion vested in it to entrust the responsibilities of a licensee to an applicant guilty of a systematic course of deception.
We cannot say that the Commission is required as a matter of law to grant a license on a deliberately false application even if the falsity were not of this duration and character, nor can we say that refusal to renew the license is arbitrary and capricious under such circumstances. It may very well be that this Station has established such a standard of public service that the Commission would be justified in considering that its deception was not a matter that affected its qualifications to serve the public. But it is the Commission, not the courts, which must be satisfied that the public interest will be served by renewing the license. And the fact that we might not have made the same determination on the same facts does not warrant a substitution of judicial for administrative discretion since Congress has confided the problem to the latter. We agree that this is a hard case, but we cannot agree that it should be allowed to make bad law.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case remanded to that court with direction to remand to the Commission.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 879, bars a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan from causing the plan to engage in certain transactions with a “party in interest.” 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a). Section 502(a)(3) authorizes a “participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary” of a plan to bring a civil aetion to obtain “appropriate equitable relief” to redress violations of ERISA Title I. 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3). The question is whether that authorization extends to a suit against a non-fiduciary “party in interest” to a transaction barred by § 406(a). We hold that it does.
I
Responding to deficiencies in prior law regulating transactions by plan fiduciaries, Congress enacted ERISA § 406(a)(1), which supplements the fiduciary’s general duty of loyalty to the plan’s beneficiaries, § 404(a), by categorically barring certain transactions deemed “likely to injure the pension plan,” Commissioner v. Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 152, 160 (1993). Section 406(a)(1) provides, among other things, that “[a] fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect. . . sale or exchange ... of any property between the plan and a party in interest.” 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1)(A). Congress defined “party in interest” to encompass those entities that a fiduciary might be inclined to favor at the expense of the plan’s beneficiaries. See § 3(14), 29 U. S. C. § 1002(14). Section 406’s prohibitions are subject to both statutory and regulatory exemptions. See §§ 408(a), (b), 29U.S. C. §§ 1108(a), (b).
This ease comes to us on the assumption that an ERISA pension plan (the Ameriteeh Pension Trust (APT)) and a party in interest (respondent Salomon Smith Barney (Salo-mon)) entered into a transaction prohibited by § 406(a) and not exempted by § 408. APT provides pension benefits to employees and retirees of Ameriteeh Corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Salomon, during the late 1980’s, provided broker-dealer services to APT, executing nondis-cretionary equity trades at the direction of APT’s fiduciaries, thus qualifying itself (we assume) as a “party in interest.” See §3(14)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1002(14)(B) (defining “party in interest” as “a person providing services to [an employee benefit] plan”). During the same period, Salomon sold interests in several motel properties to APT for nearly $21 million. APT’s purchase of the motel interests was directed by National Investment Services of America (NISA), an investment manager to which Ameriteeh had delegated investment discretion over a portion of the plan’s assets, and hence a fiduciary of APT, see §3(21)(A)(i), 29 U. S. C. § lG02(21)(A)(i).
This litigation arose when APT’s fiduciaries — its trustee, petitioner Harris Trust and Savings Bank, and its administrator, petitioner Ameriteeh Corporation — discovered that the motel interests were nearly worthless. Petitioners maintain that the interests had been worthless all along; Salomon asserts, to the contrary, that the interests declined in value due to a downturn in the motel industry. Whatever the true cause, petitioners sued Salomon in 1992 under § 502(a)(3), which authorizes a “participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary” to bring a civil action “to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of [ERISA Title I]. .. or . . . to obtain other appropriate equitable relief... to redress such violations.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3).
Petitioners claimed, among other things, that NISA, as plan fiduciary, had caused the plan to engage in a per se prohibited transaction under § 406(a) in purchasing the motel interests from Salomon, and that Salomon was liable on account of its participation in the transaction as a nonfiduei-ary party in interest. Specifically, petitioners pointed to § 406(a)(1)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1)(A), which prohibits a “sale or exchange ... of any property between the plan and a party in interest,” and § 406(a)(1)(D), 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1)(D), whieh prohibits a “transfer to ... a party in interest... of any assets of the plan.” Petitioners sought rescission of the transaction, restitution from Salomon of the purchase price with interest, and disgorgement of Salomon’s profits made from use of the plan assets transferred to it. App. 41.
Salomon moved for summary judgment, arguing that § 502(a)(3), when used to remedy a transaction prohibited by § 406(a), authorizes a suit only against the party expressly constrained by § 406(a) — the fiduciary who caused the plan to enter the transaction — and not against the counterparty to the transaction. See § 406(a)(1), 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1) (“A fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction...” (emphasis added)). The District Court denied the motion, holding that ERISA does provide a private cause of action against nonfiduciaries who participate in a prohibited transaction, but granted Salomon’s subsequent motion for certification of the issue for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b).
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 184 F. 3d 646 (1999). It began with the observation that § 406(a), by its terms and like several of its neighboring provisions, e.g., §404, governs only the conduct of fiduciaries, not of counterparties or other nonfiduciaries. See id., at 650. The court next posited that “where ERISA does not expressly impose a duty, there can be no cause of action,” ibid., relying upon dictum in our decision in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 254 (1993), that § 502(a)(3) does not provide a private cause of action against a nonfiduciary for knowing participation in a fiduciary’s breach of duty. The Seventh Circuit saw no distinction between the Mertens situation (involving §404) and the instant case (involving §406), explaining that neither section expressly imposes a duty on nonfidueiaries. Finally, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, Congress’ decision to authorize the Secretary of Labor to impose a civil penalty on a nonfiduciary “party in interest” to a § 406 transaction, see § 502(i), simply confirms that Congress deliberately selected one enforcement tool (a civil penalty imposed by the Secretary) instead of another (a civil action under § 502(a)(3)). Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit held that a nonfiduciary cannot be liable under § 502(a)(3) for participating in a §406 transaction and entered summary judgment in favor of Salomon.
In doing so, the Seventh Circuit departed from the uniform position of the Courts of Appeals that § 502(a)(3) — and the similarly worded § 502(a)(5), which authorizes civil actions by the Secretary — does authorize a civil action against a non-fiduciary who participates in a transaction prohibited by § 406(a)(1). See LeBlanc v. Cahill, 153 F. 3d 134, 152-153 (CA4 1998) (§ 502(a)(3)); Landwehr v. DuPree, 72 F. 3d 726, 734 (CA9 1995) (same); Herman v. South Carolina National Bank, 140 F. 3d 1413, 1421-1422 (CA11 1998) (§ 502(a)(5)), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1140 (1999); Reich v. Stangl, 73 F. 3d 1027, 1032 (CA10) (same), cert. denied, 519 U. S. 807 (1996); Reich v. Compton, 57 F. 3d 270, 287 (CA3 1995) (same). We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1068 (2000), and now reverse.
H-4
We agree with the Seventh Circuit’s and Salomon’s interpretation of § 406(a). They rightly note that § 406(a) imposes a duty only on the fiduciary that causes the plan to engage in the transaction. See § 406(a)(1), 29 U. S. C. § 1106(a)(1) ("A fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction . . .” (emphasis added)). We reject, however, the Seventh Circuit’s and Salomon’s conclusion that, absent a substantive provision of ERISA expressly imposing a duty upon a nonfiduciary party in interest, the nonfidueiary party may not be held liable under § 502(a)(3), one of ERISA’s remedial provisions. Petitioners contend, and we agree, that § 502(a)(3) itself imposes certain duties, and therefore that liability under that provision does not depend on whether ERISA’s substantive provisions impose a specific duty on the party being sued.
Section 502 provides:
“(a) . . .
"A civil action may be brought—
“(3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of [ERISA Title I] 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 title or the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3).
This language, to be sure, “does not . . . 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.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U. S. 349, 353 (1996) (quoting Mertens, supra, at 253 (emphasis and alterations in original)). But § 502(a)(3) admits of no limit (aside from the “appropriate equitable relief” caveat, which we address infra) on the universe of possible defendants. Indeed, § 502(a)(3) makes no mention at all of which parties may be proper defendants — the focus, instead, is on redressing the “act or practice which violates any provision of [ERISA Title I].” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (emphasis added). Other provisions of ERISA, by contrast, do expressly address who may be a defendant. See, e.g., § 409(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1109(a) (stating that “[a]wy person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this subehapter shall be personally liable” (emphasis added)); § 502(Z), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(Z) (authorizing imposition of civil penalties only against a “fiduciary” who violates part 4 of Title I or “any other person” who knowingly participates in such a violation). And § 502(a) itself demonstrates Congress’ care in delineating the universe of plaintiffs who may bring certain civil actions. See, e. g., § 502(a)(3), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (“A civil action may be brought ... by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary . . .” (emphasis added)); § 502(a)(5), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(5) (“A civil action may be brought ... by the Secretary ...” (emphasis added)).
In light of Congress’ precision in these respects, we would ordinarily assume that Congress’ failure to specify proper defendants in § 502(a)(3) was intentional. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983). But ERISA’s “‘comprehensive and reticulated’” scheme warrants a cautious approach to inferring remedies not expressly authorized by the text, Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134, 146 (1985) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359,361 (1980)), especially given the alternative and intuitively appealing interpretation, urged by Salomon, that § 502(a)(3) authorizes suits only against defendants upon whom a duty is imposed by ERISA’s substantive provisions. In this case, however, § 502(2) resolves the matter — it compels the conclusion that defendant status under § 502(a)(3) may arise from duties imposed by § 502(a)(3) itself, and hence does not turn on whether the defendant is expressly subject to a duty under one of ERISA’s substantive provisions.
Section 502(Z) provides in relevant part:
“(1) In the case of—
“(A) any breach of fiduciary responsibility under (or other violation of) part 4 of this subtitle 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.
“(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘applicable recovery amount’ means any amount which is recovered from a fiduciary or other person with respect to a breach or violation described in paragraph (1)—
“(A) pursuant to any settlement agreement with the Secretary, or
“(B) ordered by a court to be paid by such fiduciary or other person to a plan or its participants and beneficiaries in a judicial proceeding instituted by the_ Secretary under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(5) of this section.” 29 U.S. C. §§ 1132(Z)(1) — (2).
Section 502(Z) contemplates civil penalty actions by the Secretary against two classes of defendants, fiduciaries and “other person[s].” The latter class concerns us here. Paraphrasing, the Secretary shall assess a civil penalty against an “other person” who “knowing[ly] participates] in” “any ... violation of... part 4 ... by a fiduciary.” And the amount of such penalty is defined by reference to the amount “ordered by a court to be paid by such . . . other person to a plan or its participants and beneficiaries in a judicial proceeding instituted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(5).” Ibid, (emphasis added).
The plain implication is that the Secretary may bring a civil action under § 502(a)(5) against an “other person” who “knowing[ly] participates]” in a fiduciary’s violation; otherwise, there could be no “applicable recovery amount” from which to determine the amount of the civil penalty to be imposed on the “other person.” This § 502(a)(5) action is available notwithstanding the absence of any ERISA provision explicitly imposing a duty upon an “other person” not to engage in such “knowing participation.” And if the Secretary may bring suit against an “other person” under subsection (a)(5), it follows that a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary may bring suit against an “other person” under the similarly worded subsection (a)(3). See Mertens, 508 U. S., at 260. Section 502©, therefore, refutes the notion that § 502(a)(3) (or (a)(5)) liability hinges on whether the particular defendant labors under a duty expressly imposed by the substantive provisions of ERISA Title I.
Salomon invokes Mertens as articulating an alternative, more restrictive reading of § 502© that does not support the inference we have drawn. In Mertens, we suggested, in dictum, that the “other person[s]” in § 502© might be limited to the “eofidueiaries” made expressly liable under § 405(a) for knowingly participating in another fiduciary’s breach of fiduciary responsibility. Id., at 261. So read, § 502© would be consistent with the view that liability under § 502(a)(3) depends entirely on whether the particular defendant violated a duty expressly imposed by the substantive provisions of ERISA Title I. But the Mertens dictum did not discuss— understandably, since we were merely flagging the issue, see 508 U. S., at 255, 260-261 — that ERISA defines the term “person” without regard to status as a cofidueiary (or, for that matter, as a fiduciary or party in interest), see § 3(9), 29 U. S. C. §1002(9). Moreover, § 405(a) indicates that a eofi-duciary is itself a fiduciary, see § 405(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1105(a) (“[A] fiduciary . . . shall be liable for a breach of fiduciary responsibility of another fiduciary . ..”), and § 502© clearly distinguishes between a “fiduciary,” § 502©(1)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1132©(1)(A), and an “other person,” §502©(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1132©(1)(B).
Ill
Notwithstanding the text of § 502(a)(3) (as informed by § 502©), Salomon protests that it would contravene common sense for Congress to have imposed civil liability on a party, such as a nonfidueiary party in interest to a § 406(a) transaction, that is not a “wrongdoer” in the sense of violating a duty expressly imposed by the substantive provisions of ERISA Title I. Salomon raises the specter of § 502(a)(3) suits being brought against innocent parties — even those having no connection to the allegedly unlawful “act or practice” — rather than against the true wrongdoer, i. e., the fiduciary that caused the plan to engage in the transaction.
But this reductio ad absurdum ignores the limiting principle explicit in § 502(a)(3): that the retrospective relief sought be “appropriate equitable relief.” The common law of trusts, which offers a “starting point for analysis [of ERISA] . . . [unless] it is inconsistent with the language of the statute, its structure, or its purposes,” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 447 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted), plainly countenances the sort of relief sought by petitioners against Salomon here. As petitioners and amicus curiae the United States observe, it has long been settled that when a trustee in breach of his fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries transfers trust property to a third person, the third person takes the property subject to the trust, unless he has purchased the property for value and without notice of the fiduciary’s breach of duty. The trustee or beneficiaries may then maintain an action for restitution of the property (if not already disposed of) or disgorgement of proceeds (if already disposed of), and disgorgement of the third person’s profits derived therefrom. See, e. g., Restatement (Second) of Trusts §§284, 291, 294, 295, 297 (1957); 4 A. Scott & W. Frateher, Law of Trusts §284, §291.1, pp. 77-78, §294.2, p. 101, §297 (4th ed. 1989) (hereinafter Law of Trusts); 5 id., §470, at 363; 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §4.7(1), pp. 660-661 (2d ed. 1993); G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees §866, pp. 95-96 (rev. 2d ed. 1995). As we long ago explained in the analogous situation of property obtained by fraud:
“Whenever the legal title to property is obtained through means or under circumstances ‘which render it uneonseientious for the holder of the legal title to retain and enjoy the beneficial interest, equity impresses a constructive trust on the property thus acquired in favor of the one who is truly and equitably entitled to the same, although he may never, perhaps, have had any legal estate therein; and a court of equity has jurisdiction to reach the property either in the hands of the original wrongdoer, or in the hands of any subsequent holder, until a purchaser of it in good faith and without notice acquires a higher right and takes the property relieved from the trust.’ ” Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122,128 (1889) (quoting 2 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 1053, pp. 628-629 (1886)).
Importantly, that a transferee was not “the original wrongdoer” does not insulate him from liability for restitution. See also, e. g., Restatement of Restitution ch. 7, Introductory Note, p. 522 (1937); 1 Dobbs, supra, §4.3(2), at 597 (“The constructive trust is based on property, not wrongs”). It also bears emphasis that the common law of trusts sets limits on restitution actions against defendants other than the principal “wrongdoer.” Only a transferee of ill-gotten trust assets may be held liable, and then only when the transferee (assuming he has purchased for value) knew or should have known of the existence of the trust and the circumstances that rendered the transfer in breach of the trust. Translated to the instant context, the transferee must be demonstrated to have had actual or constructive knowledge of the circumstances that rendered the transaction unlawful. Those circumstances, in turn, involve a showing that the plan fiduciary, with actual or constructive knowledge of the facts satisfying the elements of a § 406(a) transaction, caused the plan to engage in the transaction. Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U. S. 882, 888-889 (1996).
The common law additionally leads us to reject Salomon’s complaint that our view of § 502(a)(3) would incongruously allow not only the harmed beneficiaries, but also the culpable fiduciary, to seek restitution from the arguably less culpable counterparty-transferee. The common law sees no incongruity in such a rule, see Restatement (Second) of Trusts, supra, §294, at 69 (“[A]n action can be maintained against the transferee either by the beneficiary or the trustee”); 4 Law of Trusts §294.2, at 101, and for good reason: “Although the trustee bases his cause of action upon his own voluntary act, and even though the act was knowingly done in breach of his duty to the beneficiary, he is permitted to maintain the action, sinee the purpose of the action is to recover money or other property for the trust estate, and whatever he recovers he will hold subject to the trust.” Restatement (Second) of Trusts, supra, §294, Comment c.
But Salomon advances a more fundamental critique of the common-law analogy, reasoning that the antecedent violation here — a violation of § 406(a)’s per se prohibitions on transacting with a party in interest — was unknown at common law, and that common-law liability should not attach to an act that does not violate a common-law duty. While Salomon accurately characterizes § 406(a) as expanding upon the common law’s arm’s-length standard of conduct, see Keystone Consol. Industries, 508 U. S., at 160, we reject Salomon’s unsupported suggestion that remedial principles of the common law are tethered to the precise contours of common-law duty.
We note, however, that our interpretation of § 502(a)(3) to incorporate common-law remedial principles does not necessarily foreclose accommodation of Salomon’s underlying concern that ERISA should not be construed to require counter-parties to transactions with a plan to monitor the plan for compliance with each of ERISA’s intricate details. See, e. g., Prohibited Transaction Exemption 75-1, § 11(e), 40 Fed. Reg. 50847 (1975) (requiring that the plan maintain certain records for a 6-year period). While we have no occasion to decide the matter here, it may be that such concerns should inform courts’ determinations of what a transferee should (or should not) be expected to know when engaging in a transaction with a fiduciary. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 297(a), at 74 (defining “notice” to mean what a transferee “knows or should know” (emphasis added)). Cf. Prohibited Transaction Exemption 75-1, § 11(e)(1), 40 Fed. Reg. 50847 (1975) (providing that a broker-dealer shall not be subject to civil penalties under §502(i) as a § 406(a) “party in interest” or taxes under 26 U. S. C. §4975 as a similarly defined “disqualified person” if such records are not maintained by the plan).
For these reasons, an action for restitution against a transferee of tainted plan assets satisfies the “appropriate[ness]” criterion in § 502(a)(3). Such relief is also “equitable” in nature. See Mertens, 508 U. S., at 260 (“[TJhe ‘equitable relief’ awardable under § 502(a)(5) includes restitution of ill-gotten plan assets or profits ...”); ibid, (explaining that, in light of the similarity of language in §§ 502(a)(8) and (5), that language should be deemed to have the same meaning in both subsections).
IV
We turn, finally, to two nontextual clues cited by Salomon and amici. First, Salomon urges us to consider, as the Seventh Circuit did, 184 F. 3d, at 652-653, the Conference Committee’s rejection of language from the Senate bill that would have expressly imposed a duty on nonfiduciary parties to § 406(a) transactions. See Brief for Respondents 28-29 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 93-2, p. 533 (1974) (with amendments as passed by the Senate), reprinted in 3 Legislative History of ERISA (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-406, p. 3780 (1976) (staff comment on House and Senate differences on §409)); 3 Legislative History of ERISA, swpra, at 5259 (staff comment on House and Senate differences on §409). Second, Salomon and amici submit that the policy consequences of recognizing a § 502(a)(3) action in this case could be devastating — counterparties, faced with the prospect of liability for dealing with a plan, may charge higher rates or, worse, refuse altogether to transact with plans.
We decline these suggestions to depart from the text of § 502(a)(3). In ERISA cases, “[a]s in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with the language of the statute. . . . And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well.” Hughes Aircraft, 525 U. S., at 438 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Section 502(a)(3), as informed by §502(Z), satisfies this standard.
Accordingly, we reverse the Seventh Circuit’s judgment and remand the ease for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.-
It is so ordered.
Salomon has preserved for remand arguments that there is no § 406(a) prohibition because it is not a “party in interest” and that, in any event, the transaction is exempted by Prohibited Transaction Exemption 75-1, 40 Fed. Reg. 50847 (1975).
Salomon asserts that petitioners waived this theory by neglecting to present it to the courts below. According to Salomon, petitioners’ claim (until their merits brief in this Court) has been that Salomon may be sued under § 502(a)(3) only because Salomon “violated” § 406(a). But, even assuming that petitioners did not pellucidly articulate this theory before the Seventh Circuit, it appears to us that the Seventh Circuit understood the tenor of the argument — namely, that the §406(a) transaction is the “act or practice” which violates §406(a) and therefore may be redressed by a civil action brought under § 502(a)(3) against parties to the § 406(a) transaction, even if the defendant did not itself “violate” § 406(a). See 184 F. 3d 646, 650 (CA7 1999). Moreover, petitioners’ current focus on the “act or practice” — i e., the §406 transaction — is merely an argument in support of their § 502(a)(3) claim for equitable relief against Salomon, not an independent claim. “Once a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below.” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 534 (1992).
The issue of which party, as between the party seeking recovery and the defendant-transferee, bears the burden of proof on whether the transferee is a purchaser for value and without notice, is not currently before us, but may require resolution on remand. Cf 4 Law of Trusts §284, at 40 (noting conflict of authority in non-ERISA cases on which party bears the burden of proof).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a companion to Wilkinson v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 399. The petitioner was the witness immediately preceding Wilkinson at the hearing of a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 30, 1958. He refused to answer many of the questions directed to him, basing his refusal upon the grounds that the questions were not pertinent to a question under inquiry by the subcommittee and that the interrogation invaded his First Amendment rights. He was subsequently indicted and, after a jury trial, convicted for having violated 2 U. S. C. § 192, in refusing to answer six specific questions which had been put to him by the subcommittee. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 272 F. 2d 653, relying on Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, and we granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 960.
The principal issues raised by the petitioner are substantially identical to those considered in Wilkinson, and extended discussion is not required in resolving them. Based upon the same record that was brought here in Wilkinson, we conclude for the reasons stated there that the subjects under subcommittee investigation at the time the petitioner was interrogated were Communist infiltration into basic southern industry and Communist Party propaganda activities in the southern part of the United States. We conclude for the same reasons that the subcommittee’s investigation of these subjects was authorized by Congress, that the interrogation was pertinent to a question under subcommittee inquiry, and' that the petitioner was fully apprised of its pertinency.
In asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights, the petitioner here points out that he was asked, not simply whether he was or had been a Communist Party member, as in Wilkinson and Barenblatt, supra, but whether he was a member “the instant you affixed your signature to that letter.” The letter in question, which had admittedly been signed by the petitioner and his wife, urged opposition to certain bills in Congress. The petitioner emphasizes that the writing of such a letter is not only legitimate but constitutionally protected activity, and points to other evidence in the record to indicate that he had been active in other completely legitimate causes. Based upon these circumstances, he argues that the subcommittee did not have a proper legislative purpose in calling him before it, but that it was bent rather on persecuting him for publicly opposing the subcommittee’s activities. He contends that under such circumstances an inquiry into his personal and associational conduct violated his First Amendment freedoms. On these grounds, the petitioner would differentiate the constitutional issues here from those that were before the Court in Barenblatt, supra.
But Barenblatt did not confine congressional committee investigation to overt criminal activity, nor did that case determine that Congress can only investigate the Communist Party itself. Rather, the decision upheld an investigation of Communist activity in education. Education, too, is legitimate and protected activity. Communist infiltration and propaganda in a given area of the country, which were the subjects of the subcommittee investigation here, are surely as much within its pervasive authority as Communist activity in educational institutions. The subcommittee had reason to believe that the petitioner was a member of the Communist Party, and that he had been actively engaged in propaganda efforts. It was making a legislative inquiry into Communist Party propaganda activities in the southern States. Information as to the extent to which the Communist Party was utilizing legitimate organizations and causes in its propaganda efforts in that region was surely not constitutionally beyond the reach of the subcommittee’s inquiry. Upon the reasoning and authority of Barenblatt, 360 U. S., at 125-134, we hold that the judgment is not to be set aside on First Amendment grounds.
The petitioner in this case raises two additional issues that were not considered either in Barenblatt, supra, or in Wilkinson, supra. First, he says that it was error for the trial court not to leave it for the jury to determine whether the questions asked by the subcommittee were pertinent to the subject under inquiry. Secondly, he asserts that he could not properly be convicted, because in refusing to answer the subcommittee’s questions he relied upon his understanding of the meaning of previous decisions of this Court. We think that both of these contentions have been foreclosed by Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263.
At the trial the district judge determined as a matter of law that the questions were pertinent to a matter under inquiry by the subcommittee, leaving to the jury the question whether the pertinence of the questions had been brought home to the petitioner. It is to be noted that counsel made no timely objection to this procedure and, indeed, affirmatively acquiesced in it. But we need not base rejection of the petitioner’s contention here on that ground, for, in any event, it was proper for the court to determine the question as a matter of law. This is precisely what was held in Sinclair v. United States, where the Court said at 279 U. S. 299: “The reasons for holding relevancy and materiality to be questions of law . . . apply with equal force to the determination of pertinency arising under § 102 [the predecessor of 2 U. S. C. § 192], The matter for determination in this case was whether the.facts called for by the question were so related to the subjects covered by the Senate’s resolutions that such facts reasonably could be said to be ‘pertinent to the question under inquiry.’ It would be incongruous and contrary to well-established principles to leave the determination of such a matter to a jury.”
During his interrogation the petitioner was asked: “Now do I understand that you have refused to answer the question as to whether or not you are now a member of the Communist Party solely upon the invocation of the provisions of the first amendment, but that you have not invoked the protection of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Is that correct?” He gave the following answer: “That is right, sir. I am standing on the Watkins, Sweezy, Konigsberg, and other decisions of the United States Supreme Court which protect my right, and the Constitution as they interpret the Constitution of the United States, protecting my right to private belief and association.”
It is now argued that because he relied upon his understanding of this Court’s previous decisions he could not be convicted under the statute for failing to answer the questions. An almost identical contention was- also rejected in Sinclair v. United States, supra, at 299: “There is no merit in appellant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the court excluded evidence that in refusing to answer he acted in good faith on the advice of competent counsel. The gist of the offense is refusal to answer pertinent questions. No moral turpitude is involved. Intentional violation is sufficient to constitute guilt. There was no misapprehension as to what was called for. The refusal to answer was deliberate. The facts sought were pertinent as a matter of law, and § 102 made it appellant’s duty to answer. He was bound rightly to construe the statute. His mistaken view of law is no defense.”
Here, as in Sinclair, the refusal to answer was deliberate and intentional.
Affirmed.
The indictment was in six counts, each count setting out a specific question which the petitioner had refused to answer. He was convicted on all six counts, and concurrent sentences were imposed.
The questions which were the subjects of the six counts of the indictment were as follows:
“And did you participate in a meeting here at that time ?
“Who solicited the quarters to be made available to the Southern Conference Educational Fund?
“Are you connected with the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee ?
“Did you and Harvey O’Connor, in the course of your conference there in Rhode Island, develop plans and strategies outlining work schedules for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee?
“Were you a member of the Communist Party the instant you affixed your signature to that letter?
“I would just like to ask you whether or not you, being a resident of Louisville, Kentucky, have anything to do there with the Southern Newsletter?”
The full transcript of the petitioner’s interrogation by the subcommittee, introduced in the District Court, makes intelligible the relevance of these questions. Since concurrent sentences were imposed on the several counts, we need specifically consider here only the question covered by the fifth count, going to the petitioner’s Communist Party membership. See Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 115; Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 147.
As in Wilkinson, by the resolution authorizing the subcommittee’s investigation, by the statements of the Chairman and other members of the subcommittee, by the tenor of interrogation of prior witnesses, and by a lengthy explanatory statement addressed contemporaneously to the petitioner.
For example, the petitioner points out that the “Southern Conference Educational Fund” with which he had been associated had been active in promoting racial integration in the South. The transcript of the subcommittee hearings makes clear, however, that these activities as such were not under investigation. As a member of the subcommittee stated:
“What I am interested in, is what are you doing on behalf of the Communist Party? We are not going to be clouded, so far as I am concerned, by talking about integration and segregation. This committee is not concerned in that. This committee is concerned in what you are doing in behalf of the Communist conspiracy.”
At another point the following colloquy occurred:
“Mr. Braden: Two hundred Negro leaders in the South petitioned the Congress of the United States last week in connection with this hearing in Atlanta.
“Mr. Jackson: After looking at some of the names on this list, the letters went into the circular files of many members, because it was quite obvious that a number of names on that letter were names of those that had been closely associated with the Communist Party. Their interest and major part does not lie with honest integration. Their interest lies with the purposes of the Communist Party. And that is what we are looking into, and let us not be clouding this discussion and this hearing this morning by any more nonsense that we are here as representatives of the United States Government to further, or to destroy, or to have anything to do with, integration.”
“You will note that each e.ount in the indictment alleges that the refusal was with reference to a question pertinent to the matter under inquiry. You will not concern yourselves with this allegation as it involves a matter of law which it is the Court’s duty to determine and which has been determined. I have determined as a matter of law that the committee had the right to ask these questions and the defendant had the duty to answer these questions under the conditions that I will later explain.”
In his opening statement to the jury, counsel for the petitioner said: “As the counsel for the government has properly stated, the question of whether or not those questions were pertinent to the subject matter under inquiry has been ruled to be a question of law for the Court. But whether or not the defendant Carl Braden at the time he refused to answer those questions knew that they were pertinent to the subject matter under inquiry is a question of fact which will be submitted by the Court to you gentlemen.” Not until after the concluding arguments and the instructions to the jury did counsel claim for the first time that the question of actual pertinency was not for the court to decide.
This was reaffirmed in United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 397, where it was said: “The applicable statute did not make a bad purpose or evil intent an element of the misdemeanor of refusing to answer, but conditioned guilt or innocence solely upon the relevancy of the question propounded. Sinclair was either right or wrong in his refusal to answer, and if wrong he took the risk of becoming liable to the prescribed penalty.” See also Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 208.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor. The question here is whether the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 — commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act — displaces that norm and automatically vests title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors. We hold that it does not.
I
A
In 1985, a small California research company called Cetus began to develop methods for quantifying blood-borne levels of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS. A Nobel Prize winning technique developed at Cetus — polymerase chain reaction, or PCR — was an integral part of these efforts. PCR allows billions of copies of DNA sequences to be made from a small initial blood sample.
In 1988, Cetus began to collaborate with scientists at Stanford University’s Department of Infectious Diseases to test the efficacy of new AIDS drugs. Dr. Mark Holodniy joined Stanford as a research fellow in the department around that time. When he did so, he signed a Copyright and Patent Agreement (CPA) stating that he “agree[d] to assign” to Stanford his “right, title and interest in” inventions resulting from his employment at the University. App. to Pet. for Cert. 118a-119a.
At Stanford Holodniy undertook to develop an improved method for quantifying HIV levels in patient blood samples, using PCR. Because Holodniy was largely unfamiliar with PCR, his supervisor arranged for him to conduct research at Cetus. As a condition of gaining access to Cetus, Holodniy signed a Visitor’s Confidentiality Agreement (VCA). That agreement stated that Holodniy “will assign and do[es] hereby assign” to Cetus his “right, title, and interest in each of the ideas, inventions and improvements” made “as a consequence of [his] access” to Cetus. Id., at 122a-124a.
For the next nine months, Holodniy conducted research at Cetus. Working with Cetus employees, Holodniy devised a PCR-based procedure for calculating the amount of HIV in a patient’s blood. That technique allowed doctors to determine whether a patient was benefiting from HIV therapy.
Holodniy then returned to Stanford where he and other University employees tested the HIV measurement technique. Over the next few years, Stanford obtained written assignments of rights from the Stanford employees involved in refinement of the technique, including Holodniy, and filed several patent applications related to the procedure. Stanford secured three patents to the HIV measurement process.
In 1991, Roche Molecular Systems, a company that specializes in diagnostic blood screening, acquired Cetus’s PCR-related assets, including all rights Cetus had obtained through agreements like the VC A signed by Holodniy. After conducting clinical trials on the HIV quantification method developed at Cetus, Roche commercialized the procedure. Today, Roche’s HIV test “kits are used in hospitals and AIDS clinics worldwide.” Brief for Respondents 10-11.
B
In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act to “promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research,” “promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations,” and “ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions.” 85 U. S. C. §200. To achieve these aims, the Act allocates rights in federally funded “subject invention[s]” between the Federal Government and federal contractors (“any person, small business firm, or nonprofit organization that is a party to a funding agreement”). §§ 201(e), (c), 202(a). The Act defines “subject invention” as “any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.” § 201(e).
The Bayh-Dole Act provides that contractors may “elect to retain title to any subject invention.” § 202(a). To be able to retain title, a contractor must fulfill a number of obligations imposed by the statute. The contractor must “disclose each subject invention to the [relevant] Federal agency within a reasonable time”; it must “make a written election within two years after disclosure” stating that the contractor opts to retain title to the invention; and the contractor must “file a patent application prior to any statutory bar date.” §§202(c)(l)-(3). The “Federal Government may receive title” to a subject invention if a contractor fails to comply with any of these obligations. Ibid.
The Government has several rights in federally funded subject inventions under the Bayh-Dole Act. The agency that granted the federal funds receives from the contractor “a nonexclusive, nontransferrable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice . . . [the] subject invention.” § 202(c)(4). The agency also possesses “[m]arch-in rights,” which permit the agency to grant a license to a responsible third party under certain circumstances, such as when the contractor fails to take “effective steps to achieve practical application” of the invention. §203. The Act further provides that when the contractor does not elect to retain title to a subject invention, the Government “may consider and after consultation with the contractor grant requests for retention of rights by the inventor.” § 202(d).
Some of Stanford’s research related to the HIV measurement technique was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), thereby subjecting the invention to the BayhDole Act. Accordingly, Stanford disclosed the invention, conferred on the Government a nonexclusive, nontransferable, paid-up license to use the patented procedure, and formally notified NIH that it elected to retain title to the invention.
C
In 2005, the Board of Trustees of Stanford University filed suit against Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Roche Diagnostics Corporation, and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. (collectively Roche), contending that Roche’s HIV test kits infringed Stanford’s patents. As relevant here, Roche responded by asserting that it was a eo-owner of the HIV quantification procedure, based on Holodniy’s assignment of his rights in the VCA. As a result, Roche argued, Stanford lacked standing to sue it for patent infringement. 487 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1111, 1115 (ND Cal. 2007). Stanford claimed that Holodniy had no rights to assign because the University’s HIV research was federally funded, giving the school superior rights in the invention under the Bayh-Dole Act. Ibid.
The District Court held that the “VCA effectively assigned any rights that Holodniy had in the patented invention to Cetus,” and thus to Roche. Id., at 1117. But because of the operation of the Bayh-Dole Act, “Holodniy had no interest to assign.” Id., at 1117, 1119. The court concluded that the Bayh-Dole Act “provides that the individual inventor may obtain title” to a federally funded invention “only after the government and the contracting party have declined to do so.” Id., at 1118.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed. First, the court concluded that Holodniy’s initial agreement with Stanford in the CPA constituted a mere promise to assign rights in the future, unlike Holodniy’s agreement with Cetus in the VCA, which itself assigned Holodniy’s rights in the invention to Cetus. See 583 F. 3d 832, 841-842 (2009). Therefore, as a matter of contract law, Cetus obtained Holodniy’s rights in the HIV quantification technique through the VCA. Next, the court explained that the Bayh-Dole Act “does not automatically void ab initio the inventors’ rights in government-funded inventions” and that the “statutory scheme did not automatically void the patent rights that Cetus received from Holodniy.” Id., at 844-845. The court held that “Roche possesse[d] an ownership interest in the patents-in-suit” that was not extinguished by the Bayh-Dole Act, “depriv[ing] Stanford of standing.” Id., at 836-837. The Court of Appeals then remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Stanford’s infringement claim. Id., at 849.
We granted certiorari. 562 U. S. 1001 (2010).
II
A
Congress has the authority “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing ... to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. The First Congress put that power to use by enacting the Patent Act of 1790. That Act provided “[t]hat upon the petition of any person or persons . . . setting forth, that he, she, or they, hath or have invented or discovered” an invention, a patent could be granted to “such petitioner or petitioners” or “their heirs, administrators or assigns.” Act of Apr. 10, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 109-110. Under that law, the first patent was granted in 1790 to Samuel Hopkins, who had devised an improved method for making potash, America’s first industrial chemical. U. S. Patent No. XI (issued July 81, 1790).
Although much in intellectual property law has changed in the 220 years sinee the first Patent Act, the basic idea that inventors have the right to patent their inventions has not. Under the law in its current form, “[wjhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter... may obtain a patent therefor.” 35 U. S. C. § 101. The inventor must attest that “he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the [invention] for which he solicits a patent.” § 115. In most cases, a patent may be issued only to an applying inventor, or — because an inventor’s interest in his invention is “assignable in law by an instrument in writing” — an inventor’s assignee. §§151,152, 261.
Our precedents confirm the general rule that rights in an invention belong to the inventor. See, e. g., Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 498 (1851) (“the discoverer of a new and useful improvement is vested by law with an inchoate right to its exclusive use, which he may perfect and make absolute by proceeding in the manner which the law requires”); Solo mons v. United States, 137 U. S. 342, 346 (1890) (“whatever invention [an inventor] may thus conceive and perfect is his individual property”); United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 188 (1933) (an inventor owns “the product of [his] original thought”). The treatises are to the same effect. See, e. g., 8 D. Chisum, Patents §22.01, p. 22-2 (2011) (“The presumptive owner of the property right in a patentable invention is the single human inventor”).
It is equally well established that an inventor can assign his rights in an invention to a third party. See Dubilier Condenser Corp., supra, at 187 (“A patent is property and title to it can pass only by assignment”); 8 Chisum, supra, §22.01, at 22-2 (“The inventor . . . [may] transfer ownership interests by written assignment to anyone”). Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.
In accordance with these principles, we have recognized that unless there is an agreement to the contrary, an employer does not have rights in an invention “which is the original conception of the employee alone.” Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S., at 189. Such an invention “remains the property of him who conceived it.” Ibid. In most circumstances, an inventor must expressly grant his rights in an invention to his employer if the employer is to obtain those rights. See id., at 187 (“The respective rights and obligations of employer and employee, touching an invention conceived by the latter, spring from the contract of employment”).
B
Stanford and the United States as amicus curiae contend that the Bayh-Dole Act reorders the normal priority of rights in an invention when the invention is conceived or first reduced to practice with the support of federal funds. In their view, the Act moves inventors from the front of the line to the back by vesting title to federally funded inventions in the inventor’s employer — the federal contractor. See Brief for Petitioner 26-27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6.
Congress has in the past divested inventors of their rights in inventions by providing unambiguously that inventions created pursuant to specified federal contracts become the property of the United States. For example, with respect to certain contracts dealing with nuclear material and atomic energy, Congress provided that title to such inventions “shall be vested in, and be the property of, the [Atomic Energy] Commission.” 42 U. S. C. §2182. Congress has also enacted laws requiring that title to certain inventions made pursuant to contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration “shall be the exclusive property of the United States,” Pub. L. 111-314, §3, 124 Stat. 3339, 51 U. S. C. § 20135(b)(1), and that title to certain inventions under contracts with the Department of Energy “shall vest in the United States,” 42 U. S. C. § 5908.
Such language is notably absent from the Bayh-Dole Act. Nowhere in the Act is title expressly vested in contractors or anyone else; nowhere in the Act are inventors expressly deprived of their interest in federally funded inventions. Instead, the Act provides that contractors may “elect to retain title to any subject invention.” 35 U. S. C. § 202(a). A “subject invention” is defined as “any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.” § 201(e).
Stanford asserts that the phrase “invention of the contractor” in this provision “is naturally read to include all inventions made by the contractor’s employees with the aid of federal funding.” Brief for Petitioner 32 (footnote omitted). That reading assumes that Congress subtly set aside two centuries of patent law in a statutory definition. It also renders the phrase “of the contractor” superfluous. If the phrase “of the contractor” were deleted from the definition of “subject invention,” the definition would cover “any invention ... conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.” Reading “of the contractor” to mean “all inventions made by the contractor’s employees with the aid of federal funding,” as Stanford would, adds nothing that is not already in the definition, since the definition already covers inventions made under the funding agreement. That is contrary to our general “reluctan[ce] to treat statutory terms as surplusage.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Construing the phrase to refer instead to a particular category of inventions conceived or reduced to practice under a funding agreement — inventions “of the contractor,” that is, those owned by or belonging to the contractor — makes the phrase meaningful in the statutory definition. And “invention owned by the contractor” or “invention belonging to the contractor” are natural readings of the phrase “invention of the contractor.” As we have explained, “[t]he use of the word ‘of’ denotes ownership.” Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 109 (1930); see Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U. S. 646, 647, 657 (2009) (treating the phrase “identification [papers] of another person” as meaning such items belonging to another person (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246, 259 (1907) (interpreting the phrase “works of the United States” to mean “works . . . belonging to the United States” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
That reading follows from a common definition of the word “of.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1565 (2002) (“of” can be “used as a function word indicating a possessive relationship”); New Oxford American Dictionary 1180 (2d ed. 2005) (defining “of” as “indicating an association between two entities, typically one of belonging”); Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 1241 (2d ed. 1979) (defining “of” as “belonging to”).
Stanford’s reading of the phrase “invention of the contractor” to mean “all inventions made by the contractor’s employees” is plausible enough in the abstract; it is often the ease that whatever an employee produces in the course of his employment belongs to his employer. No one would claim that an autoworker who builds a car while working in a factory owns that car. But, as noted, patent law has always been different: We have rejected, the idea that mere employment is sufficient to vest title to an employee’s invention in the employer. Against this background, a contractor’s invention — an “invention of the contractor” — does not automatically include inventions made by the contractor’s employees.
The Bayh-Dole Act’s provision stating that contractors may “elect to retain title” confirms that the Act does not vest title. 35 U. S. C. § 202(a) (emphasis added). Stanford reaches the opposite conclusion, but only because it reads “retain” to mean “acquire” and “receive.” Brief for Petitioner 36 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is certainly not the common meaning of “retain.” “[Rjetain” means “to hold or continue to hold in possession or use.” Webster’s Third, supra, at 1938; see Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 980 (1980) (“to keep in possession or use”); American Heritage Dictionary 1109 (1969) (“[t]o keep or hold in one’s possession”). You cannot retain something unless you already have it. See Alaska v. United States, 545 U. S. 75, 104 (2005) (interpreting the phrase “ 'the United States shall retain title to all property’” to mean that “[t]he United States . . . retained title to its property located within Alaska’s borders” (emphasis added)). The Bayh-Dole Act does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions; it simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have. Such a provision makes sense in a statute specifying the respective rights and responsibilities of federal contractors and the Government.
The Bayh-Dole Act states that it “take[s] precedence over any other Act which would require a disposition of rights in subject inventions ... that is inconsistent with” the Act. 85 U. S. C. § 210(a). The United States as amicus curiae argues that this provision operates to displace the basic principle, codified in the Patent Act, that an inventor owns the rights to his invention. See Brief for United States 21. But because the Bayh-Dole Act, including § 210(a), applies only to “subject inventions” — “invention[s] of the contractor” — it does not displace an inventor’s antecedent title to his invention. Only when an invention belongs to the contractor does the Bayh-Dole Act come into play. The Act’s disposition of rights — like much of the rest of the Bayh-Dole Act — serves to clarify the order of priority of rights between the Federal Government and a federal contractor in a federally funded invention that already belongs to the contractor. Nothing more.
The isolated provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act dealing with inventors’ rights in subject inventions are consistent with our construction of the Act. Under the Act, a federal agency may “grant requests for retention of rights by the inventor” “[i]f a contractor does not elect to retain title to a subject invention.” § 202(d). If an employee inventor never had title to his invention because title vested in the contractor by operation of law — as Stanford submits — it would be odd to allow the Government to grant “requests for retention of rights by the inventor.” By using the word “retention,” § 202(d) assumes that the inventor had rights in the subject invention at some point, undermining the notion that the Act automatically vests title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors.
The limited scope of the Act’s procedural protections also bolsters our conclusion. The Bayh-Dole Act expressly confers on contractors the right to challenge a Government-imposed impediment to retaining title to a subject invention. § 202(b)(3) (2006 ed., Supp. III). As Roche correctly notes, however, “the Act contains not a single procedural protection for third parties that have neither sought nor received federal funds,” such as cooperating private research institutions. Brief for Respondents 29. Nor does the Bayh-Dole Act allow inventors employed by federal .contractors to contest their employer’s claim to a subject invention. The Act, for example, does not expressly permit an interested third party or an inventor to challenge a claim that a particular invention was supported by federal funding. In a world in which there is frequent collaboration between private entities, inventors, and federal contractors, see Brief for Pharmaceutieal Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae 22-23, that absence would be deeply troubling. But the lack of procedures protecting inventor and third-party rights makes perfect sense if the Act applies only when a federal contractor has already acquired title to an inventor’s interest. In that case, there is no need to protect inventor or third-party rights, because the only rights at issue are those of the contractor and the Government.
The Bayh-Dole Act applies to subject inventions “conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work” “funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government.” 35 U. S. C. §§ 201(e), 201(b) (2006 ed.) (emphasis added). Under Stanford’s construction of the Act, title to one of its employee’s inventions could vest in the University even if the invention was conceived before the inventor became a University employee, so long as the invention’s reduction to practice was supported by federal funding. What is more, Stanford’s reading suggests that the school would obtain title to one of its employee's inventions even if only one dollar of federal funding was applied toward the invention’s conception or reduction to practice.
It would be noteworthy enough for Congress to supplant one of the fundamental precepts of patent law and deprive inventors of rights in their own inventions. To do so under such unusual terms would be truly surprising. We are confident that if Congress had intended such a sea change in intellectual property rights it would have said so clearly— not obliquely through an ambiguous definition of “subject invention” and an idiosyncratic use of the word “retain.” Cf. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001) (“Congress ... does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions”).
Though unnecessary to our conclusion, it is worth noting that our construction of the Bayh-Dole Act is reflected in the common practice among parties operating under the Act. Contractors generally institute policies to obtain assignments from their employees. See Brief for Respondents 34; Brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae 13-18. Agencies that grant funds to federal contractors typically expect those contractors to obtain assignments. So it is with NIH, the agency that granted the federal funds at issue in this case. In guidance documents made available to contractors, NIH has made clear that “[b]y law, an inventor has initial ownership of an invention” and that contractors should therefore “have in place employee agreements requiring an inventor to ‘assign’ or give ownership of an invention to the organization upon acceptance of Federal funds.” NIH Policies, Procedures, and Forms, A “20-20” View of Invention Reporting to the National Institutes of Health (Sept. 22, 1995). Such guidance would be unnecessary if Stanford’s reading of the statute were correct.
Stanford contends that reading the Bayh-Dole Act as not vesting title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors “fundamentally undermin[es]” the Act’s framework and severely threatens its continued “successful application.” Brief for Petitioner 45. We do not agree. As just noted, universities typically enter into agreements with their employees requiring the assignment to the university of rights in inventions. With an effective assignment, those inventions — if federally funded — become “subject inventions” under the Act, and the statute as a practical matter works pretty much the way Stanford says it should. The only significant difference is that it does so without violence to the basic principle of patent law that inventors own their inventions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Roche submitted a host of other claims to the District Court, including that it had “shop rights” to the patents and was entitled to a license to use the patents. See 583 F. 3d 832, 838 (CA Fed. 2009). None of those claims is now before us; we deal only with Roche’s claim to co-ownership to rebut Stanford’s standing to bring an infringement action.
Because the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the relevant assignment agreements is not an issue on which we granted certiorari, we have no occasion to pass on the validity of the lower court’s construction of those agreements.
The patent was signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. See Maxey, Samuel Hopkins, The Holder of the First U. S. Patent: A Study of Failure, 122 Pa. Magazine of Hist, and Biography 3, 6 (1998).
The dissent suggests that “we could interpret the Bayh-Dole Act as ordinarily assuming, and thereby ordinarily requiring, an assignment of patent rights by the federally funded employee to the federally funded employer.” Post, at 801 (opinion of Breyer, J.). That suggestion is based in large part on Executive Order No. 10096, which “governs Federal Government employee-to-employer patent right assignments.” Post, at 802. Lest there be any doubt, employees of nonfederal entities that have federal funding contracts — like Holodniy — are not federal employees. And there is no equivalent Executive Order governing invention rights with respect to federally funded research; that issue is of course addressed by the Bayh-Dole Act.
Far from superseding the Patent Act in such a backhanded way, it is clear that §210(a)’s concern is far narrower. That provision specifies 21 different statutory provisions that the Bayh-Dole Act “take[s] precedence over,” the vast majority of which deal with the division of ownership in certain inventions between a contractor and the Government. 35 U. S. C. §§ 210(a)<l) — (21); see, e.g., §§210(a)(19)-(20) (the Bayh-Dole Act takes precedence over “section 6(b) of the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Research Development and Demonstration Act” and “section 12 of the Native Latex Commercialization and Economic Development Act”).
Stanford contends that it cannot be the case “that the contractor can only ‘retain title’ to an invention that it already owns, while an inventor may be considered for ‘retention’ of title only when he has assigned title away.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 8. That argument has some force. But there may be situations where an inventor, by the terms of an assignment, has subsidiary rights in an invention to which a contractor has title, as § 202(d) suggests. Compare § 202(d) (“retention of rights”) with § 202(a) (“retain title”) (emphasis added). And at the end of the day, it is Stanford’s contention that “retain” must be “read as a synonym for ‘acquire’ or ‘receive’” that dooms its argument on this point. Brief for Petitioner 37.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice O’Con-nor and Justice Kennedy join.
Respondents are two establishments in South Bend, Indiana, that wish to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment, and individual dancers who are employed at these establishments. They claim that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression prevents the State of Indiana from enforcing its public indecency law to prevent this form of dancing. We reject their claim.
The facts appear from the pleadings and findings of the District Court and are uncontested here. The Kitty Kat Lounge, Inc. (Kitty Kat), is located in the city of South Bend. It sells alcoholic beverages and presents “go-go dancing.” Its proprietor desires to present “totally nude dancing,” but an applicable Indiana statute regulating public nudity requires that the dancers wear “pasties” and “G-strings” when they dance. The dancers are not paid an hourly wage, but work on commission. They receive a 100 percent commission on the first $60 in drink sales during their performances. Darlene Miller, one of the respondents in the action, had worked at the Kitty Kat for about two years at the time this action was brought. Miller wishes to dance nude because she believes she would make more money doing so.
Respondent Glen Theatre, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with a place of business in South Bend. Its primary business is supplying so-called adult entertainment through written and printed materials, movie showings, and live entertainment at an enclosed “bookstore.” The live entertainment at the “bookstore” consists of nude and seminude performances and showings of the female body through glass panels. Customers sit in a booth and insert coins into a timing mechanism that permits them to observe the live nude and seminude dancers for a period of time. One of Glen Theatre’s dancers, Gayle Ann Marie Sutro, has danced, modeled, and acted professionally for more than 15 years, and in addition to her performances at the Glen Theatre, can be seen in a pornographic movie at a nearby theater. App. to Pet. for Cert. 131-133.
Respondents sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to enjoin the enforcement of the Indiana public indecency statute, Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1 (1988), asserting that its prohibition against complete nudity in public places violated the First Amendment. The District Court originally granted respondents’ prayer for an injunction, finding that the statute was facially overbroad. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, deciding that previous litigation with respect to the statute in the Supreme Court of Indiana and this Court precluded the possibility of such a challenge, and remanded to the District Court in order for the plaintiffs to pursue their claim that the statute violated the First Amendment as applied to their dancing. Glen Theatre, Inc. v. Pearson, 802 F. 2d 287, 288-290 (1986). On remand, the District Court concluded that “the type of dancing these plaintiffs wish to perform is not expressive activity protected by the Constitution of the United States,” and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. Glen Theatre, Inc. v. Civil City of South Bend, 695 F. Supp. 414, 419 (1988). The case was again appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and a panel of that court reversed the District Court, holding that the nude dancing involved here was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. Civil City of South Bend, 887 F. 2d 826 (1989). The Court of Appeals then heard the case en banc, and the court rendered a series of comprehensive and thoughtful opinions. The majority concluded that nonobscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is expression protected by the First Amendment, and that the public indecency statute was an improper infringement of that expressive activity because its purpose was to prevent the message of eroticism and sexuality conveyed by the dancers. Miller v. Civil City of South Bend, 904 F. 2d 1081 (1990). We granted certio-rari, 498 U. S. 807 (1990), and now hold that the Indiana statutory requirement that the dancers in the establishments involved in this case must wear pasties and G-strings does not violate the First Amendment.
Several of our cases contain language suggesting that nude dancing of the kind involved here is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. In Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 932 (1975), we said: “[A]lthough the customary ‘barroom’ type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 118 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection under some circumstances.” In Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U. S. 61, 66 (1981), we said that “[fjurthermore, as the state courts in this case recognized, nude dancing is not without its First Amendment protections from official regulation” (citations omitted). These statements support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that nude dancing of the kind sought to be performed here is expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment, though we view it as only marginally so. This, of course, does not end our inquiry. We must determine the level of protection to be afforded to the expressive conduct at issue, and must determine whether the Indiana statute is an impermissible infringement of that protected activity.
Indiana, of course, has not banned nude dancing as such, but has proscribed public nudity across the board. The Supreme Court of Indiana has construed the Indiana statute to preclude nudity in what are essentially places of public accommodation such as the Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge. In such places, respondents point out, minors are excluded and there are no nonconsenting viewers. Respondents contend that while the State may license establishments such as the ones involved here, and limit the geographical area in which they do business, it may not in any way limit the performance of the dances within them without violating the First Amendment. The petitioners contend, on the other hand, that Indiana’s restriction on nude dancing is a valid “time, place, or manner” restriction under cases such as Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288 (1984).
The “time, place, or manner” test was developed for evaluating restrictions on expression taking place on public property which had been dedicated as a “public forum,” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989), although we have on at least one occasion applied it to conduct occurring on private property. See Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41 (1986). In Clark we observed that this test has been interpreted to embody much the same standards as those set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), and we turn, therefore, to the rule enunciated in O’Brien.
O’Brien burned his draft card on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse in the presence of a sizable crowd, and was convicted of violating a statute that prohibited the knowing destruction or mutilation of such a card. He claimed that his conviction was contrary to the First Amendment because his act was “symbolic speech” — expressive conduct. The Court rejected his contention that symbolic speech is entitled to full First Amendment protection, saying:
“[E]ven on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O’Brien’s conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. This Court has held that when ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. To characterize the quality of the governmental interest which must appear, the Court has employed a variety of descriptive terms: compelling; substantial; subordinating; paramount; cogent; strong. Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” Id., at 376-377 (footnotes omitted).
Applying the four-part O’Brien test enunciated above, we find that Indiana’s public indecency statute is justified despite its incidental limitations on some expressive activity. The public indecency statute is clearly within the constitutional power of the State and furthers substantial governmental interests. It is impossible to discern, other than from the text of the statute, exactly what governmental interest the Indiana legislators had in mind when they enacted this statute, for Indiana does not record legislative history, and the State’s highest court has not shed additional light on the statute’s purpose. Nonetheless, the statute’s purpose of protecting societal order and morality is clear from its text and history. Public indecency statutes of this sort are of ancient origin and presently exist in at least 47 States. Public indecency, including nudity, was a criminal offense at common law, and this Court recognized the common-law roots of the offense of “gross and open indecency” in Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 515 (1948). Public nudity was considered an act malum in se. Le Roy v. Sidley, 1 Sid. 168, 82 Eng. Rep. 1036 (K. B. 1664). Public indecency statutes such as the one before us reflect moral disapproval of people appearing in the nude among strangers in public places.
This public indecency statute follows a long line of earlier Indiana statutes banning all public nudity. The history of Indiana’s public indecency statute shows that it predates barroom nude dancing and was enacted as a general prohibition. At least as early as 1831, Indiana had a statute punishing “open and notorious lewdness, or . . . any grossly scandalous and public indecency.” Rev. Laws of Ind., ch. 26, § 60 (1831); Ind. Rev. Stat., ch. 53, § 81 (1834). A gap during which no statute was in effect was filled by the Indiana Supreme Court in Ardery v. State, 56 Ind. 328 (1877), which held that the court could sustain a conviction for exhibition of “privates” in the presence of others. The court traced the offense to the Bible story of Adam and Eve. Id., at 329-330. In 1881, a statute was enacted that would remain essentially unchanged for nearly a century:
“Whoever, being over fourteen years of age, makes an indecent exposure of his person in a public place, or in any place where there are other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby, ... is guilty of public indecency . . . .” 1881 Ind. Acts, ch. 37, § 90.
The language quoted above remained unchanged until it was simultaneously repealed and replaced with the present statute in 1976. 1976 Ind. Acts, Pub. L. 148, Art. 45, ch. 4, § 1.
This and other public indecency statutes were designed to protect morals and public order. The traditional police power of the States is defined as the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals, and we have upheld such a basis for legislation. In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 61 (1973), we said:
“In deciding Roth [v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957)], this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect ‘the social interest in order and morality.’ [Id.], at 485.” (Emphasis omitted.)
And in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 196 (1986), we said:
“The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”
Thus, the public indecency statute furthers a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality.
This interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. Some may view restricting nudity on moral grounds as necessarily related to expression. We disagree. It can be argued, of course, that almost limitless types of conduct — including appearing in the nude in public — are “expressive,” and in one sense of the word this is true.' People who go about in the nude in public may be expressing something about themselves by so doing. But the court rejected this expansive notion of “expressive conduct” in O’Brien, saying:
“We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” 391 U. S., at 376.
And in Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U. S. 19 (1989), we further observed:
“It is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes — for example, walking down the street or meeting one’s friends at a shopping mall — but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment. We think the activity of these dance-hall patrons — coming together to engage in recreational dancing — is not protected by the First Amendment.” Id., at 25.
Respondents contend that even though prohibiting nudity in public generally may not be related to suppressing expression, prohibiting the performance of nude dancing is related to expression because the State seeks to prevent its erotic message. Therefore, they reason that the application of the Indiana statute to the nude dancing in this case violates the First Amendment, because it fails the third part of the O’Brien test, viz: the governmental interest must be unrelated to the suppression of free expression.
But we do not think that when Indiana applies its statute to the nude dancing in these nightclubs it is proscribing nudity because of the erotic message conveyed by the dancers. Presumably numerous other erotic performances are presented at these establishments and similar clubs without any interference from the State, so long as the performers wear a scant amount of clothing. Likewise, the requirement that the dancers don pasties and G-strings does not deprive the dance of whatever erotic message it conveys; it simply makes the message slightly less graphic. The perceived evil that Indiana seeks to address is not erotic dancing, but public nudity. The appearance of people of all shapes, sizes and ages in the nude at a beach, for example, would convey little if any erotic message, yet the State still seeks to prevent it. Public nudity is the evil the State seeks to prevent, whether or not it is combined with expressive activity.
This conclusion is buttressed by a reference to the facts of O’Brien. An Act of Congress provided that anyone who knowingly destroyed a Selective Service registration certificate committed an offense. O’Brien burned his certificate on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. This Court upheld his conviction, reasoning that the continued availability of issued certificates served a legitimate and substantial purpose in the administration of the Selective Service System. O’Brien’s deliberate destruction of his certificate frustrated this purpose and “[f]or this noncommunicative impact of his conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted.” 391 U. S., at 382. It was assumed that O’Brien’s act in burning the certificate had a communicative element in it sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, id., at 376, but it was for the non-communicative element that he was prosecuted. So here with the Indiana statute; while the dancing to which it was applied had a communicative element, it was not the dancing that was prohibited, but simply its being done in the nude.
The fourth part of the O’Brien test requires that the incidental restriction on First Amendment freedom be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest. As indicated in the discussion above, the governmental interest served by the text of the prohibition is societal disapproval of nudity in public places and among strangers. The statutory prohibition is not a means to some greater end, but an end in itself. It is without cavil that the public indecency statute is “narrowly tailored”; Indiana’s requirement that the dancers wear at least pasties and G-strings is modest, and the bare minimum necessary to achieve the State’s purpose.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is
Reversed.
The Indiana Supreme Court appeared to give the public indecency statute a limiting construction to save it from a facial overbreadth attack:
“There is no right to appear nude in public. Rather, it may be constitutionally required to tolerate or to allow some nudity as a part of some larger form of expression meriting protection, when the communication of ideas is involved.” State v. Baysinger, 272 Ind. 236, 247, 397 N. E. 2d 580, 587 (1979) (emphasis added), appeals dism’d sub nom. Clark v. Indiana, 446 U. S. 931, and Dove v. Indiana, 449 U. S. 806 (1980).
Five years after Baysinger, however, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals holding that the statute did “not apply to activity such as the theatrical appearances involved herein, which may not be prohibited absent a finding of obscenity,” in a case involving a partially nude dance in the “Miss Erotica of Fort Wayne” contest. Erhardt v. State, 468 N. E. 2d 224 (Ind. 1984). The Indiana Supreme Court did not discuss the constitutional issues beyond a cursory comment that the statute had been upheld against constitutional attack in Baysinger, and Erhardt’s conduct fell within the statutory prohibition. Justice Hunter dissented, arguing that “a public indecency statute which prohibits nudity in any public place is unconstitutionally overbroad. My reasons for so concluding have already been articulated in State v. Baysinger, (1979) 272 Ind. 236, 397 N. E. 2d 580 (Hunter and DeBruler, JJ., dissenting).” 468 N. E. 2d, at 225-226. Justice DeBruler expressed similar views in his dissent in Erhardt. Id., at 226. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court did not affirmatively limit the reach of the statute in Baysinger, but merely said that to the extent the First Amendment would require it, the statute might be unconstitutional as applied to some activities.
Indiana Code §35-45-4-1 (1988) provides:
“Public indecency; indecent exposure
“Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:
“(1) engages in sexual intercourse;
“(2) engages in deviate sexual conduct;
“(3) appears in a state of nudity; or
“(4) fondles the genitals of himself or another person; commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor.
“(b) ‘Nudity’ means the showing of the human male or female genitals-, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Michigan an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation if he has provided “financing” — by means other than the payment of regular union dues — for a strike that causes his unemployment. The question presented by this appeal is whether Michigan’s statutory disqualification is implicitly prohibited by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
This case has a long history. Two appeals to the State Supreme Court and a series of administrative proceedings have determined the relevant facts and the meaning of the governing statutory provision. Before addressing the federal question, we shall therefore summarize the events that gave rise to the controversy and the propositions of state law that were resolved on each appeal.
The Relevant Events
The story begins in June 1967, when the international union representing the work force in the automobile industry notified the three major manufacturers — General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler — that it intended to terminate all national and local collective-bargaining agreements when they expired on September 6, 1967. In August, after the UAW and GM had opened negotiations for a new national agreement, the members of the Union employed by GM voted to authorize strikes, if necessary, on national and local issues. When the agreements expired, the UAW began a national strike against Ford, but did not immediately strike any GM plants.
On October 8, 1967, while the Ford strike was continuing, the UAW held a special convention to authorize “adequate strike funds to meet the challenges of the 1967 and 1968 collective bargaining effort.” At that convention the UAW amended its constitution to authorize the collection of “emergency dues” that would be used to augment the Union’s strike insurance fund. In a letter to GM employees explaining the purpose of the dues increase, the Union stated:
“ ‘These emergency extra dues are being raised to protect GM workers as well as support the Ford strikers. When our time comes at GM, we cannot go back to the bargaining table without an adequate strike fund behind us and promise of continued assistance from other UAW members.’” 420 Mich. 463, 513, 363 N. W. 2d 602, 624-625 (1984) (footnote omitted).
The emergency dues were payable immediately and were to remain in effect during the “collective bargaining emergency.” See n. 6, supra. They were much larger than the regular dues. Before the emergency, each UAW member paid strike insurance dues of $1.25 per month and administrative dues of $3.75. The amendment increased the contribution to the strike insurance fund to $21.25 per month for employees in plants where the average straight-time hourly earnings amounted to $3 or more, and to $11.25 in plants where the average earnings were lower. Thus, for the former group the increase of $20 was 16 times as large as the regular contribution to the strike fund; for the latter group the $10 increase was 8 times as large.
The strike against Ford was settled in October, before the first scheduled collection of the new special strike fund dues. Notwithstanding this development, emergency dues of $42 million were subsequently collected until November 30, 1967 — when the UAW determined that it would not strike any GM plants “at least during the month of December 1967. ” At this point the UAW advised its membership that even though “the collective bargaining emergency has not yet ended,” the emergency dues would be waived during December and January and dues would revert to the regular rate of $5 per month. In December, the UAW and GM reached agreement on all national issues.
In January 1968, however, three UAW local unions went on strike at three GM foundries for periods of 10, 11, and 12 days. Strike fund benefits of $4 to $6 a day, totaling $247,245.31, were paid to the striking UAW employees from the fund in which the emergency dues collected in October and November had been deposited. At that time the emergency dues constituted about half of the money in the fund. As a result of the strikes, operations were temporarily curtailed at 24 other functionally integrated GM plants, idling more than 19,000 employees. Most of these employees are appellants in this case. Their claims for unemployment benefits were considered at three levels of administrative review and three levels of judicial review, and were ultimately denied by the State Supreme Court.
The First Appeal
In its first opinion in this case the Michigan Supreme Court decided two statutory questions and remanded a third for further consideration by the Board of Review.
It first held that appellants’ unemployment was “due to a labor dispute in active progress” at other establishments operated by the same employing unit and functionally integrated with the establishments where appellants were employed within the meaning of the statute. It rejected the argument that the layoffs were due not only to the strikes, but also to a combination of management decisions and seniority provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement, holding instead that the strikes were a “substantial contributing cause” of the unemployment and need not be its sole cause.
After finding the requisite causal connection between the strikes and the layoffs, the court considered the relationship between the emergency dues and the strikes. Appellants contended that their payments were expressly excepted from the coverage of the statute because they were “regular union dues.” The State Supreme Court rejected this argument, explaining that the term “regular” had been used “to exclude from possible treatment as financing those dues payments required uniformly of union members and collected on a continuing basis without fluctuations prompted by the exigencies of a particular labor dispute or disputes.” The exception for regular union dues thus did not encompass “unusual collections for the purpose of supporting a labor dispute.”
The court did not decide whether the emergency dues constituted “financing” of the local strikes. It noted that the statute did not require that the payments made by the individuals whose disqualification was in issue must be traced into the hands of the striking employees, but it indicated that there must be a “meaningful connection” between the payments and the strikes to satisfy the “financing” requirement. It therefore remanded the case to the Appeal Board’s successor tribunal to consider that question.
The Second Appeal
On remand, the Board of Review concluded that there was a “meaningful connection” between the emergency dues and the GM strikes. It found that the dues were intended to support local strikes at GM plants, that strikes which might affect their own employment were foreseeable at the time appellants paid the emergency dues, and that the dues were a substantial source of funding for the strikes. The Supreme Court agreed.
As a predicate to its analysis, the court explained that the term “financing” should be construed in the light of the general purpose of the statute to provide assistance to persons who are involuntarily unemployed. The disqualification applies to “persons who are ‘voluntarily’ unemployed by financing the labor dispute that causes their unemployment. It does so because ‘financing’ is one of the statutorily designated ways in which a person may evidence ‘direct involvement’ in a labor dispute.” Thus, “[t]he end result of a proper meaningful connection definition should be to delineate persons whose own activities have contributed to their unemployment so as to make them voluntarily unemployed and therefore, ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.”
The Michigan Supreme Court considered and rejected appellants’ argument that their emergency dues payments were not voluntary because they were required by the UAW in order to retain their union membership and their jobs at GM. The court held that employees could not use their own collective-bargaining agent as a shield to protect them from responsibility for conduct that they had authorized. It therefore specifically held that appellants’ “emergency dues payments were not involuntary.”
Those payments constituted “financing” of the strikes that had caused appellants’ unemployment because there was a “meaningful connection” between the payments and the strikes. In finding that causal connection the court relied on three factors — the purpose, the amount, and the timing of the emergency dues. In finding the requisite purpose, the court noted that the dues had actually provided financial support for the strikes, that the strikes were foreseeable when the dues were collected, that it was also foreseeable that such strikes would cause the unemployment which actually occurred, and that the evidence of purpose and foreseeability was sufficient without relying on hindsight after the events occurred. The court also concluded that the amount of the financing was significant, whether viewed in terms of the aggregate value of the emergency dues, the individual contributions by each member, or their support for the strikers. Finally, it found only a “minimal” time lag between the collections of the emergency dues and their use to support the strikes that caused appellants’ unemployment. As a consequence, the court concluded that appellants were “not eligible for unemployment benefits because they caused their unemployment by financing, in a meaningfully connected way, the labor dispute that caused” their unemployment.
Only after it had meticulously satisfied itself that the emergency dues payments constituted “financing” that made appellants ineligible for unemployment compensation under the Michigan statute, did the court turn to the question whether its construction of state law was pre-empted by federal law because it inhibited the exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The state court agreed with appellants that the right to support strikes by paying extraordinary dues was protected by §7 of the NLRA, but concluded that the legislative history of the Social Security Act which was reviewed in New York Tele phone Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 440 U. S. 519 (1979), demonstrated that Congress “intended to tolerate” the conflict between the state law and the federal law. Accordingly, after some 15 years of litigation, the Michigan Supreme Court finally denied appellants’ claim for unemployment compensation.
We noted probable jurisdiction of their appeal, 474 U. S. 899 (1985), and now affirm. We first discuss the problem presented by the case in general terms and then consider the specific contentions that appellants advance.
I
The National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act were both enacted in the summer of 1935. See New York Telephone Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 440 U. S., at 527. Neither statute required any State to adopt, or to maintain, an unemployment compensation program. See Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548, 596 (1937). Title IX of the latter Act did, however, motivate the enactment of state programs throughout the Nation. That Title authorized the provision of federal funds to States having programs approved by the Secretary of Labor. Although certain minimum federal standards must be satisfied, the scheme is one in which a “wide range of judgment is given to the several states as to the particular type of statute to be spread upon their books.” Id., at 593.
The policy of allowing “broad freedom to set up the type of unemployment compensation they wish” has been a basic theme of the program since the general outlines of the legislation were first identified in the Report of the Committee on Economic Security that was prepared for “the President of the United States and became the cornerstone of the Social Security Act.” Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U. S. 471, 482 (1977). In guiding state efforts to draft unemployment compensation programs, however, that Report also stressed the importance of the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment. It characterized that distinction as “the key to eligibility. ” Id., at 483. “To serve its purposes, unemployment compensation must be paid only to workers involuntarily unemployed.” Id., at 482 (quoting Report of the Committee on Economic Security, as reprinted in Hearings on S. 1130 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1311, 1328 (1935)).
The involuntary character of the unemployment is thus generally a necessary condition to eligibility for compensation. But even involuntary unemployment is not always a sufficient condition to qualify for benefits, as we found in Hodory. In that case, we held that Ohio could disqualify a millwright who was furloughed when the plant where he worked was shut down because of a shortage of fuel caused by a strike at coal mines owned by his employer. Even though he was unemployed through no fault of his own, as the result of a labor dispute in which he had no interest, federal law did not require Ohio to pay him unemployment compensation.
In Hodory there was no claim that the National Labor Relations Act pre-empted Ohio’s disqualification of unemployment caused by a labor dispute. A pre-emption argument was advanced, however, in New York Telephone Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 440 U. S. 519 (1979), a case in which the employer contended that federal law prohibited the State from giving unemployment compensation to the company’s striking employees. The evidence established that the payments not only provided support for the strikers but also imposed an added burden on the company and therefore plainly “altered the economic balance between labor and management.” Id., at 532. Relying on the pre-emption analysis in Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132 (1976), the employer therefore contended that the payments were inconsistent with the federal labor policy “of allowing the free play of economic forces to operate during the bargaining process.” 440 U. S., at 531. We rejected the argument, not because we disagreed with its premises, but rather because we were persuaded by our study of the legislative history of the two 1935 Acts that Congress had intended to tolerate the conflict with federal labor policy. We explained:
“Undeniably, Congress was aware of the possible impact of unemployment compensation on the bargaining process. The omission of any direction concerning payment to strikers in either the National Labor Relations Act or the Social Security Act implies that Congress intended that the States be free to authorize, or to prohibit, such payments.” Id., at 544.
See id., at 547 (Brennan, J., concurring in result); id., at 549 (Blackmun, J., with whom Marshall, J., joined, concurring in judgment).
Our conclusion that Congress did not intend to pre-empt the States’ power to make the policy choice between paying or denying unemployment compensation to strikers does not directly respond to the argument advanced by appellants in this case. For they rely, not on the general policy of noninterference with the free play of economic forces during the bargaining process, but rather on the claim that § 7 of the NLRA provides specific protection for their payment of the emergency dues required by the UAW. Nevertheless, the claim must be analyzed in the light of our conclusion in New York Telephone Co. that Congress expressly authorized “a substantial measure of diversity,” 440 U. S., at 546, among the States concerning the payment of unemployment compensation to workers idled as the result of a labor dispute.
Thus, New York Telephone Co. makes it clear that a State may, but need not, compensate actual strikers even though they are plainly responsible for their own unemployment. And, on the other hand, Hodory makes it equally clear that a State may refuse, or provide, compensation to workers laid off by reason of a labor dispute in which they have no interest or responsibility whatsoever. In between these opposite ends of the spectrum are cases in which the furloughed employees have had some participation in the labor dispute that caused their unemployment. This is such a case, because the state court has found that appellants provided significant financial support to strikes against their employer with full knowledge that their own work might thereby suffer. It is clear, however, that in financing the local strikes, they were exercising associational rights that are expressly protected by § 7 of the NLRA. The question, then, is whether that protection deprives the State of the power to make the policy choice that otherwise would be plainly authorized by Title IX of the Social Security Act.
hH hH
Appellants place their primary reliance on Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm’n, 389 U. S. 235 (1967), a case in which the Florida Commission had concluded that a union member was disqualified for unemployment compensation because she had filed an unfair labor practice charge against her employer. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the Commission had properly treated the filing of the charge with the National Labor Relations Board as the initiation of a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Florida statute disqualifying unemployment that “is due to a labor dispute.” We reversed. We explained that Congress had made it clear that it wished all persons with information about unfair labor practices “to be completely free from coercion against reporting them to the Board,” id., at 238, and that the statute prohibited an employer from interfering with an employee’s exercise of his right to file charges. Accordingly, we concluded:
“[CJoercive actions which the Act forbids employers and unions to take against persons making charges are likewise prohibited from being taken by the States. . . . Florida should not be permitted to defeat or handicap a valid national objective by threatening to withdraw state benefits from persons simply because they cooperate with the Government’s constitutional plan. ” Id., at 239.
The federal right implicated in Nash was the right to file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Arguably there are two different rights protected by § 7 that are implicated by this case — the right to contribute to a fund that will strengthen the union’s bargaining position, and the right to expend money to support a strike. It would seem clear that it would be an unfair labor practice for an employer to discharge an employee for making a contribution to a strike fund or for voting in favor of a strike at another plant, just as it would be unlawful to discharge an employee for filing a charge with the Labor Board. In each such case, the unemployment would be attributable to an unlawful act by the employer rather than the foreseeable consequence of the exercise of the employee’s § 7 rights.
In the actual case before us, however, the employer did nothing to impair the exercise of appellants’ § 7 rights. To the extent that appellants may be viewed as participants in the decision to strike, or to expend funds in support of the local strikes, it is difficult to see how such a decision would be entitled to any greater protection than is afforded to actual strikers. In either event, the fact that the temporary unemployment is entirely attributable to the voluntary use of the Union’s bargaining resources — untainted by any unlawful conduct by the employer — is a sufficient reason for allowing the State to decide whether or not to pay unemployment benefits.
Perhaps the answer is less obvious when we focus on the payment of the emergency dues before any actual strike decision has been made, but we believe similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion. Appellants were not laid off simply because they paid emergency dues. Rather, under the meticulous analysis of the case by the Michigan Supreme Court, they became unemployed because there was a meaningful connection between the decision to pay the emergency dues, the strikes which ensued, and ultimately their own layoffs. Under the state court’s narrow construction of its own statute, the emergency dues decision was tantamount to a plant-wide decision to call a strike in a bottleneck department that would predictably shut down an entire plant. As the court put it, “since the Michigan law only disqualifies those who are directly involved in the labor dispute through financing, the MESA essentially only disqualifies ‘strikers.’ ” 420 Mich., at 540, 363 N. W. 2d, at 637. Unquestionably federal law protects the employees’ right to authorize such a strike; it is equally clear, however, that federal law does not prohibit the States from deciding whether or not to compensate the employees who thereby cause their own unemployment. New York Telephone Co., 440 U. S., at 540-546.
Thus, the essential distinction between the Nash case and this one is the distinction between involuntary and voluntary unemployment that was recognized at the inception of the Social Security Act. A decision to file an unfair labor practice charge — even though it may in fact motivate a retaliatory discharge — cannot be treated as a voluntary decision to cause one’s own unemployment without undermining an essential protection in the NLRA. But an employee’s decision to participate in a strike, either directly or by financing it, is not only an obvious example of causing one’s own unemployment — it is one that furthers the federal policy of free collective bargaining regardless of whether or not a State provides compensation for employees who are furloughed as a result of the labor dispute.
In reaching this conclusion, we of course express no opinion concerning the wisdom of one policy choice or another. Nor are we concerned with the possible application of the “financing” disqualification that has been adopted in numerous States other than Michigan and which, like the Florida statute involved in Nash, may be construed in a way that has an entirely different impact on § 7 rights. Specifically, we have no occasion to consider the circumstances, if any, in which individuals might be disqualified solely because they paid regular union dues required as a condition of their employment. We merely hold that the “financing” disqualification in the Michigan statute as construed by the State Supreme Court in this case is not pre-empted by federal law.
Affirmed.
Section 29(8) of the Michigan Employment Security Act (MESA) provides:
“(8) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for a week in which the individual’s total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress ... in the establishment in which the individual is or was last employed, or to a labor dispute, other than a lockout, in active progress ... in any other establishment within the United States which is functionally integrated with the establishment and is operated by the same employing unit. ... An individual shall not be disqualified under this subsection if the individual is not directly involved in the dispute.
“(a) For the purposes of this subsection an individual shall not be considered to be directly involved in a labor dispute unless it is established that any of the following occurred:
“(ii) The individual is participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which causes the individual’s total or partial unemployment. The payment of regular union dues, in amounts and for purposes established before the inception of the labor dispute, shall not be construed as financing a labor dispute within the meaning of this subparagraph.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.29(8) (Supp. 1986).
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 462, 29 U. S. C. § 157, provides in part:
“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .”
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (referred to in the text as the UAW and the Union).
The UAW employees of the Caterpillar Company were also on strike.
The proceedings of the convention recited that its purposes were:
“ ‘1. [To] [r]eview the status of our 1967 collective bargaining effort.
“‘2. To consider revision of the dues program of the International Union, UAW, to provide adequate strike funds to meet the challenges of the 1967 and 1968 collective bargaining effort.
“ ‘3. To consider revisions of the Constitution of the International Union as it relates to the payment of dues, strike fund, membership eligibility, strike insurance program and other matters related to emergencies facing the International Union, UAW.’” 420 Mich. 463, 512-513, 363 N. W. 2d 602, 624 (1984).
The text of the amendments reads, in pertinent part:
‘“Article 16, Section 2(a) (new): Emergency Dues
“ ‘All dues are payable during the current month to the financial secretary of the local union.
“ ‘Commencing with the eighth (8th) day of October 1967 until October 31,1967, and for each month thereafter during the emergency as defined in the last paragraph of this subsection, union administrative dues shall be three dollars and seventy-five cents ($3.75) per month and Union Strike Insurance Fund dues shall be ás follows:
“ ‘1. For those working in plants where the average straight time earnings * * * is three dollars ($3.00) or more, twenty-one dollars and twenty-jive cents ($21.25) per month.
“ ‘2. For those working plants where the average straight time earnings * * * is less than three dollars ($3.00), eleven dollars and twenty-jive cents ($11.25).
“ ‘This schedule of dues shall remain in effect during the current collective bargaining emergency as determined by the International Executive Board and thereafter, if necessary, until the International Union Strike Insurance Fund has reached the sum of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000)...." Id., at 472, 363 N. W. 2d, at 606.
Baker v. General Motors Corp., 409 Mich. 639, 653, n. 5, 297 N. W. 2d 387, 392, n. 5 (1980) (emphasis omitted).
See id., at 653, 297 N. W. 2d, at 392.
See 420 Mich., at 520, 363 N. W. 2d, at 628. See also App. to Juris. Statement 113a, 115a (decision of Michigan Employment Security Board of Review on remand from Michigan Supreme Court).
The claims were originally allowed by the Michigan Employment Security Commission, but on an appeal by GM a hearing referee reversed the MESC. On appellants’ appeal the referee’s decision was upheld by the Michigan Employment Security Appeal Board. See 420 Mich., at 474-475, 363 N. W. 2d, at 608.
Appellants appealed the denial of unemployment benefits to three County Circuit Courts, two of which reversed the decision of the Appeal Board and one of which affirmed it. On further appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals disallowed the claims, holding that the appellants had “financed” the labor dispute which caused their unemployment by paying emergency strike fund dues and that they were disqualified under Michigan Employment Security Act § 29(8)(a)(ii) as a consequence. See Baker v. General Motors Corp., 74 Mich. App. 237, 254 N. W. 2d 45 (1977). The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and disposed of certain issues before remanding to the Board of Review for further proceedings. See Baker v. General Motors Corp., 409 Mich. 639, 297 N. W. 2d 387 (1980). See infra this page and 628.
“The seniority provisions and management decisions which plaintiffs identify as contributing causes of their unemployment would not themselves have caused plaintiffs’ unemployment or any unemployment were it not for the labor disputes in active progress at the functionally integrated foundries. But for those disputes, materials would have been available at plaintiffs’ places of employment, the work force at those establishments would not have been reduced, and the seniority provisions would not have become operative. The labor disputes in active progress at the foundries were shown by competent, material and substantial evidence to have been substantial contributing causes of the layoffs which idled plaintiffs. We affirm the board’s finding that plaintiffs’ unemployment was ‘due to a labor dispute in active progress’ within the meaning of subsection 29(8).” 409 Mich., at 661-662, 297 N. W. 2d, at 396.
Id., at 666, 297 N. W. 2d, at 398.
Ibid.
“The appeal board did not give separate consideration to the meaning of ‘financing,’ in general or as applied to this case. We therefore remand this matter to its successor, the tribunal with the most experience and expertise in the application of the act, to reconsider, in light of its own unique familiarity with the act, practical considerations and related issues implicated by this question, whether plaintiffs’ emergency dues payments were sufficiently connected with the local labor disputes which caused their unemployment to constitute ‘financing’ of those labor disputes.” Id., at 668, 297 N. W. 2d, at 399.
420 Mich., at 493, 363 N. W. 2d, at 616.
Ibid. See id., at 478, 363 N. W. 2d, at 609 (“Since the MESA is intended to provide benefits only to involuntarily unemployed persons, the purpose of §29 is obvious. MESA §29 lists the circumstances under which the Legislature holds that a person is not entitled to benefits under the MESA because he is not involuntarily unemployed”).
“As noted above, the statute does not recognize such a ploy. UAW membership is required for employment by GM because the UAW bargains for such a provision in its contract with GM. In so doing, the UAW represents its members and they must ratify any contract agreed upon by the UAW and GM. Therefore, any ‘coercion’ resulting from the terms of the contract does not make the plaintiffs’ action in accord with the contract ‘involuntary.’ As the Court of Appeals said in Applegate v. Palladium Publishing Co., 95 Mich. App. 299, 305; 290 N. W. 2d 128 (1980), and we adopt here:
“ ‘Action taken by employees under a contract negotiated for them by their authorized agent must be considered their voluntary acts. In effect, plaintiff agreed to [act] pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.’
“Any other holding would make all actions taken by union members pursuant to a union contract involuntary and relieve the members of responsibility for their contract-based actions. We cannot agree with such a rule. The plaintiffs’ emergency dues payments were not involuntary.” 420 Mich., at 499, 363 N. W. 2d, at 618-619.
“A meaningful connection exists between the financing and the labor dispute that causes the claimant’s unemployment where, for the purpose of assisting labor disputes which reasonably and foreseeably include the labor dispute that caused the claimant’s unemployment, the claimant finances in significant amount and in temporal proximity the labor dispute that causes his unemployment. Where the Court finds these three elements present (purpose, amount, and timing), there is a meaningful connection between the financing and the labor dispute that causes the claimant’s unemployment.” Id., at 506, 363 N. W. 2d, at 621-622.
Accord, id., at 500-501, 363 N. W. 2d, at 619.
"The final aspect of the purpose analysis focuses on whether it was foreseeable at the time of the financing that supporting the labor disputes would cause the claimant’s unemployment. In this case, there is and can be no dispute on this issue. Since it was foreseeable that local GM strikes would occur and be financed by the emergency dues, and since automotive industry production is based upon a series of interrelated production units which produce only one component of the automobile, it is obvious that a local labor dispute which idles one plant might cause layoffs at other plants which rely upon the component produced at the idled plant. This ‘chain reaction’ can move both ‘up’ and ‘down’ the line. Therefore, layoffs at plants not presently engaged in a local labor dispute were foreseeable due to local disputes.
“In conclusion, the evidence adduced in this case supports the conclusion that the purpose of the emergency dues included supporting labor disputes ineluding those that actually caused the plaintiffs’ unemployment. Therefore, the first portion of the meaningful connection definition is met.” Id., at 516-517, 363 N. W. 2d, at 626.
See id., at 519, 363 N. W. 2d, at 627 (“By any standard, the amount of increase is significant and demonstrates a meaningful connection with the labor dispute that caused their unemployment”). Accord, id., at 517-520, 363 N. W. 2d, at 626-628.
“As applied to this case, we find that this portion of the meaningful connection definition is satisfied since the payment of emergency dues immediately precedes the support of the labor dispute that caused the plaintiffs’ unemployment. . . . The time lag between the collection and disbursement of the strike fund benefits is minimal when it is considered that the funds were collected ‘by hand’ at the local level, were forwarded to the SIF, and were distributed to striking GM employees only after they had satisfied an initial waiting period requirement.” Id., at 521, 363 N. W. 2d, at 628.
Id., at 521-522, 363 N. W. 2d, at 628.
Id., at 541, 363 N. W. 2d, at 637.
“Before Congress acted, unemployment compensation insurance was still, for the most part, a project and no more. Wisconsin was the pioneer. Her statute was adopted in 1931. At times bills for such insurance were introduced elsewhere, but they did not reach the stage of law. In 1935, four states (California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York) passed unemployment laws on the eve of the adoption of the Social Security Act, and two others did likewise after the federal act and later in the year. The statutes differed to some extent in type, but were directed to a common end. In 1936, twenty-eight other states fell in line, and eight more the present year. But if states had been holding back before the passage of the federal law, inaction was not owing, for the most part, to the lack of sympathetic interest. Many held back through alarm lest, in laying such a toll upon their industries, they would place themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. See House Report, No. 615, 74th Congress, 1st session, p. 8; Senate Report, No. 628, 74th Congress, 1st session, p. 11.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S., at 587-588 (footnote omitted).
In their statement of the question presented, appellants described the statutory disqualification as one arising “solely because those individuals paid union dues,” Brief for Appellants i, or, alternatively, as one arising “solely because those individuals paid union dues uniformly and lawfully required as a condition of employment,” Juris. Statement i. As the Michigan Supreme Court carefully explained, however, the Michigan statute excepts the payment of regular union dues from the financing disqualification. See supra, at 627-628. See also n. 1, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Douglas,
announced by Mr. Chief Justice Burger.
This is a civil suit under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15, for injunctive relief and damages instituted by respondents, who are highway carriers operating in California, against petitioners, who are also highway carriers operating within, into, and from California. Respondents and petitioners are, in other words, competitors. The charge is that the petitioners conspired to monopolize trade and commerce in the transportation of goods in violation of the antitrust laws. The conspiracy alleged is a concerted action by petitioners to institute state and federal proceedings to resist and defeat applications by respondents to acquire operating rights or to transfer or register those rights. These activities, it is alleged, extend to rehearings and to reviews or appeals from agency or court decisions on these matters.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, 1967 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,298. The Court of Appeals reversed, 432 F. 2d 755. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. 402 U. S. 1008.
The present case is akin to Eastern Railroad Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U. S. 127, where a group of trucking companies sued a group of railroads to restrain them from an alleged conspiracy to monopolize the long-distance freight business in violation of the antitrust laws and to obtain damages. We held that no cause of action was alleged insofar as it was predicated upon mere attempts to influence the Legislative Branch for the passage of laws or the Executive Branch for their enforcement. We rested our decision on two grounds:
(1) “In a representative democracy such as this, these branches of government act on behalf of the people and, to a very large extent, the whole concept of representation depends upon the ability of the people to make their wishes known to their representatives. To hold that the government retains the power to act in this representative capacity and yet hold, at the same time, that the people cannot freely inform the government of their wishes would impute to the Sherman Act a purpose to regulate, not business activity, but political activity, a purpose which "would have no basis whatever in the legislative history of that Act.” Id., at 137.
(2) “The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, and we cannot, of course, lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade these freedoms.” Id., at 138.
We followed that view in United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657, 669-671.
The same philosophy governs the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483, 485; Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546, 549.
We conclude that it would be destructive of rights of association and of petition to hold that groups with common interests may not, without violating the antitrust laws, use the channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts to advocate their causes and points of view respecting resolution of their business and economic interests vis-á-vis their competitors.
We said, however, in Noerr that there may be instances where the alleged conspiracy “is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor and the application of the Sherman Act would be justified.” 365 U. S., at 144.
In that connection the complaint in the present case alleged that the aim and purpose of the conspiracy was “putting their competitors, including plaintiff, out of business, of weakening such competitors, of destroying, eliminating and weakening existing and potential competition, and of monopolizing the highway common carriage business in California and elsewhere.”
More critical are other allegations, which are too lengthy to quote, and which elaborate on the “sham” theory by stating that the power, strategy, and resources of the petitioners were used to harass and deter respondents in their use of administrative and judicial proceedings so as to deny them “free and unlimited access” to those tribunals. The result, it is alleged, was that the machinery of the agencies and the courts was effectively closed to respondents, and petitioners indeed became “the regulators of the grants of rights, transfers and registrations” to respondents — thereby depleting and diminishing the value of the businesses of respondents and aggrandizing petitioners’ economic and monopoly power. See Note, 57 Calif. L. Rev. 518 (1969).
Petitioners rely on our statement in Pennington that “Noerr shields from the Sherman Act a concerted effort to influence public officials regardless of intent or purpose.” 381 U. S., at 670. In the present case, however, the allegations are not that the conspirators sought “to influence public officials,” but that they sought to bar their competitors from meaningful access to adjudicatory tribunals and so to usurp that decisionmaking process. It is alleged that petitioners “instituted the proceedings and actions . . . with or without probable cause, and regardless of the merits of the cases.” The nature of the views pressed does not, of course, determine whether First Amendment rights may be invoked; but they may bear upon a purpose to deprive the competitors of meaningful access to the agencies and courts. As stated in the opinion concurring in the judgment, such a purpose or intent, if shown, would be “to discourage and ultimately to prevent the respondents from invoking” the processes of the administrative agencies and courts and thus fall within the exception to Noerr.
The political campaign operated by the railroads in Noerr to obtain legislation crippling truckers employed deception and misrepresentation and unethical tactics. We said:
“Congress has traditionally exercised extreme caution in legislating with respect to problems relating to the conduct of political activities, a caution which has been reflected in the decisions of this Court interpreting such legislation. All of this caution would go for naught if we permitted an extension of the Sherman Act to regulate activities of that nature simply because those activities have a commercial impact and involve conduct that can be termed unethical.” 365 U. S., at 141.
Yet unethical conduct in the setting of the adjudicatory process often results in sanctions. Perjury of witnesses is one example. Use of a patent obtained by fraud to exclude a competitor from the market may involve a violation of the antitrust laws, as we held in Walker Process Equipment v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 175-177. Conspiracy with a licensing authority to eliminate a competitor may also result in an antitrust transgression. Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U. S. 690, 707; Harman v. Valley National Bank, 339 F. 2d 564 (CA9 1964). Similarly, bribery of a public purchasing agent may constitute a violation of § 2 (c) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Rangen, Inc. v. Sterling Nelson & Sons, 351 F. 2d 851 (CA9 1965).
There are many other forms of illegal and reprehensible practice which may corrupt the administrative or judicial processes and which may result in antitrust violations. Misrepresentations, condoned in the political arena, are not immunized when used in the adjudicatory process. Opponents before agencies or courts often think poorly of the other’s tactics, motions, or defenses and may readily call them baseless. One claim, which a court or agency may think baseless, may go unnoticed; but a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims may emerge which leads the factfinder to conclude that the administrative and judicial processes have been abused. That may be a difficult line to discern and draw. But once it is drawn, the case is established that abuse of those processes produced an illegal result, viz., effectively barring respondents from access to the agencies and courts. Insofar as the administrative or judicial processes are involved, actions of that kind cannot acquire immunity by seeking refuge under the umbrella of “political expression.”
Petitioners, of course, have the right of access to the agencies and courts to be heard on applications sought by competitive highway carriers. That right, as indicated, is part of the right of petition protected by the First Amendment. Yet that does not necessarily give them immunity from the antitrust laws.
It is well settled that First Amendment rights are not immunized from regulation when they are used as an integral part of conduct which violates a valid statute. Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U. S. 490. In that case Missouri enacted a statute banning secondary boycotts and we sustained an injunction against picketing to enforce the boycott, saying:
“It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most instances brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. . . . Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.” 336 U. S., at 502.
In Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, we held that the Associated Press was not immune from the antitrust laws by reason of the fact that the press is under the shelter of the First Amendment. We said:
“Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” Id., at 20.
Accord, Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 139-140. Cf. Eastern States Lumber Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600.
The rationale of those cases, when applied to the instant controversy, makes the following conclusions clear: (1) that any carrier has the right of access to agencies and courts, within the limits, of course, of their prescribed procedures, in order to defeat applications of its competitors for certificates as highway carriers; and (2) that its purpose to eliminate an applicant as a competitor by denying him free and meaningful access to the agencies and courts may be implicit in that opposition.
First Amendment rights may not be used as the means or the pretext for achieving “substantive evils” (see NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 444) which the legislature has the power to control. Certainly the constitutionality of the antitrust laws is not open to debate. A combination of entrepreneurs to harass and deter their competitors from having “free and unlimited access” to the agencies and courts, to defeat that right by massive, concerted, and purposeful activities of the group are ways of building up one empire and destroying another. As stated in the opinion concurring in the judgment, that is the essence of those parts of the complaint to which we refer. If these facts are proved, a violation of the antitrust laws has been established. If the end result is unlawful, it matters not that the means used in violation may be lawful.
What the proof will show is not known, for the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. We must, of course, take the allegations of the complaint at face value for the purposes of that motion. Walker Process Equipment v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S., at 174-175. On their face the above-quoted allegations come within the “sham” exception in the Noerr case, as adapted to the adjudicatory process.
Accordingly we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand the case for trial.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.